Turkey, the US, Armenian Genocide/Massacre, et al

Post by **pyrella** » October 16, 2007, 6:59 pm

I haven't seen any reference here, and it's been one of the top news stories on CNN/MSNBC, etc during slow news days.

I live and work in Glendale, a predominantly Armenian city, with more actual Armenian's here, than in the country of Armenia itself.

Relevant article, but by no means the only one out there: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/16/us.bas ... index.html

Dems are trying to declare it as a genocide. Republicans, or at least the White House, are asking NOT that they don't declare it, but they don't declare it now, while we happen to be using an airbase in Turkey. Turkey is threatening a myriad of things, without setting anything in stone, in the event that we 'officially' declare it as a genocide, and not just a massacre.

As I stated earlier, I live in a predominately Armenian city, so we get the 'celebrations' every April, and the locals are watching this very closely. Every store you go in to, people are talking about it, etc - however obviously quite biased in favor of declaring it a Genocide.

Interesting fact: In Germany, it is against the law to deny the holocaust happened. In Turkey it's illegal to even mention the Armenian Genocide (if there ever was one, omg).

Obviously I'm swayed to a point by the bias of my neighbors, and the rhetoric they spew. However, when this happened, it was the Ottoman Empire that was responsible for this atrocity (regardless if called a genocide or massacre), and the current Turkey is no longer the Ottomans. Why would the Turks be so resolute in denying the allegations, or at least labeling it genocide instead of a massacre?

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » October 16, 2007, 8:40 pm

What I have been trying to figure out, and I admit that I have not looked into it as hard as I actually want to, is what will this declaration actually accomplish?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 16, 2007, 8:45 pm

Are there retributions at stake?

I read a couple linked CNN articles and don't see anything relevant other than making it an "official" genocide. What will declaring it an official genocide do other than making it official so I have a better idea. I wouldn't jeopardize our supply route just to make something official that happened closing in on 100 years ago. Do it at a later date when American lives aren't going to be impacted.

It mostly sounds like the Democrats trying to stir up trouble for the Republicans just because they can. I'm sure it was a genocide but there's no need to screw things up hastily over an official declaration unless war reparations are hanging in the balance which is doesn't sound like Turkey would be willing to pay anyway.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » October 16, 2007, 8:49 pm

I was thinking that it would actually hamper Turkey's entry into the EU as well. If the US makes the declaration, I would think that European nations would not be far behind in backing them up, and it would just be one more mark against the Turks.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » October 17, 2007, 2:33 am

I truly believe in the old saying that those who forget about history are doomed to repeat it, but IMO this is more a case of someone getting hung up on a label. I think its a waste of effort and doesn't do anything but get people worked up to a point where they miss the point: who cares wtf you call it as long as you realize it happened (which the modern gov't in Ankara does) and don't allow it to be repeated.

As for why the Turkish gov't objects to the genocide label, lets be honest: NO ONE wants to see their forbears in that light. Germany really has had no choice: the evidence of the crimes the Nazis committed was scattered throughout Europe, and was used as a sort of propaganda bludgeon about how badly Germany, as a whole had erred in allowing their gov't to commit those acts and start a war. The Turks avoided that in part because of the more localized nature of the action(s) and secondly because the Western Allies were too busy carving up the old Ottoman Empire to care about what went on to various peoples within it, that they didn't have or would have jurisdiction over. Now its a case were most of the impetus for calling it a genocide is coming from the Armenian community and the Turks are responding in the way most of us probably would: they're willing to admit a wrong was done but don't want to overstate it (and want to see any error on the side of understatement to avoid embarassment) or admit to any type of culpability.

As for the Democrats wanting this resolution passed now, I don't get it. The timing doesn't get much worse, unless someone thinks that they can force a withdrawal from Iraq by fucking over an alliance with the Turks like this, which is short sighted to say the least.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » October 17, 2007, 4:42 am

Fear of calling a spade a spade simply because you need the military co-operation of a country is ridiculous. The Armenian genocide is one of the most documented genocides of the last century and not calling it out for what it is is disgusting imo.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 17, 2007, 5:36 am

Nick wrote:Fear of calling a spade a spade simply because you need the military co-operation of a country is ridiculous. The Armenian genocide is one of the most documented genocides of the last century and not calling it out for what it is is disgusting imo.

In this case it's just a technicality. It sounds like it is recognized as a genocide by the people that matter.

If you love a woman, is it not really love until you are officially married or is t OK to love and be engaged for awhile...or love and never be married at all? The love is what matters, not a piece of paper or official stamp.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » October 17, 2007, 9:15 am

GW Bush is just a genious is what this is. He told the Democrats that they should not do this, so of course they will. He knows that it will start problems that the GOP can then point to when voting starts to put Dems back out of office. Quite brilliant.

cadalano · Post by **cadalano** » October 17, 2007, 10:21 am

"Who, after all, speaks of the annihilation of the Armenians?"

Post by **Sylvus** » October 17, 2007, 11:27 am

Winnow wrote:
Nick wrote:Fear of calling a spade a spade simply because you need the military co-operation of a country is ridiculous. The Armenian genocide is one of the most documented genocides of the last century and not calling it out for what it is is disgusting imo.
In this case it's just a technicality. It sounds like it is recognized as a genocide by the people that matter.

If you love a woman, is it not really love until you are officially married or is t OK to love and be engaged for awhile...or love and never be married at all? The love is what matters, not a piece of paper or official stamp.

I think the analogy would be more fitting if you disregarded marriage. It's like loving someone, and not ever expressing verbally the fact that you love them. Some girls are crazy like that; as much as your actions show that you love them, they still need to hear it. Or if you want to bring marriage into it, it's like how a girl will want you to wear a ring after you're married, to show your buddies how much your wife means to you and other girls that you're already taken.

Armenians are like girls.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » October 17, 2007, 1:56 pm

Comparing the genocide by Ottoman Turks of Armenians to love is possibly the most fucking retarded analogy that this place has seen.

The fact anyone could even turn this into a partisan issue shows just how idiotic some people have become.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » October 17, 2007, 2:02 pm

I disagree, I think it was brilliant.

Post by **Sylvus** » October 17, 2007, 2:15 pm

Nick wrote:Comparing the genocide by Ottoman Turks of Armenians to love is possibly the most fucking retarded analogy that this place has seen.

Why's that? Not that my response was at all serious, but I still think it's a valid analogy. "What's in a name? that which we call a rose..." It's a semantics issue. No one, in the context of this thread, is saying that Armenians were not the victims of systematic extermination. Not even the government. Where the issue arises is that the government doesn't want to take the official position of declaring it a genocide.

What does declaring it a genocide accomplish? Is it still a genocide even if the US doesn't state for the record that it was? Why is it necessary for the US to "call it out", and why is it "disgusting" if they don't take an official position? Those appear to be the questions Winnow was presenting. I was simply trying to clear up his analogy.

