Hey guys, I know it's not my blog week, but I noticed that Roxanne, the guest speaker who came to F Block to talk about the Armenian genocide, had an opinion article in the Insight section of the Chronicle today. She argues for the passing of the Armenian Genocide Resolution in Congress. Here's the link: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/11/04/INTDT2UPH.DTL
A point of hers which I found interesting:
"The United States has numerous military bases in the area - in Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Jordan, Bulgaria, the United Arab Emirates and Afghanistan - from which we can operate.
The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and the Turkish Daily News have all quoted U.S. officials saying that if Turkey cut off our base or supply lines, it would not greatly affect our military operations. And, according to a recent article in Defense News, the Armenian genocide resolution wouldn't even "dent" U.S. arms sales to Turkey. Several years ago, when France passed a similar resolution, arms sales between France and Turkey were back to booming within months."
This flies in the face of the counterargument I've read often in other media that if Turkey were to stop allowing United States military to use their land and airspace, the military's mission would be hindered and it would put the US at risk.
What do you all think about this and the rest of Roxanne's argument?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I think that Roxanne's argument is really strong. She makes valid historical points which demonstrate that the U.S. probably won't be at risk if we pass the resolution. However, although from a historical perspective passing a resolution like this wouldn't hurt us, it is still possible that it could. While anyone would have to speculate about what will happen, her speculations are all positive. I think people who oppose passing the resolution fear that something still could go wrong with our relations with Turkey which would leave us at a disadvantage in the war.
I was reading some of the comments that other readers left in response to her article and one of them, the first one in fact, really surprised me. Part of it reads, "What possible benefit to anyone is the U.S. labeling the Armenian Massacre genocide? Making Armenians feel good? Is that what our government is for? I don't personally know if it was genocide or war nor do I really understand the difference. Is one kind of killing really any better than another? Do nations owe their enemies some kind of minimum population? Wasn't there a war on at the time?"
Not only does this person seem ignorant by asking "wasn't there a war going on at the time?", but this reponse seems somewhat harsh and rude.
Do you agree? or is that just my personal feeling?
roxanne certainly is good - her argument has a logical basis.
that response was rather rude - it had a harsh tone; if the person who wrote it disagreed, they could have written a logical, less hostile response.
this person is ignorant - there's no difference between war and genocide? last time i checked, there definitely was.
however, i guess this brings up the question, though - what exactly is the PURPOSE of the resolution, and why NOW? why didn't they do this 20, 30 years ago? wouldn't it have been more effective then? why not pass it in a few more years, when the war in iraq is over?
-coe
to answer coe's "why now" question I think there are several reasons.
There's the idea that - it should have been done a long time ago and it should be done as soon as possible and that we may simply continue postponing it. Also, there's the idea that we need to admit that the armenian genocide occurred so that we can seem fully correct in asserting that there is a current genocide occurring... Also, some say that because of the dificulty in passing the resolution now and its consequences that it makes it more powerful. if there was no debate than the resolution might not have the same impact.
i'm not sure if i agree with all of these ideas though. I still feel that it is better to preserve lives at this point and pass the resolution a year or too later.
Post a Comment