How Turkey, Nancy Pelosi, and a 91 Year Old Genocide Could Mean Turmoil for Our Troops.

Maybe you can explain why your girlfriend is acting in such an irresponsible manner with an important US ally not only as concerns this war but the larger reason? One more reason, as if one needed another, why this nation should not trust the post-McGovern Democratic Party with safeguarding the nation.

Bill:

Nope. I won't explain it.

It's Congress's preogative. If this Resolution is "irresponsible," then Pelosi and the Members of Congress will answer for it to the People of the United States of America, not to some genocide-denying general of a foreign country.

Next question?

Why should the U.S. Congress surrender to extortion by a foreign sovereign military?

That's not the question at all. The real question is why should the Turkish Parliament surrender to extortion by a foreign sovereign military? Because, you see, that's what they've been doing for the last three years.

The only reason that Turkey hasn't gone after the PKK in Iraq is because the US has been pressuring them not to do so. As allies and fellow NATO members they've agreed.

Now the Turks are asking themselves why they're doing America any favors at all. It's not like America has been keeping their interests in mind....

Dennis:

That's not the question at all. The real question is why should the Turkish Parliament surrender to extortion by a foreign sovereign military?

That's far and away the best answer I've gotten yet, including your earlier and ridiculous "No one knows if if its genocide." I see Brandon dispensed with that in his headline.

The rejoinder is: You are correct. The Turkish parliament shouldn't surrender on this issue unless it is in their national interest to do so. However, there's an easy answer to this:

Now the Turks are asking themselves why they're doing America any favors at all

Because the USA is a Superpower and Turkey is not.

Now the Turks are asking themselves why they're doing America any favors at all

Because the USA is a Superpower and Turkey is not.

OK, but is that good enough? Let's face it, this is (or was) a reciprocal arrangement. The US needs Turkey just as much as Turkey needs the US.

Just look at this Incirlik issue. The US is scrambling to find an alternative, because they're relied so heavily on Turkey. 70% of supplies, 30% of fuel, 95% of the new mine-protected vehicles... If Turkey cuts that off before the US gets an alternative up and running, the war comes to a screeching halt.

I'm just trying to figure out where the vig is for Pelosi other than making life miserable for the Bush administration but perhaps that's vig enough.

The Armenian lobby is very wealthy and powerful.

Jack, I know you downplayed their budget before, but you were looking at it from a national perspective. The guy who sponsored this bill (whose name I forgot) and Pelosi are both from California. 3.6 million annually goes a hell of a long way towards congressional elections in one state, don't you think?

Dennis:

There's no such thing as "reciprocal" between a Superpower and an ordinary nation-state.

Having said that, if I accept your point for these specific circumstances, in terms of sovereign relations, That is, if the USA needs Turkey as much as Turkey needs the USA, then of course the person to be "blamed" for not "supporting" the troops is GEORGE W. BUSH for allowing the USA to fall into a position servile to Turkish interests.

Bill:

I'm just trying to figure out where the vig is for Pelosi ....

Oh, I could tell you that, but I won't.

Maybe I'll tell Dennis.

then of course the person to be "blamed" for not "supporting" the troops is GEORGE W. BUSH for allowing the USA to fall into a position servile to Turkish interests.

I wouldn't use the word "servile," more like he relied on them too much while giving them too little. But you're right. The current situation is, indeed, Bush's fault. All that Pelosi is really guilty of is cowtowing to lobbyists, and really bad timing.

The administration set up this whole scenario, which put them in a real bind. Helping the Turks would be helping Iran, too, but if they don't help the Turks everyone is screwed.

Not too smart, this administration.

Dennis:

Here's a clue for you.

FYI, this SAME RESOLUTION passed the SAME COMMITTEE almost exactly seven years ago today when both the Chamber and the Committee were controlled by Republicans.

For what the Turkish government now seems to think is no reason at all, around the time of World War I and for a few years afterwards, hundreds of thopusands of Armenians fled from Turkey to the United States, where they prospered and their population grew.

The vast majority settled either in Greater Boston or (mostly) in the Central Valley and Southern California. In fact, one of California's recent governors was an Armenian-American.