I don't have a strong stance on either side of this issue, so enlighten me and help me pick a side.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » October 17, 2007, 2:17 pm

I'm with you... regardless of what it was, or what it's called.... WHY NOW? WHAT DOES IT FUCKING MATTER?

Nick · Post by **Nick** » October 17, 2007, 2:20 pm

Sylvus wrote: No one, in the context of this thread, is saying that Armenians were not the victims of systematic extermination. Not even the government.

The word given to systematic extermination of a particular race is "Genocide".

What does declaring it a genocide accomplish?

Because it's the right thing to do, obviously.

Denying reality for the sake of military support is disgusting and the only people who are discussing semantics are the one's using the argument that it "doesnt matter what we call it".

WHY NOW? WHAT DOES IT FUCKING MATTER?

Why not now? Because the US needs support from Turkey and it is "politically inconvenient"? That's completely irrelevant.

It matters because responsibility for genocide should be appropriated for what it is. The fact that its inconvenient to some people frankly means fuck all.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » October 17, 2007, 2:22 pm

I think the main questions are:

Are we denying it by not passing a law or formal declaration that it happened?

What will formally declaring the actions as genocide accomplish?

Nick · Post by **Nick** » October 17, 2007, 2:27 pm

It will accomplish some degree of finality and international acknowledgement, thus drawing somewhat of a line under the horrific ordeal for many of the people who were directly and indirectly fucked over by the tragic event.

Anyone who fails to see how and why this is important, is beyond reason.

The fact that certain elements of America wish to deny genocide for the sake of strategic military support in, of all places, Iraq...is absolutely mind boggling.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » October 17, 2007, 2:28 pm

Nick wrote:
WHY NOW? WHAT DOES IT FUCKING MATTER?
Why not now? Because the US needs support from Turkey and it is "politically inconvenient"? That's completely irrelevant.

It matters because responsibility for genocide should be appropriated for what it is. The fact that its inconvenient to some people frankly means fuck all.

So you don't question the motives of the people bringing this piece of ancient history up NOW? They just woke up and decided hey it's the right thing to do we should draft a bill about this?.. I give you too much credit to believe this and assume you're only defending this because you would enjoy seeing additional hurdles being placed on the american military due to a base closing in turkey. Not only is this politically inconvenient, it's political suicide... There is 0 reason and 0 benefit to be had from this.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » October 17, 2007, 2:31 pm

I'm not the one making it partisan, George Bush is.

How is this even an issue worth defending from your end? It was a genocide, lets call it for what it was, yes, I agree the timing is military somewhat "unfortunate" for the US occupation of Iraq, but frankly, the US occupation of Iraq isn't the only thing of importance on the planet (by the way).

It really is very straightforward.

"Article Two of the UN Convention on Genocide of December 1948 describes genocide as carrying out acts intended "to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group"."

What is the issue here?

The only issue is a desire to appease a military ally from some right wing elements of the USA by not following the UN Convention on Genocide.

It's pretty simple man.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » October 17, 2007, 2:32 pm

Nick wrote:I'm not the one making it partisan, George Bush is.

How is this even an issue worth defending from your end? It was a genocide, lets call it for what it was, yes, I agree the timing is military somewhat "unfortunate" for the US occupation of Iraq, but frankly, the US occupation of Iraq isn't the only thing of importance on the planet (by the way).

The timing isn't unfortunate, it's deliberate!

Nick · Post by **Nick** » October 17, 2007, 2:35 pm

Do you support the idea that US appeasement because of military dependancy on Turkey is more important for the USA than acknowledgement of UN protocols on Genocide or not?

So which is it? Morals or guns?

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » October 17, 2007, 2:36 pm

of course!

Nick · Post by **Nick** » October 17, 2007, 2:37 pm

Oh well I guess the Project for the new American century sure is doing something right then

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » October 17, 2007, 2:43 pm

Nick wrote:Comparing the genocide by Ottoman Turks of Armenians to love is possibly the most fucking retarded analogy that this place has seen.

The fact anyone could even turn this into a partisan issue shows just how idiotic some people have become.

I'm not an American, and my support usually doesn't fall to the Republicans, but I think the Democrats ARE wrong to push issue now, and the Republicans are right to pound them with it inside the bounds of how their political system. You have to look at it inside the context of their situation:

- they are at war halfway around the world
- they rely on the permission of several friendly nations in the area for logistical support
- the situation in question happened 90 years ago under an Ottoman Empire that no longer exists
- Turkey is one of the friendliest nations in a region where the populace is skepitcal if not hostile to Western interests

I don't think it makes any sense to poke that friendly Turkey in the eye about something everyone admits happened and doesn't want to see repeated, by a previous regime, 90 years ago. Its not timely in any sense of the word and raises tensions that have no need to be raised. And yes Nick, I am on your side in that I think the US Invasion of Iraq was a stupid idea that has killed far too many people and served no one well except for a few corporate interests.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » October 17, 2007, 2:43 pm

If it was so damn important to "call a spade a spade", why didn't Super Bill do it during his 8 years in office? It's not like it JUST HAPPENED...

As Fash said, the timing is deliberate. It's ingenious actually. The Democrats have realized they don't have the clout to actually do anything from within, so they're kicking down the scaffolding outside the US propping the whole thing up.

Now they just need to find a way to piss off the Saudis!

Nick · Post by **Nick** » October 17, 2007, 2:55 pm

I'm just saying, a genocide is a genocide, if that hurts some people politically, or military, then forgive me for not giving a shit.

Both the Republicans and Democrats are idiots, I care for neither, so don't bother trying to throw me into that little issue. (The only reason I hope the Democrats win the next election is because they aren't George Bush's party, who have shown themselves to the world to be Grade A fuckwits of a murderous, morally reprehensible degree, but that isn't the issue in this thread - I'm not trying to derail: just clarify)

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » October 17, 2007, 5:07 pm

Okay, so it is fine to cause the US Military some difficulties in passing this. I can understand where that can be justified by some, but can you also justify Turkey turning around and sending troops into Iraq to fight the Kurds because of this stance? I seriously doubt that whatever fucking effect they hoped to achieve by passing this will be anything close to what actually takes place. If you'd like to concentrate on my first two questions, feel free...or keep ignoring them.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » October 17, 2007, 5:35 pm

Boog, I think the Turks have been ready to blow over the PKK operating across the Iraqi border for a while now. I don't think the genocide thing has much to do with it. Although, that said, us telling them not to sure sounds a hell of a lot weaker when we are tying to pass a resolution basically saying their national heritage is akin to the Nazis.

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » October 17, 2007, 5:45 pm

Winnow wrote:If you love a woman, is it not really love until you are officially married or is t OK to love and be engaged for awhile...or love and never be married at all? The love is what matters, not a piece of paper or official stamp.

