Comments:Turkey outraged over U.S. Armenian genocide resolution
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
I hope it won't get passed in the senate. Turks have been burning U.S. flags for a wile now already. They are going to be the next France. Contralya 03:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- *shrugs* it was a genocide. Lyellin 04:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know, I wasn't there. But shouldn't it be left up to historians? There is no reason to bash a nation based on what may of happened 80 years ago if it jeopardizes supply lines and stability. A big percentage of turks hate the U.S. already, after the hood event, as illustrated by a certain book and certain movie. If this thing is passed, than most Turkish will be happy at any American death and terrorists will probably start recruiting there.
- oh come on. i'm not going to say charles manson wasn't a murderer if he gets mad at me for calling him that. even the turks have admitted that 300,000 Armenians were killed, so likely there were more than that. estimates go so high as 1,500,000. according to wikipedia, "Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, religious or national group". that many Armenians killed in 3 years sounds pretty systematic to me. Turkey should own up to what happened as other countries with awful embarrassing pasts have had to. it's not like the US said that modern Turks were responsible for it. Wikisoup 17:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
It is a real shame, Turkey is one of the big players in NATO. Though, since many other government have passed similar things calling the events genocide, I doubt they can afford to be against everyone. Contralya 08:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
It is reprehensible that the U.S. is divided on the issue of whether or not to call the Armenian Genocide a genocide or not. Divided 40-10 (10 states agree that the genocide did not happen), the U.S. seems to take issue with mass killings of non-military personnel. Is there not proof of the killings? Is President Bush willing to overlook one genocide in order to continue performing his own in the Persian Gulf states?
- Did you even read the article? They are concerned about supply lines and stability in the middle east! Contralya 09:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Consider it drawing the lines and deciding where all of the major players stand on the fundamental issues. If Turkey is to be accepted as a true ally of the Free World, they have to acknowledge their past misgivings and learn from them, like the West already did with colonization and the World Wars. Then we will know that they do indeed share our basic values. Otherwise, they are no more allies than the islamofascist theocracy of Saudi Arabia is. 220.127.116.11 13:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Someone should tell the turks that. Contralya 16:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Truth is Truth.Edit
Denying historical events because it jeopardizes our current or future military goals is nothing but pure fallicy. It was a genocide and should be classified as such.
- Not passing a resolution calling it genocide is NOT saying that it wasn't genocide. And many U.S. states have already ruled that it is genocide. Contralya 09:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
While we are at it, let's label the elimination of American Indians as what it is: a genocide.
I say, lets consider what is driving this vote in senate. Did we suddenly come to the realization of this "genocide"? Consider the foreign policy implications and current goals of the lobbyist and you'll have the answer.
- No one is denying anything. What happened in the past should be determined by historians. Most people know that it was genocide, putting it into law can only hurt the relationship with Turkey. Contralya 09:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Please actually read the article before posting a comment, thank you. Contralya 09:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Another hamstrining move by the Glorious People's Democratic Party of AmericaEdit
As if insulting Turkey (a nation hosting critical forward USArmy and USAF bases) over the acts of their previous government against the peoples of Armenia (a nation NOT hosting or helping the US and/or coalition members) were not enough, perhaps the Pelosi-led coalition could pass a resolution against the British for their role in the genocide they participated in against the Native Americans or even one against the Germans for their genocide against the Celts or Romans. At what point do we continue to punish modern peoples for the crimes of their predecessors? I'm firmly waiting for the Democratically-led Congress to reprimand themselves for the genocidal activities of their predecessors against the Iroquois, the Spanish, and the Japanese.
First step in moving on is to acknowlege the crime.Edit
A good chunk of the world recognizes it at genocide, as do most historians. It was done by their predecessor government. This is just like Russia refusing to acknowledge the crimes the USSR inflicted on it's enslaved territories. The Germans don't seem to have a problem on weather or not the Holocaust happened. I guess the problem is, in Germany, the horrible acts were done by a radical racist fascist group: Nazis and Hitler, but in other places in the world, they don't have a group like the Nazis to blame (Japan also has the problem.)
The Turks have been lying to themselves. If they hadn't been, this thing would of passed decades earlier and the Turks wouldn't be so bent out of shape because of it. Contralya 16:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Since when are states countries? The map has several states shaded, however they have little meaning in context of the map which indicates countries. 18.104.22.168 02:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)