So no, the $3.6 million STILL doesn't mean @!$%#, especially in California where that's the price of HALF of ONE competitive campaign for Congress.

FYI, this SAME RESOLUTION passed the SAME COMMITTEE almost exactly seven years ago today when both the Chamber and the Committee were controlled by Republicans.

Yeah, I know. It's not a partisan issue. Hell, lobbyists don't care who they lobby. Whomever is in office will do. And yes, i know southern California has a large Armenian population. They have large Turkish population too.

So far, there haven't been any genocides in Orange County. Let's hope it stays that way.

Dennis:

As I said elsewhere--there'd never be "good" timing, so complaining about "bad" timing is pointless.

The administration set up this whole scenario, which put them in a real bind.

That's why I've been such @!$%# to the righties on this. Bush Administration bungling has created this situation. The actual act of complicating the logistics in Iraq is being threatened by a foreign sovereign. The Dems are enemies of America because Bush is a @!$%# up and the Turkish military doesn't like being confronted on genocide-denial?

I was with you right up to the end, but then...

and the Turkish military doesn't like being confronted on genocide-denial?

Nah, the military probably couldn't care less, What they don't like is being kept on this side of the border, while the enemy is on the other side, by that "foreign sovereign military" you mentioned. And if this is the straw that broke the camel's back, and pushes Parliament to give them the green light, they're not going to complain.

Dennis:

Yeah, point taken. I was being a little edgy there.

To be perfectly frank, I suspect the Turkish government is simply using this issue as cover to do what they're going to do anyway.

And I think there's a better way for the U.S. government to handle it, but unfortunately, that would require a true statesman in the White House instead of the Simpleton currently resident.

To be perfectly frank, I suspect the Turkish government is simply using this issue as cover to do what they're going to do anyway.

Yep.

And I think there's a better way for the U.S. government to handle it, but unfortunately, that would require a true statesman in the White House instead of the Simpleton currently resident.

Yep, again.

Kevork:

I think the Massachusetts delegation is 100% in support.

Brandon:

So.

How about BLAMING THE TURKS FOR NOT ALLOWING US TO USE THEIR BASES?

What kind of "ally" are they if they get all huffy over a little thing like recognizing genocide?

What kind of "ally" are they if they get all huffy over a little thing like recognizing genocide?

What kind of ally are we for promising to help with a terrorist problem that we made worse, and then not doing so?

Dennis:

That's what we should be doing. We should cut a deal with the Iraqi Kurds to get them to quash Kurdish subversives in Turkey.

We got things the Iraqi Kurds might like.

What kind of ally are we for promising to help with a terrorist problem that we made worse, and then not doing so?

But what does that have to do with the genocide, though? If Turkey has a cause to take action against Kurdish terrorists, then they should take action - they shouldn't do it because of a vote in the US Congress. And, for the record, if Turkey passed a resolution condemning US treatment of native Americans, years ago, I don't think too many people would mind - certainly not most of the people (IMHO) who seem to be minding this.

On the other hand - what's Congress got to do with it, anyhow? It's not their business, so far as I know, to decide what is, or isn't, a century-old genocide.

Brandon:

With all due respect, .... um, no, I can't say what I want to say with due respect. In any event:

You're NOT blaming those who actually "deprive our soldiers of needed supplies," but you are blaming people who just want to pass a resolution that tells a historical truth?

Brandon:

Good.

Now is "anytime."

Now is especially anytime because the the Turlish government is denying genocide.

We should cut a deal with the Iraqi Kurds to get them to quash Kurdish subversives in Turkey.

How do you get Kurds to fight other Kurds? because that's what it amounts too, Jack. The PKK aren't leaving those bases unless they're forced out.

If Turkey has a cause to take action against Kurdish terrorists, then they should take action - they shouldn't do it because of a vote in the US Congress.

They're not. The Turkish army has had a huge presence on the border for the last 8 months. They've been itching to go in, but the US has pressured them to stay out. This vote, if anything, will make them stop listening to the US and do what they would have done anyway.

This vote, if anything, will make them stop listening to the US and do what they would have done anyway.

Then we should be at that border waiting to kill us some turkies!

You really don't know what any of this is about, do you...

Nah, there's a lot more too it than that.

Brandon:

No. What the Resolution does not support is genocide-denial.

You do seem to support genocide-denial, though.

Well, yes, it also has to do with some timely lobbying cash.

Brandon, don't fall for that "denial" trick. This is not about denial. It's about weasel Democrats who are bound and determined to "support" the troops one way or another. They do not want us in Iraq at election time, even though it's clear we'll be there for some time.

'roads:

What "time" are you talking about?

1997? 2000? 2002? 2004? 2006? or 2007?

Brandon:

What other time?

Do you think the Turks are ever going to say, "Yeah. Okay. Now's as good a time as any to stop denying historical truth."

And, dude, if we "lose" a "big ally" over this, they weren't a "big ally" to begin with.

Brandon:

We certainly don't need a bunch of blackmailing Turkish thugs as "allies."

Jack, you're way off base. You obviously have very little understanding of the relationship between the US and Turkey.

Everybody else... you're vastly overstating the importance of this resolution. Yes, it has pissed off the Turks, and will cause problems in US-Turkey relations. But when it comes to the Turks going into Iraq, they were going in anyway. The only question was when. And the longer the US failed to deliver on it's promise to help, the worst the relationship got, and the more Turkey was inclined to just say @!$%# it and go in.

This has been coming for a long time, folks. The resolution just put it over the top.

Dennis:

I'm not overstating anything.

I'm countering the overstatements on the other side of the aisle, and the lies, libels, false accusations and other idiocies they're perpetrating.

They're setting up a "Stab in the Back" scenario so they can blame the Democrats for Bush's royal @!$%# up.

Were you so concerned with the Armenian genocide before this resolution was passed in the House, jfxgillis? This is pure self-interest on the part of Pelosi and company. You can't deny that. Or can you? I can't remember a more cynical use of a genocide. Clearly, she has no idea of the implications. Sadly, a whole whack of bleeing heart liberals will fall all over this, un-pragmatic that they are. This is not about human rights. It is cold political calculation. It could be also a self-inflicted wound.

indefindo:

As a matter of fact, I've followed this issue, but not closely, for years, as you can probably tell if you read this and a couple of the other threads since I'm the only person who seems to have any background facts on the legislative history of this resolution.

"Pure" self-interest? No, it's not. Like all political actions, it's probably motivated by a complex mixture of good faith determination of national interest and personal ambition.

And, actually, she probably had a pretty good idea of the implications since something similar happened in October 2000 when the SAME RESOLUTION passed the SAME COMMITTEE except while it was under REPUBLICAN control, and oh by the way, the Republicans motives in that case were far, far more suspect than the Democrats motives are now.

The Dems, at least, have shown a long-time consistent support for this resolution despite sometimes loud complaints (and earlier threats and attempted blackmail) by the Turkish government.

They do not want us in Iraq at election time, even though it's clear we'll be there for some time.

Arrah no, make no misthake, we want yiz in Iraq at iliction time, but fri'ndless an' with th' whole place in flames, th' way yiz were warrunned 'twas goin' t' be. Maybe a few Turkish bullets will t'aych yiz that even th' allies yiz are so boastful of don't want yiz there. Arrogance must have its price, an' ofthen enough th' currency is flesh, not florins. Yiz've imbraced th' tar baby an' now 'tiz time t' ignite it so it burns yiz f'r a thousand years. More's th' pity 'tis not yer own sons an' daughters will do th' dyin', but yiz wouldn't have thim be cannon foddher, would yiz? No, 'tis betther t' have other paypul's childhern do yiz's fightin' f'r yiz, isn't it?

Th' moral of this is clear: Don't take th' nation into war on false prethenses, f'r when yer lies is exposed (an' they always will be) yiz will have two wars on yer hands, foreign an' domesthic.

It isn't about humiliating their government, it's about a voting bloc of influential Armenians. Nevertheless, calling a genocide a genocide shouldn't be a bad thing - might as well get mad at me for calling the sky blue. But you're right - I don't know why it's Congress' business in the first place. Brandon's claim ("it's anti-troop!") is pretty ridiculous - but he's right that it'll cause trouble with an ally we shouldn't be pissing off just about now, and for what amounts to local politics.

