Turkey Forms Alliance With Iran Against Kurds

When it takes so little to expose such false "friends", then good riddance.

Driving opposition(?) Kurds from Iraq sounds a lot like a human rights disaster and possible crime against humanity in the offing. I know the PKK has attacked Iran and Turkey in the past. So why aren't they being specific in talking about going after the PKK instead of "the Kurds"?

So the Democrats may have just maneuvered Bush into a war with Iran they supposedly oppose and Bush won't be able to avoid.

I wonder how that feels?

So the Democrats have resorted to doing anything possible to make sure that the War in Iraq is lost.

This is not about what happened 90 years ago, it's about making sure that everything possible is done to spoil any kind of victory for GW.

For sure this was a pressing issue for the Democrats,( you would think that the war on terror was but, according to them it's all in our heads)

They could not think of any other way to make it harder for the troops in Iraq just so that Bush can cop a kick in the ass.

Typical smart ass politics by the left and as usual not much mentioned by the left loonie blogs about the ramifications.

Turkey alliance with Iran?!!!

I just heard the 'reject' buzzer go off... Blaaahhhh!!

Turkey just rejectected itself from the EU for the next 100 years.

Good riddance to islamic fundamentalist Turkey, if they can't control their plague of Allah. God help them.

This has nothing to do with genocide of a century ago.
This has got treason written all over it,
and this genocide vote was gone about for the wrong reasons...the leftists pushing it don't give a rat's ass about the armenian genocide.
We all know it happened...that's not the point.
The point is exploiting an event in history to commit the worst act of treason in history, all at the behest of someone not even in elected office.

pelosi & kucinich go suck up to syria, in direct violation of the Logan Act (nobody but the President makes foreign policy, those two traitors violated just that act). Now we know what it was about.

Suddenly, a way to fulfill their puppetmaster's wishes comes about...for the wrong reasons, that of forcing a change in foreign policy of the President by subterfuge and coercion...aka, TREASON. (that's REAL treason, not that bogus BULLSHIT the offenders themselves had claimed before)...

Using said vote, knowing that
-70% of supplies for the war go through Turkey
-Turkey would undoubtedly react this way
-Turkey forces a change in the fundamental balance of power, and knowing those instigating this would in the end force a disruption of said supplies, thus a disruption in the continuation of the operations in Iraq...for the same wrong reasons.

Pelosi and kucinich are owned by the shadow party, and that owner is none other than george "the capo" soros.
That B*T*H like her ally HITlery, would murder you, me, anyone, just to sit in that chair in the oval office...and they damned well know it, just to get in, and stay in, power.

THAT, and ONLY THAT, is what this whole damned thing is all about...forcing, BY FORCE, a change in foreign policy, in direct and treasonous contravention of the Logan Act, and nothing less than a g**ddamned coup d'etat...period.

This action by them fooled nobody in the know, and was so blatant a blind man could see it coming a mile away...acting on the wishes of their puppetmaster soros himself.

If that's not blatantly clear and unmistakable treason, then the word has no meaning.
That's what this whole thing is all about.

The enemy within is instigating an outright coup against a sitting President, and if we let this stand, then kiss what's left of our Country goodbye...here come the closet commies we've been talking about.

It had nothing whatsoever to do with something we all know happened...it had EVERYTHING to do with direct contempt and direct attempt to take control of foreign policy "by any means necessary".

Welcome to the prelude to the next American Civil War.
Battle lines are about to be drawn.
I know whose side I'm on- Americas.
pelos(K)i and kucinich(sky) are NOT, nor are their partners in crime, and no amount of reconciliation will heal this blatant act of clear and unmistakable TREASON I express the ultimate contempt for-because they deserve it.

Thank GOD for the 2nd Amendment.

Lock 'N Load
God help us all.

More on the treasonous traitors actions...
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2007/ss_turkey_10_15.asp
...and why, which makes the point more obvious than it already is.

It has nothing to do with recognizing a holocaust.
It has EVERYTHING to do with fulfilling the wishes of equally treasonous traitors using circumventive and means worthy of the 5th columnists we've known about for decades...now they're making their move, and going for a jugular.

Thomas Jefferson is right:
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

God help us all.

How dare we accuse Turkey of a crime against humanity.
Why, it's enough to drive them to ... a crime against humanity.

Typical bloody Muslim logic.
Barbarians.

Still, one does have to question the timing and motivation of those in the U.S. who were pushing for this.
Treason does seem to be rife everywhere in the West lately.

I remember when the entire village of my Kurdish friends in London were "arrested" by the Turkish authorities and later "released" on payment of a "fine" which family and friends from all over the world had to raise ..

i.e. the Turkish state kidnapped them and then demanded ransom from "rich" Kurds living in "the West" ...

Well, I can't speak for the dictating european policy (I agree I don't think they should be part of EU either), and Mike W is right obout the (il)logic of turkey on that issue...
...but the point I made it's about the speaker of the house and a known lackey of the communist left trying to make US policy where they have no authority to do so, and violated a major law doing just that (yet have claimed treason against their own political enemies for far less when they themselves just did that very same thing which is far worse)...
-the 5th columnists timing is obvious & planned
-the 5th columnists motivation is malicious at best, cold, calculated, and orchestrated treason at worst.
-the 5th columnists in the US who backed a resolution, for reasons that had NOTHING to do with the indisputable armenian genocide (as Secretary Gates said in no uncertain terms)
They give a rats ass about 1 thing: their powerbase.
-the 5th columnists used the dead as nothing more than convenient pawns in their own political coup attempt-the results of which we see (as per topic), and that's what this whole thing is ALL about, and nothing less than an outright coup...the effects of which, will hardly be able to be measured.

political correctness has just gone to a whole new level

Turkey needs to be partitioned. It is too big and unruly to be a reliable ally of the West. Smaller entities will more likely to do as we tell them.

Most average Americans (Right and Left) support the Christian Armenians and I suspect the Republicans that are supporting Turkey are only doing so because defense companies' lobbyists and some other players are telling them to vote that way. I have no doubt they will sell out Turkey too for the right price.

That's just politics in Washington. Everyone does as others tell him or her by-and-large.

As for the Logan Act, it has not been tested. Pelosi( as 3rd in rank to the Presidency) can claim a popular mandate by virtue of the defeat of the Republicans, opinion polls and the large number of Electoral College votes that California has (and its large Armenian community). That’s democracy. All politics is local as FDR reminded us.

