It was rather stupid and grandstanding thing for congress to do right now. That said, all available evidence really seems to verify the Armenian genocide and also Turkey has to be the most infantile, puerile, hypersensitive nation on earth. Seriously, I'm almost supportive of the declaration if only because I'm really fucking sick of Turkey.
A non-binding resolution to consider calling the killing of 1.5M people a century ago a genocide is grandstanding? As in "acting so as to impress onlookers"? Because if it was suppose to impress me, it failed.
As in "acting so as to impress voting onlookers of Armenian extraction who really need this century-old incident validated by congress right the fuck now". I mean why the fuck is this even necessary? Has Canada passed a big resolution acknowledging the Armenian genocide? If not, why not? Maybe because it's utterly meaningless and will only make trouble right now?
To try and veer a little on topic, I think the practical need to have Turkey on your side and not fucking with the Kurds far outweighs honouring some dead Armenians.
Turkey has threatened "serious repercussions" if this, ultimately meaningless, vote goes through. Any rational person can see what those repercussions could entail:
- Ending US operations at Incirlik Air Base
- Invading Kurdistan
What does the motion accomplish other than obvious vote-pandering to... well the people who care, which I assume are Democrats because it's a Democratic congress and as far as I can see it's Pelossi who is pushing the bill? I mean, Incirlik is pretty damn important. Around 70% of the supplies for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are flown out of there. The US is already looking for alternatives to the airbase. And Kurdistan is one of the few bright spots resulting from this clusterfuck of an occupation and if (when) Turkey goes in there... Don't really want to think about it.
I don't know. Calling sabotage is juvenile, but that's the ultimate effect this will have on the War, if Turkey does what it seems likely to do. The vote could be far more negative in it's practical effect on the U.S.A than the benefit the symbolic gesture will bring.
I have a hard time believing that Turkey will end US operations at Iniclik Air Base, sabotage the Iraq War, and basically piss off the US and spoil relations for years to come, over a meaningless resolution by Congress.
Moreover, Turkey has good relations with many countries that recognize the Armenian genocide, and in fact wants to join the EU, regardless of the fact many of its member countries recognize the Armenian genocide. Turkey's threats to the US are just a bluff.
Richy on
0
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
edited October 2007
agreed... congress is acting like the fucking tree men in lord of the rings "we acknowledge you, but we don't really have any ideas, we're just saying that you're there...and admitting this happened, even though we already know that.. "
Duki, that was pure textbook win... and I'll give you that. Slavery was the big UNDERLYING issue though. The south wanted them, the north didnt. The north had majority vote, and kept it by any means necessary, and that control and misuse of power is what erupted the war. Yeah, slavery was the issue being debated, but I don't think it's fair to say it like slavery was the big, outlined issue, that caused the civil war.
I just feel that when the main cause is limited to slavery it makes us come off like monsters and the north come off as some kind of saints, saving the world from the terrible south. There was a lot more to it than that, and the north did a lot of pretty unspeakable things after winning the war.
But screw it, slavery was one of the biggest factors, in fact it was the second biggest factor of the civil war, so I'll shut up and got back to the regular thread.
It was rather stupid and grandstanding thing for congress to do right now. That said, all available evidence really seems to verify the Armenian genocide and also Turkey has to be the most infantile, puerile, hypersensitive nation on earth. Seriously, I'm almost supportive of the declaration if only because I'm really fucking sick of Turkey.
A non-binding resolution to consider calling the killing of 1.5M people a century ago a genocide is grandstanding? As in "acting so as to impress onlookers"? Because if it was suppose to impress me, it failed.
As in "acting so as to impress voting onlookers of Armenian extraction who really need this century-old incident validated by congress right the fuck now". I mean why the fuck is this even necessary? Has Canada passed a big resolution acknowledging the Armenian genocide? If not, why not? Maybe because it's utterly meaningless and will only make trouble right now?
Yes, Canada has passed a resolution acknowledging the Armenian genocide, as did 21 other nations, and 40/50 US states. You'd know that if you'd bothered reading this very page of the thread.
And there's no big powerful Armenian lobby in the US, as far as I know. Trying to paint this as an Armenian ploy is lunatic.
As for why this is necessary, I will refer you to my post right above the one in which I pointed out that Canada already recognizes the Armenian genocide, which you clearly also didn't read. I don't feel like copy-pasting the same post again.
To try and veer a little on topic, I think the practical need to have Turkey on your side and not fucking with the Kurds far outweighs honouring some dead Armenians.
Turkey has threatened "serious repercussions" if this, ultimately meaningless, vote goes through. Any rational person can see what those repercussions could entail:
- Ending US operations at Incirlik Air Base
- Invading Kurdistan
What does the motion accomplish other than obvious vote-pandering to... well the people who care, which I assume are Democrats because it's a Democratic congress and as far as I can see it's Pelossi who is pushing the bill? I mean, Incirlik is pretty damn important. Around 70% of the supplies for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are flown out of there. The US is already looking for alternatives to the airbase. And Kurdistan is one of the few bright spots resulting from this clusterfuck of an occupation and if (when) Turkey goes in there... Don't really want to think about it.
I don't know. Calling sabotage is juvenile, but that's the ultimate effect this will have on the War, if Turkey does what it seems likely to do. The vote could be far more negative in it's practical effect on the U.S.A than the benefit the symbolic gesture will bring.
I have a hard time believing that Turkey will end US operations at Iniclik Air Base, sabotage the Iraq War, and basically piss off the US and spoil relations for years to come, over a meaningless resolution by Congress.
Moreover, Turkey has good relations with many countries that recognize the Armenian genocide, and in fact wants to join the EU, regardless of the fact many of its member countries recognize the Armenian genocide. Turkey's threats to the US are just a bluff.
Well, it's a definite possibility, and more than probable in the case of the airbase. But going into Kurdistan is something I get the feeling they really want to do, and the resolution will finally give them an, albeit weak, excuse to do it.
It's just not worth even risking this type of stuff over a meaningless gesture. History is what it is, the government doesn't have to spell it out, especially if that can bring negative effects on itself.
EDIT: I mean, the stuff about wanting to join the EU and not making a fuss about other nations recognising the Armenian genocide is sort of the point. There is clearly something they want to do against US interests/want something from the US that other countries can't give them.
To try and veer a little on topic, I think the practical need to have Turkey on your side and not fucking with the Kurds far outweighs honouring some dead Armenians.
Turkey has threatened "serious repercussions" if this, ultimately meaningless, vote goes through. Any rational person can see what those repercussions could entail:
- Ending US operations at Incirlik Air Base
- Invading Kurdistan
What does the motion accomplish other than obvious vote-pandering to... well the people who care, which I assume are Democrats because it's a Democratic congress and as far as I can see it's Pelossi who is pushing the bill? I mean, Incirlik is pretty damn important. Around 70% of the supplies for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are flown out of there. The US is already looking for alternatives to the airbase. And Kurdistan is one of the few bright spots resulting from this clusterfuck of an occupation and if (when) Turkey goes in there... Don't really want to think about it.
I don't know. Calling sabotage is juvenile, but that's the ultimate effect this will have on the War, if Turkey does what it seems likely to do. The vote could be far more negative in it's practical effect on the U.S.A than the benefit the symbolic gesture will bring.
I have a hard time believing that Turkey will end US operations at Iniclik Air Base, sabotage the Iraq War, and basically piss off the US and spoil relations for years to come, over a meaningless resolution by Congress.
Moreover, Turkey has good relations with many countries that recognize the Armenian genocide, and in fact wants to join the EU, regardless of the fact many of its member countries recognize the Armenian genocide. Turkey's threats to the US are just a bluff.
Well, it's a definite possibility, and more than probable in the case of the airbase. But going into Kurdistan is something I get the feeling they really want to do, and the resolution will finally give them an, albeit weak, excuse to do it.
It's just not worth even risking this type of stuff over a meaningless gesture. History is what it is, the government doesn't have to spell it out, especially if that can bring negative effects on itself.
So 22 countries recognizing the Armenian Genocide is not reason enough for Turkey to go into Kurdistan, but the US becoming the 23rd one is? Besides, denying a genocide for a short-term tactical advantage is a pretty low thing to do. What's next, denying Stalinist Russia's gulags for bases along China's borders? Denying the Holocaust to stop Iran from helping Iraqi insurgents?
EDIT: I just saw your edit. And I disagree with you. If anything, the fact that Turkey wants something from the US that other countries can't give them is a strong reason why they'll try to maintain good relations with you even if Congress passes that resolution, not the other way around.
EDIT2: Looking at it the other way around, if there's something that the US is stopping Turkey from doing, passing a non-binding resolution on something 22 other countries already agree on won't change anything.
It's just not worth even risking this type of stuff over a meaningless gesture. History is what it is, the government doesn't have to spell it out, especially if that can bring negative effects on itself.
History is one of the most important driving forces in conflicts and acknowledging is important. The Koreans are still mad about what happened a long time ago. I suppose we shouldn't pass a resolution acknowledging the Holocaust because some Holocaust deniers in the Middle East might get mad?
No states rights was the biggest issue, well as far as my US history class went over it, it was. Genocides are terrible, pretending they don't exist is almost as bad. Fuck turkey.
Really? Where did you learn this from? From what I know that's just political whitewashing by the south. One of my history teachers provided ample evidence that the Civil War was indeed about slavery.
The reason we don't recognize CURRENT genocide is because, AFAIK, if we officially recognize it as a genocide, the UN "laws" or whatever the fuck they call them require countries to step in and stop them. It was the same thing with the Rwandan Genocide, which the US and many others were blocking from being called one so they wouldn't have to respond to it.
shryke on
0
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
Well if it was political white washing from the south it made it as far north as washington state. I am not saying that slavery wasn't an issue, but I was under the impression the war was mainly about the rights of the states (in this main context the right to own slaves and the right to secceed should they no longer feel like the union is no longer what they want to be a part of).