Chasing:

Actually, Congress has wasted hardly any time on it at all. They breezed through it in committee.

The Republicans and other assorted righties seem to be wasting a lot of time on it, though.

It isn't about humiliating their government

Well, true, I don't know why we'd deliberately do that. The fact of the matter is that's what's coming of the situation. We're humiliating them and pissing them off over something they're doubtlessly still sensitive about.

Brandon:

No, you're spending a lot of time on it because it's any easy way to blame the Democrats for the fact that Bush is a @!$%#-up and the Turks are @!$%#s.

Brandon:

Go check the other Turkey/Armenian genocide threads.

I'm calling all you righties out.

And no, it's about how the Turkish government is interfering in the American legislative process by extortion and blackmail. It's none of their @!$%#ing business what we pass as a Sense of the House Resolution.

Why the hell are you righties so willing to yield to Turkish blackmail? And to defend thuggish genocide-denying foreign generals in their confrontation with the United States House of Representatives?

Brandon:

It's their business if we are accusing their people as murderers.

So what? They ARE Murderers. If they don't like it, they can lump it.

Perfesser, cursing and name-calling reveals you know you're wrong on this.

Children, please...

I agree with what the both of you are saying, but stop getting so emotional. It's impractical. This separation is what's causing turmoil in the first place. We shouldn't be pointing fingers and saying "the left did this, the right did that, republicans this, democrats that" because it just turns into a childish game of he-said-she-said (remember high school? this is real life).

The fact of the matter is that both parties are equally responsible for the issues in our country. Not only that, but neither of them give a flying @!$%# about US, the American people. Their concerns are enforcing their own little personal agenda... and... well... that's about it.

Regardless of our alignment, be it republican, democrat, or whatever, all the bull@!$%# that's going on affects all of us. We will all suffer if we don't do anything about it.

What I'm wonder is, what the @!$%# are we going to do about it? Nothing? Something?

Jack's just peevish because now a number of Democrats, including Jack Murtha, are turning on his girlfried Mizz Armani Pelosi.

Bill:

I like this outcome. A LOT.

What's not to like for me?

The eventual invasion of Iran under the Democratic Congress and president?

Actually, Congress has wasted hardly any time on it at all.

I never said that it did; I think you have me confused with someone else. ;)

I do have a question for you, though, since I'm posting a reply anyway: What if Iraq stated that they will consider an incursion by Turkey to be an act of war, and would consider replying in kind? I know they realistically can't, but could try to provoke a war, which would by its nature involve two NATO allies. Would the US defend Iraq? Overthrow its government? And what then of "sovereignty"?

Chasing:

And it wouldn't really be Iraq's sovereignty violated, but the Kurdish provinces' quasi-sovereignty.

We're trying to remain friends with two national entities that are bitter foes, the Kurds and Turks.

It would more of a cluster@!$%# than it has been.

Ultimately, we'd have to decide who to favor. Not good. And especially not good if Bush is the "Decider" because he sucks at it.

At this point, the Kurdish region is still a part of sovereign Iraq, so while in reality it might not amount to a violation of sovereignty, technically it would be. I don't think Iraq would threaten war with Turkey over this - but the question is "what if"? If Iraq did - and there'd be plenty of precedence on their side - what would our response be? Because if Turkey said fine, yes, sure, war it'll be, and proceded to seize chunks of Iraq (Kurdistan), would we fight them? Sit and do nothing? Overthrow the Iraqi government? If I were an Iraqi politician, trying to unite a fraction electorate, I might well consider this to be a good way to do so, and an opportune time - better now, than when US forces have left.

chasing:

I don't think Iraq would threaten war with Turkey over this -

Ahah! That be the point. The central "government" of "Iraq" might not, but you can bet your bippy that the Kurdish provincial government and their pesh merga, probably the best militia in Iraq, would defend Kurdish soil.

Sure, if it were under attack, which of course, it isn't. And won't be.

Just. the. PKK. bases.

But their territory would be invaded the Turks exercising armed aggression on their fellow countrymen.

Dennis:

Are you just pretending not to understand human nature? Or do you really think arguments like that fly in situations like this Popular sentiment among the Kurds is not going to accept "Oh. It's just the PKK bases. Thanks, Turks."

