Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Reply To Thread

On the Armenian GenocideFollow

#1 Oct 10 2007 at 11:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Back in the early 20th Century, Turkey (then the Ottoman Empire) embarked upon a systematic program to kill or displace Armenians within its borders. By the end, around two million Armenians were killed and another half million or so were forced out as refugees. It's widely considered to be the first modern genocide. Hitler referenced it prior to World War II, asking "Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?"

In that vein, the Republic of Turkey has historically refused to acknowledge the event as a genocide. They contend that there was no government program in place to kill the Armenians and that the Armenians died of famine, battle fatalities in World War I, the results of pockets of other conflicts, etc. You can follow the links if you're really interested.

Back in January, and just now coming before the House Foreign Relations Committee is a bill which states (in part):
House Resolution 106 wrote:
Calling upon the President to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented in the United States record relating to the Armenian Genocide, and for other purposes.
[...]
The House of Representatives--

(1) calls upon the President to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented in the United States record relating to the Armenian Genocide and the consequences of the failure to realize a just resolution; and

(2) calls upon the President in the President's annual message commemorating the Armenian Genocide issued on or about April 24, to accurately characterize the systematic and deliberate annihilation of 1,500,000 Armenians as genocide and to recall the proud history of United States intervention in opposition to the Armenian Genocide.
The bill isn't a piece of legislature and can't properly be vetoed since it's merely Congress affirming that Bush should do these things and isn't binding.

Bush has been asking the House not to pass the bill. Or for it to even come before the full House. Not because Bush disagrees with it but because he fears that Turkey will retaliate since the Turkish government is very opposed to being told by the US that it was, indeed, a genocide. Turkey is a NATO member and major traffic point for the US to move supplies, fuel and equipment into Iraq. Bush, Rice & Gates have all warned that Turkey may make things difficult should the House pass the resolution.

Currently, the House Democrats still intend to present the bill before the House. Should they?
Should HR 106 come before the House?
Yes, the government should make a formal statement regarding Turkey's part in the genocide:12 (19.4%)
Yes, because backing down now is blackmail by Turkey:7 (11.3%)
No, the foreign relations risks aren't worth stating what most of the world acknowledges anyway:26 (41.9%)
No, the event is old news and not worth digging back up:17 (27.4%)
Total:62


Edited, Oct 11th 2007 1:28am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2 Oct 10 2007 at 11:40 AM Rating: Good
***
3,128 posts
I have only met one real Armenian in my life and she was a girl I knew in college, who was both drop dead gorgeous and exoctic. The fact that more like her were denied to the world because of the actions of the Turks really does **** me off. I do want and wish for nations responsible for past genocides to pay for the crimes. However, this may not be the best time to do so, in the case of Turkey, with the situation in the mideast.
____________________________
©
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -Henry Louis Mencken

"Ha! I laugh at danger and drop ice cubes down the vest of fear." - Blackadder
#3 Oct 10 2007 at 11:42 AM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,518 posts
As a white man, I feel duty bound to personally apologise to the suffragettes Smiley: oyvey

History - leave it there
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#4 Oct 10 2007 at 11:48 AM Rating: Decent
*****
10,755 posts
King Nobby wrote:
As a white man American, I feel duty bound to personally apologise to the suffragettes Smiley: oyvey

History - leave it there


The cross that you must bear. Ultimately, it's our fault somehow and up to us to make it right.

This is a waste of legislature, in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it designed to further demean Bush, either he refuses to acknowledge a known fact and something sensitive to Americans, or he approves and drives a nail into the Iraq war conflict.

Is anyone surprised at this amazingly productive Dem congress?
____________________________
I will go to the animal shelter and get you a kitty-cat. I will let you fall in love with that kitty-cat. And then, on some dark, cold night, I will steal away into your home, and PUNCH YOU IN THE FACE.

#5 Oct 10 2007 at 11:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,911 posts
Those who remember history are doomed to comemmorate it.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#6 Oct 10 2007 at 11:53 AM Rating: Decent
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
They should get right on that, and also start bugging Japan about the rape of Nanking. While they are on it they can apologize to Chile for supporting Pinochet, they also have to act on the resolution to apologize for the trail of tears that was put up in 2004 by Brownback.

