Sarkozy - Friend or Foe?

[Lucin]

Re: Sarkozy - Friend or Foe?

Wow! I can't believe how unintuitive you are!

Though the meaning is quite obvious, I used it in a context to give you a hint; but, you seemed to have missed it!
So let's spell it out a bit more! When I said:
"Please quote what was said and "we'll see for the rest."
I meant something like:
"I don't care about it right now and I won't waste my time considering it because it may never be necessary as it may never become a reality." That's what I meant, hoping that the example would help you understand what Sarkozy could have meant, but you seem to be so obtuse.

Funny how you are making imaginary coclusions and interpretations. For the record I knew exactly you were playing with words by 'we'll see for the rest'...

As for the part that is in bold, can you please let us know where it is in the allocution? What is the context?

As usual, you stubbornly insist on issues that you poorly understand - if at all - the basic facts. For the record:
1. The negotiations include 35 chapters and 30 of them do not imply full membership. Sarkozy agreed to consider only those
2. In June, France opposed starting the negotiations of one of the 5 chapters that imply full membership
3. As of today, the negotiations of only 4 chapters have started - I did not say concluded - that none imply full membership and LOL you're jumping up and down because it was said "and we'll see for the rest.???"
[Considering the context of the expression, "the rest" seems to mean the 5 remaining chapters that imply full membership.]

LOL Why don't you "practice what you preach" and tell us what he could have meant?

This is exactly what he meant. We will discuss the possibilities of its full membership later. And it means that he has softened, toned down and moderated his stance considering what he had preached a few months ago.

However it seems that you have no or little knowledge of Sarkozy's electoral campaign and what he preached exactly at the time and what he is saying now; the following article reflects- more or less- how he softened his stance:

France will not oppose EU talks with Turkey: Sarkozy

French president Nicolas Sarkozy on Monday softened his opposition to Turkey joining the European Union, saying France would not block negotiations on this issue.

In his first major foreign policy since taking office, Sarkozy stressed he remained against the majority-Muslim country's full-adhesion to the EU, but had left the door open to its possible future membership unlike before.

He conditioned his stance on the EU's launch before the end of the year of a committee of high-level experts to examine questions concerning the bloc's future.

"If that vital reflection on the future of our union is launched... France will not oppose new chapters of negotiations between the union and Turkey being opened in the months and years to come," Sarkozy said in an address to French ambassodors from 180 countries.

Sarkozy said one condition was that "those chapters be compatible with the two possible visions" of relations betweenn Turkey and the EU: complete membership or a more narrowly defined association.

"I'm not going to be a hypocrite. Everyone knows that I'm only in favor of an association... I think that the idea of an association will one day be recognised by everyone as being the most reasonable," he said.

Sarkozy avoided the tough talk he has used in the past when addressing the issue, previously declaring that Turkey did not have a place in the 27-nation bloc.

He also did not use the term "privileged partner" to describe Turkey's relationship with the EU. Ankara has viewd that description as relagating Turkey to second-tier status.

Sarkozy said his new stance was a workable compromise, and he warned Turkey against taking too rigid a stance on its potential membership since France could still oppose discussions.

"It is obvious that if this compromise formula were to be refused, I simply want to issue a reminder unanimity is required for discussions to continue," he said.

In response to the remarks, the European Comission saluted Sarkozy's "contribution to the debate in progress", spokesman Amadeu Altafaj said.
[...]
Source: http://www.eubusiness.com/Turkey/1188210721.96

It is clear enough that from now on, Sarkozy would not veto the reopening of negotioations; he would not block the resumtion of negotiations which could lead to either full or associate ( looser) membership and all the aforementioned mean a considerable weakening of his previous stance which was the absolute opposition to Turkish membership of the European Union.

LOL What is the relevance????? As usual, you totally miss the point and confuse yourself.

It was as 'relevant' as when you mentioned the irrelevant sentence about The Russians, Iranians and Arabs...

In any case, I don't know what aspects of our relations you had in mind when you said "much deeper" and "not comparable to Franco-Armenian or Russo-Armenian relations" - as usually, you provide no explanations. Regardless, though I value our warm relations with Iran, our mental and cultural affinities have somehow faded with time and, your understanding of our past, present and "cultural/mental world/heritage" seems too narrow and based on your own world; in fact
1. At least, since Khorenatsi, some Armenians looked at the "West" and others at the "East"
2. For Armenians who lived for centuries in, for instance, Cilicia; countries like Italy, Greece or France were probably more present and important than Persia. Actually, based on the biography that we've considered, even Raffi - born in "Persia" - did not seem to care much for Persian culture and "mental/intellectual world?????"
3. For Armenians who lived in what became Soviet Armenia/Georgia, Russia probably mattered much more than Persia did

So what? what is the relevance between real History and some personal, individual preferences??
Nevertheless, my talk was- more or less- referred to pre-Islam Persia; thus Zoroastrianism era where the two peoples shared a common history, culture, religion, etc. If you haven't read Avesta, I strongly recommend you read the Holy book of Zoroastrians, you'll be amazed by many things in that book and understand more what I mean.

(And for the record, the Persian empire, for instance; The Achaemenids ruled over a large territory, from the Caucasus region - which it included - in the north, down to the Sea of Oman in the south, and from India in the east to the Adriatic Sea in the west.)

As I have suggested in a different thread, you need to travel, get to know and understand the diversity of the Armenian Nation and broaden your horizons!

Even though I have been exposed to different peoples with different cultures I will travel more in the future; I'm still in my twenties and have a lot of time to do so... But in all seriousness, I suggest you stop being so ill-tempered.

[Armenian]

Re: Sarkozy - Friend or Foe?

I'm still in my twenties and have a lot of time to do so... But in all seriousness, I suggest you stop being so ill-tempered.

Lucin jan, you should not be explaining yourself to the official psychobabbler of this board.

Why do you even get upset? He/she simply needs to argue with people because he/she has a miserable life and needs to vent? He/she does this with various people here, including me So, by attempting to talk sense you are simply playing into he/she's fetishes - namely to գլուխ ***ել... կամ արդուկել

Instead of debating with he/she you might be better off banging your head on a wall.

[Siamanto]

Re: Sarkozy - Friend or Foe?

Though the meaning is quite obvious, I used it in a context to give you a hint; but, you seemed to have missed it!
So let's spell it out a bit more! When I said:
"Please quote what was said and "we'll see for the rest."
I meant something like:
"I don't care about it right now and I won't waste my time considering it because it may never be necessary as it may never become a reality." That's what I meant, hoping that the example would help you understand what Sarkozy could have meant, but you seem to be so obtuse.

Funny how you are making imaginary coclusions and interpretations. For the record I knew exactly you were playing with words by 'we'll see for the rest'...

LOL So when you repeatedly ask for the meaning of an expression, then one should assume that you have already understood what it could mean????
Nice try!

As for the part that is in bold, can you please let us know where it is in the allocution? What is the context?

As usual, you stubbornly insist on issues that you poorly understand - if at all - the basic facts. For the record:
1. The negotiations include 35 chapters and 30 of them do not imply full membership. Sarkozy agreed to consider only those
2. In June, France opposed starting the negotiations of one of the 5 chapters that imply full membership
3. As of today, the negotiations of only 4 chapters have started - I did not say concluded - that none imply full membership and LOL you're jumping up and down because it was said "and we'll see for the rest.???"
[Considering the context of the expression, "the rest" seems to mean the 5 remaining chapters that imply full membership.]

LOL Why don't you "practice what you preach" and tell us what he could have meant?

This is exactly what he meant. We will discuss the possibilities of its full membership later.
And it means that he has softened, toned down and moderated his stance considering what he had preached a few months ago.

However it seems that you have no or little knowledge of Sarkozy's electoral campaign and what he preached exactly at the time and what he is saying now;

First of all, I love the word "exactly;" LOL what else can it be???? That simplistc "black and white" model of life and the World! Also, how "modest" and "moderate????"

Most of all, reminding the facts
1. You accused Sarkozy of being a "hypocrite" who, in his allocution, "simply changed his [pre-electoral??] stance"

2. I asked you more than once, to produce an integral and original text so we can compare it to assess how valid is your accusation that, otherwise, would be cheap talk based on your perception, imagination and vague recollections

3. You, obviously, were - and still are - unable to provide any such text to support your accusation

4. To save face, your are stating "it seems that you have no or little knowledge of Sarkozy's electoral campaign and what he preached exactly at the time and what he is saying now."
LOL So produce an integral and original text and enlighten us - or should I say "cut the crap."

LOL Another nice try! You're really funny, to say the least.

the following article reflects- more or less- how he softened his stance:

Don't hide behind vague interpretations, provide the facts and stop being a hypocrite.
It's very simple: You produce an integral and original text and we will compare it to the text of the allocution and see how different they are in practice.

