Armenian genocide vote... - The Orange Mane

defenseman · 10-12-2007, 10:55 AM

This issue is about to become the biggest "political" football in our congress. If this were to pass, there is absolutley no measure to the damage this resolution is capable of doing. Including of course, potential significant damage to our own troops in the war zone. I'm hoping it doesn't make it through, however, if it does, it has a good chance of becoming one the worst political blunders in the last couple of decades. And, could cost us dearly in diplomatic relations, let alone significantly more casualties in the middle east. Here is an LA Times Op ed of interest for perusal...dman

The genocide vote: Now is not the time
template_bas
template_bas
A congresswoman explains her decision to oppose the Armenian genocide bill she co-sponsored.
By Jane Harman
October 12, 2007
As one whose own family was decimated by the Holocaust, I respond very personally to charges that I would deny the existence of savage acts of inhumanity against a group of people because of ethnic, religious or racial differences -- be they Jews, Darfurians, Rwandans or Armenians.

Yet that's exactly what I was accused of last week after I sent a letter to Rep. Tom Lantos, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, urging him to withdrawHR 106, which I had co-sponsored earlier in the year. Some Armenian Americans, whose passion I appreciate, have misinterpreted my determination that the time is not right to vote on such a resolution as "denial" of the Armenian genocide. Nothing could be further from the truth.

No question: The debate raging in Washington over the Armenian genocide resolution is personal. Similar resolutions have passed the House twice -- in 1975 and 1984 -- and we are poised to pass another before Thanksgiving. Whether it will be brought to a vote in the Senate remains unclear.

I originally co-sponsored the resolution because I was convinced that the terrible crime against the Armenian people should be recognized and condemned. But after a visit in February to Turkey, where I met with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Armenian Orthodox patriarch and colleagues of murdered Turkish Armenian journalist Hrant Dink, I became convinced that passing this resolution again at this time would isolate and embarrass a courageous and moderate Islamic government in perhaps the most volatile region in the world.

So I agree with eight former secretaries of State -- including Los Angeles' own Warren Christopher -- who said that passing the resolution "could endanger our national security interests in the region, including our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and damage efforts to promote reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia."

Timing matters. I asked a leader in California's Armenian American community just days ago why the resolution was being pushed now. "They didn't ask me," he said. It wasn't his call, and he probably would not have pushed it.

So what is the endgame? I would hope that, regardless of the outcome of the vote, Turkey and Armenia will work toward reconciliation and normalization of relations.

About 70,000 Armenians live in Turkey, and Turkey continues to admit more. Yet Article 301 of Turkey's Constitution prohibits insulting "Turkishness" -- a disturbing provision that has been used to punish Armenians in Turkey who insist the genocide took place. Surely an act of reconciliation would be to embrace the Armenian population in Turkey and repeal Article 301.

Further, Turkey and Armenia have held recent talks about normalizing relations. They share mutual interests in trade, especially in the energy sector. Now is a good time to engage.

And, of course, there is the need for stability in the region. Turkey shares a border with Iraq, and the need for its continued restraint with the Kurds and for its leadership in promoting stability and resolving the Israel-Palestine issue is obvious. Armenia can help.

In a democracy, groups have the right to protest, and surely I respect the right of California's large Armenian community (and the L.A. Times' editorial board) to disagree with my position on the timing of yet a third congressional vote on the genocide. But once that vote occurs, that fabulously talented community can usefully channel its passion and energy into productive next steps toward reconciliation.

Condemning horror is important. But moving through the anger and psychic hurt to positive action is true emancipation.

Jane Harman (D-Venice) represents California's 36th Congressional District

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...opinion-center

Please comment. I'm interested in knowing where some americans stand on this very important matter presently on the table in congress...

Bronco Bob · 10-12-2007, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by defenseman

This issue is about to become the biggest "political" football in our congress. If this were to pass, there is absolutley no measure to the damage this resolution is capable of doing. Including of course, potential significant damage to our own troops in the war zone. I'm hoping it doesn't make it through, however, if it does, it has a good chance of becoming one the worst political blunders in the last couple of decades.

A worse political blunder than invading Iraq?

defenseman · 10-12-2007, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

A worse political blunder than invading Iraq?

When you find out the specifics, you be the judge...dman

REB · 10-12-2007, 01:19 PM

Man. I experience deja vu everyday out here. No matter whether the topic is this resolution, SCHIP or whatever it's always "what about Iraq"?.

Global warming=What about Iraq?!?!?!?

Taxes=What about Iraq?!?!?!?!?