Considering that Turkey is already ****** about Kurdish rebels coming across the border from Iraq now might not be a good time for high minded ideals.
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#7 Oct 10 2007 at 11:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Archfiend bodhisattva wrote:
They should get right on that, and also start bugging Japan about the rape of Nanking.
We did recently pass a resolution calling upon Japan to acknowledge their use of "comfort women" during the Second World War.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#8 Oct 10 2007 at 11:56 AM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,518 posts
Am I ashamed of what Britain did to the Boers in S.A. in the 1900 war? Of course.
Same as the shame of slavery, massacre of native americans, decimation of the rainforests, Rod Stweart etc etc.

To use the legislature to cry a river sounds a bit pansy to be honest.
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#9 Oct 10 2007 at 11:59 AM Rating: Good
*****
10,755 posts
Lest us all not forget the Death of Numbers tragedy in '06-'07. God help the person who tries to tackle that ugly point in history.
____________________________
I will go to the animal shelter and get you a kitty-cat. I will let you fall in love with that kitty-cat. And then, on some dark, cold night, I will steal away into your home, and PUNCH YOU IN THE FACE.

#10 Oct 10 2007 at 12:26 PM Rating: Good
History! Its a thing of the past......
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#11 Oct 10 2007 at 12:36 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,789 posts
Kim Kardashian, my current celebrity girl crush, is Armenian.
#12 Oct 10 2007 at 12:43 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,518 posts
Thumbelyna Quick Hands wrote:
Kim Kardashian, my current celebrity girl crush, is Armenian.
Have her scrubbed and sent to my chamber
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#13 Oct 10 2007 at 1:22 PM Rating: Good
Wow. Smiley: jawdrop


____________________________
Some people are like slinkies, they aren't really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
#14 Oct 10 2007 at 1:27 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,755 posts
King Nobby wrote:
Thumbelyna Quick Hands wrote:
Kim Kardashian, my current celebrity girl crush, is Armenian.
Have her scrubbed, shaved and sent to my chamber
____________________________
I will go to the animal shelter and get you a kitty-cat. I will let you fall in love with that kitty-cat. And then, on some dark, cold night, I will steal away into your home, and PUNCH YOU IN THE FACE.

#15 Oct 10 2007 at 2:22 PM Rating: Good
In France, it's actually illegal to deny two genocides: The Holocaust and the Armenian genocide.

It's a bit crazy, and when they passed the Armenian law in 2002, it was a clear political middle finger to Turkey. It's slightly explained by the fact we also have a large population of exiled Amrenians, more than of, say, native indians.

As for the commemoration, it's a heavy political price to pay for not much benefit. It'll **** off Turkey a lot more than it will warm the hearts of exiled Armenians. I wouldn't mind if it did go through though, Turkey's attempt to deny their genocide is not a great exemple to set to other nations, and is something we have to fight against, in some ways.

NephthysWanderer the Charming wrote:
King Nobby wrote:
Thumbelyna Quick Hands wrote:
Kim Kardashian, my current celebrity girl crush, is Armenian.
Have her scrubbed, shaved and sent to my chamber


Her *** tape was quite nice, too Smiley: sly
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#16 Oct 10 2007 at 2:35 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,518 posts
Monsieur RedPhoenixxx wrote:
Turkey's attempt to deny their genocide is not a great exemple to set to other nations, and is something we have to fight against, in some ways.
Turkey in 2007 is a long way from Ataturk's Ottoman debacle, same as GW Bush is a long way from the slave traders of the 1800's.

I may be wrong, but my understanding is that part of Turkey's recent attempts to avoid islamist overthrow is to refuse to discuss the genocide; not to deny it.

It's arguably a technical distinction, but I've equated it with an attempt to draw a line under the past, not to reinvent it.
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#17 Oct 10 2007 at 2:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
In your opinion, should Turkey's admission (or refusal thereof) of the Armenian Genocide be an item of interest before Turkey is admitted* to the European Union?


*I know they desire admission; I won't claim knowledge of how likely their membership is due to many more important concerns
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#18 Oct 10 2007 at 2:47 PM Rating: Good
King Nobby wrote:
Turkey in 2007 is a long way from Ataturk's Ottoman debacle, same as GW Bush is a long way from the slave traders of the 1800's.