It is clear enough that from now on, Sarkozy would not veto the reopening of negotioations; he would not block the resumtion of negotiations which could lead to either full or associate ( looser) membership and all the aforementioned mean a considerable weakening of his previous stance which was the absolute opposition to Turkish membership of the European Union.

LOL "Absolute?" Another of those words - in use some three centuries ago - that reflect your simplistic "black and white" model?

In any case, you seem to have missed what was explicitly put i.e.
1. He will veto - as he did in June - the negotiations of chapters that imply full membership
2. The other 30 chapters will have to be also negotiated for non-full membership option

So, in practice, what is he giving up? Too subtle for your simplistic "black and white" model of life?

So, for now, relax and be less "ill-tempered" by falsely accusing others - unless you are willing to provide the necessary data/documents.

It was as 'relevant' as when you mentioned the irrelevant sentence about The Russians, Iranians and Arabs...

LOL Are you saying that reminding someone that what he/she told about something/someone also applies to others, is irrelevant? How so?

In any case, I don't know what aspects of our relations you had in mind when you said "much deeper" and "not comparable to Franco-Armenian or Russo-Armenian relations" - as usually, you provide no explanations. Regardless, though I value our warm relations with Iran, our mental and cultural affinities have somehow faded with time and, your understanding of our past, present and "cultural/mental world/heritage" seems too narrow and based on your own world; in fact
1. At least, since Khorenatsi, some Armenians looked at the "West" and others at the "East"
2. For Armenians who lived for centuries in, for instance, Cilicia; countries like Italy, Greece or France were probably more present and important than Persia. Actually, based on the biography that we've considered, even Raffi - born in "Persia" - did not seem to care much for Persian culture and "mental/intellectual world?????"
3. For Armenians who lived in what became Soviet Armenia/Georgia, Russia probably mattered much more than Persia did

So what? what is the relevance between real History and some personal, individual preferences??

LOL What??? What "individual preferences?" So the history and past of the majority of Armenians is tantamount to "individual preferences" and "Lucin's community's" past - or to be more accurate, [b]"Lucin's perception of what is Armenian" [b] - is the "real History [of Armenia?]"
As self-centered - a form of narrow mindedness - and/or unintuitive as usual?

Nevertheless, my talk was- more or less- referred to pre-Islam Persia; thus Zoroastrianism era where the two peoples shared a common history, culture, religion, etc. If you haven't read Avesta, I strongly recommend you read the Holy book of Zoroastrians, you'll be amazed by many things in that book and understand more what I mean.

(And for the record, the Persian empire, for instance; The Achaemenids ruled over a large territory, from the Caucasus region - which it included - in the north, down to the Sea of Oman in the south, and from India in the east to the Adriatic Sea in the west.)

That's exactly why I said:
1. Our mental and cultural affinities have faded since
2. Even, when we were Zoroastrians or Mazdeans, many of us looked "West," not "East" - as suggested in Khorenatsi

In any case, how that affects foreign policy in the 21st century? How is that relevant?

As I have suggested in a different thread, you need to travel, get to know and understand the diversity of the Armenian Nation and broaden your horizons!

Even though I have been exposed to different peoples with different cultures I will travel more in the future; I'm still in my twenties and have a lot of time to do so... But in all seriousness, I suggest you stop being so ill-tempered.

Is the above another expression of your hypocrisy? As they say ""If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen."
I assure you that I said it in all calmness and, considering the reality, I was being polite. As a matter of fact, you have a very narrow minded view of life and the World, and you often seem to consider them as universal and tend to impose them upon others.

If you are aware that you're not exposed enough to the World - including the Armenian World - than shouldn't you be reminding it to yourself when you are so stubbornly assertive about issues that you ignore or poorly understand? (I can give examples, if you consider necessary.)
In any case, I don't know if individuals become necessarily much more exposed and much less narrow minded with age??? as, only few "travel" considerably beyond the limits of what they experience in their teens.

I'm sorry if it offends you, "but in all seriousness, I suggest you stop being so" hypocritical and accept the fact that some may call a spade a spade and put you in place when it seems adequate or necessary. I assure you that it's not a pleasant thing to do and I'd rather spend my time otherwise; unfortunately, at times, I feel it as necessary.
If it matters to you how you are perceived, then shouldn't you make more efforts to consider what you're told and dialogue - i.e. answer questions you're asked and base your replies on what is said in the text - in order to be perceived as more intuitive and less narrow minded?