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Congress is currently working to pass a resolution to name the WW1 massacre of Armenian's a genocide. Meanwhile, Turkey is saying that taking such a measure would cause them to stop doing business with the U.S., as well as possibly hurting the United States ability to use Turkey as a staging ground for anything in the Middle East.
It's fairly easy to see the cons with going forward with this resolution. Turkey is an important ally for the U.S. However, is there some inherant duty to labeling history correctly? Is it okay to denounce Holocaust deniers while doing so ourselves in order to keep relations with the offending country?
It seems to me that there is an ethical duty to lable this event a genocide. Even by the most liberal definitions, the shoe fits. However, there is no denying it will hurt our (U.S.) interests.
TLDR: Does our ethical duty trump our national interests?
Honestly?
I think Congress just doesn't have the stones to directly de-fund and stop the war, so they're dragging up a nearly 100-year old atrocity to anger a nation we need for airbases to fly supplies and personell into Iraq, thereby undercutting the war effort indirectly.
It's political guerilla warfare; the timing is too "perfect". They've had 100 years and they're doing something about it just *now*.
People like Ron Paul and Dennis Kusinnich (?) might be a bit....odd, but at least they have the guts to say what they mean and vote appropriately.
I can see the importance of the gesture, but this is not the most expedient time to anger Turkey. Pragmatism has to trump morality for the time being.
Every President since Ford has recognized the incident as genocide. The only sitting presidents who did not do so were Clinton and Bush Jr. This resolution is less about morality and more about codifiying how America officially views what Turkey did. My question is, when does it stop being pragmaticism and become pandering?
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Well if it was political white washing from the south it made it as far north as washington state. I am not saying that slavery wasn't an issue, but I was under the impression the war was mainly about the rights of the states (in this main context the right to own slaves and the right to secceed should they no longer feel like the union is no longer what they want to be a part of).
Like Duki said earlier, you don't secede because you want to have the right to secede. It would be completely hypocritical for them to disallow secession in their own constitution, so they pretty much had no choice to put that in there or they'd be a total laughingstock.
Think about why we group the states into North and South. What did the southern states have in common with each other (aside from geographic location, naturally) that they didn't have with the North? Every single answer I can think of either involves slaves or is a direct consequence of the extent to which the South depended on them. What are the other state rights the South was supposedly trying to protect? And if state rights were so important to them, why did they try to interfere with Kansas's right to decide whether it would be a free or slave state?
Because tolerating anything from our "allies" worked so well during the Cold War too right?
I agree. We made way too many deals with the devil during the Cold War and wound up, Frankenstein-like, making the enemies we face today. (Saddam, the Taliban, ect.)
My issue is that the timing of the resolution smacks of gutless politics.
Because tolerating anything from our "allies" worked so well during the Cold War too right?
I agree. We made way too many deals with the devil during the Cold War and wound up, Frankenstein-like, making the enemies we face today. (Saddam, the Taliban, ect.)
My issue is that the timing of the resolution smacks of gutless politics.
Can you name me one time in the past 7 years when this would not have been the case?
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Because tolerating anything from our "allies" worked so well during the Cold War too right?
I agree. We made way too many deals with the devil during the Cold War and wound up, Frankenstein-like, making the enemies we face today. (Saddam, the Taliban, ect.)
My issue is that the timing of the resolution smacks of gutless politics.
Can you name me one time in the past 7 years when this would not have been the case?
Before the war and buildup to it; when Turkey wasn't as important to the present, politically charged war in Iraq.
Also, please don't think by this that I *support* what's going on in Iraq right now. I feel that both sides suck, especially when not *one* of the major democratic candidates pledged to pull out troops totally by the end of their first term in office.
"Hey, I'm running as the anti-war candidate.....but I won't pledge to stop it anytime soon!" O_o
Ege and I bashed our heads together over this several times, and from what I gather, one of the problems is that Turkey kept rather shitty records. In addition, the Turks surrendered before the British were able to drive into Anatolia, so the camps and mass graves did not receive the same kind of massive publicity that their counterparts in Germany did at the end of WWII. The reports we do have generally come from diplomats (who's reports were not published) or the Russians (who weren't really talking much after the war). As a result, the whole situation was swept under the rug; it was not much more than a footnote in Western histories, and there were no published records in Turkey to counter the official line (other than the accounts of the Armenians and possibly Soviets, neither of whom the Turks were going to believe).
Knuckle Dragger on
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
- John Stuart Mill
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
edited October 2007
I thought Ege's line was that the Armenians sided with the Russians, and hence had to be relocated, and it wasn't the Turks fault if the relocation methods wound up looking a lot like the Trail of Tears.
I think WWII is the last "war" we fought. The rest have just been authorized military excursions.
There's not much functional difference.
This isn't exactly related, but I think the dynamics of war (and combat in general) are sufficiently different today that some revision of how "wars" are declared and fought may be in order.
Loren Michael on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
I think WWII is the last "war" we fought. The rest have just been authorized military excursions.
