There’s really only one morally valid question here: Did the Turks commit genocide against the Armenians during WWI? Yes or no?
If they did, then we are morally obligated to say so (if nothing else,) regardless of the consequences.
If they did, then we are morally obligated to say so (if nothing else,) regardless of the consequences.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I am under the impression that this was already passed by the Congress before.
How many times? Is once enough? Twice? Ten? A hundred? A million? A new daily resolution into perpetuity?
Rush said that there already has been two earlier resolutions regarding this matter. So, the real question is why now, does the Dems want to bring this matter up?
It was 9 effin’ decades ago. Don’t you find the Democrats’ timing odd in the least?
Yeah, we should replace the pledge of allegiance with a condemnation of Turkey in American schools every morning.
Yes, the Turks did commit genocide, and yes we should have condemned it WHEN IT HAPPENED, but don’t you find it fishy that the Dems bring it up NOW, in a time of war when Turkey is helping to supply our military on their way to Iraq?
Also, do you really think the Dems brought it up because they wanted to condemn genocide and speak out against radical Islam? When have the Dems EVER spoken out against radical Islam? They’re doing it to sabotage our efforts in Iraq.
Yes we should condemn the genocide, but wait until after the war, not right now when it hurts us. Just why we didn’t do this decades ago is beyond me.
We have, many times. But why do it again now? It's ancient history. The government that did it was overthrown by Ataturk and his band of young military officers. The spirit of Ataturk is the only thing keeping Turkey from going Islma nutso. It's weakening though.
If the Turks had let the 4th ID move across Turkey. They'd likely not have the problem with left wing Islamo Nut terrorist type Kurds coming across the border. The Turks have not treated the Kurds of Turkey well, historically speaking. But they also fail to make distinctions between Kurdish groups. And there are big differences. The ones giving them problems have gotten Iranian support, and earlier they got support from a certain Socialist country that is not far from Kurdistan and Turkey.
Really? Is that the only consideration here?
Boy, that’s good to know since our military’s supply lines go through Turkey, and there is absolutely no one left alive in Turkey responsible for anything that happened in WWI. However, since we have about 120,000 active duty personnel in the region, and since the US seems to pick up the historical check for any moron with a theory about who owes whom,
I guess that will be OK seeing our troops run out of ammo in the middle of a firefight. Al Qaeda is on the ropes there, so this will be perfect timing on our part, since the very best thing to do historically is make war on the US. We’ll bomb you back to the stone age, and then rebuild you better than we have it stateside.
And since we have a moral obligation to take on the actions of people long since dead, I suppose you’ll be the one handing your property over to some unnamed African American representative in compensation for something you had absolutely NOTHING to do with over 200 years ago.
The Jews will also be suing the Egyptians, and the Spaniards the Muslims, and so on and so on.
It’s your precise point of view that helped usher in WWI in the first place. Entangling alliances and bad nationalism. The irony is actually perfect.
Plus, the Ottoman Empire did the dirty deed. That empire consisted of a fair number of provinces which are now reconfigured as various states.
Which state do we condemn? Or, do we condemn all of them? Who should be punished? How should they be punished?
After WWI it was determined that the Ottoman Empire should be destroyed, carved up into smaller states, then the people who lived there punished through the imposition of various dictatorships.
What more should be done?
I highly doubt any of the current Turks did anything to the Armenians 80 years ago. This “resolution” is nothing but an attempt to piss off an ally.
WWI, that was like 90 years ago. What’s the purpose of bringing this up now? Why didn’t earlier congresses label this act as genocide? How does acknowledging the genocide change the results? More grandstanding from the stupid democrats.
The US government has no business condemning an ally goverment over issues that happened 80+ years ago under the leadership of people who are long dead. This was a subversive move by a DEMOCRAT house panel, not the full house, to cripple US/Turkey relations with regard to the WOT.
If they did, then we are morally obligated to say so (if nothing else,) regardless of the consequences.
_______________________________________________________
Was there a genocide in Rwanda ten years ago? Is there a form of genocide going on today in Darfur? The answer to both is yes. It is absurd to claim the morale high ground by making a statement about what happened ninety years ago but doing nothing to stop the same thing today.
This is politics pure and simple.
Yes, they did, but why after 95 yrs is it so darn important to say so NOW?
The Red mass murderers make the Ottomans look like pikers.
Ottoman Turkey 1915-1917 Armenians (mostly Christians) 1-1.5 million
China, Red 1949-1952 1957-1960 1966-1976 Political opponents; Rural populations Enemies of the state 20-35 million
Soviet Union 1929-1945 Political opponents; farming communities 20 million
Cambodia (Khmer Rouge) 1975-1979 Educated Persons; Political enemies 2 million