Grandstanding Has Consequences

[JODO 2]

If I recall correctly Turkey did not let the US stage operations from their country when we started the Iraq "liberation". The genocide against the Armenians is well documented and Turkey refuses to take responsibility for its WWI era actions. I have no sympathy for them and if they even try to cause harm to our troops, well that just shows what kind of "allies" they were in the first place.

It's just that the country of Turkey didn't exist then, it was the Ottoman Empire then.

Right,but Turkey arose from the ashes of the Ottomans, they are still culpable.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If I recall correctly Turkey did not let the US stage operations from their country when we started the Iraq "liberation". The genocide against the Armenians is well documented and Turkey refuses to take responsibility for its WWI era actions. I have no sympathy for them and if they even try to cause harm to our troops, well that just shows what kind of "allies" they were in the first place.

It's just that the country of Turkey didn't exist then, it was the Ottoman Empire then.

Then why should the Turks take issue?

Same people, different government.

Then much like German people have to live with that dark part of their past, Turkish people should recognize the wrongs of their past as well. Throwing a childish fit over pointing out what is a well documented wrong in the history of their people is just plain ridiculous.

Edited October 16, 2007 by Mr. Big Dog

[JODO 2]

If I recall correctly Turkey did not let the US stage operations from their country when we started the Iraq "liberation". The genocide against the Armenians is well documented and Turkey refuses to take responsibility for its WWI era actions. I have no sympathy for them and if they even try to cause harm to our troops, well that just shows what kind of "allies" they were in the first place.

It's just that the country of Turkey didn't exist then, it was the Ottoman Empire then.

Then why should the Turks take issue?

Same people, different government.

Then much like German people have to live with that dark part of their past, Turkish people should recognize the wrongs of their past as well.

Exactly,but for some reason the Turks believe they are exempt. To this day people still go to jail in Ankara for acknowledging this dirty little fact and the Turks think they are ready for EU membership

[MrConservative 0]

If I recall correctly Turkey did not let the US stage operations from their country when we started the Iraq "liberation". The genocide against the Armenians is well documented and Turkey refuses to take responsibility for its WWI era actions. I have no sympathy for them and if they even try to cause harm to our troops, well that just shows what kind of "allies" they were in the first place.

It's just that the country of Turkey didn't exist then, it was the Ottoman Empire then.

Then why should the Turks take issue?

Same people, different government.

Then much like German people have to live with that dark part of their past, Turkish people should recognize the wrongs of their past as well. Throwing a childish fit over pointing out what is a well documented wrong in the history of their people is just plain ridiculous.

As I recall Prez Reagan condemned Turkey for this. Plus almost 100 years after the fact one has to ask why now? Seems politically motivated to me.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If I recall correctly Turkey did not let the US stage operations from their country when we started the Iraq "liberation". The genocide against the Armenians is well documented and Turkey refuses to take responsibility for its WWI era actions. I have no sympathy for them and if they even try to cause harm to our troops, well that just shows what kind of "allies" they were in the first place.

It's just that the country of Turkey didn't exist then, it was the Ottoman Empire then.

Then why should the Turks take issue?

Same people, different government.

Then much like German people have to live with that dark part of their past, Turkish people should recognize the wrongs of their past as well.

Exactly,but for some reason the Turks believe they are exempt. To this day people still go to jail in Ankara for acknowledging this dirty little fact and the Turks think they are ready for EU membership

They're pretty alone with that perception.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Turkey sucks. Are there any Turks on VJ, we should all nuke their inbox.

[JODO 2]

If I recall correctly Turkey did not let the US stage operations from their country when we started the Iraq "liberation". The genocide against the Armenians is well documented and Turkey refuses to take responsibility for its WWI era actions. I have no sympathy for them and if they even try to cause harm to our troops, well that just shows what kind of "allies" they were in the first place.

It's just that the country of Turkey didn't exist then, it was the Ottoman Empire then.

Then why should the Turks take issue?

Same people, different government.

Then much like German people have to live with that dark part of their past, Turkish people should recognize the wrongs of their past as well. Throwing a childish fit over pointing out what is a well documented wrong in the history of their people is just plain ridiculous.

As I recall Prez Reagan condemned Turkey for this. Plus almost 100 years after the fact one has to ask why now? Seems politically motivated to me.

