Will Armenia get Ararat back from Turkey?

[Yuro]

I know it's ours. But I hate reading about Armenia and Turkey; for Armenia the highest point is not Ararat (its some other mountain I forgot), and for Turkey it's mentioned that Ararat is the highest point!!! Which it shouldn't be.

I hate that, to the extent that those Turks should give it back to us, they claim that Ararat is now their. Ararat is an Armenian symbol and therefor a Christian Symbol, and in no way do the Turks own Ararat(for once its always been ours, and their not Christians, so WTF???) except in those little books we call the Atlas!!!

Damn that pisses me off!!! :crying:

[!EEK]

I'm not sure about the fact that Ararat is christian...anyway, I don't think Armenia will get Arrarat because:

- Now a lot of turkish families are living there and not willing to live in an armenian province

-If ever Armenia attacks turkia, it must have before the military strenght...which, campared to turkia is insignificant....correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think Armenia has an air army. Plus, Turkia is a member of Nato and if Armenia is the agressor, well, you know what happens.

-Turkia might enter European Union and it'll provide enrichement to the arrarat part of turkia..so if ever Arrarat becomes armenian, the population there will prefer to be Turkish than armenian. We're talking business here!

Hell Turkia deny the genocide..so how will they accept to give a territory to armenia

[HyeJinx1984]

Ararat has nothing to dow ith christianity, in fact it wasnamed after one of our pegan Gods. In any case...we'll see what happens.

[Thai-Samurai]

where's the pied piper when we need him?

[Yuro]

Ararat has nothing to dow ith christianity, in fact it wasnamed after one of our pegan Gods. In any case...we'll see what happens.

Ararat is Chrisitian, According to the Bible account in the book of Genesis, Noah's Ark came to rest over 4300 years ago on the mountains of Ararat, how is that not a christian symbol. :wave:

It WILL NEVER BE THEIR'S MWAHAHAHAHA!!! :evil:

[TigranJamharian]

the bible says "on the mountainS of Ararat".
Secondly, its called an air force not an air army and yes we do have one.
And the highest mountain in Armenian which you speak of is Aragats, try not to be so ignorant about your own country.

[IAmMadAtAC]

Ararat is Chrisitian... over 4300 years ago on the mountains of Ararat, how is that not a christian symbol. :wave:

It WILL NEVER BE THEIR'S MWAHAHAHAHA!!! :evil:

First good job to Tigran who after this pointed out that mountains of Ararat doesn't even point to Mount Ararat necesarilly in the first place. For all we know it wasn't on Ararat, we just assume that. Secondly look at what you're saying Yuro... a boat landing over 4300 years ago makes it a Christian mountain?! Come on! Chrisitianity didn't come along for over two thousand more years, so how in the hell can it be a Christian mountain due to Noah's ark?? It's an Old Testament story which Christians took on as their own, but the only truly Christian scriptures are in the New Testament. Anyway, far as I know (which isn't too much) it's Kurds and not Turks who live around Ararat. So maybe MAYBE if they ever make their own country there it's possible we could make a deal for Ararat. I highly doubt they'd give it though, but having Ararat in a "Kurdistan" is certainly better than it in Turkey. We'd at least have more access to it. If this Iraq thing falls to pieces into civil war Kurdistan might very well secede, and then could get the mostly Kurdish population of Eastern Turkey to join them. This is all speculation but it's possible. I wouldn't hold my breath about getting back Ararat though.

[Anonymouse]

Ararat is an Urartean name, one. Second of all, there is no reason why Ararat should or must come back to Armenians.

This is essentially the problem with nationalist histories. Borders and boundaries change over time. What once was, will never be, because it is different. You cannot use boundaries and borders from the past, to justify the way the present ought to be. If everyone did that, imagine how many wars we would have throughout the world - more than we have now. That because at a point in history it was in Armenia, and now is not, is not reasonable grounds to want it back. By this logic, since the Mongols one time controlled most of Eurasia that have rights to these lands to be reclaimed back. That because one time Rome extended into Gaulia, that Italy would now want France is not sufficient to reclaim lands. That one time East Prussia was part of Deutschland is not sufficient to have it back. That one time all of Southwest United States was Mexico is not sufficient grounds to hand it back to Mexico. ( but see that Mexicans are breeding, populating, and slowly gaining their lands back. Live and learn. )

The only way Armenians can gain it back is if they populate, breed, and eventually outnumber and move beyond present border, otherwise no one will simply hand it to them, and nor any arguments of "it was ours once" are going to be sufficient. Living in the past is not viable.

