wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Comments

• [1] hjs from 11211 October 16, 2007 - 10:19AM

  Turkey claims to be a Nato ally but they would not aid the USA durning the invasion of Iraq. now they aid in weakening a very weak Iraq.

  they claim they want to join the EU but don’t support human rights. Armenian genocide happened and the Turks should join the west and condemn the actions of their grandfathers. Also they should allow the Kurds the basic right of their own language.

  Turkey is not a western leaning state and no ally.

  
  
• [2] JB from Upper East Side October 16, 2007 - 10:46AM

  Is this a lot more serious than being reported in the mainstream? To me, this seems like a 'world war' type situation could start if Turkey invades Iraq, and the current U.S. leaders refuse to get us out. We would create a new enemy and the world will have to once again take sides. (?)

  
  
• [3] Chad Harris from ridgewood October 16, 2007 - 10:49AM

  I love how dismissive everyone is about this. Don't even try to question ANYTHING about Hitler's Holocaust or shows like Brian Leher will lambaste you for such a thing.

  
  
• [4] Paulo from Paterson, New Jersey October 16, 2007 - 10:56AM

  The other thing to keep in mind is that this is further compounded by the appearance of complete arrogance on the part of the Americans (Democratic Congress in this case) to bring this up right at a critical time like this. It must seem to the Turks like the Americans are provoking them which almost turns the actual genocide discussion into a peripheral issue. It seems even to ME like we're provoking them.

  I'm concerned that the Democrats are doing this to spoil the Bush foreign policy regardless of the suffering it creates as a result. I'm no fan of the President, but that doesn't mean I want to go whacking a hornet's nest in hopes that he's the one who gets stung.

  
  
• [5] ab October 16, 2007 - 11:04AM

  I have to agree with Chad....the tone is very dismissive in regards to the Armenian genocide (which clearly fits the definition of a genocide..it wasn't just a forced march there was also systematic killings..hangings specificaly for which there is photographic evidence!!! Notably some of which was shot by a German soldier who would have been executed by the Germans if what he was doing had been known!)

  Is this the right time? How can that even be a question?

  We would NEVER be discussing that about the Jewish holocaust...so why doesn't this get treated the same way. This may not be the most opportune time for the Congress to do what it did but as Pelosi stated in that clip...THERE'S always been an excuse as to why it's not the right time.

  Genocide is genocide...period!

  And just as people who deny the Jewish genocide are disgusting and despicable so is anyone who denies ANY other genocide! This validating of the question of whether this is the right time is just wholly hypocritical to me coming from people who would in turn criticize anyone who denied the holocaust of WWII.

  "...something that happened so long ago"? Are you kidding me? So because it happened some 90 some odd years ago as opposed to some 60 some odd years ago makes it somehow less relevant and less deserving to be called what it was?????

  
  
• [6] Jeffrey Slott from East Elmhurst October 16, 2007 - 11:29AM

  If the Turkish government and peoples had any real wit, they could point to the U.S. treatment of the Indians or the African slave trade, effects of which still corrupt the moral core of this society.

  
  
• [7] eCAHNomics October 16, 2007 - 11:33AM

  I'll favor accusing the Turks of genocide right after U.S. admits genocide wrt indigenous N. American pop.

  Hey, hjs, what did U.S. invasion of Iraq have to do with NATO? Afghanistan had NATO involved on treaty declaring that attack on one is attack on all, but you might remember that Iraq did not attack any country at all, so Turkey owed us nothing on that score.

  Meanwhile, 70% of supplies to Iraq go thru Incirlik Air Base in Turkey, and they can shut it off.

  Good luck to all you folks who want to put a 100-year old historical event, and one about which reasonable people can disagree,* against U.S. troops in Iraq. Seems like a reasonable tradeoff to me--not.

  *The argument against genocide is that Armenians did not die in vastly different portions than others, including Turks, living under the same conditions as Armenians. I personally don't know enough to have an opinion, but the anti-case does not sound like it should be dismissed out of hand.

  
  
• [8] hjs from 11211 October 16, 2007 - 11:58AM

  eCAHNomics,

  sorry I didn't mean Iraq had anything to do with nato. they were separate thoughts. turkey is a bad ally. they are our ally in Nato. but when we needed their help they would not help us. they are no ally.

  turkey can never be considered a modern state when people go to jail for referring to Armenian genocide or speaking their own language in their own homeland. few people in this country dispute what the USA did to our natives and no one goes to jail for referring to it.

  
  
• [9] hjs from 11211 October 16, 2007 - 12:01PM

  Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians? - Adolf Hitler

  
  
• [10] ab October 16, 2007 - 12:15PM

  Of course the USA should admit it's genocidal tendencies to the Native American population, particularly in regards to "manifest destiny"

  BUT the idea of not calling the Armenian genocide a genocide until the US admits it...strikes me as quite frankly childish....genocide is genocide.

  The USA admitting or not admitting it's hand in genocide has nothing to do with what the Turks did in WWI.