Pelosi's judgment questioned over Armenia issue

  • Thread starter Thread starter estesbob
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A big blunder that adds yet more risk to our soldier’s lives.
 
Seems to me that she and many in her party delight in and profit from the difficult time the US is having in stabilizing Iraq. Think about it: If (and it seems a stretch to even imagine it, I grant) the USA were able to quickly create a stable Iraqi government able to take care of its own security and stability needs, we could leave. If this were to happen while Bush was still in office, this would be bad political news for the Democrats.

Politically, it would be better for them if this mess drags on a few more years. Either way, they score points: If we DO manage to stabilize things then they say “We cleaned up the mess Bush made.” If things never do improve, they win the next presidential election and pull troops out and say “Never trust a Republican president again - look at the irretrievable messes they make.”

Given the above, it seems more likely to me that the Dems want to anger Turkey so that Iraq becomes that much harder to manage. The only dumb part is that it is unnecessary. Bush is unlikely to be able to resolve Iraq before the next election anyways.
 
manualman said:
Seems to me that she and many in her party delight in and profit from the difficult time the US is having in stabilizing Iraq. Think about it: If (and it seems a stretch to even imagine it, I grant) the USA were able to quickly create a stable Iraqi government able to take care of its own security and stability needs, we could leave. If this were to happen while Bush was still in office, this would be bad political news for the Democrats.

Politically, it would be better for them if this mess drags on a few more years. Either way, they score points: If we DO manage to stabilize things then they say “We cleaned up the mess Bush made.” If things never do improve, they win the next presidential election and pull troops out and say “Never trust a Republican president again - look at the irretrievable messes they make.”

Given the above, it seems more likely to me that the Dems want to anger Turkey so that Iraq becomes that much harder to manage. The only dumb part is that it is unnecessary. Bush is unlikely to be able to resolve Iraq before the next election anyways.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The Democrats are fully invested in the defeat of the United States. They looked on this resolution is a twofer-both by pandering to Armenian descendents in several California congressional districts and at the same time hamstring the Iraqi War effort
 
manualman said:
Given the above, it seems more likely to me that the Dems want to anger Turkey so that Iraq becomes that much harder to manage.
Click to expand...
And we just can’t anger Turkey, can we?

There are four good reasons why the U.S. should have recognized the genocide:
  1. The Resolution tells the truth, and we’d be the 24th country to officially acknowledge it.
  2. The passage of time will only increase the size of the thorn in the side of what is a valuable relationship with Turkey. Armenian Massacre survivors are passing away, but their descendants have vowed to continue the struggle for recognition of the horror. The vehemence of the Armenia diaspora is increasing, not decreasing.
  3. We have far more leverage over the Turk than he does over us. We brought them into NATO, we backed their entry into the EU, we gave them most favored nation status. They get more aid from us than any other countries except for Israel and Egypt.
  4. See what they’ve done for us - they have a history of snubbing us. When Bush wanted to use Turkish bases to launch the Iraq invasion, the Turk told us to drop dead; when Bush asked the Turk to cool it on invading Iraq, he went and massed 60,000 troops on the border.
Just how far are we willing to go to cater to the successors of the Ottomans?
 
As a practical consideration, because that is what matters to politicians ~ practicality & pragmatism ~ not morals ~ so in view of that, which, just looking at Armenia and Turkey, is an ally & which is not? Turkey is a NATO ally. Is Armenia? I know that current alliances do not excuse past behavior, but when making a political decision today, this has to be a factor.

Additionally, there is the entire question of timing. There was no war in Iraq during the entire Clinton administration, during which this subject was brought up many times, and Clinton always deferred it until later, as “not being the right time”. In view of that, how can the actions of the current members of Congress is raising this issue NOW be viewed as anything but a cyncial manipulation of the issue?
 
MelanieAnne said:
In view of that, how can the actions of the current members of Congress is raising this issue NOW be viewed as anything but a cyncial manipulation of the issue?
Click to expand...
Because it’s the right thing to do. Read the reasons I gave for the Resolution. Which ones do you think are invalid?

