As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[US Foreign Policy] Iran Response: Missile strikes US Al-Assad, Kirbil base in Iraq pg 90

1363739414297

Posts

  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Yeah I'm confused by that. Like because we don't recognize them all we shouldn't recognize this one?

    The intent seems clear to me. She doesn't want to use the atrocities the Ottomans committed as a cudgel against modern-day Turks. She doesn't want to dump on Turkey.

    I think it's the reverse. She doesn't want to use the atrocities modern Turkey is comitting as the only reason we bother to acknowledge history, because that means we only look at what's politically convenient

  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Yeah I'm confused by that. Like because we don't recognize them all we shouldn't recognize this one?

    The intent seems clear to me. She doesn't want to use the atrocities the Ottomans committed as a cudgel against modern-day Turks. She doesn't want to dump on Turkey.

    But what Turkey is trying to do isn’t just a “political fight” per her office, they’re trying to commit a genocide which she says she’s against.

    So her principals of being against genocide will not allow her to vote on recognizing a genocide to retaliate against a country that’s trying to commit a genocide because we’re not recognizing additional genocides.

    steam_sig.png

    Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Yeah I'm confused by that. Like because we don't recognize them all we shouldn't recognize this one?

    The intent seems clear to me. She doesn't want to use the atrocities the Ottomans committed as a cudgel against modern-day Turks. She doesn't want to dump on Turkey.

    I think it's the reverse. She doesn't want to use the atrocities modern Turkey is comitting as the only reason we bother to acknowledge history, because that means we only look at what's politically convenient

    Sad to say, the evidence suggests that is exactly true. So...?

  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Yeah I'm confused by that. Like because we don't recognize them all we shouldn't recognize this one?

    The intent seems clear to me. She doesn't want to use the atrocities the Ottomans committed as a cudgel against modern-day Turks. She doesn't want to dump on Turkey.

    I think it's the reverse. She doesn't want to use the atrocities modern Turkey is comitting as the only reason we bother to acknowledge history, because that means we only look at what's politically convenient

    I’m sure the Kurdish people appreciate her principled stand on genocide.

    It’s not politics what Turkey is trying to do. It’s genocide.

    steam_sig.png

    Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Yeah I'm confused by that. Like because we don't recognize them all we shouldn't recognize this one?

    The intent seems clear to me. She doesn't want to use the atrocities the Ottomans committed as a cudgel against modern-day Turks. She doesn't want to dump on Turkey.

    I think it's the reverse. She doesn't want to use the atrocities modern Turkey is comitting as the only reason we bother to acknowledge history, because that means we only look at what's politically convenient

    I’m sure the Kurdish people appreciate her principled stand on genocide.

    It’s not politics what Turkey is trying to do. It’s genocide.

    The U.S. is also an active participant in this genocide. Turkey is our ally and drove into this territory with the full permission and cooperation of the American government. Our president is cheering them on on social media.

  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor changed Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Yeah I'm confused by that. Like because we don't recognize them all we shouldn't recognize this one?

    The intent seems clear to me. She doesn't want to use the atrocities the Ottomans committed as a cudgel against modern-day Turks. She doesn't want to dump on Turkey.

    I think it's the reverse. She doesn't want to use the atrocities modern Turkey is comitting as the only reason we bother to acknowledge history, because that means we only look at what's politically convenient

    I’m sure the Kurdish people appreciate her principled stand on genocide.

    It’s not politics what Turkey is trying to do. It’s genocide.

    She's not opposing it, she's just calling attention to the fact that, while this move is in the right direction, it is happening for the wrong reason, and we are still far from where we need to be.

  • HeirHeir Ausitn, TXRegistered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Yeah I'm confused by that. Like because we don't recognize them all we shouldn't recognize this one?

    The intent seems clear to me. She doesn't want to use the atrocities the Ottomans committed as a cudgel against modern-day Turks. She doesn't want to dump on Turkey.

