Newshoggers Comments
Frankly, this post is dumb. It's utterly illogical to suggests that the Kurds, who hate the Turks and consider them none too protective of human life, with some basis, are going to be upset by our criticizing the Turks' human rights record. It's unlikely and foolish.
It's also credibility stretching to try and link Turkey's cross-border threats to this resolution. Turkey's been making these threats for months, if not years. It's an entirely separate problem. It's been deteriorating for a while, and the future looks bad regardless of this resolution.
And where the author - who is supposedly not a fan of this war - begins to criticize the Democrats for **the fact that this act might pressure the Administration to back down on the war**, he becomes entirely self-refuting. Sure, maybe it won't get Bush to back down. So what? Who says that that's the goal?
The resolution is the right thing to do on its own merits. It's effects on a war that leftists don't in any way endorse are of small concern to leftists (and the USArmy has plenty of alternate routes, folks, it's hardly a crisis).
The post is so consistently wrongheaded that it smells of an agenda.
Muslims Against Sharia commend House Democrats and Speaker Pelosi for pressing ahead with an Armenian genocide bill. Republican opposition to the bill is pure manifestation of moral relativism.
Muslims Against Sharia condemn Turkish government for refusing to acknowledge Armenian genocide and recalling its US ambassador in response to the bill.
Source: AFP
Post
I'm a U.S. Citizen, of Armenian descent. I work here, vote here, and pay tax here. If the U.S. is my country, then this is an important issue for me.
The Armenian Genocide is still ongoing... Last year, an Armenian journalist in Turkey (Hrant Dink),was assasinated outside of his office! Why? Because he used the word "genocide". My grandparents were survivors of 1915..it was not that long ago!
Would anyone make the same arguments if the tables were turned, and it was Germany denying the holocaust of the Jews? Would it be "irresponsible" of the U.S. to recognize the holocaust, because Germany was a key ally?
If Iran was an ally in the war on terror…would the U.S. be ok with going along with Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial, as long as Iran was kept happy?
This is a human rights issue. Orhan Pamuk (a TURKISH scholar who won the Nobel Prize) was thrown in jail for saying there was a genocide. It was not until heavy international pressure that they released him, but exiled him out of the country.
How long do you expect Armenian-Americans to sit around and have their history denied by the country they live, vote and pay tax in?
Its been 92 years...let us have some dignity.
Lastly, if we recognize past crimes against humanity, we will be in better position to reprimand the on-going ones, like Darfur. What kind of messege would the U.S. be sending by vetoing it?
The vote should be a no brainer, the big question is - why now?
Could it all be theater, with a bought and sold congress egged on by AIPAC to jump start a wider war in the region through the back door? For contrary to Glasnost above the resolution is a burning topic to the Armenians and the Turks as well and will be the tipping point in US/Turkish relations, prompting the Turks to obviate any american influence on invasion plans. The Kurds are the lynchpin in the area, spilling across all borders, including Iran.
Wow. Quite a reaction, which is good.
Firstly, glasnost seems to have misread this post entirely. This is not a question about whether the Kurds are "going to be upset about our criticizing the Turks' human right record." I can't quite figure out how one reads that into it at all. This post and the Armenian genocide vote is clearly not about the Kurds at all. I doubt the Kurds could care less. In fact, by agitating the Turks, who sport a rather large military capability, the vote is inviting paving the way for action against the Kurds. And if you think the vote and Turkey's plans to launch military action into Iraq are not linked, then you really haven't been paying attention. Yes, the Turks have been threatening this for awhile -- as noted -- and the White House has been trying to prevent them from doing so. But the congressional vote tipped the scales and has agitated them to the point that they now threaten invasion. Does anyone here think this is good for the region?
