By alehandro ( - 205.188.193.39) on Thursday, July 6, 2000 - 12:21 am:
by Antonio>> Where is your knowledge of Russians and Armenians from? Have you traveled to those countries or just met people from there where you live?
>No Antonio, I know armenians from were they live
>in Armenia and out. Spent vacation on Aragaz at
>skiing lodge long time before conflict ignited.
>Was invited in different companies, participated
>in wedding celebration as a chance-comer, They
>are easy going and money very oriented as
>everybody in a M.East. Remember their joke:-
>Russian nation- big nation, Georgian nation-
>cheerful nation, Armenian nation- smurt nation,
>Azery nation- mmm, also nation. (I see you are
>smiling Turk, good! I had azeryfriend too, kind
>of annoying) By the way armenian never show
>hatred to the Jew, may be becouse had same fate
>in a late history, Why do you, Antonio?

It depends on where they are from. Armenians born and raised in the U.S. do not feel threatened by the Jews. Armenians in Jerusalem despise the Jews. Armenians in Lebanon despise the Jews. Armenians in Persia seem indifferent. Armenians in Armenia loath and despise the Jews. I haven't met enough Armenians from Moscow or Pyatigorsk etc. to be able to tell what they think. The Jews only lost about 1 million under Hitler. The 6 million figure is bogus, and the Jews use it just to gain sympathy, and lately billions of dollars.

>Didn't see any hospitable people in Grozny
>(Chechnia), Kabarda and Ingushetia, those people
>are not open.
>Coming back to Dymitri's problem with Baltic>>>

>Heard lots of negative rumors myself, but
>crossing thru Lithvinia on a bike, being in
>Riga, contacting with Estonian girls and talking
>to the strangers>>> never proved them. Was I
>just lucky or had right attitude and not
>represent anybody?

So how well do you know Russian and Armenian?

>Drake, thank's for cooperation, I faled to find
>in my head russian and armenian dictionary
>"guote" also.

As I said before, it is a street slang word not found in any dictionary.

J. BARNSCHWEIN, for your own safety, keep in mind that IGOR was a napalm specialist when he served in military. Instead of chicken in a pot he'll barbeque your goose not to mention your dork face "knight".

L'menexe:

Thanks for advice. But very first time that I attempted to register I got msg that this name is being used by someone else. Tried everything to override it to no avail. Hence, hairee was only solution. I have an idea as to who may of taken my name. But I'll leave it alone for now because I don't wish to have any relaps.

Mary no one took your name.I couldn't log on with my own password.Even now when I try to change account it does not accept password so I erase it and type same thing then it is ok.

IGOR:

No trouble with my password, problem is the user name which, they tell me has already been taken by someone else.

ms mary:
i must politely disagree that 'hairee' was your only solution.
no one else is using your name,
just as no one else was using _my_ name,
when i got that same message.

i tried to xplain the procedure.
[which remains on the board.]

it worked pour moi;
i dont see why it wouldnt work pour toi.
====
anyhoo, here we are.
_some_ of us...

L'menexe...tried your suggestion..believe me it did not work. Anyways must be off for another contractual hearing. Back later.

In departing for now may I just say...GO GET EMM ANTONIO GO

There's More to Life than Democracy, Madeleine
TIME.com's Tony Karon argues that democratic evangelism can be confusing and even dangerous as foreign policy
Democracy may be as American as apple pie, but it's not quite as universal as, say, the Big Mac. And, unfortunately, in the ambiguous, compromised world of geopolitics, it doesn't provide a basis for foreign policy.
Secretary of State Albright spent the early part of last week in Warsaw, at a conference of 107 nations to celebrate what she considers the Clinton administration's foreign policy legacy — the spread of democracy. But it may be precisely this idealistic, even ideological conception of foreign policy that has had many pundits from both ends of the political spectrum expressing disquiet over the state of U.S. foreign policy.

The hype in Warsaw notwithstanding, democracy has never been the linchpin of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, the very term "democratic" was simply a synonym for anticommunist — Suharto, Mobutu, Generals Diem and Pinochet, the medieval Islamists who fought the Soviets in Afghanistan and many other dodgy candidates were all in the "democratic" camp, remember. Even since communism's decisive defeat has allowed Washington to abandon such questionable company, it's simply not true to proclaim democracy as the basis for U.S. foreign policy.

It wasn't for democracy that we sent our troops to war in the Gulf in 1991. We sent them into Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to protect the vital interests of the U.S. and its allies — the oil reserves that Saddam Hussein would've controlled if he hadn't been ejected from Kuwait and stopped from invading Saudi Arabia. This was a valid and vital projection of the national interest, even if it meant shoring up Saudi and Kuwaiti regimes that would hardly be deemed democratic by U.S. standards.