Totally, which is even more so a reason to just admit the **** thing. No one's really gonna equate that genocide with modern Turkey. It should just be about historical honesty.

Quote:
It's arguably a technical distinction, but I've equated it with an attempt to draw a line under the past, not to reinvent it.


Maybe.

I do think that despite the apparent sillyness of our present government apologising for slavery or genocides, at least they're coming clean with the past. When the French state finally recognised the role many French people played in actively supporting the occupation, it did mean something.

I have some Greek and Turkish friends, and when you listen to them talk separately about the many Ottoman-Greek conflicts, it seems like two completely different histories, where both are the sole victim each time.

Apart from calming the Islamic guys, and a sense of misplaced national pride, recognising the genocide would also mean opening some form of compensation lawsuits or demands. They are quite reluctant to have to deal with that.

Having said that, I'm not sure this particular law would not make a huge difference either way, and it would certainly antagonise Turkey.

____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#19 Oct 10 2007 at 2:50 PM Rating: Good
Jophiel wrote:
In your opinion, should Turkey's admission (or refusal thereof) of the Armenian Genocide be an item of interest before Turkey is admitted* to the European Union?


It would be an item of interest for sure, but not a sine qua non condition to entry.

I'm sure if the turks compromised on Cyprus, relaxed their penal code, made peace with their Kurds and left secularism in place, the public recognition of the genocide could be swept under the rug.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#20 Oct 10 2007 at 3:00 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,518 posts
Jophiel wrote:
In your opinion, should Turkey's admission (or refusal thereof) of the Armenian Genocide be an item of interest before Turkey is admitted* to the European Union?


*I know they desire admission; I won't claim knowledge of how likely their membership is due to many more important concerns
No.

Standard conditions:

Open democracy.
Current human rights standards.
Stable economy.

If they hit all those marks, Bring 'em in.
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#21 Oct 10 2007 at 3:01 PM Rating: Decent
**
903 posts
It's pretty clear Congress' ulterior motive here is to set Bush up or otherwise use the Aremenian Genocide against him in some way. Even in their own Resolution here, it's noted that in 2004 he did acknowledge and condemn the Genocide.

House Resolution 106 wrote:
(29) President George W. Bush, on April 24, 2004, stated: `On this day, we pause in remembrance of one of the most horrible tragedies of the 20th century, the annihilation of as many as 1,500,000 Armenians through forced exile and murder at the end of the Ottoman Empire.'.

...

(2) calls upon the President in the President's annual message commemorating the Armenian Genocide issued on or about April 24, to accurately characterize the systematic and deliberate annihilation of 1,500,000 Armenians as genocide and to recall the proud history of United States intervention in opposition to the Armenian Genocide.


1. He already did
2. If he does so again it's entirely up to him
3. As 1 and 2 are patently obvious, there's no reason for Congress to single him out here, when they could simpy be passing this Resolution as their own statement

I think the best thing Bush could do (if possible) is veto it, AND write an executive order that copies the entire Resolution except it "calls upon Congress to..." do everything they called upon him to do. Stoop to their level and mock them by it.

I hate Bush but this is just a silly bill and silly idea, and tantamount to a schoolyard fight. Real 5th grade stuff here.

edit: added resolution part in quote

Edited, Oct 10th 2007 7:05pm by Palpitus
#22 Oct 10 2007 at 3:06 PM Rating: Decent
**
903 posts
Oh, I see now they're caught up on the description including the word "genocide". Still schoolyard stuff meant to give Bush grief.
#23 Oct 10 2007 at 3:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Palpitus wrote:
I think the best thing Bush could do (if possible) is veto it, AND write an executive order that copies the entire Resolution except it "calls upon Congress to..." do everything they called upon him to do.
Well, it's a resolution so it doesn't actually go to Bush to be signed/vetoed. There's nothing to veto anyway; the resolution passing means "Congress agreed that Bush should do this". You can't veto that and change it to "Congress didn't agree..."

I'd argue that, by passing the Resolution, Congress de facto states that it was a genocide and should be viewed as such. An Executive Order asking Congress to do so after the resolution would just be wasting paper.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#24 Oct 10 2007 at 3:28 PM Rating: Decent
**
903 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Well, it's a resolution so it doesn't actually go to Bush to be signed/vetoed. There's nothing to veto anyway; the resolution passing means "Congress agreed that Bush should do this". You can't veto that and change it to "Congress didn't agree..."