Usurping authority where it is not authorized, using an indirect and devious approach, exploiting victims of long ago which otherwise isn't disputable, for the wrong reasons, for plainly malicious and bogus reasons, namely a sitting overthrow of a sitting President where they are not authorized to do (regardless of "tested laws"), isn't "just politics"...it's t-r-e-a-s-o-n...the same "treason" they accused their political enemies of for far less, when in fact their REAL treason is far worse, and all the attempts to water it down won't work.

It's the 5th column at work.

...by the way, about those *ahem* "mandate"s & polls...
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27946
14% (some were even lower but this is fine for comparison), especially considering it's already half last years after just 9 1/2 months, isn't a mandate,
and it's also irrelevant to the matter of usurping foreign policy they're not authorized to make, period.

Grandstanding Has Consequences
by Michael Rubin
National Review Online
October 15, 2007
http://www.meforum.org/article/1765

Last week, a congressional committee passed a resolution condemning the Armenian genocide. There is no doubt that up to a million Armenians died during World War I, although historians still debate whether their deaths constitute deliberate genocide or are collateral casualties of war.

House Democrats brought the resolution to a vote despite entreaties from the White House to postpone it. For Congress, though, the resolution was less about rectifying history than grandstanding. House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Tom Lantos (D., Cal.) called a vote. It passed. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) pooh-poohed the episode. This was not about Turkey, she explained, but rather "about the Ottoman Empire." Unclear, though, is why congressional Democrats felt the urgent need to condemn an entity that hasn't existed for 85 years.

Unfortunately, grandstanding has consequences. Turkey recalled its ambassador; and now the State Department finds itself now devoid of leverage to prevent a Turkish incursion into Iraq to fight Kurdish terrorists. Pelosi's posturing has put U.S. use of the Incirlik Air Base in Turkey to supply our forces both in Afghanistan and Iraq in jeopardy.

If only the Armenian Genocide resolution was an isolated event. It's amateur hour in Congress. The efforts of Sen. Joseph Biden (D., Del.) to divide Iraq on ethnic and religious grounds threaten to spark civil war just as U.S. servicemen make inroads in preventing it. Biden's motivation may be to garner media attention. He has succeeded. The problem, though, his statements get more airtime in Iran and Iraq, where revolutionary mullahs use his pronouncements to convince Iraqis that U.S. forces seek to destroy Iraq rather than rebuild it.

The list goes on. In May 2006, Rep. Jack Murtha (D., Pa.) said that U.S. Marines executed Iraqis "in cold blood." Overnight, his clip became an Al-Jazeera favorite. Islamist terrorists used Murtha's words to justify their murder of Americans. Now, a court martial has dismissed murder charges against the servicemen Murtha accused; Murtha has yet to apologize.

Other congressmen see intelligence briefings as an a la carte menu for chest-thumping leaks than part of confidential oversight duties. Every leak splashed across a New York Times undercuts the war on terror.

Junkets also have a cost. Basking in the glow of Pelosi's headline-garnering visit to Damascus — again in contravention of a State Department request — Syrian leader Bashar al-Asad upgraded his support for Hezbollah and his nuclear dealings with North Korea.

The resolution, while important to the Armenian-American community — perhaps less so to Armenians living in Armenia who worry much more about economic development — also raises a host of questions about how Congress picks and chooses which atrocities to weigh in on. While Condoleezza Rice seeks to bring Beijing on board with Iran sanctions — a Herculean if not impossible task — will the House Foreign Affairs Committee condemn Beijing for the millions who perished during the Cultural Revolution? Their murders — politically motivated and, as far as the historical record is concerned, far more deliberate and coordinated — also occurred much more recently. Perhaps the House Foreign Affairs Committee will also act to bring Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Iraqi Kurdistan Region President Masud Barzani to justice for ordering the disappearance and summary executions of perhaps 3,000 Kurds during the 1994-1997 Kurdish civil war. This is not to suggest that such cases should not be pursued. But, the House Foreign Affairs Committee is not the place to pursue such historical investigations; universities are.

In an election season, Pelosi, Biden, and Murtha, may have no greater goal than to garner headlines, but U.S. servicemen fighting terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan do. Countering proliferation and fighting terrorism will dominate diplomacy regardless of who next occupies the White House. There's no time for amateur hour. As U.S. troops continue to sacrifice to defend U.S. national security, it is unfortunate that headline seeking congressmen seek to make their job that much harder.

Michael Rubin, editor of the Middle East Quarterly, is resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

Looks like the begining of the end for Turkey. It was a country that tried the democracy route but it looks like it will go the way of other Muslim nations or simply break up like the old Yugoslavia.

The truth is that the Turkish army protected the country's democratic rule. But I have read online also that the Islamofacists have started to move into the ranks of the army. Look, folks, Turkey is finished as a country and is in time, history.

Well as far as the House is concerned, it is not suprising this vote took place, because this was going to happened, Pelosi and company were going to pull the rug from under President Bush.

It is time for the Federal Marshals to enter the House and Cuff a few.

Turkey Vultures
October 15, 2007: 08:05 PM EST

Oct. 16, 2007 (Investor's Business Daily delivered by Newstex) --

Politics: We earlier ascribed Congress' move to declare the Ottoman Turks' slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians a genocide to simple Democratic incompetence. It may, however, be something much darker.

Based on the actions of Democrats in Congress recently, it's hard not to think that they actually want the U.S. to lose the war in Iraq -- and will do almost anything to see it happens.

Unfortunately, they've run up against these headlines from Iraq in just the last couple of days: "Al-Qaeda In Iraq Reported Crippled" (Washington Post), "Shiite Leader Makes Reconciliatory Gesture, Visits Sunni Anbar Province" (Associated Press), and "Iraq Sees Dramatically Low Death Toll" (Associated Press).

The U.S. sure seems to be winning. Everywhere you go these days you see -- dare we say it? -- good news coming from Iraq.

But as Democratic Majority Whip James Clyburn said two months ago about positive developments in Iraq, any good news is a "real big problem for us" -- the Democrats that is, not America.

This might explain why House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has decided to let HR 106, a nonbinding resolution that declares the Turkish Ottomans' murder of Armenians as genocide, to go forward.

The Turks are angered at the intentional insult leveled at them by Congress for a crime that's now 92 years old. They've threatened to stop cooperating with the U.S. in Iraq.

That has sent oil prices soaring (yes, you're paying a "tax" for this bad policy, whether you think so or not), and created uncertainty and danger for Iraq's most peaceful area, the Kurdish north.

Pelosi and her party like to talk about bipartisanship. Well, in the 1990s, President Clinton faced similar pressure from Congress on the Armenian genocide. He asked then-Speaker Dennis Hastert, in the interest of national security, to kill it. Hastert did so, quietly.

Compare that to Pelosi when asked Sunday about the horrible timing of the resolution: "There's never been a good time."

Ah, yes. "Never a good time." Pelosi and her pals have trivialized and impeded America's defense for almost a year now. Their latest stunt will hurt our Iraq war effort and cause needless U.S. troop deaths -- while alienating a strong ally in the war on terror.

As former Defense Department official Jed Babbin asked, if the Democrats are so keen on genocide, why don't they do something about Darfur or Burma? Why indeed.

As we've noted, 70% of our Iraq supplies are shipped through our base in Incirlik, Turkey. So is more than a third of our fuel. To say we badly need Turkish cooperation is an understatement.

Now, not only might they close Incirlik, they might be emboldened to invade the Iraq's independent Kurdish region, where separatist Turkish-Kurdish guerrillas are active.

Democrats have tried desperately to derail the Iraq war -- by voting for "immediate" troop withdrawals, and playing games with the Pentagon's budget during a time of war. They called Gen. David Petraeus a liar. They've attacked private sector contractors in Iraq, like Blackwater and Halliburton. (NYSE:HAL) It didn't work.

Now, we're winning the war, and they're desperate.

Whatever charms their domestic policies might have for you, the Democrats can't be trusted with national security. What they've done recently verges on disloyalty at a time of war. We hope voters are watching, and remember.

Newstex ID: IBD-0001-20252057

Originally published in the October 16, 2007 version of Investor's Business Daily.

I ran out of swearwords long ago.

I spit on those fools who believe we can have some kind of 'allies in the Muslim world'- for that is a dead end street.

Islamic allies means Dead for us and jiziyah for the Muhammedans at the best of times, everything else is delusional.

I know, I know: I'm a radical. The Muhammedans and the appeasers wanna kiss and make up and pretend its all good.

Its not.

Sounds like the tail trying to wag the dog.

(like a troll trying to set off a stink bomb here)

Keep your hand on the plough, hold on.

How do we keep those necessary allies trying to overcome the evil at the heart of islam at the same time as trying to keep the infection away from ourselves ?

Between the blowhards and the braggarts of the beltway, and the fellow travellors, Dems, their funders, and the crazies on the left.

Take it to the ballot box.

Whatever one thinks of Pelosi, her stance on the Armenian Genocide issue is consistent with neo-conservative policy on this war against Islamic terror.

Since this Armenian tragedy was caused by jihad, Pelosi is actually following neo-conservative ideology and this can be thought of as an extension of the wider war on Islamic terror. She has shown leadership on this issue and Bush should sign this resolution into federal law. Unfortuantely for the latter, it looks like he’s a lame duck…

Historical Notes:

What Is Genocide?

The term — from Greek and Latin roots meaning "the massacre of a family, tribe or race" —was coined in 1943 by Raphael Lemkin, a Jewish legal scholar from Poland. In the 1930s, Lemkin sought unsuccessfully to get the League of Nations to recognize such killings as an international crime. As examples, he cited the massacre of Armenians during World War I and the slaughter of Assyrians in Iraq in 1933.

After World War II, Lemkin's idea of genocide as an international crime became one of the legal bases for the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals.

In 1948, the United Nations adopted the modern definition of genocide, listing "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." Those acts included:

• killing or causing serious physical or mental harm to members of the group,

• forcing the group to live in conditions calculated to bring about its physical destruction

• Forcibly preventing births among the group, or forcibly sending its children to be reared by members of another group.

The U.N. convention on genocide didn't become law until 1951, after 20 U.N. members had signed it. The United States was the last of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council to sign it – in 1988 – and it didn't begin to be enforced until the 1990s, with prosecutions for genocide in Kosovo and Rwanda.

Vote 'em out, remember who is who next election day. Until then, nothing wrong with petitions and letter writing campaigns to remind our politicians who is really in charge. Freedom of speach is a beautiful liberty.

Historical Note #2

Political Figures Speak About Genocide

"When the Turkish authorities gave the orders for these deportations, they were merely giving the death warrant to a whole race; they understood this well, and, in their conversations with me, they made no particular attempt to conceal the fact..."
— Henry Morgenthau, Sr., American ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, in a 1919 memoir.

"Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?"
— Adolph Hitler in 1939, before the invasion of Poland. He was defending his order to massacre Poles.

"The United States has a compelling historical and moral reason to recognize the Armenian Genocide, which cost a million and a half people their lives, but we also have a powerful contemporary reason as well: How can we take effective action against the genocide in Darfur if we lack the will to condemn genocide whenever and wherever it occurs?"
— Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), during the 2007 debate on the Armenian genocide resolution.

Now, given Adam Schiff's comments (above), where are the resolutions the Belgians for this genocide, contemporary in time, but MUCH more serious???? This is a deeply political resolution that will have threatening consequences for our soldiers in Iraq. Morganthau's 1919 memoir on the intent of the Ottoman government seems clear enough, yet Russia and the USA refused to open their classified archives of the period so that HISTORIANS, not politicians, can make the determinations that yet need to be made (see Rubin, above).

However, this much is clear. If it were the intent of Congress (per Shiff) to legitimate its demands re: Darfur, they could certainly make an African case more easily using an AFRICAN example (the Beglium Congo). Here it is:

Time: 1885 to early 1900s

Location: Congo

Perpetrators: King Leopold II of Belgium and his administrators

Victims: Native Africans

Number of victims: Estimates range from 3 million during **part** of the period, to 30 million across the whole time period. That's THIRTY MILLION PEOPLE DEAD so that a European colonizer could steal somebody else's country.

SOURCE: http://www.religioustolerance.org/genocide2.htm

So, my question is: How far do back would you like to go, ASSUMING THAT it will not be only Muslims, or Hindus, or communists that are held accountable?

Will we measure -- and condemn -- Western states and Christian religious authorities by the same yardstick? Will we call the current Pope to account for the massacres in Paraguay, the slaughters of conquistadors, the massacre of American Indians and the unilateral annexation of Indian lands as settlers moved westward.

Or will we argue that because of our racial or religious background, one man's genocide is another man's divine right?

I'm waiting for that resolution against Belgium that demands that Belgium own up to the Congolese genocide. For if there ever was one, it's that.

