About a hundred years ago, though, Turkey was the Ottoman Empire and a great deal less awesome. So much less awesome that they engaged in a bit of ethnic cleansing some thirty years before Hitler would have a similar idea. The armenian genocide is to Turks what the holocaust is to present day germans - it's a pretty big sore spot on the national zeitgeist.
Now, today, 92 years after the fact, the Democrat controlled congress took it upon themselves to introduce a meaningless non-binding resolution condemning the armenian genocide.
Why would they do this now? It's tantamount to passing a non-binding resolution condemning the holocaust, it's completely pointless. The only reason to do such a thing would be to deliberately piss off the people of Turkey at a time when their cooperation is vital to our military standing in the region.
The only plausible excuse that I can imagine for this resolution is that it is a deliberate act of treason on the part of congressional democrats intended to bring about the military defeat of the united states army.
I don't lightly accuse political figures of treason. Every time I've discussed the war, I've refrained from even using the word.
It's the only word that fits the act, this time.
Can any one else think of a different reason for the timing of this resolution? One of our democrat apologists maybe?
Question for Maradon:
Wouldn't this have been under a Republican congress? Do you consider the 2005 Republican Congress treasonous as well?
If I were a cynic, I would suspect the Democrats of pushing this non-binding resolution through (A non-binding resolution is nothing more than a piece of paper with a fancy rotary seal, if you think about it); just to alienate Turkey enough to have them deny our troops the use of their bases, and lead the Turks to invade northern Iraq to go after the Kurdish rebels.
Losing logistical support would not be a Good Thing for our troops, needless to say, but the Democrats would be willing to deprive our troops of it just to make the situtation in Iraq worse than it already is, to force the President to bring the troops home because we can't get supplies to them. The Dems could then bask in the glow that they're fulfilling their pledge to end the war.
Who cares if the civil war in Iraq gets even worse and thousands more die; at least the Congress will have shown the President who's boss!
If I were a cynic, that is. Still the timing (92 years ago?) is a bit suspect. I'm not about to call "Treason", though.
quote:
So quoth Maradon!:
The only plausible excuse that I can imagine for this resolution is that it is a deliberate act of treason on the part of congressional democrats intended to bring about the military defeat of the united states army.Can any one else think of a different reason for the timing of this resolution? One of our democrat apologists maybe?
Let us try "Pandering for Votes". This non-binding resolution is the long term goal of a Armenian lobby group. Someone proposes, someone seconds, then no one wants to vote against condemning genocide.
Treason? That is a mighty big stretch even for you.
Turkey needs to swallow some pride and Congress needs to get to work on something more constructive.
quote:
x--Tyewa DawnsisterO-('-'Q) :
Let us try "Pandering for Votes". This non-binding resolution is the long term goal of a Armenian lobby group. Someone proposes, someone seconds, then no one wants to vote against condemning genocide.
If they're just after votes, why don't they pass a meaningless resolution about the Darfur genocide, which is not only current but more in the public eye anyway? Why dig up a century old event if not for the fact that doing so might engineer a defeat for our military?
quote:
Treason? That is a mighty big stretch even for you.
I can't think of a better word to describe an act that is intended to sabotage our own military.
quote:
Over the mountain, in between the ups and downs, I ran into Zair who doth quote:
First impressions? This is an enormously stupid mistake. Not treason, but very stupid none the less.Question for Maradon:
Wouldn't this have been under a Republican congress? Do you consider the 2005 Republican Congress treasonous as well?
Note that it didn't pass under a Republican majority, but it DID pass under the democrat majority.
And yes, if it were republicans doing this then they'd be guilty of treason. For all I know, it was a republican that brought the bill to the floor one time or the other.
I can't find any information on who drafted or sponsored this bill so I really don't know, but it's not the republican party that has a vested interest in defeat, so that's pretty unlikely.
So, both bills have passed the committee so far, neither have come to a vote by the House yet.
And, actually, when the Republicans were in control, it passed by a larger margin. Zair fucked around with this message on 10-11-2007 at 10:55 PM.
I'm all for hatin' on the Armenian Genocide, but it WAS a long time ago and had nothing to do with us (or very little, iirc). I'm a little curious on this issue as it's so rarely mentioned ever here in the States.