I'd argue that, by passing the Resolution, Congress de facto states that it was a genocide and should be viewed as such. An Executive Order asking Congress to do so after the resolution would just be wasting paper.


Thanks, nonbinding resolutions have never made sense to me, in form or substance. Don't see what good they do that Congresspeople simply talking to their constituents isn't capable of. 536 people being informed of something they informed theirselves of seems less effective than 536 people informing 300 million via an ad spot or mailer. Only thing different it does is go in the record, which again is not read through by common Americans.

They do de facto state that, but why not just leave it at that? Bush's 2004 statement could be considered a de facto recognition of the massacre as a genocide. I just think they're playing gotcha games, particularly as it seems that's what Congress has been spending 50% of their time on since the turnover to Democrat majority. It seems less a foreign policy matter than a George W. Bush matter.

And I'm getting sick of Congress picking on Bush as a flea picks on a dog, especially since they didn't have the balls to stop funding Iraq ultimatum style. They seem big on teeny grade school **** like this but small on actual change in policy using their real powers.
#25 Oct 10 2007 at 4:14 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I'd argue that, by passing the Resolution, Congress de facto states that it was a genocide and should be viewed as such. An Executive Order asking Congress to do so after the resolution would just be wasting paper.



And that's the part that kinda bothers me the most about this. There's nothing preventing Congress all on it's own to make a finding on this matter. Congress does that all the time. Nothing wrong or unusual about it.

What's strange is the way it's phrased. It's not enough for Congress to simply declare that it was genocide, but they insist that the President must state it in his address? Um... Why?

My concern is that this has very little to do with recognizing a horrible period of time (nearly a century past), and a whole lot with deliberately straining relations between the current state of Turkey and the US president. And I've got to wonder what the agenda is here.

The current state of Turkey is not the same government as the Ottoman Empire during which those atrocities were committed. So while there's some value to recognizing it, I'm not sure what value there is in pushing the issue. If I were to put on the ol tinfoil hat, I'd guess that Dems in Congress want to put Bush in yet another position where he knows he can't do what they demand (cause it'll only serve to **** off Turkey), but if he doesn't their Liberal buddies at Moveon and other organizations can point to the fact that Bush refuses to recognize this genocide as some sort of horrible action on his part, and how could he hate those poor Armenians, etc, etc, etc...


Which I suppose is just more of the same.

Edited, Oct 10th 2007 5:15pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#26 Oct 10 2007 at 4:37 PM Rating: Default
****
4,902 posts
If the US KNOWS that Armenia suffered these travesties then it should as a tribute to the dead admit that it happened and pass this legislature. These people died in a horrible way for a horrible reason and their memories should be honored not disgraced simply because Bush doesn't want to risk more embarrassments.
____________________________
DRG FAQ
#27 Oct 10 2007 at 4:56 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
Master ketrel wrote:
If the US KNOWS that Armenia suffered these travesties then it should as a tribute to the dead admit that it happened and pass this legislature. These people died in a horrible way for a horrible reason and their memories should be honored not disgraced simply because Bush doesn't want to risk more embarrassments.


And that's exactly how they want you to respond. Thanks for playing!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#28 Oct 10 2007 at 5:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
What's strange is the way it's phrased. It's not enough for Congress to simply declare that it was genocide, but they insist that the President must state it in his address? Um... Why?
Because the president, by in large, directs foreign policy in the United States and the bills starts with "Calling upon the President to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity..."
Quote:
I'd guess that Dems in Congress want to put Bush in yet another position where he knows he can't do what they demand
Well, by my rough count, 25% of the bills cosponsors are Republican so I don't think it's a real stretch to consider the bill bipartisan. Or at least it's certainly not purely a Democratic endeavor.

Myself, I think that the intent of the bill is a good one although I question the timing and think this probably isn't the best time for it. On the other hand, I don't believe that consequences would be as dire as Bush foretells. It's a shame that we have to set aside doing the "right thing" for practical concerns but I suppose that's politics for you.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#29 Oct 10 2007 at 6:00 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Because the president, by in large, directs foreign policy in the United States and the bills starts with "Calling upon the President to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity..."