Yes one does have to ask why Turkey refuses to own up to its genocidal campaign and why it behaves so irresponsibly to this day regarding the issue. If it wants to join responsible nations then it has to accept its culpability in this historical massacre. The Turks are simply hurting themselves by behaving this way as it continues to do with the Turkish Cypriot issue. If it wants to be taken seriously, then they need to behave as such.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

As I recall Prez Reagan condemned Turkey for this. Plus almost 100 years after the fact one has to ask why now? Seems politically motivated to me.

See the post above yours. You find that acceptable for a country that is a part of the NATO and wants to join the EU? They've got a lot of growing up to do there as far as I can see. And you seem surprised about Congressional resolution being political. Have you been sleeping?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If I recall correctly Turkey did not let the US stage operations from their country when we started the Iraq "liberation". The genocide against the Armenians is well documented and Turkey refuses to take responsibility for its WWI era actions. I have no sympathy for them and if they even try to cause harm to our troops, well that just shows what kind of "allies" they were in the first place.

It's just that the country of Turkey didn't exist then, it was the Ottoman Empire then.

Well its a fair guess that they didn't have a population transplant.

[Pooky 3,784]

Why did they decide to pass this resolution now...at this time? I'm confused.

Easy enough. Send a message to Turkey is thinking of intervening in Iraq. (Of course, they'd be largely enemies of the Kurds (cheer!) who are allying with Iran (boo!) so it's not clear whether they are the bad guys or not. I swear, if we entered this now, we'd be on both sides of the conflict.)

Hmmm...interesting. I thought it might have something to do with Iraq. Congress then seems to know what they are doing and the consequences it entails.

I beg to differ here. The Democrat majority in Congress is pursuing their agenda to force the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq by any means possible. Causing the denial of a strategic supply point in neighbouring Turkey is one way of pressuring the issue. Depriving US troops of timely upgrades in protective equipment, such as the armoured vehicles mentioned in an earlier post, will likely cause more American dead and wounded. Will Congrees put the blame on the President, or will they admit to being partially at fault? No prizes for guessing the answer there.

But the consequences here are more far-reaching and damaging to US interests abroad.

Turkey is one of the few Muslim nations that the US can count as an ally. With the continued antagonism toward Turkey by the EU, putting repeated obstacles in the way of Turkey joining the EU, this resolution will show that the US is no better a friend than the likes of France, et al. Whatever the reason, the US can ill afford to lose a Muslim ally. Furthermore, without the influence of the USA, Turkey is very likely to mount incursions into Northern Iraq to find and destroy the Kurdish rebels and, with no-one with influence to restrain them, that could get very messy. Don't get me wrong, Turkey has every right to fight terrorism that affects its own borders, but crossing into Iraq could turn into a bloodbath. More blood in a region currently swimming in it.

What makes this move even more two-faced is the context. The Armenian killings happened 90 years ago. Darfur is happening now. Myanmar is happening now. Tibet has been happening for years. China is virtually sacrosanct, immune from even a hint of sanction. If Congress truly wanted to make a human rights stand on genocide, why pick an easy target like Turkey, with no relevance in today's situations? Why not be bold and do something to prevent genocide today, instead of blaming an ally for something that happened almost a century ago?

Whatever your politics, this resolution stinks and more people are going to die because of it.

P

[MrConservative 0]

As I recall Prez Reagan condemned Turkey for this. Plus almost 100 years after the fact one has to ask why now? Seems politically motivated to me.

See the post above yours. You find that acceptable for a country that is a part of the NATO and wants to join the EU? They've got a lot of growing up to do there as far as I can see. And you seem surprised about Congressional resolution being political. Have you been sleeping?

Still, one has to wonder about the timing. It does throw a wrench into things where Iraq is concerned. That does seem to be the motivation behind it. After all, we did have 100 years to pass this condemnation.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

As I recall Prez Reagan condemned Turkey for this. Plus almost 100 years after the fact one has to ask why now? Seems politically motivated to me.

See the post above yours. You find that acceptable for a country that is a part of the NATO and wants to join the EU? They've got a lot of growing up to do there as far as I can see. And you seem surprised about Congressional resolution being political. Have you been sleeping?

