The Aremenian Genocide

[The Yankee]

The resolution in the House (which has no legal effect, it's merely a statement of opinion) just out and out failed in the House. But rather than House Speaker Nancy Pelosi admitting a defeat, if it was put off "indefinitely," then it will stay there for some time.

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

I do find it suspiciously odd that United States House came up with a bill that affirm a recognition of the Armenian Genocide and then cleverly postpone it indefinitely until after Turkey act in a more pro-active role in the affairs in northern Iraq. It is, I suspect, a political strategy to reward Turkey of a possible symbolic victory of having United States siding with them to justify their denial of their past crimes.

I do want to question that why is it that people who want Turkey to recognize the genocide when in fact it was not something that Turkey had committed since they are not even the Ottoman Empire anymore?

You ascribe a little too much malice, forethought, and cooperation than the US government is responsible for (or capable of for that matter) in this case.

The matter isn't all that complex. Democrats recently came to power in the House and Senate. Democrats like all of that human rights garbage, some districts do have sizable Armenian minorities, and they simply tried to pass a symbolic bill.

The Bush Administration explained how such an act would be damaging to US/Turkey relations at a time when we need their cooperation and convinced enough people to give up the effort. That's all there is to it. No political ploy. No conspiracy. Just Democrats trying to recognize a human rights atrocity, the president appealing to present day national interests, and the matter discarded without a vote.

Noone cared enough about the issue to actually fight it out. And when it was clear that it would hurt our interests and that there would be a fight if pursued, it was put on a permanent backburner.

 

[Humpty Dumpty]

You ascribe a little too much malice, forethought, and cooperation than the US government is responsible for (or capable of for that matter) in this case.

The matter isn't all that complex. Democrats recently came to power in the House and Senate. Democrats like all of that human rights garbage, some districts do have sizable Armenian minorities, and they simply tried to pass a symbolic bill.

The Bush Administration explained how such an act would be damaging to US/Turkey relations at a time when we need their cooperation and convinced enough people to give up the effort. That's all there is to it. No political ploy. No conspiracy. Just Democrats trying to recognize a human rights atrocity, the president appealing to present day national interests, and the matter discarded without a vote.

Noone cared enough about the issue to actually fight it out. And when it was clear that it would hurt our interests and that there would be a fight if pursued, it was put on a permanent backburner.

I make it complex because my speculation rest on the fact that the current United States' foreign policy in that geopolitical region cause a reactionary domestic agenda.

For example: Armenian constituents lobbying at the opportune time when Turkey is in the spotlight, and the democrats continuing to do anything to undermine the war.

A perfect marriage at the right time.

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

I make it complex because my speculation rest on the fact that the current United States' foreign policy in that geopolitical region cause a reactionary domestic agenda.

For example: Armenian constituents lobbying at the opportune time when Turkey is in the spotlight, and the democrats continuing to do anything to undermine the war.

Stuff like this doesn't just pop up overnight. If they got a bill considered, chances are whatever Armenians were involved had been lobbying for quite a while. Hell, there's likely been on and off efforts at this for years.

And America not recognizing the genocide largely because Turkey makes a useful ally...has also been going on for years. Nothing Republican or Democrat about it. There have been other efforts. And other failures. There's nothing the least bit suspicious of the timing here. We've been covering Turkey on this since the start of the Cold War. And there have been counter-efforts since about that long as well.

If the Dems were trying to undermine the war, they would have raised a fuss over this. They didn't.

 

[Ambidexter]

The Turks are claiming that they were the poor victims of the evil Armenian oppressors and anything that the Ottomans did to the evil Armenian oppressors was just self-defense. Notice how the evil Armenian oppressors forced the Ottoman army to evacuate the evil Armenian oppressors from their homes and march them into the desert. The evil Armenian oppressors insisted the tyrannized Ottomans commit atrocities, knowing that 90 years later the EU might decline Turkey's application to join the EU. What a diabolical plot.

 

[Humpty Dumpty]

Stuff like this doesn't just pop up overnight. If they got a bill considered, chances are whatever Armenians were involved had been lobbying for quite a while. Hell, there's likely been on and off efforts at this for years.

Don't you find it odd that the author of the bill has taken the timely circumstance to address it in front of the House?

And America not recognizing the genocide largely because Turkey makes a useful ally...has also been going on for years. Nothing Republican or Democrat about it. There have been other efforts. And other failures. There's nothing the least bit suspicious of the timing here. We've been covering Turkey on this since the start of the Cold War. And there have been counter-efforts since about that long as well.