What foreign policy? I'm sorry. Does GW Bush have a time machine in which he can apply his foreign policy to a nation that ceased to exist about 85 years ago?

This can't have anything to do with foreign policy unless it's intended to be directed at an existing state with which we have relations. Congress is free to pass resolutions making statements about past events and what not, but to argue that the presidents "foreign policy" (present tense) should somehow reflect appropriately on something that happened 85 years ago and was done by a state that no longer exists?


You honestly don't see the blatant political angle here?


They know that Bush likely wont do what they demand because it would imply that the current state of Turkey must somehow be responsible for what the Ottoman's did back during WW1. Since they know that, they know that his refusal to do this will be viewed by most people as Bush being somehow insensitive to the plight of the Armenians.

Which is *exactly* what is happening. How many posters on this board had even heard of this event prior to this? Yet somehow we're supposed to demand that Bush comply with Congress on this now?

What part of this isn't obviously designed to provoke exactly that response? I thought it was obvious. I honestly didn't expect the very first response to my post to confirm exactly what I was saying (cause it was a bit tinfoilhattish), but violla! That's exactly what happened. I suggest that Congress wants to do this so as to make Bush look like a bad guy if he doesn't comply, and magically people start saying that if Bush doesn't comply, he's a bad guy...

Amazing!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#30 Oct 10 2007 at 6:04 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
Seriously guys. Don't you at least find this exchange funny:

gbaji wrote:
... if he doesn't their Liberal buddies at Moveon and other organizations can point to the fact that Bush refuses to recognize this genocide as some sort of horrible action on his part, and how could he hate those poor Armenians, etc, etc, etc...


Followed immediately by:

Masterketrel wrote:
These people died in a horrible way for a horrible reason and their memories should be honored not disgraced simply because Bush doesn't want to risk more embarrassments.



It's almost like I can see the future! How predictable are the Libs these days?

Or... How gullible are people in general?...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#31 Oct 10 2007 at 6:48 PM Rating: Default
****
4,902 posts
Quote:
Quote:
If the US KNOWS that Armenia suffered these travesties then it should as a tribute to the dead admit that it happened and pass this legislature. These people died in a horrible way for a horrible reason and their memories should be honored not disgraced simply because Bush doesn't want to risk more embarrassments.



And that's exactly how they want you to respond. Thanks for playing!


Its more of thats how my family would want me to respond. Most of them were whiped out in Germany so yea nice try.
____________________________
DRG FAQ
#32 Oct 10 2007 at 7:56 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
Except that IMO Congress doesn't really care about which precise words Bush uses to describe the event in question. They just know that calling it "genocide" will raise problems internationally with one of our closest allies in a region in which we really need close allies.

They're calling for it purely because they know that he'll be reluctant to do it, meaning they can hype up that reluctance and imply that somehow this means that he cares less about some people who died 85 years ago then they do.

It's false. You do see that right? They care about this only to the extent that they can use it as a political weapon.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#33 Oct 10 2007 at 8:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Quote:
How many posters on this board had even heard of this event prior to this?

You do realize you just channeled Hitler, right? Smiley: laugh



Joph wrote:
Hitler referenced it prior to World War II, asking "Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?"
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#34 Oct 10 2007 at 8:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
What foreign policy? I'm sorry. Does GW Bush have a time machine in which he can apply his foreign policy to a nation that ceased to exist about 85 years ago?
Wow, did you miss the point... Smiley: laugh

The point is to call a spade a spade rather than dancing around it and trying to come up with nice ways of describing a genocide which don't offend our neighbors. Given that "genocide" has a specific meaning and political connotation, I think that, yeah, the word does matter. I also think that being afraid to call it exactly what it was because some other guys might get mad when you tell the truth about their great-grandfathers is kind of shameful although, sadly, that'd probably the way it's got to be right now.
Quote:
it would imply that the current state of Turkey must somehow be responsible for what the Ottoman's did back during WW1.
Erm, it wasn't the Ottoman Empire doing it (this time, anyway). It was the Young Turk revolutionaries, who paved the way to the modern Republic, who committed it. Ataturk came out from the ranks of the Young Turks. I'm not saying that modern Turkey committed the acts but it's more like admitting that the "founding fathers" of the nation committed them.