[bell-the-cat]

Anyway, far as I know (which isn't too much) it's Kurds and not Turks who live around Ararat.

Mostly nomadic Kurds actually on the mountain slopes. Kurds to the south (Dogubayazit, etc.), Turks (mostly Azeri) to the north (Igdir, etc.)

[IAmMadAtAC]

The only way Armenians can gain it back is if they populate, breed, and eventually outnumber and move beyond present border, otherwise no one will simply hand it to them, and nor any arguments of "it was ours once" are going to be sufficient. Living in the past is not viable.

Yes Anonymouse, and maybe that could happen, if not for an illegal blockade!! Because of that we don't even have the chance to move back into our old lands. Also many of your examples of lost lands such as Rome losing Gaul are thousands of years old. In Armenia's case it was supposed to have Ararat as recent as the 1920s, but Turkey invaded it and stole it's land, not to mention genocide. xxxs had a genocide and because the US felt bad for them because of that they were given lands which they hadn't lived in for thousands of years! If they can get those back, I don't see why not Armenia should just forget about Ararat (though of course they are THE xxxS after all and so it could be expected and held to a different standard than the world would with Armenians). The situations are very similar, and Armenia's border is so close to Ararat it's hard to admit it didn't once own it and should at least have access to it. Though at the same time I do realize how this is impossible as long as Turkey owns it, and that the political situation makes any thought of getting it back in any way impossible.

[Anonymouse]

Yes Anonymouse, and maybe that could happen, if not for an illegal blockade!! Because of that we don't even have the chance to move back into our old lands. Also many of your examples of lost lands such as Rome losing Gaul are thousands of years old. In Armenia's case it was supposed to have Ararat as recent as the 1920s, but Turkey invaded it and stole it's land, not to mention genocide. xxxs had a genocide and because the US felt bad for them because of that they were given lands which they hadn't lived in for thousands of years! If they can get those back, I don't see why not Armenia should just forget about Ararat (though of course they are THE xxxS after all and so it could be expected and held to a different standard than the world would with Armenians). The situations are very similar, and Armenia's border is so close to Ararat it's hard to admit it didn't once own it and should at least have access to it. Though at the same time I do realize how this is impossible as long as Turkey owns it, and that the political situation makes any thought of getting it back in any way impossible.

First of all, I don't want to go into the problems of nationalist histories, or why they are wrong. Second of all, xxxs took those lands by force, and colonization. No one "gave it to them".

Theoretically, if Armenians breed alot, and the population expands, they will have no choice but to expand as well. If the population had been growing since independence and not emigrating, there would be at least 6-7 million in Armenia.

The point is the past is not the determining factor of what the future will be. Those lands pre 1920 were not Armenian lands, they were part of the Ottoman empire which Armenians inhabited. Don't forget that Armenians had not yet become a nation-state with defined boundaries.

[TigranJamharian]

First off those lands were part of Armenia as drawn up by President Wilson at the time and ratified in the treate of Sevres.
Secondly, 6-7 million? are you nuts, do we look like bangladeshis or something, how do you go from 3.5 million in 1989 to "6-7 million" in 15 years?
Let me explain a formula to you, where T=doubling time, which is basically what you are saying(3.5 times 2 equals 7 right?) so T=70/annual growth rate. In this case T equals 15 years, now 15=70/annual growth rate. there fore Annual growth rate in order for Armenia to go from 3.5 to 7 million in 15 years would have to be 70/15 which as my handy desktop calculator tells me it 4.667. Do you realize what an incredible growth rate that is? The average global pop growth rate right now is about 1.4%. Armenia's population as well as the rest of Europe is forecasted to decrease in the next 50 years. It is forcasted that the population of Armenia will be 2.3 million in 2050, i myself dont really put much faith into this, because i find it hard to believe that these people dont forecast any influx of diasporans in the next 50 years. but who knows, i guess we will just have to wait and see. I will be an old man by then 63 to be exact. The only thing that gets me wishing to live for eternity is to see the future of Armenia, other than that, i want to die before i turn 80.