Now if only goddamn women saw it that way.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » October 17, 2007, 6:33 pm

Ashur wrote:Boog, I think the Turks have been ready to blow over the PKK operating across the Iraqi border for a while now. I don't think the genocide thing has much to do with it. Although, that said, us telling them not to sure sounds a hell of a lot weaker when we are tying to pass a resolution basically saying their national heritage is akin to the Nazis.

Yeah, they were having the issues when we first went into Iraq. I remember fears that they would go in from the North as we went from the South, and discussions about the reasons that the Airborne units were all dropping into Kurdish areas to keep Turkey from doing so. That was my point. The effect of this may end up being much worse than just making things "inconvenient" for the US military,

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » October 17, 2007, 6:47 pm

I'm totally against Nick on this one.

Nick wrote:Fear of calling a spade a spade simply because you need the military co-operation of a country is ridiculous. The Armenian genocide is one of the most documented genocides of the last century and not calling it out for what it is is disgusting imo.

So a majority vote of 535 Americans means what exactly? Has Ireland's legislative body passed a resolution declaring it a genocide? Has Britain, India, China, Australia, South Africa, Libya, Germany, Poland, Russia? I honestly don't know and I really don't care, because any sort of resolution by any of those countries would do absolutely nothing to alter history. Would you ever have possibly called the U.S. Congress "disgusting" for failing to pass this resolution if they hadn't proposed it and brought it to your attention?

Nick wrote:Because it's the right thing to do, obviously.

No. Listen, there are lots of bad things in the world. The U.S. Congress doesn't pass resolutions condemning all of those bad things because that's not the role of the U.S. Congress. Have we passed a resolution condemning the inquisition? The Mongol extermination of cities in the Middle East and Eastern Europe? When did Congress become the body responsible for announcing authoritative ethical pronouncements? Congress's job is to pass laws, and I'd rather they spend their time passing laws than pronouncing historical judgments which they are completely unqualified to issue. Perhaps if Congress was focused on the future instead of the past, they could exercise a little bit of oversight over the executive branch, which IS their fucking job!

Nick wrote:It will accomplish some degree of finality and international acknowledgement

Good to know that the U.S. Congress is empowered to speak for the international community, and that what they say can create 'finality' on an issue. It seems that there's a bit of tension between this idea and your arguments that the opinions of Americans and the American government are irrelevant because we're out of line with the international community.

Nick wrote:I'm not the one making it partisan, George Bush is.

Now, I'm not totally certain on this because I'm not overly well versed in this particular bit of legislation, but I think it's Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi who are responsible for making this a partisan issue.

Nick wrote:"Article Two of the UN Convention on Genocide of December 1948 describes genocide as carrying out acts intended "to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group"."

What is the issue here?

Great. So why is the U.S. Congress supposed to be interpreting the UN Convention on Genocide? Perhaps the UNITED NATIONS should issue the resolution.

The bottom line is that determinations about history should be left to historians. If history views the event as a genocide, then it'll be viewed as a genocide regardless of whatever irrelevant fucking resolution the U.S. Congress passes. Congress is supposed to create American law, I'd rather they stick to that, thank you very much.

Do you realize what a can of worms it opens to endorse the idea that Congress should be passing resolutions on significant moral issues? Especially when the claim is that Congress is acting in a "disgusting" manner when it exercises it's discretion not to condemn a particular moral issue? If a majority of Congressmen believe that abortion is genocide, should they be passing resolutions declaring such? Would such a resolution create a degree of "finality and international acknowledgement?" Or would it be totally fucking worthless and inflammatory?

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » October 18, 2007, 10:51 am

I'm with Sueven. Why the hell does the US Congress need to be interpreting history?

That said, it makes sense because I'm still of the belief this is being done with an end run of erroding military logistical support from Turkey making US combat operations in Iraq that much more difficult to sustain. The Democratic leadership has been struggling with ending military operations there since they came into power and this genocide resolution has been handed to them on a silver platter.

THAT is why it's a partisan issue.

Coming up next, resolutions on Saudi Arabian Civil Rights?

EDIT: Spelling - "since" =/ "sense"

Deward · Post by **Deward** » October 18, 2007, 11:06 am

I heard this discussed on talk radio a couple of days ago. The reason this is happening is because Turkey is one of two countries (the other being Azerbaijan(?)) that the US could potentially attack Iran from. Turkey is also one of the main conduits for supplies into Iraq. The democrats can't stop the war but by passing this they can kick one of the legs out from under the war machine in a sideways sort of motion. Putin has said publicly that the US will not be allowed to attack Iran from Azerbaijan.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 18, 2007, 12:58 pm

Deward wrote:Putin has said publicly that the US will not be allowed to attack Iran from Azerbaijan.

Putin's a thug.

I don't know where an attack would originate from on Iran but Putin telling us we can't attack Iran is a joke. BTW, we have a nice base of operations in Iraq that's kinda near Iran.

I'm not really up for attacking Iran besides one or two major air strikes on nuclear facilities and then dealing with the mini skirmishes that result.

Despite what he says publicly, Putin would love for us to attack Iran. He's been trying to kickstart Russia's arms sales for awhile now. Iran would be a great customer.

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » October 18, 2007, 1:15 pm

My viewpoint, as perfectly said by a friend:

Scott wrote:People are stupid. It's not often I agree with El Presidente Decider-man, but I am forced to admit that he is correct in declaring Congress's meddling in the history of the Ottoman Empire as inane. Yes, of course, the mass killing of the Armenians was genocide. So was the mass killing of the Native Americans and the Trail of Tears. So are the killings in Sudan and Tibet. It's a nasty world out there. It sucks that injustice happens. But we don't live in an ideal world. We live in a realist world. And the realpolitik is that we need the Turks as allies so much now that we must ignore what their ancestors did 90 years much like we ignore what the Chinese do to Tibet and what we ourselves did 150 years ago. But because some dumbass Congress member can't see beyond his own ass and decided to take some symbolic, useless gesture, there is now going to be war and bloodshed in one of the few areas of Iraq that has peace. Do you have any, any idea of how close Turkey is to edge? The only successful democracy in the Middle East stands balanced on a sword's blade. The slightest breezes could lead to a bastion of peace and prosperity in the Middle East or the rise of new zealous war machine to shake the foundations of Europe. And as Turkey stands at the brink of the abyss, we decide to piss them off to the point were they decide to start a war against our only friends in Iraq! JUST FUCKING BRILLIANT! And for what? A stupid little proclamation for some dead people of a land that most of Congress couldn't locate on a map! Listen: this is realpolitik. It's nasty. It's brutish. It'll stain your hands and your soul. BUT IT'S HOW THE WORLD WORKS. And now, after seeing exactly how stupid their actions were, the Congress is backing off the measure, which only shows the rest of the world how weak and inept our government is. Sigh....

Aardor · Post by **Aardor** » October 18, 2007, 5:32 pm

Nick: I am curious about your response to Sueven's question posed in the response to you above. Not trying to start shit, I am just actually curious because your position seems to be similar to many people going off about this issue on blogs, and I would truly like to have your opinion on the questions asked.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » October 18, 2007, 6:23 pm

Happy to oblige.

Sueven wrote:So a majority vote of 535 Americans means what exactly?

It's obviously not just "535 Americans". It is the acknowledgement by the legislature of the United States, which represents 300 million people to respect and comply somewhat with the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. Agreeing with various groups such as the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR), International Association of Genocide Scholars, International Center for Transitional Justice and several other nations to boot, none of which give a shit about appeasing a ridiculously backward ass country like Turkey just because "we need their support because of Iraq".

Unfortunately, for memories sake, it was a couple of days ago that I watched a particular news report cataloguing the specific nations in question that have already officially, and rightly, acknowledged the incident as Genocide. Regardless, an important point of said interview was that US support, due to it being one of the most powerful nations on Earth, undeniably adds a great level of legitimacy worldwide, for the future appreciation of reality. I agree with this assumption.

Call it lip service if you want, but frankly that is, imo, massively missing the point of holding ourselves to higher moral standards than neanderthalian barbarians.

Would you ever have possibly called the U.S. Congress "disgusting" for failing to pass this resolution if they hadn't proposed it and brought it to your attention?

It was already brought to my attention before the U.S Congress proposed this. That's beside the point. And yes, when I see a nation so quick in the mouth to espouse its own legitimacy as a just, free, progressive state officially attempting to deny reality for the sake of military support in an illegitimate war, I would indeed have no qualms in calling it disgusting. "Pathetic" would also do.

No. Listen, there are lots of bad things in the world. The U.S. Congress doesn't pass resolutions condemning all of those bad things because that's not the role of the U.S. Congress

Actually, to a degree, factually, you're simply wrong, otherwise this issue would not have been raised.

(right?)

Also: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3918765.stm (It's the house of Representatives, but the point remains).

When did Congress become the body responsible for announcing authoritative ethical pronouncements?

The U.S is part of the United Nations, as such it must abide by stipulations set in the United Nations charter which, oddly enough, the US agree to abide by, one of which involves the issue of Genocide, this is why it is being brought forward.

Congress's job is to pass laws, and I'd rather they spend their time passing laws than pronouncing historical judgments which they are completely unqualified to issue. Perhaps if Congress was focused on the future instead of the past, they could exercise a little bit of oversight over the executive branch, which IS their fucking job!

I can dig that, but you're still part of the UN, like it or lump it. If it's such a pain, leave. Without being facetious, we can both agree that leaving would be beyond retarded. The organisation that is the United Nations was set up for very important ethical and historical reasons, reasons that, I'm saddened to say, the world can see America increasingly forgetting for military, political and morally questionable expediancy. Also for simply stupidity "reasoning". Sorry, but that's how it is.

Good to know that the U.S. Congress is empowered to speak for the international community, and that what they say can create 'finality' on an issue.

It does this on a regular basis, it comes with the responsibilities of being the worlds superpower. The phrase that comes to mind is, "Put your money where your mouth is."

It seems that there's a bit of tension between this idea and your arguments that the opinions of Americans and the American government are irrelevant because we're out of line with the international community.

Tension is the right word, because if the worlds superpower is that out of kilter with the general feeling of the world at large, which has been the case since 9/11, and arguably before, then it creates a dangerous state of affairs, say one in which the superpower acts unilaterally and causes hundreds of thousands of unnecessary (in the worlds mind - you know that other 5.7 billion on the planet Earth) deaths.

Now, I'm not totally certain on this because I'm not overly well versed in this particular bit of legislation, but I think it's Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi who are responsible for making this a partisan issue.

We can blame them all, frankly, but the moral issue here goes far beyond "partisanship", that nonsense is a currently parochial US issue that you fellows have to work out between yourselves. Unfortunately, for such a silly little state of affairs, reality remains; it was a genocide, regardless of whether one or the other side wish to acknowledge it or not. The "not" side being, in this case, retarded, not to mention morally reprehensible.

Great. So why is the U.S. Congress supposed to be interpreting the UN Convention on Genocide? Perhaps the UNITED NATIONS should issue the resolution.

I'm no expert on the United Nations, however, as far as I'm aware, it is still the responsibility of the members of the UN to acknowledge and abide by the resolutions they themselves agreed to.

The bottom line is that determinations about history should be left to historians.

The danger is, by cataloguing this incident "officially" in Congress as anything other than Genocide, absolutely threatens the future accurate interpretation of this event historically, contextually. You already know this so I don't know why I really should have to state it.

If history views the event as a genocide, then it'll be viewed as a genocide regardless of whatever irrelevant fucking resolution the U.S. Congress passes.

This is a cop out argument that I didn't expect from you. This sort of nonsense reasoning could justify a whole plethora of atrocities, simply because "well at least everyone else knows!" I could easily invoke Godwins law here but I'll avoid now because this whole discussion would end up crumbling into the ground, retardedly, because some fucking morons couldn't accept a particular analogy because teh internetz hath decreed a state of affairs.

So, for the sake of argument, I'll use Sudan.

Yes, we all know a genocide is taking place in Sudan, it's merely a formality that a Government would officially declare it, according to their agreed UN Protocols. Yours already has. The only difference being Sudan is nowhere near Iraq and you don't need their military co-operation.

But apparantly this is totally different?

No.

Why?

As everyone knows, military appeasement is why.

Do you realize what a can of worms it opens to endorse the idea that Congress should be passing resolutions on significant moral issues?

This isn't a "significant moral issue", this is a [massively well] documented fact that should in all reasonable men's eyes be documented officially as such.

Especially when the claim is that Congress is acting in a "disgusting" manner when it exercises it's discretion not to condemn a particular moral issue? If a majority of Congressmen believe that abortion is genocide, should they be passing resolutions declaring such? Would such a resolution create a degree of "finality and international acknowledgement?" Or would it be totally fucking worthless and inflammatory?

I'm aware of the can of worms you mention, the rest of the quote I find to be filled with irrelevant and silly analogy, such of which have zero bearing on the context of this issue.

But hey, I'm open to considerations to the contrary. Although it'll take a bit more than "LOL FUCK NANCY PELOSI!"

I attempted to be as "legitimate" as possible here, so to bring back the adage, "put your money where your mouth is", judge me accordingly, and without moronic personal insults.

Or don't. Fun to write this though I have to say

Edit: Wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide

Edit2: I can completely see Wulfran's point, it is valid, to a degree, but I tend to be someone who thinks reality over realpolitik is still important. I know, how naive, I should totally go and reread "The Prince" and grow up!

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » October 18, 2007, 7:22 pm

Nick wrote:It's obviously not just "535 Americans". It is the acknowledgement by the legislature of the United States, which represents 300 million people

Well OK, fair enough.

