Playing politics at its worst

[captainhampton]

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODYyODlkNTc5M2M4MTI2MGY1YzJiMGM2 NThiYTBjZGU=

[Siren Silently]

Oh dear, it's politics.

[captainhampton]

Oh dear, it's politics.

that risks the lives of the Kurds and Americans in Iraq. it's a big fucking deal.

[x togepi x]

oh, i get it. denying the holocaust is bad, but it's okay to deny the Armenian genocide.

cool.

[captainhampton]

oh, i get it. denying the holocaust is bad, but it's okay to deny the Armenian genocide.

cool.


you obviously don't get it do you? no one is disputing the fact that it was genocide.

[x togepi x]

The US federal government has never officially acknowledged the Armenian genocide. You don't get it. The article makes it look like this is a new issue, when in fact, the Armenian-American community has been lobbying for this for years, even way before the war.

but really, "no one is disputing the fact that it was a genocide?"
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6045182.stm)
What does Turkey say?
It says there was no genocide.
It acknowledges that many Armenians died, but says many Turks died too, and that massacres were committed on both sides as a result of inter-ethnic violence and the wider world war. Turkey estimates the number of Armenian dead to be 300,000.


The Turkish government refuses to acknowledge that the genocide existed. I know for a fact, if Germany tried claiming the holocaust never happened start a thread saying I DARE SOMEONE TO DEFEND THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT, so this is hypocrisy.

[captainhampton]

The US federal government has never officially acknowledged the Armenian genocide. You don't get it. The article makes it look like this is a new issue, when in fact, the Armenian-American community has been lobbying for this for years, even way before the war.

but really, "no one is disputing the fact that it was a genocide?"

[/size]

The Turkish government refuses to acknowledge that the genocide existed. I know for a fact, if Germany tried claiming the holocaust never happened start a thread saying I DARE SOMEONE TO DEFEND THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT, so this is hypocrisy.

you are missing the point completely. i have no problem saying that it was genocide. people who say otherwise are wrong. gotta love you flipping out at me on an issue I agree with you. but that is not the real issue in all of this. when you have the brain to figure it out, come back.

[x togepi x]

you are missing the point completely. i have no problem saying that it was genocide. people who say otherwise are wrong. gotta love you flipping out at me on an issue I agree with you. but that is not the real issue in all of this. when you have the brain to figure it out, come back.

You said "nobody is saying the genocide didn't happen." I just showed you that Turkey claims that very thing.

Every time anyone talks to you about politics, you have a hard on for trying to get them to condemn things they didn't do like say an ad or blog post is bad, but yet, you have a problem with one government condemning the deaths of 1.5 million people?

I realize that your biased source thinks it will hurt the troops and that's why they're complaining. I'm just pointing out that National Review would flip its shit over Holocaust denial, yet think it's okay to ignore another genocide because of political implications, ignoring the fact that not accepting the genocide dehumanizes the Armenian survivors, as well as has implications in Turkey with regards to free speech (since saying it's a genocide in Turkey is illegal).

This article is merely a way of slamming the democrats as trying to put troops in harms way, ignoring the fact that Bush was the one who actually attacked Iraq. He, the republicans and the democrats that voted for the war put the troops in harm's way. It's way, way too simplistic to think that Turkey is going to start attacking Kurds while our troops are still there.

[captainhampton]

You said "nobody is saying the genocide didn't happen." I just showed you that Turkey claims that very thing.

Every time anyone talks to you about politics, you have a hard on for trying to get them to condemn things they didn't do like say an ad or blog post is bad, but yet, you have a problem with one government condemning the deaths of 1.5 million people?

I realize that your biased source thinks it will hurt the troops and that's why they're complaining. I'm just pointing out that National Review would flip its shit over Holocaust denial, yet think it's okay to ignore another genocide because of political implications, ignoring the fact that not accepting the genocide dehumanizes the Armenian survivors, as well as has implications in Turkey with regards to free speech (since saying it's a genocide in Turkey is illegal).

This article is merely a way of slamming the democrats as trying to put troops in harms way, ignoring the fact that Bush was the one who actually attacked Iraq. He, the republicans and the democrats that voted for the war put the troops in harm's way. It's way, way too simplistic to think that Turkey is going to start attacking Kurds while our troops are still there.

first point, i meant that i did not dispute the fact it was genocide. of course the turks dispute it.

2. I wouldn't have a problem with this really if it weren't for the blatant timing and setting of the issue.

3. National Review agrees with you. the Armenians do deserve people standing up for them and criticizing the Turks. National Reviews problem, which i agree with, is why now? why is congress focusing on something that happened so long ago, and why is it Congress' responsibility to do so? the answers to this are quite obvious to anyone that isn't a complete partisan hack.

4. when all else fails, blame George Bush. good tactic. to say the Turks would not attack the Kurds would be ignoring a long history of conflict, not to mention the great amount of Turkish troops on the Iraqi border and aggression that is taking place between the two groups recently. will they attack Kurds while we are there, maybe, maybe not. but Turkey plays a big role as our ally in our region and having them stop giving us help would help sabotage the mission.

[x togepi x]

first point, i meant that i did not dispute the fact it was genocide. of course the turks dispute it.

this logic can be used to justify holocaust denial. i'll accept this point if you never complain about people denying the holocaust again.

2. I wouldn't have a problem with this really if it weren't for the blatant timing and setting of the issue.

3. National Review agrees with you. the Armenians do deserve people standing up for them and criticizing the Turks. National Reviews problem, which i agree with, is why now?

2 and 3 say the same thing, so i'll group them here. You carefully ignored where I said that the Armenian community in the US has been wanting the government to condemn the genocide for years, decades even. This isn't "blatant timing" at all.

Even if it is, I say fuck the democrats for waiting so long. This should have been done decades ago, so we might as well do it now.

why is congress focusing on something that happened so long ago, and why is it Congress' responsibility to do so?

They should have done it a long time ago. As i said above, it should be condemned as soon as they can.

The United States, when it chooses to condemn genocide in places like Rwanda and Darfur, has the responsibility to condemn all genocides so that it has integrity in these matters so when it does condemn genocide that it doesn't look like a political move. If you don't want the US to condemn genocide in other places, fine, it doesn't have that responsibility.

the answers to this are quite obvious to anyone that isn't a complete partisan hack.

The irony of this statement is amazing.

4. when all else fails, blame George Bush. good tactic.

this is a gross misrepresentation of what i said, since I condemned the entire government that sent the soldiers to Iraq. That's not partisan at all since now there are republicans that think it's a mistake and there are democrats who still think its not.

i'd even say that the democrats are equally culpable since they cave to bush on the war.


to say the Turks would not attack the Kurds would be ignoring a long history of conflict, not to mention the great amount of Turkish troops on the Iraqi border and aggression that is taking place between the two groups recently. will they attack Kurds while we are there, maybe, maybe not. but Turkey plays a big role as our ally in our region and having them stop giving us help would help sabotage the mission.

and because they're our ally in the region, it is completely possible that relations between the two countries can be smoothed over. At first, Turkey came out against the war, and through diplomacy, we gained access to their airspace. I believe through more diplomacy, maybe in the form of another aid package to Turkey, we would be able to continue our operations.

Maybe the US government ought to offer more incentives to the Turkish government in light of the sensitive nature of these historical events. I still feel that no matter how much we spend on an aid package to smooth things over, the credibility we would gain in condemning and stopping genocide around the world would be more than worth it.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

Captain Hampton, I will agree with you that it seems as if the people pushing this are more concerned with the using it politically than for the actual Armenians.

But weren't you in favor of Congress spending time debating an ad while our troops are in harms way?

Is the timing of this political? most definitely. But getting into this war was political too.

At the very least, this is a far more important issue than a General who cant take being called a name by a website.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

this logic can be used to justify holocaust denial. i'll accept this point if you never complain about people denying the holocaust again.



2 and 3 say the same thing, so i'll group them here. You carefully ignored where I said that the Armenian community in the US has been wanting the government to condemn the genocide for years, decades even. This isn't "blatant timing" at all.

Even if it is, I say fuck the democrats for waiting so long. This should have been done decades ago, so we might as well do it now.



They should have done it a long time ago. As i said above, it should be condemned as soon as they can.

