English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I don't see what possible benefit there is to applying the label of genocide to something that happened nearly 100 years ago. Our leaders be spending time on issues that really matter like health care, education, the Iraq war, and others. This seems like an even worse idea when you consider that it could seriously harm ties with one of our key allies in the gulf region.

2007-10-14 21:34:35 · 9 answers · asked by Justin H 7 in Politics & Government Politics

gabriela v: I have no problem with the idea that something needs to be recognized for what it is/was, but it's something that should be left up to historians. I see no value in having our government take the time to officially recognize something that happened so long ago and did not significantly affect American citizens.

I think this has about as much value as the US government officially apologizing for slavery some 140 years after it ended. Since it's unlikely that any living American actually knew any former slave or slave owner, I don't see how current politicians apologizing will change anything.

Don't misunderstand me. I think slavery is an ugly and regrettable chapter in our history, but I don't see how a modern political resolution is going to change anything or make anyone's life better.

2007-10-14 22:41:13 · update #1

9 answers

Cause every thing else Will be vetoed!!

What's wrong with San Fran ? they didn't let you in?

so 100 years is to old, how about 60 + years ago? that should be old and absurd to be considered?

2007-10-14 21:54:56 · answer #1 · answered by ? 5 · 1 2

Applying a current genocide over an act that happened 100 years ago is absurd. The people living here today weren't responsible for it -- why should they have to pay for the actions their early relatives created?

It's really, REALLY, R E A L L Y time that people stop living in the past and let things go.



* What irks me more is that our politicians and elected officials are more worried about taking care of the needs and wants of other countries citizens instead of our own.

2007-10-15 06:15:29 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The Dems realize that if they can make an enemy of Turkey and have them close our base there, it stops the supply lines to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is a political move to try to disrupt the war. This way they can blame Turkey if we end up having to withdraw troops, instead of taking the political risk of cutting off funding like they did in Vietnam. Do you really believe the Dems are concerned with what happened there over 100 years ago. If that were the case we would all be paying reparations.

2007-10-15 05:49:56 · answer #3 · answered by ohbrother 7 · 0 1

Since their failure to have the troops back home by Christmas the Dems are using back handed politics. They know they would look bad if they don't vote yes on better supplies for the troops. However since Turkey supplies the routes for those supplies to get to the troops and might be irritate enough by the actions of the U.S. Congress. Pelosi can "recognize" the genocide and make it more difficult for the Bush administration to keep the Iraqi conflict going with supply routes longer and more difficult. Basically it's just power play politics at work.

2007-10-15 05:54:35 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

While from a strictly ¨real politik¨ point of view, President Bush might be able to make an argument for not recognising the massacre of Armenians for what it was(a genocide),from any other vantage point there is every reason to officially recognise the genocide perpetrated on the Armenian population by Turkey. I only wish that Pelosi had remembered to include the genocide of the Chaldean Christians all during the Ottoman regime too and the atrocious killing and expulsion of the Christians from Smyrna in 1915-1917.

It is vital for us to know and recognise how absolutely vile man can be to his fellow man. It is vital to know that no one culture,civilisation or nation has a monopoly on this vileness. ALL carry the bad seed. Our own country was founded on an ongoing horrific genocide, brutally, dispassionately,systematically carried out against the original native populations of our continent up until just a little over a hundred years ago.

Just as I want the Jewish holocaust to be remembered always, so do I want the suffering of the Armenians,the Chaldeans,and the Orthodox Christians of Smyrna remembered. I want the genocidal massacres of Timorese by Indonesians remembered and those of Tutsis by Hutus remembered.And the atrocious genocide of Bosnian Muslims by the Serbs! ALL OF US are capable of genocide and we should never lose sight of this and never accept any argument that might excuse or justify it. To go down that road would make a mockery of what we believe.

Maybe Pelosi's motives can be attributed only to partisan politics but, if the cause of justice is served and we all learn an important history lesson, then I say that it was well worth it.

Turkey's importance to us was as a Cold war ally because of its geographical closeness to the Soviet Union. In case no one has noticed, the Cold War was won over 15 years ago and there ain't no such animal as the USSR anymore.
Keeping Turkey happy by turning a blind eye to its abuses of human rights might be desireable if we were Hell-bent on pursuing Israel's foreign policy in the middle eastern- Mediterranean region. We are supposed to be pursuing our own.

I say,let Turkey hear the unpleasant truth about itself,make an apology and then get on with being a constructive member of the region with our continued and considerable assistance.

BTW,I'd like Israel to accept a few home truths about its objectionable actions against Palestinians too and to make a real resolution to do better in the future.

And, getting back to ¨real politik¨, we could,you know,make other reliable and key allies in the middle east and Mediterraneanby not taking such obvious sides with some countries and ignoring their abuses of the human rights of others.

I lean heavily towards Non- intervensionism and I do not believe that we have a mission as a country to export any doctrine,no matter how praiseworthy or benign. I argued against the war in Iraq from day one.

By the same token, I believe that our country should not lend support of any kind,moral or monetary,to nations or rulers who flagrantly commit excesses against humanity.By pandering to Turkey's genocide denial we will be seen to be doing precisely that!

To justin(who asked the original question):
I understand what you have answered me and am willing to concede that you do have a valid argument,albeit-in MY opinion,an erroneous one in some part.
However, I won't elaborate as this is not the thread,time or place. Thanks, though, for giving my answer the benefit of your time and thought!

2007-10-15 05:31:23 · answer #5 · answered by Tebow 5 · 0 3

Her goal is to make the USA have less influence in the world by reducing America's allies.

2007-10-15 04:44:24 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3 2

The mind boggles.

Will Rogers once said "Never ascribe malice where stupidity will suffice."

But I gotta tell ya, this seems like both.

2007-10-15 04:42:53 · answer #7 · answered by Phoenix Quill 7 · 5 1

YOUR TAX DOLLARS HARD AT WORK!!!
I got reported once for saying she is an idiot.
Well, the ride is well under way. Truth hurts.

2007-10-15 04:48:30 · answer #8 · answered by The prophet of DOOM 5 · 3 1

...because "she" is a San Francisco, California IDIOT ! need I say more...?

2007-10-15 04:38:43 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4 2

fedest.com, questions and answers