Para_Frog 1 #1 October 14, 2007 It looks very possible that due to Nancy Pelosi's insistence that the US accept official language condemning the Armenian Genocide, that Turkey will ignore our as yet successful diplomacy that has kept them from invading northern Iraq. The higest concentration of Armenians outside Armenia is...CA. When/If they do invade, the Kurds are going to put up one hell of a fight. I have worked with both Turks as well as Kurds. It will be a bloodbath. So riddle me this... Everyone knows a duck is a duck and the Armenian genocide was just that. Is it SO important to make it an official statement that it comes at the cost of a new war and probably thousands of deaths? In my opinion, that equates Pelosi to any level of culpability attributed to GWB as far as war deaths are concerned. Chime in left...I'm curious as to how anti-war you truly are. Are you willing to condemn Pelosi for pandering to her constituents at such a high cost?- Harvey, BASE 1232 TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA BLiNC Magazine Team Member Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #2 October 14, 2007 QuoteIt looks very possible that due to Nancy Pelosi's insistence that the US accept official language condemning the Armenian Genocide, that Turkey will ignore our as yet successful diplomacy that has kept them from invading northern Iraq. The higest concentration of Armenians outside Armenia is...CA. When/If they do invade, the Kurds are going to put up one hell of a fight. I have worked with both Turks as well as Kurds. It will be a bloodbath. So riddle me this... Everyone knows a duck is a duck and the Armenian genocide was just that. Is it SO important to make it an official statement that it comes at the cost of a new war and probably thousands of deaths? In my opinion, that equates Pelosi to any level of culpability attributed to GWB as far as war deaths are concerned. Chime in left...I'm curious as to how anti-war you truly are. Are you willing to condemn Pelosi for pandering to her constituents at such a high cost? And also interesting that this is "so important now" when the dems are failing to shut down the war in iraq like they wanted to. trying to smear general patreaus certainly backfired on them. So now they wanna stir some shit and sabotage our relationship with Turkey? Can you say "alterior motive?" Of course, your point is terribly important as well... and i fear for the possible consequences if this moves forward. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #3 October 14, 2007 Better late than never. It was genocide and we should have said so decades ago. The Turks need to admit it, just like the Germans admitted to the Nazi genocide.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Para_Frog 1 #4 October 14, 2007 So a few thousand Turkish and Kurdish bodies to set the record straight? That's immoral and insane.- Harvey, BASE 1232 TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA BLiNC Magazine Team Member Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #5 October 14, 2007 QuoteQuote Can you say "alterior motive?" I can indeed say it, but "ulterior" would be preferable. What would Jesus do? Tell the truth, no doubt.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #6 October 14, 2007 QuoteSo a few thousand Turkish and Kurdish bodies to set the record straight? That's immoral and insane. If it happens it will be because they are predisposed to do it, not on account of a few words in a US congressional resolution. The US is NOT the world's policeman. Tell the truth.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites micro 0 #7 October 14, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote Can you say "alterior motive?" I can indeed say it, but "ulterior" would be preferable. What would Jesus do? Tell the truth, no doubt. Thanks professor. I'm sure you feel better about yourself having corrected me. Once again, you've avoided the POINT of the post and instead insisted on focusing on an incidental. What would Jesus do? You're right. He'd tell the truth. But since you don't believe in Jesus, what do you care? Kind of silly for you to bring Him up, n'est-ce pas? And timing is indeed relevant here. Is this pronouncement likely to cause harm to a) kurds and/or turks b) our troops c) others involved in that region? If the answer is yes, then even Jesus would tell you to shut the hell up and wait until the right time. Jesus could teach you and Pelosi a thing or two about timing. After all, He waited 30 years to spring on them Jews! I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #8 October 14, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Can you say "alterior motive?" I can indeed say it, but "ulterior" would be preferable. What would Jesus do? Tell the truth, no doubt. Thanks professor. I'm sure you feel better about yourself having corrected me. Once again, you've avoided the POINT of the post and instead insisted on focusing on an incidental. What would Jesus do? You're right. He'd tell the truth. But since you don't believe in Jesus, what do you care? Kind of silly for you to bring Him up, n'est-ce pas? ! Not at all, since you are reading the thread. Practice what you preach, micro. If Turkey attacks northern Iraq, the only party to blame is Turkey. We are not forcing them to do it by reminding them of their unsavory history.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites micro 0 #9 October 14, 2007 QuoteQuoteSo a few thousand Turkish and Kurdish bodies to set the record straight? That's immoral and insane. If it happens it will be because they are predisposed to do it, not on account of a few words in a US congressional resolution. The US is NOT the world's policeman. Tell the truth. And the fact that there is pressure to do this RIGHT NOW has no bearing on... anything? The truth should be told... no one is denying that. (Did I hear anyone deny that it should be said? No. Did you? No.) But it should be told PRUDENTLY. At the right TIME. I'm not at all surprised that you are for this, given the potential effect it will have on a war that you despise. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites micro 0 #10 October 14, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Can you say "alterior motive?" I can indeed say it, but "ulterior" would be preferable. What would Jesus do? Tell the truth, no doubt. Thanks professor. I'm sure you feel better about yourself having corrected me. Once again, you've avoided the POINT of the post and instead insisted on focusing on an incidental. What would Jesus do? You're right. He'd tell the truth. But since you don't believe in Jesus, what do you care? Kind of silly for you to bring Him up, n'est-ce pas? ! Not at all, since you are reading the thread. Practice what you preach, micro. If Turkey attacks northern Iraq, the only party to blame is Turkey. We are not forcing them to do it by reminding them of their unsavory history. Ugh. John, never ever ever run for any office of any kind. Ever. And thanks for only quoting a snipit of my post... selective quoting is something you're good at. World history is replete with examples like this. There is nothing to be gained AT THIS MOMENT by making this declaration but MUCH TO BE LOST. But that's just the point isn't it? You're really more interested in the "much to be lost" aspect, aren't you. If by our declaration, violence erupted b/t the turks and the kurds, we would be partially to blame. Did we cause them directly to attack? No. For they are men of free-will (and NOT predisposed, as you claim). However, there are still causal agents involved and we would be one of them. Tact, diplomacy, timing. Making this declaration will do much more harm than good. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #11 October 14, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo a few thousand Turkish and Kurdish bodies to set the record straight? That's immoral and insane. If it happens it will be because they are predisposed to do it, not on account of a few words in a US congressional resolution. The US is NOT the world's policeman. Tell the truth. And the fact that there is pressure to do this RIGHT NOW has no bearing on... anything? The truth should be told... no one is denying that. (Did I hear anyone deny that it should be said? No. Did you? No.) But it should be told PRUDENTLY. At the right TIME. I'm not at all surprised that you are for this, given the potential effect it will have on a war that you despise. How long do you recommend we wait - another 92 years?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites micro 0 #12 October 14, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo a few thousand Turkish and Kurdish bodies to set the record straight? That's immoral and insane. If it happens it will be because they are predisposed to do it, not on account of a few words in a US congressional resolution. The US is NOT the world's policeman. Tell the truth. And the fact that there is pressure to do this RIGHT NOW has no bearing on... anything? The truth should be told... no one is denying that. (Did I hear anyone deny that it should be said? No. Did you? No.) But it should be told PRUDENTLY. At the right TIME. I'm not at all surprised that you are for this, given the potential effect it will have on a war that you despise. How long do you recommend we wait - another 92 years? Until such a declaration will not be a pawn by the left. Until it is prudent to do make such a declaration, when the possibility for casualties has been minimized as much as possible. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #13 October 14, 2007 Quote Is it SO important to make it an official statement that it comes at the cost of a new war and probably thousands of deaths? In my opinion, that equates Pelosi to any level of culpability attributed to GWB as far as war deaths are concerned. Like I responded to the poster who wrote “Do the gun lovers think that school massacres are just an unfortunate price that has to be paid so that they can keep their guns?” I think you’re asking the wrong question of what is a significant international security issue, i.e., US-Turkey relations, particularly with respect to logistical support of US military activities in the Middle East. Shutting down access to Incirlik would not be good (to put it diplomatically). As an illustrative example: it would be akin (& equally specious, im-ever-ho) to suggest that because then-Secretary of State Powell and other USG representatives met with Taliban leaders as late as May 2001 and because the US offered >$40M in assistance that Colin Powell or President Bush are cuplable for activities of the Taliban, Of course, they're not. Nor would Speaker Pelosi be responsible for the actions of Turkey or the PKK, which I’m sure you know have been waging a low-intensity effort for separate Kurdish state in Turkey for over 20 years. Has there been serious concern about the potential for a civil war in Turkey for years? Yes. How would the scenario you outlined be in the interest of Turkey’s pursuit of EU membership, which they really want, along with the close to (or more than?) annual $300M in foreign assistance from the US? Is Pelosi responding to her constituents? Yes. Is that the point of a republic? Yes. Is it well-timed? No. Is it likely to be meaningful historically? That’s debatable. Is this an example where being “PC” can be important for international affairs? Yes, it’s one part of diplomacy. If this statement would have passed out of Committee and been voted on by the House in 2000 or early 2001 would it have been as big of an issue? Maybe not. Is the current Turkish government in denial? Yes, it's in their constitution that you can be jailed for mentioning it (& people have been). Is it a moral imperative? Someone else can make the normative arguments. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #14 October 14, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo a few thousand Turkish and Kurdish bodies to set the record straight? That's immoral and insane. If it happens it will be because they are predisposed to do it, not on account of a few words in a US congressional resolution. The US is NOT the world's policeman. Tell the truth. And the fact that there is pressure to do this RIGHT NOW has no bearing on... anything? The truth should be told... no one is denying that. (Did I hear anyone deny that it should be said? No. Did you? No.) But it should be told PRUDENTLY. At the right TIME. I'm not at all surprised that you are for this, given the potential effect it will have on a war that you despise. How long do you recommend we wait - another 92 years? Until such a declaration will not be a pawn by the left. Until it is prudent to do make such a declaration, when the possibility for casualties has been minimized as much as possible. A resolution in the US Congress to call a spade a spade cannot and will not cause ANY casualties. If Turkey invades Kurdistan it is because they have been itching for a fight for decades. Pity you folks didn't show as much concern about the ACTUAL US/UK invasion of Iraq in 2003 which directly caused tens of thousands of casualties.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DZJ 0 #15 October 14, 2007 Quote Until such a declaration will not be a pawn by the left. I do love it when history meets politics. Would it be acceptable for such a declaration (or a similar one) to be used as a pawn by the right? [EDIT] For what it's worth, I agree with Kallend. A US declaration would not cause anything that the Turks weren't planning on doing anyway. To me this whole suggestion smacks of a certain prejudice - the implication is that the Turks are some wild irrational people who might spontaneously fly off into a rage and invade their neighbours on the basis of some unpalateable home truths uttered half a world away... (...which is obviously worse than the US/UK invading faraway countries in a cold and calculating manner....) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites micro 0 #16 October 14, 2007 Quote Quote Until such a declaration will not be a pawn by the left. I do love it when history meets politics. Would it be acceptable for such a declaration (or a similar one) to be used as a pawn by the right? No, it wouldn't be acceptible to me and it WAS not acceptible to me either. So there. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites micro 0 #17 October 14, 2007 Quote Quote Is it SO important to make it an official statement that it comes at the cost of a new war and probably thousands of deaths? In my opinion, that equates Pelosi to any level of culpability attributed to GWB as far as war deaths are concerned. Like I responded to the poster who wrote “Do the gun lovers think that school massacres are just an unfortunate price that has to be paid so that they can keep their guns?” I think you’re asking the wrong question of what is a significant international security issue, i.e., US-Turkey relations, particularly with respect to logistical support of US military activities in the Middle East. Shutting down access to Incirlik would not be good (to put it diplomatically). As an illustrative example: it would be akin (& equally specious, im-ever-ho) to suggest that because then-Secretary of State Powell and other USG representatives met with Taliban leaders as late as May 2001 and because the US offered >$40M in assistance that Colin Powell or President Bush are cuplable for activities of the Taliban, Of course, they're not. Nor would Speaker Pelosi be responsible for the actions of Turkey or the PKK, which I’m sure you know have been waging a low-intensity effort for separate Kurdish state in Turkey for over 20 years. Has there been serious concern about the potential for a civil war in Turkey for years? Yes. How would the scenario you outlined be in the interest of Turkey’s pursuit of EU membership, which they really want, along with the close to (or more than?) annual $300M in foreign assistance from the US? Is Pelosi responding to her constituents? Yes. Is that the point of a republic? Yes. Is it well-timed? No. Is it likely to be meaningful historically? That’s debatable. Is this an example where being “PC” can be important for international affairs? Yes, it’s one part of diplomacy. If this statement would have passed out of Committee and been voted on by the House in 2000 or early 2001 would it have been as big of an issue? Maybe not. Is the current Turkish government in denial? Yes, it's in their constitution that you can be jailed for mentioning it (& people have been). Is it a moral imperative? Someone else can make the normative arguments. VR/Marg well said. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,111 #18 October 14, 2007 >Chime in left...I'm curious as to how anti-war you truly are. And I'm curious to know how pro-genocide you are. Are you willing to continue to ignore people who commit genocide to protect your political party? (Yes, all the questions above are equally dumb.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #19 October 14, 2007 WWHD? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #20 October 14, 2007 They are pursuing every avenue to derail any positive momentum we've been making in the war. Alienating Turkey (despite calls from the left that it's about the Ottoman Empire) to not walk side-by-side with us in this conflict, may do just that.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Para_Frog 1 #21 October 14, 2007 Aaaaaand, roger.- Harvey, BASE 1232 TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA BLiNC Magazine Team Member Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #22 October 14, 2007 It's so convenient (and sloganistic) to try to pin this on "Pelosi" and "the California Democrats" exploiting the timing. But history shows that to be hypocritical bullshit. The House has taken up Armenian Genocide resolutions previously, but while the Republicans were in power. One example: in 2005 - with the Republicans in control of Congress, and the war in Iraq very much on - the House International Relations Committee voted overwhelmingly in favor of such a resolution. Here's what Republican Chairman Henry Hyde of Illinois said in support of the resolution. http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa23437.000/hfa23437_0.htm#0 QuoteThe argument has been made that these resolutions, if adopted, will be harmful to those interests by undermining our relationship with Turkey. This is a serious charge and worthy of serious attention. I very much believe the relationship is of great importance to us and the possibility of peace and stability in the volatile regions that Turkey borders, but I don't believe these resolutions will harm that relationship. They merely recognize the fact that the authorities of the Ottoman Empire deliberately slaughtered the majority of the Armenian community in that empire. Denial of that fact cannot be justified on the basis of expediency or fear that speaking the truth will do us harm. It is commonly supposed that we must choose between recognizing the fact of the massacres and supporting our relationship with Turkey, that somehow these things are opposed to one another. I believe that view is profoundly incorrect, and it is actually harmful to all the parties. But to freeze attention on the past is to be imprisoned by it at the enormous cost of sacrificing the future. Therefore, I believe it is in the interests of the United States and of Turkey and Armenia that we take the lead with dealing with this paralyzing legacy, and we must start with a recognition of the truth, for there is no possibility that this problem can ever be overcome if we seek to ground any solution on silence and forgetting. For as our Lord is quoted as saying in the book of St. John, ''You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.'' Some things are right because they're just plain right. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Guest #23 October 14, 2007 Quote If Turkey attacks northern Iraq, the only party to blame is Turkey. We are not forcing them to do it by reminding them of their unsavory history. Well said. Furthermore, that area of the world is all about revenge and goats anyway. Nobody who was involved in the Armenian Genocide is alive anymore (well, maybe a few). I fail to see what difference it makes. Can't get Japan to admit their responsibility for Korea and Nanking either. Same thing. Not many people left. mh ."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Para_Frog 1 #24 October 14, 2007 Quote Quote Furthermore, that area of the world is all about revenge and goats anyway. Dude...that's a friggin gem. - Harvey, BASE 1232 TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA BLiNC Magazine Team Member Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #25 October 15, 2007 QuoteSo a few thousand Turkish and Kurdish bodies to set the record straight? That's immoral and insane. Insane is your cause and effect here. An accurate proclamation about an event that actually happened cannot be responsible for a war 90 years later. Iran has declared the Holocaust didn't happen either, but if Israel attacks, it won't be for those statements. Pretending history didn't happen is never positive for future decisions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