"Democrats have tried desperately to derail the Iraq war -- by voting for "immediate" troop withdrawals, and playing games with the Pentagon's budget during a time of war."
-- from a poster above, who apparently thinks the war in Iraq is not a squandering of men, money, and materiel, and thinks it is in the interests of Infidels to hold Iraq together

The Democrats may have tried "desperately" to "derail the Iraq war" but they haven't tried intelligently, which is a different thing.

What would be the "intelligent" way not to "derail" this war but rather, to slightly vary the metaphor, to stop this runaway train that a vote nearly five years ago permitted the engineer, a naif named Bush aided by other people equally ignorant of Islam and of Iraq, to pull out the throttle of old Engine 99 and start the train in motion that has become a runaway train, that apparently no one can stop?

There are two ways. The first is not to timidly attempt to use the power of the purse, but to openly declare that the continuation of this war, which is opposed by three-quarters of the population in every opinion poll, and was certainly opposed by those who voted in the 2006 election, is simply an unconstitutional violation of the Separation of Powers. It is not the President, who is Commander in Chief, to declare war, and it is not the President who should have the power to continue a war when it has lost the support of three-quarters of the population (at least, for some of the Bush loyalists also think the war folly, but are more consumed with scoring points against "leftists" and "traitors" -- see some of the posters above who offer classic examples of this).

The most convincing summary of the War Powers and the Separation of Powers is by the Library of Congress expert in this area, Louis Fisher, in testimony he gave to Congress in January 2007. It should have been made much of at the time. It is a comprehensive summary, and includes what might be called the legislative intent of the Framers, for Madison, Jefferson, and others are quoted on their view of the War Powers, and who is to possess them, for what purposes. But apparently not everyone attended that hearing, or their aides failed to pass on to them Louis Fisher's detailed report, and no one -- not a single Democratic candidate, for example -- discussed Fisher's analysis. More inattention, more laziness.

And along with that, there is the timidity of the Democrats, their retreat in the face of being threatened as "disloyal" or "appeasers." But the war in Iraq is a war of appeasement. It is a war based on the notion that Islam itself is no threat, Islam itself can be "appeased" by Western actions, Islam itself only needs a dose of old-fashioned American "democracy" -- brought to "ordinary moms and dads" in the Middle East, by the long-suffering American troops, now virtually alone (a few thousand British troops, and a handful of others from small countries, each offering its Pentagon-extracted mite, to allow the Administration to keep talking, crazily, about some "Coalition" -- and just as the participation of varioius countries has helped bring down their otherwise very helpful governments, as with the regime of Aznar (and Gustavo de Aristegui) in Spain, and soon, possibly, the government of Howard in Australia will also fall because it insists on keeping troops in Iraq, and that government, full of people who appear to have a good sense of the menace of Islam, yet has tied its fortunes to the Iraq venture, when Australia too, an important all, should not be clinging to Bush clinging to Tarbaby Iraq, but should pull back, see that the Iraq venture is pure stubborn folly, and the attainment (impossible in any case) of stated American goals in Iraq would not weaken, but strengthen, the Camp of Islam.

But the Democrats do not attack Bush's conduct of the "war on terror" in the right way. They do not say it is not intelligent enough, not ruthless enough, not farseeing enough, not based on a desire to exploit pre-existing fissures within the enemy camp. They do not use the word "Jihad." They do not refer to the ideology of Islam. They do not use the word "dhimmi." None of the Democratic candidates appear to think they need change the mixture as before, none of them have said that in the last six years it has become necessary to study Islam and the "threat of Jihad" and therefore the need to conduct an "
intelligent war of self-defense, world-wide, against all those who are enrolled in the army of Jihad." (Yes, leave it thus: "enrolled in the army of Jihad." That will do the trick.

No, the resolution about the Armenian genocide was not some kind of clever trick, designed to deliberately cut off supply routes from Turkey. In fact, everyone in Washington was surprised by the behavior of Turkey in March 2003, when it prevented the Americans from entering Iraq with a fourth division from the north. Bush was surprised, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were surprised. No one understood the nature of Turkey as an "ally," everyone thought Turkey would remain just as stoutly allied, under Erdogan, as it once was, during the Cold War, when Turkey was happy to take part, and be lavishly rewarded for taking part, in a war that could be seen as against not so much against Communism as against Turkey's historic enemy, Russia. Everyone thought that Turkey could remain unaffected by Islam. But Islam came back, or never really went away, and it is back in Turkey with a vengeance. Those who served as agents of Turkey just a few years ago --Richard Perle for example, who introduced Erdogan at an A.E.I. event a few years ago, thus helping to legitimate him -- knew all about the Russians and Communism, but were old dogs who could not learn new tricks, and never studied Islam comme il faut, never studied the insecure position of Kemalism, and merely assumed that the Turkey they knew, from the kind of Turks they met in the Turkish Defense Ministry in Ankara, represented the "real" Turkey, nor did they realize that even behind that "real" Turkey there was something else, something that still lay in wait for those secularist Turks who assumed they could continue to control things: Islam.

As Youssef Ibrahim writes in today's New York Sun, this episode shows us what Turkey is all about. It shows us that the replacement theology of Ataturk (for Muhammad) and of "the Turks" as the best of peoples (replacing the Arabs in Islam), offered a veneer, but that veneer is now peeling off, and the hysterical reaction of the Turkish people and state to this resolution shows just how thin is that "alliance" and of what little use Turkey is now, or can be as a member of NATO, if the new main enemy of NATO -- Islam's Jihad, and all of the instruments of that Jihad (Money Weapon, Da'wa, demographic conquest) are intelligently recognized, and the ways to render them less potent and dangerous are to be discussed at NATO meetings -- preferably without Turkey as a member, for it can only inhibit real discussion and planning, and the time for such discussion and planning is now.

The U.N. convention on genocide didn't become law until 1951, after 20 U.N. members had signed it. The United States was the last of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council to sign it – in 1988 – and it didn't begin to be enforced until the 1990s, with prosecutions for genocide in Kosovo and Rwanda.

Why was the USA so late in signing it? Because its expansion across the North American continent.

"By conservative estimates, the population of the United states prior to European contact was greater than 12 million. Four centuries later, the count was reduced by 95% to 237 thousand.

Sharon Johnston, The Genocide of Native Americans: A Sociological View, 1996.

Johnston also cites The Removal Act of 1832, which advocated almost exactly the kind of forced deportation practiced by the Ottomans in the Armenian Genocide which, as Morganthau notes above, was a death sentenced. The Removal Act of 1832 led to the Trail of Tears march of 1838 in which most of the Cherokee population of the time died.