Still, one has to wonder about the timing. It does throw a wrench into things where Iraq is concerned. That does seem to be the motivation behind it. After all, we did have 100 years to pass this condemnation.

Well, something tells me that Turkey is making a lot of noise on this right now but in the end, they are 1) still a NATO partner and 2) should have an extended Iran as their direct neighbor somewhere lower on the priority list than actually consequential grandstanding on a rightful condemnation - however late it may be issued.

Whatever your politics, this resolution stinks and more people are going to die because of it.

Hardly. Turkey isn't going to deny their cooperation on Iraq over this. Think they wanna deal with Iran next door?

[Widge 0]

The Armenian Genocide and Turkey's Denial.

On 28 February 2002, the European Union Parliament, by a majority of 391 to 96, stated that Turkey must recognise the Armenian genocide before it could join the European Union.

http://www.homepage-link.to/turkey/

Wednesday October 11, 2006

The Guardian

The French parliament has been warned it could undermine relations between the EU and Turkey if it passes a law tomorrow making it a crime to deny Armenians suffered genocide at the hands of Ottoman Turks during the first world war.

The draft bill, which is to be debated by the national assembly, was put forward by France's opposition Socialist party, and recommends that anyone who denies the mass-murder of Armenians between 1915 and 1917 was genocide should face a year in prison and a €45,000 (£30,500) fine.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,,1892412,00.html

Genocide could have chosen a more convenient time to make its way onto the congressional docket. Honestly.

This seems to be the attitude taken by opponents of a new House resolution that recognizes the slaughter of up to 1.5 million Armenians in 1915 as "genocide." The foreign affairs committee OK'ed the bill yesterday, 27-21, and it's likely to reach the floor of the house of representatives before the year's end.

Normally, condemning genocide shouldn't take much convincing. But if the resolution ends up passing, it will be despite the collective efforts of President Bush, defense secretary Robert Gates, eight former secretaries of state, Israel and various American Jewish organizations and millions of dollars of lobbying.

Why all the opposition? Because Turkey said so. In Turkey, it's a crime to "insult Turkishness." That includes using the word "genocide" to describe what the government officially calls a few hundred thousand unfortunate Armenian deaths during the first world war. (The history is all but settled. Even at the time, Henry Morgenthau, American ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, famously called it the "murder of a nation.") And since Turkey is a stalwart Nato ally, the Bush administration isn't in a hurry to tick them off. Turkey has supported the war in Iraq, initially offering to send 10,000 troops and eventually lending its Incirlik airbase, through which 70% of American military cargo destined for Iraq now passes. Furthermore, Turkey has threatened to cut off access to the base if a genocide resolution, however toothless, passes the house. It's not a hollow threat: Turkey severed military relations with France last year after the French parliament introduced a bill that would criminalize denial of the Armenian genocide. Bush naturally doesn't want to jeopardize the war in Iraq, so he has asked Congress to set it aside. Israel, meanwhile, has vigorously opposed any such resolution, arguing that it would alienate a key Muslim ally.

On the other side, you've got the 225 members of the house who co-sponsored the resolution, backed the Armenian-American community - currently 1.4 million strong - for whom pressuring Turkey to acknowledge the genocide is a priority. (Congressman Adam Schiff, the bill's author, represents a California district that's 10% Armenian.) An official acknowledgment would at least correct the historical record, not to mention paving the way for possible reparations.

We've been here before. Similar resolutions came before the house in 1975 and 1984. In 2000, President Bush convinced speaker Dennis Hastert to yank a genocide resolution at the last minute. (The justification in each case - that the resolution would hurt a Nato ally - sounds familiar.) But this time around, the stakes are higher. Turkey's parliament has been drawing up plans to strike Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq, which could destabilize one of the country's few peaceful regions. The US has become heavily reliant on its base in Turkey. And general David Petraeus's recent congressional testimony has no doubt made the administration squeamish about any change that could affect strategy there.

Opponents of the resolution don't think it's wrong; they think it's poorly timed. Representative Mike Pence, a Republican who first supported the resolution but then turned against it, described his decision as "gut-wrenching." But the truth is, there will never be a right time. We're in Iraq indefinitely - not even the top Democratic presidential candidates can promise a pullout by 2013. And Turkey will continue to play a key role in region. Recognizing the Armenian genocide was inconvenient in 2000, it's inconvenient now, and it will be inconvenient 10 years from now. But every year it is ignored, it becomes that much easier to ignore the next time around.

