Bush warns against Armenia bill

Somehow if there were not a lot of voters of Armenian descent in swing political districts in the US I doubt the House would have bothered.
 
dudalb said:
Somehow if there were not a lot of voters of Armenian descent in swing political districts in the US I doubt the House would have bothered.
Click to expand...

Well, you know, you're right. Same with France. Kinda silly of the Turks to persuade them all to emigrate to the USA and France in the first place, really. Kinda thing that came back to bite the Turks in the ass, so to speak. Mind you, to be fair, it's also a kind of truism; the Cuba embargo exists because of all those Cubans down in Florida, the immigration hot-button issue exists because of all those Mexicans improving the culinary scene north of the border, and for all I know there's probably some rabid pro-Toronto group up north somewhere.
 
Any idea what the political affiliations are of the sponsors of this resolution? Could it be the Democrats' way of making the war harder for the Republicans to carry on? (If so, that's awfully short sighted, because come 2009 it's likely that a Democrat president will be trying to figure out what to do about the war.)
 
Blue Mountain said:
Any idea what the political affiliations are of the sponsors of this resolution? Could it be the Democrats' way of making the war harder for the Republicans to carry on?
Click to expand...

I don't know who sponsored it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7039562.stm

The non-binding vote, passed by 27 to 21 votes by members of the congressional House Foreign Affairs Committee, is the first step towards holding a vote in the House of Representatives.

Divisions within the committee crossed party lines with eight Democrats voting against the measure and eight Republicans voting for it.
Click to expand...

So 27 votes in favour, 8 of them Republican.
That means 19 Democtrats voted in favour.
 
dudalb said:
Somehow if there were not a lot of voters of Armenian descent in swing political districts in the US I doubt the House would have bothered.
Click to expand...
Clearly.

This is obvious pandering to get votes and little more. The world will not be made better by it, US citizens will not be any better off and there will be no real positive impact to Armenians worldwide.

On the downside, it will definitely have an impact on our ability to prosecute our lovely misadventure in Iraq.

It really (REALLY) pains me to say it, I don't think I've said it ever before and likely won't say it again and if anyone ever calls me on it I'll swear my logon was hijacked, but I believe the pResident is right on this one.
 
madurobob said:
....It really (REALLY) pains me to say it, I don't think I've said it ever before and likely won't say it again and if anyone ever calls me on it I'll swear my logon was hijacked, but I believe the pResident is right on this one.
Click to expand...

Bush really didn't have much choice. Any POTUS would have done the same.

OTOH, I can't say I feel any sympathy for the Turks. Yes, of course this is driven by Armenian PAC's in vital voting districts. But then the Turks shouldn't have been so bloody silly as to drive them off to America in the first place. Their own bloody fault.

This is one of those rather world-shaking issues (genuinely; this will have BIG effects long-term) on which strangely enough I feel I can take a back seat and watch without worrying much. The Turks deserve what they get on this; but Bush is also right in trying to do damage-limitation. I shall simply sit and watch, and of course comment.

The wheels of God grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly small.
 
Beerina said:
This talks about something that happened 90 years ago. It serves no purpose but to make Turks feel bad about themselves and/or make them angry.

I have to wonder about the motives of those driving this at this particular time. Turkey has enough problems at this time with:

1. Trying to get into the EU

2. Kurdish areas in their eastern territory and over the border


I think we are all experienced enough to realize the timing probably isn't just coincidental. Remember that in science, you address the argument rather than the person. In politics, its exactly the opposite, with almost nothing being truly driven by the surface arguments.
Click to expand...

So you support japan ignoreing any all their war crimes because why look at the past?
 
Jaggy Bunnet said:
What other events has Congress had a vote on as to whether they amounted to genocide or not?

I can find stories about Darfur and Cambodia. Any others?
Click to expand...

Rwanda they did fun semantic games declaring them acts of genocide but not an actual genocide.
 
ponderingturtle said:
So you support japan ignoreing any all their war crimes because why look at the past?
Click to expand...

It is people who commit atrocities, not countries. Why should the sins of the distant past effect the present.
I am not saying forget the past, the lessons are too important, but use them to improve the future.
Atrocities continue to happen, doesn't it make more sense to concentrate on the ones currently making people' lives hell?
 
fagin said:
It is people who commit atrocities, not countries. Why should the sins of the distant past effect the present.
I am not saying forget the past, the lessons are too important, but use them to improve the future.
Atrocities continue to happen, doesn't it make more sense to concentrate on the ones currently making people' lives hell?
Click to expand...

Then why should we care if people deny that the holocaust happened?

That is the point, these countries are refusing to admit the atrocities in their past and people are arguing that no on should care. Well fine, then why should people care if the holocaust happened or not?
 
ponderingturtle said:
Well fine, then why should people care if the holocaust happened or not?
Click to expand...
Why indeed?

Denying the Holocaust is an exercise in demonstrating how little regard one has for history and a little thing known as facts. It is one thing to censor mention of it from History books: that hampers future understanding and scholarship, and possibly a chance to learn from, and avoid, one of the nastier policies of one era.

I don't need an act of Congress to declare that the Holocaust happened. It's already well documented. What I need is an open society and free press to ensure that the accounts are published, and preserved, for the benefit of posterity, and that attempts to replace it with false history are held up to the glare of criticism, and where appropriate, ridicule.

DR
 
Darth Rotor said:
Why indeed?

Denying the Holocaust is an exercise in demonstrating how little regard one has for history and a little thing known as facts. It is one thing to censor mention of it from History books: that hampers future understanding and scholarship, and possibly a chance to learn from, and avoid, one of the nastier policies of one era.

I don't need an act of Congress to declare that the Holocaust happened. It's already well documented. What I need is an open society and free press to ensure that the accounts are published, and preserved, for the benefit of posterity, and that attempts to replace it with false history are held up to the glare of criticism, and where appropriate, ridicule.

DR
Click to expand...

So we should point and laugh at many japanese and turkish people?
 
dudalb said:
No,just the ones who claim that The Armenian Holocuast or the Rape of Nanking never happened.
THey I treat the same way I treat Holocaust deniers.
Click to expand...

But these are the official positions of the governments. Why do people criticize Iran for officially denying the holocaust so much and not care about turkey or japan? Iran was totally uninvolved seems to be the difference.
 
May I ask:

Who brought it up in the first place -aka- introduced it to congress...
...and for what purpose?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom