Congress and Armenia

[Jahled]

Like choose the best moment available to pass a motion. I actually felt pain in agreeing with the current mob of Bush's administration agreeing with their pleas for some semblance of sanity here.

 

Yes, there is overwhelming evidence the Turks undertook a wholesale slaughter of Armenians, but is right now the best time to piss off a nation in denial concerning the genocide when they are about the most progressive largely Muslim nation on the planet? Turkey is at pains to remain a modern secular society, free from the dogma of the religious muppets they, and we see, else where as it's neighbours.

 

They are a vital regional ally, and with present middle-eastern instability about as good as a friend as we could ask for, and some muppets in the US congress insist upon passing a motion, that attacks a nation's sense of historical integrity and identity.

 

Turkey has not had Germany's forcible treatment in addressing it's crimes upto now; a motion such as this was simply poorly judged in timing, and pointlessly executed to the benefit of none.

 

It left me stunned

[Defender_16]

J, was part of your post cut off?

[Ragnar]

Haven't really read the motion, but I'm interested.

 

Does it say how many deaths (absolute or %-wise) constitute a genocide? Does a death count when it's from illness or malnutrition instead of "plain" murder? Does the motion contain anything remotely objectively measurable at all, or was that found to be too risky?

 

Every nation has a bloody past, probaly because the ones that don't, don't tend to be around any more.

[Eagle]

Just want to add that turkish journalists have been imprisoned because they wrote about that genocide. Doesn´t look like a very democratic attitude of their government, isn´t it.

[DarthTex]

You can thank the crazy, flaming (American) liberals (controlling the Democrat Party) which control the majority of the US Senate & Congress for that mess. They're a bunch of self-centered power hungry twats who care nothing about anything, but themselves (of course this argument could be made about "most" politicians ). They'll piss on a fire ant mound to cause a comotion just so they can hear themselves yell, scream and argue about it (then they'll pass some stupid motion condemning the ants ).

[Jahled]

J, was part of your post cut off?

 

No, it seems my ability to use punctuation eluded me last night..

[OldFan]

What are the odds that the Democrats in Congress are purposefully doing this at this specific time, for the express purpose of p***ing off an Iraq War ally, in order to make that ally refuse to help the USA to wage that war that they (Democratic-controlled Congress) don't support anyway? With all the options available to Congress to end this conflict if they would choose to exercise them, this is not the most effective method IMHO. Not only because it's inefficient, but it has the side effect of lowering our standing in world affairs yet again by muddling in the affairs of a sovereign nation that didn't ask for it. Is the USA ready for Turkey to turn around and condemn some rather sordid parts of its own past? Is this an efficient use of either government's time and effort? It's sure an efficient use of the Armenian-American lobby concerns!

 

There have been many, many travesties of justice in human history, committed by nearly every society that has ever existed. If Congress insists on condemning every single one, when will they have time to actually govern? (On second thought, maybe that's not such a bad idea, since they screw up most everything they do anyway...)

 

Learn from history, don't repeat the sins and mistakes, move on and let it go. Look toward the future and prevent more atrocities from happening now, and don't dwell on the past, I say.

[DarthTofu]

If only we could stop every atrocity that springs up- the Iraq war was partly a war to prevent the horrible treatment many Iraqis experienced daily, and look how that one's turning out. Vietnam was an attempt to allow Democracy to flourish and to prevent communism pushing into the South, and look how that turned out. I'm not saying that the decisions made weren't morally correct, but sometimes, no matter how much it hurts, we have to look on and determine what's best for the most people, bite our tongues at the pain we have to let go on, and do nothing. Solutions are always difficult to come by, and rarely leave all parties satisfied.

[Evaders99]

It's ironic that the Democratic-majority Congress is complaining that Iraq will be the same "quagmire" as Vietnam. And now their following as their predecessors, trying to cut funding to support our troops and Iraqis, just as they did cutting aid to the South Vietnamese. They fought two years still after American troops got out. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy if you prepared for defeat. The Democrats are already prepared to write history as a defeat of the American presidency.