[Tres Bien]

didint the turks invade armenia by force /coloniazation? And obove all that even commited an act of genicode on the armenian popluation, and DROVE us out of our lands?

[Anonymouse]

First off those lands were part of Armenia as drawn up by President Wilson at the time and ratified in the treate of Sevres.
Secondly, 6-7 million? are you nuts, do we look like bangladeshis or something, how do you go from 3.5 million in 1989 to "6-7 million" in 15 years?
Let me explain a formula to you, where T=doubling time, which is basically what you are saying(3.5 times 2 equals 7 right?) so T=70/annual growth rate. In this case T equals 15 years, now 15=70/annual growth rate. there fore Annual growth rate in order for Armenia to go from 3.5 to 7 million in 15 years would have to be 70/15 which as my handy desktop calculator tells me it 4.667. Do you realize what an incredible growth rate that is? The average global pop growth rate right now is about 1.4%. Armenia's population as well as the rest of Europe is forecasted to decrease in the next 50 years. It is forcasted that the population of Armenia will be 2.3 million in 2050, i myself dont really put much faith into this, because i find it hard to believe that these people dont forecast any influx of diasporans in the next 50 years. but who knows, i guess we will just have to wait and see. I will be an old man by then 63 to be exact. The only thing that gets me wishing to live for eternity is to see the future of Armenia, other than that, i want to die before i turn 80.

What I failed to mention in the demographs aside from positive growth rate, no emigration, were the Armenians from the diaspora who did not move back to Armenia.

[IAmMadAtAC]

Second of all, xxxs took those lands by force, and colonization. No one "gave it to them".

Well this is off the main topic, but yes Israel was given to the xxxs. For the past 50 years or so they had been in the process of colonization and taking lands by force, but it was 1948 when the Allied powers granted the mandate of Israel to the xxxs (much beacuse of guilt and feeling bad about the Holocaust). If the Allies hadn't internationally recognized Israel (gave it to them) it wouldn't be a country.
Also, like Tigran said there's the Wilson mandate given to Armenia!! Ararat was included in that, as was Ani! Those lands were granted to Armenia, then the Turks invaded and changed that. Serves became inactive. There's no denying those lands were considered "Armenia" by many and Turkish invasion and the major world powers being selectively forgetful of the part are the only things that changed that.

[xBaron Dants]

I am usually the realist diplomat....but, yes, Armenia will get Ararat back from Turkey.

As for Armenia's growth rate, I would think that it will stabilize in a decade or two. Artsakh actually reports positive growth and immigration rates, so there is hope there. And there is the diaspora factor to take note of, as Tigran mentioned (just how much of a factor it may be, Asdvadz kidé).

[Anonymouse]

Well this is off the main topic, but yes Israel was given to the xxxs. For the past 50 years or so they had been in the process of colonization and taking lands by force, but it was 1948 when the Allied powers granted the mandate of Israel to the xxxs (much beacuse of guilt and feeling bad about the Holocaust). If the Allies hadn't internationally recognized Israel (gave it to them) it wouldn't be a country.
Also, like Tigran said there's the Wilson mandate given to Armenia!! Ararat was included in that, as was Ani! Those lands were granted to Armenia, then the Turks invaded and changed that. Serves became inactive. There's no denying those lands were considered "Armenia" by many and Turkish invasion and the major world powers being selectively forgetful of the part are the only things that changed that.

Mandates and statutes or treaties have no bearing. Palestine was being colonized and inhabited by xxxs as early as 1880s, and Arabs ( because they were not Palestinians at the time ) willfully sold land to them. Even then, granting a mandate is not the same as putting it into effect. Force must first accompany any State induced "legality", because all States come into existence through blood spilling, namely violence and war, never by peaceful means.

