Bush is right about Turkey

Great Debates
61

[QUOTE=xtisme]
I wasn’t aware that America denied its roles and responsibilities in what happened to the Native American’s. Much more so than, say, the Europeans such as the Spanish have fessed up to THEIR responsibilities. Maybe you could point out to me where the official position of the US is to deny what the country did during that period?

-XT
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think America or Americans deny what happened to the Native Americans. However, like Turks today they do deny that genocide was the motivation. For example, look at this thread: Did Andrew Jackson SAVE the Cherokee?. I’ll admit that it’s been a few years since my last American History course. My memory is that while we did go over incidents such as the trail of tears, I don’t ever remember being taught that it was the policy of the American government to commit genocide against the native population. What amounted to the genocide of the native people was cast in the light of border conflicts, and the need for land of the expanding American population. Not much different from the Turkish casting of the Armenian genocide in the light of WWI if you ask me.

62

[QUOTE=xtisme]
I just wonder if this is some loopy backdoor way to force a change or something in Iraq.
[/QUOTE]

Bingo.

63

[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
I agree. I think the last thing anyone wants is to make out situation in Iraq more complicated.
[/QUOTE]

You are cute when you are naive…

64

Heck, I’m cute all the time. But if you’ve got an opinion you’d share with us, you’re going to have to say it out loud.

65

[QUOTE=nowayatall222]
You are cute when you are naive…
[/QUOTE]

Watch out for those black helicopters.

66

[QUOTE=elucidator]
… Best test: send them Kissinger as ambassador. If they don’t instantly string him up, they’re ours.
[/QUOTE]
If only every problem had a win-win solution!

CMC fnord!

67

Could this be related to the current situations with the Kurds. IFAIK, modern Turkey hasn’t advanced much in their treatment of minority groups.

68

[QUOTE=treis]
My memory is that while we did go over incidents such as the trail of tears, I don’t ever remember being taught that it was the policy of the American government to commit genocide against the native population.
[/QUOTE]

Well, a couple of things here since this just flew by with no one commenting on it. First off, again, the US government has, afaik, not denied its responsibility in such things as the Trail of Tears. Oh, its possible that in the past the did, though I’m unaware of it if so. But certainly the government today takes responsibility for past actions such as this and doesn’t deny what was done.

Secondly, at least IMHO, it wasn’t ‘genocide’…it was simply horrific and dispicable. Genocide would have been an attempt to systematically wipe out those people…which would have been much more easily accomplished by shooting them outright instead of marching them to a reservation. This isn’t to say that the government didn’t intend a certain percentage of those people to die (they did), nor that they shed tears when this happened (they didn’t, especially Jackson)…but to compare this to what the Turks did to the Armenian’s is pretty over the top. IIRC over a million Armenian’s were killed either directly or by MANY marches such as the Trail of Tears…while, again from memory it was somthing like 5000-10000 who died on the Trail of Tears. Not that the lower body count excuses the US governments actions at the time…but we are talking about several orders of magnitude difference here. As well as the fact that the US government DOES fess up to what it does.

YMMV…I’m not seeing the comparison myself. Personally I think genocide WAS attempted on the native population here in the new world. But it was mostly done by your Euro buddies, especially the Spanish. The US had its share too and doesn’t get excused, but it was the Spanish that pretty much destroyed the culture and civilization here…AND managed to put several MILLION natives in the ground too boot. Kind of puts things in perspective…and the Turks (not to mention the American’s) look like pikers in comparison.

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Watch out for those black helicopters.
[/QUOTE]

Out of curiosity, what part is crazy? I mean, I can certainly see how one could put the best spin on it and say that the Politicians (they are POLITICIANS after all) are simply ignorant blowhards who don’t have a clue what effect their hot air can have to an ally. And I suppose they COULD be equally ignorant of the effect on our logistics to Iraq that goes through Turkey as well. Again, they ARE politicians. I get that.

But I don’t think this is in the black helicopter territory myself. It’s certainly plausable to me that some of these innocent babes in Washington COULD actually have a clue what effect their words would have on Turkey. And equally, they COULD actually have a clue what ‘logistics’ means, and the fact that a very large percentage of our supply line relies on keeping Turkey in our good graces so that those supplies contine to flow to our troops in Iraq. Doesn’t seem all that wild and crazy an idea to ME.

-XT

69

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Seems a bit conspiratorial when simple stupidity will suffice. I havent seen a voting tally yet, only the numbers 27-21, so I’m assuming that at least some Republicans voted for it. I mean, don’t they usually say something like “In a strict party-line vote…”
[/QUOTE]
I have to imagine that at least some of the Right side outrage over this resolution is manufactured as a reason to complain about the Democrats. In 2005, the exact same resolution went through the Republican controlled committee (40-7) and made it to the House floor, only to be blocked by Speaker Dennis Hastert from reaching a full vote at Bush’s request. In 2000, a resolution to declare the killings a genocide and investigate them went through the Republican controlled committee and reached the House but was eventually killed (again, by Hastert) due to Clinton’s requests. There were resolutions in 1995, 1990, etc. Some sponsored by Republicans, some by Democrats. Both with bipartisan cosponsorship.

It’s funny how the same thing keeps playing out where Congress creates the resolution and the sitting president begs for it not to pass because it’ll harm our relations with Turkey. In 1990, it was Bob Dole in the Senate sponsoring it and being asked by Bush Sr. to kill the resolution. But, to keep it recent, I assume that our reliance on Turkey for transport to Iraq isn’t much different in 2007 than it was in 2005. It seems less of a partisan issue than it is a Congress vs the President issue.