It'll be Turkish soldiers on Kurdish soil killing Kurdish partisans. The mainstream Kurdish population will be hostile to the Turks and sympathetic to the PKK.

Perhaps, though there will be plenty of Kurdish people who will be happy to see this Turkish terrorist group removed from their soil.

The PKK aren't Iraqis. They're Turkish citizens.

Dennis:

I'm not being flip: You're being too rigidly rationalistic.

The question goes to group identity, and the people involved here feel a strong bond as "Kurds" than they do as "Turks" or "Iraqis." That's just human nature.

The most pernicious problem of the nation-state world order for the 400 years or so has been evident in exactly situations like this, where the operative group identity and national borders do not coincide very well (or at all, as in this case).

No matter how much the mainstream Kurds in Iraq might dislike or despise the PKK, when it's Turks killing Kurds, popular sentiment will go with the operating group identity--not rationality and not nation-state borders.

Jack, this society is not as separated as you seem to think.

The Turkish military includes thousands of Kurds. Tens of thousands. They've already been fighting the PKK for decades. Kurdish civilians in the southeast have fought back against the PKK, and many have died for that, or for not being willing to help the PKK. These guys murder civilians - Turks and Kurds.

I understand what you're saying, but you don't get the mindset here. It's not me being nationalistic, it's the reality. This society is amazingly nationalistic, and the vast majority of the Kurds here consider themselves to be Turkish, as well as Kurdish.

You're misrepresenting the situation when you say things like:

We're trying to remain friends with two national entities that are bitter foes, the Kurds and Turks.

Because they're not bitter foes, or foes at all. The Kurds, and this includes Iraqi Kurds, feel a lot more brotherhood towards the Turks than they ever will, or have, towards other Iraqis. Over the last twenty years many sought refuge in Turkey, fleeing Saddam. And Turkey let them in.

This isn't Turk vs. Kurd at all, and to keep stating it that way is, at best, intellectually lazy.

Dennis:

The Turkish military includes thousands of Kurds. Tens of thousands. They've already been fighting the PKK for decades. Kurdish civilians in the southeast have fought back against the PKK, and many have died for that, or for not being willing to help the PKK.

That may be true for Turkey (although I doubt it) but it won't be true in Iraqi Kurdistan if Turkey invades. Both Arab and Jew in the Holy Land. Ulster. South Africa. How many times can similar pattertns repeat themselves before you see the pattern? No matter how much national entities hate their own terrorists, they hate the alien invaders worse.

Of course it's true, Jack. Perhaps you aren't aware that military service is compulsory in Turkey. Every male citizen serves in the military regardless of ethnicity.

The bottom line here is that as long as Turkey only goes after the PKK, who are Turkish citizens, the Iraqi Kurds will stay out of it. They don't want a war with Turkey. They've got enough problems.

Dennis:

Oh. So the Turks are going send across Kurdish units of the Turkish Army to kill Kurds on Kurdish soil in Iraq?

Lemme know how that works out for you.

No. Turkey is going to send the Turkish army (which includes Turkish Kurds) over the border to kill the PKK (Terrorist Turkish Kurds) on Iraqi soil. Just like they've done a few times before. See how that works?

By the way, there are no "Kurdish Units." That would be like having an Irish unit in the US army.

That would be like having an Irish unit in the US army.

Which there was. The Irish Brigade

Jack, there are 14,000,000 Kurds in Turkey. There are bound to be many Kurds in the Turkish army, especially with compulsory service.

Dennis:

Come on. The whole point of the current situation is to send the Turkish Army over in force and numbers, not just to continue the minor cross-border skirmishes. I kinda got that from the article you seeded this morning. There's a difference of both kind and degree in the proposed action compared to previous actions.

Moreover, whether there are Kurdish units or not, the Turkish government would neccessarily have to rely on some Kurds to kill their cousins. Think that will happen?

Didn't even read my answer, did you?

It has happened many times. Turkey has sent troops into Iraq after the PKK before. Many of those troops were Turkish Kurds.

So, yes, it will happen. Again.

Here, I'll give you an analogy that unlike yours, actually fits the situation.

