Post by: Manedwolf on October 11, 2007, 05:51:37 AM
Why the hell are they putting forward a nonbinding resolution about something that may or may not have happened in 1915? Why now?
First off, the Armenian community in Turkey now fears reprisals.
Secondly...TURKEY MIGHT DENY US BASE RIGHTS! Or restrict our supply lines...70% of the supplies going to our Iraq troops go through Turkey!
Right in the middle of a war! Is this the Dem's treasonous way to "prevent" an intervention in Iran and to cut off our troops in Iraq, by causing the Turks to deny us airbases by offending them? Like throwing a lit Molotov and running for it?
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/11/us.turkey.armenians/
What the HELL?!
Post by: K Frame on October 11, 2007, 06:05:05 AM
I think you noted why.
70% of the US supplies go through Turkey.
Dems manage to strangle that and then they can say "Hey, supporting a military force isn't viable anymore! We need to get them out now!"
I suspect that this has NOTHING to do with dead Armenians and everything to do with trying to get US troops out of Iraq by any means possible.
Post by: jefnvk on October 11, 2007, 06:13:51 AM
My opinion? Alienating Turkey, makes fighting Iraq much harder. Any further difficulty in fighting the war, will probably result in people getting more pissed, and drop support even more.
In all honesty, its a way to try and cut out the war, without doing it directly.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 11, 2007, 06:23:44 AM
goddamned traitors...
Post by: Standing Wolf on October 11, 2007, 06:38:02 AM
Quote
Why the hell are they putting forward a nonbinding resolution about something that may or may not have happened in 1915?
The Turkish genocidal war against Armenians actually did happen. That said", I suspect none but the most base and scurrilous motivations on the part of representatives of the Democratic (sic) party these many years later.
Post by: HankB on October 11, 2007, 06:38:15 AM
That alone makes it a worthy goal to the Democrats.
Anything - literally anything at all - that causes difficulty for Bush is justified in their minds. It doesn't matter who else is hurt or what the consequences are, so long as Bush or his policies are damaged, it's worthwhile; anything from taxes to treason is acceptable in their minds so long as the action is a negative for Bush.
(BTW, I am NOT a Bush fan by any stretch of the imagination . . . I'm just disgusted by those exhibiting Bush Derangement Syndrome, who want to "get" Bush at all costs.
)
Post by: Manedwolf on October 11, 2007, 06:43:27 AM
Quote
Why the hell are they putting forward a nonbinding resolution about something that may or may not have happened in 1915?
The Turkish genocidal war against Armenians actually did happen. That said", I suspect none but the most base and scurrilous motivations on the part of representatives of the Democratic (sic) party these many years later.
Yes, I know it did. But the timing is the thing. I don't think they care at all about that, either...it was in 1915!
Even if the the Turks did that back then, we really need their assistance in this war. And I think the Dems knew it.
The only people this is going to hurt are the troops who might run out of ammo, fuel and parts. And, even more ironically, the Armenians in Turkey who might experience backlash violence if it passes. They don't want it, either.
Post by: jefnvk on October 11, 2007, 09:17:17 AM
a) The troops suffer because of it, or
b) Violence breaks out between Turks and Armenians
There is no reason to do this, besides political. Yes, it happened. Yes, it is probably not well known. I personally do not know if there is still Turk-Armenian tension, and people promoting violence between the groups. I would doubt it, at least on any big scale. Nothing is going to be made better by this, only worse.
Also, wasn't Turkey the Ottoman Empire during this time?
Post by: jefnvk on October 11, 2007, 09:41:17 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on October 11, 2007, 09:43:03 AM
Post by: GigaBuist on October 11, 2007, 10:41:37 AM
1 . [110th] Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution (Introduced in House)[H.RES.106.IH ]
2 . [109th] Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution (Introduced in House)[H.RES.316.IH ]
3 . [106th] Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution (Introduced in House)[H.RES.596.IH ]
4 . [106th] United States Training on and Commemoration of the Armenian Genocide Resolution (Introduced in House)[H.RES.398.IH ]
5 . [106th] United States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution (Introduced in House)[H.RES.155.IH ]
6 . [106th] Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution (Reported in House)[H.RES.596.RH ]
... We've done this before.
Post by: jefnvk on October 11, 2007, 11:23:49 AM
Things like this make me realize why Congress can't get anythign important done.
Post by: Patriot on October 11, 2007, 12:54:06 PM
I'm not sure what the big deal is this time around. A quick search on Thomas shows:
1 . [110th] Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution (Introduced in House)[H.RES.106.IH ]
2 . [109th] Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution (Introduced in House)[H.RES.316.IH ]
3 . [106th] Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution (Introduced in House)[H.RES.596.IH ]
4 . [106th] United States Training on and Commemoration of the Armenian Genocide Resolution (Introduced in House)[H.RES.398.IH ]
5 . [106th] United States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution (Introduced in House)[H.RES.155.IH ]
6 . [106th] Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution (Reported in House)[H.RES.596.RH ]
... We've done this before.
1 . [110th] Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution (Introduced in House)[H.RES.106.IH ]
2 . [109th] Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution (Introduced in House)[H.RES.316.IH ]
3 . [106th] Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution (Introduced in House)[H.RES.596.IH ]
4 . [106th] United States Training on and Commemoration of the Armenian Genocide Resolution (Introduced in House)[H.RES.398.IH ]
5 . [106th] United States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution (Introduced in House)[H.RES.155.IH ]
6 . [106th] Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution (Reported in House)[H.RES.596.RH ]
... We've done this before.
Previous Congresses were unwilling or unable to let it get this far. The current one has seemingly indicated that it is inane enough to do just that. No doubt they want to please east-coast and CA Armenian lobbies and undercut Bush and the Iraq war. Turkey is strategically and logistically important to the U.S.
Not only that, the Armenian incident occurred under a military coup in the Ottoman Empire circa 1915 for goodness sake. Since then, Turkey has experienced a complete change of government and rulers. Heck, it isn't even the same country/state. They are (or were) relatively pro-western and pro-US, especially in comparison to their Middle Eastern neighbors. In conjunction with the equally retarded non-binding resolution on partitioning Iraq (which is not favorable to Turkey: they don't want any semblance of a Kurdish state on their borders) and the cross-border operations of Kurdish insurgents in Iraq/Turkey, our relations with Turkey could be jeopardized in a huge way. Turkey just recalled its ambassador to the U.S. - they take this whole thing pretty seriously.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on October 11, 2007, 01:12:12 PM
Post by: MechAg94 on October 11, 2007, 02:22:47 PM
Post by: Waitone on October 11, 2007, 02:37:07 PM
BTW, I'm not saying we're pure as the driven snow. We have our own dirt to explain.
Post by: Patriot on October 11, 2007, 02:47:06 PM
The Turks have historically liked to stick to the Americans at key moments, something a real ally would avoid. They've had reasons but not sufficient to justify their actions.
BTW, I'm not saying we're pure as the driven snow. We have our own dirt to explain.
BTW, I'm not saying we're pure as the driven snow. We have our own dirt to explain.
Specifics would be nice.
One of our other allies in the region has strafed an American warship, flaunted our requests on more than one occasion and spied on us.
Relations with Turkey have been generally advantageous to the U.S.
Post by: De Selby on October 11, 2007, 02:48:10 PM
The Armenian American groups have done a pretty good job of organizing themselves to support it. They have more power over whether or not some key congressmen get elected than the Turkish government does; hence, there are trends in congress towards supporting something that the Armenian community wants, to the detriment of the Turkish government.
no secret plot, just politics
Post by: wooderson on October 11, 2007, 03:55:19 PM
Quote
Not only that, the Armenian incident occurred under a military coup in the Ottoman Empire circa 1915 for goodness sake. Since then, Turkey has experienced a complete change of government and rulers.
The Turks continue to deny responsibility for the genocide, and there is a high level of animosity toward Armenians throughout the country.
A 'complete change of government' is questionable - the rulers of the era (the CUP/Young Turks) were highly influential on post-Ottoman Turkey. Ataturk himself, while not involved in the initial genocide, had some role in the ethnic cleansing of Armenians later on.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 11, 2007, 04:16:47 PM
Quote
Not only that, the Armenian incident occurred under a military coup in the Ottoman Empire circa 1915 for goodness sake. Since then, Turkey has experienced a complete change of government and rulers.
The Turks continue to deny responsibility for the genocide, and there is a high level of animosity toward Armenians throughout the country.
So? What part of "70% of supplies and 30% of fuel for our troops in Iraq go through Turkey" are you not getting?
We can't afford to do this now! It'll strangle the war, and cause the soldiers to run out of ammo and essential supplies if the supply lines are cut off!