Nick wrote:a ridiculously backward ass country like Turkey

This is a patently offensive statement. Turkey is probably the most 'progressive' Islamic nation in the world, by your standards. Ignoring your standards, Turkey today is peaceful, prosperous, and enjoys a thriving civil society. I've always viewed Turkey as one of the most important nations in the world, as it is actively demonstrating that nations without Western traditions can retain their own cultural identity and still become active and valued participants in the international order. Turkey should be held up as an example and a beacon to non-Western nations, not criticized as backward and barbaric.

This statement really highlights what I think my fundamental problem with your worldview is. It strikes me as unbelievably ethnocentric. I often get the idea that you conflate "Europe" with "the world" and think that, if there is a consensus on a particular issue in Europe, then that consensus can fairly be called an "international" and stands for normative truth. Actions or practices of other nations are legitimate and acceptable in direct correlation to their similarity with a European consensus. I happen to think that Europe doesn't have a monopoly on truth, and that the opinions of other ethnocultural traditions are entitled to just as much weight as those of Europe. I give Europe credit for having a well-developed intellectual discourse, but subtract credit for adopting a position of moral superiority while sitting atop a cushy lifestyle built entirely upon colonial and racist exploitation.

Nick wrote:Regardless, an important point of said interview was that US support, due to it being one of the most powerful nations on Earth, undeniably adds a great level of legitimacy worldwide, for the future appreciation of reality.

I can appreciate this, but I have to ask: Will our view on Middle Eastern intervention lend a 'great level of legitimacy' for 'future appreciation of reality?' Or is this legitimacy only valuable when it buttresses Europe's views, with no independent weight or validity? I know that the two are different issues, but I think there is a real, and important, problem here.

Nick wrote:Actually, to a degree, factually, you're simply wrong, otherwise this issue would not have been raised.

Well, sure, Congress does this from time to time. However, the choice of when to pass such a resolution is always political and self-serving, so I kind of figured that everyone gave these resolutions the weight to which they're entitled (read: zero). It's simple arrogance on the Congress's part to think that they're meaningful.

Nick wrote:The U.S is part of the United Nations, as such it must abide by stipulations set in the United Nations charter which, oddly enough, the US agree to abide by, one of which involves the issue of Genocide, this is why it is being brought forward.

OK, we won't commit genocide. I wasn't aware that the UN required their member nations to pass legislative resolutions interpreting history with respect to various UN conventions on historical issues.

PS: Turkey is a member of the United Nations. Why don't they have an ethical responsibility to pass such a resolutions? Why aren't they 'disgusting' and 'pathetic' for failing to do so?

PPS: If your answer is "they do have such a responsibility and are pathetic and disgusting for failing to do so," then all I have to say to your position is that it's completely divorced from any sense of reality.

Nick wrote:I can dig that, but you're still part of the UN, like it or lump it. If it's such a pain, leave.

I'm a big fan of international institutions, including the UN, and wish that other Americans would give them more credit and understand why they're valuable. That said, I wasn't aware that being a member of the UN was tantamount to assuming the responsibilities of the UN. We created the UN to handle those responsibilities.

Nick wrote:It does this on a regular basis, it comes with the responsibilities of being the worlds superpower. The phrase that comes to mind is, "Put your money where your mouth is."

Again, interesting given what you think of American action when it doesn't agree with European consensus.

Nick wrote:Tension is the right word, because if the worlds superpower is that out of kilter with the general feeling of the world at large, which has been the case since 9/11, and arguably before, then it creates a dangerous state of affairs, say one in which the superpower acts unilaterally and causes hundreds of thousands of unnecessary (in the worlds mind - you know that other 5.7 billion on the planet Earth) deaths.

There's 5.7 billion people in Europe now?

Seriously, I'm happy to stand in line to mock Bush's 'don't forget Poland!' moments, but there were a number of nations who sent troops to Iraq, and plenty of others who didn't appear to be particularly put off by it regardless of whether they contributed troops or not. I bet there's a couple hundred million people in Africa who have no particular opinion on Iraq.

Also, I think it's pretty fair to say that Iraq is the most unpopular U.S. action in the international arena since 9/11, but it's not the only one. All of American Foreign Policy =/ Iraq War.

Nick wrote:We can blame them all, frankly, but the moral issue here goes far beyond "partisanship", that nonsense is a currently parochial US issue that you fellows have to work out between yourselves.

Good, let's drop this one then, because I don't give a fuck whose 'fault' it is that the issue became partisan. I was simply responding to your assertion.

Nick wrote:The danger is, by cataloguing this incident "officially" in Congress as anything other than Genocide, absolutely threatens the future accurate interpretation of this event historically, contextually. You already know this so I don't know why I really should have to state it.

There is a BIG difference between "The United States Congress has not passed a resolution declaring that it considers this event to be a genocide" and "The United States has officially catalogued this event as 'not-a-genocide.'" You already know this, so...

Nick wrote:This is a cop out argument that I didn't expect from you. This sort of nonsense reasoning could justify a whole plethora of atrocities, simply because "well at least everyone else knows!" I could easily invoke Godwins law here but I'll avoid now because this whole discussion would end up crumbling into the ground, retardedly, because some fucking morons couldn't accept a particular analogy because teh internetz hath decreed a state of affairs.

So, for the sake of argument, I'll use Sudan.

Yes, we all know a genocide is taking place in Sudan, it's merely a formality that a Government would officially declare it, according to their agreed UN Protocols.

This doesn't follow in the slightest. Sudan is going on NOW. It is an issue of current foreign policy, totally appropriate for U.S. Government action. How you can equate this in ANY way to a historical event committed by an entity which hasn't existed for decades is beyond me.

Nick wrote:I'm aware of the can of worms you mention, the rest of the quote I find to be filled with irrelevant and frankly embarrassing analogy, such of which have zero bearing on the context of this issue.

So go ahead and ignore the analogy (which I think, while not an exact correlate to the issue in question, raises thorny issues nonetheless) and respond to the 'can of worms' which you acknowledge exists.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » October 18, 2007, 8:07 pm

Thanks for replying so quickly, I'm pretty bored right now so this should be interesting to get the teeth into.

Sueven wrote: This is a patently offensive statement.

...

This statement really highlights what I think my fundamental problem with your worldview is. It strikes me as unbelievably ethnocentric. I often get the idea that you conflate "Europe" with "the world" and think that, if there is a consensus on a particular issue in Europe, then that consensus can fairly be called an "international" and stands for normative truth. Actions or practices of other nations are legitimate and acceptable in direct correlation to their similarity with a European consensus. I happen to think that Europe doesn't have a monopoly on truth, and that the opinions of other ethnocultural traditions are entitled to just as much weight as those of Europe.

