Is This A Joke?

[Vigil]

Baku Today

 

Azerbaijanis in Moscow rally for Artsax

 

Baku Today 15/03/2004 18:35

 

Movement for Azerbaijan in Moscow has rallied in front of Armenian Embassy

last week, Turan News Agency said.

More than hundred Azerbaijanis have demanded Armenia to obey the four UN

resolutions over Nagorno-Artsax conflict that urge Armenia to move out

of Azerbaijani lands.

The rally participants have handed a petition to the Armenian Embassy.

 

THE DAY TURKEY GIVES BACK ARMENIAN SOIL THAT THEY TOOK BY RAPEING, BUTCHERING, AND STEALING IT FROM THE ARMENIANS IS THE DAY THAT ARMENIANS MIGHT CONSIDER THIS IDEA.

 

Is it me or do you guys sense a double standard imposed by Turks?

Edited May 31, 2004 by Vigil

[gurgen]

They won't get too far with demonstrating in Moscow. The Russians despise the Azerbadjanis.

 

In fact, they get beat up even more often by skinheads than the Armenians in Moscow.

Edited March 16, 2004 by gurgen

[America-Hye]

Any discussion of this sort must include the Armenian provinces presently in Turkish hands. The treaty that gave up these lands was signed between the Russian Soviets and the Republic of Turkey in 1921 in Moscow, not by the Armenian government. Since the Soviet Union no longer exists, the treaty is null and void. Armenia was not a party to that treaty.

[Sebastia]

THE DAY TURKEY GIVES BACK ARMENIAN SOIL THAT THEY TOOK BY RAPEING, BUTCHERING, AND STEALING IT FROM THE ARMENIANS IS THE DAY THAT ARMENIANS MIGHT CONSIDER THIS IDEA.

not really, the thing is that all the land that Armenians have occupied in azerbaijan actually belong to Armenia. No matter what turkey does(gives the lans back or whatever), Armenia still won't get any soldiers out. why?....because Artsax and everything else below the kur river rightfully belong to us as the history proves this.

[angel4hope]

seb sorry but i had 2 say it- i know its off topic but ur avatar his hilarious- man is it just me or is everyone here soo funny 2 day? nm i guess its me- aye i think everythings funny .... hahahah sMiLe

[angel4hope]

and to get right back on topic- good point america-hye- but u reallythink someones gonna step up and do that? or give us our land back? besides theyre fighting for land- but not looking at the economy of the country and the lifestyles of some people-- basically there is no middle class in armenia- youre either really rich or youre not- youre poor- well if you consider middle class to be that in which people have a steady and reasonable income- there isnt muh hope for that there- my point being that instead of thinking wisely and trying to improve the economyand lifestyle of armenia and armenians- they are wasting time trying to acquire land- because inch en aneloo with the land- if they dont know how to use its resources and what not.....

[Vigil]

not really, the thing is that all the land that Armenians have occupied in azerbaijan actually belong to Armenia. No matter what turkey does(gives the lans back or whatever), Armenia still won't get any soldiers out. why?....because Artsax and everything else below the kur river rightfully belong to us as the history proves this.

 

You are right, but what I meant is that they are asking for somthing that is never going to happen.

Edited May 31, 2004 by Vigil

[Sebastia]

You are right, but what I meant is that they are asking for somthing that is never going to happen.

The Ironic part is that today was the day when stalin and ataturk decided the faith of our homeland. It was today that Artsakh, Nachijevan were given to azerbaijan and Kars and Van were given to turkey.

[Sebastia]

seb sorry but i had 2 say it- i know its off topic but ur avatar his hilarious- man is it just me or is everyone here soo funny 2 day? nm i guess its me- aye i think everythings funny .... hahahah sMiLe

Thanks Angel, i laughed at it for a while too

[KnightOfArmenia]

Actually, Armenia ISN'T bound to the Treaty of Kars (signed between the Armenian SSR and turkey), but not only for that reason.

