Dear Famous Guest,

Where did you get that info from on your FYI? You may want to share with CNN, because they say this:

"Turkey, a NATO member, has been a key U.S. ally in the Middle East and a conduit for sending supplies into Iraq.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday that good relations with Turkey are vital because 70 percent of the air cargo sent to U.S. forces in Iraq and 30 percent of the fuel consumed by those forces fly through Turkey."

The URL is http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/11/us.turkey.armenians/index.html

I'd be relieved to know we aren't dependent on Turkey for operations in Iraq. I just want some facts to back that statement up.

FYI - We don't use Turkey's airspace for operations in Iraq and not a single combat troop has entered Iraq through Turkey. Just to let you know. Right before the invasion they said no combat troops can enter Iraq through our border. That was one reason for all the troubles with the supply routes during the main war. Our military was hoping to use Turkey to invade from the North and meet at Baghdad.

So this has little do with Iraq.

Bush was the first leader to call the Sudan atrocities Genocide, but the mighty UN was spineless in the face of Russia and China (The 2008 Genocide Olympic Games) to do anything about it.

Peace out!

"we wouldn't want to anger our allies by being honest about what they did in the past."

nor, I might add, would we want to anger our friends by being honest about we have done in the past. It is called denial, and George Bush is in denial about everything, because he thinks that whatever he does or says is 'reality', whether it has any grounding in fact or not. For someone who talks about morality, he sure doesn't seem to have a good grasp of it.

The reality is that whether or not US troops *should* be in the Middle East is irrelevant. They are there today. It is a fact. So how is citing the risks to US service men and women fallacious? Why can't we withdraw our troops first before going down this road? Or if it is so important to address this now in 2007 as opposed to 2010 or whenever we're out, how many deaths would be acceptable to you to pass this (as far as I know) entirely symbolic resolution?

To hell with the neo-con's/Bush's "don't wanna offend Turkey and cause any snags in our empire-building in the middle-east cuz Iran, near Turkey, is next on the hit-list." You'll know a tree by the fruit it bears, and this current presidential administration's mid-east domination plans are bearing poisonous fruit in so many areas and in so many ways; justice has definitely not been produced by this president's administration and the case with Armenia is one of many. Justice for the nation, history, and people of Armenia, which has been sought by them and others for over 80 years now and is finally within grasp, is being shamefully disregarded due to the greed and lust for empire by our U.S. government, fronted by a puppet president.
People cite the risks of lost American lives, but this is fallacious-- American lives shouldn't be recklessly placed there to begin with.

thanks for chiming in...

I'm reflecting on what you said, (being a half and half in no way diminishes your 'strength,' of stance, btw... -if anything, I think it may give you an objective ability by being able to be a part and also compare/contrast a culture/two cultures... That helps.

Something that is sticking out in my mind.
'...newer generations have been told that it didn't happen, or have not been told that it did happen.'

I think that goes a long way.

There has been a growing (and alarming,) tendency in at least two areas of genocide/oppression

1.
-There is a growing trend of holocaust denouncers/deniers,
(it was actually one of the less played up points against Mel Gibson's situation with the release of his Crucifixion film 'the Passion,',
--His father happens to (apparently,) be a very devout Catholic, but not believe in the Holocaust,
(which plays out as a bit awkward as Gibson has not decried his father's stance, ---and has put out a very powerful 'Christian/Catholic,' film (it not being too unknown that the Third Reich used, as a motive, the blanket of 'Christianity,' to justify their genocide, (citing, at times some of the lesser known feelings of some denominational fathers (Martin Luther being one.)
As well as the whole (earlier,) quite literal belief that 'the Church,' (be it Catholic or not) had replaced Israel, ---and that the Vatican/Rome had replaced Jerusalem/Israel. (Something still adhered to up to recent times.) (Keep in mind: Israel as an actual state and country ('brick and mortar', had been gone, her people scattered all over the world, and had not come back into being as anything until 1948,(most of her initial 're' settlers having their passports listing them as living in 'Palestine.')