kallend 2,146 #6 October 14, 2007 QuoteSo a few thousand Turkish and Kurdish bodies to set the record straight? That's immoral and insane. If it happens it will be because they are predisposed to do it, not on account of a few words in a US congressional resolution. The US is NOT the world's policeman. Tell the truth.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #7 October 14, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote Can you say "alterior motive?" I can indeed say it, but "ulterior" would be preferable. What would Jesus do? Tell the truth, no doubt. Thanks professor. I'm sure you feel better about yourself having corrected me. Once again, you've avoided the POINT of the post and instead insisted on focusing on an incidental. What would Jesus do? You're right. He'd tell the truth. But since you don't believe in Jesus, what do you care? Kind of silly for you to bring Him up, n'est-ce pas? And timing is indeed relevant here. Is this pronouncement likely to cause harm to a) kurds and/or turks b) our troops c) others involved in that region? If the answer is yes, then even Jesus would tell you to shut the hell up and wait until the right time. Jesus could teach you and Pelosi a thing or two about timing. After all, He waited 30 years to spring on them Jews! I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #8 October 14, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Can you say "alterior motive?" I can indeed say it, but "ulterior" would be preferable. What would Jesus do? Tell the truth, no doubt. Thanks professor. I'm sure you feel better about yourself having corrected me. Once again, you've avoided the POINT of the post and instead insisted on focusing on an incidental. What would Jesus do? You're right. He'd tell the truth. But since you don't believe in Jesus, what do you care? Kind of silly for you to bring Him up, n'est-ce pas? ! Not at all, since you are reading the thread. Practice what you preach, micro. If Turkey attacks northern Iraq, the only party to blame is Turkey. We are not forcing them to do it by reminding them of their unsavory history.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites micro 0 #9 October 14, 2007 QuoteQuoteSo a few thousand Turkish and Kurdish bodies to set the record straight? That's immoral and insane. If it happens it will be because they are predisposed to do it, not on account of a few words in a US congressional resolution. The US is NOT the world's policeman. Tell the truth. And the fact that there is pressure to do this RIGHT NOW has no bearing on... anything? The truth should be told... no one is denying that. (Did I hear anyone deny that it should be said? No. Did you? No.) But it should be told PRUDENTLY. At the right TIME. I'm not at all surprised that you are for this, given the potential effect it will have on a war that you despise. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites micro 0 #10 October 14, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Can you say "alterior motive?" I can indeed say it, but "ulterior" would be preferable. What would Jesus do? Tell the truth, no doubt. Thanks professor. I'm sure you feel better about yourself having corrected me. Once again, you've avoided the POINT of the post and instead insisted on focusing on an incidental. What would Jesus do? You're right. He'd tell the truth. But since you don't believe in Jesus, what do you care? Kind of silly for you to bring Him up, n'est-ce pas? ! Not at all, since you are reading the thread. Practice what you preach, micro. If Turkey attacks northern Iraq, the only party to blame is Turkey. We are not forcing them to do it by reminding them of their unsavory history. Ugh. John, never ever ever run for any office of any kind. Ever. And thanks for only quoting a snipit of my post... selective quoting is something you're good at. World history is replete with examples like this. There is nothing to be gained AT THIS MOMENT by making this declaration but MUCH TO BE LOST. But that's just the point isn't it? You're really more interested in the "much to be lost" aspect, aren't you. If by our declaration, violence erupted b/t the turks and the kurds, we would be partially to blame. Did we cause them directly to attack? No. For they are men of free-will (and NOT predisposed, as you claim). However, there are still causal agents involved and we would be one of them. Tact, diplomacy, timing. Making this declaration will do much more harm than good. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #11 October 14, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo a few thousand Turkish and Kurdish bodies to set the record straight? That's immoral and insane. If it happens it will be because they are predisposed to do it, not on account of a few words in a US congressional resolution. The US is NOT the world's policeman. Tell the truth. And the fact that there is pressure to do this RIGHT NOW has no bearing on... anything? The truth should be told... no one is denying that. (Did I hear anyone deny that it should be said? No. Did you? No.) But it should be told PRUDENTLY. At the right TIME. I'm not at all surprised that you are for this, given the potential effect it will have on a war that you despise. How long do you recommend we wait - another 92 years?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites micro 0 #12 October 14, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo a few thousand Turkish and Kurdish bodies to set the record straight? That's immoral and insane. If it happens it will be because they are predisposed to do it, not on account of a few words in a US congressional resolution. The US is NOT the world's policeman. Tell the truth. And the fact that there is pressure to do this RIGHT NOW has no bearing on... anything? The truth should be told... no one is denying that. (Did I hear anyone deny that it should be said? No. Did you? No.) But it should be told PRUDENTLY. At the right TIME. I'm not at all surprised that you are for this, given the potential effect it will have on a war that you despise. How long do you recommend we wait - another 92 years? Until such a declaration will not be a pawn by the left. Until it is prudent to do make such a declaration, when the possibility for casualties has been minimized as much as possible. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #13 October 14, 2007 Quote Is it SO important to make it an official statement that it comes at the cost of a new war and probably thousands of deaths? In my opinion, that equates Pelosi to any level of culpability attributed to GWB as far as war deaths are concerned. Like I responded to the poster who wrote “Do the gun lovers think that school massacres are just an unfortunate price that has to be paid so that they can keep their guns?” I think you’re asking the wrong question of what is a significant international security issue, i.e., US-Turkey relations, particularly with respect to logistical support of US military activities in the Middle East. Shutting down access to Incirlik would not be good (to put it diplomatically). As an illustrative example: it would be akin (& equally specious, im-ever-ho) to suggest that because then-Secretary of State Powell and other USG representatives met with Taliban leaders as late as May 2001 and because the US offered >$40M in assistance that Colin Powell or President Bush are cuplable for activities of the Taliban, Of course, they're not. Nor would Speaker Pelosi be responsible for the actions of Turkey or the PKK, which I’m sure you know have been waging a low-intensity effort for separate Kurdish state in Turkey for over 20 years. Has there been serious concern about the potential for a civil war in Turkey for years? Yes. How would the scenario you outlined be in the interest of Turkey’s pursuit of EU membership, which they really want, along with the close to (or more than?) annual $300M in foreign assistance from the US? Is Pelosi responding to her constituents? Yes. Is that the point of a republic? Yes. Is it well-timed? No. Is it likely to be meaningful historically? That’s debatable. Is this an example where being “PC” can be important for international affairs? Yes, it’s one part of diplomacy. If this statement would have passed out of Committee and been voted on by the House in 2000 or early 2001 would it have been as big of an issue? Maybe not. Is the current Turkish government in denial? Yes, it's in their constitution that you can be jailed for mentioning it (& people have been). Is it a moral imperative? Someone else can make the normative arguments. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #14 October 14, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo a few thousand Turkish and Kurdish bodies to set the record straight? That's immoral and insane. If it happens it will be because they are predisposed to do it, not on account of a few words in a US congressional resolution. The US is NOT the world's policeman. Tell the truth. And the fact that there is pressure to do this RIGHT NOW has no bearing on... anything? The truth should be told... no one is denying that. (Did I hear anyone deny that it should be said? No. Did you? No.) But it should be told PRUDENTLY. At the right TIME. I'm not at all surprised that you are for this, given the potential effect it will have on a war that you despise. How long do you recommend we wait - another 92 years? Until such a declaration will not be a pawn by the left. Until it is prudent to do make such a declaration, when the possibility for casualties has been minimized as much as possible. A resolution in the US Congress to call a spade a spade cannot and will not cause ANY casualties. If Turkey invades Kurdistan it is because they have been itching for a fight for decades. Pity you folks didn't show as much concern about the ACTUAL US/UK invasion of Iraq in 2003 which directly caused tens of thousands of casualties.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DZJ 0 #15 October 14, 2007 Quote Until such a declaration will not be a pawn by the left. I do love it when history meets politics. Would it be acceptable for such a declaration (or a similar one) to be used as a pawn by the right? [EDIT] For what it's worth, I agree with Kallend. A US declaration would not cause anything that the Turks weren't planning on doing anyway. To me this whole suggestion smacks of a certain prejudice - the implication is that the Turks are some wild irrational people who might spontaneously fly off into a rage and invade their neighbours on the basis of some unpalateable home truths uttered half a world away... (...which is obviously worse than the US/UK invading faraway countries in a cold and calculating manner....) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites micro 0 #16 October 14, 2007 Quote Quote Until such a declaration will not be a pawn by the left. I do love it when history meets politics. Would it be acceptable for such a declaration (or a similar one) to be used as a pawn by the right? No, it wouldn't be acceptible to me and it WAS not acceptible to me either. So there. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites micro 0 #17 October 14, 2007 Quote Quote Is it SO important to make it an official statement that it comes at the cost of a new war and probably thousands of deaths? In my opinion, that equates Pelosi to any level of culpability attributed to GWB as far as war deaths are concerned. Like I responded to the poster who wrote “Do the gun lovers think that school massacres are just an unfortunate price that has to be paid so that they can keep their guns?” I think you’re asking the wrong question of what is a significant international security issue, i.e., US-Turkey relations, particularly with respect to logistical support of US military activities in the Middle East. Shutting down access to Incirlik would not be good (to put it diplomatically). As an illustrative example: it would be akin (& equally specious, im-ever-ho) to suggest that because then-Secretary of State Powell and other USG representatives met with Taliban leaders as late as May 2001 and because the US offered >$40M in assistance that Colin Powell or President Bush are cuplable for activities of the Taliban, Of course, they're not. Nor would Speaker Pelosi be responsible for the actions of Turkey or the PKK, which I’m sure you know have been waging a low-intensity effort for separate Kurdish state in Turkey for over 20 years. Has there been serious concern about the potential for a civil war in Turkey for years? Yes. How would the scenario you outlined be in the interest of Turkey’s pursuit of EU membership, which they really want, along with the close to (or more than?) annual $300M in foreign assistance from the US? Is Pelosi responding to her constituents? Yes. Is that the point of a republic? Yes. Is it well-timed? No. Is it likely to be meaningful historically? That’s debatable. Is this an example where being “PC” can be important for international affairs? Yes, it’s one part of diplomacy. If this statement would have passed out of Committee and been voted on by the House in 2000 or early 2001 would it have been as big of an issue? Maybe not. Is the current Turkish government in denial? Yes, it's in their constitution that you can be jailed for mentioning it (& people have been). Is it a moral imperative? Someone else can make the normative arguments. VR/Marg well said. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,111 #18 October 14, 2007 >Chime in left...I'm curious as to how anti-war you truly are. And I'm curious to know how pro-genocide you are. Are you willing to continue to ignore people who commit genocide to protect your political party? (Yes, all the questions above are equally dumb.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #19 October 14, 2007 WWHD? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #20 October 14, 2007 They are pursuing every avenue to derail any positive momentum we've been making in the war. Alienating Turkey (despite calls from the left that it's about the Ottoman Empire) to not walk side-by-side with us in this conflict, may do just that.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Para_Frog 1 #21 October 14, 2007 Aaaaaand, roger.- Harvey, BASE 1232 TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA BLiNC Magazine Team Member Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #22 October 14, 2007 It's so convenient (and sloganistic) to try to pin this on "Pelosi" and "the California Democrats" exploiting the timing. But history shows that to be hypocritical bullshit. The House has taken up Armenian Genocide resolutions previously, but while the Republicans were in power. One example: in 2005 - with the Republicans in control of Congress, and the war in Iraq very much on - the House International Relations Committee voted overwhelmingly in favor of such a resolution. Here's what Republican Chairman Henry Hyde of Illinois said in support of the resolution. http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa23437.000/hfa23437_0.htm#0 QuoteThe argument has been made that these resolutions, if adopted, will be harmful to those interests by undermining our relationship with Turkey. This is a serious charge and worthy of serious attention. I very much believe the relationship is of great importance to us and the possibility of peace and stability in the volatile regions that Turkey borders, but I don't believe these resolutions will harm that relationship. They merely recognize the fact that the authorities of the Ottoman Empire deliberately slaughtered the majority of the Armenian community in that empire. Denial of that fact cannot be justified on the basis of expediency or fear that speaking the truth will do us harm. It is commonly supposed that we must choose between recognizing the fact of the massacres and supporting our relationship with Turkey, that somehow these things are opposed to one another. I believe that view is profoundly incorrect, and it is actually harmful to all the parties. But to freeze attention on the past is to be imprisoned by it at the enormous cost of sacrificing the future. Therefore, I believe it is in the interests of the United States and of Turkey and Armenia that we take the lead with dealing with this paralyzing legacy, and we must start with a recognition of the truth, for there is no possibility that this problem can ever be overcome if we seek to ground any solution on silence and forgetting. For as our Lord is quoted as saying in the book of St. John, ''You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.'' Some things are right because they're just plain right. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Guest #23 October 14, 2007 Quote If Turkey attacks northern Iraq, the only party to blame is Turkey. We are not forcing them to do it by reminding them of their unsavory history. Well said. Furthermore, that area of the world is all about revenge and goats anyway. Nobody who was involved in the Armenian Genocide is alive anymore (well, maybe a few). I fail to see what difference it makes. Can't get Japan to admit their responsibility for Korea and Nanking either. Same thing. Not many people left. mh ."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Para_Frog 1 #24 October 14, 2007 Quote Quote Furthermore, that area of the world is all about revenge and goats anyway. Dude...that's a friggin gem. - Harvey, BASE 1232 TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA BLiNC Magazine Team Member Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #25 October 15, 2007 QuoteSo a few thousand Turkish and Kurdish bodies to set the record straight? That's immoral and insane. Insane is your cause and effect here. An accurate proclamation about an event that actually happened cannot be responsible for a war 90 years later. Iran has declared the Holocaust didn't happen either, but if Israel attacks, it won't be for those statements. Pretending history didn't happen is never positive for future decisions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
kallend 2,146 #8 October 14, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Can you say "alterior motive?" I can indeed say it, but "ulterior" would be preferable. What would Jesus do? Tell the truth, no doubt. Thanks professor. I'm sure you feel better about yourself having corrected me. Once again, you've avoided the POINT of the post and instead insisted on focusing on an incidental. What would Jesus do? You're right. He'd tell the truth. But since you don't believe in Jesus, what do you care? Kind of silly for you to bring Him up, n'est-ce pas? ! Not at all, since you are reading the thread. Practice what you preach, micro. If Turkey attacks northern Iraq, the only party to blame is Turkey. We are not forcing them to do it by reminding them of their unsavory history.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites micro 0 #9 October 14, 2007 QuoteQuoteSo a few thousand Turkish and Kurdish bodies to set the record straight? That's immoral and insane. If it happens it will be because they are predisposed to do it, not on account of a few words in a US congressional resolution. The US is NOT the world's policeman. Tell the truth. And the fact that there is pressure to do this RIGHT NOW has no bearing on... anything? The truth should be told... no one is denying that. (Did I hear anyone deny that it should be said? No. Did you? No.) But it should be told PRUDENTLY. At the right TIME. I'm not at all surprised that you are for this, given the potential effect it will have on a war that you despise. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites micro 0 #10 October 14, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Can you say "alterior motive?" I can indeed say it, but "ulterior" would be preferable. What would Jesus do? Tell the truth, no doubt. Thanks professor. I'm sure you feel better about yourself having corrected me. Once again, you've avoided the POINT of the post and instead insisted on focusing on an incidental. What would Jesus do? You're right. He'd tell the truth. But since you don't believe in Jesus, what do you care? Kind of silly for you to bring Him up, n'est-ce pas? ! Not at all, since you are reading the thread. Practice what you preach, micro. If Turkey attacks northern Iraq, the only party to blame is Turkey. We are not forcing them to do it by reminding them of their unsavory history. Ugh. John, never ever ever run for any office of any kind. Ever. And thanks for only quoting a snipit of my post... selective quoting is something you're good at. World history is replete with examples like this. There is nothing to be gained AT THIS MOMENT by making this declaration but MUCH TO BE LOST. But that's just the point isn't it? You're really more interested in the "much to be lost" aspect, aren't you. If by our declaration, violence erupted b/t the turks and the kurds, we would be partially to blame. Did we cause them directly to attack? No. For they are men of free-will (and NOT predisposed, as you claim). However, there are still causal agents involved and we would be one of them. Tact, diplomacy, timing. Making this declaration will do much more harm than good. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #11 October 14, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo a few thousand Turkish and Kurdish bodies to set the record straight? That's immoral and insane. If it happens it will be because they are predisposed to do it, not on account of a few words in a US congressional resolution. The US is NOT the world's policeman. Tell the truth. And the fact that there is pressure to do this RIGHT NOW has no bearing on... anything? The truth should be told... no one is denying that. (Did I hear anyone deny that it should be said? No. Did you? No.) But it should be told PRUDENTLY. At the right TIME. I'm not at all surprised that you are for this, given the potential effect it will have on a war that you despise. How long do you recommend we wait - another 92 years?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites micro 0 #12 October 14, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo a few thousand Turkish and Kurdish bodies to set the record straight? That's immoral and insane. If it happens it will be because they are predisposed to do it, not on account of a few words in a US congressional resolution. The US is NOT the world's policeman. Tell the truth. And the fact that there is pressure to do this RIGHT NOW has no bearing on... anything? The truth should be told... no one is denying that. (Did I hear anyone deny that it should be said? No. Did you? No.) But it should be told PRUDENTLY. At the right TIME. I'm not at all surprised that you are for this, given the potential effect it will have on a war that you despise. How long do you recommend we wait - another 92 years? Until such a declaration will not be a pawn by the left. Until it is prudent to do make such a declaration, when the possibility for casualties has been minimized as much as possible. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #13 October 14, 2007 Quote Is it SO important to make it an official statement that it comes at the cost of a new war and probably thousands of deaths? In my opinion, that equates Pelosi to any level of culpability attributed to GWB as far as war deaths are concerned. Like I responded to the poster who wrote “Do the gun lovers think that school massacres are just an unfortunate price that has to be paid so that they can keep their guns?” I think you’re asking the wrong question of what is a significant international security issue, i.e., US-Turkey relations, particularly with respect to logistical support of US military activities in the Middle East. Shutting down access to Incirlik would not be good (to put it diplomatically). As an illustrative example: it would be akin (& equally specious, im-ever-ho) to suggest that because then-Secretary of State Powell and other USG representatives met with Taliban leaders as late as May 2001 and because the US offered >$40M in assistance that Colin Powell or President Bush are cuplable for activities of the Taliban, Of course, they're not. Nor would Speaker Pelosi be responsible for the actions of Turkey or the PKK, which I’m sure you know have been waging a low-intensity effort for separate Kurdish state in Turkey for over 20 years. Has there been serious concern about the potential for a civil war in Turkey for years? Yes. How would the scenario you outlined be in the interest of Turkey’s pursuit of EU membership, which they really want, along with the close to (or more than?) annual $300M in foreign assistance from the US? Is Pelosi responding to her constituents? Yes. Is that the point of a republic? Yes. Is it well-timed? No. Is it likely to be meaningful historically? That’s debatable. Is this an example where being “PC” can be important for international affairs? Yes, it’s one part of diplomacy. If this statement would have passed out of Committee and been voted on by the House in 2000 or early 2001 would it have been as big of an issue? Maybe not. Is the current Turkish government in denial? Yes, it's in their constitution that you can be jailed for mentioning it (& people have been). Is it a moral imperative? Someone else can make the normative arguments. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #14 October 14, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo a few thousand Turkish and Kurdish bodies to set the record straight? That's immoral and insane. If it happens it will be because they are predisposed to do it, not on account of a few words in a US congressional resolution. The US is NOT the world's policeman. Tell the truth. And the fact that there is pressure to do this RIGHT NOW has no bearing on... anything? The truth should be told... no one is denying that. (Did I hear anyone deny that it should be said? No. Did you? No.) But it should be told PRUDENTLY. At the right TIME. I'm not at all surprised that you are for this, given the potential effect it will have on a war that you despise. How long do you recommend we wait - another 92 years? Until such a declaration will not be a pawn by the left. Until it is prudent to do make such a declaration, when the possibility for casualties has been minimized as much as possible. A resolution in the US Congress to call a spade a spade cannot and will not cause ANY casualties. If Turkey invades Kurdistan it is because they have been itching for a fight for decades. Pity you folks didn't show as much concern about the ACTUAL US/UK invasion of Iraq in 2003 which directly caused tens of thousands of casualties.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DZJ 0 #15 October 14, 2007 Quote Until such a declaration will not be a pawn by the left. I do love it when history meets politics. Would it be acceptable for such a declaration (or a similar one) to be used as a pawn by the right? [EDIT] For what it's worth, I agree with Kallend. A US declaration would not cause anything that the Turks weren't planning on doing anyway. To me this whole suggestion smacks of a certain prejudice - the implication is that the Turks are some wild irrational people who might spontaneously fly off into a rage and invade their neighbours on the basis of some unpalateable home truths uttered half a world away... (...which is obviously worse than the US/UK invading faraway countries in a cold and calculating manner....) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites micro 0 #16 October 14, 2007 Quote Quote Until such a declaration will not be a pawn by the left. I do love it when history meets politics. Would it be acceptable for such a declaration (or a similar one) to be used as a pawn by the right? No, it wouldn't be acceptible to me and it WAS not acceptible to me either. So there. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites micro 0 #17 October 14, 2007 Quote Quote Is it SO important to make it an official statement that it comes at the cost of a new war and probably thousands of deaths? In my opinion, that equates Pelosi to any level of culpability attributed to GWB as far as war deaths are concerned. Like I responded to the poster who wrote “Do the gun lovers think that school massacres are just an unfortunate price that has to be paid so that they can keep their guns?” I think you’re asking the wrong question of what is a significant international security issue, i.e., US-Turkey relations, particularly with respect to logistical support of US military activities in the Middle East. Shutting down access to Incirlik would not be good (to put it diplomatically). As an illustrative example: it would be akin (& equally specious, im-ever-ho) to suggest that because then-Secretary of State Powell and other USG representatives met with Taliban leaders as late as May 2001 and because the US offered >$40M in assistance that Colin Powell or President Bush are cuplable for activities of the Taliban, Of course, they're not. Nor would Speaker Pelosi be responsible for the actions of Turkey or the PKK, which I’m sure you know have been waging a low-intensity effort for separate Kurdish state in Turkey for over 20 years. Has there been serious concern about the potential for a civil war in Turkey for years? Yes. How would the scenario you outlined be in the interest of Turkey’s pursuit of EU membership, which they really want, along with the close to (or more than?) annual $300M in foreign assistance from the US? Is Pelosi responding to her constituents? Yes. Is that the point of a republic? Yes. Is it well-timed? No. Is it likely to be meaningful historically? That’s debatable. Is this an example where being “PC” can be important for international affairs? Yes, it’s one part of diplomacy. If this statement would have passed out of Committee and been voted on by the House in 2000 or early 2001 would it have been as big of an issue? Maybe not. Is the current Turkish government in denial? Yes, it's in their constitution that you can be jailed for mentioning it (& people have been). Is it a moral imperative? Someone else can make the normative arguments. VR/Marg well said. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,111 #18 October 14, 2007 >Chime in left...I'm curious as to how anti-war you truly are. And I'm curious to know how pro-genocide you are. Are you willing to continue to ignore people who commit genocide to protect your political party? (Yes, all the questions above are equally dumb.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #19 October 14, 2007 WWHD? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #20 October 14, 2007 They are pursuing every avenue to derail any positive momentum we've been making in the war. Alienating Turkey (despite calls from the left that it's about the Ottoman Empire) to not walk side-by-side with us in this conflict, may do just that.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Para_Frog 1 #21 October 14, 2007 Aaaaaand, roger.