• Hillary Clinton seeks to block vote on Armenian genocide bill
    24 replies, posted
[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8553013.stm[/url] [quote]The Obama administration has said it will seek to block a controversial bill describing as genocide the World War I killing of Armenians by Turks. A congressional panel on Thursday approved the resolution, paving the way for a possible vote by the House. But US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the administration would "work very hard" to prevent this. Turkey voiced strong protests after the vote and recalled its ambassador from Washington for consultations. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said his country had been accused of a crime it did not commit, adding the resolution would harm Turkish-US relations. President Abdullah Gul said Turkey - a key Nato ally of the US - would "not be responsible for the negative results that this event may lead to". [/quote] If atrocities targeted towards a specific group (Armenians) killing between 1,000,000 and 1,500,000 people don't count as a genocide, what does? Oh, and the Turks ran about [B]25 concentration camps[/B] for Armenians as well.
Why is the US passing legislation on what something should or should not be fucking [b]named[/b]?
She's afraid that if it gets passed, it'll all happen again...
[QUOTE=Zeke129;20605659]Why is the US passing legislation on what something should or should not be fucking [b]named[/b]?[/QUOTE] Because our politicians have absolutely nothing better or more important to do. /sarcasm
So what if it pisses off turkey, grows some metaphorical balls Clinton.
[QUOTE=cyanide101;20605715]So what if it pisses off turkey, grows some metaphorical balls Clinton.[/QUOTE] As if she doesn't already have a pair of testicles...
[QUOTE=Zeke129;20605659]Why is the US passing legislation on what something should or should not be fucking [b]named[/b]?[/QUOTE] History has to be written. Somebody has to declare something a genocide in order for compensation and prevention to be sought.
[QUOTE=Lankist;20605738]History has to be written. Somebody has to declare something a genocide in order for compensation and prevention to be sought.[/QUOTE] Shouldn't history be written by historians instead of legislators?
Historians do not have legal power. Until something it declared on a legal level there is no future basis for action. [editline]02:45AM[/editline] You cannot say victims of a genocide deserve compensation or protection if it has never been declared a genocide in any official capacity.
Well if this is truly for compensation and prevention like you said, why not work on bills that focus on those things? [editline]01:46AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;20605784] You cannot say victims of a genocide deserve compensation or protection if it has never been declared a genocide in any official capacity.[/QUOTE] You can just call them victims and then send compensation. Semantics are a waste of time, as always.
Call them victims of what?
An event. Who cares?
Now YOU'RE arguing semantics. Geopolitics isn't a vague subject matter. [editline]02:52AM[/editline] Why the fuck do you think it's more efficient to be fucking vague? Do you realize how unethical loose language is in any official proceeding?
Loose language can be dangerous, sure, but I don't see how in this case. Can't the language of the compensation bill be debated when that bill is actually on the table? Why do semantics separately?
Just because you have no foresight doesn't mean you should be so arbitrary. The groundwork needs to be laid if any government hopes of preventing future atrocities. Declarations, definitions and condemnations are essential.
tl;dr lankist is right, clinton is full of bullshit
[QUOTE=Lankist;20605924]Just because you have no foresight doesn't mean you should be so arbitrary. The groundwork needs to be laid if any government hopes of preventing future atrocities. Declarations, definitions and condemnations are essential.[/QUOTE] But calling something a genocide isn't going to stop future genocides. [editline]02:00AM[/editline] I completely understand and agree with you in regards to having clear language in law. But I just don't see the purpose of this bill.
How many times do I have to say the word "ground work" or "foundation."
Fine, whatever. But if they want it called a genocide so much I don't see why they can't just call it then when they get around to writing up that compensation bill you mentioned. If people still dislike the word they can argue about it then. Doing it this way seems inefficient.
[quote] Recognition, Restoration, Reparation, Recognition, Restoration, Reparation, Watch them all fall down.[/quote] Cookie for the reference
If this had happened with the holocaust, the whole country would be up in arms. But no one cares in this case. Unbelievable how a 1st world government can deny such an atrocity and not be held accountable.
[QUOTE=CivilProtection;20607035]If this had happened with the holocaust, the whole country would be up in arms. But no one cares in this case. Unbelievable how a 1st world government can deny such an atrocity and not be held accountable.[/QUOTE] Yeah, the Turks are real twats for trying to deny this. Just fucking let people call it genocide. Who really gives a shit. It's part of past anyway. It's not like people are gonna start calling Turkey evil because one country decides to call the event genocide. Last time I checked, Germany is a respected country nowadays. People let the fucking Holocaust go because it was a part of the past.
If any of you guys can remember, they attempted to vote on this matter back in 2007 [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7038095.stm[/url] The same thing ended up happening. They got opposition from the Turkish state, and for better or worse, the Americans are tied down to their interests, especially considering Iraq. A lot of people who initially said they were in support of the bill were convinced to not support it. I am honestly surprised it came up again, but it will meet the same fate it got before.
[QUOTE=MercZ;20612940]If any of you guys can remember, they attempted to vote on this matter back in 2007 [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7038095.stm[/url] The same thing ended up happening. They got opposition from the Turkish state, and for better or worse, the Americans are tied down to their interests, especially considering Iraq. A lot of people who initially said they were in support of the bill were convinced to not support it. I am honestly surprised it came up again, but it will meet the same fate it got before.[/QUOTE] The USA sucks Turkey's dick too much. Why do we shaft the Kurds in Iraq? There's a substantial miniority of Kurds in eastern Turkey.
[QUOTE=PrismatexV8;20613130]The USA sucks Turkey's dick too much. Why do we shaft the Kurds in Iraq? There's a substantial miniority of Kurds in eastern Turkey.[/QUOTE] Blame the cold war. They tied Turkey's interests down with theirs and now they're stuck for the long run. Trust me, I cringe every time a foreign head of state visits Turkey and they have him visit the tomb of Ataturk, and they praise him for being so "democratic" and "modern". Sad fact is Turkey wasn't even remotely a democracy until Ataturk died, and then went through phases of civilian government and military dictatorship. And the West will continue praising Turkey's advancements, despite the way they treat their Kurdish minority and their relations with Armenia. In the mean time with the state of the Middle-East and Russia becoming resurgent, Turkey will continue to be of strategic importance and thus its interests trumps others.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.