-Now, 60 years later, the idea of 'Israel,' not existing seems ludacris.

and

2.) The whole 'downplaying,'of racial prejudice and Slavery in early America, (I see/hear also some of the same stances regarding the Japanese 'Interment' (concentration) Camps, (one of the more startling comments I heard in the past couple of years
'...yeah, well, I'm looking at one of the yearbooks from one of the (Japanese,) Interment camps, and they're all smiling for the pictures, they look pretty happy to me...'

I'm not one for rolling in nostalgia,
-But omitting the truth about something, and not teaching accurate history? I see stuff that I've lived through first hand missrepresented in history books, and it's kinda upsetting.

(I think it was Hitler or Stalin (or both) who said:
'Give me their children, once I've tought the children what I want them to think, we've got them all...')

I can't speak for all Armenians (I'm a half & half-er)

The reason Turkey won't admit that their country committed these atrocities is precisely because it has been so long. They've gotten away with it all these years- why own up to it now? There are a lot of people in Turkey who have been taught that the Genocide simply didn't happen.

Yes, the timing of this is unfortunate, and a big part of it is that Turkey is a candidate for a spot on the UN Security Council, which seems completely insane for the country with policies that inspired both Hitler and Mussolini, but there you are. If you want to Google that, you can, but I warn you that the primary site has obnoxious music and no way to turn it off.

I don't feel that it's right not to challenge the lies that Turkey has been telling its citizens and the rest of the world for nearly 100 years, so we can have access to bases and to airspace.

I feel like we are sacrificing what is right, and what is the truth, for what is strategic and convenient.

How dare anyone claim they suffered before or more then the jews.

They also claim we need Turkey as an friend to protect Isreal.

Don't they get it?

All Muslims even in Turkey hate the too.

Love him or hate him, gives his take on the genocide. There are some good points in there.

Such as:

Longtime Republican activist Mike Der Manouel Jr. of Fresno wants Bush and Congress to call Turkey's bluff and adopt the resolution. His paternal grandfather's first wife and their children were killed in the genocide.

"How is the official denial in Turkey any different than the Iranian [president] denying the Jewish Holocaust? It isn't," Der Manouel says.

First off, before folks go all claiming 'ADD,' and hollering soapbox...

Genocide is Genocide, and last time I checked, Genocide is a bad thing.
It's wrong, needs to be called for what it is/was and, though the high tide of recompense and acknowledgement of sins of the fathers has gone back out, (I remember a bit more of it in the late 90's,) it still is an issue of 'right or wrong,' (and) admitting to one's past faults.

I completely understand that, in an Armenian-rich culture as Fresno, it will be more of an issue, (back east I knew only (2) Armenians, one in college, one as a client.)
-But this is a national news thing, (after all this time.)

Personally?
Understanding the beliefs of the Turks, I don't understand what harm there would be in admitting one's guilt (of the past,) as it is an honorable thing to admit one's faults, and honor those who have been offended, (forgiveness, btw, NOT the main goal, -apology and recompense, and the healing of the one affronted is...)

-Folks who have recently backed off of this?
Well, the Japanese with the whole issue of 'Comfort Women.'
(Sort of a public slap in the face there to those victims, --no ill side effects on Japan for that...)

And there are other countries (again previously stated,) who have done horrible things within their borders in the very near past, (Russia, Africa, lets not even go there regarding China...)

The whole Armenian/Turk thing just raises questions to me:

-Has the US Armenian population gained social/political ground, and has that ground gained brought this fact more in front of more prominant people's eyes?

-What is different now about Turkey that it will (not) acknowledge the whole issue? (Germany has, at least officially (politically at least,) taken a very strong stance on any racism or hatecrimes and has embraced it's role in genocide of jews, gays, dev.disabled, 'gypsies,' (etc.)
--and, though the population has mixed forms of embracing their responsiblity, it has never denied it's place in history, and has repented pretty heavily, (and publically.)