[Կարմիր Բ]

Re: Sarkozy - Friend or Foe?

Discussions with fanatic ARF members is a waste of time indeed.

[Siamanto]

Re: Sarkozy - Friend or Foe?

Discussions with fanatic ARF members is a waste of time indeed.

I can't disagree with you; but, the forum needs to be informed. Also, otherwise, they may intensify their false propaganda and misinformation campaign: that's how they operate.

In any case, I don't know what is their problem with Sarkozy; but, I find amusing the fact that Sarkozy - because of his "brutal," anti-social and destabilizing ways and policies was the most "Dashnag" of all candidates - excluding Jean-Marie Le Pen, the other "Dashnag" among the presidential candidates.

[Կարմիր Բ]

Re: Sarkozy - Friend or Foe?

I find amusing the fact that Sarkozy - because of his "brutal," anti-social and destabilizing ways and policies was the most "Dashnag" of all candidates - excluding Jean-Marie Le Pen, the other "Dashnag" among the presidential candidates.

Exactly. Nominally they should actually love him.

Perhaps they were in favor of Segole Royal since they are both in the Socialist International.

[Siamanto]

Re: Sarkozy - Friend or Foe?

Exactly. Nominally they should actually love him.

Perhaps they were in favor of Segole Royal since they are both in the Socialist International.

I did not want to go there and I don't want to base the discussion on what is said below; but, since you asked:
1. Yes, they did support Ségolène Royal; but, considering that they hold the world record in political flip-flopping, they had plenty of time to flip-flop a couple of times since May/2007.

I am aware that the ARF is a member of The Socialist International; but, since I consider the blah blah that the Armenian Reactionary Forces is a Socialist organization as the joke of the century, I would not be surprised if their position was also (mainly???) determined by "internal" - i.e. Armenian - rivalries; in fact
1. Patrick Devedjian is a member of AGBU-Ramgavar
2. Alexis Govciyan is a member of the UDF
In other words, they were left with only one credible choice.




P.S.
By the way, the following made me laugh for days and I still can't resist smiling whenever I picture those mafioso Dashnag leaders reading or discussing Bakounine!!!!!

Jiraïr Shahigjian receives us in the newly renovated Dashnak HQ in Stepanakert...On the wall, a Dashnak flag...and white picture of the three foundators of the party...: the marxist C.Mikaelian, the populist R.Zarian and the bakuninist S.Zavarian.

The question is how and why the populist managed to dominate the party and replaced the Marxist with a Fascist and the Bakouninist with an opportunist???

[Lucin]

Re: Sarkozy - Friend or Foe?

Discussions with fanatic ARF members is a waste of time indeed.

I can't disagree with you; but, the forum needs to be informed. Also, otherwise, they may intensify their false propaganda and misinformation campaign: that's how they operate.

In any case, I don't know what is their problem with Sarkozy; but, I find amusing the fact that Sarkozy - because of his "brutal," anti-social and destabilizing ways and policies was the most "Dashnag" of all candidates - excluding Jean-Marie Le Pen, the other "Dashnag" among the presidential candidates.

Exactly. Nominally they should actually love him.

Perhaps they were in favor of Segole Royal since they are both in the Socialist International.

The thread is about Sarko...
Grow the hell up and stop your unhealthy obsessions. Our country has much more pressing issues to deal with than these childish party rants...

[Siamanto]

Re: Sarkozy - Friend or Foe?

The thread is about Sarko...
Grow the hell up and stop your unhealthy obsessions. Our country has much more pressing issues to deal with than these childish party rants...

It is amusing to see individuals who take every opportunity to orchestrate false party propaganda and bash other Armenian organizations, remind us of the futility of "childish party rants."

Just curious, is
1. Avenging the Armenian Reactionary Forces because their candidate lost the presidential elections
2. Obsessively bashing Sarkozy because he did not represent the ARF
Are the "much more pressing issues to deal with," for "our country?"
What a bunch of hypocrite and envious sore losers!

Please humor us a bit more, Miss Hypocrite!

[Armenian]

Re: Sarkozy - Friend or Foe?

For the record, I'm not an ARF party member and I don't think Lucin is either. Many, if not most, ARF party members are satisfied with Sarkozy's win although they would have prefered it if Royal won the elections. Nevertheless, watching the - he/she Siamanto the psychobabbler - and the - Bolshevik wannabe - at work here we see how fairy tales about the ARF is usually born

And Sarkozy may yet prove to be the worst leader France has had in modern times. Just MY opinion