In any event, it's a silly claim to make that admitting to a past wrong "implies" that the current government is responsible. People are able to separate modern Germany from the **** regime and its associated horrors. We can separate modern Japan from the acts of the one under the Emperor. We can separate modern Italy from the acts which occured under Mussolini. All of those happened more recently than the Armenian genocide did.
Quote:
How predictable are the Libs these days?
Realizing, of course, that you have no idea what Masterketrel's politics are or how he generally aligns himself or even if he aligns himself politically and instead jumping on his comment to cry about mean ole liberals.

Speaking of predictable...

Edited, Oct 11th 2007 1:44am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#35 Oct 10 2007 at 11:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The media wrote:
WASHINGTON (AP) — A U.S. congressional panel defied President Bush on Wednesday and approved a measure that he said would damage U.S. goals in the Middle East.

The measure that would recognize the World War I-era killings of Armenians as a genocide had been strongly opposed by Turkey, a key NATO ally that has supported U.S. efforts in Iraq.

The House Foreign Affairs Committee's 27-21 vote now sends the measure to the House floor — unless the Democratic leadership reverses course and heeds Bush's warnings.

At issue is the killing of up to 1.5 million Armenians by Ottoman Turks around the time of World War I. Turkey denies that the deaths constituted genocide, says the toll has been inflated and insists that those killed were victims of civil war and unrest.

Bush and other senior officials had made a last-minute push to persuade lawmakers on the Foreign Affairs Committee to reject the measure.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#36 Oct 11 2007 at 1:02 AM Rating: Good
Master ketrel wrote:
Its more of thats how my family would want me to respond. Most of them were whiped out in Germany so yea nice try.


Hence the German sheperd in your avatar?

I say that but, seriously, I absolutely LOVE German sheperds. My gand-dad used to have 3 in the South of France, and having grown up with them I can safely say they are the coolest dogs in the world. I spend more time staring at your avatar then I do reading your posts, which is probably a good thing, really.

____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#37 Oct 11 2007 at 2:37 AM Rating: Good
YAY! Canaduhian
*****
10,289 posts
Master ketrel wrote:
If the US KNOWS that Armenia suffered these travesties then it should as a tribute to the dead admit that it happened and pass this legislature. These people died in a horrible way for a horrible reason and their memories should be honored not disgraced simply because Bush doesn't want to risk more embarrassments.


Oh, if it's a tribute we need then you can't go wrong with some sort of outdoor rock concert.
____________________________
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
#38 Oct 11 2007 at 2:57 AM Rating: Good
Princess Tare wrote:
Oh, if it's a tribute we need then you can't go wrong with some sort of outdoor rock concert.


As long as Kim Kardashian is the headline act for Armeni-Aid, I'm all up for it!


And then the Black Eye Peas can introduce the acts and sing:

There's a genocide in Armenia,
People got killed, that's the criteria!
The time is right for nostalgia,
So make some noise, here come La Toya!"

____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#39 Oct 11 2007 at 3:24 AM Rating: Excellent
YAY! Canaduhian
*****
10,289 posts
Monsieur RedPhoenixxx wrote:
Armeni-Aid


Aidmenia, if you please.
____________________________
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
#40 Oct 11 2007 at 3:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Princess Tare wrote:
Monsieur RedPhoenixxx wrote:
Armeni-Aid


Aidmenia, if you please.


Aidmeniaid?

They clearly need a lot of aid...
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#41 Oct 11 2007 at 3:59 AM Rating: Good
Screenshot

The Onion does silly things.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#42 Oct 11 2007 at 5:06 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
the daily Vatan wrote:
"27 foolish Americans," the daily Vatan said on its front-page headline, in reference to legislators who voted in favor.


I can't help but agree.

US Legislators passing judgement (and bills) on historical events that took place on the other side of the world. Yay.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#43 Oct 11 2007 at 7:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,173 posts
Quote:
Turkey denies that the deaths constituted genocide, says the toll has been inflated and insists that those killed were victims of civil war and unrest.


Wow, that sounds familiar. Where have I heard that recently?
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#44 Oct 11 2007 at 10:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
CNN wrote:
Turkey has recalled its ambassador to the United States, Nabi Sensoy, in response to a House resolution that would call the World War I massacre of Armenians by Turkish forces "genocide," the Turkish Foreign Ministry said Thursday.