There's not much functional difference.
This isn't exactly related, but I think the dynamics of war (and combat in general) are sufficiently different today that some revision of how "wars" are declared and fought may be in order.
I don't really think so--and nebulous Congressional authorizations based on hastily-cobbled together psuedo-evidence didn't seem to serve us that well in Iraq or Viet Nam. Hopefully next time they'll grow a spine and tell the executive to cool their heels for a bit.
All I know is if the Armenian Genocide was recognized by the U.S. Government there would be a week-long party where I live. Glendale, aka, Little Armenia.
I think WWII is the last "war" we fought. The rest have just been authorized military excursions.
There's not much functional difference.
This isn't exactly related, but I think the dynamics of war (and combat in general) are sufficiently different today that some revision of how "wars" are declared and fought may be in order.
I don't really think so--and nebulous Congressional authorizations based on hastily-cobbled together psuedo-evidence didn't seem to serve us that well in Iraq or Viet Nam. Hopefully next time they'll grow a spine and tell the executive to cool their heels for a bit.
I don't think that's necessarily the only alternative.
The problems that America faces, combined with the ways wars are fought in modern times (not to mention the natures of the conflicts) are, I think, vastly different than essentially any other time in history.
Anyways, Re: Genocide:
James Fallows sums up my views pretty damn well:
Before leaving China, I hadn't heard about the House of Representatives' vote on a resolution condemning Turkey for the Armenian genocide of the World War I era.
Now that I've heard about it, I find that it leads naturally to this question:
Is America insane??????
To be more precise: have the Congressional Democratic leaders lost their minds in not finding a way to bottle up this destructive and self-righteously posturing measure?
Maybe they think that the U.S. has so many friends in the Islamic world, especially in countries bordering Iraq, that it should go out of its way to make new enemies?
Or -- and this is truly appalling possibility -- perhaps they think that America’s moral standing is so high at the moment that we will be admired and thanked worldwide for delivering condemnations of sins committed in the waning days of the Ottoman Empire?
Why not go all the way? How about a resolution condemning China for the millions who suffered in the Cultural Revolution and the tens of millions starved during the Great Leap Forward – right as we’re seeking China’s help on Burma, North Korea, the environment, etc? I mean, for each Armenian the Ottoman Turks slaughtered, at least ten Chinese citizens perished at the hands of the regime whose successors still rule the country. And the government's official stance of denial is just about as strong. So, why not just tell them they were evil? The timing would be especially nice during China's current Party Congress.
I'm sure we could get a unanimous vote for a resolution condemning North Korea for any of a hundred grievous offenses; that would be a good complement to the recent nuclear deal. Why not one denouncing Russia for the Czarist pogroms, to accompany efforts to reason with/rein in Putin? Maybe another condemning England for its subjugation and slaughter of the Scots, to say nothing of the Irish – while also asking Gordon Brown to stay the course in Iraq? What about Australia for its historic treatment of the Aborigines? Or the current nations of West Africa for their role in the slave trade?
The Armenian genocide was real; many Turks pretend it wasn’t. They are wrong, and we should stand for what's right. But it’s hard to think of a more willfully self-indulgent step than lecturing Turkey's current government and people 90 years late.
I thought Ege's line was that the Armenians sided with the Russians, and hence had to be relocated, and it wasn't the Turks fault if the relocation methods wound up looking a lot like the Trail of Tears.
More or less. The problem is that it is also more or less true; there were Armenians harrassing the Ottoman supply lines at Sarikamis, but from some of the information I have seen, the Ottoman army marched into Russia, then turned south to attack the city, meaning that they were not necessarily Armenians from the Ottoman Empire. Either way, when everything fell apart, the Armenians were blamed for the debacle and things went all pear shaped.
Knuckle Dragger on
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
Turkey does what it wants to. If they see a benefit from acting as our ally, they'll act as our ally. If they see a benefit from doing business with us, they'll do business with us. They're as realpolitik-y as we are, and they won't be swayed one way or the other by whether we point out that they pulled a total dick move a century ago.
That said, I don't see much in the way of an upshot from this move, either. I guess maybe we can score some brownie points from our 1 or 2 remaining supporters in Europe.
First off, an important thing needs to be said: Turkey is not Ottoman Empire! Different countries, different regimes. I would appreciate it if people respected that distinction.
Second thing, passing this resolution may not have any practical meaning, but it is a very important political move. The Armenian lobby in the United States, as well as in Europe, is very powerful. Labeling what the Ottomans did to the Armenians as "genocide" would be of tremendous political - and thus economic - value to the USA.
Historians believe that the Armenian genocide served as a template for the Holocaust.
That is ridiculous. While I understand the importance of taking responsibility for and learning from our mistakes, I think comparing
a) putting prisoners in war camps, refusing to feed them when food is available, burning them in furnaces and making soap out of their bodies, etc.
b) trying to relocate a violent and troublesome population and, in the process, have them die off - in large numbers - on the way due to negligence
is delusional. Anyone who does that is unaware of the realities in which the events occurred.