Darfur=What about Iraq?!?!?!?!?

LABF's and gaff's 9/11 butt luvin'=What about Iraq?!?!?!?

defenseman · 10-12-2007, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by REB

Man. I experience deja vu everyday out here. No matter whether the topic is this resolution, SCHIP or whatever it's always "what about Iraq"?.

Global warming=What about Iraq?!?!?!?

Taxes=What about Iraq?!?!?!?!?

Darfur=What about Iraq?!?!?!?!?

LABF's and gaff's 9/11 butt luvin'=What about Iraq?!?!?!?

It is the topic of the day, everyday...dman

*quite an advantage to the dems, you gotta believe that.

Bronco Bob · 10-12-2007, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by REB

Man. I experience deja vu everyday out here. No matter whether the topic is this resolution, SCHIP or whatever it's always "what about Iraq"?.

Global warming=What about Iraq?!?!?!?

Taxes=What about Iraq?!?!?!?!?

Darfur=What about Iraq?!?!?!?!?

LABF's and gaff's 9/11 butt luvin'=What about Iraq?!?!?!?

Doesn't that lend weight to Iraq being a huge political blunder?

You never hear:

Global warming=What about Armenia?!?!?!?

Taxes=What about Armenia?!?!?!?!?

Darfur=What about Armenia?!?!?!?!?

LABF's and gaff's 9/11 butt luvin'=What about Armenia?!?!?!?

Bronco Bob · 10-12-2007, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by defenseman

It is the topic of the day, everyday...dman

*quite an advantage to the dems, you gotta believe that.

Yes, in light of the poll numbers:

A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 64% of Americans
would like to see U.S. troops brought home from Iraq within a year.
That’s the third straight weekly increase in support for troop withdrawal
and a 6-point increase from mid-September.

Those figures include 28% who want the troops brought home immediately.
That’s up from 20% four weeks ago following Congressional testimony by
General David Petraeus.

All questions concerning Iraq reveal stark partisan differences.

Eighty-three percent (83%) of Democrats want the troops to come home
within a year. Sixty-three percent (63%) of Republicans believe the troops
should remain until the mission is complete. That latter figure is down from
71% two weeks ago.

As for those not affiliated with either major party, 69% want the troops home
within a year. Only 29% take the opposite view and say they should remain.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...oop_withdrawal

defenseman · 10-12-2007, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

Yes, in light of the poll numbers:

A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 64% of Americans
would like to see U.S. troops brought home from Iraq within a year.
That’s the third straight weekly increase in support for troop withdrawal
and a 6-point increase from mid-September.

Those figures include 28% who want the troops brought home immediately.
That’s up from 20% four weeks ago following Congressional testimony by
General David Petraeus.

All questions concerning Iraq reveal stark partisan differences.

Eighty-three percent (83%) of Democrats want the troops to come home
within a year. Sixty-three percent (63%) of Republicans believe the troops
should remain until the mission is complete. That latter figure is down from
71% two weeks ago.

As for those not affiliated with either major party, 69% want the troops home
within a year. Only 29% take the opposite view and say they should remain.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...oop_withdrawal

I won't deny iraq is a political advantage presently. In the near future, assuming the congress shoots down the turk genocide bill, that may change...dman

Rohirrim · 10-12-2007, 06:42 PM

Morally, it's the right action but there couldn't be a worse time to do it. It just shows me what a mammoth bonehead Pelosi is. We are in a war. Our men and women are dying. This is not the time to make grandstand gestures that mean pretty much nothing, but might harm our strategic interests.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 10-12-2007, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

Doesn't that lend weight to Iraq being a huge political blunder?

You never hear:

Global warming=What about Armenia?!?!?!?

Taxes=What about Armenia?!?!?!?!?

Darfur=What about Armenia?!?!?!?!?

LABF's and gaff's 9/11 butt luvin'=What about Armenia?!?!?!?

Exactly.

That's why Bush fellators like REB are tired of hearing about it.

REB · 10-13-2007, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Exactly.

That's why Bush fellators like REB are tired of hearing about it.

?

You're so sad

loborugger · 10-14-2007, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Morally, it's the right action but there couldn't be a worse time to do it. It just shows me what a mammoth bonehead Pelosi is. We are in a war. Our men and women are dying. This is not the time to make grandstand gestures that mean pretty much nothing, but might harm our strategic interests.