 

The Treaty of Kars (October 1921) affirms the Treaty of Moscow on the matters pertaining to the Armenian Question.

 

The Treaty of Moscow (March 1921) affirms the Treaty of Alexandropol on the matters pertaining to the Armenian Question.

 

The Treaty of Alexandropol (December 1920) was signed by Gen. Karabekir of turkey and Alexander Khatisian, who, although a former Foreign Minister and Prime Minister, was NOT in the government during the signing of the treaty (and was, indeed, a private citizen when the treaty was signed. Although the Bolsheviks, unlike what the Armenian Republic officials believed, did not denounce the treaty, that does not make it any more legal: as Khatisian did not have the authority to make such a deal, the treaty was illegal, and since the current Republic of Armenia has not ratified the Treaty of Kars, they still have a legitimate and legal claim to the lands awarded to Armenia by the Treaty of Sevres, which HAD been ratified by Armenia.

[Armen]

Knight, treaties never mattered and will never matter. The one who has a big fat army always wins. If you're trying to defend Armenia from Turkey consider increasing their cost of an attack. If this cost is sifficiently high they will not attack, if not they will attack no matter what.

At present Turkey is not going to attack Armenia even if Armenia and Azerbaijan are locked in a bloody massacre again. Only in one case when Azerbaijan's being/not being will be questioned Turket will consider helping them directly. Otherwise, Turkey will occassionaly threaten with air intrussions, even occassional bombings but never send troops on Armenia because Turkey has a very fragile security system. It only looks strong. As soon as it attacks Armenia it will face joint Iranian, Syrian responce in the East, a real threat of emerging Kurdistan, Greek and Bulgarian political pressure etc.

Moreover, Turkish direct attack on Armenia is the final trap for Turkey. If they want the Wilson plan and Sevre to be on the table again attacking Armenia is the best way.

They could also consider just shelling Yerevan which they can do at a minimal cost, which will result in big psychological pressure for Armenia but I'm sure Turks no the following.

The West tolerates Turkey only in its current shape and only as a huge millitary base. When Russia is out of Caucasus and Iraq more or less settled Turkey is next on the list. The worst thing they could do in this case is to attack Armenia. They will be finished that very day.

Turkey's problem is not Armenia, not Karabagh. It has a more dangerous threat to face. It doesn't fit the regional design of the West. I mean where do you put present Turkey? Europe? Middle East? The only way is to devide it between Europe and the Middle East.

When this time comes we must have a relatively strong army just to hold in for some months.

[Sasun]

treaties never mattered and will never matter.

Finally someone understands this on this board Treaty is a just a piece of paper reflecting the real power relationships of the time. What matters is the real power of a nation, not the paper. Even if there was a treaty stating that half of the world belonged to Armenia, would it be worth a penny? Not really.

 

Armen, but I would not share your optimism regarding Turkey's diminished importance. The scenarios that you are describing may not be realistic.

[KnightOfArmenia]

As long as "order" in some semblance exists in the world, treaties will matter, if only for justifying later action. Justification IS important (note how heavily the US tried to justify its war against Iraq and make that ridiculous "Coalition of the Willing"). Obviously might makes right, but treaties are a good way of increasing that might (they are one of the strongest forms of transforming hard power into soft power and vice-versa).

[Armen]

Armen, but I would not share your optimism regarding Turkey's diminished importance. The scenarios that you are describing may not be realistic.

Sasun, you may be true. I just have one question. Are the Amercians going to establish a Kurdish state?

[Armen]

As long as "order" in some semblance exists in the world, treaties will matter, if only for justifying later action. Justification IS important (note how heavily the US tried to justify its war against Iraq and make that ridiculous "Coalition of the Willing"). Obviously might makes right, but treaties are a good way of increasing that might (they are one of the strongest forms of transforming hard power into soft power and vice-versa).