You seem to be missing the point. However, your post proved only my point further. Politics and "legality" change over time. What were once legal borders are no longer. What once were treaties binding alliances or borders are no longer, as with Sevres, because the Allies had no interest in following up with it, which Ataturk saw to it, just like no one now seriously consider the Atlantic Charter to have any merit.

What matters is that now, the region is not habited by Armenians. It is not in the border of Armenia, nor is there any legal recognition that it is Armenia. It is legally Turkish, and ethnically non Armenian and recognized by the world as such. Therefore, history changes. Once Tigran the Great had an empire, does that mean we are entitled to those lands? The arguement most people present about Ararat ( that it should be ours because it once was ) misses the point. History is not static. It is not a point in time, because it involves changes. Armenia does not even have an adequate population to spread even further into the Ararat valley ( since it will be thinner ), so to simply want lands or to want the Genocide recognized for land acquisition is stupid since no one will hand you any lands. The reason Armenians lost these lands, in my opinion is because of our own faults, not Turks. Sure they committed the Genocide, but alot of the other mishaps in our history are our own fault, which Armenians never want to or like to accept.

With that said, that because it is in our collective Armenian memory that Ararat is a symbol, does not make it so. I already told you the only way to get lands back is to do what Mexicans do. Anything else is an exercise in futility.

[IAmMadAtAC]

What once were treaties binding alliances or borders are no longer, as with Sevres, because the Allies had no interest in following up with it, which Ataturk saw to it, just like no one now seriously consider the Atlantic Charter to have any merit.

It is not in the border of Armenia...

First you say 'over time', and refer to things that become obsolete over decades. I believe the amount of time between Sevres and the next one which gave more land to Turkey (thanks to invasion) was about two years! Those are hardly comprable. Also how can you say Ararat is not bordering Armenia? Ararat (and even more true for Ani) are just about as close as you can get to Armenia. I don't know the exact milage, but Ararat is very close to the Armenian border and Ani is literally two or three miles away.

Also Baron Dants I'm curious as to why you think Armenia will eventually get Ararat? I don't see that in the forseable future in any way, so am curious to see what you know on this.

[Anonymouse]

First you say 'over time', and refer to things that become obsolete over decades. I believe the amount of time between Sevres and the next one which gave more land to Turkey (thanks to invasion) was about two years! Those are hardly comprable.

It is comparable. You don't have to like it. Events take place in history. History is a process and a change, nto static. Turks forcefully removed Armenians and thereby Armenan claims to the land. The past means nothing and doesn't have any bearing on what the future will be. The past is merely there as a reference point, but often misleading.

Also how can you say Ararat is not bordering Armenia? Ararat (and even more true for Ani) are just about as close as you can get to Armenia. I don't know the exact milage, but Ararat is very close to the Armenian border and Ani is literally two or three miles away.

I never said that Ani or Ararat are not next to Armenia. Pay attention. I said they are not within the borders. It means Armenia does not claim it because it falls in Turkey's sphere. With that said, Germany lost all of East Prussia, and it is literally next to it, and after all, it lost it after World War II, does that mean they are going to go and claim it?

[HyeJinx1984]

I am usually the realist diplomat....but, yes, Armenia will get Ararat back from Turkey.

As for Armenia's growth rate, I would think that it will stabilize in a decade or two. Artsakh actually reports positive growth and immigration rates, so there is hope there. And there is the diaspora factor to take note of, as Tigran mentioned (just how much of a factor it may be, Asdvadz kidé).

Only once it is in your loving hands will I ever be optimistic my friend.

[!EEK]

Comoooon! Who cares about a stupid mountain! *engaging anti-swear shield*



I'm joking...my point was that I know how much Ararat is important for Armenians but I don't see even in a far away future why Ararat should be given back to Armenia...Then Germans could claim back Alsace-Lorraine in France..non-sense

[nunechka]

Ararat SHOULD be given back to armenia, but it WONT be given back to armenia for all the reasons we all already know...

i read about ararat in turish news and nato news, its like they think its actually theirs... but we have to keep reminding them that they are LIEING!!!!!!!!!!!

i can only wish we do... from the second floor of my house in armenia, the tv room faces west and Ararat is in clear view... :(

[SasunD]

I think that it is better that we don't have Ararat within our borders...for a couple of reasons...

1. It is better to leave Ararat as an unattainable goal. Why, because that way, it will be a constant reminder to us not to forget what happened, (Turkey is playing the 'time card', they are waiting until we grow tired of protesting, and eventually forget).

2.We don't really need the land, for now...

3.Ararat is bound to erupt sometime...unfortunately for them :D

[Thai-Samurai]

Ararat is a friggin volcano!!? No one tells me these things. Ai Ai yai

[SasunD]

Both of them were Volcanoes at one point in time, however one is dormant and the other one is pretty much 'alive'.

The alive one might erupt sometime....if it doesn't, then a little encouragament will be needed. :D

[IAmMadAtAC]

Ararat is considered an extinct volcano which means it hasn't erupted in thousands of years and there is no plan for it to erupt in the future far as we can tell either. Massis is also extinct.

[XxgoeyxX]

I have to say, I do not know much about this information, that is why I cannot comment about this topic. But I can comment on this statement:

By the way, my purpose is to be realistic, I do not want to disturb any one of you guys, and I do not hate you Armenians although I know that you hate Turks.

There is a difference between hating a Turk and hating what Turks did to Armenians. I dont know if I have ever hated a Turk or anyother human being in my life. But I have hated things humans have done. I do hope you see the difference. So I ask you please, do not put words in our mouths. As a realist you should have already known this. Alright thats all I'm going to say. :)

[!EEK]

http://forumprog.free.fr/panos/GS_4f3e22d22a09969cdcc0eb9bc9a55275.png

Eheheh, this guy is talking about realisme and then he talks about crap! He doesn't even know his history!

1- Arabs never surrendered during the war of the 7 days. THey signed a treaty for the "people's sake".

2- xxxs never paid arabs for territory, they just settled there and they are under the Israely military protection

And then again you are bragging about how your people got out from WW2 victorious without having anything to owe to anyone. It's not with this attitude that you'll enter the E.U. :laugh: :laugh:

"But we are European!" yeah right, and I'm South American :laugh:

At least true European countries don't act like 6 yo denying children

Oh and read carefully goey's post: http://forumprog.free.fr/panos/GS_4f3e22d22a09969cdcc0eb9bc9a55275.png

[Harut82]

[ http://forumprog.free.fr/panos/GS_4f3e22d22a09969cdcc0eb9bc9a55275.png
http://socalrsxforums.com/forums/images/smilies/rotfl.gif

[!EEK]

Another thing is I really really do not hate Armenians, and on the contrary love some of you guys. I had a lot of Armenian friends when I was in Istanbul, andd all of them were really great people. Another reason is that you Armenians love your country, which is something great.

Hexing

You know what? I do not doubt your sincerity http://tribes3.org/forums/images/smilies/nopityA.gif

[Anonymouse]

Thank you eek, you rock!!!! :)

At this moment, I wanted to tell you something; for a nationalist or patriotic person to hate another nation, that person's education is very important at primary school.

At Primary school, yes, many nations were shown us as enemies, but Armenians were not one of them; in fact, what I heard at school at that time was that Armenians attacked the Turks together with the French army, and this was the only sentence in books, which is not a lot nor is it enough to make a nation hate another one.

But I agree with your hatred in that you do not live in the lands your ancestors once lived, although I do not agree with the genocide claims.

Take care everyone,
Hexing

This sort of collective thinking of "nations" hating other "nations" and imposing rigid words to somehow speak for all people within that nation is the problem of all nationalisms. The heavy assumptions carried in such words are often what blur the issues, more than shedding light. It is ipso facto assumed that "nations" represent every individual within that sphere. Thereby to assert "make a nation hate another one" is illusory at best. What constitutes nations? Individual people. And do all individuals think alike? No they do not, unless you live in some Marxist dream of uniformity. Yet somehow, the point between where the individual is and where the nation begins is blurred by nationalisms and other collective creeds. So to assert that "this nation hates that nation" is at best an abuse of words, for it in no way reflects the entire diversity of thought of the individuals that comprise that given body.