The United States, when it chooses to condemn genocide in places like Rwanda and Darfur, has the responsibility to condemn all genocides so that it has integrity in these matters so when it does condemn genocide that it doesn't look like a political move. If you don't want the US to condemn genocide in other places, fine, it doesn't have that responsibility.



The irony of this statement is amazing.



this is a gross misrepresentation of what i said, since I condemned the entire government that sent the soldiers to Iraq. That's not partisan at all since now there are republicans that think it's a mistake and there are democrats who still think its not.

i'd even say that the democrats are equally culpable since they cave to bush on the war.




and because they're our ally in the region, it is completely possible that relations between the two countries can be smoothed over. At first, Turkey came out against the war, and through diplomacy, we gained access to their airspace. I believe through more diplomacy, maybe in the form of another aid package to Turkey, we would be able to continue our operations.

Maybe the US government ought to offer more incentives to the Turkish government in light of the sensitive nature of these historical events. I still feel that no matter how much we spend on an aid package to smooth things over, the credibility we would gain in condemning and stopping genocide around the world would be more than worth it.

I completely agree with you here. Unfortunately, we generally condemn things and do little to stop them. My only fear is that congress will pat themselves on the back for calling a spade a spade and turn a blind eye to similar atrocities.

[captainhampton]

Captain Hampton, I will agree with you that it seems as if the people pushing this are more concerned with the using it politically than for the actual Armenians.

But weren't you in favor of Congress spending time debating an ad while our troops are in harms way?

Is the timing of this political? most definitely. But getting into this war was political too.

At the very least, this is a far more important issue than a General who cant take being called a name by a website.

i condemned the ad, but it really wasn't needed to be talked about in congress.

[captainhampton]

this logic can be used to justify holocaust denial. i'll accept this point if you never complain about people denying the holocaust again.


I'm condemning the genocide, I don't see why you're saying I can't condemn holocaust deniers as well.



2 and 3 say the same thing, so i'll group them here. You carefully ignored where I said that the Armenian community in the US has been wanting the government to condemn the genocide for years, decades even. This isn't "blatant timing" at all.

Even if it is, I say fuck the democrats for waiting so long. This should have been done decades ago, so we might as well do it now.

even most democrats see the blatant timing in this. don't be naive. you are right that the Armenian community has been pushing for this for a long time. again, why now? that is obvious.



They should have done it a long time ago. As i said above, it should be condemned as soon as they can.

The United States, when it chooses to condemn genocide in places like Rwanda and Darfur, has the responsibility to condemn all genocides so that it has integrity in these matters so when it does condemn genocide that it doesn't look like a political move. If you don't want the US to condemn genocide in other places, fine, it doesn't have that responsibility.

this happened almost 100 years ago, why is it our responsibility? we should have condemned it a long time ago and done it without political motivations involved.



The irony of this statement is amazing.

yes i am such a partisan hack that I favor gay marraige, more gun control, think the republicans spending is out of control, and that they have made a complete mess out the border. I will criticize anyone I think is wrong.



this is a gross misrepresentation of what i said, since I condemned the entire government that sent the soldiers to Iraq. That's not partisan at all since now there are republicans that think it's a mistake and there are democrats who still think its not.

i'd even say that the democrats are equally culpable since they cave to bush on the war.

we're getting off topic here. that was my point, when people talk about issues, it too many times turns into, well George Bush got us into Iraq so blah blah blah. you are partisan because you will not call democrats out for playing politics when it is blatantly obvious.




and because they're our ally in the region, it is completely possible that relations between the two countries can be smoothed over. At first, Turkey came out against the war, and through diplomacy, we gained access to their airspace. I believe through more diplomacy, maybe in the form of another aid package to Turkey, we would be able to continue our operations.

Maybe the US government ought to offer more incentives to the Turkish government in light of the sensitive nature of these historical events. I still feel that no matter how much we spend on an aid package to smooth things over, the credibility we would gain in condemning and stopping genocide around the world would be more than worth it.

i hope they get smoothed over, because not having them as an ally in this war could sabotage the mission. condemning this will cause more harm than good. this won't gain any credibility around the world. everyone will see through this political move.

[SubrosaSeductiv]

If America labels it a genocide is it really going to change a thing? No.

Democrats are constantly boasting about how they are going to get us out of Iraq. Instead of creating obstructions they should help the troops with whatever it is they need so we can get the fuck out of there A.S.A.P.

[captainhampton]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7049348.stm

i thought you said the Turks wouldn't send any troops to fight the Kurds while our troops were there, huh topegi?

[Love As Arson]

Political implications should play no role in whether or not Congress acknowledges a genocide.

[x togepi x]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7049348.stm

i thought you said the Turks wouldn't send any troops to fight the Kurds while our troops were there, huh topegi?

Turkey's parliament has given permission for the government to launch military operations into Iraq in pursuit of Kurdish rebels. The vote was taken in defiance of pressure from the US and Iraq, which have called on Turkey for restraint.
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said the motion does not mean a military operation is imminent.


This would have happened whether or not we recognized the genocide since the autonomy the Kurds share in Northern Iraq has allowed the PKK to carry out activities in southern Turkey ever since the war started. This is not something that you can blame on our resolution, especially considering the fact that Turkey has been beefing up its border with Iraq ever since the war started.

But, you're also taking my words out of context. You know that I meant that the scenario the article talks about where we see massive attacks against the Kurds isn't going to happen.



It's important to note that you have neglected to answer any of my other points, which is important, because it shows how hypocritical The National Review is on this issue, as well as shows why we need to talk about genocide in general.

One could make the claim that recognizing that the Holocaust existed had huge destabilizing political effects, like the creation of Israel which lead to a few wars in the middle east. If it was the 1949 would you be saying "we shouldn't talk about the Holocaust."? I doubt it. It was the right thing to do then, and its the right thing to do now.

[x togepi x]

I'm condemning the genocide, I don't see why you're saying I can't condemn holocaust deniers as well.

You're saying that we as a country ought not condemn a genocide solely because of the political implications of doing so. I said this logic could be extended to holocaust denial.


even most democrats see the blatant timing in this. don't be naive. you are right that the Armenian community has been pushing for this for a long time. again, why now? that is obvious.

why now? because they've waited decades. You're the one being naive if you think that this is "blatant timing." Every single year this comes up in Congress, but they never have enough votes to do it. This is just the first time Congressional leadership has made it a priority.

Genocide works on the complete dehumanization of people. You dehumanize them, then you try to rid the earth of their kind. By not condemning the genocide against the Armenians, you are essentially continuing this genocide as you're implying they're not enough of a people to have their genocide condemned like the Jews or the Rwandans did.


this happened almost 100 years ago, why is it our responsibility? we should have condemned it a long time ago and done it without political motivations involved.

See above. As a leader in the international community who has made stopping genocide one of our priorities, we must condemn all forms of genocide. If we pick and choose based on political implications, we will get accused of playing politics with which regions we do try and stop genocide in. Considering that is quite hard to get international support to intervene in these cases, if other nations think that we're stopping a genocide in a country merely because we don't like them, they will be less likely to help.

The fact that we did nothing during the Rwandan genocide, for example, has definitely hurt our efforts in Darfur. Many nations, especially in Africa, believed we were only wanting to intervene because of our recent history of conflict with the Sudan government. This is a unique example of why our reputation matters in stopping genocide.


yes i am such a partisan hack that I favor gay marraige, more gun control, think the republicans spending is out of control, and that they have made a complete mess out the border. I will criticize anyone I think is wrong.

It's ironic because you spent the end of your post saying "omg you're just blaming bush here", when i wasn't (which is insanely partisan), while ignoring the fact that i'm way, way more critical of the democrats than you are republicans.

But, not that it matters, sure, i'm biased way to the left. Everyone here is biased somewhere. This has nothing to do with whether i'm right or not.


we're getting off topic here. that was my point, when people talk about issues, it too many times turns into, well George Bush got us into Iraq so blah blah blah.

You're the one that brought this up. I was condemning the government for getting us into a mess that would be blamed on the democrats if they voted for this resolution, because thats' what the article was doing.

you are partisan because you will not call democrats out for playing politics when it is blatantly obvious.

except i said "fuck the democrats for waiting so long". I don't care if it's "playing politics" because its the right thing to do. Bush is playing politics when he condemns the rez. The Turkish government is playing politics when they get all pissy. You're acting like they're the only one playing politics when they're not. this is a political issue, politics are going to come into play.


i hope they get smoothed over, because not having them as an ally in this war could sabotage the mission. condemning this will cause more harm than good. this won't gain any credibility around the world. everyone will see through this political move.