The quest for Middle East peace, to which the Clinton administration has devoted so much energy and effort, also has little to do with democracy. Israel is the only democracy in the region, and that may be a good thing if peace is the goal. Popular opinion in Egypt, Jordan and among Palestinians is far more hostile to Israel than are the political elites who interface with Washington. President Mubarak, King Hussein and Yasser Arafat would have had a hard time concluding their peace agreements with the Jewish state if they had to answer, in short order, to an electorate.

China policy, the administration's other major foreign policy thrust, has little to do with democracy. We may placate our concerns with the idea that trade with the West will speed China's democratization — it may contribute in the very long term, but don't hold your breath — but it's really based on the economic self-interest of both countries. In fact, many sober foreign policy heads recognize that the convulsive social upheaval that will accompany the epic transformation from socialism to capitalism currently under way in China that a strong (yes, even authoritarian) state might be necessary to avert a cataclysmic collapse. Which is why electoral democracy isn't Beijing's immediate priority, and nor do serious foreign policy players believe it should be.

And while Washington may have insisted that democracy is the precondition for rehabilitating Serbia, that won't necessarily end all of the Balkan troubles: Slobodan Milosevic may be a despot and a demagogue, but the troubling reality is that most of the Serbian opposition accepted the principle that their nation should fight to hold on to Kosovo.

Kosovo, in fact, showed the danger in simply exporting an American conception of democracy into a situation with a very different history. The U.S. led NATO to war against ethnic cleansing, projecting, as an alternative, the notion of a democratic multiethnic Kosovo. Convinced of his own vision of a peaceful Balkan melting pot — as implausible as that sounded to long-term analysts of the region — President Clinton lashed out at anyone who dared to view the conflict instead through the politically incorrect lens of centuries of unresolved tribal hatreds. And yet, a year later, it's increasingly clear that a democratic, multiethnic Kosovo is a Western illusion. The Kosovo Liberation Army, backed by NATO against the Serbs, appear to be animated by instincts every bit as violently racist and intolerant as those of their enemies in Belgrade, and simply started their own ethnic cleansing campaign as soon as they had the opportunity. The West may yet have to accept a partition solution despite its discomfort with conceding that in some circumstances, people can't all just get along.

The Clinton administration has been correctly accused of lacking a coherent foreign policy vision, and instead simply responding to crises. In its defense, it must be noted that crises have proliferated on an unprecedented, alarming scale in the decade since communism's collapse. But that deepens the urgency of defining U.S. interests on a world scale, fashioning policy objectives on the basis of those interests, building alliances on the basis of those objectives and using a variety of policy levers to realize them, always guided by a comprehensive global picture.

As gratifying as the spread of democracy and market economics has been, it hasn't necessarily created a uniform interest among nations. Russia is now a full-fledged democracy, according to Washington, and yet since the election of President Vladimir Putin — whose popularity with voters was derived in no small part from sticking out his jaw in the face of Western criticism over his conduct in Chechnya — it has positioned itself ever more assertively as a competitor to Washington on the global stage. Putin is working aggressively (and not without success) to win Western European support for his opposition to Washington's national missile defense, and is making a concerted effort to restore Moscow's influence in some of the capitals that most perplex U.S. policy makers — Pyongyang, Havana and Belgrade. There's nothing ideological about this. It's just a pragmatic, calculating attempt to assert the national interests of a newly capitalist Russia on the global stage, playing Moscow's weaker hand to maximum advantage. And he'll prove quite a match for the next U.S. administration if its conception of foreign policy is limited to exporting democracy

By haireemary ( - 208.49.238.132) on Thursday, July 6, 2000 - 07:27 am:
J. BARNSCHWEIN, for your own safety, keep in mind that IGOR was a napalm specialist when he served in military. Instead of chicken in a pot he'll barbeque your goose not to mention your dork face "knight".

To HairyMary,

Mind your own business. I don't need members of the inferior sex telling me what to do. Why you are even here, is beyond my understanding. Don't you have household chores to do.

To Igor,

I will allow you to post. But make sure you keep your posts SHORT and interesting. I believe I can speak for most members of this board, by saying that YOU do tend to bore many of us here.

More of grandma Faulkers exciting recipes coming soon.

ms. mary:

why, oh WHY, do you egg st. antonio on like that?

are you mocking him? [as well you might]

do you...._believe_ that shite?

i'd hate to believe the latter. didn't say i did.
==
dunno what else to tell you about the situation
with your name....how i changed mine [back] worked
for me; but apparently not for everyone.

alehandro: that is o.k. I hope allah knows, I was hoping that you use my name because i am soooo darn good and popular (if you do not give yourself a credit, no one will).

now back to chechnya.

here some info in russian:
http://www.lenta.ru/vojna/2000/07/06/gelaev/

Hello all, it has been a while since i posted and I noticed the new security feature. Don't really care for it since I don't mind people just poping in once and a while with a post. Anyway went to see the movie the Patriot. As for an action adventure flick it is priety good, but when it comes to correct historical context it does lack a bit. However I thought it was an enjoyable film, maybe not for someone who is British.

I am so back.