-What could be the fallout of Turkey admitting to such things?
(Are they afraid of some sort of financial bankruptcy, (or, at least public shame,) for having done such things?)
-(PS) Even in recent cases of slavery (here in the US) the whole issue of recompense for African Americans ---even giving them the initially mandated '40 acres and a mule,' (to start farming with,upon emancipation,)
---has never really been dealt with past statements like:
'if we start paying back what is owed, it will never end, and the whole system will go flat.' (paraphrase.)

Honestly?
This smells like a fuse, or a distraction.

-A fuse that could be used to justify further military involvement (or at least further cement US relations with Turkey (in an affirming sense,)
-at the expense of Armenian dignity.

-or a distraction (IE) -getting everbody to be all concerned about this one particular issue, --(and/or: loading other issues into it once the attention has been diverted,)
only to reposition or work with issues elswhere.

Not that it wasn't cause for attention before, (Genocide is Genocide, horrible stuff,) -but there has got to be something up with this...

-I'm sure there are a few Armenians prowling the threads, --what's their take?

Actually, with a large Armenian population here in Fresno, it may be that we hear about it more than others,
but this issue gets raised all the time...like annually it seems. It seems to have progressed further this time than usual, but I've been hearing about it/reading about it (and I'm not Armenian) since I was a kid.
Whether the fact that the effort to have it called an atrocity has gotten further than before is because of politics, I could not say.

As per this morning's NY Times Electronic Homepage, the 'support,' for the bill (which was tauted last week as being in direct opposition to the President's NOT wanting to support it, --have been dying down, (very.)

Many of the senators and congressmen and such are saying '...yeah, this was an atrocity, it was horrible, it was also a hundred years ago, -and we need to make nice with turkey right now...' (paraphrased.)
Couple of Californee pols. are quoted as well in today's write up.

---Nobody seems to be answering regarding the timing of this, and why, if this bill has been proposed for (10?) years,
-it's suddenly now on Oprah's Halloween Book List...

That just seems odd to me.

1. Something that has been a major concern for a century, that has been a major concern for ten years, 'now,' is a MAJOR concern while we need turkey as an allie...?

2. (again, not looking to diminsh anything, but why now? (and further,) you can't swing a dead cat and let it go without hitting some country that we are currently in bed with (one way or another, be it govt. or business (same difference,) ---that has practiced some sort of horrendous act towards somebody on large or small scales, (even us,) -some who are probably still doing so.

-I see the points of
A.) recognizing genocide and calling it as such, (even when it's historical.)
B.) at times of war, using diplomacy with one's allies (understanding that said allies may have views and histories that are in direct ethical and moral conflict with our own, -or that of a commonly agreed upon standard (such as United Nations definitions, Geneva Convention, etc. etc.)

What I'm wondering?
-Why, if this has been an issue for (a decade?)
Is it front burner now?

(It's surely nothing new, we've been dealing with the Turks for quite some time, -and it's not like the genocide just happened last week.)

-Is it possible that this whole subject (media-wise,) is being suddenly brought front and center to facilitate something else, -or as a distraction (away,) from other areas?

Again, the timing is kinda odd, and (no disrespect,) but TONS of our 'allies,' have committed atrocities and genocides in the distant and (not so) distant past.
Why this thing (serious thing, no doubt,) with Armenia now?

Lots happening over there lately, Lots...

PS:
If the wikipedia info is correct?
This puts Turkey up there with Israel in terms of being 'battle-ready,' on a perpetual basis, -Although Israel (smaller in size,) has mandatory military service for both men and women.
---I'd be curious to see how many countries (allies or not,) 'require service' of all of it's 'of age,' citizens
(or at least males,)
I'm thinking we're among the few (substantial,) who do not, and (also,) no longer have a draft.