How can fellow Christians be so anxious to kneel before the Turk and defer to his wishes in the face of what has been done?

Do you know what Bush is doing? He is openly urging the Congress to join his Administration in avoiding honesty. Can you imagine that when the U.S. wanted West Germany to join us against the Soviet Union, Washington would have refrained from condemning the Holocaust because the Germans would be offended?
 
Richardols said:
Because it’s the right thing to do. Read the reasons I gave for the Resolution. Which ones do you think are invalid?

How can fellow Christians be so anxious to kneel before the Turk and defer to his wishes in the face of what has been done?

Do you know what Bush is doing? He is openly urging the Congress to join his Administration in avoiding honesty. Can you imagine that when the U.S. wanted West Germany to join us against the Soviet Union, Washington would have refrained from condemning the Holcaust because the Germans would be offended?
Click to expand...
Sorry Richard, but if it was “the right thing to do” it was also the right thing to do when Clinton was president, and he declined. So despite the platitudes being mouth today by various members of Congress, this is obviously just a cynical manipulation of the issue, timed to create problems for the administration.
 
:cool:
Richardols said:
And we just can’t anger Turkey, can we?

There are four good reasons why the U.S. should have recognized the genocide:
  1. The Resolution tells the truth, and we’d be the 24th country to officially acknowledge it.
  2. The passage of time will only increase the size of the thorn in the side of what is a valuable relationship with Turkey. Armenian Massacre survivors are passing away, but their descendants have vowed to continue the struggle for recognition of the horror. The vehemence of the Armenia diaspora is increasing, not decreasing.
  3. We have far more leverage over the Turk than he does over us. We brought them into NATO, we backed their entry into the EU, we gave them most favored nation status. They get more aid from us than any other countries except for Israel and Egypt.
  4. See what they’ve done for us - they have a history of snubbing us. When Bush wanted to use Turkish bases to launch the Iraq invasion, the Turk told us to drop dead; when Bush asked the Turk to cool it on invading Iraq, he went and massed 60,000 troops on the border.
Just how far are we willing to go to cater to the successors of the Ottomans?
Click to expand...
There is absolutely no reason to recognize this genocide with a congressional resolution other than to pander to voters and hurt the Iraqi war effort. Fortunately a majority of Democrats have come to their senses and realized what an utterly stupid idea this was. They can now spend their time trying to find less obvious ways to bring about defeat in Iraq
 
MelanieAnne said:
Sorry Richard, but if it was “the right thing to do” it was also the right thing to do when Clinton was president, and he declined. So despite the platitudes being mouth today by various members of Congress, this is obviously just a cynical manipulation of the issue, timed to create problems for the administration.
Click to expand...
The Democrats have a majority of Congress, They can pass this resolution anytime they want and the president can not veto a congressional resolution. Those are condemning Bush for the resolution’s failure are either ignorant of the procedure for passing a resolution or being disingenuous
 
estesbob said:
They can now spend their time trying to find less obvious ways to bring about defeat in Iraq
Click to expand...
Defeat in Iraq? At whose hands? The Iraqi Army’s? Or do you honestly think that Sunnis and Shiites will wipe out our forces there?
 
If I, who am half-Armenian by ancestry, cannot trust Nancy Pelosi with a question of historical fact like the Armenian Genocide, then how can I trust her (and her more rabid collegues on the Extreme Left) with the Office of the Presidency of the United States of America? Something to consider. :twocents:
 
Richardols said:
Because it’s the right thing to do. Read the reasons I gave for the Resolution. Which ones do you think are invalid?

How can fellow Christians be so anxious to kneel before the Turk and defer to his wishes in the face of what has been done?