Does this need to be said again? The US Congress is pursuing this vote at a very crucial time. Why? I pose an speculative answer because I just cannot see the point of it right now. There is no agenda. In fact, if anything, I'm with the White House on this; what the hell are the Dems doing this for right now? The Armenian genocide is now 80 years old and the US Congress has decided that now is the proper time to push a resolution, when the Turks are up in arms and Cheney is busting to bomb Iran. To what end? Do you honestly believe that the Democrats and Pelosi are doing so out of the goodness of their stricken hearts? That the Dems have gotten all gooey about old Armenians about to pass away without recognition? You clearly haven't been around American politics very long.
Please, people, try to abstract this a little. But first and foremost, try to understand what was actually written here.
I like nolocontendere's comment here and I may have been a little rash is saying that this not about the Kurds. nolo is correct, the Kurds, in fact, are crucial to the equation, though they are being used and abuse, once again, by American "interests." Which is why I called the whole episode cynical.
Certainly the PKK have been aggravating the situation and another question worth a look would be why that is. They may have felt that, since they had at least some tacit approval from the Pentagon to launch aggression against Iran, they were under the protective cover of the US military. And this may have been true to some extent. But I think the PKK have been overstepping in Turkey. The vote in Congress finally pushed the Turks over the edge.
"Does this need to be said again? The US Congress is pursuing this vote at a very crucial time. Why? I pose an speculative answer because I just cannot see the point of it right now."
Only someone who hadn't researched and was just posting talking points form elsewhere would say this.
The resoluton has been introduced wiht a large number of cosponsors every single year for 18 years.
This year it got more votes and cosponsers and enoughs to win a committee vote, and threaten total passage for reasons everyone in DC knows.
1) Relations wiht Trudey have already gone from bad to worse. Turkey has been causing a lot of problems for us in Iraq.
2) The Jewish American lobby in the US stopped its opposition. They were the main lobbying opposing this resolution. See the ADL case.
This resoluton is long overdue. We have resolutons on the Holocaust. This is no less meritorious.
If the Germans were denying the Holocaust and saying they would not be our allies if were recognized it officially that woudl be MORE reason not less to recognize it!
Legislatures are supposed to pass laws. A law to cut off funding for the Iraq war would certainly be an activity the congress may wish to look into. Non binding resolutions about the actions of someone else, in this case an empire which,to use Ahmedinejad's words, in the pages of history, seems somewhat off topic. If the resolution was condemning Turkish, Egyptian, or, (dare I say it) Israeli human rights abuses, I could see a point to it. But this resolution will save no lives and possibly endanger many.
To the person who mentioned Hrant Dink's murder in support of the resolution: Dink felt that international pressure in the form of resolutions was counterproductive for the cause of Armenians. He was passionate in his opposition to the French resolution on the Armenians.
he congressional vote tipped the scales and has agitated them to the point that they now threaten invasion.
I appreciate your civil response, considering I'm being blunt.
I'm sorry, if this was correct, you'd have more of a point, but frankly, it's not correct. It's incoherent and wrong. It has agitated them to the point where they're threatening to invade again, you mean.
June 30:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
turkey...2115284,00.html
July 30:
http://www.juancole.com/2005/07/...-iraq-
just.html
I'm quite certain that these threats have been regularly issued for years. In fact, it's well beyond threats. The Turks have already been shelling over the border as well as Turkish troops crossing it repeatedly to kill Kurds.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/wor...ran-
kurds_N.htm
So what, exactly, are we afraid of?
Large-scale action on the part of Turkey is impossible. Any division-level act or widespread occupation would lead to a media onslaught of embarrassment - there's a large journalistic presence due to a nearby global hot spot you may have heard of - threatening Turkey's fragile relations with Europe, among other things - and retroactively vindicate the amendment. To say nothing of the US's enormous leverage over Turkey - financial, military and otherwise. Not to mention the very serious military resistance you would see from the Kurds. A Turkish invasion is all but impossible except with complete US support, which is also all but impossible. Unless the PKK flies a plane into a US skyscraper. I doubt this will happen.
glasnost,
You may be entirely correct that Turkey will not seek to escalate the situation beyond border skirmishes directly and only targeting the PKK, something the current parliamentary resolution specifies. I hope this remains true. Maliki has pledged to work with the Turks to try to settle the situation without conflict.