    I think it's the reverse. She doesn't want to use the atrocities modern Turkey is comitting as the only reason we bother to acknowledge history, because that means we only look at what's politically convenient

    I’m sure the Kurdish people appreciate her principled stand on genocide.

    It’s not politics what Turkey is trying to do. It’s genocide.

    She's not opposing it, she's just calling attention to the fact that, while this move is in the right direction, it is happening for the wrong reason, and we are still far from where we need to be.

    I don’t understand. Why is it for the wrong reason?

    camo_sig2.png
  • LabelLabel Registered User regular
    The U.S. is not a monolith. The official policy may currently be that Turkey is allowed to do whatever it wants, perhaps because the arbiter of that policy is blackmailed down to his nuts by foreign powers. But there are a great many people who oppose that policy, even some in positions of power. Some of them seem to be voting along those lines in the House, for example.

  • RchanenRchanen Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Yeah I'm confused by that. Like because we don't recognize them all we shouldn't recognize this one?

    The intent seems clear to me. She doesn't want to use the atrocities the Ottomans committed as a cudgel against modern-day Turks. She doesn't want to dump on Turkey.

    I think it's the reverse. She doesn't want to use the atrocities modern Turkey is comitting as the only reason we bother to acknowledge history, because that means we only look at what's politically convenient

    I’m sure the Kurdish people appreciate her principled stand on genocide.

    It’s not politics what Turkey is trying to do. It’s genocide.

    The U.S. is also an active participant in this genocide. Turkey is our ally and drove into this territory with the full permission and cooperation of the American government. Our president is cheering them on on social media.

    That doesn't seem accurate to me. Passive participant or enabler seems accurate.

    I haven't seen any stories about American Troops massacring Kurds.

  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Yeah I'm confused by that. Like because we don't recognize them all we shouldn't recognize this one?

    The intent seems clear to me. She doesn't want to use the atrocities the Ottomans committed as a cudgel against modern-day Turks. She doesn't want to dump on Turkey.

    I think it's the reverse. She doesn't want to use the atrocities modern Turkey is comitting as the only reason we bother to acknowledge history, because that means we only look at what's politically convenient

    I’m sure the Kurdish people appreciate her principled stand on genocide.

    It’s not politics what Turkey is trying to do. It’s genocide.

    But I guess we shouldn’t mention it until we’ve mentioned every other genocide in the last 200 years.

  • HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Yeah I'm confused by that. Like because we don't recognize them all we shouldn't recognize this one?

    The intent seems clear to me. She doesn't want to use the atrocities the Ottomans committed as a cudgel against modern-day Turks. She doesn't want to dump on Turkey.

    I think it's the reverse. She doesn't want to use the atrocities modern Turkey is comitting as the only reason we bother to acknowledge history, because that means we only look at what's politically convenient

    But we do only look at what's politically convenient.

  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor changed Registered User regular
    Heir wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Yeah I'm confused by that. Like because we don't recognize them all we shouldn't recognize this one?

    The intent seems clear to me. She doesn't want to use the atrocities the Ottomans committed as a cudgel against modern-day Turks. She doesn't want to dump on Turkey.

    I think it's the reverse. She doesn't want to use the atrocities modern Turkey is comitting as the only reason we bother to acknowledge history, because that means we only look at what's politically convenient

    I’m sure the Kurdish people appreciate her principled stand on genocide.

    It’s not politics what Turkey is trying to do. It’s genocide.

    She's not opposing it, she's just calling attention to the fact that, while this move is in the right direction, it is happening for the wrong reason, and we are still far from where we need to be.

    I don’t understand. Why is it for the wrong reason?

    We're condemning the Armenian genocide that occurred a century ago because we're mad at Turkey today.

    Right position, wrong motivation.

