It's things like this that make it easy for the Republicans to claim that Liberals are actually detrimental to our country and to our troops. The long and short of this is that the Armenians were slaughtered by the Turkish government, 90 years ago during the first World War, in what can only rightly be declared as a genocide. For some stupid reason that beggars all logic the current Turkish government which has no relationship to the murderers don't want the US to declare this a genocide. If we do they will withdraw support of our troops and yet there are still people who want us to do this now.
Comments
-
bloc said on Oct 18, 2007....
how can denouncing genocide be detrimental to our country? The only way that can be true is if our country is meaningless in terms of it's ideals! -
SeanRenaud said on Oct 18, 2007....
If it costs us Turkey which seems likely since the Turkish Ambasador has already left the country in protest it will be detrimental. We are running rather low on Middle Eastern allies, particularly those that border Iraq.This is a case of wether ideals trump the safety of our troops. It really comes down is it even worth risking them withdrawing support? If these things were happening now or were even the same government I could understand. I'm deeply annoyed that Turkey would take this personally, it has pretty much nothing to do with him. Only slightly more than the Roman conquests have to do with Italy. The fact that isn't the way they look at the situation though is what we have to acknowledge and work with. -
bloc said on Oct 18, 2007....
"If it costs us Turkey which seems likely since the Turkish Ambasador has already left the country in protest it will be detrimental. We are running rather low on Middle Eastern allies, particularly those that border Iraq."
This brings up our usual disagreement. I'm a moralist and you are a ... not a moralist.
There is another question that isn't being asked. Most people probably don't realize that this is not a new issue. It's been an issue for years, I happen to live in an area with a lot of armenians so I'm more aware of it. If we are going to ask "why do this now, why not later?" then don't we also need to ask why we didn't do the right thing long ago? Who is responsible for that?
-
SeanRenaud said on Oct 18, 2007....
People who didn't care at the time? Why it wasn't declared before I haven't the foggiest.Yeah it is our usual disagreement. I'd rather be alive and immoral instead of dead and moral. You'd make a great believer you know. I mean you make and are willing to make many decisions that are good but not in your best interests as if there was reward waiting.Course anytime somebody says that morality and religion cannot be separated there is always you to point to. -
bloc said on Oct 18, 2007....
i'm not an atheist, but most people making that claim wouldn't consider me religious! You could point to kelly or antimatter as well.
At least you are mostly consistent. The problem is that those arguing about this issue aren't for the most part. Bush wants to claim that one of the major justifications of the war in Iraq is relieve people from the brutal saddam. That our conscience is the justification. You can't say that and then argue take the position that we should ignore a genocide (far larger than any of saddam's crimes) because it's politically expedient.
-
TinSoldier said on Oct 18, 2007....
I don't think we should ignore genocide, and most of the world believes that it happened.
Ninety years ago, though. Why bring it up now? I know the answer to that is "if not now, then when?" but it's been ninety freaking years! At least waiting a few more years for stuff to settle down in that neighborhood and not antagonizing one of our few allies would be a good idea, since no one seemed to think that making a resolution was a good idea prior to the invasion of Iraq.
bloc, I think the word you are looking for is "pragmatist". I personally try to take the moral path most of the time, but I also try and recognize points where pragmatism in the short term is better.
I'm rarely correct about it though.
-
TinSoldier said on Oct 18, 2007....
So basically, Sean's post title was right on. -
bloc said on Oct 18, 2007....
"Ninety years ago, though. Why bring it up now?"This isn't the first time it's been brought up so a better question is why we didn't do this earlier? Have you ever thought to look into it and ask who is responsible for it not being done sooner? Aren't the people who blocked it over the many years up to this point more stupid than the people bringing it up now?"bloc, I think the word you are looking for is "pragmatist" "There are many terms I could have used, and I'm not sure which is most accurate. He's a utilitarian or even a nihilist. -
TinSoldier said on Oct 18, 2007....
bloc -- I agree (and I hoped that you would have taken that from my post) about questioning why we didn't do this sooner. If Congress has made resolutions similar to this before then I am unaware of it.
Of course, it wouldn't be the only thing that Congress did or didn't do that I was unaware of.
However, I have been aware of the Armenian genocide for a few years now -- I think I first heard about it in the late 90s when we were fighting the Serbs? I'm not sure now.
-
bloc said on Oct 19, 2007....
there have been many many attempts to do this in the past. -
TinSoldier said on Oct 19, 2007....
Thanks -- I'll check that link later. -
catch22 said on Oct 21, 2007....
If Bush thought it important to oust and kill Sadam because of his wicked ways then he needs to invade CHINA, or SHUT THE FUCK UP. -
SeanRenaud said on Oct 21, 2007....
One problem at a time. Not that I disagree with your basic insanity. -
truthsayer said on Oct 28, 2007....
Hi guys:
I only read a few things on here these days guys. I haven't even answered all the comments on my own blog. I hope to get to it later. I just really felt compelled to respond to this blog.
Sorry fellas, but this sounds like another case of selective morality. Everyone feels like they have a 'list', but can anyone agree on one list? Until then, no one can claim to be a 'moralist' bloc...unless they brand their own 'morality' as superior to all others. You don't do that, do you? I mean this with all due respect.
Bloc, do you honestly believe that your personal moratlity is the standard that we should all live by? I would be interested in your written moral code or some other type of compendium of morals that you can share with me. I would like to read them, so that I can better understand you and your personal moral system. Please don't tell me that your personal list is "cause no harm". That is impossible in this world bloc...even with the best of intentions, people get hurt and 'bad things' happen.
Also, please note that being pragmatic isn't in opposition to morality, for heaven's sake.
I have a challenge for you...if you believe that you are a good moral judge of all things (or most things). Do your research on Planned Parenthood, and "out them" publicly...take an honest look at their origins and what philosophy it is based upon...not what you feel it has "evolved into"...but its origins. A system is no better than their origins, or their "input". What was it intended for? I mean what was it really intended for? Then write about that. I dare you, because it certainly didn't have moral origins. Let alone comparing genocide to infanticide; which we would obviously disagree about, so we won't even get into that here.
Perhaps you all feel that there is a nation that has always been perfect systemically and historically. Perhaps you consider yourselves perfect judges of world systems? We have the longest standing consititution in the history of the world. We aren't perfect, and we have fallen far from what we were intended to be...but we still have the best government in the world to date.
So, what's your point bloc? If we cannot do everything perfectly, we ought not to do anything at all? If we cannot help all of the people in the world, we shouldn't help anyone at all? Do you prioritize your day? Or do you do everything all at once, or else nothing at all (which we both know is totally impossible ; )?
We cannot assume the lotus position all day, everyday bloc. We must work and do our best at all things. Perhaps you would make a better President than Bush, or Clinton? Or Washington or Lincoln? Because they all had to do their best with what they had, in this fallen world bloc. It is corrupt. But unless you are in a Jim Jones mindset (God forbid), we gotta keep on keeping on.
Would the Dalai Lama be a better President of the United States of America? I think not. I think he is a better at being the Dalai Lama...and I think the presidents...all of them, did the best that they could do, with what they had.
But I am just one humble truthsayer, you know? We can always purpose in our hearts to be better. But is it really helping anyone to make this declaration against the Turks here and now? I fail to see your logic.
All of my questions are things I am curious about, and I am always interested in your answers if you choose to respond. I know this is an old blog...but I haven't been around much. I really will understand if you guys don't respond.
Later men.
Truthsayer
-
SeanRenaud said on Oct 29, 2007....