It's not like the US is alone here, either. The EU, a club Turkey certainly wouldn't mind joining, said it's "indispensable" for Turkey to come to terms with its past. (Although it removed recognition of genocide as a precondition for membership.) The Anti-Defamation League, long hesitant to take sides in the debate, recently called the killings "tantamount to genocide." Meanwhile, the EU has discouraged Ankara from taking action in Iraq. Even Russia, hardly a cheerleader for US foreign policy, has urged restraint. Remember, also, that Turkish-American relations is hardly a one-way street. In return for Turkey's cooperation in Iraq, the US has provided it with over $1bn in recent years, making it the third largest recipient of US military aid. They don't want to upset this relationship any more than Washington does.

Every time the question of genocide comes up, Turkey bats it away. But the only reason this denial strategy works is that the US hasn't stood its ground. Few other countries have the open political system and influential Armenian population necessary to make genocide recognition an issue, and therefore few are likely to step up. The house resolution isn't going to transform Ankara's thinking overnight. That process will be slow. It could take a lifetime. But without international pressure, Turkey may never be forced to confront its past. The practice of jailing dissident authors and scholars has seen to that, and could well quash the issue for good. Turkey's government thinks it's protecting its history, and that acknowledging genocide would be a national embarrassment. The US should make it clear that it's a much greater embarrassment to keep hiding it.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/christ...e_chosen_a.html

I've highlighted bits I found relevant , this isn't a new issue, and it may not be an Iraq issue as a winning voter issue. What I find disappointing though is the fact that

a) every nation around the world seems to want to comment on another's actions and worse sabre rattle

B) is their a nation in the world who hasn't at some point in it's past done some horrific acts that its happy to leave there ..... let he who is without sin cast the first stone is such a good motto to live by

c) How would your country react to some other country insisting on it adopting a policy on an internal issue

d) why is it always a case of one rule for one and another for others - we have no ability to right current wrongs being committed across the globe as we argue this point so lets piss off an ally over something they did 100 years ago

[MrConservative 0]

The Armenian Genocide and Turkey's Denial.

On 28 February 2002, the European Union Parliament, by a majority of 391 to 96, stated that Turkey must recognise the Armenian genocide before it could join the European Union.

http://www.homepage-link.to/turkey/

Wednesday October 11, 2006

The Guardian

The French parliament has been warned it could undermine relations between the EU and Turkey if it passes a law tomorrow making it a crime to deny Armenians suffered genocide at the hands of Ottoman Turks during the first world war.

The draft bill, which is to be debated by the national assembly, was put forward by France's opposition Socialist party, and recommends that anyone who denies the mass-murder of Armenians between 1915 and 1917 was genocide should face a year in prison and a €45,000 (£30,500) fine.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,,1892412,00.html

Genocide could have chosen a more convenient time to make its way onto the congressional docket. Honestly.

This seems to be the attitude taken by opponents of a new House resolution that recognizes the slaughter of up to 1.5 million Armenians in 1915 as "genocide." The foreign affairs committee OK'ed the bill yesterday, 27-21, and it's likely to reach the floor of the house of representatives before the year's end.

Normally, condemning genocide shouldn't take much convincing. But if the resolution ends up passing, it will be despite the collective efforts of President Bush, defense secretary Robert Gates, eight former secretaries of state, Israel and various American Jewish organizations and millions of dollars of lobbying.

Why all the opposition? Because Turkey said so. In Turkey, it's a crime to "insult Turkishness." That includes using the word "genocide" to describe what the government officially calls a few hundred thousand unfortunate Armenian deaths during the first world war. (The history is all but settled. Even at the time, Henry Morgenthau, American ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, famously called it the "murder of a nation.") And since Turkey is a stalwart Nato ally, the Bush administration isn't in a hurry to tick them off. Turkey has supported the war in Iraq, initially offering to send 10,000 troops and eventually lending its Incirlik airbase, through which 70% of American military cargo destined for Iraq now passes. Furthermore, Turkey has threatened to cut off access to the base if a genocide resolution, however toothless, passes the house. It's not a hollow threat: Turkey severed military relations with France last year after the French parliament introduced a bill that would criminalize denial of the Armenian genocide. Bush naturally doesn't want to jeopardize the war in Iraq, so he has asked Congress to set it aside. Israel, meanwhile, has vigorously opposed any such resolution, arguing that it would alienate a key Muslim ally.