  • ProhassProhass Registered User regular
    The problem is it feels like a point she can only make because everyone else voted for the measure. Ie, I’m sure everyone would largely agree with her, but if they all abstained to make a point then nothing gets condemned

  • RchanenRchanen Registered User regular
    Heir wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Yeah I'm confused by that. Like because we don't recognize them all we shouldn't recognize this one?

    The intent seems clear to me. She doesn't want to use the atrocities the Ottomans committed as a cudgel against modern-day Turks. She doesn't want to dump on Turkey.

    I think it's the reverse. She doesn't want to use the atrocities modern Turkey is comitting as the only reason we bother to acknowledge history, because that means we only look at what's politically convenient

    I’m sure the Kurdish people appreciate her principled stand on genocide.

    It’s not politics what Turkey is trying to do. It’s genocide.

    She's not opposing it, she's just calling attention to the fact that, while this move is in the right direction, it is happening for the wrong reason, and we are still far from where we need to be.

    I don’t understand. Why is it for the wrong reason?

    We're condemning the Armenian genocide that occurred a century ago because we're mad at Turkey today.

    Right position, wrong motivation.

    And because Turkey is/was (have the Russians and Syrians put a stop to that, or is that still ongoing) happily trying to commit another genocide.

    Still wrong motivation, right position.

    But hell, I am of the position that I will take what I can get out of Congress.

  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Yeah I'm confused by that. Like because we don't recognize them all we shouldn't recognize this one?

    The intent seems clear to me. She doesn't want to use the atrocities the Ottomans committed as a cudgel against modern-day Turks. She doesn't want to dump on Turkey.

    I think it's the reverse. She doesn't want to use the atrocities modern Turkey is comitting as the only reason we bother to acknowledge history, because that means we only look at what's politically convenient

    I’m sure the Kurdish people appreciate her principled stand on genocide.

    It’s not politics what Turkey is trying to do. It’s genocide.

    The U.S. is also an active participant in this genocide. Turkey is our ally and drove into this territory with the full permission and cooperation of the American government. Our president is cheering them on on social media.

    By this logic, if tomorrow Trump allows China to genocide Tibet and the House votes to rebuke it, would Omar still be principled to vote present because we’re not recognizing other genocides again because it’ll be political?

    It’s a bullshit argument. Her principled stance on genocide is preventing her from taking a principled stance on genocide.

    steam_sig.png

    Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
  • SmrtnikSmrtnik job boli zub Registered User regular
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Yeah I'm confused by that. Like because we don't recognize them all we shouldn't recognize this one?

    The intent seems clear to me. She doesn't want to use the atrocities the Ottomans committed as a cudgel against modern-day Turks. She doesn't want to dump on Turkey.

    Modern day Turkey still denies it ever happened and tries to financially and/or politically punish anyone that says it did.

    steam_sig.png
  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    Even the Obama administration was afraid to say the word genocide when talking about the Armenians because he didn’t want to offend Erdogan and risk losing access to Turkey for strategic purposes.

    Recognizing it is a good thing and a rebuke of Erdogan’s actions, Trump’s cowardice, and genocide in general regardless of how “political” it looks to oppose people being murdered at this very moment. I really don’t get what Omar is trying to prove here.

    steam_sig.png

    Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
  • SurfpossumSurfpossum A nonentity trying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Yeah I'm confused by that. Like because we don't recognize them all we shouldn't recognize this one?

    The intent seems clear to me. She doesn't want to use the atrocities the Ottomans committed as a cudgel against modern-day Turks. She doesn't want to dump on Turkey.

    I think it's the reverse. She doesn't want to use the atrocities modern Turkey is comitting as the only reason we bother to acknowledge history, because that means we only look at what's politically convenient

    I’m sure the Kurdish people appreciate her principled stand on genocide.

    It’s not politics what Turkey is trying to do. It’s genocide.

    The U.S. is also an active participant in this genocide. Turkey is our ally and drove into this territory with the full permission and cooperation of the American government. Our president is cheering them on on social media.

    By this logic, if tomorrow Trump allows China to genocide Tibet and the House votes to rebuke it, would Omar still be principled to vote present because we’re not recognizing other genocides again because it’ll be political?

    It’s a bullshit argument. Her principled stance on genocide is preventing her from taking a principled stance on genocide.
    I think there is some merit to the idea that recognizing a past genocide as retribution for current actions (even if those current actions are also genocide) delegitimizes the whole thing somewhat.

    If this vote has any consequences beyond being a principled stand itself then maybe taking a principled stand in response is worse than just voting along with it, but otherwise, meh.

  • HeirHeir Ausitn, TXRegistered User regular
    edited October 2019
    She also voted against a bill that would impose sanctions on Turkey for its current atrocities against the Kurds: https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/116/hr4695

    I love her normally, but completely disagree with what she's doing here.

    Edit: Sorry, here are the vote tallies: https://projects.propublica.org/represent/votes/116/house/1/592

    Heir on
    camo_sig2.png
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited October 2019
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Yeah I'm confused by that. Like because we don't recognize them all we shouldn't recognize this one?

    The intent seems clear to me. She doesn't want to use the atrocities the Ottomans committed as a cudgel against modern-day Turks. She doesn't want to dump on Turkey.

    I think it's the reverse. She doesn't want to use the atrocities modern Turkey is comitting as the only reason we bother to acknowledge history, because that means we only look at what's politically convenient

    I’m sure the Kurdish people appreciate her principled stand on genocide.

    It’s not politics what Turkey is trying to do. It’s genocide.

    The U.S. is also an active participant in this genocide. Turkey is our ally and drove into this territory with the full permission and cooperation of the American government. Our president is cheering them on on social media.

    By this logic, if tomorrow Trump allows China to genocide Tibet and the House votes to rebuke it, would Omar still be principled to vote present because we’re not recognizing other genocides again because it’ll be political?

    It’s a bullshit argument. Her principled stance on genocide is preventing her from taking a principled stance on genocide.

    No, itd be like if China decided to genocide Tibet, and so the house votes to condemn the Cultural Revolution or Tiennemen Square.

    Literally hundreds of those yes votes were willing to let this issue sit in limbo for years, under administrations of both parties. Because "Keep Turkey Happy" was more important than their supposed principles on genocide.

    tinwhiskers on
    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    Heir wrote: »
    She also voted against a bill that would impose sanctions on Turkey for its current atrocities against the Kurds: https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/116/hr4695

    I love her normally, but completely disagree with what she's doing here.

    Edit: Sorry, here are the vote tallies: https://projects.propublica.org/represent/votes/116/house/1/592

    Why?!

    Why would she vote no on that?

    She can’t possibly be for what Turkey is doing?

    steam_sig.png

    Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Heir wrote: »
    She also voted against a bill that would impose sanctions on Turkey for its current atrocities against the Kurds: https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/116/hr4695

    I love her normally, but completely disagree with what she's doing here.

    Edit: Sorry, here are the vote tallies: https://projects.propublica.org/represent/votes/116/house/1/592

    Why?!

    Why would she vote no on that?

    She can’t possibly be for what Turkey is doing?

    Yeah, that's a much bigger problem.

  • painfulPleasancepainfulPleasance The First RepublicRegistered User regular
    edited October 2019
    Heir wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Yeah I'm confused by that. Like because we don't recognize them all we shouldn't recognize this one?

    The intent seems clear to me. She doesn't want to use the atrocities the Ottomans committed as a cudgel against modern-day Turks. She doesn't want to dump on Turkey.

    I think it's the reverse. She doesn't want to use the atrocities modern Turkey is comitting as the only reason we bother to acknowledge history, because that means we only look at what's politically convenient

    I’m sure the Kurdish people appreciate her principled stand on genocide.

    It’s not politics what Turkey is trying to do. It’s genocide.