70

[QUOTE=Jophiel]
It seems less of a partisan issue than it is a Congress vs the President issue.
[/QUOTE]

I’d put it as a National vs. International politics question. Which explains, to my mind, why it’s Congress pushing it, and the Executive branch putting the brakes on it. From the point of view of national politics only, the resolution is all good. And that’s where most Congressional representatives first measure whether something is good or bad - on the national or local level only. The Executive branch has a lot more focus, I think, on international politics than Congress, even the Foreign Affairs committee, does.
In hindsight, I wish this measure had been passed back in 2000. If I thought that this were actually a backdoor attempt to get US troops out of Iraq I’d have a lot more respect for those politicians pushing it, than I do now. Obviously there’s no evidence either way - I just am falling back on “never ascribe to sneakiness what can just as easily be attributed to ignorance and stupidity.” It doesn’t meant that xtisme is wrong, just saying where my belief is falling. Though now that the idea that this resolution might have that effect is out there, I think that it’s going to be a hinted-at, or hidden, motive for those who will be pushing the bill before the full House.

71

And this just in…

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071015/ts_nm/turkey_iraq_dc

**Turkish govt asks parliament to let troops enter Iraq **

Oh, shit.

72

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Oh, shit.
[/QUOTE]

To paraphrase that great statesman, Louis XVI: “I agree entirely with the sentiments of the last speaker.”

73

Yeah…oh shit is an understatement.

From 'luci’s cite:

-XT

74

“We’re so pissed about our killings of Armenians being labeled genocide, that we’re going to kill off a bunch of Kurds. That’ll show you!” :rolleyes:

Guess they don’t really care about world opinion or getting into the EU.

The House committee resolution on the Armenian genocide is an excuse used by Turkish warmongers.

75

[QUOTE=Jackmannii]
The House committee resolution on the Armenian genocide is an excuse used by Turkish warmongers.
[/QUOTE]

I disagree. Here is my own take on things: “The PKK is blowing the shit out of our troops as well as myriad acts of terrorism, the fucking Euro’s want us to jump through all kinds of hoops to join the club while ignoring this fact, and now the American’s want to bring up ancient history to bust our chops. Fuck em…lets invade!”

YMMV.

-XT

76

Jackmannii, I’m in complete agreement with xtisme, here.

It’s not that the Turks are talking about invading Kurdistan in retaliation - simply that because we’ve pissed them off, maintaining goodwill with the US is no longer a reason against invading Kurdistan.

And this would be a whole Hell of a lot less frustrating if people hadn’t been suggesting all along that this invasion was an obvious potential repurcussion of passing that resolution.

Which isn’t to say that the Turks might not have invaded, anyways - as xtisme says, the PKK has done a really good job of pissing them right the Hell off.

77

So now the Bush administration is going to have to argue that a country can’t unilaterally invade Iraq just because it claims there are unsubstantiated threats against its national security. Boy, that’s going to be awkward.

78

[QUOTE=OtakuLoki]
It’s not that the Turks are talking about invading Kurdistan in retaliation
[/quote]
Which is not what I said. They’re taking advantage of an excuse - their wounded national pride, which has somehow survived for nearly 100 years in spite of the weight of international opinion on this issue (including a similar genocide resolution passed recently by the French Senate).

79

[QUOTE=Jackmannii]
They’re taking advantage of an excuse - their wounded national pride, which has somehow survived for nearly 100 years in spite of the weight of international opinion on this issue
[/QUOTE]

Or, maybe they are feeling a bit stung by bringing up ancient history and expecting them to turn the other cheek towards the PKK…by supposed allies who they are helping out? After seeing what the Euro’s expect from Turkey to let them join the club, AND reading and talking with some Europeans and getting their feeling on Turkey joining (which is, to say the least, not universally hailed as a positive thing by our Euro buddies), AND seeing the US, who is heavily relying on Turkey for assistance in our fucked up war in Iraq and who, despite our own lilly white past feels the need to pass a bullshit non-binding spank on Turkey over something that happened nearly a century ago…well, I can sort of see where Turkey is coming from on being a bit pissed off. Especially since no one seems to really care about what the PKK is actually doing in Turkey, outside of, well, the folks IN Turkey.

Again, I think Turkey needs to fully acknowledge its roles and responsibility in what happened…I just don’t think this is the best way to accomplish that goal. Certainly not at this time when the situation there is so delicate on so many different levels. YMMV of course, but this is the kind of stupid shit I would normally expect from our Euro buddies…which brings us too…

[QUOTE=Jackmannii]
including a similar genocide resolution passed recently by the French Senate
[/QUOTE]

Well hell. Why didn’t you say that in the first place? I mean, if the French passed a similar resolution recently, then the time is certainly right for the US to jump on the bandwagon too, I guess! I mean…we all know how spotless France’s reputation is from a historical perspective wrt human rights and all that.

You could have resolved all of this ages ago if you’d just pointed this little tidbit out!

:smack:

-XT

80

[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
So now the Bush administration is going to have to argue that a country can’t unilaterally invade Iraq just because it claims there are unsubstantiated threats against its national security. Boy, that’s going to be awkward.
[/QUOTE]

Nah, they’ll just brazen it out.