Imagine a group of ethnically Mexican Americans in, say, Los Angeles. This group decides that they want southern California to be separated from the US. So, over the years they arm themselves, all the while blowing stuff up in major American cities.

After almost 30 years, the Mexican government is overthrown by, say, Iceland. So, these Mexican terrorists, who are US citizens, take advantage of the power vacuum and set up bases in northern Mexico. From there they stage their attacks, then scurry back over the border.

America wants to go in after them, but Iceland says no, don't.

Now, should America go anyway or should they fear that the Mexicans who live there will help the US terrorist Mexicans just because they're all Mexican? Do you think the Mexican Mexicans will help the Mexican terrorists from the US, against the US?

Wouldn't th' Icelandic Mexicans put a sthop t' th' whole thing though?

Dennis:

I did read your answer. So let me ask you a question.

What's the difference between those previous incursions and the action just authorized by the Turkish parilament three days ago?

Your analogy is idiotic, not least of all because my reference was to similar and real events elsewhere in the world and a matter of recored history. Yours is just imagination, and oh btw:

Do you think the Mexican Mexicans will help the Mexican terrorists from the US, against the US?

The anwser is YES>, so long as "Mexican" as a group identifier is stronger than other group identifiers. For your (as I said, idiotic) analogy to work, those Mexican Mexicans would have to more strongly identify with Iceland than with the Mexican terrorists from the U.S.

My p'int exactly.

The difference?

The US is in power, not Saddam Hussein, and the size of the force.

He allowed it, and this time they want to stop them cold, if possible.

And my analogy, though invented, would be exactly the same scenario.

Dagda, there are no Icelandic Mexicans, any more than there are US Kurds.

Kurds will be Kurds

Scarlet:

If this is what " could ignite the wider conflict in the Middle East" then it was going to be ignited anyway.

I think we should be outraged that the people in Washington that are supposed to be representing us can callously push through something that could ignite the wider conflict in the Middle East before George gets his chance to bomb Iran just to gain votes.

Bingo! (and Jack, listen up...)

Turkey isn't the only country having this problem. As the PKK hit targets in Turkey, then run back to the safety of the Kandil mountains, their sister organization, the PJAK, is doing the same thing to Iran. Why do you think Washington hasn't let Turkey go in? If Turkey goes in, Iran goes in. And the US knows that. If Iran goes in, what will the response be?

The US will have to fight Iran. Iran becomes a natural ally to Turkey (how weird is that?) while Turkey, an ally of the US, is cutting relations with the US.

There aren't going to be clear sides here, folks. It's going to be 1915 all over again.

Dennis:

You seem to be confused. If this is true:

As the PKK hit targets in Turkey, then run back to the safety of the Kandil mountains, their sister organization, the PJAK, is doing the same thing to Iran.

then THAT'S what "could ignite the wider conflict," not some House Resolution.

Aaarrgh.

Yeah, ok, except that Turkey wasn't going in. They were listening to Washington. Holding back. Giving the Americans time to work on it. Being patient. Biding their time.

Now they're not.

Dennis, thanks for all your comments in here so far. I had been hoping for an article by you on this topic. Not that you exactly cheered me up :)

I've seeded a bunch of them, and I've been talking about this for three or four days straight.

I'll wait for something to happen before I write about it. Unfortunately, it may be a short wait.

Dennis:

The point I'm making is that those judgements by the Turkish government are independent of some House Resolution which has been on the House calendar for at least ELEVEN YEARS, has come before the Foreign Relations committee for a vote at least six times and has already at least once before gotten as far as this version has.

The points you're making go to substantive issues of true national interests, of the Americans, Iranians and the Turks, and the expression of national aspirations on the part of the Kurds. We can argue and agree or disagree about those substantive points.

But this argument that American troops are going to die because Pelosi allowed this Resolution to pass is pure demogogic falsehood. It's a LIE.

mossberg:

The current Turkish goverment had nothing to do with the killings that occured.

Then why are they so pissed off about it?

Hmm..., perhaps because it is always phrased by the revisionists as the one-side actions of Turks against Armenians? Because of the calls for the current Turkish government to pay reparations? Because the Turks are continually portrayed as the bad guys and the Armenians as peace-loving and blameless?