Frankly, this is totally ridiculous. I do not accept as a legitimate criticism because the assumptions are based on nothing but the same old dumbass hypocritical American worldview that anyone from Europe who disagrees with aforementioned American worldview is "Euro-centric". Which is, in all honesty, pretty absurd when compared in context to the notorious and infamous US inward looking fishbowl attitude to the rest of the world.

Still, I don't think you have that, I would expect the same courtesy.

I give Europe credit for having a well-developed intellectual discourse, but subtract credit for adopting a position of moral superiority while sitting atop a cushy lifestyle built entirely upon colonial and racist exploitation.

I won't be too critically insulting, in fact it will be the only one I do, but coming from an American, that really is rich.

You are the one turning this into a continental pissing contest, not me. Plus, we would totally win in a battle of wits!

Anyway, I'll justify to a point why I came off with such a flippant, yet valid remark.

Political correctness aside, Turkey is, compared to many countries, a fucking backwards nation. I've spent a good deal of time there and yes, of course, there are some great people, but its a muslim country first and foremost, and its attitude to the Kurds is outragous, to anyone with a brain.

Any country that passes a law outlawing "Anti Turkishness", needs a slap in the face frankly. Patriotism is moronic at the best of times, but especially when it carries a length jail term.

Just because Turkey is the "best of a bad bunch" doesn't mean its actually worthy of realistic globally democratic progressive praise, except in a polite sort of way, like how you would be kind to that amiable cousin that keeps bullying his little brother. You love him of course, you'll be polite to him, he has good points, but at the end of the day he's still a fucking moron.

Your "omg you were rude to Turkey" schtick is pretty weak as some sort of argument that attempts to justify the issue in question.

I can appreciate this, but I have to ask: Will our view on Middle Eastern intervention lend a 'great level of legitimacy' for 'future appreciation of reality?' Or is this legitimacy only valuable when it buttresses Europe's views, with no independent weight or validity? I know that the two are different issues, but I think there is a real, and important, problem here.

As everyone already knows, the Middle Eastern Intervention by the USA has indeed weakened its level of legitimacy on the world stage, infinitely, which is indeed a very real and important problem. Consider issues like these to somewhat counter the horrific foreign policy attitudes of the US in recent years.

Well, sure, Congress does this from time to time. However, the choice of when to pass such a resolution is always political and self-serving, so I kind of figured that everyone gave these resolutions the weight to which they're entitled (read: zero). It's simple arrogance on the Congress's part to think that they're meaningful.

Unlike you, I think that it is important for nations to commemorate the reality of a horrific genocide in which many innocent people lost their lives. Call me old fashioned.

PS: Turkey is a member of the United Nations. Why don't they have an ethical responsibility to pass such a resolutions? Why aren't they 'disgusting' and 'pathetic' for failing to do so?

PPS: If your answer is "they do have such a responsibility and are pathetic and disgusting for failing to do so," then all I have to say to your position is that it's completely divorced from any sense of reality.

On the contrary, I think it is you that is divorced from reality if you fail to understand that (imo) rightfully stating that Turkey's refusal to acknowledge its own history is "pathetic or disgusting" as a legitimate viewpoint.

Taking Europe as an example, as you are want to do, yet undeniably Europe's view is of significance right now, since of course Turkey is trying to join the EU after all (and failing, temporarily, for such reasons) - This is somewhat of a bone of contention, because there are no other reasons than pride and bullshit for such a denial.

I'm a big fan of international institutions, including the UN, and wish that other Americans would give them more credit and understand why they're valuable. That said, I wasn't aware that being a member of the UN was tantamount to assuming the responsibilities of the UN. We created the UN to handle those responsibilities.

Shared responsibility. Shirk your actual responsibility and you make the whole thing look weak (see Iraq).

This is a great shame. For everyone.

Again, interesting given what you think of American action when it doesn't agree with European consensus.

I think that's already well documented, is my opinion less valid simply because I disagree? Personally I think you're massively on a fruitless tangent attempting to associate me with wholesale European thinking. And even if you weren't, it would make about as much difference to the legitimacy of my arguments as yours, coming from the USA.

Which, as you will no doubt acknowledge, is not a legitimate debate technique, because lets face it, it's really little more than tribalism and xenophobia wrapped in a linguistically polite box.

There's 5.7 billion people in Europe now?

What? Go and research global support for the Iraq war, because that is where you're coming from here. You'll be shocked how few people ACTUALLY support George Bush's tactics on the global war on terror. I'm somewhat surprised you would take this tack, it's beneath you.

Seriously, I'm happy to stand in line to mock Bush's 'don't forget Poland!' moments, but there were a number of nations who sent troops to Iraq, and plenty of others who didn't appear to be particularly put off by it regardless of whether they contributed troops or not.

See above.

Also, I think it's pretty fair to say that Iraq is the most unpopular U.S. action in the international arena since 9/11

And since before even that too! But I'm glad we agree.

There is a BIG difference between "The United States Congress has not passed a resolution declaring that it considers this event to be a genocide" and "The United States has officially catalogued this event as 'not-a-genocide.'" You already know this, so...

I know this because the US is afraid it's already ridiculous war in Iraq is possibly going to start another retarded war, which the US will be forced to take responsibility for because of this issue.

Saving your own skin to save the skin of others is not heroic. Nevertheless, I can indeed see the "Big picture" to quote Midnyte, yet I fail to see appeasement as worthy above justice.

For example, if Turkey does indeed invade Northern Iraq, who's responsibility is it to defend Iraq? The United States? They are the country in control after all? Or is it Iraq? And can we expect a blind eye to be turned to yet another Kurdish genocide.

History repeating would fuck the US up beyond measure.

I'm not saying this is easy, or nice, but it's all been brought on at home, nowhere else. Blaming the Dems is missing the point, but blaming the Republicans has a point, they started this shitfest and now they wish to pass the buck?

Retarded.

This really, and above all, truly is the crux of the argument when we get down to it (not that you would see this sort of discourse progressing beyond "FUCK YOU DICKHEAD" on VV). Which no doubt you would go and blame me for anyway

This doesn't follow in the slightest.

Yes, actually, it does. It is entirely relevant. If chronology or longevity is the issue, we would never bother to remind students in our middle schools about the second world war. Don't be ridiculous man.

So go ahead and ignore the analogy (which I think, while not an exact correlate to the issue in question, raises thorny issues nonetheless) and respond to the 'can of worms' which you acknowledge exists.

Well, I've touched on them, to start us off, so feel free to get stuck in

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » October 18, 2007, 8:20 pm

Nick wrote:As everyone already knows, the Middle Eastern Intervention by the USA has indeed weakened its level of legitimacy on the world stage, infinitely, which is indeed a very real and important problem. Consider issues like these to somewhat counter the horrific foreign policy attitudes of the US in recent years.

So, if the US policy in the Middle East supports your views, it is legitimate. If it does not, it is not?