On the other side, you've got the 225 members of the house who co-sponsored the resolution, backed the Armenian-American community - currently 1.4 million strong - for whom pressuring Turkey to acknowledge the genocide is a priority. (Congressman Adam Schiff, the bill's author, represents a California district that's 10% Armenian.) An official acknowledgment would at least correct the historical record, not to mention paving the way for possible reparations.

We've been here before. Similar resolutions came before the house in 1975 and 1984. In 2000, President Bush convinced speaker Dennis Hastert to yank a genocide resolution at the last minute. (The justification in each case - that the resolution would hurt a Nato ally - sounds familiar.) But this time around, the stakes are higher. Turkey's parliament has been drawing up plans to strike Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq, which could destabilize one of the country's few peaceful regions. The US has become heavily reliant on its base in Turkey. And general David Petraeus's recent congressional testimony has no doubt made the administration squeamish about any change that could affect strategy there.

Opponents of the resolution don't think it's wrong; they think it's poorly timed. Representative Mike Pence, a Republican who first supported the resolution but then turned against it, described his decision as "gut-wrenching." But the truth is, there will never be a right time. We're in Iraq indefinitely - not even the top Democratic presidential candidates can promise a pullout by 2013. And Turkey will continue to play a key role in region. Recognizing the Armenian genocide was inconvenient in 2000, it's inconvenient now, and it will be inconvenient 10 years from now. But every year it is ignored, it becomes that much easier to ignore the next time around.

It's not like the US is alone here, either. The EU, a club Turkey certainly wouldn't mind joining, said it's "indispensable" for Turkey to come to terms with its past. (Although it removed recognition of genocide as a precondition for membership.) The Anti-Defamation League, long hesitant to take sides in the debate, recently called the killings "tantamount to genocide." Meanwhile, the EU has discouraged Ankara from taking action in Iraq. Even Russia, hardly a cheerleader for US foreign policy, has urged restraint. Remember, also, that Turkish-American relations is hardly a one-way street. In return for Turkey's cooperation in Iraq, the US has provided it with over $1bn in recent years, making it the third largest recipient of US military aid. They don't want to upset this relationship any more than Washington does.

Every time the question of genocide comes up, Turkey bats it away. But the only reason this denial strategy works is that the US hasn't stood its ground. Few other countries have the open political system and influential Armenian population necessary to make genocide recognition an issue, and therefore few are likely to step up. The house resolution isn't going to transform Ankara's thinking overnight. That process will be slow. It could take a lifetime. But without international pressure, Turkey may never be forced to confront its past. The practice of jailing dissident authors and scholars has seen to that, and could well quash the issue for good. Turkey's government thinks it's protecting its history, and that acknowledging genocide would be a national embarrassment. The US should make it clear that it's a much greater embarrassment to keep hiding it.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/christ...e_chosen_a.html

I've highlighted bits I found relevant , this isn't a new issue, and it may not be an Iraq issue as a winning voter issue. What I find disappointing though is the fact that

a) every nation around the world seems to want to comment on another's actions and worse sabre rattle

B) is their a nation in the world who hasn't at some point in it's past done some horrific acts that its happy to leave there ..... let he who is without sin cast the first stone is such a good motto to live by

c) How would your country react to some other country insisting on it adopting a policy on an internal issue

d) why is it always a case of one rule for one and another for others - we have no ability to right current wrongs being committed across the globe as we argue this point so lets piss off an ally over something they did 100 years ago

So what your saying is this, The Turks haven't owned up to the killings of their past. Ok, I will go along with that. But your also saying that the fact the dems are doing that now as a wedge to push Turkey away at a time when Bush needs an friend in the area. That stinks. It's using it as just another tool for the anti-war side. The two shouldn't mix. The dems had congress for a very long time and could have done this on many occations. Just more politics as I see it. And our boys are caught in the middle. Not a good thing.

[Caladan 19]

Thinking about it a bit more, I wonder if the 'condemnation' of a genocide 100 years ago isn't meant to re-assure the Kurds that the U.S. won't abandon them even as we accept Turkey's help.