Which is precisely what Nasty Nancy wants.
Post by: wooderson on October 11, 2007, 04:50:22 PM
And of course Pelosi wants this wholesale slaughter, because she's a secret al-Qaeda plant, right?
Post by: Joe Demko on October 11, 2007, 04:53:42 PM
Post by: wooderson on October 11, 2007, 04:56:36 PM
Post by: Patriot on October 11, 2007, 06:02:28 PM
Quote
Not only that, the Armenian incident occurred under a military coup in the Ottoman Empire circa 1915 for goodness sake. Since then, Turkey has experienced a complete change of government and rulers.
The Turks continue to deny responsibility for the genocide, and there is a high level of animosity toward Armenians throughout the country.
A 'complete change of government' is questionable - the rulers of the era (the CUP/Young Turks) were highly influential on post-Ottoman Turkey. Ataturk himself, while not involved in the initial genocide, had some role in the ethnic cleansing of Armenians later on.
What can I say? It would seem that you have a better grasp on the situation than the average individual, given that CUP and Ataturk aren't exactly household names outside Turkey....
However, my understanding was that Ataturk, while a member of the CUP as it began (a secret society among young military officers advocating change), was not a significant part of the ruling group that came to power, and in fact was on the outs with the 'triumvirate' of ministers who effectively controlled the Ottoman government when the 1915-17 genocide took place.
I know he suppressed a Kurdish revolt during his rule, but am unaware of any ethnic cleansing of Armenians.
Post by: De Selby on October 11, 2007, 06:10:47 PM
There's another angle to this I think we're all not considering.
What if the Turks are using this as a figleaf to get themselves out of helping with the Iraq war?
They have plenty of reasons to oppose continued US presence in Iraq; maybe the resolution is one way to justify it while blaming the US for causing the controversey.
Post by: jefnvk on October 11, 2007, 06:57:15 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on October 15, 2007, 07:02:13 AM
Quote
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Sunday that she intends to move ahead with a vote on a resolution that labels the deaths of more than a million Armenians during World War I as genocide.
That's from today.
im in yr congress, choking yr war...
Post by: longeyes on October 15, 2007, 08:35:13 AM
Shameless.
Post by: 280plus on October 15, 2007, 09:47:43 AM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on October 15, 2007, 03:26:17 PM
Post by: charby on October 16, 2007, 03:46:44 PM
Post by: RevDisk on October 16, 2007, 06:02:01 PM
I ask again, what good is this going to do the situtation of a genocide that happened 90 years ago?
I'd really love to see the reaction if the same folks said the same things about the Holocaust. "You know, it was a while ago, and we have bases there that are kinda important... So why bring it up after 60 years?"
FYI, but Turkey still has the land they annexed from Armenia during said genocide. They still possess 12 provinces.
Quote from: Manedwolf
goddamned traitors...
Question, do you consider the band System of a Down to be traitors to the republic as well? The band members are all decendants of Armenian genocide survivors and have worked to promote awareness.
I'm not naive to believe this was an attempt to right past wrongs and acknowledge the horrors committed by an ally of ours. However, Turkey IS guilty of slaughtering roughly a million folks, stealing their land, and refusing to take responsibility for their past crimes.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 16, 2007, 06:24:04 PM
The dems have been told this. Hence, traitors.
Post by: Art Eatman on October 16, 2007, 06:37:57 PM
(Regardless of one's views on that war: You don't vomit on somebody's carpet and then just walk off and leave it filthy.)
Much like California's microstamp law on guns. Ostensibly about crime, but really about making life difficult for gun buyers.
Post by: wooderson on October 16, 2007, 07:00:14 PM
Quote
Troops will literally die if the supply lines are suddenly cut off.
I'm a-feared that I'm not allowed to say exactly what you're full of.
Post by: jefnvk on October 17, 2007, 04:37:49 AM
And personally, yes, I would respond the same if Congress brought up a resolution to start relabeling the Holocaust. Or the killing of Indians. Or against the Khmer Rouge. Or any other tragedy that happened years ago and has been resolved.
Post by: Joe Demko on October 17, 2007, 04:54:04 AM
If it strangles the war, then good. Bring the troops home and leave the mess we made behind. I see no point in staying, killing a bunch of them, getting a bunch of ours killed, and then saying "F*** it, let's go home!" afterward. I said (over and over at TFL and THR) in the months leading up to our invasion that the war in Iraq would be easy, it would be the "peace" that was long, bloody, and expensive.