Armenia is in a position were hard power is what we have to be concerned about. We are few in number, we are not considered "a market" by any country, we have no strategic territorial deepness for retreat and we're landlocked. No one is going to listen to us if we bring papers as arguments. That has always been our mistake.

People look at your papers only if you show them your gun. Just review the history of the treaties you listed above. Current international situation may seem relatively stable but Caucasus may become Balkans any moment. I don't remember treaties playing any role in the Balkans in 1990-1995.

I agree that treates have an importance as a justification but not in our case. You need to be an important country like Iraq (oil) to be worth a justification. No one was concerned with either Rwanda or Bosnia although there were UN calls for action, resolution etc.

[Sasun]

As long as "order" in some semblance exists in the world, treaties will matter, if only for justifying later action. Justification IS important (note how heavily the US tried to justify its war against Iraq and make that ridiculous "Coalition of the Willing"). Obviously might makes right, but treaties are a good way of increasing that might (they are one of the strongest forms of transforming hard power into soft power and vice-versa).

Well, treaties matter as much as what is behind them matter. Treaty is a commonly understood and agreed upon scheme of relationships. The existence of a treaty means that there is something real behind it, and that the parties involved see it the same way and agree. So yes, treaties matter but only when what is real behind them matter. If time passes and powers change, the relationships change, treaties become obsolete pieces of paper useful in archives, and the relationships of the past become history with or without any bearing on the present, depending on the situation.

In our case, the treaties mentioned above do not correspond to the reality of the present. Armenia is not as fragile as back then, Turkey is not the same, Russia is not the same, the world is not the same. Can an old treaty undo all the changes that have happened throughout time? My point is, we are not bound by those treaties per se, neither we can rely on a treaty because it is written on a paper. If at a given time an old treaty becomes realistic for the present then we can quote it and use for our advantage. But I don't think that is a guaranteed course of action. So in the end, not the treaties of the past but the present opportunities matter. If we are powerful enough we can make new treaties that reflect that power and play in our advantage. There cannot be a shortage of advantagous treaties if there is an advantage but there is a shortage of advantages as of present.

[Sasun]

Sasun, you may be true. I just have one question. Are the Amercians going to establish a Kurdish state?

In all likelihood no. They never said they would. Even if they said they would, they still would not deliver as usual. So given that they rule out a Kurish state the chances are very small that this will happen.

As it is now it is easier to control the Kurds. If they were given a state they would be harder to control and have influence on, so there is no benefit for Americans to create a Kurdish state. But certainly Kurds are useful for them with the limited power and autonomy that they have. They are as well a good threat to Iran, Turkey and Iraq in the hands of the US if the US chooses to push for such a state.

[Arpa]

Well, treaties matter as much as what is behind them matter. Treaty is a commonly understood and agreed upon scheme of relationships. The existence of a treaty means that there powerful enough we can make new treaties that reflect that power and play in our advantage.

 

 

Treaties do matter only when they are backed by a "ladle of steel" as opposed to Khrimian Hayrik's Tughte Sherep (Ladle of Paper).

Have Armenia and Armenians learned a lesson?

I think so!

To never again be caught by surprise!

WWI broke out.

We were not in any shape or form to take advantage.

On the contrary we were caught by surprise, and we were CAUGHT.

Skip, skip....

The USSR dissolved.

Once again we were unprepared. We have no long term vision!

Anatolia WILL implode. I am convinced of this. I will not call it Turkey since the latter is an artificial state. The "Decline and Fall" of the Ottoman Empire that was mercifully halted at a certain time WILL resume.

Are we ready?

Do we have "ladles" other than that of paper?

You may say we are small and poor. There are other states, one in particular that is much smaller, a state that is mainly a desert with no topography to hide such that is rumored to have "ladles" made of steel and radiant matter. Who will help us develop such "ladles"? It seems at the present not the West.

Don't count your chickens yet!

Remember Iraq that one time was a "staunch ally" of the West?

Rich natural resources. With pipelines to the north through Turkey, to the South at the Persian Gulf, to the west through Syria. Then! Pop! A demigod who assumed he could get away with murder.

