wrote in response to article <30975@galaxy.ucr.edu>, raffi@watnxt08.ucr.edu 

[IC] There are some Armenians here, in the USA.
[IC] In fact, there are some areas where Armenians are majority.
[IC] Suppose, a large group of people of one of such area decides,
[IC] that the US "government is not representing their interests, and vote for
[IC] seperation" from the USA.

The Armenians you refer to have chosen to come to the United States lawfully 
and peacefully. However, if Armenians invade the United States and force
Americans to either flee or become Armenians, it will not succeed. Similarly,
the Armenians of Karabakh are being forced by Azerbaijan to either become 
Azeris or leave, and it also will not succeed, as has been demonstrated. 

Karabakh, irrespective of its geographic position situated technically within
the Stalin-prepared borders of Azerbaijan, has been long oppressed and 
eventually was invaded in 1991 by Azeri OMON and Soviet forces, resulting in 
the northern third of this Armenian area being depopulated of Armenians. The 
Armenians have been fighting back ever since. 

Clearly, you feel it rather ridiculous for Armenians, of let's say Glendale, 
California, to engage in an independence movement for a free and independent
Glendale. Similarly, the Azerbaijanis are engaging in a losing attempt at
claiming sovereignty over the land and people of Karabakh, who have lived
continuously in Karabakh a thousand years before the first Central Asian 
invaders ever stepped foot in the Caucasus. 

[IC] Should they get it? 
[IC] And should the UN enforce their will?
[IC] And is it a simple, beautiful concept, indeed?

Your analogy has broken down because you have switched positions of the victim
and invader. A better analogy would be the direct parallel between Armenians 
of Karabakh and Native Americans. Now, if you wish, we can discuss the tenets 
of might versus right and the policies of settler nations!