They way I percieve it that Turkey may seem to be US ally in some degree, but I am looking at not their relationship. It seems to me that United States is pressuring Turkey in some way inorder for them to take an agressive role in that geopolitical conflict.

If the Dems were trying to undermine the war, they would have raised a fuss over this. They didn't.

Or silenced. Which brings to the point to look at the possibility of using this against republicans who happen to run for an election in a Armenian dominated district (or a district that have a substantial number of Armenian Americans or Armenian immigrants).

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

Don't you find it odd that the author of the bill has taken the timely circumstance to address it in front of the House?

No, not in the least. Republicans are unlikely to concern themselves with such things and Republicans have been in power in Congress for the past 15 years or so. Democrats just took control, a few months later this gets discussed. Unless there's a reason to believe something more sinister, it makes sense to go with the simplest explanation. Occam's Razor and all.

They way I percieve it that Turkey may seem to be US ally in some degree, but I am looking at not their relationship. It seems to me that United States is pressuring Turkey in some way inorder for them to take an agressive role in that geopolitical conflict.

What you're talking about would involve Democrats, Republicans and the Administration working in tandem to carry out a minor conspiracy to pressure Turkey towards some 'secret' foreign policy ends. And its nonsense. Our government is not a united block. And even if they were, they're simply not that competent. Think about what that would entail. Some Cheney crony going to Pelosi saying 'We want you to bring up a bill recognizing and condemning the Armenian genocide, than we're gonna come in as White Knights and shoot it down so that Turkey is greatful to us, all so that we can pressure them towards some ambiguous foreign policy end in the region...'

Its not gonna happen. The Democratic leadership isn't going to be a willing tool. And the Administration isn't that creative or that subtle.

Or silenced. Which brings to the point to look at the possibility of using this against republicans who happen to run for an election in a Armenian dominated district (or a district that have a substantial number of Armenian Americans or Armenian immigrants).

There aren't enough Armenians in any single, competitive state for this to matter. This isn't like the Cubans who can turn Florida. There is no Armenian population I know of that can swing a state that might go either way. This won't be an issue in the campaign. Most Americans have never heard of it.

All this was was a minority that found a sympathetic ear in the Democrats on one of their key issues, and once the Administration got wind of it, they asked the Democrats to table it in the interests of foreign policy and national interests. There's no reason to believe anything more complex or more sinister than that.

You are seeing conspiracies where there are none.

 

[Romanfe]

Ive always wondered how the influenza pandemic tied into those death figures. Some recent research indicates the deadly Typhus and Cholera was tearing its way across the Caucasus and Persia during the time period 1916 etc. when the genocide would have been in full swing.

Seven times as many Turkish soldiers died in Eastern Anatolia from disease than they did from combat during World War I.

 

[Humpty Dumpty]

You are seeing conspiracies where there are none.

Maybe I am. But you can't refute it, or affirm that it is not true; whether it is a conspiracy or not.

 

[Ur_Vile_Wedge]

You also can't refute that there are mole men living in the sewers of every major city, if I cite lack of any evidence to them being there as further proof that the government is in league with the mole men. If you're making a claim that something is other than business as usual, the burden of proof is on you, not the one defending the status quo.

 

[Humpty Dumpty]

There is no mole men? There! The proof!!!

 

[Ur_Vile_Wedge]

You haven't proven anything. You've called me on my failure to supply any real evidence to support my claim. That's different from logically proving something must be the case.

That's the point I'm trying to make about your arguement about the conspiracy. Going in and claiming something is the case, having no proof, and then saying "Well, since you can't prove me wrong, therefore my opinion must be at least plausible" is not logically correct. Otherwise, you have to admit the plausibility of mole men living in the sewers, since you can't prove they aren't there.

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

Maybe I am. But you can't refute it, or affirm that it is not true; whether it is a conspiracy or not.

See Wedge's post.

I have little patience for people who think an absence of evidence is evidence of anything.

 

[Humpty Dumpty]

You haven't proven anything. You've called me on my failure to supply any real evidence to support my claim. That's different from logically proving something must be the case.

That's the point I'm trying to make about your arguement about the conspiracy. Going in and claiming something is the case, having no proof, and then saying "Well, since you can't prove me wrong, therefore my opinion must be at least plausible" is not logically correct. Otherwise, you have to admit the plausibility of mole men living in the sewers, since you can't prove they aren't there.

Never said it is plausible. Just speculating. Are you raising doubt to my speculations? You sure are!

See Wedge's post.

I have little patience for people who think an absence of evidence is evidence of anything.

Correction: It an absence of evidence when the facts are not even discovered; and, the evidence of anything that is speculatory one .