Talk:Military of Armenia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Military of Armenia is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to better improve and organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.
WPMILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces...
 Russian and Soviet military history task force

Contents

[edit] NOTE: to the azerbaijani POV pusher

Your anti-Armenian POV will not be tolerated here, go someplace else if you can not behave like an adult.--Moosh88 21:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It is you who cannot behave like a adult, it is very easy to make up some information about militaries to make them look stronger, everybody can do that. But me must stay objectief, this is a infomational site not a propaganda site. Then you delete my reason for the edits in the talk page and claim I dont behave like an adult.

[edit] Incorrect information

Why did you deleted my previous comment, i was only refering to facts by the UN, nothing anti-armenian there. If you cant handle facts, thats your problem but you have no right to delete comments! If you delete my comment again I will report you!

This article contains incorrect information about the Armenian Military, here is why: In the UN site (located below) you can see that Armenia does not have those equipment which this article states (such as 700 armoured vehicles, 300 tanks, etc) http://disarmament2.un.org/UN_REGISTER.nsf

Here below you can see its equipments according to the UN, which can also be found at:

Battle tanks 110, Armoured combat vehicles 140, Large-calibre artillery systems 229, Combat aircraft 16, Attack helicopters 8, Warships - None, Missiles and missile launchers - None,

Source: http://disarmament2.un.org/UN_REGISTER.nsf/5cb8afbbb6536a298525647d00612b14/702eb92c82c28f4f8525703800786c6e?OpenDocument

Most information is not correct and not official, about the 'illigal Karabakh military', there are no sources confirming this information, please edit this or provide official sources.

You will be the one reported if you keep pushing your anti-Armenian ideology here. Even in your above comment, calling the army of the NKR illegal? That isn't a biased comment at all. And start putting your user name after your comments--Moosh88 18:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The website you gave me only provides information up to 2004, that's two years ago and thus many things have changed since then. I have posted my references and will continue to do so. If you read the article carefully it says "Under the Treaty on Conventional Arms in Europe, in 2001 Armenia declared 102 T-72 tanks, 72 heavy howitzers and 204 armored vehicles (most of them infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers). With the military hardware the Treaty on Conventional Arms in Europe does not apply to, Armenia has up to 700 armored vehicles. Thus Armenia is allowed to have those weapons and notice how it says up to 700, so that means it could be less than 700. Also I use many sources and not just one, whereas you seem to only use that one site which you gave me the link to and it happens to be not updated either.

Pay attention to the military of azerbaijan article and make sure you don't add anymore blatently POV edits, otherwise you will be reported.--Moosh88 18:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not being anti-Armenian, your being anti-Azeri, everything I say is anti-Armenian. You have to read and understand my arguments. Im trying to say that the NKR isnt regonized anywere in the world, not even by Armenia. Karabakh is formely Azerbaijan Republic territory, but they agreed its occupied territory aswell. So this makes a controlling goverment there 'illigal', formely speaking that is. And a illigal goverment cannot have a legal military. Thus this makes that military illigal, Im only talking formely here, because I think this should be based on the official facts.

Your arguments are not crediable, and now you're trying to call me anti-azeri just because I've shown how you have a POV agenda. It doesn't matter if anyone recognizes Karabagh, they still have a military and to them it is not illegal since they fought for their independence and won. Also, if you want to be offical why don't you edit the azerbaijan article and add that it is an autocracy run by a dictator?

My point is, quit trying to bring politically charged issues into Wikipedia, this is no place for POV pushers, this is an encyclopedia.--Moosh88 22:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Official Azerbaijan has a multi democracy goverment, this only shows your POV. Read my explanation below.

[edit] Before editing

Before any user makes a major edit to this article, you must first post your reason. As we have had POV pushers adding info that fits their view and taking out other info that they call "POV", I am forced to ask all users to follow this. If the problem continues, this article will be blocked from being edited.--Moosh88 08:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

"Armenia is prepared to mobilize every able-bodied man between the ages of 15 and 59, if Turkey or Azerbaijan should threaten it."

This is a speculation and definitely Armenian POV. Armenia is occupying Azeri territory, this is a fact declared by the UN, don't try to show Azeri demand for their lands as agression.

"...thus the armed forces of Armenia are the most powerful of the three Caucasian countries (the other two being Georgia and Azerbaijan)[citation needed]."

Once again Armenian POV. There are many aspects of deciding an army's strength and some of them are incalculable such as combat capabilities of officers and generals.

Also this:

"...several batteries of S-300 anti-aircraft missiles, which are capable of reaching Ankara and Baku."