The reality in the case of the deaths of Armenians was that, during that time, the Ottoman Empire was fighting and losing a war on many fronts. The government was poor, army supplies were rare. They couldn't even afford to issue the most basic amenities - clothes, rations, shelter - to the soldiers, a lot of whom died not to the enemy bullets and shrapnel, but due to diseases and infections.
During this time, the Turkish populations and Armenian populations in the eastern regions of Asia Minor were massacring each other. Many Armenians - who were believed to be bribed or otherwise "persuaded" - by Russians and the British (who wanted to cause trouble within the Ottoman Empire in order to get it to divert its forces from the Caucasian and Middle Eastern fronts, respectively) were organizing gangs to perform raids into Turkish villages. The Turks were responding in kind.
So, in order to prevent the chaos from escalating, the government - in a rather unwise move - decided to relocate the Armenian population down south. What they did not know or realize at the time was that moving such a large population that great a distance would be a tremendous logistical problem, a problem the already poor and ill-equipped army would not be able to handle. Consequently, a lot of Armenians perished in war camps.
My personal opinion - which is removed from the Turkish national stance, in this case - is that it was not genocide. And the reason was that there was no systematic destruction of the Armenian population. Unlike in the Holocaust, or in the Native American genocide by the European settlers, or in any other genocide in history, there was no specific intent to kill off the group of people in question. Yes, it is true that the Turkish population was extremely hostile towards the Armenians as a result of being raped, murdered, massacred by their gangs, but nobody actually went Hitler on them.
The deaths of some 1.5 million Armenians during World War I was a disaster of tremendous proportions that was a result of gross negligence and terrible judgment on part of the Ottoman authorities at the time. As a citizen of modern Turkey, I do feel sorry and I do understand that history demands justice - we all demand it. I just don't think labeling this sad episode of history as "genocide" will bring that justice, for the aforementioned reasons. It might be justice in the eyes of one party, but in the eyes of the other it is simply a political maneuver to appease the great-grandchildren of the dead - who happen to have a rather powerful lobbying force in the current political and economic climate.
I thought Ege's line was that the Armenians sided with the Russians, and hence had to be relocated, and it wasn't the Turks fault if the relocation methods wound up looking a lot like the Trail of Tears.
The reason the timing sucks is because it has always been put off by politicians for a later date. It was put off in the Cold War because Turkey was a strategic partner. It was put off during the Gulf War because Turkey was perfectly located for use as a forward base. Turkey was and probably will be an important ally for the forseeable future. There's never going to be a great time to do it, might as well do it now rather than never.
Turkey does what it wants to. If they see a benefit from acting as our ally, they'll act as our ally. If they see a benefit from doing business with us, they'll do business with us. They're as realpolitik-y as we are, and they won't be swayed one way or the other by whether we point out that they pulled a total dick move a century ago.
That said, I don't see much in the way of an upshot from this move, either. I guess maybe we can score some brownie points from our 1 or 2 remaining supporters in Europe.
First off, an important thing needs to be said: Turkey is not Ottoman Empire! Different countries, different regimes. I would appreciate it if people respected that distinction.
Would Turkey stop being up in arms if Congress put in language specifically condeming the Ottoman Empire? I'm pretty sure it still insults Turkishness.
This seems like an extra bad time to do it though, and could threaten to open up another front of gigantic clusterfuck in Iraq over an issue that's not immediately relevant. In realpolitik sense, because everyone seems to love that, it could be used to strengthen Turkish opposition to the US with roots in other matters, or could be a pretext to do things they want to do that would otherwise be counter to our wishes. This seems like the sort of thing they should have been worrying about bringing up before we were in a position of vulnerability.
I'm suspicious of ege's reasoning that it was clueless negligence rather than genocide. At the very least it sounds like the Ottomans didn't care if a bunch of Armenians died under their charge. It doesn't have to be industrialized killing to be a genocide, and there are other instances where somewhat indirect means were used to kill off masses of people, such as with Ukrainian collectivization.
Oh yeah, so Turkey's thinking about attacking Kurdish seperatists in northern Iraq. This point of contention has been brewing for awhile, but I'm guessing Congress' decision will play a big part in any attempt by us to stop it. Go politics!
Turkey does what it wants to. If they see a benefit from acting as our ally, they'll act as our ally. If they see a benefit from doing business with us, they'll do business with us. They're as realpolitik-y as we are, and they won't be swayed one way or the other by whether we point out that they pulled a total dick move a century ago.
That said, I don't see much in the way of an upshot from this move, either. I guess maybe we can score some brownie points from our 1 or 2 remaining supporters in Europe.
First off, an important thing needs to be said: Turkey is not Ottoman Empire! Different countries, different regimes. I would appreciate it if people respected that distinction.
Second thing, passing this resolution may not have any practical meaning, but it is a very important political move. The Armenian lobby in the United States, as well as in Europe, is very powerful. Labeling what the Ottomans did to the Armenians as "genocide" would be of tremendous political - and thus economic - value to the USA.
