Tweet
TALAAT PASHA IN SKIRT
Igor Muradyan
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments25892.html
Published: 12:38:39 - 20/04/2012
Why only in skirt, Hillary Clinton often wears pants. The State
Secretary has become the trouble of the U.S. foreign politics.
Her appointment, as we know, was compromising, and, apparently, was the
result of decisions under the masters of the U.S. Democratic Party,
with the clear involvement of the key politicians from the Clinton
administration. A similar trade-off occurred when selecting Joe Biden
for vice-president.
The big three of the current administration, Obama, Biden and Clinton,
is determined by different interests and policy of certain groups in
the Democratic Party and their partners in the U.S. establishment. For
the members of the Big Three the most problematic regions and areas
were reserved. Joe Biden had to deal mostly with the Middle East
and other regions in Asia, Clinton - Eastern Europe and Eurasia,
and Barack Obama - apparently, the rest, that is, global challenges.
With Biden everything came out easy: Obama's people quickly
threw him off the actual arena and he became what he had to - the
vice-president. It is more difficult with Hillary Clinton, and she,
actually, became the "alternative" to the president. Relying on
the huge group from the Democratic Party, including people, who
gathered in the Brookings Institute, that is in the "brain" of the
Democratic staff, Hillary Clinton, actually usurped the foreign policy,
successfully failing it in all the directions.
Literally, at all the directions of the global repression of China's
expansion, that it, one of the most important directions of the U.S.
foreign policy, an unconditional failure was registered. China is
successfully strengthening its positions in the South-East Asia, South
Asia and Central Asia, and the most disappointing in the European
direction. We shall also add to this the U.S. failure to neutralize
the China-Russia relations within the SCO.
The new U.S. doctrinaire concept relating to the "shift" of
responsibility on the Arab countries, though it seems a more or less
"pretty image", in reality, it is destined to failure very soon. In
this region, it was impossible to fulfill effective sanctions in
relation to Iran and force it capitulation. The U.S., despite its
wish to show control on the Arab revolutions, sealed the fact that
these processes appeared and are happening on definite scenarios.
What is happening in Egypt and Syria is becoming a "nightmare" for
the Obama administration. The uncontrollability in the region is
increasing and this becomes a challenge for the U.S..
The current American policy in Europe is based on the "benefits"
which have been gained thanks to the Bush administration. In addition,
European left and liberal forces, as well as the right and conservative
ones are disappointed in the result of the same reasons - extreme
deviance and palliative of their policies, which demonstrate a
"fundamental confusion and lack of discipline".
Bringing the U.S. into such a deadlock, the Obama administration,
under the sensitive control by H. Clinton, chose the "After us,
the deluge" policy in relation to Turkey, when Clinton's people
instead of the policy of repression towards Ankara, are leading
the policy of silly and meaningless compromises. At the same time,
with each stage of establishment of relations with Turkey, the Obama
administration understands more that they haven't achieved anything
in the fundamental aspects and just doomed to fiasco the U.S. policy
in relation with Turkey.
The point is not about the fact that the U.S. has no ideas or
levers to lead policy towards Turkey, but the fact that the State
Department is doing it in an archaic and unprofessional way. All this
is quite natural because the staff of the State Department has not
yet been formed. Has much attention been paid to the assessment and
characteristics of the State Department functionaries in the U.S.
political literature?
It is interesting that even the politicians and experts of the
Republican Party, who in private talks, express radical position on
the current policy of the U.S., don't express it in a textual form.
It is possible that it has some meaning, but the presidential election
campaign, this way or another, will evidence these vices of the
U.S. foreign policy, and will point out those guilty.
Unfortunately, the Republican Party failed or didn't want to promote
a more or less convincing candidate for president. We can presume
that it is done consciously since the Republicans are not eager to
assume the responsibility for the current economic situation of the
country. If everything is really this way, then, in historical terms,
Obama is seen in the U.S. as a transitive "technical president".
This is a very unpleasant situation and it is more unpleasant not
for the Americans but for the rest of the world.
