What are the Dems up to threatening Turkey?

DigitalDave said:
Or making sure gays don't marry.

BTW, did you see Lynn Cheney last night on Jon Stewart. She said she supports gay marraige and so does Dick.
Click to expand...

No, but I have heard some feedback on it from people who did, and they are Stewart fans...but they were disappointed in how he conducted himself. I am going to watch it online when I get home.
 
Cypress said:
I just read up on the background.

Evidently, this isn't a spur of the moment thing. For years and years, resolutions about the armenian genocide have come up in the House, but the GOP leadership would never let it get voted on.

Now that the Dems have control, they appear to finally be ready to pass something recognizing the Armenian Genocide.
Click to expand...

But Cypress, the genocide occurred in 1912...the dems lost the house in 1994.

Surely they had time between 1912 and 1994?

I don't know what is going on with this, and I'm not saying at all that I disagree with it...I want to know more.
 
Darla said:
But Cypress, the genocide occurred in 1912...the dems lost the house in 1994.

Surely they had time between 1912 and 1994?

I don't know what is going on with this, and I'm not saying at all that I disagree with it...I want to know more.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure. I don't think human rights and concern about genocide really became a topic of international concern until after world war two, and more specifically in the last few decades. But, maybe I'm wrong.

Maybe you're right: there's more to it.
 
Superfreak said:
yep... the DEM led Congress brought that up for a vote too. Such outstanding leadership.
Click to expand...

Yes, at Republican insistence. Just because the dems have no balls, doesn't mean you were up in arms over the resolution being a waste of time, I don't recall your mentioning that?
 
Darla said:
No, but I have heard some feedback on it from people who did, and they are Stewart fans...but they were disappointed in how he conducted himself. I am going to watch it online when I get home.
Click to expand...

It was a good interview, I don't think Jon conducted himself badly. I think his audience made things uncomfortable after one of her comments. But other than that it was a funny interview. She brought in a Darth Vader doll for him...
 
Cypress said:
I'm not sure. I don't think human rights and concern about genocide really became a topic of international concern until after world war two, and more specifically in the last few decades. But, maybe I'm wrong.

Maybe you're right: there's more to it.
Click to expand...

xxxx
 
The Turkish parliament can just pass a resolution condemning our genocide of native americans, and we can call it even.

:cof1:
 
One thing that sucks, is that the Turks officially deny the armenian holocaust. Which is virtually as bad as the Iranian president denying the jewish holocaust.

NY Time is great. I ran across this tidbit on a Turkish Nobel prize winner, who has been persecuted by the turkish government for even daring to talking about the genocide and dark chapters in turkish history


Orhan Pamuk’s Nobel Prize

Published: October 16, 2006

Orhan Pamuk, the Turkish novelist who has won this year’s Nobel Prize in Literature, is not an overtly political writer. But like every serious artist, Mr. Pamuk lives in a world where the freedom to speak the truth has to be reasserted every day against political forces that would rather not hear it.

Mr. Pamuk’s prize is richly deserved. It was awarded for a body of work, fiction and nonfiction, that is driven by the conscience of imagination as well as the conscience of memory. In books like “Snow,” “My Name Is Red” and “Istanbul,” he has made Turkey, past and present, a vital part of the modern reader’s literary atlas. And in turn, it is Turkey that has given Mr. Pamuk his political edge.

Islamists and Turkish nationalists tend to think of Mr. Pamuk as a literary provocateur, especially for his brief but candid remarks about the Armenian genocide quoted in a Swiss magazine last year. But we think Mr. Pamuk was speaking the truth. For the sake of art and conscience, he has resisted any effort to quiet his literary voice.

Some of those efforts, like the offer to become a Turkish “state artist,” which he declined, were flattering. Others, like the recent prosecution against him, since dropped, for anti-Turkish remarks, were not so flattering.

Mr. Pamuk’s Nobel will be a popular one, except, of course, among people who believe that artists should be allowed to work only under political or religious supervision. His prize is also a reminder of how often the Nobel has been given to a writer whose work exposes the tension between the state and the artist.

We read Mr. Pamuk’s books as they should be read — for the imaginative and linguistic pleasure in them — seldom remembering that every artist’s freedom to speak is our freedom, too. This prize helps us remember that.
Click to expand...
 
Cypress said:
One thing that sucks, is that the Turks officially deny the armenian holocaust. Which is virtually as bad as the Iranian president denying the jewish holocaust.

NY Time is great. I ran across this tidbit on a Turkish Nobel prize winner, who has been persecuted by the turkish government for even daring to talking about the genocide and dark chapters in turkish history
Click to expand...

Well, I was going to mention, when a couple of people asked, why call it a genocide now? to ask a jew that about the holocaust, but duck first.

Yeah.
 
Darla said:
Well, I was going to mention, when a couple of people asked, why call it a genocide now? to ask a jew that about the holocaust, but duck first.

Yeah.
Click to expand...


Indeed. If Fox News is going to get bent out of shape because some quack in Iran denys the jewish holocaust, would they ever get outraged if the turkish government denied the armenian genocide.

Your point is taken. ;)
 
Whether or not it is true that genocide occurred (and I believe that it did), don't these legislators consider the diplomatic consequences of actions such as this? We have to deal with these people today, in this world, in contemporary times. Does the acknowledgement of genocide absolutely have to be made official, today, this year, under the conditions we face in the ME today?

This action is sheer diplomatic folly, and sometimes "right" doesn't enter into it, especially when the wrong occurred 95 years ago. The resolution should be tabled until things in the ME are stable, if they ever become so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top