Historians believe that the Armenian genocide served as a template for the Holocaust.
That is ridiculous. While I understand the importance of taking responsibility for and learning from our mistakes, I think comparing
a) putting prisoners in war camps, refusing to feed them when food is available, burning them in furnaces and making soap out of their bodies, etc.
b) trying to relocate a violent and troublesome population and, in the process, have them die off - in large numbers - on the way due to negligence
is delusional. Anyone who does that is unaware of the realities in which the events occurred.
I have issued the command — and I'll have anybody who utters but one word of criticism executed by a firing squad — that our war aim does not consist in reaching certain lines, but in the physical destruction of the enemy. Accordingly, I have placed my death-head formations in readiness — for the present only in the East — with orders to them to send to death mercilessly and without compassion, men, women, and children of Polish derivation and language. Only thus shall we gain the living space (Lebensraum) which we need. Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
The "why Armenia and not Darfur" argument is ridiculous. It's like the people who say "why solve problem X when there's still starvation in Africa". Just because there are bigger, more pressing issues out there doesn't mean you have to put everything else on hold until they are solved.
I have to disagree.
International criminal law (including the laws that prohibit genocide) is entirely dependent on the goodwill and co-operation of states to function. That's the reason the ICC isn't pursuing the Bush administration for enforced disappearance/torture re. extraordinary rendition - because in order to be seen as a serious and worthwhile institution, it can only prosecute the most serious offenders. Its challenge - and the challenge of all international criminal/humanitarian law - is to make a real difference in the here and now, and to build legitimacy. If the ICC chases after otherwise law-abiding states, the countries that support it will withdraw from the treaties which create it, and we'll be back where we started.
International humanitarian/criminal law is simultaneously the most purely moral field of law, and the most mired in lay concerns. The safety, security, and legal rights of current citizens must always trump what is morally right. If provoking Turkey into withdrawing from the international legal community over a genocide that occurred 100 years ago means that efforts to protect the rights of citizens currently affected by crimes of genocide/human rights abuses are hampered, can it really be said to be worth it?
Also, ege: "They were just moving them" is possibly the lamest defence since "I only shot him to give him a scare. I didn't really mean to kill him."
I'm thinking the Turkish party line has effected ege more than he realizes.
Does Fox News have a Turkish counterpart?
Edit: It is understandable, though. There are many people in the US who would refuse to recognize the relocation and elimination (read: smallpox blankets) of the bulk of certain Native American populations as a genocide
TLDR: Does our ethical duty trump our national interests?
Are you retarded? Please dear God let that be a rhetorical question.
Nice contribution. Perhaps you should do some self-examination before throwing out the term "retarded."
And yeah, I find rhetorical questions make for the best OPs. :roll:
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
America never does anything in the interest of ethics. The goverment is in symbiosis with corporations. It has been this way for, as far as I can say, 80 years. Take the Americas role in world war one: America finally sees fit to come into the battle as Britain and Germany drown each other in blood. The Russians have already sustained ridiculious casualties but no one gives a shit about them.
In World War 2 America was fully aware of the systematic Jewish removal from Europe when it started, it just wasn't in America's best interest to confront Germany right away about it, partly because certain individuals had investments in Germany and vice versa. In fact America (or American corporations such as Standard Oil and the Union Banking Corporation) were vigirously funding Nazi Germany until America finally declared war in 1942.
Civil rights movements were surpressed for as long as they could, alas they were inevitable in a republic that's about equal rights and free speech.
Those are just some random examples of ethical motivation in recent American history, off the top of my head. I'm sure you can think of dozens more.
So "Does our ethical duty trump our national interests?"
No, it never has. It doesn't now.
If actual genocide hasn't effected America, ya think terminology on genocide will?
America preaches morality but that's all bullshit so discard that notion and carry on with your discussion.
Posts
I have a hard time believing that Turkey will end US operations at Iniclik Air Base, sabotage the Iraq War, and basically piss off the US and spoil relations for years to come, over a meaningless resolution by Congress.
Moreover, Turkey has good relations with many countries that recognize the Armenian genocide, and in fact wants to join the EU, regardless of the fact many of its member countries recognize the Armenian genocide. Turkey's threats to the US are just a bluff.
Duki, that was pure textbook win... and I'll give you that. Slavery was the big UNDERLYING issue though. The south wanted them, the north didnt. The north had majority vote, and kept it by any means necessary, and that control and misuse of power is what erupted the war. Yeah, slavery was the issue being debated, but I don't think it's fair to say it like slavery was the big, outlined issue, that caused the civil war.
I just feel that when the main cause is limited to slavery it makes us come off like monsters and the north come off as some kind of saints, saving the world from the terrible south. There was a lot more to it than that, and the north did a lot of pretty unspeakable things after winning the war.
But screw it, slavery was one of the biggest factors, in fact it was the second biggest factor of the civil war, so I'll shut up and got back to the regular thread.
And there's no big powerful Armenian lobby in the US, as far as I know. Trying to paint this as an Armenian ploy is lunatic.