Which brings to mind that other demigod aka "Saddam" Ilham of Baku. He may be betting on piplines to the north, south, east and west.

Wait till he becomes too big for his britches. Wait till he becomes too fat, too confident.

His land is not so uniformly monolithic either.

Wait till he becomes too emboldened to try and reclaim what they call Zangelan/Zangezoor. Wait till he becomes brash enough to reclaim what they call Iranian Azerbaijan!

I firmly beieve many of these scenarios will happer if not all.

Are we ready?

Do we have "ladles" other than the paper ones?

Do we have a plan?

How long a plan is it?

One year?

Ten years?

A hundred years?

[Sasun]

Wait till he becomes too emboldened to try and reclaim what they call Zangelan/Zangezoor.

This is quite likely to happen.

 

Wait till he becomes brash enough to reclaim what they call Iranian Azerbaijan!

 

But this is hard to do. A small country claiming a large chunk of a much larger country, well they can claim but can they really have it? If it comes to claims (manifesting as conflict & war) the opposite scenario is more likely to happen - Iran claiming and taking part of Azerbaijan, they had it before

[Arpa]

This is quite likely to happen.

 

 

 

But this is hard to do. A small country claiming a large chunk of a much larger country, well they can claim but can they really have it? If it comes to claims (manifesting as conflict & war) the opposite scenario is more likely to happen - Iran claiming and taking part of Azerbaijan, they had it before

I may understand your premise.

You may be saying; "how can such a small nation contend to rule over a larger territory"?

Let's see some examples.

Sudan; Area 996,500 sq mi, the largest country in Africa, one quarter the size of the US. Pop. 27 million, density 28 per sq. mi.

Next door Chad: 495,765 sq. mi. Pop. 5 million, density 11/sq mi.

Are any of the above more sophisticated than Yerevan Province?

Neither of these may be a model for Armenia.

Let us consider some closer to home.

Montana: 147,046 sq mi. Pop. 808,000, less than a million. Density 5.5/sq mi.

Alaska: 591,000 sq mi. Pop. 570,345 (1/2 million). Density, 0.99/sq mi.

As stated none of these may be used as a model for...

Yerevan Province: 11,000 sq mi. Pop. 3.5 million, density one of the densest in the world, 291/sq mi.

 

Once again none of the above may be compared, all the listed above are hundreds of times larger yet it seems with proper administration and authority many people are ruling over vast lands which are above and beyond their absolute need and at times beyond their absolute capability.

Shall we throw in the towel so to speak or can we hope and, PLAN, the keyword being PLAN for a land that will make our Homeland adequate to at leat make the population density slightly more amenable than it is?

Abatolia may be the next piece of real estate to "come and get it".

 

DON'T GET CAUGHT WITH YOUR GUARADS DOWN AGAIN!!

[Sasun]

I may understand your premise.

You may be saying; "how can such a small nation contend to rule over a larger territory"?

Getting a large territory is much more difficult than ruling over it. I agree that ruling can be done easily.

 

If I understand it correctly, you are saying when Turkey/Anatolia implodes we should be prepared to take our lands back. For that we need to plan today. Well, I absolutely agree with that.

But in case of Iran, I don't see how Iran would decline in order for Azerbaijan to make such claims realistically. My understanding is that Iran is inherently more stable than Turkey. The stark contrast between a solid historical background of success for Iran and a history of steady decline and failure for Ottoman empire/Turkey is to support my argument.

[Arpa]

Getting a large territory is much more difficult than ruling over it. I agree that ruling can be done easily.

 

If I understand it correctly, you are saying when Turkey/Anatolia implodes we should be prepared to take our lands back. For that we need to plan today. Well, I absolutely agree with that.

=======

But in case of Iran, I don't see how Iran would decline in order for Azerbaijan to make such claims realistically.

Yes, you got me right.