Also, where does the UN mandate that member nations must condemn another member nation's actions which took place before the UN existed? You keep claiming UN policies require this type of response, but it has done little (or nothing) with genocides that have (are) taken place since it was formed. Darfur, Rwanda, Tibet, etc..

Nick · Post by **Nick** » October 18, 2007, 8:36 pm

Boogahz wrote:So, if the US policy in the Middle East supports your views, it is legitimate. If it does not, it is not?

Except its not just me.

Also, where does the UN mandate that member nations must condemn another member nation's actions which took place before the UN existed?

Feel free to go re-read the thread again, your answers are already there. (Requires google search and reading :O).

You keep claiming UN policies require this type of response, but it has done little (or nothing) with genocides that have (are) taken place since it was formed. Darfur, Rwanda, Tibet, etc..

Actively, in terms of ground troops, yes. However, proclaiming such as incidents as "Genocide" is old news.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » October 18, 2007, 9:10 pm

Nick wrote:
Also, where does the UN mandate that member nations must condemn another member nation's actions which took place before the UN existed?
Feel free to go re-read the thread again, your answers are already there. (Requires google search and reading :O).

Where? You claimed it. I asked you to prove it. You said you already did. If you really think your claim is law...

The UN does condemn Genocide. That is not the part I challenged you on. Your claim that they require the government of a member nation to do so individually is pure bullshit. The US had already co-sponsored resolutions regarding genocide within the United Nations as well. The whole reason for condemning genocide is to help prevent it from happening again and creating a way to react in the event it does. By ignoring it, you are helping to say it is "okay" to commit it. Who was ignoring it by NOT passing this resolution? That is what you were asked earlier in the thread. There was no reason for it to be done now, or at any time in the near future. It had been addressed already. Hell, even the Armenians were moving on and acknowledging that doing so without the claims focused on the terrors of their past was proof of their resilience.

H.E. Mr. Vartan Oskanian - Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia at the 56th SESSION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY wrote: But the obvious must be said. The memory of the Armenian Genocide continues to haunt and obstruct Turkey's relations with Armenia. However, we are confident that this issue can be addressed between the two governments, through dialog. The events of the last two months reminded Armenians that man is indeed capable of immense, indescribable evil and that mass violence is not a thing of the past. Yet, if we, as the victims of Genocide, are unwilling to permit our own tragic past to define our actions in the future, we can confidently call on Turkey to do the same, and join us as equal participants in a dialog between our two peoples.

Nick wrote:Actively, in terms of ground troops, yes. However, proclaiming such as incidents as "Genocide" is old news.

I would think that this shows how the effectiveness of proclaiming these incidents as Genocide is not as great as the Genocide Convention was intending the reaction to be...which brings us back to, what does the US Congress passing this bill accomplish in regards to a genocide that took place almost a century ago rather than addressing genocide that takes place today?

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » October 18, 2007, 10:19 pm

Nick wrote:Thanks for replying so quickly, I'm pretty bored right now so this should be interesting to get the teeth into.

Thanks for YOUR reply! Sadly, I fell asleep between here and there, so this one is slower.

Nick wrote:Frankly, this is totally ridiculous. I do not accept as a legitimate criticism because the assumptions are based on nothing but the same old dumbass hypocritical American worldview that anyone from Europe who disagrees with aforementioned American worldview is "Euro-centric". Which is, in all honesty, pretty absurd when compared in context to the notorious and infamous US inward looking fishbowl attitude to the rest of the world.

I mean, I don't think you're the worst offender in the world, and I'll happily admit that making a sweeping blanket generalization about someone's attitudes is unfair and way to overbroad. Plus, I'll admit that some of Europe's values are becoming legitimate international values. Sometimes, however, I think this holds true, and I think it's often worth reflecting, in any individual case, whether there is ethnocentrism at play or not. I'm SURE that it's in play in my arguments at times.

Nick wrote:I won't be too critically insulting, in fact it will be the only one I do, but coming from an American, that really is rich.

You are the one turning this into a continental pissing contest, not me. Plus, we would totally win in a battle of wits!

Shrug. You know we were founded by Europeans, right? Our original Christian fundamentalists came from Europe, and you gave us such wonderful practices as the slave trade. We've been moving slowly away from colonialism and exploitation ever since. So has Europe, so it's not like we fled our revolting colonial master, but you were the teacher, we were the student. We could argue about it all day in terms of contemporary Europe v. contemporary America, but it's not a particularly fruitful discussion-- suffice it to say that the luxury that we BOTH enjoy is built on an awful lot of blood, and there's not a lot of moral high ground for either continent to stake out.

Nick wrote:Political correctness aside, Turkey is, compared to many countries, a fucking backwards nation. I've spent a good deal of time there and yes, of course, there are some great people, but its a muslim country first and foremost, and its attitude to the Kurds is outragous, to anyone with a brain.

Any country that passes a law outlawing "Anti Turkishness", needs a slap in the face frankly. Patriotism is moronic at the best of times, but especially when it carries a length jail term.

Backward with respect to what? European values?

I'll admit that Turkey could use some progress in many areas. I'll also argue that it's very successful in other areas. And I believe that, in some of the areas where the West claims that Turkey needs to make progress, Turkey is actually doing quite fine on its own, in line with its own cultural traditions. I'll also argue that America, along with many European nations, have plenty of areas that require significant progress, but we don't get called out on them because we're white, Christian, and western.

I'll also admit that I've never been to Turkey myself. I have done plenty of reading on it, and I do gain a bit of perspective from my roommate, who grew up in a non-touristy part of Turkey.

Nick wrote:Just because Turkey is the "best of a bad bunch" doesn't mean its actually worthy of realistic globally democratic progressive praise, except in a polite sort of way, like how you would be kind to that amiable cousin that keeps bullying his little brother. You love him of course, you'll be polite to him, he has good points, but at the end of the day he's still a fucking moron.

This is the kind of statement that lead people to make accusations of ethnocentrism, and it's the very attitude that all Muslim nations fear that the West secretly has but won't admit to. I think Turkey has pretty much moved as far away from Islam as most supermajority Islamic societies are willing to do. Muslim nations hearing that Turkey is equivalent to a 'fucking moron' cousin who you feed with 'polite' praise probably doesn't make them feel very confident about their ability to coexist as colleagues on a world stage with the West.

Fundamentally, your view is a lot closer to the 'clash of the civilizations' view espoused by American warhawks that mine.

Nick wrote:As everyone already knows, the Middle Eastern Intervention by the USA has indeed weakened its level of legitimacy on the world stage, infinitely, which is indeed a very real and important problem. Consider issues like these to somewhat counter the horrific foreign policy attitudes of the US in recent years.

And this is exactly why I read European ethnocentrism into your positions. Agreeing with Europe (or 'the world stage,' as you put it) = increased legitimacy, disagreeing with Europe (or 'the world stage') = weakened legitimacy.