As for why this is necessary, I will refer you to my post right above the one in which I pointed out that Canada already recognizes the Armenian genocide, which you clearly also didn't read. I don't feel like copy-pasting the same post again.
Well, it's a definite possibility, and more than probable in the case of the airbase. But going into Kurdistan is something I get the feeling they really want to do, and the resolution will finally give them an, albeit weak, excuse to do it.
It's just not worth even risking this type of stuff over a meaningless gesture. History is what it is, the government doesn't have to spell it out, especially if that can bring negative effects on itself.
EDIT: I mean, the stuff about wanting to join the EU and not making a fuss about other nations recognising the Armenian genocide is sort of the point. There is clearly something they want to do against US interests/want something from the US that other countries can't give them.
EDIT: I just saw your edit. And I disagree with you. If anything, the fact that Turkey wants something from the US that other countries can't give them is a strong reason why they'll try to maintain good relations with you even if Congress passes that resolution, not the other way around.
EDIT2: Looking at it the other way around, if there's something that the US is stopping Turkey from doing, passing a non-binding resolution on something 22 other countries already agree on won't change anything.
You'd think genocide would be a no-brainer even for Bush. Think again.
poor guy is really losing it these days.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Honestly?
I think Congress just doesn't have the stones to directly de-fund and stop the war, so they're dragging up a nearly 100-year old atrocity to anger a nation we need for airbases to fly supplies and personell into Iraq, thereby undercutting the war effort indirectly.
It's political guerilla warfare; the timing is too "perfect". They've had 100 years and they're doing something about it just *now*.
People like Ron Paul and Dennis Kusinnich (?) might be a bit....odd, but at least they have the guts to say what they mean and vote appropriately.
Margaret Thatcher
Every President since Ford has recognized the incident as genocide. The only sitting presidents who did not do so were Clinton and Bush Jr. This resolution is less about morality and more about codifiying how America officially views what Turkey did. My question is, when does it stop being pragmaticism and become pandering?
Like Duki said earlier, you don't secede because you want to have the right to secede. It would be completely hypocritical for them to disallow secession in their own constitution, so they pretty much had no choice to put that in there or they'd be a total laughingstock.
Think about why we group the states into North and South. What did the southern states have in common with each other (aside from geographic location, naturally) that they didn't have with the North? Every single answer I can think of either involves slaves or is a direct consequence of the extent to which the South depended on them. What are the other state rights the South was supposedly trying to protect? And if state rights were so important to them, why did they try to interfere with Kansas's right to decide whether it would be a free or slave state?
I agree. We made way too many deals with the devil during the Cold War and wound up, Frankenstein-like, making the enemies we face today. (Saddam, the Taliban, ect.)
My issue is that the timing of the resolution smacks of gutless politics.
Margaret Thatcher
Can you name me one time in the past 7 years when this would not have been the case?
Before the war and buildup to it; when Turkey wasn't as important to the present, politically charged war in Iraq.
Also, please don't think by this that I *support* what's going on in Iraq right now. I feel that both sides suck, especially when not *one* of the major democratic candidates pledged to pull out troops totally by the end of their first term in office.
"Hey, I'm running as the anti-war candidate.....but I won't pledge to stop it anytime soon!" O_o
Margaret Thatcher
- John Stuart Mill
This isn't exactly related, but I think the dynamics of war (and combat in general) are sufficiently different today that some revision of how "wars" are declared and fought may be in order.
I don't really think so--and nebulous Congressional authorizations based on hastily-cobbled together psuedo-evidence didn't seem to serve us that well in Iraq or Viet Nam. Hopefully next time they'll grow a spine and tell the executive to cool their heels for a bit.
I don't think that's necessarily the only alternative.
The problems that America faces, combined with the ways wars are fought in modern times (not to mention the natures of the conflicts) are, I think, vastly different than essentially any other time in history.
Anyways, Re: Genocide:
James Fallows sums up my views pretty damn well:
More or less. The problem is that it is also more or less true; there were Armenians harrassing the Ottoman supply lines at Sarikamis, but from some of the information I have seen, the Ottoman army marched into Russia, then turned south to attack the city, meaning that they were not necessarily Armenians from the Ottoman Empire. Either way, when everything fell apart, the Armenians were blamed for the debacle and things went all pear shaped.
- John Stuart Mill
First off, an important thing needs to be said: Turkey is not Ottoman Empire! Different countries, different regimes. I would appreciate it if people respected that distinction.
Second thing, passing this resolution may not have any practical meaning, but it is a very important political move. The Armenian lobby in the United States, as well as in Europe, is very powerful. Labeling what the Ottomans did to the Armenians as "genocide" would be of tremendous political - and thus economic - value to the USA.
That is ridiculous. While I understand the importance of taking responsibility for and learning from our mistakes, I think comparing
a) putting prisoners in war camps, refusing to feed them when food is available, burning them in furnaces and making soap out of their bodies, etc.
b) trying to relocate a violent and troublesome population and, in the process, have them die off - in large numbers - on the way due to negligence
is delusional. Anyone who does that is unaware of the realities in which the events occurred.