This article looks like it was taken from a national security text prepared by Armenian Army. National security departments print texts such as these to ensure the citizens that they are safe. But this is Wikipedia, write necessary information, not propaganda. Give the range of missiles, not targets, what an ...

I am not making any changes, just putting a POV tag until these issues are addressed.--Kagan the Barbarian 08:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


Yes this is exacly what I mean and was trying to say Kagan, but they accuse me of being anti-armenian. The fact is Karabakh isnt regonized anywere in the world, not even by Armenia thus it makes their military an illigal military, this should be edited. They say my sources are not credible, since when are the CIA and UN not credicle sources? But instead armenian site such as are credible? This article contains a lot of POV:

armeniannow.com

Also I am reuquesting somebody to edit the saying:

"...several batteries of S-300 anti-aircraft missiles, which are capable of reaching Ankara and Baku."

This looks a lot like a threat, instead targets it would have distance those missiles can travel, not targets. This would be more informational.

S-300 can’t reach anything, they are antimissile rockets, i.e. they are intended to hit missiles, not ground targets. Grandmaster 18:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok I think we have enough evidence that this POV article, I dont want to edit cuz then this guy will come crying to me again. Also how can the Karabakh military be added to the Armenian military page? Karabakh isnt part of Armenia, its occupied by Armenia. By this the article almost supports to annex Karabakh to Armenia. I think the military of unregonized NKR should have its own page under unregonized militaries.

It look as if we got the entire pro azeri lobby attacking this page. Are you looking for me to go get the pro Armenian members here and have another useless wiki war because of a few lines that you claim are POV, yet the info you have on the military of azerbaijan page is POV as well, i.e. stateing that the azeri government is challenging the Armenian government by raising their military budget to $1 billion. I'm not crying foul on that, even though I could if I want, because it seems like an agressive statement, but I decided to be logical and thus not say anything; it's a fact of life for the citizens of Armenia and azerbaijan as well as Karabagh, war can start again. Don't sit there in front of you PC screens and tell me that it is POV for Armenians to think the azeri's and turks are their enemies, the opposite is true and was proven earlier this year when an innocent Armenian soldier was murdered in cold blood by an azeri soldier, while they were serving with a NATO program.

And if the UN is to be the ulitmate arbitar, well then quit debating the Armenian Genocide, cause they UN said that happened. The info baku87 used from the UN site is atleast 2-3 years old, it's not current. The info I used was from Armenian, Russian, American and European sources, which are more current than the UN site baku87 used.--Moosh88 19:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Moosh88, this article says "Bring it on, homey", "We can bitchslap youse guys capitals, how do you like that huh?", "We are the best in the Caucasus, baby, dig that?" etc, childish non-sense like that. But Military of Azerbaijan article needs editing as well. If both parties accept this then we can start making some progress for NPoV.--Kagan the Barbarian 22:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
S-300 can’t reach anything, they are antimissile rockets, i.e. they are intended to hit missiles, not ground targets. Grandmaster 18:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster the S300 "Grumble" is a long range surface-to-air anti-aircraft battery platform. One version of the S300 is the PMU model which is designed for anti-missile defense.

From FAS:

The S-300PMU [SA-10 land-based, SA-N-6 naval version] surface-to-air missile system is able to engage a number of targets simultaneously, countering intensive aircraft raids at low-to-high altitude. The SA-10 offers significant advantages over older strategic surface-to-air missile systems, including multitarget handling and engagement characteristics, a capability against low altitude targets with small radar cross-sections such as cruise missiles, a capability against tactical ballistic missiles, and possibly a potential to intercept some types of strategic ballistic missiles. [1]

So it plays a dual role, both countering strategic missile launches and aircraft. There's nothing POV or not factual in it. Azerbaijan has vowed to take by territory and Turkey has more subtly agreed to help them via logistics, specialists, ect. There has been speculation Turkey might even invade Turkey by some sources but there is nothing wrong with including the hostile countries surrounding Armenia.--MarshallBagramyan 20:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you haven't read the article Bagramyan. It suggests ground targets (Ankara, Baku) for S-300. Anyway, from what I see in both Military of Armenia and Military of Azerbaijan articles, both parties are trying to intimidate each other on paper with their military power. I think we need users with good faith to edit the both articles to NPoV.
As for this:
"Azerbaijan has vowed to take by territory and Turkey has more subtly agreed to help them via logistics, specialists, ect. There has been speculation Turkey might even invade Turkey by some sources but there is nothing wrong with including the hostile countries surrounding Armenia."
You are trying to divert the subject with speculations, from the truth that is Armenia is occupying Azeri territory and this article is Armenian POV.--Kagan the Barbarian 22:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The real truth is that you (kagan) are trying to push your turkish POV on wikipedia, by reading your user page and talk page, one can see what your motivations really are. And if Armenia is occupying azeri territory, then turkey is occypying Armenian territory.