I really don't see it that way. Congress can huff and they can puff put it wont revive the life of one dead Armenian. The time to act was then. It is past. This is damn near as silly as issuing a non-binding resolution condemning Germany for its treatment of the Jews during WWII. Imagine the reaction that would draw in Germany. Yes, I realize that unlike the Turks, the Germans have owned up to their national culpability. Yet pretty much all the Turks who are guilty have also passed on due to old age. So, who are we punishing?

While the windbags in Congress are at it, why stop at Armenia? I say they draw up non-binding resolutions condemning the following:

1. German treatment of Jews during WWII
2. Japanese treatment of pretty much everyone during WWII
3. English treatment of Irish.
4. Spanish treatment of Indians in the new world and Jews during the Inquisition.
5. The Dutch for beginning the slave trade.
6. The Macedonians for invading Persia.
7. The Romans (Italians) for sowing Carthage with salt so it would never be inhabited again.

Oh, and we could go on and on. The great thing about Political Correctness is that if you go far enough back in history, EVERYONEs been a victim.

Then, 6 months after we draw up non-binding resolutions body slamming the world for its treatment of its neighbors, lets go ask those same nations for help. Then we can wonder why they give us the political bird.

Rohirrim · 10-14-2007, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loborugger

I really don't see it that way. Congress can huff and they can puff put it wont revive the life of one dead Armenian. The time to act was then. It is past. This is damn near as silly as issuing a non-binding resolution condemning Germany for its treatment of the Jews during WWII. Imagine the reaction that would draw in Germany. Yes, I realize that unlike the Turks, the Germans have owned up to their national culpability. Yet pretty much all the Turks who are guilty have also passed on due to old age. So, who are we punishing?

While the windbags in Congress are at it, why stop at Armenia? I say they draw up non-binding resolutions condemning the following:

1. German treatment of Jews during WWII
2. Japanese treatment of pretty much everyone during WWII
3. English treatment of Irish.
4. Spanish treatment of Indians in the new world and Jews during the Inquisition.
5. The Dutch for beginning the slave trade.
6. The Macedonians for invading Persia.
7. The Romans (Italians) for sowing Carthage with salt so it would never be inhabited again.

Oh, and we could go on and on. The great thing about Political Correctness is that if you go far enough back in history, EVERYONEs been a victim.

Then, 6 months after we draw up non-binding resolutions body slamming the world for its treatment of its neighbors, lets go ask those same nations for help. Then we can wonder why they give us the political bird.

It has nothing to do with political correctness. It's standing up for historical accuracy. There are many in the world who argue (Ahmadjihad among them) that the Holocaust never happened. Should we allow their version of history to be passed on to the next generation? There are those in Japan who would like history to read that America was the aggressor of WWII and committed an atrocity by dropping the A-bombs on the peaceful, innocent Japanese of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So we should allow this version of history to stand? The Turks are trying to paste a lie into the history books of the world. We're standing up and saying, "That's a lie and we won't stand by silently while you try to spread it." Of course, we're way behind the rest of the world who have already sent this message to the Turks via similar resolutions. In fact, Congress is probably doing this now out of shame, but it's still the wrong time to do it, IMO. Strategically speaking, it's idiotic.

loborugger · 10-14-2007, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

It has nothing to do with political correctness. It's standing up for historical accuracy. There are many in the world who argue (Ahmadjihad among them) that the Holocaust never happened. Should we allow their version of history to be passed on to the next generation? There are those in Japan who would like history to read that America was the aggressor of WWII and committed an atrocity by dropping the A-bombs on the peaceful, innocent Japanese of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So we should allow this version of history to stand? The Turks are trying to paste a lie into the history books of the world. We're standing up and saying, "That's a lie and we won't stand by silently while you try to spread it." Of course, we're way behind the rest of the world who have already sent this message to the Turks via similar resolutions. In fact, Congress is probably doing this now out of shame, but it's still the wrong time to do it, IMO. Strategically speaking, it's idiotic.

No, they are doing it because a Congressman from CA - land of PC - got elected in a district that has a large Armenian population by playing the sympathy card. Now, he is taking it to the next step.

Besides, right is right, and wrong is wrong. Strategy shouldnt get in the way of being right.

Fortunately, thou, this is just dumb.

Spider · 10-15-2007, 10:42 PM

why now ?