    She's not opposing it, she's just calling attention to the fact that, while this move is in the right direction, it is happening for the wrong reason, and we are still far from where we need to be.

    I don’t understand. Why is it for the wrong reason?

    It's a symbolic gesture that makes Congress feel good and does little to address the issue.

    painfulPleasance on
  • rahkeesh2000rahkeesh2000 Registered User regular
    edited October 2019
    Heir wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Yeah I'm confused by that. Like because we don't recognize them all we shouldn't recognize this one?

    The intent seems clear to me. She doesn't want to use the atrocities the Ottomans committed as a cudgel against modern-day Turks. She doesn't want to dump on Turkey.

    I think it's the reverse. She doesn't want to use the atrocities modern Turkey is comitting as the only reason we bother to acknowledge history, because that means we only look at what's politically convenient

    I’m sure the Kurdish people appreciate her principled stand on genocide.

    It’s not politics what Turkey is trying to do. It’s genocide.

    She's not opposing it, she's just calling attention to the fact that, while this move is in the right direction, it is happening for the wrong reason, and we are still far from where we need to be.

    I don’t understand. Why is it for the wrong reason?

    It's a symbolic gesture that makes Congress feel good and does little to address the issue.

    That's the effect of the act, not the motivation behind it.

    This annoys Turkey at a minimum, which is why the obvious wasn't supported before politically. It signals a shift in the nature of our "alliance" with them and future interactions.

    rahkeesh2000 on
  • NotYouNotYou Registered User regular
    Heir wrote: »
    She also voted against a bill that would impose sanctions on Turkey for its current atrocities against the Kurds: https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/116/hr4695

    I love her normally, but completely disagree with what she's doing here.

    Edit: Sorry, here are the vote tallies: https://projects.propublica.org/represent/votes/116/house/1/592

    Why?!

    Why would she vote no on that?

    She can’t possibly be for what Turkey is doing?

    Tribalism. She wants to support muslim countries just like how christians want to support christian groups. It's nothing new from powerful religious people.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    It's an entirely symbolic vote by Congress on a genocide we all know happened. Complaining about it's political nature seems rather silly. Politics was the only reason this hadn't happened before.

  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    NotYou wrote: »
    Heir wrote: »
    She also voted against a bill that would impose sanctions on Turkey for its current atrocities against the Kurds: https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/116/hr4695

    I love her normally, but completely disagree with what she's doing here.

    Edit: Sorry, here are the vote tallies: https://projects.propublica.org/represent/votes/116/house/1/592

    Why?!

    Why would she vote no on that?

    She can’t possibly be for what Turkey is doing?

    Tribalism. She wants to support muslim countries just like how christians want to support christian groups. It's nothing new from powerful religious people.

    One can find her voting against sanctions to be the wrong stance to take without invoking Islamaphobic rhetoric, even if it is gilded in "all religious people do this."

    Like, seriously, her mentions are always full of people accusing her of trying to implement Sharia law and shit.

  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor changed Registered User regular
    Heir wrote: »
    She also voted against a bill that would impose sanctions on Turkey for its current atrocities against the Kurds: https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/116/hr4695

    I love her normally, but completely disagree with what she's doing here.

    Edit: Sorry, here are the vote tallies: https://projects.propublica.org/represent/votes/116/house/1/592

    Why?!

    Why would she vote no on that?

    She can’t possibly be for what Turkey is doing?