The reality in the case of the deaths of Armenians was that, during that time, the Ottoman Empire was fighting and losing a war on many fronts. The government was poor, army supplies were rare. They couldn't even afford to issue the most basic amenities - clothes, rations, shelter - to the soldiers, a lot of whom died not to the enemy bullets and shrapnel, but due to diseases and infections.
During this time, the Turkish populations and Armenian populations in the eastern regions of Asia Minor were massacring each other. Many Armenians - who were believed to be bribed or otherwise "persuaded" - by Russians and the British (who wanted to cause trouble within the Ottoman Empire in order to get it to divert its forces from the Caucasian and Middle Eastern fronts, respectively) were organizing gangs to perform raids into Turkish villages. The Turks were responding in kind.
So, in order to prevent the chaos from escalating, the government - in a rather unwise move - decided to relocate the Armenian population down south. What they did not know or realize at the time was that moving such a large population that great a distance would be a tremendous logistical problem, a problem the already poor and ill-equipped army would not be able to handle. Consequently, a lot of Armenians perished in war camps.
My personal opinion - which is removed from the Turkish national stance, in this case - is that it was not genocide. And the reason was that there was no systematic destruction of the Armenian population. Unlike in the Holocaust, or in the Native American genocide by the European settlers, or in any other genocide in history, there was no specific intent to kill off the group of people in question. Yes, it is true that the Turkish population was extremely hostile towards the Armenians as a result of being raped, murdered, massacred by their gangs, but nobody actually went Hitler on them.
The deaths of some 1.5 million Armenians during World War I was a disaster of tremendous proportions that was a result of gross negligence and terrible judgment on part of the Ottoman authorities at the time. As a citizen of modern Turkey, I do feel sorry and I do understand that history demands justice - we all demand it. I just don't think labeling this sad episode of history as "genocide" will bring that justice, for the aforementioned reasons. It might be justice in the eyes of one party, but in the eyes of the other it is simply a political maneuver to appease the great-grandchildren of the dead - who happen to have a rather powerful lobbying force in the current political and economic climate.
Of course it was the Ottoman Turks' fault.
Would Turkey stop being up in arms if Congress put in language specifically condeming the Ottoman Empire? I'm pretty sure it still insults Turkishness.
I'm suspicious of ege's reasoning that it was clueless negligence rather than genocide. At the very least it sounds like the Ottomans didn't care if a bunch of Armenians died under their charge. It doesn't have to be industrialized killing to be a genocide, and there are other instances where somewhat indirect means were used to kill off masses of people, such as with Ukrainian collectivization.
Yeah... someone here is delusional all right.
I have to disagree.
International criminal law (including the laws that prohibit genocide) is entirely dependent on the goodwill and co-operation of states to function. That's the reason the ICC isn't pursuing the Bush administration for enforced disappearance/torture re. extraordinary rendition - because in order to be seen as a serious and worthwhile institution, it can only prosecute the most serious offenders. Its challenge - and the challenge of all international criminal/humanitarian law - is to make a real difference in the here and now, and to build legitimacy. If the ICC chases after otherwise law-abiding states, the countries that support it will withdraw from the treaties which create it, and we'll be back where we started.
International humanitarian/criminal law is simultaneously the most purely moral field of law, and the most mired in lay concerns. The safety, security, and legal rights of current citizens must always trump what is morally right. If provoking Turkey into withdrawing from the international legal community over a genocide that occurred 100 years ago means that efforts to protect the rights of citizens currently affected by crimes of genocide/human rights abuses are hampered, can it really be said to be worth it?
Also, ege: "They were just moving them" is possibly the lamest defence since "I only shot him to give him a scare. I didn't really mean to kill him."
Does Fox News have a Turkish counterpart?
Edit: It is understandable, though. There are many people in the US who would refuse to recognize the relocation and elimination (read: smallpox blankets) of the bulk of certain Native American populations as a genocide
Are you retarded? Please dear God let that be a rhetorical question.
Nice contribution. Perhaps you should do some self-examination before throwing out the term "retarded."
And yeah, I find rhetorical questions make for the best OPs. :roll:
In World War 2 America was fully aware of the systematic Jewish removal from Europe when it started, it just wasn't in America's best interest to confront Germany right away about it, partly because certain individuals had investments in Germany and vice versa. In fact America (or American corporations such as Standard Oil and the Union Banking Corporation) were vigirously funding Nazi Germany until America finally declared war in 1942.
Civil rights movements were surpressed for as long as they could, alas they were inevitable in a republic that's about equal rights and free speech.
Those are just some random examples of ethical motivation in recent American history, off the top of my head. I'm sure you can think of dozens more.
So "Does our ethical duty trump our national interests?"
No, it never has. It doesn't now.
If actual genocide hasn't effected America, ya think terminology on genocide will?
America preaches morality but that's all bullshit so discard that notion and carry on with your discussion.