Nick wrote:Unlike you, I think that it is important for nations to commemorate the reality of a horrific genocide in which many innocent people lost their lives. Call me old fashioned.

Shrug. I think that passing a resolution of no practical consequence commemorating one horrific act sets a precedent, and thereby devalues all the other horrific acts which we have not commemorates with resolutions of no practical consequence.

Nonbinding resolutions can have practical effects nonetheless. Take an example from my specialty (law): If Congress passes a resolution declaring that such and such a vague priority shall be the 'policy of the United States,' lawyers can then use that resolution in arguments about the interpretation of particular, vague points of the law. They can say 'well, as between these two feasible interpretations, option A is in line with the declared policy of the United States, while option B is not,' and this argument carries water. So it's not that nonbinding resolutions are worthless per se, because many of them do or can have real effects on American policy and behavior. I fail to see how this is one of them.

Nick wrote:On the contrary, I think it is you that is divorced from reality if you fail to understand that (imo) rightfully stating that Turkey's refusal to acknowledge its own history is "pathetic or disgusting" as a legitimate viewpoint.

Taking Europe as an example, as you are want to do, yet undeniably Europe's view is of significance right now, since of course Turkey is trying to join the EU after all (and failing, temporarily, for such reasons) - This is somewhat of a bone of contention, because there are no other reasons than pride and bullshit for such a denial.

Yeah, many parts of Europe have acknowledged some of their sordid history (oftentimes at gunpoint... cough, Germany, cough). And that's good and commendable. I don't for an instant think that Europe has performed anything even approaching a complete atonement, nor do I think they have any particular obligation to do so.

I guess it's a 'legitimate viewpoint' to think that it's disgusting for nations to own up to their past errors, but it's just so far away from how I approach matters of policy or politics that I find it tough to wrap my head around. I'm a pragmatist. I tend not to focus on things that are impossible, and I tend not to focus on things that have no more than symbolic importance. I think that the force of someone's criticism tends to be strongly blunted when they're criticizing for a failure to accomplish something impossible.

Nick wrote:Shared responsibility. Shirk your actual responsibility and you make the whole thing look weak (see Iraq).

But, I mean, we share responsibility via PARTICIPATION in the UN. We send delegates to the UN who are empowered to vote on issues just like this one. We help fund the UN. Hell, we house the UN.

And, not to dredge up this old debate again, but it's not like we were the only participant in the American-Iraqi war in violation of UN resolutions... there's some people who think that the UN's insistence to enforce its own resolutions regarding Iraq, even at the prodding of the US, makes the UN look weak. I don't happen to be one of them, because I understand that the UN has institutional limitations.

Nick wrote:I think that's already well documented, is my opinion less valid simply because I disagree?

No, you're welcome to disagree. However, you can't tell us that we have an obligation to act as the worlds superpower, and then crucify us whenever you disagree with us because you disagree with us. My whole point about Europe is that you can't sneak in your disagreement as a valid argument on its own by saying "5.7 billion people also disagree with you!" Especially when 5.7 billion people really means 'Europe.' Your opinion is valid but it requires support beyond the fact that it's your opinion and beyond the fact that others share it. But we're getting off the tracks here...

Nick wrote:What? Go and research global support for the Iraq war, because that is where you're coming from here. You'll be shocked how few people ACTUALLY support George Bush's tactics on the global war on terror. I'm somewhat surprised you would take this tack, it's beneath you.

Our of those people in the world who know where the fuck Iraq is and that we've got troops there, sure, I'll agree that the majority (a significant majority (including myself)) are opposed to the war. Of course, lots of these people were opposed to us going there, but do not therefore oppose every single action we have taken since then in the waging of the war.

My point was that extending this worldview to the whole world is illegitimate, largely because of the vast number of people who don't know that a place called Iraq even exists, because there are nations and people who do know it exists and support us, because there are nations and people who do know it exists and don't give a shit, and, most significantly, there are assloads of people who do know that it exists, oppose some of what we've done there, and support some of what we've done there.

Reality is a fuckton more complicated than your "300 million Americans vs 5.7 billion Earthlings" model.

Nick wrote:And since before even that too! But I'm glad we agree.

I'll agree with that addition, too.

Nick wrote:For example, if Turkey does indeed invade Northern Iraq, who's responsibility is it to defend Iraq? The United States? They are the country in control after all? Or is it Iraq? And can we expect a blind eye to be turned to yet another Kurdish genocide.

Interesting question. I'll admit that I have no idea what a Turkish intervention would look like and can't really comment. I do think that, if Turkey actually did start massacring Kurds, it would be the responsibility of the United States to defend them (although not necessarily the responsibility of the United States to intervene in any Turkish military action). I ought to look into it more.

I will say that I don't think the passage or non-passage of any resolution declaring something that the Ottoman Empire did several decades ago has any bearing on this issue.

Nick wrote:Yes, actually, it does. It is entirely relevant. If chronology or longevity is the issue, we would never bother to remind students in our middle schools about the second world war. Don't be ridiculous man.

Again, the history books and history teachers can say whatever they want. I don't think Congress has started writing textbooks via resolution yet. I mean, I understand that Congress passing this resolution would add a little bit of significance to the choice of term, but we probably just have a fundamental disagreement about how much (my position is that it's rapidly approaching zero).

Nick wrote:Well, I've touched on them, to start us off, so feel free to get stuck in

Well, the primary issue I was hoping you'd address here is: What are the limits of Congress's obligation to make historical and ethical pronouncements? In what circumstances should it be done, and in what circumstances should it be avoided?

Nick · Post by **Nick** » October 18, 2007, 10:27 pm

I'm literally 5 minutes from being picked up by the girlfriend, so I can't answer this tonight, but there are two points I will touch on before I leave.

I'll give a legitimate reply sometime either tomorrow or Saturday. It's been an interesting discussion so far.

but you were the teacher, we were the student.

You're talking to an Irishman, if anything, we were the ones fucked over more than most! Over a couple of hundred years! (Yes I'm being facetious, but still!)

Reality is a fuckton more complicated than your "300 million Americans vs 5.7 billion Earthlings" model.

Yep, I agree, I'll give this more time and speech as and when I return. I completely understand this point.

Speak to you soon

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » October 19, 2007, 12:53 pm

Nick wrote:I'm literally 5 minutes from being picked up by the girlfriend, so I can't answer this tonight, but there are two points I will touch on before I leave.

I'll give a legitimate reply sometime either tomorrow or Saturday. It's been an interesting discussion so far.

but you were the teacher, we were the student.
You're talking to an Irishman, if anything, we were the ones fucked over more than most! Over a couple of hundred years! (Yes I'm being facetious, but still!)

RULE BRITANNIA, BITCH!

I was going to make a worthwhile contribution here but your epic postings deflated me.