The House Foreign Affairs Committee passed the measure 27-21 on Wednesday evening, even though President Bush and key administration figures lobbied hard against it. The full House is expected to vote on it, possibly Friday.

A top Turkish official warned Thursday that consequences "won't be pleasant" if the full House approves the resolution.

"Yesterday some in Congress wanted to play hardball," said Egemen Bagis, foreign policy adviser to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. "I can assure you Turkey knows how to play hardball."
[...]
Bagis said since a French Parliament committee passed a similar resolution last year, no French planes have flown through Turkish airspace.

He said the response to the U.S. might not be the same, but warned if the full House passes it, "We will do something and I can promise you it won't be pleasant."
Nothing like a good solid threat to tamp down the truth about historical events.

I found this interesting...
Quote:
A similar resolution passed the committee by a 40-7 vote two years ago, but it never reached the full House floor.
Apparently, the desire to call it a genocide is definately bipartisan although a considerable number of Republicans have since shied away in the face of Turkish retaliation.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#45 Oct 11 2007 at 10:42 AM Rating: Good
****
8,619 posts
El doublo posto.

Edited, Oct 11th 2007 2:43pm by tarv
____________________________
[wowsig]2213854[/wowsig]
Jarkeld Hammerhiem Lvl 36 Paladin/Lvl 30 Armourer
Lestril Hammerhiem Lvl 40 Monk/Lvl 28 Provisioner Blackburrow server
Iaedian Tailchaser lvl 60 Fury/36 Jeweler. Proud member of <Bane> Crushbone server

Your mind is like a Parachute, it only works if it's open.
#46 Oct 11 2007 at 10:42 AM Rating: Good
****
8,619 posts
Next the US govenment will be seeking to take the Bazantium empire for it's slaughter of countless tribesmen.

As if there aren't enough problems that need solving around the world without draggin up ancient history.
____________________________
[wowsig]2213854[/wowsig]
Jarkeld Hammerhiem Lvl 36 Paladin/Lvl 30 Armourer
Lestril Hammerhiem Lvl 40 Monk/Lvl 28 Provisioner Blackburrow server
Iaedian Tailchaser lvl 60 Fury/36 Jeweler. Proud member of <Bane> Crushbone server

Your mind is like a Parachute, it only works if it's open.
#47 Oct 11 2007 at 10:49 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
This is BS.

I know it's hardly the first time, but congress has no business passing bills stating that some bit of history is or is not measured and labeled to their liking, if it doesn't impact rule-making in this country.

If this 90 year old war-time event must be judged now, it should be done by the UN not the US...we are not (yet) rulers of this world.

I could almost persuade myself that the house it trying to cause trouble for the execs.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#48 Oct 11 2007 at 11:02 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The Elinda of Doom wrote:
I know it's hardly the first time, but congress has no business passing bills stating that some bit of history is or is not measured and labeled to their liking, if it doesn't impact rule-making in this country.
In a sense, it does. The US has policies in place for how it will respond to a "bona fide" genocide as opposed to your garden variety mass killings.
The Washington Post back in 2005 wrote:
Deputy Secretary of State Robert B. Zoellick, recently dispatched by Bush to survey the situation in Darfur, has said he was trying to avoid the debate over what to call the killing of tens of thousands of Africans over the past two years. The United States, under the 1948 U.N. convention on genocide, is committed to preventing such killings and punishing the killers if it deems a genocide is taking place.
You can argue that the Armenian disgrace was in the past but, if the US balks now at admitting as a matter of policy that it was a genocide, then that leaves wide open the question of whether [global event] qualifies.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#49 Oct 11 2007 at 11:41 AM Rating: Decent
**
903 posts
Jophiel wrote:
You can argue that the Armenian disgrace was in the past but, if the US balks now at admitting as a matter of policy that it was a genocide, then that leaves wide open the question of whether [global event] qualifies.


First, not explicitly stating something (out of the blue) is not balking. Is Bush et al balking now? Yes, but ONLY because that panel brought the issue up. Congress may as well put forth a resolution suggesting the Attorney General describe a random 3000 year old killing as murder, then say Bush or the AG are "balking" at not classifying it as murder. Or a resolution suggesting Nancy Pelosi acknowledges her hairstyle is unnatractive, then when she doesn't she's "balking" when she doesn't admit her hairstyle sucks. The question is whether or not this should even be an issue, and it shouldn't.