Actually, condemning something when it threatens to hurt us will probably increase credibility more because it would show that the United States isn't merely doing what's political expedient, nevermind the fact, that it would be finally joining a growing group of countries that has also condemned the genocide.

[x togepi x]

I completely agree with you here. Unfortunately, we generally condemn things and do little to stop them. My only fear is that congress will pat themselves on the back for calling a spade a spade and turn a blind eye to similar atrocities.

They probably will, and are currently doing so. But, we still have to condemn them, especially major cases of genocide like this one, because not doing so hurts our standing when we do get our shit together and act.

This is basic international relations. If we are perceived to be purely politically motivated when it comes to genocide, we will lack the soft power necessary to end other atrocities. This leaves us only with military power, which is probably not going to be that effective considering how over stretched our military is, as well as the perception around the world that such an act would be yet another instance of American Imperialism. One of the biggest obstacles against putting peace keepers in Darfur was that many in the region view UN troops as a colonial presence. This is why we needed peace keepers from African nations to step in, however, those nations wouldn't help if they think we are using Darfur as a tool to gain more power in the region.

[Justin_stacy]

It seems like an obviously poor choice of timing to make such a political statement.......TIME reported that some members are already rethinking their vote after seeing the unnecessary damage it has caused in mid east relations.

[x togepi x]

I think the democratic leadership doesn't exactly know what they're doing when they set their agenda more so than this being on purpose.

[Justin_stacy]

Either they’re naively stupid, or they knew the ramifications such a completely optional vote would have and didn’t care.

I don't buy that someone could just overlook the impact this would have in Turkey and in turn Kurdish Iraq and the American war effort.

[x togepi x]

I think they recognize that no matter what we do, Turkey is going to try and attack the Kurds anyway. They've been wanting to do for awhile.

[guywithstik]

They probably will, and are currently doing so. But, we still have to condemn them, especially major cases of genocide like this one, because not doing so hurts our standing when we do get our shit together and act.

This is basic international relations. If we are perceived to be purely politically motivated when it comes to genocide, we will lack the soft power necessary to end other atrocities. This leaves us only with military power, which is probably not going to be that effective considering how over stretched our military is, as well as the perception around the world that such an act would be yet another instance of American Imperialism. One of the biggest obstacles against putting peace keepers in Darfur was that many in the region view UN troops as a colonial presence. This is why we needed peace keepers from African nations to step in, however, those nations wouldn't help if they think we are using Darfur as a tool to gain more power in the region.

Genocide should always be universally condemned and halted. All debates about "soft power" and "sovereignty" go out the window when hundreds of thousands of people are killed, and millions are displaced. American intervention in Darfur wouldn't be another instance of American Imperialism. You couldn't be further from the truth in Darfur. It's ignorant statements like this that perpetuate the genocide. This is exactly what Omar Bashir wants. He closes all forms of media off from Khartoum and controls nearly all modes of discourse. You know, Omar Bashir, the President of Sudan, the one who paints the planes that bomb villages white so that they look like UN planes, was nominated as the President of the African Union? If you were a Darfuri, how would you respond to the AU? AU troops follow an imposed curfew by the Bashir government to stop patrolling at 9 o'clock at night. This is why you get rebel groups shooting at AU soldiers, which just plays into Bashir's hand. Why were villages in Darfur bombed just a couple weeks after that incident?

Genocide is always wrong, and should always be condemned, whether it be Darfuris, Rwandans, Armenians, Jews, or Kazakhs. Period.

[x togepi x]

Genocide should always be universally condemned and halted. All debates about "soft power" and "sovereignty" go out the window when hundreds of thousands of people are killed, and millions are displaced. American intervention in Darfur wouldn't be another instance of American Imperialism. You couldn't be further from the truth in Darfur. It's ignorant statements like this that perpetuate the genocide. This is exactly what Omar Bashir wants. He closes all forms of media off from Khartoum and controls nearly all modes of discourse. You know, Omar Bashir, the President of Sudan, the one who paints the planes that bomb villages white so that they look like UN planes, was nominated as the President of the African Union? If you were a Darfuri, how would you respond to the AU? AU troops follow an imposed curfew by the Bashir government to stop patrolling at 9 o'clock at night. This is why you get rebel groups shooting at AU soldiers, which just plays into Bashir's hand. Why were villages in Darfur bombed just a couple weeks after that incident?