10-12-2007, 10:55 AM	#1
defenseman Ring of Famer 2007 record pred. (7-9) Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 9,232	Armenian genocide vote... This issue is about to become the biggest "political" football in our congress. If this were to pass, there is absolutley no measure to the damage this resolution is capable of doing. Including of course, potential significant damage to our own troops in the war zone. I'm hoping it doesn't make it through, however, if it does, it has a good chance of becoming one the worst political blunders in the last couple of decades. And, could cost us dearly in diplomatic relations, let alone significantly more casualties in the middle east. Here is an LA Times Op ed of interest for perusal...dman The genocide vote: Now is not the time template_bas template_bas A congresswoman explains her decision to oppose the Armenian genocide bill she co-sponsored. By Jane Harman October 12, 2007 As one whose own family was decimated by the Holocaust, I respond very personally to charges that I would deny the existence of savage acts of inhumanity against a group of people because of ethnic, religious or racial differences -- be they Jews, Darfurians, Rwandans or Armenians. Yet that's exactly what I was accused of last week after I sent a letter to Rep. Tom Lantos, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, urging him to withdrawHR 106, which I had co-sponsored earlier in the year. Some Armenian Americans, whose passion I appreciate, have misinterpreted my determination that the time is not right to vote on such a resolution as "denial" of the Armenian genocide. Nothing could be further from the truth. No question: The debate raging in Washington over the Armenian genocide resolution is personal. Similar resolutions have passed the House twice -- in 1975 and 1984 -- and we are poised to pass another before Thanksgiving. Whether it will be brought to a vote in the Senate remains unclear. I originally co-sponsored the resolution because I was convinced that the terrible crime against the Armenian people should be recognized and condemned. But after a visit in February to Turkey, where I met with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Armenian Orthodox patriarch and colleagues of murdered Turkish Armenian journalist Hrant Dink, I became convinced that passing this resolution again at this time would isolate and embarrass a courageous and moderate Islamic government in perhaps the most volatile region in the world. So I agree with eight former secretaries of State -- including Los Angeles' own Warren Christopher -- who said that passing the resolution "could endanger our national security interests in the region, including our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and damage efforts to promote reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia." Timing matters. I asked a leader in California's Armenian American community just days ago why the resolution was being pushed now. "They didn't ask me," he said. It wasn't his call, and he probably would not have pushed it. So what is the endgame? I would hope that, regardless of the outcome of the vote, Turkey and Armenia will work toward reconciliation and normalization of relations. About 70,000 Armenians live in Turkey, and Turkey continues to admit more. Yet Article 301 of Turkey's Constitution prohibits insulting "Turkishness" -- a disturbing provision that has been used to punish Armenians in Turkey who insist the genocide took place. Surely an act of reconciliation would be to embrace the Armenian population in Turkey and repeal Article 301. Further, Turkey and Armenia have held recent talks about normalizing relations. They share mutual interests in trade, especially in the energy sector. Now is a good time to engage. And, of course, there is the need for stability in the region. Turkey shares a border with Iraq, and the need for its continued restraint with the Kurds and for its leadership in promoting stability and resolving the Israel-Palestine issue is obvious. Armenia can help. In a democracy, groups have the right to protest, and surely I respect the right of California's large Armenian community (and the L.A. Times' editorial board) to disagree with my position on the timing of yet a third congressional vote on the genocide. But once that vote occurs, that fabulously talented community can usefully channel its passion and energy into productive next steps toward reconciliation. Condemning horror is important. But moving through the anger and psychic hurt to positive action is true emancipation. Jane Harman (D-Venice) represents California's 36th Congressional District http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...opinion-center Please comment. I'm interested in knowing where some americans stand on this very important matter presently on the table in congress...

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

10-12-2007, 01:19 PM	#4
REB LP.org/L4L.org "This one's for John!" 3:16 Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: 'I guess he'd rather be in Colorado' Posts: 8,723	Man. I experience deja vu everyday out here. No matter whether the topic is this resolution, SCHIP or whatever it's always "what about Iraq"?. Global warming=What about Iraq?!?!?!? Taxes=What about Iraq?!?!?!?!? Darfur=What about Iraq?!?!?!?!? LABF's and gaff's 9/11 butt luvin'=What about Iraq?!?!?!?

10-12-2007, 06:42 PM	#9
Rohirrim Partisan Human Cannonball Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater Posts: 48,842	Morally, it's the right action but there couldn't be a worse time to do it. It just shows me what a mammoth bonehead Pelosi is. We are in a war. Our men and women are dying. This is not the time to make grandstand gestures that mean pretty much nothing, but might harm our strategic interests.

10-15-2007, 10:42 PM	#15
Spider Mr Diplomacy I survived Tebow Mania at the Mane Join Date: May 2001 Location: Elway was just an arm =MacGruder Posts: 84,438 Adopt-a-Bronco: Von Miller	why now ?