Although I am strongly anti-Pelosi (and her ilk), I am not certain as to the exact motivations of Pelosi and her mignons. It is certainly possible that she did this only to sabotage the current administrations efforts in Iraq. It is also possible that she believes that this fact of history needs to be officially recognized rather than continually denied. I just do not know.

As I have stated before at this blog, I do not support an all out war of civilization against barbarism. However, I am glad that this is now on the table. The American education about the history of Islam is abysmal. Of course our current president’s constant “Great Religion of Peace” statement is largely responsible for the fact that the American populace is unacceptably ignorant. Facts of history, such as the Armenian massacre must be taught. If we must constantly hush up history so that we will not ruin our shaky alliances, than our people will never recognize the truth and our true enemies will never be revealed. If the people do not know the truth, there is no hope what-so-ever that they will support the cause.

About the only statement of our current president that I actually agree with, is “Those who are not with us are against us.”

Turkey has been very helpful to our country over the last five decades. Of course this was because Turkey found it in its interest to align with us. Turkey must continually decide if it will be an Islamic state or not, and this process may never end. But, this will be decided internally by the Turkish people and I do not believe that we can steer this course for them. In any case, they feel that their national security will be imperiled by an autonomous Kurdish state. They may cite the resolution as a pretext for their actions, but we all know that the Turks have wanted to move against the Kurds for a very long time. I reject the notion that the Turks are being incited to act against the Kurds because of this resolution. This is like the robber stating that his victim’s death was her own fault because if only she had given him the purse, she would still be alive.

So yes, we must do what we can to avoid conflict with Turkey, but not at the cost of the truth. If Turkey will only stay in the fold through lies, then this needs to be exposed.

As for Iran, this state needs to be dealt with, muy pronto. Too many American Presidents, including a man who I greatly admire, President Reagan, did not deal with this enemy when they should have. With this Islamic state on the verge of going nuclear, I will take any pretext that can be offered for moving now. So much the better if Iran initiates.

Silver Lining Department

The attempted resolution against the Armenians this morning by the Turkish government for their support of Pelosi's House resolution exposes the ethnically hostile position of both the Erdogan government and the Kemalist military. The attempt by somebody above to say that the military is hostile to the Armenians because it's been infiltrated by Islamists is absurd.

The other exposure is the alliance of the Iranians and the present Turkish administration (and every past one, too) against the Transcaucasian Kurds. Such an alliance of Sunni and Shi'i Muslims could obvious effect the genocide of the Kurds, which is a distinct possibility in this time.

Erdogan said this morning that the powers he asked for (and apparently will get) from the Turkish legislature for an invasion of Kurdish Iraq does not NECESSARILY mean he will use it.

Meanwhile, the killing of 13 Turkish soldiers by PKK operatives is an act of terrorism. We do not expect Israel to fail to retaliate when her soldiers are kidnapped and slaughtered, and it is unrealistic to expect the Turks to take no action when this is done.

However, the gap between the Turkish government and the Turkish people on issues regarding both Kurds and Armenians is huge and widening.

The Turkish media has constantly decried the disenfranchisement of south Kurds over the past year; and the funeral of Hrant Dink, attended by 100,000 Muslim Turks in support of Armenians, stands in direct opposition to the position of the government.

Or, as Stephen Schwartz said, if there is a possibility of a good and moderate Islamic government out there somewhere, this is **NOT** it.

"Too many American Presidents, including a man who I greatly admire, President Reagan, did not deal with this enemy when they should have."

Cut President Reagan some slack. Was there a more successful U.S. President in the 20th Century with respect to U.S. security?

Expecting President Reagan to take on more than one all-encompassing global threat at a time is too much to ask.

turkish and iranian muslims attacking and murdering kurdish muslims...........

World War is coming.........

It will start in the middle east and then flame across the world. Be aware that nuclear weapons will be used.

If you are not prepared, you and your family will suffer immensely.

prepare be armed be ready for war is coming and this war can not be stopped.

The Texican.
Live Free and Die Free.
God Family America Freedom the only choice at any cost.

I don't like alliances with Muslim nations. It's never going to be in the infidels best interest, it never is. These Muslims play the west like a piano.

Turkey would have used this as an excuse for anything that didn't go there way. They're crying and whining like spoiled little babies when they should have the decency to own up to it, or at the very least show some compassion regarding the situation. The reason why congress passed this is because of the lack of effort on Turkeys part to make good about their barbaric ways a century ago. If it wasn't the response to the resolution, it would have been something else. They just happened to have an alliance with Iran? What a coincidence.....as if this wasn't predetermined long before a congressional vote to call them out on there genocidal past.

Pelosi and the Democrats are borderline treasonous.....but I don't see it treasonous to call out Turkey on genocide. If it was part of a big conspiracy of Pelosi, why would Turkey go along with it if they're so against being labeled as responsible for the genoicde? I mean, they have an alliance with Iran because of the kurds.....long before hte resolution....Syria is allied with Iran, and hence probably allied with Turkey to some degree (probably more than anyone knows) also. If Pelosi made some "deal" with Syria on how to screw over the US by calling out Turkey for genocide....and Syria is part of this with Turkey...it makes no sense for Turkey to go along with it considering they're being blamed for genocide by a congressional resolution. It makes no sense for Turkey to be in conspiracy mode with Dhimmi Pelosi.

On the other hand, this resolution just made the Turks show their hand, where they stand. These Turks would have used any excuse to justify they're actions now, it just happened to be this particular event.

To me, this is a good thing. Turks showed their hands, that's good. Now US knows where they stand with Turkey. This should be a lesson, end these absurd and suicidal alliances with Muslim nations !

Although I am strongly anti-Pelosi (and her ilk), I am not certain as to the exact motivations of Pelosi and her mignons. It is certainly possible that she did this only to sabotage the current administrations efforts in Iraq. It is also possible that she believes that this fact of history needs to be officially recognized rather than continually denied. I just do not know.

I completely agree with you on this. I also am strongly anti-Pelosi and her type, but despite whatever the motives may be, this tragic event needs to be called what it was....

As appalling as it may seem for the Dems motives, I think it is just as appalling that many conservatives are against this equally for political reasons.....

So many Christians in our government seem to be very quick to disregard fellow Christians in the middle east in favor of islamic demands when the situation suites. The Bush administration just proved this again.

Turkey is no friend in the current war, and stop pretending it is.... It would not allow our troops access from the north during the invasion. We certianly need the logistics that the air base provides, but the very fact that they blackmail us with it is enough to walk away.