Many tens of thousands were killed on both sides over the couple decades of fighting (although the revisionists suggest that almost 2 million Armenians died, despite a current population of only about 3.5 million). It was clearly a horrible and tragic situation, but for one side of a multi-sided conflict to frame itself as a blameless victim is unfair to the millions of Turks and Aremenians alive today who are not responsible for the conflict of their fathers.

The current Turkish goverment had nothing to do with the killings that occured.

Heh. The current Turkish nation had nothing to do with it. It was the freaking Ottomans!

While I agree with most of what ye say, Mossberg, th' current Jarman nation had nothin' t' do with th' Holocaust an th' current Japanese nation had nothin' t' do with th' rape of Nanking, but ye don't see them gettin' t' duck responsibility f'r either. Did Turks kill Armenians? They did. End of sthory.

Very good. What we have on this thread is a lot of sound and fury signifying little. It is not the job of the US House of Represenatives to delve into a historical controversy but when there's cash involved and a large constituency to be pandered to in a Congressman's (in this case Adam Schiff) district all bets are off.

Bill:

It is not the job of the US House of Represenatives to delve into a historical controversy

Indeed it is.

At any rate, there's no "controversy." Except for Turks denying genocide and Republicans supporting that denial.

And, um, I'm going to ignore the cheap shot at Adam Schiff for now. But don't do it again, or I'll show you what a real cheap shot looks like.

Is it really that important to throw the sins of our fathers in one another's faces?

Have we ever called what we did to the Indians genocide?

Does it matter?

"The Armenians were subjected to a genocidal campaign that defies comprehension and commands all decent people to remember and acknowledge the facts and lessons of an awful crime in a century of bloody crimes against humanity. If elected President, I would ensure that our nation properly recognizes the tragic suffering of the Armenian people." (George W. Bush 2-19-2000).

'Twas OK f'r candy-date Jarge Bush t' mintion it; why is it so hard f'r Prisidint Jarge Bush t' recall it now? An' how betther to "properly recognize the tragic suffering of the Armenian people" than in a Congressional resolution condemning that genocide? 'Tisn't loike we can undo th' killin's, ye know?

Jim:

Non-critical thinking.

The "troops" have been in the middle of a "political food fight" since mid-September 2002.

They've been cannon fodder since about Fall of 2003.

Why is the timing suspicious? This is at least the sixth Congress in a row that this Resolution has been introduced. What "timing" would you prefer? Three months ago? Three months from now?

Jim you are sooo right..but I`m afraid the damage is done....

Jack...

The "troops" have been in the middle of a "political food fight" since mid-September 2002.

Agreed, but do we need to add to that? My concern is getting them out of Iraq, without putting them in additional danger or needlessly making their life more difficult. I see your point in all this... hell, I see both sides of the argument, but I don't support something that will in all likelihood make the troops situation worse. What Pelosi and gang are doing is whacking a hornets nest with absolutely no idea the consequences. Why? One of the things that pissed me off so much about the decider in chief was that he pretty much pissed off the whole world in his zeal to see Saddam dangle on a rope. Why should I suddenly support someone who is essentially doing the same thing... pissing off one of the few allies we have? I'll repeat what I said in another article on this... It's not a congressional matter, it's a matter for historians to sort out. Congress has no business passing "historical" resolutions... and yes, I know they have in the past, that don't make it right. Legislating history? Do we really need that?

Jim:

One of the prices we pay as a nation for driving ourselves into Constitutional gridlock as we have is the lives of the troops will be more difficult. In fact, additional troops will probably become casualties because of it. It's a cruel thing, and hard to swallow, but that doesn't make what I said untrue.

When the stakes are high politics, people die.

Turkey is not an ally, or at least, not a reliable ally.

People keep saying this isn't a matter for Congress. Yes it is. "Sense of this House" resolutions have always been in the legislative process, going back, I believe, to the British Parliament. We've been doing this for hundreds of years.

And no, it isn't just for historians. Establishing a legislative history defining what is and isn't "genocide" is actually an extremely important act, especially so in this case because the country involved is nominally an ally, not despite the fact.

