• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bush warns against Armenia bill

FireGarden

Philosopher
FireGarden
Joined
Aug 13, 2002
Messages
5,047
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7038095.stm

President George W Bush has urged US legislators not to pass a resolution declaring the killing of Armenians by Ottoman Turks to be genocide.

"This resolution is not the right response to these historic mass killings," he said hours before a vote by the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

[...] Turkey admits many Armenians died in WWI but denies any genocidal campaign.
Click to expand...

So which historians say what?
I was under the impression that most historians had decided it was genocide. I realise that passes a judgement on the motives of the Turkish government at the time, rather than just the consequences of their actions.

If the majority of expert opinion calls it a genocide, then why shouldn't the US government follow their lead?

Or am I just wrong on what the majority says? Here's wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_the_Armenian_Genocide
 
FireGarden said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7038095.stm



So which historians say what?
I was under the impression that most historians had decided it was genocide. I realise that passes a judgement on the motives of the Turkish government at the time, rather than just the consequences of their actions.

If the majority of expert opinion calls it a genocide, then why shouldn't the US government follow their lead?

Or am I just wrong on what the majority says? Here's wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_the_Armenian_Genocide
Click to expand...

Because the US doesn't need to step on any more toes right now without some good reason. Telling the truth isn't always the best choice in politics.
 
Because the US doesn't need to step on any more toes right now without some good reason. Telling the truth isn't always the best choice in politics.
Click to expand...

Well, that's certainly a point worth consideration.

40 US states regard the killings as genocide, according to the wiki article above.

The UK does not.
 
Last edited:
Global warming isn't science, the Armenian Genocide was just a bar brawl, waterboarding isn't torture, black is white, and Bush is a moral leader. Apparently if you agree with the correct political party, all these things become true.
 
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.
 
Bush needs Turkey to use as bases or for fly over rights for his upcoming attack on Iran. If he loses Turkey, it will all be a southern based attack.
 
OK, I am reasonably convinced that this was a genocidal action. But, why is this something being debated by the US congress 90 years after the fact? Whats the point? Does congress have nothing better to do?
 
From the post title, I figured "Armenia Bill" was one of his cute nicknames, bestowed on one of his personal staff whose ancestors came from Armenia.

I don't need an act of Congress to tell me what the occurrences in Armenia in the first two decades of the twentieth century were. All I need is a library, or perhaps a good internet site.

What is the point of Congress doing crap like this?

DR
 
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
Click to expand...

Just as an experiment...change 90 to 62, Turks to Germans, and problems to (1) Unemployment and Neo-Nazis in the East and (2) Rising Turkish/Muslim population...seems to work just as well...


I think we are all experienced enough to realize the timing probably isn't just coincidental.
Click to expand...

Now here you make good sense. Listening to NPR on the way home today they talked about this, and pointed out that the folks pushing it have lots of Armenian-Americans living in their districts and with elections a year away, it never hurts to have a talking point. And NPR also noted this type of resolution has been opposed in the past by both Democratic and Republican Presidents in the past (IIRC, Reagan was the last one to use the word genocide and he quickly stopped that soon enough), who tend to value today's (anb hopefully tomorrow's) alliance with the secular Turkish government over the Ottomans' and the nascent Turkish government of 1919-20.

Press on.
 
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.
Click to expand...
That is merely being ignorant. Acknowledging the genocide actually would have legal consequences -- compensation and the like.
 
It certainly was genocide. Im wondering why the democrats feel the need to slap turkey in the face about it since it happened almost a century ago.

Foreign policy brilliance.
 
corplinx said:
It certainly was genocide. Im wondering why the democrats feel the need to slap turkey in the face about it since it happened almost a century ago.

Foreign policy brilliance.
Click to expand...

Israel never tires of reminding people of the holocaust. Given the inhumanity of that event, I can't say I blame them. I just think other similar events need publicising as well, like this genocide.
 
So, in about 40 years or so, we should start telling Jewish people to STFU about the Holocaust? Or is there something fundamentally less worthy about the Armenian people that someone can enlighten me about?
 
Gurdur said:
That is merely being ignorant. Acknowledging the genocide actually would have legal consequences -- compensation and the like.
Click to expand...
I for one admit to being ignorant.

How does the US Congress passing a resolution drive legal consequences? Who is going to sue whom in what court and how is that more likely to succeed in light of the resolution?

The article linked in the OP made this suggestion as well and I didn't understand it. Please enlighten me.
 
JoeEllison said:
So, in about 40 years or so, we should start telling Jewish people to STFU about the Holocaust? Or is there something fundamentally less worthy about the Armenian people that someone can enlighten me about?
Click to expand...

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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom