Instead of Turkey and the Armenians, why don't democrats talk about Russia and millions of Ukrainians killed?

Question

The democrats just passed a resolution condemming our ally Turkey for killing Armenians 90 years ago. Turkey is a key ally in the war on terror.

They're not passing resolutions condemming FDR's ally Joseph Stalin for killing millions of Ukraiaians. Why don't the democrats talk about that, instead of insulting our ally Turkey? Is it because the democrats are looking for a new way to insure our defeat in Iraq? And because they don't want to say anything bad about an ally of FDR, who is the father of the modern democrat party?

Answer 1

Turkey did not exist at the time of the genocide.

The nation of Turkey was formed after a revolution in the 1920's. The genocide was by the Ottoman Empire, the government over thrown by revolutionaries who then established the nation of Turkey.

Anyone who voted for this resolution is ignorant of the facts. Democrats who voted for this resolution are ignorant of the facts and are hypocrites who should hold themselves accountable for ethnic atrocities like the political support of slavery.

Answer 2

Democrats are trying to cancel the Iraq war by proxy. By insulting the Turks, you run the risk of losing their support in Iraq and hampering President Bush's plans there.

They are risking long term damage to relations with an ally of many decades and one of the only friendly Muslim countries the US has ever been able to rely on.

By their twisted thinking why not talk about Southerners killed during the Civil War? Or Native Indians on the Trail of Tears? Or mistreatment of Blacks during slavery?

At what point do you just say lets move on?

Far better it is to let the past go. The Armenian genocide was almost 100 years ago. Let the historians quibble over details, while the rest of us deal with the here and now and the future.

Answer 3

Baron Masis is ideal! now study this..... Turkey and the U.N.’s disguise-Up extra advantageous than ninety years in the past, while Turkey became nonetheless area of the Ottoman Empire, Turkish nationalists released an extermination marketing campaign there that killed a million.5 million Armenians. It became the twentieth century’s first genocide. the international observed, yet did not something, putting an occasion that definitely emboldened such later practitioners as Hitler, the Hutu leaders of Rwanda in 1994 and at the instant’s Sudanese president, Omar Hassan al-Bashir. Turkey has long tried to disclaim the Armenian genocide. Even interior the fashionable-day Turkish republic, which became not a social gathering to the killings, utilising the be conscious genocide in connection with those activities is prosecuted as a severe crime. Which makes it each and all the extra disgraceful that United countries officers are bowing to Turkey’s demands and blockading this week’s scheduled beginning of an show at U.N. headquarters commemorating the thirteenth anniversary of the Rwandan genocide as a results of fact it mentions the mass homicide of the Armenians. Ankara became indignant by potential of a sentence that defined how genocide got here to be acknowledged as against the regulation below worldwide regulation: “Following international conflict I, interior of which a million Armenians have been murdered in Turkey, Polish legal expert Raphael Lemkin cautioned the League of countries to renowned crimes of barbarity as worldwide crimes.” The show’s organizer, a British-based antigenocide group, became keen to bypass over the words “in Turkey.” yet that became not sufficient for the U.N.’s craven new management, and the show has been indefinitely postponed. It’s ordinary that Turkey’s leaders have not discovered by potential of now that each and every time they attempt to censor talk of the Armenian genocide, they only convey wider interest to the concern and link at the instant’s democratic Turkey with the now distant crime. As for Secretary generic Ban Ki-moon and his green new management group, they have as quickly as returned shown how lots they could learn in the event that they're to honorably and effectively serve the United countries, it relatively is meant to be the embodiment of world regulation and a maximum advantageous voice against genocide.

Answer 4

I disagree on the first part of your question however I absolutely agree on the second part. It was very naive of FDR and later Truman to be so good to Stalin.
FDR should have allowed Patton to sweep into Moscow and get rid of Stalin and his godless cohorts.
I Cr 13;8a

Answer 5

because 70% of our supply lines only go through Turkey. If it upsets Turkey enough the Turks will cut our ability to supply troops through Turkey; its an extension of the "slow bleed" murtha strategy to keep equipement from our soldiers. Condeming anyone else would be pointless for their calculated goals.

Answer 6

For one, you'll have to actually have to provide evidence that it was a genocide ("...you must kill X amount of people") and not farmers burning their own crops/animals that resulted in a famine that supposedly caused the deaths of millions.

Two, Nazi Germany already perpetuated the notion to further their aims and so did the U.S. to further their aims.

Answer 7

I'm sorry I only speak English, not Newspeak.
So I don't understand War on Terror.

But to answer your question, Russia is not actively denying the terror of the Stalin years.

Answer 8

because this is only an attempt to insult an allie so they will stop aiding us in the fight in Iraq hence force us to pull out of Iraq...it is treason plain and simple.

Answer 9

Because as Edwards once said...

They are joined at the breastbone!

Answer 10

THAT'S SO TYPICAL OF THEM. ANYTHING TO CAUSE THE COUNTRY PROBLEMS IN DEALING WITH THE WAR IN IRAQ.