Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

On the Armenian GenocideFollow

#27 Oct 10 2007 at 4:56 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,008 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
******
35,008 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
******
35,008 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
******
35,008 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
*****
16,595 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
******
29,244 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
*****
16,595 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
*****
16,595 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.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 48 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (48)