Genocide is always wrong, and should always be condemned, whether it be Darfuris, Rwandans, Armenians, Jews, or Kazakhs. Period.

What exactly are you responding to? I just said all genocide should be condemned, however there are people in the area who would see US presence as American Imperialism (and since we can barely keep peace in Iraq, I don't think we'd be doing a great job there). I didn't say it was imperialism.

I think the AU isn't the solution, but people generally find foreign intervention less offensive when it comes from countries more like themselves. I was merely commenting on the fact that the US requires this kind of credibility.

You probably ought to be responding to captainhampton and not me.

[guywithstik]

What exactly are you responding to? I just said all genocide should be condemned, however there are people in the area who would see US presence as American Imperialism (and since we can barely keep peace in Iraq, I don't think we'd be doing a great job there). I didn't say it was imperialism.

I think the AU isn't the solution, but people generally find foreign intervention less offensive when it comes from countries more like themselves. I was merely commenting on the fact that the US requires this kind of credibility.

You probably ought to be responding to captainhampton and not me.

Sorry buddy, didn't mean to sound like I was coming on so strong. I missed where you said that. I just think you have your facts wrong on Darfur, that's all. Iraq and Darfur would be two totally different scenarios, IMO. An intervention should be done by the UN, with ground troops and no fly zones. It's goal should be to provide the Darfuri people the political space necessary to let their voices be heard. I'm not for regime change. And I understand how people would generally feel more comfortable when it comes from countries more like themselves, but I feel when you discuss genocide, there's a clear right and wrong answer. (at least to me -- for others it isn't so clear) The AU has shown repeatedly that it will bend to the whim of Khartoum.

And I'm not sure what captainhampton thinks about genocide...I tend to think that whenever any light is shed on marginalized/forgotten tragedies, it is a good thing. I'm not completely sold on the implications this vote would have on the Iraq, either.

[x togepi x]

Sorry buddy, didn't mean to sound like I was coming on so strong. I missed where you said that. I just think you have your facts wrong on Darfur, that's all. Iraq and Darfur would be two totally different scenarios, IMO.

they are different scenarios.

An intervention should be done by the UN, with ground troops and no fly zones.

Yes. The point I am making is that such an intervention would be spearheaded by the US (at least in the security council, we would heavily favor such a resolution) and so it would continue to have the perception of Western Imperialism. Even though this perception exists, I'm not saying we shouldn't go ahead and do it, because we should. I just think condemning the Armenian genocide would help ease this imperialist perception.

It's goal should be to provide the Darfuri people the political space necessary to let their voices be heard. I'm not for regime change. And I understand how people would generally feel more comfortable when it comes from countries more like themselves, but I feel when you discuss genocide, there's a clear right and wrong answer. (at least to me -- for others it isn't so clear) The AU has shown repeatedly that it will bend to the whim of Khartoum.

agreed

And I'm not sure what captainhampton thinks about genocide...I tend to think that whenever any light is shed on marginalized/forgotten tragedies, it is a good thing. I'm not completely sold on the implications this vote would have on the Iraq, either.

i think the implications in Iraq are things that would have already happened regardless or that can be fixed with diplomacy

[Nevuk]

A lot of the National Review's writers endorse very neoconservative views. It is a biased source. I'm currently writing a refutation of an article one of its contributors wrote. <- Saying this before even looking at this article.

The whole premise of this article seems to be a strawman. Why the hell does this matter? Aren't Republican efforts to stonewall democrats just as bad as voting on a random piece of history?

[Justin_stacy]

I think they recognize that no matter what we do, Turkey is going to try and attack the Kurds anyway. They've been wanting to do for awhile.

Why agitate them for no reason?

If this already waited 100 years, then another 3 or 4 years to avoid an unnecessary burden being placed on our troops is not too much to ask........unless of course there is some alterative motive in play.