Tweet
WHAT IS ARMENIA'S CONCESSION?
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments- lrahos15437.html
11:46:52 - 07/10/2009
The governmental propaganda machine did everything possible to place
the home discussions on the Armenian-Turkish protocols on different
planes: those having the same opinion with Serge Sargsyan think broadly
as well as they imagine the processes of the modern world and those
who are against the current version of the Armenian-Turkish protocols,
live for the past and have narrow world vision, in short, they are
people living in caves. Since there is no professional and at the same
time a just unit of measure of public opinion, it is difficult to say
which part of the society the governmental propaganda influenced. But
the fact that that was only an attempt to avoid calling things with
their names and to mutate the essence of the issue is doubtless.
The point is that for example, I am personally against singing the
protocols in their present form because I think that they weaken the
political and geopolitical potential of the Armenian state. Maybe the
signature will bring about the opening of the border which in turn
will bring about an economic increase. Perhaps, though of course it
is a question to be seriously discussed. Even if the opening of the
border will give birth to an economic miracle through singing the
Armenian-Turkish protocols, even then the master of the "Armenian
miracle" will not be Armenia but Turkey.
Being against the singing of the protocols in the present form, I am
for the normalization of the relations between Armenia and Turkey. But
the government says that in order to better our relations, Armenia
has to cede something to Turkey for Turkey to cede too and to open
the border consequently normalizing the relations. The narrowness of
my thinking comes out to be that I am not ready to cede anything to
Turkey for the sake of the normalization of the Armenian and Turkish
relations, I live for the past instead of looking at the future and
present to understand the thinking of the modern world. But in this
case, may the whole government explain what it conceded to Turkey for
the letter to open the border. all right, it did not concede anything
in connection with the genocide issue, it did not concede anything
in relation to the Kars agreement either, neither with regard to
the historians. So, which is the concession of Armenia that makes
Turkey sign under the roadmap on border opening? May those who think
so widely explain this? Or they may think so widely that Armenia can
no longer be seen in that broadness.
Doubtlessly, the normalization of the Armenian and Turkish relations
proceeds from the Armenian interests. The point is not about the wide
or narrow thinking. The question is the arguments the lack of which
forces the government to carry philosophical debates on thinking in
case when the Armenian-Turkish protocols are material reality where
all the condition under which the Armenian and Turkish relations are
to be established are written down. On this issue, the government
and its propaganda machine did not debate at all.
While the narrowness or broadness of thinking is measured during
debates when arguments are brought showing the thinking of that
person. The opponents of the Armenian-Turkish protocols regardless the
aim because of which they brought a series of clear arguments which
proved that the relations are normalized on the account of Armenia's
weakening and for a piece of bread. The government and its orators
did not bring any argument besides that piece of bread.
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments- lrahos15437.html
11:46:52 - 07/10/2009
The governmental propaganda machine did everything possible to place
the home discussions on the Armenian-Turkish protocols on different
planes: those having the same opinion with Serge Sargsyan think broadly
as well as they imagine the processes of the modern world and those
who are against the current version of the Armenian-Turkish protocols,
live for the past and have narrow world vision, in short, they are
people living in caves. Since there is no professional and at the same
time a just unit of measure of public opinion, it is difficult to say
which part of the society the governmental propaganda influenced. But
the fact that that was only an attempt to avoid calling things with
their names and to mutate the essence of the issue is doubtless.
The point is that for example, I am personally against singing the
protocols in their present form because I think that they weaken the
political and geopolitical potential of the Armenian state. Maybe the
signature will bring about the opening of the border which in turn
will bring about an economic increase. Perhaps, though of course it
is a question to be seriously discussed. Even if the opening of the
border will give birth to an economic miracle through singing the
Armenian-Turkish protocols, even then the master of the "Armenian
miracle" will not be Armenia but Turkey.
Being against the singing of the protocols in the present form, I am
for the normalization of the relations between Armenia and Turkey. But
the government says that in order to better our relations, Armenia
has to cede something to Turkey for Turkey to cede too and to open
the border consequently normalizing the relations. The narrowness of
my thinking comes out to be that I am not ready to cede anything to
Turkey for the sake of the normalization of the Armenian and Turkish
relations, I live for the past instead of looking at the future and
present to understand the thinking of the modern world. But in this
case, may the whole government explain what it conceded to Turkey for
the letter to open the border. all right, it did not concede anything
in connection with the genocide issue, it did not concede anything
in relation to the Kars agreement either, neither with regard to
the historians. So, which is the concession of Armenia that makes
Turkey sign under the roadmap on border opening? May those who think
so widely explain this? Or they may think so widely that Armenia can
no longer be seen in that broadness.
Doubtlessly, the normalization of the Armenian and Turkish relations
proceeds from the Armenian interests. The point is not about the wide
or narrow thinking. The question is the arguments the lack of which
forces the government to carry philosophical debates on thinking in
case when the Armenian-Turkish protocols are material reality where
all the condition under which the Armenian and Turkish relations are
to be established are written down. On this issue, the government
and its propaganda machine did not debate at all.
While the narrowness or broadness of thinking is measured during
debates when arguments are brought showing the thinking of that
person. The opponents of the Armenian-Turkish protocols regardless the
aim because of which they brought a series of clear arguments which
proved that the relations are normalized on the account of Armenia's
weakening and for a piece of bread. The government and its orators
did not bring any argument besides that piece of bread.