[SOCL]

I wouldn't say the Democrats did it because they want to piss of Turkey. I agree, there should be some sort of condemnation for the Armenian genocide, but I have to agree with Jahled: did it have to be now? It wasn't a good idea to do it now. Maybe after Iraq, but not now.

 

Sorry, Evaders, but cutting off funding for the war is not the same as cutting funding for the troops. It's just like saying not supporting the war means you don't support the troops--utter bullshit, excuse my language. The military has its own funding 123% separate from the emergency funding which funds the actual war, and by war I mean the occupation, pays the Iraqi government's salaries, pays private security, pays mercenaries (i.e. Blackwater), etc. The Armed Forces themselves know this quite well.

[DarthTex]

... Vietnam was an attempt to allow Democracy to flourish and to prevent communism pushing into the South, and look how that turned out...

That's correct Tofu, "look how Vietnam turned out". If politicians would stop sticking their noses in where they're not wanted (i.e. politicians feel they're important, therefore it's their right to micro manage the military), then Vietnam could have turned out much differently. That was one of the main points made by Stormin' Norman during Desert Storm; politicians STAY OUT! No one knows how to better run the military, than the military. And look how that turned out

 

 

Sorry, Evaders, but cutting off funding for the war is not the same as cutting funding for the troops...

Look how much money the US pumped into Germany & Japan after the WWII. There's not too much difference between then and now; Iraq needs their civilian infrastructure restored also: power plants, homes, hospitals, schools, sewage planets, roads, water supply, etc. The people of Iraq are getting the same help as the Germans and Japanese did. Their despot of a leader had about a gnat's ass worth of concern for his people, and it shows. So, support the troops by supporting the Iraqi people! You help them, and they'll help you (as is being found out, but that doesn't make the headlines; and it's especially not good news for the Democrats).

[SOCL]

... Vietnam was an attempt to allow Democracy to flourish and to prevent communism pushing into the South, and look how that turned out...

That's correct Tofu, "look how Vietnam turned out". If politicians would stop sticking their noses in where they're not wanted (i.e. politicians feel they're important, therefore it's their right to micro manage the military), then Vietnam could have turned out much differently. That was one of the main points made by Stormin' Norman during Desert Storm; politicians STAY OUT! No one knows how to better run the military, than the military. And look how that turned out

That's right, Tex. Let the military do their own thing without any oversight. Look how well that worked for the government of Pakistan, installed by a military coup.

 

 

Sorry, Evaders, but cutting off funding for the war is not the same as cutting funding for the troops...

Look how much money the US pumped into Germany & Japan after the WWII. There's not too much difference between then and now; Iraq needs their civilian infrastructure restored also: power plants, homes, hospitals, schools, sewage planets, roads, water supply, etc. The people of Iraq are getting the same help as the Germans and Japanese did. Their despot of a leader had about a gnat's ass worth of concern for his people, and it shows. So, support the troops by supporting the Iraqi people! You help them, and they'll help you (as is being found out, but that doesn't make the headlines; and it's especially not good news for the Democrats).

I don't see what you're trying to get across here, Tex. I'm simply saying that the funding itself is different and that troops will get their funds one way or another, unless someone on Capitol Hill puts in a bill to quite literally cut the funding for the military. Cutting the funding for the war/occupation, though, is very different from cutting the war for the troops. If you want to say that by cutting the funds for the occupation you are cutting the funds to the troops...well, that simply doesn't make sense--they are two utterly different accounts and funds. Anyway, I would be willing to give more funds to the war if I thought there was any real progress happening--and by that I mean progress towards withdrawal, which I suppose is the ultimate objective. I think it has to do with the perspective you use: Republicans see the ultimate objective as achieving the idealistic goal of making Iraq secure, Democrats see the ultimate objective as achieving the goal of withdrawing our boys from Iraq.