Do you know what Bush is doing? He is openly urging the Congress to join his Administration in avoiding honesty. Can you imagine that when the U.S. wanted West Germany to join us against the Soviet Union, Washington would have refrained from condemning the Holocaust because the Germans would be offended?
Click to expand...
The timing of this could not be worse. Do you feel the passing of this resolution is worth complicating an already tenuous situation in the middle east, and putting our soldiers in additional risk?

To me, the safety of our troops trumps the need to pass this resolution.
 
estesbob said:
:cool:

There is absolutely no reason to recognize this genocide with a congressional resolution other than to pander to voters and hurt the Iraqi war effort.
Click to expand...
The four reasons I gave aren’t enough? Didn’t the Turk hurt our war effort by refusing to allow us to use Turkey as a staging base for the initial invasion? Washington thought it important enough to ask Turkey to help us, and when the Turk told Bush to get lost, somehow we accomodated to the loss of those staging bases. Would that not be true again today?

Would the American war effort grind to a halt without Turkish accomodation? I think not.
 
shockerfan said:
The timing of this could not be worse. Do you feel the passing of this resolution is worth complicating an already tenuous situation in the middle east, and putting our soldiers in additional risk?

To me, the safety of our troops trumps the need to pass this resolution.
Click to expand...
What risk? All I get is “it will put our troops at more risk.” Can you elaborate?

As I said before, we accomodated to being refused the use of Turkey as a staging base. What supply lines are so dependent on Turkey? Are we not able to expand our existing supply lines if Turkey were to deny us using them?
 
Richardols said:
What risk? All I get is “it will put our troops at more risk.” Can you elaborate?

As I said before, we accomodated to being refused the use of Turkey as a staging base. What supply lines are so dependent on Turkey? Are we not able to expand our existing supply lines if Turkey were to deny us using them?
Click to expand...
80% of our supplies go through Turkey. The military says it would seriously degrade our ability to support the troops if Turkey was not available, It appears self-evident that degrading the ability to supply our troops would put them at more risk.
 
estesbob said:
80% of our supplies go through Turkey. The military says it would seriously degrade our ability to support the troops if Turkey was not available, It appears self-evident that degrading the ability to supply our troops would put them at more risk.
Click to expand...
And, when you were in the Service, you certainly experienced the ability of the Army to accomodate to obstacles put in its way. Why should things have changed since then? What about when they denied use of their country as a staging area? We accomodated.

And what if they send those 60,000 soldiers across the border and Bush complains and they say, “shut up or no use of Turkey”? Will we back down again?
 
Richardols said:
What risk? All I get is “it will put our troops at more risk.” Can you elaborate?
Click to expand...
Anything that limits our options to conduct this war increases risk to our troops. We do get logistical support from Turkey, perhaps not to the degree would like (your earlier post noted), but some support is better than no support. Even John Murtha, one of the war’s most vocal critics, was against this resolution.
Richardols said:
As I said before, we accomodated to being refused the use of Turkey as a staging base. What supply lines are so dependent on Turkey? Are we not able to expand our existing supply lines if Turkey were to deny us using them?
Click to expand...
Yes, we will adapt to the changing political landscape, but our own congress should not be the ones putting roadblocks and barriers to our success.

If you consider the pros and cons of this resolution, it seems to me that the cons outweigh the pros:

Pros:
We tell the “truth” about something that happened 85-90 years ago. (From what I can tell the “truth” is still under debate, but I understand the need to tell the truth)

Cons:
  1. Risk of alienating a current (2007) “ally” (yes, I know, “with Allies like these…”)
  2. Risk of current support from the above ally
  3. Resolution is non-binding, and wholly symbolic
  4. less support = increased troop risk
One final comment, I kind of liken this resolution to the publishing of pictures from Abu Ghraib. While I supported the prosecution of those soldiers involved, I did not support the publishing of the pictures. Some argued that we needed to be truthful with the world. I felt we could be truthful without publishing the pictures, inflaming the Muslim world even more, and adding more risk to our troops.

Back to this resolution…we should be truthful, but I fail to see how it is so important to speak out now, when we have other, more pressing, priorities.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top