If there's an honest question about our policy of "Genocide" determination, it should be addressed with a real legislative act, not in bringing up a highly contentious 90-year old anecdote. Is this resolution really going to affect foreign policy? Odds are against another genocide exactly like that of the Armenian one, so I fail to see what good one resolution describing one specific event will do.

Becuase it IS an issue we have to wonder, as you have, why it was brought up at this time. And the tin-foil hat suspician of democratic supporters having a motive of causing Bush grief is valid. It's news to me of the GOP support, I'll just write them off as dumbasses in the same way Lieberman is to the democrats.

#50 Oct 11 2007 at 11:47 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The Elinda of Doom wrote:
I know it's hardly the first time, but congress has no business passing bills stating that some bit of history is or is not measured and labeled to their liking, if it doesn't impact rule-making in this country.
In a sense, it does. The US has policies in place for how it will respond to a "bona fide" genocide as opposed to your garden variety mass killings.
But that's setting policy, which is fine. If some country's mass killing meets our current definition of genocide then we will respond in a certain way. That's cool.
The Washington Post back in 2005 wrote:
Deputy Secretary of State Robert B. Zoellick, recently dispatched by Bush to survey the situation in Darfur, has said he was trying to avoid the debate over what to call the killing of tens of thousands of Africans over the past two years. The United States, under the 1948 U.N. convention on genocide, is committed to preventing such killings and punishing the killers if it deems a genocide is taking place.
Quote:
You can argue that the Armenian disgrace was in the past but, if the US balks now at admitting as a matter of policy that it was a genocide, then that leaves wide open the question of whether [global event] qualifies.
Was the UN resolution enacted retroactively?

Doing nothing in this case is hardly balking, it's merely keeping our mouth shut when saying nothing may very well be the best course of action. This is pandering to a vocal minority.

We never disputed the genocide, but have supported the world's decision.

If this is, as I think you may be alluding to, some back door way to get Bush to commit troops to Darfur on presidence, it won't (or shouldn't) work, as this resolution doesnt in anyway define genocide nor define action to take against genocide.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#51 Oct 11 2007 at 12:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Palpitus wrote:
Congress may as well put forth a resolution suggesting the Attorney General describe a random 3000 year old killing as murder, then say Bush or the AG are "balking" at not classifying it as murder.
We have a definition of murder. In fact, we have legal definitions of different types of murder, the intent of the murderer, the accidental aspects of murder, etc. Why would we need to discuss a 3,000 year old killing?
Quote:
Or a resolution suggesting Nancy Pelosi acknowledges her hairstyle is unnatractive, then when she doesn't she's "balking" when she doesn't admit her hairstyle sucks.
Hairstyles are a matter of national policy now? I knew that the Pubbie pundits cream themselves talking about Edwards' hair but I didn't realize it went this deep.
Quote:
The question is whether or not this should even be an issue, and it shouldn't.
I hope you're not basing this conclusion off of your previous examples.
Quote:
If there's an honest question about our policy of "Genocide" determination, it should be addressed with a real legislative act, not in bringing up a highly contentious 90-year old anecdote.
I'd rather the government set benchmarks which allow them the flexibility to decide on a case by case basis although with an obvious foundation of precedent.
Quote:
Is this resolution really going to affect foreign policy? Odds are against another genocide exactly like that of the Armenian one, so I fail to see what good one resolution describing one specific event will do.
Odds are against any historical event exactly repeating itself, be it from last year or last century.
Quote:
Becuase it IS an issue we have to wonder, as you have, why it was brought up at this time.
Well, technically it was brought up in January. And had been brought up times prior by other Congresses.
Quote:
And the tin-foil hat suspician of democratic supporters having a motive of causing Bush grief is valid. It's news to me of the GOP support, I'll just write them off as dumbasses in the same way Lieberman is to the democrats.
Which is kind of funny because a House resolution on the exact same thing passed through the Republican controlled committee in 2000 against Clinton's objections. I suppose that was also a purely partisan attempt to attack the sitting president. Just like the 2005 attempt. And the 1989 attempt. And every other attempt.

Edited, Oct 11th 2007 3:05pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 79 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (79)