Turkey Recalls Ambassador Over Genocide Resolution

**FactionHeir** · 10-11-2007, 21:22

I'd say so, yes.

Relations may be more or less useful for the 'war', but there are other nations in the region too which are US vassals.

Besides, wouldn't it be ... hypocritical to not denounce a genocide just because you want to be in someone's good will? Denounce terror and genocide and those who do not support you, but your friends can do all that and get away with it?

Of course that would be nothing new.
So what's next? Darfur is not a genocide?

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 10-11-2007, 21:28

Seems a bit late and pointless to denounce it really, what purpose does it serve? How is the current Turkish government responsible.

**PanzerJaeger** · 10-11-2007, 21:30

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Seems a bit late and pointless to denounce it really, what purpose does it serve? How is the current Turkish government responsible.

They are not responsible, but they deny it at all costs.

**FactionHeir** · 10-11-2007, 21:32

Its not like the current German government is responsible for the holocaust either though.

Either way, this is not about which government is responsible, but to highlight the plight of those affected and their extended families and survivors. If Turkey feels not directly responsible, then they shouldn't make a fuss about it.

**The Wizard** · 10-11-2007, 21:34

That's the weird part. Neither the Turkish Republic nor its founders had anything to do with the genocide (unlike the German state which is the legal successor to the German Reich; mind you we're talking legalities here, if we're talking practical matters it's something different), but it's the Turkish Republic that is so virulently denying it was a genocide in the first place, allowing the Armenian state (rightfully so after that) to demand an apology.

The question here is how far are the Turks willing to go. If they cut off U.S. air supplies they're risking a whole lot -- their position in the NATO and their supply of fresh craft for their air fleet. I don't think they'll try stuff like that; in a bluffing game it's big ol' Uncle Sam that's got the cards.

**Samurai Waki** · 10-11-2007, 22:26

I think the Turk's refuse it on a matter of pride (not that this is necessarily a bad thing) as it can be argued the the Armenians weren't exactly peaches to begin with either. I don't condone mass killings of any kind, (der) but I'm of the belief that this was an armed uprising handled very very incorrectly, not a genocide.

**Proletariat** · 10-11-2007, 23:32

As much as I love a smack in the chops to the freakishly nationalistic state Turkey, this was just stupid pandering to Armenian constituents by US Senators like Pelosi (I'm sure there were Republicans doing the same). Every living Secretary of State signed a letter to the House saying this was stupid.

**The Wizard** · 10-11-2007, 23:45

Hey, this was a predetermined mass murder perpetrated by the Ottoman military, commanded by Enver Pasha, as the main act in the Ottoman part in a period of major and incredibly bloody violence between Muslims (Turks, Kurds, Laz) and Christians (Armenians, Assyrians, Russians) in the Eastern part of what remained of the Ottoman empire, bordering Russia. The Armenians and their Russian buddies did plenty of killing too (this is where the official Turkish view on things is correct), just that they didn't resort to forcing thousands upon thousands of people to walk halfway across the Middle East without food or water.

Besides that, Congress has adapted resolutions like this before. The only consideration that can (and should) play is: is it worth doing the right thing (recognizing the existence of a genocide on Armenians, with the anecdote that the Armenians weren't exactly lambs for the slaughter either) if that can lead to your men and women trying to do their life-threatening job somewhere getting in big, big trouble? Considering it's unlikely the Turks can stare Washington down, I'd say yes.

**AntiochusIII** · 10-11-2007, 22:25

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

They are not responsible, but they deny it at all costs.

Probably they thought some illusory "national pride" is at stake.

Bah, nationalists.

**Devastatin Dave** · 10-17-2007, 03:31

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Seems a bit late and pointless to denounce it really, what purpose does it serve? How is the current Turkish government responsible.

What's the purpose? Well its so the dems and there 5th column liberal buddies can cut of the supplies to the troops they're always talking about "supporting". There was a time when citizens of the United States and their representatives wanted whats best for the country, not anymore. San Fran Nan should be tried for treason.