As to Azerbaijan contention over Iranian lands, I'm not sure if you got me right when I mentioned "Saddam" Ilham's megalomaniac dreams. He may have them, but it will be met with the sane fate as that of Saddam. Once again, let us remember that Saddam was the "man" of the moment for several decades. The mere sitting on oil wells is no guarantee, at times it may even be a liability as some day Ilham may also learn.

[Sasun]

As to Azerbaijan contention over Iranian lands, I'm not sure if you got me right when I mentioned "Saddam" Ilham's megalomaniac dreams. He may have them, but it will be met with the sane fate as that of Saddam. Once again, let us remember that Saddam was the "man" of the moment for several decades. The mere sitting on oil wells is no guarantee, at times it may even be a liability as some day Ilham may also learn.

Oh, I see. Yes, although the little Aliev inherited leadership as opposed to ruthless Saddam grabbing it by force, the common factor of having large amounts of oil and being the West's favorite may result in the same type of ambitions. I guess we will have to wait till Aliev gambler turned president assumes hardcore power of his own, then it will be clear what type of projections he may make.

[Arpa]

Oh, I see. Yes, although the little Aliev inherited leadership as opposed to ruthless Saddam grabbing it by force, the common factor of having large amounts of oil and being the West's favorite may result in the same type of ambitions. I guess we will have to wait till Aliev gambler turned president assumes hardcore power of his own, then it will be clear what type of projections he may make.

To draw a parallel between Ilham and Saddam (they rhyme too), to understand how history works, to see how a one time wonder boy becomes a megalomaniacal pariah the following article will tell it much better than I ever could.

The paragraph quoted below shows how he was duped and conned to furnish an excuse to whip him during yhe first Gulf War.

 

Will Ilham meet similar fate some day?

It all depends how big he will think he has become.

 

http://hnn.us/articles/1066.html

 

In July 1990 Saddam’s diplomats met with the U.S. Ambassador April Glasbie, who told them that Washington would take no position with regard to regional border disputes, a view that Baghdad reasonably assumed was a green light to enter Kuwait, which it did in August 1990. After initial vacillation, President George Bush, bolstered by hawkish advice from British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who exhorted him not “to go wobbly,” declared “this will not stand,” and imposed sanctions and brought an international coalition to oppose Iraq. By November 1990, over a half-million American forces had been deployed to Saudi Arabia and the U.N. Security Council had ordered Iraq to evacuate Kuwait by 15 January 1991 or face attack.

[KnightOfArmenia]

Oh, don't get me wrong; in no way am I trying to say that we should not arm ourselves to the teeth because we have papers (I am from the most militant party in modern Armenia). Quite the contrary, actually; I've argued for a PLANNED Armenia, one that makes itself strong. All we need is to teach a strong nationalist sentiment (history shows that this is possible if you are part of that nationality; look at China, both Koreas, Japan, etc.), and go from there; army service becomes mandatory, but most soldiers do civic works, such as infrastructure construction, unless there is an actual war on. An Armenian version of the Boy Scouts of America (the way it was in the 30s-50s), teaching an army life to young people.

 

The problem with Armenians is that they fight when directly threatened; they are literally unable to see a block ahead of them and prepare for that danger. For example, there had been rumors for weeks that on May 27th, 1990, Armenians would topple the statue of Lenin in Yerevan and raise the Tricolor. But almost no one prepared for some sort of Soviet military response. They were shocked when it happened. Likewise, going back, the Armenians of one city would do nothing when their neighboring city was massacred by the turks; rather than preparing to fight or even going out and trying to rescue their brothers (any idiot can understand that an army that is spread out butchering a population is in no position to fight and can be annihilated themselves), they told themselves that the others "brought it upon themselves somehow" and that if they only stay quiet, they'll avoid the same fate.

 

This sheep mentality still exists, particularly among older Armenians; hell, when I wanted to go join the protests against "Operation Iraqi Freedom," my own mother told me "don't get involved, they might come to our door. I haven't raised a son just to have something happen to him." Here!