Since only the U.S. is able to resist concrete global threats and
the U.S. opponents in every region understand it very well. In this
situation, an extremely ideologized group appeared at the wheel of the
foreign policy of the U.S. whose ideology is a collection of ambiguous,
unsystematic and dangerous thesis of deviatory character.
It was during this period when the task of removing Clinton from
her post as Secretary of State appeared was set, before the end
of Barack Obama's first term as president. The task is to save
the great country from a group of followers 'Brookings Institute'
who have long discredited themselves (of course, having in mind not
only this brain center, but an extensive network of left-liberal
intellectuals, expressing the interests of the great mass of middle
class and the leaders of the bourgeois class.) Even if we accept
the U.S. current policy in relation to Turkey as something pragmatic
in the perspective that this policy will result in entirely different
and more complex problems, it will be found out that the Americans
have lost much valuable time on this direction.
H. Clinton, jointly with "her" president, is trying to not only
sabotage the recognition of the Armenian genocide, but also to close
this issue forever. No other administration, even Bill Clinton's one,
has ever tried to do this, which paved the way to the failure of the
recognition. Besides, of all the Grand Ladies of the State Department
- Madeleine Albright, Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton, only the
acting Grand Lady has issued an open support to the recognition of
the genocide during the election campaign.
Sure Washington understands that in order to parry efforts to recognize
the genocide they have to apply more effort, and the current problems
didn't exist previously. But in this case some personal hatred towards
Armenians and their issue is felt, that, somehow, the Clinton team
will attempt to win back on Armenia. That is, here we have quite a
verified Talaat Pasha in a skirt.
During the next presidential election campaign, the Armenian-American
voters will need to hold a different position, that is not to vote
for the supporters of the genocide but against those who are against
the recognition of the genocide at the same time, they will have to
demonstrate their position not only on the voting day but also during
the whole campaign, leading counter-agitation within all possible
ethnic and religious communities. Talaat Pasha in the skirt and "her"
president should properly feel their disadvantaged state of hypocrites
and deprived of honor politicians.
Igor Muradyan
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments25892.html
Published: 12:38:39 - 20/04/2012
Why only in skirt, Hillary Clinton often wears pants. The State
Secretary has become the trouble of the U.S. foreign politics.
Her appointment, as we know, was compromising, and, apparently, was the
result of decisions under the masters of the U.S. Democratic Party,
with the clear involvement of the key politicians from the Clinton
administration. A similar trade-off occurred when selecting Joe Biden
for vice-president.
The big three of the current administration, Obama, Biden and Clinton,
is determined by different interests and policy of certain groups in
the Democratic Party and their partners in the U.S. establishment. For
the members of the Big Three the most problematic regions and areas
were reserved. Joe Biden had to deal mostly with the Middle East
and other regions in Asia, Clinton - Eastern Europe and Eurasia,
and Barack Obama - apparently, the rest, that is, global challenges.
With Biden everything came out easy: Obama's people quickly
threw him off the actual arena and he became what he had to - the
vice-president. It is more difficult with Hillary Clinton, and she,
actually, became the "alternative" to the president. Relying on
the huge group from the Democratic Party, including people, who
gathered in the Brookings Institute, that is in the "brain" of the
Democratic staff, Hillary Clinton, actually usurped the foreign policy,
successfully failing it in all the directions.
Literally, at all the directions of the global repression of China's
expansion, that it, one of the most important directions of the U.S.
foreign policy, an unconditional failure was registered. China is
successfully strengthening its positions in the South-East Asia, South
Asia and Central Asia, and the most disappointing in the European
direction. We shall also add to this the U.S. failure to neutralize
the China-Russia relations within the SCO.
The new U.S. doctrinaire concept relating to the "shift" of
responsibility on the Arab countries, though it seems a more or less
"pretty image", in reality, it is destined to failure very soon. In
this region, it was impossible to fulfill effective sanctions in
relation to Iran and force it capitulation. The U.S., despite its
wish to show control on the Arab revolutions, sealed the fact that
these processes appeared and are happening on definite scenarios.