    She didn't think they'd hurt the right people, or had a chance in hell of getting Trump's signature, and would have preferred taking a stronger stance and more direct action
    As I recently outlined, accountability for the invasion of northern Syria is essential. Turkey’s incursion and the ensuing fallout is a humanitarian catastrophe—especially for the Kurdish people. But too often our sanctions policies are ill-considered, inhumane and hurt the very people we claim to be helping. That is exactly the case here, where overbroad sanctions on the Turkish economy would hurt civilians rather than political leaders. There are positive policies we could pursue—like banning or limiting weapons sales or creating a buffer zone—but pursuing sanctions that have no chance of being signed into law is the wrong response at the wrong time

    https://omar.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-ilhan-omar-statement-hr-4695-and-hres-296

  • VeeveeVeevee WisconsinRegistered User regular
    edited October 2019
    Heir wrote: »
    She also voted against a bill that would impose sanctions on Turkey for its current atrocities against the Kurds: https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/116/hr4695

    I love her normally, but completely disagree with what she's doing here.

    Edit: Sorry, here are the vote tallies: https://projects.propublica.org/represent/votes/116/house/1/592

    Just read through this, and it's got some pretty juicy bits. Specifically says the president does not have the ability to waive the sanctions unless he submits a request to Congress on humanitarian grounds, auto sunsets 3 years after the sanctions are lifted, and that the penalties for breaking this act are
    (a) Unlawful acts
    It shall be unlawful for a person to violate, attempt to violate, conspire to violate, or cause a violation of any license, order, regulation, or prohibition issued under this chapter.

    (b) Civil penalty
    A civil penalty may be imposed on any person who commits an unlawful act described in subsection (a) in an amount not to exceed the greater of-

    (1) $250,000; or

    (2) an amount that is twice the amount of the transaction that is the basis of the violation with respect to which the penalty is imposed.

    (c) Criminal penalty
    A person who willfully commits, willfully attempts to commit, or willfully conspires to commit, or aids or abets in the commission of, an unlawful act described in subsection (a) shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $1,000,000, or if a natural person, may be imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both.

    So Trump and anyone in his administration even discussing how to get around this law, and anyone who stands aside and knowingly let's them, is due an upto 20 year jail sentence.

    To bad it'll never get by the Senate with a supermajority, nor will a criminal administration be prosecuted like that, but the idea of it has made my morning a little bit better. Thanks for sharing.

    As for Ohan, I understand and dont mind her genocide vote because of how overwhelmingly it passed. I do not get voting against this.

    Veevee on
  • HevachHevach Registered User regular
    edited October 2019
    shryke wrote: »
    It's an entirely symbolic vote by Congress on a genocide we all know happened. Complaining about it's political nature seems rather silly. Politics was the only reason this hadn't happened before.

    It was symbolic in that it was nonbinding and does nothing to change the fact that officially, in writing, the United States Government accepts that there was no Armenian Genocide and that the story was an international lie concocted by the European Allies to further damage an already defeated military opponent. Which is frankly why it should be just as insulting to Armenia as it is meant to be to Turkey.

    This is also not the first time Congress has done this, this resolution was born in 2007 and despite having an ever growing list of sponsors keeps just vanishing into committees not to be seen for years at a time (despite often having sponsor signatures from most of said committees), reemerging coincidentally every time relations with Turkey take a dive.


    The opposition to this resolution also includes every living President (this includes Obama and Carter who both acknowledged the genocide publicly just as much as it includes Trump who can't point to Armenia on a map of Armenia), eight former Secretaries of State, several dozen of the resolutions own formers sponsors, multiple former leaders in intelligence and national security and even a fair number of intellectuals. But, no, let's focus on the brown girl and call it tribalism.

    Hevach on
  • HeirHeir Ausitn, TXRegistered User regular
    The tribalism bit was in reference to the bill that imposed sanctions, not the Armenian resolution bill...fwiw.

    camo_sig2.png
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Hevach wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    It's an entirely symbolic vote by Congress on a genocide we all know happened. Complaining about it's political nature seems rather silly. Politics was the only reason this hadn't happened before.

    It was symbolic in that it was nonbinding and does nothing to change the fact that officially, in writing, the United States Government accepts that there was no Armenian Genocide and that the story was an international lie concocted by the European Allies to further damage an already defeated military opponent. Which is frankly why it should be just as insulting to Armenia as it is meant to be to Turkey.