- Harvey, BASE 1232 TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA BLiNC Magazine Team Member Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #22 October 14, 2007 It's so convenient (and sloganistic) to try to pin this on "Pelosi" and "the California Democrats" exploiting the timing. But history shows that to be hypocritical bullshit. The House has taken up Armenian Genocide resolutions previously, but while the Republicans were in power. One example: in 2005 - with the Republicans in control of Congress, and the war in Iraq very much on - the House International Relations Committee voted overwhelmingly in favor of such a resolution. Here's what Republican Chairman Henry Hyde of Illinois said in support of the resolution. http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa23437.000/hfa23437_0.htm#0 QuoteThe argument has been made that these resolutions, if adopted, will be harmful to those interests by undermining our relationship with Turkey. This is a serious charge and worthy of serious attention. I very much believe the relationship is of great importance to us and the possibility of peace and stability in the volatile regions that Turkey borders, but I don't believe these resolutions will harm that relationship. They merely recognize the fact that the authorities of the Ottoman Empire deliberately slaughtered the majority of the Armenian community in that empire. Denial of that fact cannot be justified on the basis of expediency or fear that speaking the truth will do us harm. It is commonly supposed that we must choose between recognizing the fact of the massacres and supporting our relationship with Turkey, that somehow these things are opposed to one another. I believe that view is profoundly incorrect, and it is actually harmful to all the parties. But to freeze attention on the past is to be imprisoned by it at the enormous cost of sacrificing the future. Therefore, I believe it is in the interests of the United States and of Turkey and Armenia that we take the lead with dealing with this paralyzing legacy, and we must start with a recognition of the truth, for there is no possibility that this problem can ever be overcome if we seek to ground any solution on silence and forgetting. For as our Lord is quoted as saying in the book of St. John, ''You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.'' Some things are right because they're just plain right. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Guest #23 October 14, 2007 Quote If Turkey attacks northern Iraq, the only party to blame is Turkey. We are not forcing them to do it by reminding them of their unsavory history. Well said. Furthermore, that area of the world is all about revenge and goats anyway. Nobody who was involved in the Armenian Genocide is alive anymore (well, maybe a few). I fail to see what difference it makes. Can't get Japan to admit their responsibility for Korea and Nanking either. Same thing. Not many people left. mh ."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Para_Frog 1 #24 October 14, 2007 Quote Quote Furthermore, that area of the world is all about revenge and goats anyway. Dude...that's a friggin gem. - Harvey, BASE 1232 TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA BLiNC Magazine Team Member Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #25 October 15, 2007 QuoteSo a few thousand Turkish and Kurdish bodies to set the record straight? That's immoral and insane. Insane is your cause and effect here. An accurate proclamation about an event that actually happened cannot be responsible for a war 90 years later. Iran has declared the Holocaust didn't happen either, but if Israel attacks, it won't be for those statements. Pretending history didn't happen is never positive for future decisions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
micro 0 #9 October 14, 2007 QuoteQuoteSo a few thousand Turkish and Kurdish bodies to set the record straight? That's immoral and insane. If it happens it will be because they are predisposed to do it, not on account of a few words in a US congressional resolution. The US is NOT the world's policeman. Tell the truth. And the fact that there is pressure to do this RIGHT NOW has no bearing on... anything? The truth should be told... no one is denying that. (Did I hear anyone deny that it should be said? No. Did you? No.) But it should be told PRUDENTLY. At the right TIME. I'm not at all surprised that you are for this, given the potential effect it will have on a war that you despise. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #10 October 14, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Can you say "alterior motive?" I can indeed say it, but "ulterior" would be preferable. What would Jesus do? Tell the truth, no doubt. Thanks professor. I'm sure you feel better about yourself having corrected me. Once again, you've avoided the POINT of the post and instead insisted on focusing on an incidental. What would Jesus do? You're right. He'd tell the truth. But since you don't believe in Jesus, what do you care? Kind of silly for you to bring Him up, n'est-ce pas? ! Not at all, since you are reading the thread. Practice what you preach, micro. If Turkey attacks northern Iraq, the only party to blame is Turkey. We are not forcing them to do it by reminding them of their unsavory history. Ugh. John, never ever ever run for any office of any kind. Ever. And thanks for only quoting a snipit of my post... selective quoting is something you're good at. World history is replete with examples like this. There is nothing to be gained AT THIS MOMENT by making this declaration but MUCH TO BE LOST. But that's just the point isn't it? You're really more interested in the "much to be lost" aspect, aren't you. If by our declaration, violence erupted b/t the turks and the kurds, we would be partially to blame. Did we cause them directly to attack? No. For they are men of free-will (and NOT predisposed, as you claim). However, there are still causal agents involved and we would be one of them. Tact, diplomacy, timing. Making this declaration will do much more harm than good. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #11 October 14, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo a few thousand Turkish and Kurdish bodies to set the record straight? That's immoral and insane. If it happens it will be because they are predisposed to do it, not on account of a few words in a US congressional resolution. The US is NOT the world's policeman. Tell the truth. And the fact that there is pressure to do this RIGHT NOW has no bearing on... anything? The truth should be told... no one is denying that. (Did I hear anyone deny that it should be said? No. Did you? No.) But it should be told PRUDENTLY. At the right TIME. I'm not at all surprised that you are for this, given the potential effect it will have on a war that you despise. How long do you recommend we wait - another 92 years?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites micro 0 #12 October 14, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo a few thousand Turkish and Kurdish bodies to set the record straight? That's immoral and insane. If it happens it will be because they are predisposed to do it, not on account of a few words in a US congressional resolution. The US is NOT the world's policeman. Tell the truth. And the fact that there is pressure to do this RIGHT NOW has no bearing on... anything? The truth should be told... no one is denying that. (Did I hear anyone deny that it should be said? No. Did you? No.) But it should be told PRUDENTLY. At the right TIME. I'm not at all surprised that you are for this, given the potential effect it will have on a war that you despise. How long do you recommend we wait - another 92 years? Until such a declaration will not be a pawn by the left. Until it is prudent to do make such a declaration, when the possibility for casualties has been minimized as much as possible. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #13 October 14, 2007 Quote Is it SO important to make it an official statement that it comes at the cost of a new war and probably thousands of deaths? In my opinion, that equates Pelosi to any level of culpability attributed to GWB as far as war deaths are concerned. Like I responded to the poster who wrote “Do the gun lovers think that school massacres are just an unfortunate price that has to be paid so that they can keep their guns?” I think you’re asking the wrong question of what is a significant international security issue, i.e., US-Turkey relations, particularly with respect to logistical support of US military activities in the Middle East. Shutting down access to Incirlik would not be good (to put it diplomatically). As an illustrative example: it would be akin (& equally specious, im-ever-ho) to suggest that because then-Secretary of State Powell and other USG representatives met with Taliban leaders as late as May 2001 and because the US offered >$40M in assistance that Colin Powell or President Bush are cuplable for activities of the Taliban, Of course, they're not. Nor would Speaker Pelosi be responsible for the actions of Turkey or the PKK, which I’m sure you know have been waging a low-intensity effort for separate Kurdish state in Turkey for over 20 years. Has there been serious concern about the potential for a civil war in Turkey for years? Yes. How would the scenario you outlined be in the interest of Turkey’s pursuit of EU membership, which they really want, along with the close to (or more than?) annual $300M in foreign assistance from the US? Is Pelosi responding to her constituents? Yes. Is that the point of a republic? Yes. Is it well-timed? No. Is it likely to be meaningful historically? That’s debatable. Is this an example where being “PC” can be important for international affairs? Yes, it’s one part of diplomacy. If this statement would have passed out of Committee and been voted on by the House in 2000 or early 2001 would it have been as big of an issue? Maybe not. Is the current Turkish government in denial? Yes, it's in their constitution that you can be jailed for mentioning it (& people have been). Is it a moral imperative? Someone else can make the normative arguments. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #14 October 14, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo a few thousand Turkish and Kurdish bodies to set the record straight? That's immoral and insane. If it happens it will be because they are predisposed to do it, not on account of a few words in a US congressional resolution. The US is NOT the world's policeman. Tell the truth. And the fact that there is pressure to do this RIGHT NOW has no bearing on... anything? The truth should be told... no one is denying that. (Did I hear anyone deny that it should be said? No. Did you? No.) But it should be told PRUDENTLY. At the right TIME. I'm not at all surprised that you are for this, given the potential effect it will have on a war that you despise. How long do you recommend we wait - another 92 years? Until such a declaration will not be a pawn by the left. Until it is prudent to do make such a declaration, when the possibility for casualties has been minimized as much as possible. A resolution in the US Congress to call a spade a spade cannot and will not cause ANY casualties. If Turkey invades Kurdistan it is because they have been itching for a fight for decades. Pity you folks didn't show as much concern about the ACTUAL US/UK invasion of Iraq in 2003 which directly caused tens of thousands of casualties.