Turkey has finally found the pre-tense it needed to become more active in the Kurdish region of Iraq. If the debate over the Armenia genocide had not occured, something else would.

Please stop pretending that Turkey was some great friend in the region....

TO: J. Sobieski

I do cut him a great deal of slack. As I clearly stated, I admire him greatly. I would go so far as to state that he is the greatest president of the 20th century. I served in uniform for many years under his able and enlightened leadership. He made us strong and proud and he won the Cold War. However even the greatest of men sometimes err, and I believe he did so vis-à-vis Iran.

All such "tragic events" need to be called what they are, which will put some of our allies, and ourselves, in jeopardy of wearing this Scarlet Letter: the Vatican, America, France, Spain (that South American thing!), Belgium, and many, many others.

Selectively using this, however, is a dangerous gambit, and Pashmina Pelosi is doing this for Armenian votes in her district, not out of some sense of right and wrong.

I'm sorry, but it's just too convenient: the Dems tried to vote out the Iraq war and couldn't do it. So they will now stop an action just beginning to succeed by tanking its relationship with Turkey.

Well, Turkey's official behavior on this one SUCKS. But at the same time the way she's doing this -- ignoring so many other genocides much worse -- seems a pointed effort to sabotage the current government.

Or, as one Democratic strategist said:

Any success in Iraq now is, of course, a threat to us.

Much as I hate this war, if we abruptly withdraw, Iran will over-run it, and there will be a million dead on the ground before the next election. Turkey and Saudi Arabia and Syria will then invade from all sides to fight iran.

We will have WWIII (or IV or V, but who's counting at this point), oil supplies will be disrupted, and then America will start bombing the hell out of everything.

Want to end a war, Nancy? This isn't the way.

Hugh,
Last summer you claimed that this is not a partisant website. Well, Hugh, you contradicted yourself and lost credibility.

I cannot deny that you are an expert in Islam, but your knowledge in US constitution is very shallow.

If I were you, Hugh, I would stay within the realm of Islamic History and keep personal political view at home.

I have never dislike you at all, but you are hurting your reputation.

I have refrained from posting, but you lost your credibility when you made fun of General Petaeus.

What is it you dislike? That I know something about the American Constitution? That I am impressed with the testimony of Louis Fisher? That I don't accept the notion that a war, once begun, cannot be stopped if the President will not stop it, that I refuse to accept the notion that Congress is helpless to do anything even if nearly three-quarters of those polled want the American military presence in Iraq ended forthwith? That I am impressed with Louis Fisher's account of what the Framers intended, both by his analysis of the structure and contents of the relevant parts of the Constitution, and by his adducing the evidence of "legislative intent" (the Constitution being considered the supreme law of the land), as demonstrated in the writings of such people as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson? Jefferson and Madison seem to me authorities on what the Constitution meant to the Framers.

But then, I'm easily satisfied.

Let’s go over this again...here are 4 facts to ponder….

(1) Recep Tayyip Erdogan is an Islamist. He won the election because the majority in Turkey want more Islam in their lives.

(2) In Iraq the Islamic parties won because the majority of the people want more Islam in their lives.

(3) Islam is not just a religion but a political movement like communism.

(4) Bush support democracy in the Middle East without removing Islam from politics.

Thus in conclusion if you support democracy in the Middle East without removing Islam from politics you will get more Islam in governments not less. Now for the uninformed who keep up this fantasy about Iraq how the hell is that going to help us Non-Muslims?

In truth Bush is creating more Islamic controlled governments not less by not naming political Islam as the ENEMY! God how hard is this for some of you to grasp?

If you support the Iraq war…you must accept that…

(1) Islam can be redeemed or is really a religion of peace.
(2) You have no trouble with Islam and politics becoming one.
(3) Turkey is a wonderful ally who has been offended by those evil liberals in congress.
(4) You support Islam in general...just like you support all faiths against the evils secular rule.

Here is a link to that testimony by Louis Fisher. A list of his books, including one on this very subject, can be found at Amazon:

http://judiciary.senate.gov/print_testimony.cfm?id=2504&wit_id=432

Hugh:

still trying to convince us that retreat is victory.

(like Montgomery marching into Palermo)

At one point in WWII we needed and even supplied that butcher Stalin to help us win the war.

For one with otherwise good vision to be so partisan and short sighted.....

Ezekiel 38:1-6 The word of the Lord came to me; Son of man, set your face against Gog, of the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal; prophesy against him and say: 'This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am against you, O Gog, chief prince of Meshech and Tubal. I will turn you around, put hooks in your jaws and bring you out with your whole army - your horsemen fully armed, and a great horde with large and small shields, all of them brandishing their swords. Persia, Cush and Put will be with them, all with shields and helmets, also Gomer with all its troops, and Beth Togarmah from the far north with all its troops - the many nations with you.'

Togarmah is the Biblical name for Turkey along with surrounding areas.

The stage is being set.

dgene

You just don't get it do you.

No wonder the GOP is going to lose the next election. Thanks a lot!

"By conservative estimates, the population of the United states prior to European contact was greater than 12 million. Four centuries later, the count was reduced by 95% to 237 thousand."

80-90% of these deaths can be attributed to diseases against which they had no immunity. How convenient not to mention this.

Entire villages were wiped out before anyone even saw a European. Not to minimize the many great injustices against Siberian-Americans. (I don't use the term Native American I find it revolting - I am from St. Louis Missouri and so are my parents and grandparents, I'M A NATIVE-EFFING-AMERICAN.

Remember folks, Hugh has insisted all along that America could read the riot act to the Turks and that the Turks would then dutifully acquiesce in the creation of a Kurdish state. And let us not forget that this over-estimation of American power was postulated to take place under the following conditions...

1) in the midst of an American withdrawal from Iraq

The convoluted logic here is that just as our influence and credibility in the region would be waning rapidly, we'd be able to call the shots to Turkey and compel them to betray their own national interests

2) the Turks would agree to Kurdish irredentism and the re-making of territorial borders

Yes indeed, according to Hugh, the Turks would not only agree to the independence of Iraqi Kurdistan, but would sit idly by while the Iraqi Kurds incorporated Kurdish portions of Iran and Syria into the new polity, leaving only Turkish Kurdistan (the largest and most populated in the region) outside it. It is a recipe for the destruction of Turkey's territorial integrity. Why would they ever agree???

We all know that Hugh Fitzgerald is a brilliant commentator with an inexhaustible commitment to JW...(not to mention the fact that he's entertaining as hell), but this doesn't mean that he can't be occasionally wrong. The Turkish component to his Iraqi policy is so obviously devoid of realism it calls into question his entire geo-political vision.

