Jump to content

Obama: Talking Turkey...and Genocide


Recommended Posts

So the House Foreign Affairs Committee voted yesterday to condemn as genocide the mass killing of over a million Armenians by Turkey during WWI.

 

This topic has been pushed around for years, and my hope in this thread is not to discuss the genocide as much as to get a better snapshot of the strategy that goes on in Obama's mind.

 

During his presidential campaign, Obama repeated his support while Senator to acknowledge the killings in Turkey as genocide. He voted in favor of similar proposals while Senator, and his campaign promise (linked here) is very clear: "As a senator, I strongly support passage of the Armenian Genocide Resolution (H.Res.106 and S.Res.106), and as President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide."

 

At first I just figured he was being a politician; pandering for the Armenian vote, but according to the 2000 census, there are only about a half million American Armenians (most of which live in Calironia, a decided Dem state), and on the surface it seems like that's simply not enough reason to make a campaign promise like that. And yet there stood Obama yesterday, urging the House Foreign Affairs Committee "to forgo a vote altogether."

 

Beyond the usual "Well, he's a politician and politicians lie," I wonder if anyone can explain why he would bother to make a campaign promise which would be as seemingly easy to keep as this, and then decide against it? Why even bother with a promise like that when you know, without question, that during your presidency the topic will come up and you'll have to publically break it?

 

What is the strategic advantage for making this promise?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the strategic advantage for making this promise?

 

 

It's sheer insanity, if you ask me. Turkey is the ONE Muslim state in that region that can be counted on for anything, and this genius is going to piss them off. Brilliance, I say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's sheer insanity, if you ask me. Turkey is the ONE Muslim state in that region that can be counted on for anything, and this genius is going to piss them off. Brilliance, I say.

 

It's just Obama creating a dialog with other nations. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's sheer insanity, if you ask me. Turkey is the ONE Muslim state in that region that can be counted on for anything, and this genius is going to piss them off. Brilliance, I say.

 

Actually, I think he's against this now.

 

That'll happen when you're suddenly responsible for the foreign policy ramifications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the House Foreign Affairs Committee voted yesterday to condemn as genocide the mass killing of over a million Armenians by Turkey during WWI.

 

This topic has been pushed around for years, and my hope in this thread is not to discuss the genocide as much as to get a better snapshot of the strategy that goes on in Obama's mind.

 

During his presidential campaign, Obama repeated his support while Senator to acknowledge the killings in Turkey as genocide. He voted in favor of similar proposals while Senator, and his campaign promise (linked here) is very clear: "As a senator, I strongly support passage of the Armenian Genocide Resolution (H.Res.106 and S.Res.106), and as President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide."

 

At first I just figured he was being a politician; pandering for the Armenian vote, but according to the 2000 census, there are only about a half million American Armenians (most of which live in Calironia, a decided Dem state), and on the surface it seems like that's simply not enough reason to make a campaign promise like that. And yet there stood Obama yesterday, urging the House Foreign Affairs Committee "to forgo a vote altogether."

 

Beyond the usual "Well, he's a politician and politicians lie," I wonder if anyone can explain why he would bother to make a campaign promise which would be as seemingly easy to keep as this, and then decide against it? Why even bother with a promise like that when you know, without question, that during your presidency the topic will come up and you'll have to publically break it?

 

What is the strategic advantage for making this promise?

 

He was criticized for not having experience in foreign affairs. Making this promise gave him an international talking point with little chance of scrutiny on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So do you think he simply didn't understand the ramifications of his promise?

 

Yes.

 

I've been pretty consistent in saying that for the past year. He's had a steep learning curve (which he's still in - slowest learning process I've ever seen) in realizing his idealism conflicts directly with the complexities of reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes.

 

I've been pretty consistent in saying that for the past year. He's had a steep learning curve (which he's still in - slowest learning process I've ever seen) in realizing his idealism conflicts directly with the complexities of reality.

As I said in another thread. He's just dumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So do you think he simply didn't understand the ramifications of his promise?

 

That would simply be astounding, because when this issue started percolating a year ago (when he was very much POTUS) everyone knew what the end result would be.

 

This decision was not even close as throwing Georgia under the bus in the Russian invasion. There was absolutely no justification for him not to have a stern talk with idiots in Congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the strategic advantage for making this promise?

 

IMO.. No strategic advantage. Likely he *actually* believed it was a genocide, and likely he *actually* believed it should be recognized. Once in office he realized the diplomatic problems it would cause with Turkey and decided he would stop pushing the issue in order to be able to run the USA and it's foreign relations more smoothly.

 

I'm not saying I side with him on this. I wish he would recognize it, I'm glad of the vote. (But perhaps I would chance my mind if I was in his place?)

 

But his actions do make logical sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO.. No strategic advantage. Likely he *actually* believed it was a genocide, and likely he *actually* believed it should be recognized. Once in office he realized the diplomatic problems it would cause with Turkey and decided he would stop pushing the issue in order to be able to run the USA and it's foreign relations more smoothly.

 

I'm not saying I side with him on this. I wish he would recognize it, I'm glad of the vote. (But perhaps I would chance my mind if I was in his place?)

 

But his actions do make logical sense.

 

 

The point is...and I'm not surprised you don't get it...that it happened, when? In 1918? What POSSIBLE good can come from calling it a genocide? Be practical for a change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...