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DZJ 0 #15 October 14, 2007 Quote Until such a declaration will not be a pawn by the left. I do love it when history meets politics. Would it be acceptable for such a declaration (or a similar one) to be used as a pawn by the right? [EDIT] For what it's worth, I agree with Kallend. A US declaration would not cause anything that the Turks weren't planning on doing anyway. To me this whole suggestion smacks of a certain prejudice - the implication is that the Turks are some wild irrational people who might spontaneously fly off into a rage and invade their neighbours on the basis of some unpalateable home truths uttered half a world away... (...which is obviously worse than the US/UK invading faraway countries in a cold and calculating manner....) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites micro 0 #16 October 14, 2007 Quote Quote Until such a declaration will not be a pawn by the left. I do love it when history meets politics. Would it be acceptable for such a declaration (or a similar one) to be used as a pawn by the right? No, it wouldn't be acceptible to me and it WAS not acceptible to me either. So there. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites micro 0 #17 October 14, 2007 Quote Quote Is it SO important to make it an official statement that it comes at the cost of a new war and probably thousands of deaths? In my opinion, that equates Pelosi to any level of culpability attributed to GWB as far as war deaths are concerned. Like I responded to the poster who wrote “Do the gun lovers think that school massacres are just an unfortunate price that has to be paid so that they can keep their guns?” I think you’re asking the wrong question of what is a significant international security issue, i.e., US-Turkey relations, particularly with respect to logistical support of US military activities in the Middle East. Shutting down access to Incirlik would not be good (to put it diplomatically). As an illustrative example: it would be akin (& equally specious, im-ever-ho) to suggest that because then-Secretary of State Powell and other USG representatives met with Taliban leaders as late as May 2001 and because the US offered >$40M in assistance that Colin Powell or President Bush are cuplable for activities of the Taliban, Of course, they're not. Nor would Speaker Pelosi be responsible for the actions of Turkey or the PKK, which I’m sure you know have been waging a low-intensity effort for separate Kurdish state in Turkey for over 20 years. Has there been serious concern about the potential for a civil war in Turkey for years? Yes. How would the scenario you outlined be in the interest of Turkey’s pursuit of EU membership, which they really want, along with the close to (or more than?) annual $300M in foreign assistance from the US? Is Pelosi responding to her constituents? Yes. Is that the point of a republic? Yes. Is it well-timed? No. Is it likely to be meaningful historically? That’s debatable. Is this an example where being “PC” can be important for international affairs? Yes, it’s one part of diplomacy. If this statement would have passed out of Committee and been voted on by the House in 2000 or early 2001 would it have been as big of an issue? Maybe not. Is the current Turkish government in denial? Yes, it's in their constitution that you can be jailed for mentioning it (& people have been). Is it a moral imperative? Someone else can make the normative arguments. VR/Marg well said. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,111 #18 October 14, 2007 >Chime in left...I'm curious as to how anti-war you truly are. And I'm curious to know how pro-genocide you are. Are you willing to continue to ignore people who commit genocide to protect your political party? (Yes, all the questions above are equally dumb.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #19 October 14, 2007 WWHD? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #20 October 14, 2007 They are pursuing every avenue to derail any positive momentum we've been making in the war. Alienating Turkey (despite calls from the left that it's about the Ottoman Empire) to not walk side-by-side with us in this conflict, may do just that.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Para_Frog 1 #21 October 14, 2007 Aaaaaand, roger.- Harvey, BASE 1232 TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA BLiNC Magazine Team Member Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #22 October 14, 2007 It's so convenient (and sloganistic) to try to pin this on "Pelosi" and "the California Democrats" exploiting the timing. But history shows that to be hypocritical bullshit. The House has taken up Armenian Genocide resolutions previously, but while the Republicans were in power. One example: in 2005 - with the Republicans in control of Congress, and the war in Iraq very much on - the House International Relations Committee voted overwhelmingly in favor of such a resolution. Here's what Republican Chairman Henry Hyde of Illinois said in support of the resolution. http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa23437.000/hfa23437_0.htm#0 QuoteThe argument has been made that these resolutions, if adopted, will be harmful to those interests by undermining our relationship with Turkey. This is a serious charge and worthy of serious attention. I very much believe the relationship is of great importance to us and the possibility of peace and stability in the volatile regions that Turkey borders, but I don't believe these resolutions will harm that relationship. They merely recognize the fact that the authorities of the Ottoman Empire deliberately slaughtered the majority of the Armenian community in that empire. Denial of that fact cannot be justified on the basis of expediency or fear that speaking the truth will do us harm. It is commonly supposed that we must choose between recognizing the fact of the massacres and supporting our relationship with Turkey, that somehow these things are opposed to one another. I believe that view is profoundly incorrect, and it is actually harmful to all the parties. But to freeze attention on the past is to be imprisoned by it at the enormous cost of sacrificing the future. Therefore, I believe it is in the interests of the United States and of Turkey and Armenia that we take the lead with dealing with this paralyzing legacy, and we must start with a recognition of the truth, for there is no possibility that this problem can ever be overcome if we seek to ground any solution on silence and forgetting. For as our Lord is quoted as saying in the book of St. John, ''You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.'' Some things are right because they're just plain right. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Guest #23 October 14, 2007 Quote If Turkey attacks northern Iraq, the only party to blame is Turkey. We are not forcing them to do it by reminding them of their unsavory history. Well said. Furthermore, that area of the world is all about revenge and goats anyway. Nobody who was involved in the Armenian Genocide is alive anymore (well, maybe a few). I fail to see what difference it makes. Can't get Japan to admit their responsibility for Korea and Nanking either. Same thing. Not many people left. mh ."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Para_Frog 1 #24 October 14, 2007 Quote Quote Furthermore, that area of the world is all about revenge and goats anyway. Dude...that's a friggin gem. - Harvey, BASE 1232 TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA BLiNC Magazine Team Member Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #25 October 15, 2007 QuoteSo a few thousand Turkish and Kurdish bodies to set the record straight? That's immoral and insane. Insane is your cause and effect here. An accurate proclamation about an event that actually happened cannot be responsible for a war 90 years later. Iran has declared the Holocaust didn't happen either, but if Israel attacks, it won't be for those statements. Pretending history didn't happen is never positive for future decisions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
kallend 2,146 #11 October 14, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo a few thousand Turkish and Kurdish bodies to set the record straight? That's immoral and insane. If it happens it will be because they are predisposed to do it, not on account of a few words in a US congressional resolution. The US is NOT the world's policeman. Tell the truth. And the fact that there is pressure to do this RIGHT NOW has no bearing on... anything? The truth should be told... no one is denying that. (Did I hear anyone deny that it should be said? No. Did you? No.) But it should be told PRUDENTLY. At the right TIME. I'm not at all surprised that you are for this, given the potential effect it will have on a war that you despise. How long do you recommend we wait - another 92 years?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #12 October 14, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo a few thousand Turkish and Kurdish bodies to set the record straight? That's immoral and insane. If it happens it will be because they are predisposed to do it, not on account of a few words in a US congressional resolution. The US is NOT the world's policeman. Tell the truth. And the fact that there is pressure to do this RIGHT NOW has no bearing on... anything? The truth should be told... no one is denying that. (Did I hear anyone deny that it should be said? No. Did you? No.) But it should be told PRUDENTLY. At the right TIME. I'm not at all surprised that you are for this, given the potential effect it will have on a war that you despise. How long do you recommend we wait - another 92 years? Until such a declaration will not be a pawn by the left. Until it is prudent to do make such a declaration, when the possibility for casualties has been minimized as much as possible. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #13 October 14, 2007 Quote Is it SO important to make it an official statement that it comes at the cost of a new war and probably thousands of deaths? In my opinion, that equates Pelosi to any level of culpability attributed to GWB as far as war deaths are concerned. Like I responded to the poster who wrote “Do the gun lovers think that school massacres are just an unfortunate price that has to be paid so that they can keep their guns?” I think you’re asking the wrong question of what is a significant international security issue, i.e., US-Turkey relations, particularly with respect to logistical support of US military activities in the Middle East. Shutting down access to Incirlik would not be good (to put it diplomatically). As an illustrative example: it would be akin (& equally specious, im-ever-ho) to suggest that because then-Secretary of State Powell and other USG representatives met with Taliban leaders as late as May 2001 and because the US offered >$40M in assistance that Colin Powell or President Bush are cuplable for activities of the Taliban, Of course, they're not. Nor would Speaker Pelosi be responsible for the actions of Turkey or the PKK, which I’m sure you know have been waging a low-intensity effort for separate Kurdish state in Turkey for over 20 years. Has there been serious concern about the potential for a civil war in Turkey for years? Yes. How would the scenario you outlined be in the interest of Turkey’s pursuit of EU membership, which they really want, along with the close to (or more than?) annual $300M in foreign assistance from the US? Is Pelosi responding to her constituents? Yes. Is that the point of a republic? Yes. Is it well-timed? No. Is it likely to be meaningful historically? That’s debatable. Is this an example where being “PC” can be important for international affairs? Yes, it’s one part of diplomacy. If this statement would have passed out of Committee and been voted on by the House in 2000 or early 2001 would it have been as big of an issue? Maybe not. Is the current Turkish government in denial? Yes, it's in their constitution that you can be jailed for mentioning it (& people have been). Is it a moral imperative? Someone else can make the normative arguments. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #14 October 14, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo a few thousand Turkish and Kurdish bodies to set the record straight? That's immoral and insane. If it happens it will be because they are predisposed to do it, not on account of a few words in a US congressional resolution. The US is NOT the world's policeman. Tell the truth. And the fact that there is pressure to do this RIGHT NOW has no bearing on... anything? The truth should be told... no one is denying that. (Did I hear anyone deny that it should be said? No. Did you? No.) But it should be told PRUDENTLY. At the right TIME. I'm not at all surprised that you are for this, given the potential effect it will have on a war that you despise. How long do you recommend we wait - another 92 years? Until such a declaration will not be a pawn by the left. Until it is prudent to do make such a declaration, when the possibility for casualties has been minimized as much as possible. A resolution in the US Congress to call a spade a spade cannot and will not cause ANY casualties. If Turkey invades Kurdistan it is because they have been itching for a fight for decades. Pity you folks didn't show as much concern about the ACTUAL US/UK invasion of Iraq in 2003 which directly caused tens of thousands of casualties.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DZJ 0 #15 October 14, 2007 Quote Until such a declaration will not be a pawn by the left. I do love it when history meets politics. Would it be acceptable for such a declaration (or a similar one) to be used as a pawn by the right? [EDIT] For what it's worth, I agree with Kallend. A US declaration would not cause anything that the Turks weren't planning on doing anyway. To me this whole suggestion smacks of a certain prejudice - the implication is that the Turks are some wild irrational people who might spontaneously fly off into a rage and invade their neighbours on the basis of some unpalateable home truths uttered half a world away... (...which is obviously worse than the US/UK invading faraway countries in a cold and calculating manner....) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #16 October 14, 2007 Quote Quote Until such a declaration will not be a pawn by the left. I do love it when history meets politics. Would it be acceptable for such a declaration (or a similar one) to be used as a pawn by the right? No, it wouldn't be acceptible to me and it WAS not acceptible to me either. So there. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #17 October 14, 2007 Quote Quote Is it SO important to make it an official statement that it comes at the cost of a new war and probably thousands of deaths? In my opinion, that equates Pelosi to any level of culpability attributed to GWB as far as war deaths are concerned. Like I responded to the poster who wrote “Do the gun lovers think that school massacres are just an unfortunate price that has to be paid so that they can keep their guns?” I think you’re asking the wrong question of what is a significant international security issue, i.e., US-Turkey relations, particularly with respect to logistical support of US military activities in the Middle East. Shutting down access to Incirlik would not be good (to put it diplomatically). As an illustrative example: it would be akin (& equally specious, im-ever-ho) to suggest that because then-Secretary of State Powell and other USG representatives met with Taliban leaders as late as May 2001 and because the US offered >$40M in assistance that Colin Powell or President Bush are cuplable for activities of the Taliban, Of course, they're not. Nor would Speaker Pelosi be responsible for the actions of Turkey or the PKK, which I’m sure you know have been waging a low-intensity effort for separate Kurdish state in Turkey for over 20 years. Has there been serious concern about the potential for a civil war in Turkey for years? Yes. How would the scenario you outlined be in the interest of Turkey’s pursuit of EU membership, which they really want, along with the close to (or more than?) annual $300M in foreign assistance from the US? Is Pelosi responding to her constituents? Yes. Is that the point of a republic? Yes. Is it well-timed? No. Is it likely to be meaningful historically? That’s debatable. Is this an example where being “PC” can be important for international affairs? Yes, it’s one part of diplomacy. If this statement would have passed out of Committee and been voted on by the House in 2000 or early 2001 would it have been as big of an issue? Maybe not. Is the current Turkish government in denial? Yes, it's in their constitution that you can be jailed for mentioning it (& people have been). Is it a moral imperative? Someone else can make the normative arguments. VR/Marg well said. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #18 October 14, 2007 >Chime in left...I'm curious as to how anti-war you truly are. And I'm curious to know how pro-genocide you are. Are you willing to continue to ignore people who commit genocide to protect your political party? (Yes, all the questions above are equally dumb.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #20 October 14, 2007 They are pursuing every avenue to derail any positive momentum we've been making in the war. Alienating Turkey (despite calls from the left that it's about the Ottoman Empire) to not walk side-by-side with us in this conflict, may do just that.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Para_Frog 1 #21 October 14, 2007 Aaaaaand, roger.- Harvey, BASE 1232 TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA BLiNC Magazine Team Member Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #22 October 14, 2007 It's so convenient (and sloganistic) to try to pin this on "Pelosi" and "the California Democrats" exploiting the timing. But history shows that to be hypocritical bullshit. The House has taken up Armenian Genocide resolutions previously, but while the Republicans were in power. One example: in 2005 - with the Republicans in control of Congress, and the war in Iraq very much on - the House International Relations Committee voted overwhelmingly in favor of such a resolution. Here's what Republican Chairman Henry Hyde of Illinois said in support of the resolution. http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa23437.000/hfa23437_0.htm#0 QuoteThe argument has been made that these resolutions, if adopted, will be harmful to those interests by undermining our relationship with Turkey. This is a serious charge and worthy of serious attention. I very much believe the relationship is of great importance to us and the possibility of peace and stability in the volatile regions that Turkey borders, but I don't believe these resolutions will harm that relationship. They merely recognize the fact that the authorities of the Ottoman Empire deliberately slaughtered the majority of the Armenian community in that empire. Denial of that fact cannot be justified on the basis of expediency or fear that speaking the truth will do us harm. It is commonly supposed that we must choose between recognizing the fact of the massacres and supporting our relationship with Turkey, that somehow these things are opposed to one another. I believe that view is profoundly incorrect, and it is actually harmful to all the parties. But to freeze attention on the past is to be imprisoned by it at the enormous cost of sacrificing the future. Therefore, I believe it is in the interests of the United States and of Turkey and Armenia that we take the lead with dealing with this paralyzing legacy, and we must start with a recognition of the truth, for there is no possibility that this problem can ever be overcome if we seek to ground any solution on silence and forgetting. For as our Lord is quoted as saying in the book of St. John, ''You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.'' Some things are right because they're just plain right. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #23 October 14, 2007 Quote If Turkey attacks northern Iraq, the only party to blame is Turkey. We are not forcing them to do it by reminding them of their unsavory history. Well said. Furthermore, that area of the world is all about revenge and goats anyway. Nobody who was involved in the Armenian Genocide is alive anymore (well, maybe a few). I fail to see what difference it makes. Can't get Japan to admit their responsibility for Korea and Nanking either. Same thing. Not many people left. mh ."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Para_Frog 1 #24 October 14, 2007 Quote Quote Furthermore, that area of the world is all about revenge and goats anyway. Dude...that's a friggin gem. - Harvey, BASE 1232 TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA BLiNC Magazine Team Member Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #25 October 15, 2007 QuoteSo a few thousand Turkish and Kurdish bodies to set the record straight? That's immoral and insane. Insane is your cause and effect here. An accurate proclamation about an event that actually happened cannot be responsible for a war 90 years later. Iran has declared the Holocaust didn't happen either, but if Israel attacks, it won't be for those statements. Pretending history didn't happen is never positive for future decisions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