[DarthTex]

... Vietnam was an attempt to allow Democracy to flourish and to prevent communism pushing into the South, and look how that turned out...

That's correct Tofu, "look how Vietnam turned out". If politicians would stop sticking their noses in where they're not wanted (i.e. politicians feel they're important, therefore it's their right to micro manage the military), then Vietnam could have turned out much differently. That was one of the main points made by Stormin' Norman during Desert Storm; politicians STAY OUT! No one knows how to better run the military, than the military. And look how that turned out

That's right, Tex. Let the military do their own thing without any oversight. Look how well that worked for the government of Pakistan, installed by a military coup.

I'm not sure how Pakistan compares to the US in terms of gov't (sounds like apples and oranges). But, if it works ...

[SOCL]

I'm not sure how Pakistan compares to the US in terms of gov't (sounds like apples and oranges). But, if it works ...

So this whole Republican notion of supporting democracies abroad is nonsense, then. Thus, Republicans are flip-flopping.

 

Here's something about this Armenia issue: The Republicans claim that staying in Iraq is the "right thing to do", and keep doing so in hopes of raising the stakes and placing themselves on the moral high ground. Well, isn't condemning the Turks for the genocide of the Armenians in a non-binding, only-word resolution the "right thing to do". Indeed, had it been the Republicans in Congress who had decided to do it, then the Democrats would probably be screaming the same way Republicans are now. WAIT! That's right, the Republican-held Congress in 2000 tried to pass the exact same resolution! Well, who's flip-flopping now? Sounds to me like Republicans aren't very consistent, and isn't that what they espouse to be? It seems to me that blaming the Democrats for this has less to do with the resolution and its effects and simply because a somewhat large number of people in this thread are Republicans/anti-Democrat.

[DarthTex]

I'm not sure how Pakistan compares to the US in terms of gov't (sounds like apples and oranges). But, if it works ...

So this whole Republican notion of supporting democracies abroad is nonsense, then. Thus, Republicans are flip-flopping.

Let's take a look back at US history shall we? Ever since the end of WWII the US gov't (whether Democrat or Republican) has supported dictators for use against the Soviets during the Cold War (with some pressure applied here or there to make them "appear more democratic" to the average US citizen). And I don't see the US gov't changing its course anytime in the near future (Democrat or Republican). Otherwise, that great Democratic philanthropist "Slick" Billy Clinton would have changed all of that since the Cold War was over But, he didn't!

 

As for the Armenian issue: First, I think the whole thing is shear and utter nonsense! (Stupid @ss politicians ); second - you just said the Republicans "tried"; I guess that means it failed then, as opposed to actually passing this time in the Democrat-held Congress!

 

I think the Turks should do exactly the same to the US Congress; What? The US gov't actually sanctioned/authorized slavery (and other deplorable acts) of human beings until the 1860's, and discrimated more so for another 100+ years. What about all the crap done to the Native Americans? The US Congress should be ashamed of themselves!

 

At least the Turks have a completely different gov't now than being the Ottoman Empire. The US Congress can't say the same. I just wonder if they'll now condemn Germany, Japan, Russia and who knows whom else for all of their historic skeletons What's the point?

[SOCL]

You mean to say the U.S. pre-Civil War government is the exact same as the current one?

 

And there it is, the most predictable response to the condemning the Armenian, genocide: bring in the Native Americans in order to preserve the moral high ground. Well, Tex, would you be willing to accept responsibility in the modern day for the genocide of Native Americans? My family was all in Puerto Rico, so I'll leave that to you old-American fellows to ponder over. I have my own qualm with the Spanish for killing so many Tainos in Puerto Rico, but I'm not going to get far there.

[DarthTex]

You mean to say the U.S. pre-Civil War government is the exact same as the current one?

Of course not, so why say the Ottoman Empire is the same as the Turkish government of today?

 

... Well, Tex, would you be willing to accept responsibility in the modern day for the genocide of Native Americans? ...

Of course not, so why say the Turkish government of today should take responsibility for the Ottoman Empire?

 

Thanks for proving my point SOCL

 

 

PS The current US Democrat controlled Congress has no morals

[Jahled]

It seems to me that blaming the Democrats for this has less to do with the resolution and its effects and simply because a somewhat large number of people in this thread are Republicans/anti-Democrat.

 

Which is perhaps why I view party-politics with so much disdain. My politics is fairly much middle of the road, which over here in the UK is the political ground all three of our main Political parties are fighting to occupy. On some issues I lean to the left, on others it leans to the right;

which probably makes me a radical- or extreme-centerist!

 

On this issue, I am simply disgusted at the timing; and I am sure the Republicans would have pulled exactly the same stunt had it been a Democratic President in office, I can say as a political neutral concerning US politics. Surely the present mission in Iraq, despite whatever your misgivings about the reasons/execution for the present conflict were, are now to repair Iraq to some semblance of order and stability, perhaps even our moral duty given the disaster we unleashed upon their society under the pretext of a threat it was neither in it's leader's interests to act upon, or any evidence of ever actually having.

 

The Kurdish north of Iraq has largely been untouched by the horrific violence seen elsewhere, but all this is now threatened by the Turkish parliament voting overwhelmingly, by 507 votes to 19, to supporting military action, perhaps justifiably, against PKK groups attacking their soil from bases in Northern Iraq. The PKK have led a murderous campaign over the last few decades for some imaginary Marxist Kurdish homeland spanning not just Turkey, but Iraq, and Iran; as if that's ever realistically going to happen. Despite some misgivings about the modern Turkish states approach to the Kurd's right to their expression of cultural identity, bombs and violence are not the answer, especially when the cessation of territory is your apparent goal. That simply does stuff like harden hearts against a troublesome minority, and flex muscle against it.

 

But as Tex points out, modern Turkey is not the Ottoman Empire of old that undertook the atrocities against the Armenians, despite being the nexus of that old Empire. The United States congress passing a resolution at this time undoubtedly simply hardened hearts in their parliament to vote for affirmative action, given how American influence is perceived across the world. They felt a deep affront against their modern national identity. They percieve a bellicose motion in the US congress and react with a similarly bellicose reaction which is only going to perpetuate violence in a region of Iraq, where previously there has been virtually none, except by Saddam when he was in power, or by foreign Muslim insurgents 'outraged' at their relaxed approach to their religion, or simply to fuel hate.

 

Given the PKK are quite rightly viewed as a terrorist organization by both the US and EU, it could be argued by the stupid why haven't we acted against them ourselves. But that's hardly a practical argument in the present Iraq is it? The most stable region of a complete mess, and we divert over-stretched troops to stir it up into a region of conflict? Thanks to some neoconservative muppets behind Bush we have entertained a war which was thoroughly unnecessary, when we were and are still fighting another one in Afghanistan which was thoroughly justified and still is, unless you consider stuff like the suppression of women to the point of virtual slavery acceptable, and lots of other fascist stuff as well, sponsored by Saudi-Arabian religious dogma.

 

Turkey could, and still might, approach it's present situation, with a more appropriate military reaction, perhaps building up it's military forces it's borders and fighting off any incursions by PKK terrorists. Whilst this is hardly the most practical solution in military terms, which would be to make the best defense in attack, and try and destroy the PKK, my guess is the Kurds will simply melt before them, and stretch the Turks deep into Northern Iraq.

 

I ramble, but with a headache, concerning this mess.

Edited October 18, 2007 by Jahled

[DarthTofu]

*Chews popcorn* Ah, cammon, Jahled, Tex and SOCL were putting on a great show! Then you have to come in and defuse the argument! Party pooper!