You and people like you will not intimidate us from posting the truth.--Moosh88 00:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Show me one article where I pushed Turkish POV and I'll edit it. What I am saying in my user page is there are Armenians, Greeks such as you who push their POV on articles, including Turks related topics, and I am going to counter them whever I see them for the sake of NPoV.
Once again you are diverting the subject. Turkey's borders are internationally recognized, Karabagh is not.
You can spot the PPoVs in the Military of Azerbaijan article but not in this one? Let me edit both articles and if you think it is not NPoV then we discuss until we reach common ground.--Kagan the Barbarian 08:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I added the POV tag on the Military of Azerbaijan page as well to show my honest intention. I don't have the time right now to determine the sentences that lack NPoV in the article. You tell me what you find Azeri POV in the article and we discuss it later. Laters--Kagan the Barbarian 08:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

For example in the Armenian Legion article you wanted to put a POV tag, on your talk page you told another user to watch who he/she works with. It seems as if you think this is some battle ground and that the enemies of turkey are out to get you and yours.

You know what else is internationaly recognized... the Armenian Genocide, so why do we still have some people that want to debate whether it happened or not?

I will edit this article, you can work on the military of azerbaijan article.--Moosh88 17:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

What are you trying to say Moosh88 that Karabakh is part of Armenia? Karabakh is occupied by Armenia and not regonized by any country in the world and that includes Armenia. But Turkey its borders are regonized by all countries including Armenia.

First off, Karabagh is not occupied by anyone, it belongs to the Armenians of Karabagh, second, Armenia recognizes the borders set up by the Treaty of Sevres, which is not the border that is currently in place.--Moosh88 19:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Moosh88 please stop talking nonesense be realistic when we are debating. Karabakh is internationally regonized lands of Azerbaijan Republic ands its occupied by Armenia. You cannot possibly start to deny this, its nonesense. This all just your opinion, but we are debating in general nodboy is really interessed in opinions. Baku87 13:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Baku87

For the last time, Armenia is not occupying Karabagh, the war was fought between Karabagh and Azerbaijan, then Armenia joined. The forces guarding Karabagh are Armenians that live there, not Armenians from Armenia, although the two militaries are deeply integrated.

If you don't have anything related to the article then quit posting here.--Moosh88 20:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

What you are saying doesnt make any sense. You are denying the 20% occupation of Azeri lands by Armenia. According to the CIA:
http://cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/am.html#Issues
Armenia supports ethnic Armenian secessionists in Nagorno-Karabakh and since the early 1990s, has militarily occupied 16% of Azerbaijan
This says more then enough about the occupation of Azeri lands by Armenia. Baku87 00:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Baku87

You keep rehashing this over and over again. We don't agree with one another and that is that, what is the point of keeping this discussion going? It has nothing to do with this article, so I'm going to drop it and I suggest you do too.--Moosh88 05:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Your are right about the fact that this discussion has little to do with the article, but Im just discussing it, nothing special. Its not about your opinion or mine opinion, whether you like it or not 20% of Azerbaijan is occupied by Armenia, you dont have to agree but get the facts straight. Baku87 15:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Baku87

If you really take in the calculations, the number is more close to 13-14%, even De Waal coorects this. The CIA is just quoting the oft-repeated number by the Azerbaijani government. The Karabakh committee voted to secede from Azerbaijan in 1988 in accordance to the Soviet constitution. Armenians were the dominant majority in the 1920s when the Kavburo under the watchful of Stalin sliced up the Caucasus and handed over parts of Armenia to Azerbaijani ownership. The land never truly belonged to Azerbaijan but was given in order to galvanize ethnic strife between the two and have Russia play the mediator and manipulate the two. After 70 years, the world still thinks that Armenia took back this land arbitrarily.

