Turkey Recalls US Ambassador

[CB..]

"This resolution is not the right response to these historic mass killings," Bush told reporters at the White House.

what he forgot was the additional "AT THIS TIME"

if Turkey had have refused Bush the right to use their airspace...who knows what the right time would have been then..

[SUBMAN1]

Something tells me we are going to see Turkish tanks in Northern Iraq soon.

-S

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Something tells me we are going to see Turkish tanks in Northern Iraq soon.

They're here!

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

They're here!

Not quite, but recalling an ambassidor is a strong signal. He is not coming back as they claim, and they probably plan to attack certain Kurdish factions I would guess.

Thanks Pelosi. That's a real class act on foriegn policy (sacasim). Can she have better timing? Is she doing this on purpose? Who the hell elected her? Kalifornian's - I forgot.

-S

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Not quite, but recalling an ambassidor is a strong signal.

How could Germany make Turkey doing this to us, too?

Congrats for that vote, America. Genocide remains genocide, no matter what strategic interests one has. And if Turkey hates to be reminded of shadows in its past - who outside Turkey gives a penny for that? They simply have not to demand other sovereign nations to be obedient to Turkey's will.

The ties between Turkey and the US are loosening since longer. Even when ignoring my personal scepticism for Turkey, I would recommend America to replace the strategic options Turkey means for them by alternatives, in America's best own interest. The sooner, the better, for nobody must want to depend on Turkey. It will come to that segregation anyway in the not far away future. The only question is wether one wastes time and later needs to change course in a hurry, or if one has enough time to control course and pace of this needed adaptation process.

[August]

While they're at it the US Congress ought to pass a bill denouncing Italy for the things Roman legions did in Gaul.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by August

While they're at it the US Congress ought to pass a bill denouncing Italy for the things Roman legions did in Gaul.

Pretty much my sentiments right there. Let the past, especially many generations ago, but just that - the past. Something that happened 100 years ago with its persecutors long since dead has little semblance on todays politics other than to tick someone off. This is just Pelosi's attempt to screw with Bush's foriegn policy. Tick an ally off in Iraq, so that it is that much harder for Bush not to pull out. That is what she is up to.

-S

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

While they're at it the US Congress ought to pass a bill denouncing Italy for the things Roman legions did in Gaul.

when Germany still is linked to the Third Reich and the Holocaust, and the genocide of the Hereros in today's Namibia (short before first WW), and Japan still is linked to the brutality of their occupation of China, and the second WW, and Britain still is remineded of certain acts of comparing brutality during the colonial age, just to mention three examples, then it is only fair deal that Turkey is expected to face it's dark spots in history as well. Even more so when considering that Armenians are still opressed today, are discriminated, and as a people still are massively handicapped as a result from those atrocities and removals.

The comparison of Rome and the Gauls I refuse to buy for that reason. america has strategic and military interests in Turkey, and that is the only reason the WH tries to fight against that justified classification of the Armenian killings as genocide.

for comparable reasons, in the UN many massmurderings happening that would fulfill the criteria of the anti-genocide convention of the UN from 1948 are refused to be called genocide, becasue the charta makes it obilgatory that the international community has to take appropriate reaction to intervene in genocides being carried out. Since many are not willing to engage in a given example of genocide, or have interests they give higher priorities than a genocide happening, they refuse to call a genocide as "genocide".

Which means that all Western nations clearly make a difference between genocides they condemn - and genocides that they accept.

Oh yeah, our moral example is so shining and clear.