Jack - the Ottoman Empire is no more. We do not punish our allies like this particularly at time of war when we need them (and they know it).....French has not always been a reliable ally either - allies do not always behave the way we want them to - doesn't mean they are not allies.

lisa:

The opposite is just as true. If the Ottoman Empire is no more, then why the hell is the current Turkish government having a temper tantrum?

Jack - there is a reason why this resolution has heretofore never gone to vote....Wow! Way to go Nancy---she gets it to a vote at the WORST possible time....lets weigh the pros & cons of doing this vis a vis AMERICAN interests at time of war......

What war, lisa? I thought we were in an extended period of shopping! When the draft comes then we'll be at war.

Waning is right...it really is amazing how invested in defeat the left is.

We are not invested in defeat of American democracy; it is we— the progressives — who are democracy's lone supporters. But we will see that American fascism is smothered to death in its Rovian cradle!

Progressives? Right.

Rather like cursing oneself, don't you think?

So what has the U.S. gained from not putting this resolution forward as a negotiating tool?

The resolution as a negotiating tool? hell the negotiations were going fine until the resolution!

PH:

That would be highly amusing, since that would leave things this session of Congress in exactly the state things were in in the 106th Congress, which was Republican-controlled.

Basically yes, except for this:

Turkey is in the brink of a large border incursion in order to go after the Kurds.

Turkey has no intention of going after "the Kurds." They are going after the PKK, a separatist group formed of Turkish Kurds in the late 70s in Turkey. The PKK use bases in Iraq to stage attacks within Turkey, and are classified as terrorists by Turkey, the US and the EU.

I'll Go On:

Um. No.

The Democrats have brought it up for a vote at least once in each of the last six Congresses.

lisa:

Sigh. Of course it won't get through the Senate. It's a "Sense of the House" resolution.

And she probably scheduled it months ago.

And, frankly, charming conservative or not, I'm getting sick to death of Republicans blaming Democrats for the threats made by a FOREIGN COUNTRY against AMERICAN INTERESTS and the support for genocide-denial you all buy into so easily.

By what standard of "patriotism" do you justify the military leaders of a foreign country blackmailing the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives?

By what standard of "patriotism" do you justify the military leaders of a foreign country blackmailing the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives?

What blackmail? She pissed them off...and they got pissed off.

Jack - as far as I'm concerned - Nancy is outside her jurisdiction here and she is making your party look foolish.....her resolution is about something that happened so long ago why piss off Turkey now? We need them.

Jack - whether or not it is true - the perception is she is pandering to an Armenian interest group at the expense of our country....not good. Sorry, charlie.

Jack - PS - and I know I don't need to spell this out for you but I will - pissing off Turkey, Nancy, runs counter to American interests.

lisa:

the perception is she is pandering to an Armenian interest group ....

Let's say I accept that.

Pelosi is pandering to an American constituency that has an honestly-held longtime grievance.

Bush is pandering to bunch of genocide-denying thugs.

You pays your money and you takes your choice. I like my side in this.

I like my side in this.

Jack 16.6 - does Nancy ever do anything that you disagree with ever? I know you have a little crush on her but your support of her here seems a stretch - I've heard of several high profile types in your party who are speaking out against her on this - not to mention the fact that every living secretary of state has spoken out against it. Nancy always knows best though am I right?

lisa:

As I told Bill elsewhere, it's okay with me if the Resolution stops here, i.e., passing out of committee but with floor action unscheduled, if for no other reason that when the @!$%# hits the fan a month ot two from now, this fake phony bull@!$%# issue won't be claimed as the "reason."

Jack - well, that makes more sense then. The bottom line is that Turkey is a muslim country and a democracy......pretty crucial for us to support them....even though they recently seem to be making some poor choices.

Quite right, unless it's a calculated effort to undermine our troops and our national interests. I wouldn't put it past Pelosi et al.

Backroads - I agree with you 100%.....if those aren't her motives that is clearly the perception.....she has made a major miscalculation here.

Madame Speaker has had a bad few days. She miscalculated. What was it I heard today on NPR? Something about she doesn't run Congress alone. It's a team effort.

I thought this seed was about poulthry. My misthake.

Oh I thought 'twas th' mate turkey, th' kind ye'd ate, y'know? I was only afther sayin' chicken is much ch'aper this week-end at Super Quinn.