    This is also not the first time Congress has done this, this resolution was born in 2007 and despite having an ever growing list of sponsors keeps just vanishing into committees not to be seen for years at a time (despite often having sponsor signatures from most of said committees), reemerging coincidentally every time relations with Turkey take a dive.

    It's symbolic in that it being symbolic is all it can be. We know it happened. You can fucking read about it on wikipedia ffs. (According to whom a ton of countries and also like 49 out of the 50 states have said it totally happened in this exact way)

    The whole thing is and always has been political show. First one way, now the other. And that's true of all these kind of recognition statements. Complaining about that fact is rather silly. The political show of it all is the sole point this kind of thing has ever had.


    The opposition to this resolution also includes every living President (this includes Obama and Carter who both acknowledged the genocide publicly just as much as it includes Trump who can't point to Armenia on a map of Armenia), eight former Secretaries of State, several dozen of the resolutions own formers sponsors, multiple former leaders in intelligence and national security and even a fair number of intellectuals. But, no, let's focus on the brown girl and call it tribalism.

    I can't find anything on all these people opposing the resolution the House just passed, do you have a link?

  • HevachHevach Registered User regular
    Remember, this resolution just passed, but was not new. It is the same resolution that has died in committee multiple times since 2007.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_resolution_on_Armenian_Genocide

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited October 2019
    Hevach wrote: »
    Remember, this resolution just passed, but was not new. It is the same resolution that has died in committee multiple times since 2007.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_resolution_on_Armenian_Genocide

    Yes, and?

    I'm still not finding anything on the people you mention opposing it's passage yesterday or the day before or whenever it was recently.

    shryke on
  • HevachHevach Registered User regular
    edited October 2019
    Link has references ranging from 2008 through 2018, most of which are still active and all but one (the story on Carter's statement) are on wayback machine. The resolution has not changed in any text except for the list of sponsors, which currently includes 215 of the over 350 that have signed it at some point and less than half of the original 26. That is an impressively long list of mostly retired people to poll to repeat their already stated and in most cases already repeated opinions because the same resolution has come up for the eighth time in twelve years.

    Hevach on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited October 2019
    Hevach wrote: »
    Link has references ranging from 2008 through 2018, most of which are still active and all but one (the story on Carter's statement) are on wayback machine. The resolution has not changed in any text except for the list of sponsors, which currently includes 215 of the over 350 that have signed it at some point and less than half of the original 26. That is an impressively long list of mostly retired people to poll to repeat their already stated and in most cases already repeated opinions because the same resolution has come up for the eighth time in twelve years.

    All I'm seeing from most of this is a lot of people saying "this would harm our relationship with Turkey".

    Shit, you tried to bring up Obama as some sort of big example of this being opposed by people who's opinions we should care about but the wikipedia is pretty straightforward on that front:
    While a candidate, U.S. President Barack Obama stated that he "stood with the Armenian American community in calling for Turkey's acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide", but his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton assured Turkey that the White House opposes the resolution.
    This is nakedly political. It's entirely disingenuous to bring up old opposition to the resolution that is entirely grounded not in the actual resolution itself, but in the (at the time) present political expediency of keeping the Turks happy. Circumstances which have now changed given Turkey's recent actions. (eg - Obama said one thing earlier and then another thing a bit later and there's no reason to think he wouldn't say a different thing now, each based on the shifting political issues of the moment)

    There is no major opposition to the resolution that isn't routed in "we want to keep the Turks happy". Which is just as political as the pro-resolution side but at least the pro-resolution side also has the benefit of saying shit that is factually correct.

    shryke on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    The resolution on the Armenian Genocide is an actual, not racist version of political correctness. It happened, but it is impolitic to say it happened so officially we don't. Even though it did and everybody knows.