 

 

Seriously, though, I can get all of the political commentary that I need out of threads like this, just lurking... It's nice.

[SOCL]

You mean to say the U.S. pre-Civil War government is the exact same as the current one?

Of course not, so why say the Ottoman Empire is the same as the Turkish government of today?

 

... Well, Tex, would you be willing to accept responsibility in the modern day for the genocide of Native Americans? ...

Of course not, so why say the Turkish government of today should take responsibility for the Ottoman Empire?

 

Thanks for proving my point SOCL

It was done on purpose, Tex. My point being not so much the matter of condemning the current government of Turkey as it is to point out that this is a matter of inconsistency within the Republican Party, a party so hung-up on consistency and so quick to condemn "flip-flopping", a point I find nonsensical myself. Still, Republicans, and especially the current Bush Administration, espouse that "doing the right thing" is more important than doing the popular thing, hence he forced us into a unilateral war despite everyone else in the world saying we shouldn't. That's not hard-headed stubbornness--it's the "right thing to do". If the Republicans stayed consistent, then wouldn't they support the condemnation of the Ottoman Empire for the genocide of the Armenians. Again, they did so in 2000, and only withdrew when President Clinton threatened to veto some other piece of legislation they wanted passed. It's a matter of politics, so if you happen to believe that the Republicans have the moral high-ground and the Democrats are waning in morality...well, that's up to you to believe what you want.

 

As for what Jahled said, simply put:

I couldn't agree with him more.

I do certainly believe this was not the appropriate moment to carry this out. It does annoy me that Turkey refuses to acknowledge that the Armenian genocide happened, which makes one wonder how deeply entrenched the ideal of Ottoman empire and the subsequent Turkey-for-Turks republic created by Attaturk, but this is not the right move to make. I hate to say it, but if they want to close their eyes, cover their eyes, and start singing in order to avoid the truth, then let them. The Democrats should have learned from the Republicans that we can't simply kick in the door of whoever pisses us off and force them to agree with us. I think Iraq is a perfect example of a place where that did not work, and it did not work thoroughly. If Turkey decides to invade Northern Iraq, then it would turn the least violent place in that country into something similar to the more southern regions. Further, Turkey will likely be forced to remain in occupation for many years to come and in the mean time help foster more hate against them not just from the more extreme wing of the Kurdish population, but from the entire Kurdish population and what Iraqis they may encounter--no one likes being punished for the actions of a few others. Turkey should learn from the mistake we made in invading Iraq and realize that invading the North will simply create more violence, more problems, more terrorists, and bring them into a quagmire they simply don't need and likely can't support both militarily and financially.

[DarthTex]

... it is to point out that this is a matter of inconsistency ...

The only thing consistent in life is Death and Taxes

[SOCL]

... it is to point out that this is a matter of inconsistency ...

The only thing consistent in life is Death and Taxes

I have to agree with you there.

[Evaders99]

I'm just sad they are pushing this issue when other serious work needs to get done. (And I'd be saying this whether it was a Democrat- or Republican- controlled Congress)

[Jahled]

I'm just sad they are pushing this issue when other serious work needs to get done. (And I'd be saying this whether it was a Democrat- or Republican- controlled Congress)

 

Quite. Is it still being debated in your congress despite the Turkish Parliament's vote, btw?

 

Also, 12/10 to Bush for awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to the Dalai Lama despite the usual words of 'grave concern,' from the fascist Chinese government; bang in the middle of their five-yearly communist conference! Absolute class!

[budious]

Congress is a bunch tards, lets alienate Turkey and further distabilize the region, get more U.S. troops killed and blame it all on the policies of the Bush administration. Oh wait, the White House is the only party making sense for once by telling you this is a bad idea and it is. Just as Nazi Germany has been restricted by the modern German and Israeli governments, the Turkish want to leave an era passed by alone and forgotten. They accomplish nothing by making this foolish declaration except put our forces in Iraq at greater risk.