What is happening in Egypt and Syria is becoming a "nightmare" for
the Obama administration. The uncontrollability in the region is
increasing and this becomes a challenge for the U.S..
The current American policy in Europe is based on the "benefits"
which have been gained thanks to the Bush administration. In addition,
European left and liberal forces, as well as the right and conservative
ones are disappointed in the result of the same reasons - extreme
deviance and palliative of their policies, which demonstrate a
"fundamental confusion and lack of discipline".
Bringing the U.S. into such a deadlock, the Obama administration,
under the sensitive control by H. Clinton, chose the "After us,
the deluge" policy in relation to Turkey, when Clinton's people
instead of the policy of repression towards Ankara, are leading
the policy of silly and meaningless compromises. At the same time,
with each stage of establishment of relations with Turkey, the Obama
administration understands more that they haven't achieved anything
in the fundamental aspects and just doomed to fiasco the U.S. policy
in relation with Turkey.
The point is not about the fact that the U.S. has no ideas or
levers to lead policy towards Turkey, but the fact that the State
Department is doing it in an archaic and unprofessional way. All this
is quite natural because the staff of the State Department has not
yet been formed. Has much attention been paid to the assessment and
characteristics of the State Department functionaries in the U.S.
political literature?
It is interesting that even the politicians and experts of the
Republican Party, who in private talks, express radical position on
the current policy of the U.S., don't express it in a textual form.
It is possible that it has some meaning, but the presidential election
campaign, this way or another, will evidence these vices of the
U.S. foreign policy, and will point out those guilty.
Unfortunately, the Republican Party failed or didn't want to promote
a more or less convincing candidate for president. We can presume
that it is done consciously since the Republicans are not eager to
assume the responsibility for the current economic situation of the
country. If everything is really this way, then, in historical terms,
Obama is seen in the U.S. as a transitive "technical president".
This is a very unpleasant situation and it is more unpleasant not
for the Americans but for the rest of the world.
Since only the U.S. is able to resist concrete global threats and
the U.S. opponents in every region understand it very well. In this
situation, an extremely ideologized group appeared at the wheel of the
foreign policy of the U.S. whose ideology is a collection of ambiguous,
unsystematic and dangerous thesis of deviatory character.
It was during this period when the task of removing Clinton from
her post as Secretary of State appeared was set, before the end
of Barack Obama's first term as president. The task is to save
the great country from a group of followers 'Brookings Institute'
who have long discredited themselves (of course, having in mind not
only this brain center, but an extensive network of left-liberal
intellectuals, expressing the interests of the great mass of middle
class and the leaders of the bourgeois class.) Even if we accept
the U.S. current policy in relation to Turkey as something pragmatic
in the perspective that this policy will result in entirely different
and more complex problems, it will be found out that the Americans
have lost much valuable time on this direction.
H. Clinton, jointly with "her" president, is trying to not only
sabotage the recognition of the Armenian genocide, but also to close
this issue forever. No other administration, even Bill Clinton's one,
has ever tried to do this, which paved the way to the failure of the
recognition. Besides, of all the Grand Ladies of the State Department
- Madeleine Albright, Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton, only the
acting Grand Lady has issued an open support to the recognition of
the genocide during the election campaign.
Sure Washington understands that in order to parry efforts to recognize
the genocide they have to apply more effort, and the current problems
didn't exist previously. But in this case some personal hatred towards
Armenians and their issue is felt, that, somehow, the Clinton team
will attempt to win back on Armenia. That is, here we have quite a
verified Talaat Pasha in a skirt.
During the next presidential election campaign, the Armenian-American
voters will need to hold a different position, that is not to vote
for the supporters of the genocide but against those who are against
the recognition of the genocide at the same time, they will have to
demonstrate their position not only on the voting day but also during
the whole campaign, leading counter-agitation within all possible
ethnic and religious communities. Talaat Pasha in the skirt and "her"
president should properly feel their disadvantaged state of hypocrites
and deprived of honor politicians.