  • rahkeesh2000rahkeesh2000 Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    This is nakedly political. It's entirely disingenuous to bring up old opposition to the resolution that is entirely grounded not in the actual resolution itself, but in the (at the time) present political expediency of keeping the Turks happy. Circumstances which have now changed given Turkey's recent actions. (eg - Obama said one thing earlier and then another thing a bit later and there's no reason to think he wouldn't say a different thing now, each based on the shifting political issues of the moment)

    We're discussing politicians. How is it disingenuous to bring up political expediency? The kind of thing that might motivate a politician like Omar rather than generic religious allegiance?

  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor changed Registered User regular
    Veevee wrote: »
    Heir wrote: »
    She also voted against a bill that would impose sanctions on Turkey for its current atrocities against the Kurds: https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/116/hr4695

    I love her normally, but completely disagree with what she's doing here.

    Edit: Sorry, here are the vote tallies: https://projects.propublica.org/represent/votes/116/house/1/592

    Just read through this, and it's got some pretty juicy bits. Specifically says the president does not have the ability to waive the sanctions unless he submits a request to Congress on humanitarian grounds, auto sunsets 3 years after the sanctions are lifted, and that the penalties for breaking this act are
    (a) Unlawful acts
    It shall be unlawful for a person to violate, attempt to violate, conspire to violate, or cause a violation of any license, order, regulation, or prohibition issued under this chapter.

    (b) Civil penalty
    A civil penalty may be imposed on any person who commits an unlawful act described in subsection (a) in an amount not to exceed the greater of-

    (1) $250,000; or

    (2) an amount that is twice the amount of the transaction that is the basis of the violation with respect to which the penalty is imposed.

    (c) Criminal penalty
    A person who willfully commits, willfully attempts to commit, or willfully conspires to commit, or aids or abets in the commission of, an unlawful act described in subsection (a) shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $1,000,000, or if a natural person, may be imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both.

    So Trump and anyone in his administration even discussing how to get around this law, and anyone who stands aside and knowingly let's them, is due an upto 20 year jail sentence.

    To bad it'll never get by the Senate with a supermajority, nor will a criminal administration be prosecuted like that, but the idea of it has made my morning a little bit better. Thanks for sharing.

    As for Ohan, I understand and dont mind her genocide vote because of how overwhelmingly it passed. I do not get voting against this.

    If I'm being generous, and I see no reason not to be, I suspect she knew her votes were of no consequence and just wanted to draw attention to what she had to say in her press release. She voted no on sanctions because she is generally concerned that sanctions tend to harm the wrong people, and she abstained on genocide because she supported it with an asterisk.

    If she actually wanted the bills to fail, I would think she'd have made the statement before the votes and tried to rally others to support to her position. All I see here is a politician leveraging controversy to amplify a statement.

  • kaidkaid Registered User regular
    GONG-00 wrote: »
    lmao they're already getting mad that libs aren"t giving trump credit for killing baghdadi

    I'd deduce from the troop pullout that either

    a) The military didn't inform him of the operation against Baghdadi until it was going down, so he blundered into the withdrawal without realizing the implications.
    or
    b) He did know about the Baghdadi operation and didn't give a shit about killing the leader of ISIS.

    This is why I don't give him any credit.

    The entire Baghdadi thing is an example of how isolated the bubble our leaders live in. People gave a shit about Bin Laden because they were personally traumatized by the events of Sept. 11.

    The public does not care about the leadership of ISIS. They don't even care that much about ISIS. There's no huge surge of popularity to be gained from yet another "Enemy leader dead!" announcement after 18 years of endless war.

    The seemingly endless number of AQ Number Twos that got taken out before Bin Laden did not help.

    Baghdadi himself has been declared dead more than a dozen times.

    I think this is what will take a lot of wind out of the announcements. The few people I know who even understand who was killed all thought he had been killed years ago as he has been claimed to have been bombed so many times now they stopped paying attention.

This discussion has been closed.