To the Sneaky and Adobe posts - I agree, although every post is raising good and thought provoking points. I always thought that Turkey's NATO membership was strictly self-serving and that the "modern, Democratic, and secular" Turkey was just a falsehood put out over the decades by State Dept, DoD and Administration hacks. And that in time, once the secularists were outbred by the Islamists in Turkey, that the real face of Turkey would appear. Turkey has been looking for an excuse, any, to attack the Kurds in Iraq by way of its southern border. It's obvious that this House Resolution is all political when it wasn't supported under the Clinton Administration.

I doubt that most Americans are even cognizant of who the Armenians are or were with respect to Turkey and 1915. Most are ignorant of the long term suffering of Christians and other non Muslims in Muslim countries and cannot appreciate why an Armenian - American probably loves this poke in the eye of Turkey for this government, even if part of one branch, to finally acknowledge the brutality of a Muslim State (then or now) against its Christian citizens and the collective turning of the face by the rest of the Christian world.

If Turkey really was a "modern, Democratic and secular" state then it would have replied to this resolution by stating that today's Turkey is not the Turkey of old, that Islam can co-exist in a democratic/representational form of government, that a state can reform itself internally, tolerate and welcome others, etc. It could have taken the high road, but so typical of a Muslim is the immediate crying and wailing and screaming of victimhood.

Never thought jihadwatch would become a place for a Turkish love fest and a place where some are advocating the murder of our elected representatives because they don't like the way they vote.

Sweet. BTW those nutjobs advocating the murder of our elected reps is a good way to get jihadwatch paid a visit by the FBI or Secret Service. CAIR would love to see that and get Spencer discredited.

Look the Turks have never been our friends, they USE us. Every time we needed their help we paid billions for it. From Desert Storm onward their help came at a hight price in terms of trade agreements and outright bribes. Part of the price was silence on the Armenian and Pontic Greek genocides.

The fact that they are allying themselves with the Iranians in dealing with the Kurdish problem shows their real allegiance is with Islam and not the west or the U.S.

waltc

"Never thought jihadwatch would become a place for a Turkish love fest and a place where some are advocating the murder of our elected representatives because they don't like the way they vote."

I know it is sad. This is what the Bushites have done. They hate liberals so much they would rather ally with Turkey and the Arabian States. Maybe D'Souza has a bigger following then I thought.

It is proof of my point that there is an element in the GOP that is just as stupid as any left wing liberal. The posters who are slamming Hugh right now are good examples of that. Too stupid to even understand what they support by staying in Iraq or in this case by their support of Turkey.

Oh well...you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.

No real surprises here, are there?

Turkey has supported Azerbaijan in its blockade of Armenia in response to the still unresolved Nagorno-Karabakh dispute. This and the continuing hostility of Georgia towards Armenia has left Armenia with few friends in the region. Iran seems an unlikely "friend" for Armenia but has a large Azerbaijani population, the separatist sentiments of which they seek to control. So Iran offers a certain level of support to Armenia, which focuses Azerbaijani attention away from Iran.

Turkey now plays both sides against the middle because of its concerns regarding Kurdish ambitions and makes common cause with Iran. Although the Kurds will doubtless feel the heat of this move, it is inevitable that the Armenians, once again, will come out on the short end of the stick in this latest development.

This is only speculation on my part, but if there was any anticipation on the US government's part that Turkey and Iran were going to agree to cooperate in this manner, the eroding Armenian position would doubtless also have been appreciated. In which case a resolution from the US government sends a message to our "friend" Turkey that we are watching and the President's opposition to such a motion once again raises question as to what, if anything, he actually understands about this region and its tortured history or worse: whose side he is actually on.

As for Rep. Pelosi, like her or hate her, it would take the flexibility of a carnival freak to cast aspersions upon her support of such a resolution. Support of this resolution is the only decent thing to do.

Everyone knows that there was a genicide against the Armenians back in world war 1, 90 years ago, so why are Democrats in Congress passing resolutions condemning it now? If it was happening today, or it happened last yeat, OK, but that's not the case.

The Turks have never acknowledged what they did, and they never will. If anyone even suggest that the genocide happened, they go ballistic.

Surely the Democrats knew this when they passed their resolution. So what are their motives?

The Turks have been good allies to the U.S. for generations -- but then we've been good allies to them, and gave them protection when they most needed it, but in the end, they are Muslims, and we should know by now that that is the bottom line when dealing with any of the people in that region.

interestinconundrum --

Good passage! The stage is being set; as scripture reads like today's headlines, and I can hardly tell them apart any more.

"Remember folks, Hugh has insisted all along that America could read the riot act to the Turks and that the Turks would then dutifully acquiesce in the creation of a Kurdish state. And let us not forget that this over-estimation of American power was postulated to take place under the following conditions...

1) in the midst of an American withdrawal from Iraq

The convoluted logic here is that just as our influence and credibility in the region would be waning rapidly, we'd be able to call the shots to Turkey and compel them to betray their own national interests

2) the Turks would agree to Kurdish irredentism and the re-making of territorial borders"
-- from a posting above

On November 17, 2005 a post of mine included the following:

“Americans, in turn, are the only ones who can force an independent Kurdistan not to make territorial claims on the parts of Anatolia where the Kurds dominate. The Turkish government will have to listen if the American government insists that it do nothing to squash an independent Kurdistan. Will it necessarily obey? No. But it will have to factor into its calculations what it means if it permanently alienates the United States -- no favored-nation, no resupply of military equipment, no nothing. And Russia is so very close, and now the Russians control the supply of energy to Turkey.”