But as with all conflicts of this nature, the potential for escalation is potent. This is why Bush and various White House officials have spoken out against if not the resolution itself, at least the timing of it. They are rightly concerned about this potential.
Part of the problem, if not a great part of the problem, is that the Pentagon has at least tacitly condoned the activity of the PKK as it regards Iran. Cernig has pointed this out numerously here. This has no doubt emboldened the PKK across Kurdistan and PKK activities on the Turkish border have been on the rise as well; an unintended consequence of tacit US support for the group and for Kurdistan in general.
But those in Congress seem to be well aware of the trouble this may cause for the US military in Iraq. Tom Lantos, sponsor of the bill, said,
We have to weigh the desire to express our solidarity with the Armenian people...against the risk that it could cause young men and women in the uniform of the United States armed services to pay an even heavier price.
Which apparently means that a resolution denouncing a near 100-year old massacre came down more heavily than risk to the troops.
As I said, I am merely speculating here about what is possibly going on. There is clearly something more to this than moral rectitude -- a laughable notion considering the state of the political class these days.
My deeper fear is that, rather than it being a move intended to stave off agitation against Iran, there may be something far more sinister and venal going on. Juan Cole offers a good backgrounder on the situation and claims that, after years of siding with Turkey on the issue, the Israel lobby is now split and that a now extant pro-Kurdish Israel lobby is ultimately behind this vote. Knowing how much the DLC is beholden to the Israel lobby (AIPAC), this is not surprising. And the strength of it is indicated by Lantos statement above: it holds greater weight than risk to US troops.
But why would an Israel lobby support the KRG? Ultimately, it would seem that Israel would like to see a balkanization of Iraq. And who has been pushing that agenda as well? Joe Biden and the DLC.
If this is approaching actuality, I am completely wrong about this being a misguided effort aimed at trying to stop Cheney from bombing Iran.
THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE IS A TOTAL LIE.
AND WHAT ABOUT THE AZERI GENOCIDE AT THE HANDS OF THE ARMENIANS?
AND WHAT ABOUT ALL THE ARMENIAN TERRORISTS MURDERING CONSULATES IN THE 1970S AND 1980S?
Whoa. Hot topic.
Cernig, I just got on here to say thank you for writing this article. I really didn't know any background, and couldn't (of course) find any meaningful answers in the main stream media. I greatly enjoyed your article, and have enjoyed reading all the different views in the comments . . .
I agree with empty that "Legislatures are supposed to pass laws. A law to cut off funding for the Iraq war would certainly be an activity the congress may wish to look into."
I also agree that something is definitely going on beneath the surface-we can't accept Pelosi at face value. She is desperate. She's dealing with a bunch of spineless babies and a screaming American public who is sick . . . to death . . . of this war . . . and the Congress who won't represent their constituents.
"THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE IS A TOTAL LIE."
Easy on the happy pills, honey.
Glasnost is completely correct that Turkey's threat to mount cross-border raids against the PKK precedes and is a completely separate issue from the Congressional resolution on Armenian genocide.
I2294 and glasnost are correct that the resolution is the right thing to do on the merits.
Cernig is correct that there's something cynical to the Democratic leadership's timing. The resolution, introduced annually, sat there with no action, no referral to subcommittee, nothing, until late September, when the leadership let the Armenian National Committee of America, the prime mover of the coalition lobbying for the resolution, know that it would get a vote in the full Foreign Affairs Committee on October 10.
My own assessment is that Pelosi felt a need to show some 'spine' and Bush defiance, knowing it was safe to do so since the resolution will either die in the Senate or be vetoed.
This is the grimmest kind of manipulation, raising the hopes of human rights advocates while dodging the actions that would really do something: defunding the Iraq war, preventing war on Iran, and/or impeaching Cheney and Bush.
Commenting by HaloScan