When you tramp in a big pile of *expletive deleted*it, the thing to do is scrape it off your shoes and move on, not march in place on it hoping that it will miraculously turn into shoe polish. Whether you tramped in that pile of *expletive deleted*it by mistake, or out of ignorance, or out of stupidity doesn't matter after it's all over your shoes.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 17, 2007, 04:57:44 AM
What you're suggesting is not "strangling the war", it's abandoning the troops.
Post by: Joe Demko on October 17, 2007, 05:01:01 AM
Post by: RevDisk on October 17, 2007, 03:01:56 PM
RevDisk, right now, WE NEED TURKEY. Troops will literally die if the supply lines are suddenly cut off. It'll take a while to reroute everything, and in the meantime, there could be possibly fatal shortages of critical ammo, spares, whatever.
The dems have been told this. Hence, traitors.
The dems have been told this. Hence, traitors.
Ah, I think you slightly overstate the case. Iraq does have ports. Umm Qasr being the best port for handling logistics. Basra being a bit on the unstable side... Kuwait, with significant concessions. Jordan, maybe, with enough concessions. I am in no way, shape or form saying they'd be nearly as convenient as shipping through Turkish and Kurdish territories. I'm saying you are overstating that US troops will be overrun and left to die if we have a spat with Turkey. Troops will literally die with or without Turkish supply lines. I do not think the number will be significantly different with or without Turkish supply lines. It's a matter of convenience and cost, not additional casualities.
Unless of course Turkey invades Kurdish territory and we look the other way. Then yes, if the Kurds believe we're simply the next Saddam Hussein, we're good and screwed. The Kurds are the only group not actively trying to kill American soldiers. They've been using the last few years to build up weapons, infrastructure and forces.
For the sake of irony and argument, I quote our beloved President.
Quote
The twentieth century was marred by wars of unimaginable brutality, mass murder and genocide. History records that the Armenians were the first people of the last century to have endured these cruelties. The Armenians were subjected to a genocidal campaign that defies comprehension and commands all decent people to remember and acknowledge the facts and lessons of an awful crime in a century of bloody crimes against humanity. If elected President, I would ensure that our nation properly recognizes the tragic suffering of the Armenian people.
Gov. Bush on February 19, 2000 http://www.anca.org/press_releases/press_releases.php?prid=3
Post by: MechAg94 on October 17, 2007, 06:28:55 PM
You saying it doesn't make it so.
Whatever. I get the impression you agree with this resolution for the same reason Pelosi does. This resolution does nothing for Armenians. It is just politics. If the Dems want to cut off the war effort, they can do so at any time. They control the purse strings in Congress. They just don't have the nads to do so since they know that people might be upset with the running of the war, but they most definitely don't want us to give up and go home (lose).
Post by: Joe Demko on October 18, 2007, 02:55:09 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on October 18, 2007, 05:16:29 AM
If the war is choked off, I count it as a good thing. If that puts me on the same page as Pelosi for that particular topic, so be it. You are not going to insult me by using the tired tactic of saying "If you want A then that makes you just the same as So-and-so who also wants A."
If you're in favor of "choking off the war", you're in favor of causing hardship and shortages for the troops, who cannot just "leave"....they'll continue to be attacked even if they surrender and retreat as the Democrat party wants. And troops will be killed as a result. THAT is what you're in favor of, then.
Post by: Joe Demko on October 18, 2007, 06:03:42 AM
If your objection is that you believe the war should continue to be prosecuted, please address it from that standpoint. I think it is disingenuous of you to phrase this as if you believe the troops will simply be left behind in Iraq.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 18, 2007, 06:07:20 AM
Once it's done, it's done. It's why the dems are doing it this way. They're throwing a Molotov through the window and running.
Post by: Joe Demko on October 18, 2007, 07:29:33 AM
Look, I'll flatly state that I've been against this war since before the actual invasion. I believe it has been a costly, bloody, pointless error. I'd have no qualms about loading the troops up and bringing them home today, regardless of what the Turks decide to do. I don't want to spend an additional penny or one more drop of American blood on a mistake.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 18, 2007, 08:05:08 AM
Post by: Joe Demko on October 18, 2007, 08:17:59 AM
I am against continuing the war. You are, apparently, for continuing it. I believe that is where this discussion is going to stall.
Post by: mtnbkr on October 18, 2007, 08:55:12 AM
Chris