Take a look at the map of Armenia and Azerbaijan, does it look normal or unusual to you, especially seeing Nachicevan completely landlocked by Armenia though still belonging to Azerbaijan. --MarshallBagramyan 19:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I have my facts straight, trust me. There is no point in keeping this discussion going, you have your opinions and I have mine, facts can and are often manupilated.--Moosh88 20:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

First off Marshall your opinion on Karabakh is off topic to this discussion, we are neither talking about Stalin or Nakhchivan. Karabakh was never giving to Azerbaijan by Stalin, because it already was part of Azerbaijan in the ADR. You have your side of the story and we have ours, discuss that in a different article. Im not really interessed in how much percentage is occupied by Armenians (eventhough its official 18%). We are discussing the fact that Azerbaycan is occupied by Armenia and Moosh is denying this fact, Im glad you accept it. I just made a little change to this article about the Russian Air Force base. The Russian aircrafts should be in the Russian base sector. Baku87 18:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Baku87

Marshall's opinion is right on, everything he said is true, there is the real version (Armenian), and then there is the fake version yours. I have asked you twice not to continue this pointless argument and yet you continue. Also, your edit for the article was not needed. The dispute has been settled concerning this article, so leave it alone.--Moosh88 19:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Like you said yourself its just an opinion, and opinion are neither true nor false. Since you like to be so anti-Azeri I will use more stronger words for you. The Armenian side is the false on, you are the one who is denying the 20% occupation of Azerbaijan Republic lands by Armenia. Just getting the facts straight. I edited the fact that Armenia does nor reply on the Russian aircrafts, those are in property of the Russian base not Armenia.Baku87 00:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Baku87

I guess you don't understand very well. If you continue with your POV pushing, in short time you will be banned. I'm tired of dealing with you, when all you want to do is argue.--Moosh88 01:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I have been scrolling through and quite frankly am shocked by the level of subjective impartiallity being shown. There is talk about a genocide un-proven Internationally. Then talk about the Treaty of Sevres, please, many Brittish servicemen died for that idiotic attempt to partician land into economic parcels. It was a mistake on our behalf, the war was lost, the Turkish Republic drew up the Treaty of Lausanne, which is internationally accepted. It's like my claiming that the Brittish should be able to rule Canada, Australlia etc because they were once a part of the Brittish Empire. Treaty of Sevres is an obsolete treaty, it cannot be used as any sort of evidence as it has no relation to todays world.

There is Azerbaycan land which is Illegally occupied, there is no getting around this fact, lets get to the realities. That Baku guy gave Official Sources, I have read them and they are credible, whereas, everything else has been subjective speculation.

Try to keep it objective and keep Nationalist chauvanism out of the equation. johnstevens5

And you think Azeris aren't nationalistic and bellicose? It isn't Armenia who is constantly taunting another country by renewing a conflict again. Look, I know you are an Azeri so its natural to support your side just like how Moosh and I support the Armenian side of the argument. I appreciate your input but it irks me when you come here and attempt to portray yourself as impartial observer on the article, citing the Armenians for doing x and y.
Baku just cited the CIA website on a number which is often repeated by the Azeri government but wholly inaccurate. I'll give the official statistics on how much land the Armenians are onbut the number is much closer to 13% than it is to 18%.
And welcome, enjoy your stay on Wikipedia.--MarshallBagramyan 03:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Once more you are a Armenians supporting the NKR, if you going to claim thats the occupied areas are 13% and not 20% (or 18%) then please provide us with your international and neutral sources Baku87 16:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Baku87

[edit] re-Focus

Let's please keep the polemics to user talk pages. If someone wishes to facilitate a discussion on theirs, about the Azeri-Armenian conflict, about convenient villains, about chauvinism and nationalism in general, or about how one day (though perhaps not in our lifetimes), all these needless, irrational conflicts that plague humankind will seem like a bad dream, well, in that event, I would be more than happy to participate (just drop me a note). But this talk page concerns the Military of Armenia. Not the Military of Armenia in the abstract, but as pertaining to this article. The above conversation is, thus, largely a misuse of this talk page. Now, I've made quite a few changes to both the Military of Armenia and Military of Azerbaijan articles, including hidden comments only viewable upon editing. Please review my (and any other) changes, and the article/s in its entirety, and propose or implement directly any changes as you see fit. But please restrict this talk page for these purposes. Thanks. El_C 11:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you El C, please keep monitoring this talk page.--Moosh88 01:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should be expanded

I think that this article should be expanded (look at how long the Azerbaijan military article is!). -- Clevelander 23:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems

I would like to find some information about the situation of the recrutes. I know that many young Armenians would like not to serve in the army. Never the less, I got the impression that the situation (the problems with Dedovshchina in particular) is better than in Russia or Azärbaycan. Is this true? --Ulf-S. 11:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/l/Talk%7EMilitary_of_Armenia_6855.html"