It's pretty obvious this is coming from both sides of the fence.
And while it may seem heavily Democrat now, it must have been heavily Republican two years ago, and all your traitor rhetoric could have just as easily applied then.
To summarize, I'm a victim of your obvious political trolling.
quote:
Blah Blah Blah
If they're just after votes, why don't they pass a meaningless resolution about the Darfur genocide, which is not only current but more in the public eye anyway? Why dig up a century old event if not for the fact that doing so might engineer a defeat for our military?
Does Darfur have a lobbying group that has spent years trying to get a non-binding resolution condemning the actions of government that is something less than legitimate. Would it even really matter, things like this are supposed to ruffle feathers.
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when Maradon! said:
I can't think of a better word to describe an act that is intended to sabotage our own military.
I request proof, not speculation, of this assertion. The logic is explained already, someone lobbied long and hard for this resolution, once proposed no one wanted to vote against condemning genocide.
These guys and these guys are the groups who pushed so hard on this resolution. Not to mention, as has already been stated, this has been on the docket for the Foreign Affairs Committee for a very long time. The resolution had already passed the Committee but was never brought to a vote of the whole House.
I am by no means endorsing this measure, I personally think it is silly. That being said this is not even in the realm of treason. Treason is something that should only be bandied around when you have real proof rather than speculation.
quote:
Mr. Gainsborough had this to say about pies:
Wait, what was the reason they gave for starting this?I'm all for hatin' on the Armenian Genocide, but it WAS a long time ago and had nothing to do with us (or very little, iirc). I'm a little curious on this issue as it's so rarely mentioned ever here in the States.
There are Armenian lobbying groups that fight for it, like Tyewa (Greetings) brought up.
They want it because Turkey denies the genocide ever happened, and that sort of offends them.
That is why comparing this to the Holocaust makes no sense. The Germans admit it happened and that it was a tragedy. Why would we need to make a resolution then?
*note, I still think this resolution is politically idiotic Zair fucked around with this message on 10-11-2007 at 11:04 PM.
quote:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
quote:
Noxhil2 had this to say about Optimus Prime:
1) Turkey is not "arabic"
2) Turkey is not secular
3) Look up "treason"
Turkey is very much secular. They keep religion out of their government more than we do.
quote:
Verily, the chocolate bunny rabbits doth run and play while Maradon! gently hums:
No rebuttal then?
Well, there's the fact that other countries have done similar, even harsher, things. France, for example, made denying the Armenian genocide a crime--just like denying the Holocaust. So while there's a bit of, "Let's find a way to stick it to the Executive," it's not like these guys are the only ones on the planet passing similar resolutions.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Reynar enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
Turkey is very much secular. They keep religion out of their government more than we do.
Although Turkey has had a stringently secular government since the reforms of Ataturk, its current government is islamist-rooted.
quote:
Noxhil2 got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
Although Turkey has had a stringently secular government since the reforms of Ataturk, its current government is islamist-rooted.
Islamist rooted or Islamist ruled?
quote:
Noxhil2 said:
Ataturk
Best name ever for a Turkish person.
quote:
Bent over the coffee table, Noxhil2 squealed:
Although Turkey has had a stringently secular government since the reforms of Ataturk, its current government is islamist-rooted.
It's also the constitutional duty of the military to overthrow the government if they violate secular principles. . .so what's your point? The government is secular, the population is overwhelmingly in support of that, and the military is poised to take control should the government stray--not exactly what I'd call any imminent danger of turning into an Islamic republic.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
the treason card is a little extreme maybe i think that might be why noone seems to be biting 
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when Karnaj said:
Can anyone really be good at trolling?
Anne Coulter?
quote:
Kegwen put down Tada! magazine long enough to type:
Anne Coulter?
I think she actually believes what she's saying.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Karnaj stopped staring at Deedlit long enough to write:
I think she actually believes what she's saying.
So does Maradon.
quote:
This insanity brought to you by Mr. Gainsborough:
So does Maradon.
Can you get me a picture of a bunch of African American guys doing the "daaaaaaaaaaayum" pose so I can post it when someone says something like this?
