They could, but why would they? Is it in their best interest to do so? ‘Oh, we’re upset because you called long dead people murderers!’.
If they are that unstable why would you want to deal with them anyways? You’d always be wondering what you said next that would set them off.
This thread has taken some interesting turns. At first, I was inclined to agree that adhay was just a whiner, but he’s done a good job justifying his frustration. Personally though, I tend to have more tolerance for politicians I think are moving in the right direction. Like the old cliche says, if you have to move an ocean liner by pushing it with your hand, there’s not going to be much immediate difference between pushing north or pushing south, but that doesn’t mean you should give up pushing.
This issue touches me personally. I’m 25% Armenian and met, while I was still a child, relatives that had been forced by Turks to march through the desert, though of course unlike many others, they survived the experience. I wish had been older to better appreciate what they went through. I do get frustrated at all the resolutions that pass and then are withdrawn to avoid offending Turkey. Turkey’s denial of the genocide is no different from holocaust denial, except that it’s national policy. That needs to end. It’s not Turkey’s version of events vs. Amenia’s here; it’s Turkey vs. the rest of the world. I understand Obama’s (and Bush’s and Clinton’s) reluctance to antagonize, but I don’t agree with it. However, I will still vote in every election I’m eligible for, and for whomever I think will do the best, albeit, imperfect job of running things.
That’s just not a danger at all. Turkey wants to quell Kurdish uprisings on their southern border, not incite one.
The numbers are nicely inflated too. Why are there three different promises about wildfire management instead of counting it as one? But kudos to Obma for keeping important promises like that and asking (yeah, it says asking) people to conserve water and power.
And look where that got us. Single-mindedness or dogmatism are not characteristics I want to see in leaders of my country ever again - it’s taken the best part of 20 years to recover from that. On the other hand, high principles and a desire to seek consensus (or at least democratic agreement) are certainly desirable as that allows room for subtlety, nuance and diplomacy. From this outsider, especially in the light of comments from **IMM **and Uzi, the US is likely to be much more successful taking the rest of the world with them, than fighting everything and everyone.
Oh for a UK Obama to vote for on May 6th.
Saving/maintaining face is surprisingly important in international politics, especially when dealing with smaller countries. Obama bowing to a foreign leader isn’t that big a deal because no one really thinks that the US is prostrating itself to another country, whereas other leaders bowing to Obama could well be seen as that. It’s why Iran acts the way it does; since the US seems to be determined to push it around (for whatever reasons, however justified) Iran has chosen to set itself against the US and make trouble in numerous small ways; it’s how they maintain their status as a force to be reckoned with in the region.
We play nice with Turkey because we don’t want them to go the same way. As a West-friendly secular Muslim country they are a key gateway to the Wast. If they decide that their best interests lie to the East they become another impediment to our strategy of “managing” the Middle East. So we avoid saying the “g” word and stroke their egos a bit, and in return they remain useful allies.
Yes, I’m disappointed that he made the promise and broke it, but I’m not seeing any way of calling out Turkey on the genocide without losing something more important. (Actually, I’d rather see Turkey cop to the genocide on their own, but that ain’t gonna happen soon either.)
I will point out that Ms Thatcher and her counterpart Reagan were merely the messengers announcing the privatization of govt thru deregulation and regressive taxation by our Corporate Kleptocracy and there has been no recovery. Soon after, Blair and Bushed announced that the US military would be Corporate America’s chief negotiating tool.
bolding mine
I’m not sure what this means.
I haven’t followed UK politics and can offer only general advice. Pick the guy who’ll put some distance between you and our corporate military diplomacy.
I’d recommend Nick Clegg but I can’t do it without giggling a little.
After a little googling, I’d recommend him too. I would like a further definition on “liberal intervention” on his part (from the wiki)
But
Hold him to it.
adhay writes:
> I will point out that Ms Thatcher and her counterpart Reagan were merely the
> messengers announcing the privatization of govt thru deregulation and
> regressive taxation by our Corporate Kleptocracy and there has been no
> recovery.
The U.S. and the U.K. could have chosen to reject those messengers of “Corporate Kleptocracy” by voting against them. We didn’t. If we want to avoid such leaders in the future, we have to vote against them. Voting for nobody doesn’t demonstrate that we’re too pure to soil our own perfection by voting for anyone who’s less than perfection. It shows that we’re willing to allow the Corporate Kleptocracy to run everything.
They (whoever is in power) want you to give up. It makes it easier for them.
If we’re ever given the choice. 
Of course I’m willing. It’s the law and that’s not about to really change while the lawmakers have their way paid into political relevance by the corporate sector.
Northern Iraq has Kurds and oil. That is like catnip to the Turks who could easily justify bringing the Kurds back into the fold. Look how far we went to get oil.
So, adhay, you’re convinced that there’s no point in differenciating between Obama and anybody else who has run or might eventually run against him because their policies are exactly alike. Exactly alike. So you’re claiming that any program he has passed or might pass in the future is exactly the same as that of anyone who ran against him or might eventually run against him. So you’re claiming that the “tea party” protestors who rant about Obama being a socialist, a communist, or a Marxist are so deluded that they fail to notice that in fact Obama’s not a communist, a Marxist, a socialist, a social democrat, a hardline liberal, a mild liberal, a moderate, or even a mild conservative, but instead a outright tool of the Corporate Kleptocracy. Even though he’s exactly the same as any previous tool of the Corporate Kleptocracy in your view, the protestors failed to notice this and only started protesting when he got elected. So while nearly everyone else notices some differences between Obama and other politicians who’ve been in power, you, in your superior wisdom, have been able to see that he is just a tool of the Corporate Kleptocracy like everyone else in power.
We did vote against her in every election. We voted for nationalist parties, the sdp and labour. Scotland and Wales were Tory-free zones.
She never got more than 45% of the popular vote and that is where so much of the bitter hatred stems from.
She embarked on a radically destructive sledge-hammer/nut policy rampage that the majority of the electorate rejected at every electoral opportunity.
But for the Falklands War she would have been gone in 1983 I think.
The fact that you personally voted against her doesn’t mean that everybody else voted against her. Thatcher and Reagan won by the usual methods (i.e., getting a majority of Parliament or a majority of the Electoral College). That doesn’t mean that I like them either. In fact, I disliked them both. If the voting systems are bad, fix them. As I’ve made clear, I don’t like the Corporate Kleptocracy either. That’s why I keep voting. You have to choose the best candidates available and use the best voting system available. You don’t have the option to opt out of the system. Not voting is giving in to the opposition.
Boom!
But I take exception to the idea that I think of Bush and Obama as “exactly alike”. They are merely the same in function and purpose.
If and when we reform our electoral process and institute Instant Runoff Balloting, I’ll re-consider my position. Unfortunately, the one issue that has total bipartisan support on the Hill is, There shall be no third party.
Look up Ahmet Davutolgu and “Zero Problems Policy” and then maybe you can see the relationship between your fantasies and reality.
What an odd statement. At every election the majority voted against her.