Just a snip from Wikipedia:

"The Turkish Armed Forces is the second largest standing armed force in NATO, after the U.S. Armed Forces, with a combined strength of 1,043,550 uniformed personnel serving in its five branches.[57] Every fit male Turkish citizen is required to serve in the military for time periods ranging from three weeks to fifteen months, depending on his education and job location."

I think we could make an airstrike anywhere in Iraq on a moments notice without Turkey's airspace or cooperation. Thanks for the thoughtful debate. It does make me consider all the different viewpoints.

OK, so let me get this straight. Let's say we pass the referendum, and Turkey goes through the roof. Let's say that they close their airspace to us. Now, for a hypothetical scenario, what if we need an airstrike against an insurgent target, one that's attacking a convoy or something, but we've got no coverage due to airspace restrictions, and the convoy is wiped out. A convoy that would have survived had we access to Turkish airspace and Turkish airstrips. Is the passing of this referendum important enough to sacrifice those lives? Especially when you consider that this referendum could be passed after we're out of Iraq? I'm all for the referendum, but not while we're relying on Turkey for support. We've dug a deep enough hole in this mess without shooting ourselves in the foot.

GWB has an obligation to listen to his employers, us, the voters. Perhaps he should start listening and maybe forget about winning the war and offending the sensibilities of a country willing to deny the deaths of 1.5 million people.

Is he the President of Turkey? No, he works for us. Our representatives voted for us to recognize that a genocide took place.

My point is solely that the war effort would be hurt if Turkey decided they wouldn't tolerate us on their soil. I'm not saying Turkey plays a big part in the war's eventual outcome. It's just that while Bush deserves a lot of heat for a lot of things, I don't believe this is one of them. As commander-in-chief, he has an obligation to give our fighting forces the best chance to win. This is one instance where I actually think he's right to hold off on this.

Why didn't they say Turkey was crucial? Because it was a given that A) if you have forces in Europe and want them in the Middle East, Turkey's the way to go and B) Turkey's a NATO ally and the issue of the Armenian Genocide wasn't at the forefront. Why did they say it would be a slam-dunk? Either they were ill-informed, liars, stupid, or any combination of the three.

And again, I'm not saying the war will be won or lost because of Turkey. I'm just saying it could increase the number of casualties. If you're asking what could possibly happen by pissing off Turkey, that's what's *possible*, and given that the Armenian Genocide happened almost a century ago, I'd think we could wait until we're out of the region to deal with the condemnation. But it's already in progress, Turkey's recalled their ambassador, so we'll see what happens.

I'm pretty sure Radanovich has been working on this for like uh, um, a decade.

Am I wrong or have they been trying to do this for years?

Why didn't they ever say in the lead up to the war, "We have to have Turkey's airspace/cooperation to win this war". They never said anything like that. They were saying it would be a slam-dunk. Nothing about Turkey's cooperation. But now we would lose the war if we make Turkey mad by saying ninety years ago they committed Genocide against the Armenians?

I don't disagree with the sentiment, I disagree with the timing. We're fighting a war over there, and choosing to get into this now is risking the safety of Americans abroad. I don't the US government should be pursuing it at this time, and I'm suspicious of the political motives of pushing it through now. And I disagree that it is worth more bloodshed.

we'll see. this nonbinding resolution has been passed. will turkey cut off u.s. use of airspace? or, will they accept that by the united nations definition of genocide there was one in turkey.

something tells me that they'll state their displeasure, and not too much else.

well, other than invade northern iraq.

are you Armenian?
I have enough Armenian friends that would argue that acknowleging the genocide is definately worth it. And i agree. Apparently the House agrees too....Thankfully.

Turkey could respond by disallowing us to use their land & airspace, which would put a big hurt on US forces in Iraq. The cost to US troops in Iraq would be very high. I don't think acknowledging the genocide in this way is worth the cost of US lives that a cut in supply lines could mean.

I can't believe Bush falls on that side of this issue. He is totally without a conscience. What would it hurt to just acknowledge this great injustice? What would Turkey do? Get mad?