WWTBAM Bored

I have heard all the hype from both sides. Could someone from the opposing point of view explain to me what is the point of Congress spending ANY of it's time debating whether the Turks committed genocide against the Armenians a hundred years ago? Do they not understand the consequences of their inconsequential excercise? Or is that the whole point?

flockofseagulls104 wrote:I have heard all the hype from both sides. Could someone from the opposing point of view explain to me what is the point of Congress spending ANY of it's time debating whether the Turks committed genocide against the Armenians a hundred years ago? Do they not understand the consequences of their inconsequential excercise? Or is that the whole point?

You are not clear to me. What is the point of view that the opposing point of view is supposed to be opposing?

In some sense, I oppose Congress, but I suppose it keeps 'em off the streets.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:I have heard all the hype from both sides. Could someone from the opposing point of view explain to me what is the point of Congress spending ANY of it's time debating whether the Turks committed genocide against the Armenians a hundred years ago? Do they not understand the consequences of their inconsequential excercise? Or is that the whole point?

I'm not the one to ask, but I'll give you my 2 cents' worth anyway.

Condemning the Armenian genocide has been discussed for a number of years. Leaving aside the issue of whether it really happened or not (the Turks claim the deaths occurred as a result of a war in which many Turks also died), I can't understand why Congress thinks now is a good time to do this. Given Turkey's animosity toward the US for not intervening in northern Iraq and stopping the PKK from making cross-border raids (this despite the fact that the PKK is on the "known terrorist group" list) and their ability to control their airspace and borders (closing them would prevent our troops from getting supplies), I can't understand the rationale. Unless, of course, it's the usual things - a desire to embarrass the President (usually a good thing ) and the need to raise money from the "Armenian lobby".

flockofseagulls104 wrote:I have heard all the hype from both sides. Could someone from the opposing point of view explain to me what is the point of Congress spending ANY of it's time debating whether the Turks committed genocide against the Armenians a hundred years ago? Do they not understand the consequences of their inconsequential excercise? Or is that the whole point?

My guess is it is pandering for Armenian-American political donations. either that or they are so jealous of the administration ticking off so many countries that they want to get into the act as well.

Next up - resolutions condemning the Spanish Inquisition and the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre.

Next up - resolutions condemning the Spanish Inquisition and the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre.

I thought they were only doing 20th century massacres, in chronological order and then it would only those of over 500,000.

I don't know perhaps we should put Joe Mannix on the case.

traininvain wrote:

Next up - resolutions condemning the Spanish Inquisition and the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre.

I thought they were only doing 20th century massacres, in chronological order and then it would only those of over 500,000.

Only the Turkish government and its sympathizers put the number of victims below 500,000, and the Turkish government denies responsibility for any of them. The Turkish government also imprisons writers and other citizens who try to provide evidence that any atrocity took place. According to the Turkish government, the few eye-witness survivors among up to 1.5 million or more "displaced" Armeniens were mistaken.

Despite the fact that I am neither Turkish nor Armenian, I have some issues with the Turkish government.

silvercamaro wrote:Only the Turkish government and its sympathizers put the number of victims below 500,000, and the Turkish government denies responsibility for any of them. The Turkish government also imprisons writers and other citizens who try to provide evidence that any atrocity took place. According to the Turkish government, the few eye-witness survivors among up to 1.5 million or more "displaced" Armeniens were mistaken.

Despite the fact that I am neither Turkish nor Armenian, I have some issues with the Turkish government.

NPR did a story from Glendale, CA this morning; according to the story 40% of the popluation is Armenian and many of them have memories of relatives and/or friends being killed. I doubt that many people could be "mistaken".

Seems to me that the Turks are being disingenuous on this point. Why not just 'fess up and say that, yes, the Ottomans did such terrible things. But we are not the Ottomans.

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:I don't know perhaps we should put Joe Mannix on the case.

Since no one else has commented on this, tmitsss, I just wanted you know that I, at least, understood the joke.

gs

Y'mean Kreker Ohanian?

earendel wrote:

silvercamaro wrote:Only the Turkish government and its sympathizers put the number of victims below 500,000, and the Turkish government denies responsibility for any of them. The Turkish government also imprisons writers and other citizens who try to provide evidence that any atrocity took place. According to the Turkish government, the few eye-witness survivors among up to 1.5 million or more "displaced" Armeniens were mistaken.

Despite the fact that I am neither Turkish nor Armenian, I have some issues with the Turkish government.

NPR did a story from Glendale, CA this morning; according to the story 40% of the popluation is Armenian and many of them have memories of relatives and/or friends being killed. I doubt that many people could be "mistaken".

Seems to me that the Turks are being disingenuous on this point. Why not just 'fess up and say that, yes, the Ottomans did such terrible things. But we are not the Ottomans.

I expect NPR to miss the point.
What is so pressing that our Congress decides 100 years after the fact to spend time discussing this inconsequential symantic point, which really is none of it's business anyway, when we have people in harm's way in Iraq (which most of them voted to send there), that are being supported by a friendly government in Turkey who are not even the people who allegedly did the deed they are discussing. Why choose this point of time to do this? It looks like a cynical, gross and unseemly political move, which is bad enough, but it undercuts the effort we are involved in in Iraq in an extremely negative way, and for what? Is it just stupidity from the House leadership, or is it calculated?

"Isn't it just stupidity from the House leadership, or is it calculated?"


I think it is stupidity from the House leadership, as in Speaker Dennis Hastert (R IL). His resolution to claim Turkish genocide of the Armenians was minutes from passing. Then President WJC talked him off the ledge.


(October 2000)

flockofseagulls104 wrote:I expect NPR to miss the point.

NPR wasn't doing a story on the Congressional action. It was doing a "human interest" story on Armenians in the US who remember first-hand or hearing stories of those who were killed.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:What is so pressing that our Congress decides 100 years after the fact to spend time discussing this inconsequential symantic point, which really is none of it's business anyway, when we have people in harm's way in Iraq (which most of them voted to send there), that are being supported by a friendly government in Turkey who are not even the people who allegedly did the deed they are discussing. Why choose this point of time to do this? It looks like a cynical, gross and unseemly political move, which is bad enough, but it undercuts the effort we are involved in in Iraq in an extremely negative way, and for what? Is it just stupidity from the House leadership, or is it calculated?

I really don't know the answer to this - but I usually go by the maxim, "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity."

ne1410s wrote:"Isn't it just stupidity from the House leadership, or is it calculated?"


I think it is stupidity from the House leadership, as in Speaker Dennis Hastert (R IL). His resolution to claim Turkish genocide of the Armenians was minutes from passing. Then President WJC talked him off the ledge.


(October 2000)

nice snipe!
I am not denying the stupidity of Hastert. He betrayed eveyone who voted for him by ignoring the tenets of conservatism for 'get alongism'. Regardless, we weren't at war and relying on the Turks for supply lines and support at that time. And at least he seemed to know where to draw the line on how far you go with partisan politics before it harms the country.

Is it just stupidity from the House leadership, or is it calculated?

I think using "stupidity" and "House leadership" in the same sentence is nearly always redundant.

And at least he seemed to know where to draw the line on how far you go with partisan politics before it harms the country.

"Nice snipe"---Mr Kettle meet Mr Pot.

No, wrong, again. He had to be talked out of sending the resolution to the floor. He certainly did not know where to draw the line. Someone with diplomatic skills had to show him where the line was.

gsabc wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:I don't know perhaps we should put Joe Mannix on the case.

Since no one else has commented on this, tmitsss, I just wanted you know that I, at least, understood the joke.

gs

Out here in sticks, I think he was the first Armenian I ever heard of .

ne1410s wrote:

And at least he seemed to know where to draw the line on how far you go with partisan politics before it harms the country.

"Nice snipe"---Mr Kettle meet Mr Pot.

No, wrong, again. He had to be talked out of sending the resolution to the floor. He certainly did not know where to draw the line. Someone with diplomatic skills had to show him where the line was.

ne1 - I am not talking about what Hastert did several years ago when Turkey was not a crucial ally supporting our troops in Iraq, which though unpopular, is fact. Your bringing that up is with little doubt one of the talking points that have been circulated to deflect heat. Though it may be true, SO WHAT?

Answer a direct question if you can: Is passage or even consideration of this resolution of utmost importance RIGHT NOW AT THIS POINT IN TIME, or is it a deliberate swipe at Bush and impediment to the war effort? Or what other explanation is there?

This may shed some light:

http://www.gocomics.com/badreporter/2007/10/12/

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:

gsabc wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:I don't know perhaps we should put Joe Mannix on the case.

Since no one else has commented on this, tmitsss, I just wanted you know that I, at least, understood the joke.

gs

Out here in sticks, I think he was the first Armenian I ever heard of .

You probably heard of Cher first.

Maybe it has something to do with the time of year-although I can't locate any exact dates for the genocide. Hastert's resolution was pulled from consideration on October 19, 2000. What a coinky doink! Turkey has for many decades been an ally of ours. Of course, in 2000, there weren't thousands of American kids stationed in Iraq trying to referee a civil war. I believe one of the reasons Saddam was deposed was because of his genocide of the Kurds. Small world ain't it?

ne1410s wrote:Maybe it has something to do with the time of year-although I can't locate any exact dates for the genocide. Hastert's resolution was pulled from consideration on October 19, 2000. What a coinky doink! Turkey has for many decades been an ally of ours. Of course, in 2000, there weren't thousands of American kids stationed in Iraq trying to referee a civil war. I believe one of the reasons Saddam was deposed was because of his genocide of the Kurds. Small world ain't it?

Done yet? Maybe you can try and answer the question. I see no other reason to do this than to sabotage the war effort and increase the danger and hardship of our people over there. Maybe you have another reasonable explanation that actually pertains the the subject at hand?

There are about 385,000 Armenian Americans. There are only about 120,000 Turkish Americans. They vote.

I see no other reason to do this than to sabotage the war effort and increase the danger and hardship of our people over there.

Then I guess I should stop wasting my time with you. You're going to have to mentally masturbate without my provocation. As I told you before: Ever since I supported Richard Nixon to the bitter end, I no longer have a taste for Kool-Aid. You still drool in (my guess) cherry.

What is so frustrating is that you ARE me--35 years ago." Every generation has to learn for itself that the stove is hot."

ne1410s wrote:

I see no other reason to do this than to sabotage the war effort and increase the danger and hardship of our people over there.

Then I guess I should stop wasting my time with you. You're going to have to mentally masturbate without my provocation. As I told you before: Ever since I supported Richard Nixon to the bitter end, I no longer have a taste for Kool-Aid. You still drool in (my guess) cherry.

What is so frustrating is that you ARE me--35 years ago." Every generation has to learn for itself that the stove is hot."

Nice answer.
I ask a simple question: Why does the leadership of the Congress feel this issue needs to be addressed at this time, when there are so many other things that seem more important, and when there are so many obvious negative consequences? The only obvious reason to me is callous political posturing. So I ask for an alternative view. But I get "Dennis Hastert did it"! and finally the ubiquitous personal attack.

Thanks for your wisdom and civility. I knew I could count on it.