At the time, the very same poster who responds above, responded then, with a posting that showed that back in November 2005 he understood quite well – he apparently had misunderstood my previous postings on the subject –that I did not think the Turkish government would, without more, simply “acquiesce” to American demands. What I have been always argued is that it should not be beyond the wit of the American government to extract a promise from the Kurds to drop any territorial demands on Turkey, and cease to protect, if they now do, any Kurdish groups attacking Turkey. In turn, the Americans would take that guarantee made to the United States, the essential supporter of Kurdistan, without which it cannot have either independence or even greater autonomy, go to the Turkish government with that guarantee, and obtain Turkish acceptance, begrudging acceptance based on an intelligent understanding of the best way to limit Kurdish unsettlement in eastern Anatolia, nothing like the roll-over-and-play-dead acquiescence of Turkey as the poster claims I have suggested would be possible.
Here, for example, iswhat that poster above, when at long last he began to understand what I was saying, put up on November 17, 2005:

“ Quite a measured and cogent response Hugh. Congratulations.
Particularly impressive because it lacked a reiteration of the original promulgation that the Turks would "aquiesce" to an independent Iraqi Kurdish polity.
[Posted by: Cornelius at November 17, 2005 7:34 PM]

And there have been many postings, repeating with variants and further details, exactly how I thought the American government could circle the Kurd-Turk-Arab-Persian square, or if you prefer a different geometry, perform what the American government apparently thinks is impossible, is equivalent to squaring the circle. Want of imagination, want of diplomatic finesse, fear of offending Turkey by proposing such an agreement, even though it can be presented as a way to diminish the legitimacy of any cries for “self-determination” on the part of Kurds in Anatolia (if they want to live in a state that embodies Kurdish national interests, they would no be free to move to that newly-independent Kurdistan; those who remain should be satisfied with being citizens of Turkey, given whatever autonomy is consonant with Turkish territorial integrity). But the poster above was hot under the collar, obviously, and quick off the mark with his bizarre presentation of my views. He doesn’t always pay attention. He doesn’t want to. It gets, sometimes, in his way, especially if he is interested in scoring points, and not thinking clearly about what is being suggested if it seems too complicated.

One cannot disengage and avoid irrelevance and enervation.

So you fight on the beaches, in the towns, in the streets, in the air, and on the airwaves and however the Lord gave you the wherewithal to fight.

This includes Dearborn and Washington, Tehran and Riyadh, Birmingham and Paris.

This means not trusting Hoopers, not trusting Jimmy Cattas, but seeking allies, keeping cool, and being prepared to win.

This includes sometimes having to buy and/or force your advantages.

(if possible)

The purists will stay in the ivory tower of irrelevance and enervation.

dgene

"This means not trusting Hoopers, not trusting Jimmy Cattas, but seeking allies, keeping cool, and being prepared to win."

(1) not trusting Jimmy Cattas = not trusting Bush

(2) Allies = non-muslims countries.

(3) Keeping cool = not going on democracy adventures in Islamic majority nations unless you plan a serious conversion plan and not giving tax-dollars to Muslim nations.

(4) being prepared to win = getting our own energy supplies and cutting Islamic nations out of the economic equation.

You are in the ivory tower dgene! You are so high up there the lack of oxygen is going right to your head...Quick somebody get him some O^2 at once!

Turks are Muslims.

Kurds are Muslims.

Iraqis are Muslims

Iranians are Muslims

Maybe it's time to 'test' the Logan Act. The charge of 'treason' is often made, both for good reason and not so good reason, but no formal charges are ever made, no one is ever arrested, no one goes to court, no one gets fired or impeached. Why even have a law against treason when treasonous people commit treasonous acts, and nothing is ever done about it?

From above: Thomas Jefferson is right:
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

I think he was right also, but I think the patriots and tyrants he was referring to were/are politicians. It is their political blood that is needed to refresh Liberty. Kick the whole lot of them out, and replace them with refreshing new blood. We will only lose a handful of patriots, but a truck load of tyrants...

From the National Review article cited above:

...There is no doubt that up to a million Armenians died during World War I, although historians still debate whether their deaths constitute deliberate genocide or are collateral casualties of war.

and

This was not about Turkey, she explained, but rather "about the Ottoman Empire."
...........................

The Armenian genocide spanned quite a long period. Armenians had been persecuted and harrassed on and and off for centuries, but mass violence and deportations began in the 1890s (long before WWI) and continued until the 1920s, when violence against other Christians, Jews, and non-ethnically Turkish Muslims ensued, ending probably most infamously with the Pontic Greek massacre in Smyrna in 1922.

This is not just about the Ottoman Empire. A lot of people around the world had hoped that after the Ottoman Empire crumbled, that Attaturk's government would end the massacres. But they continued apace, perhaps even more ferocious at times, under the banner of "Turkey for the Turks".

I do agree with Morgaan and others here that the timing of the House resolution on Armenian Geneocide may well be political, but I am glad that it passed.

Turkey was never much of an ally, and with rising Islamism, seems to be less of one all the time. Perhaps this will give those who tout EU membership for Turlkey pause.

Also, as to the assertion some have made that Turkey is being driven by this resolution into the arms of our enemies, I find this absurd. If an ally of ours decided to pass a resolution condemning, say the Trail of Tears, I doubt we would act in the same manner. Oh, we might find it irksome, or political, or wonder at the timing, but we would not throw over an otherwise strong alliance over it.

One reason being, of course, that we do not deny our history. It is all up for debate.

So mostly, I am glad that it passed because it is true. Turkey has denied the Armenian Genocide since the beginning, while it was ongoing.

I realize that diplomacy requires a certain amount of flattery--"My distinguished collegue", and all that.. But with so many Muslim regimes, we are supposed to entirely ignore reality. We have to pretend that "Palestine" is a "partner for peace" with Israel, and that Iraqis are working toward "reconcilliation", rather than etnically cleansing large swaths of the country, and that Saudi Arabia is a civilized nation, and that we can have "reasonable dialogue" with Iran's Ahmadinijad.

All piffle, and dangerous piffle. Ultimately, I wish we would call more Muslim states on the truth. Maybe then we can finally acknowledge that we are in the fight of our lives against Jihad, and not just a few scattered "extremists".

Morgaan Sinclair in a comment above expends quite a bit of energy trying to contextualize the Turkish guilt for the Armenian genocide in other genocides, including that of the Belgians in the Belgian Congo. Sinclair's link (http://www.religioustolerance.org/genocide2.htm) however leads us to a website of dubious merit and motivations: take a look at their section ("Our most popular essays") educating the reader about Islam:

"Islam: The second largest religion in the world, and perhaps the most misunderstood by westerners. A religion of peace, with an attached small minority forming a death cult."

Then take a look at, for example, how they handle the education of the reader regarding apostasy in Islam:

"Apostasy (Irtidad):
Abandonment of Islam by a Muslim

Summary:

A person is an apostate if they leave a religion and either adopt another religion or assume a secular lifestyle.

Historically, Islam, Christianity and other religions have taken a very dim view of apostates. They were often executed. Apostasy in Islam is currently a very complex and sensitive issue. The death penalty is rarely carried out in the 21`st century."

Such a website is not credible, and seems to share Sinclair's ulterior motives of blaming the West enough in order to dilute and level the singularly unjust and evil nature of Islam.

Samuel Zwemer (d. 1952), an American scholar of Islam, and former editor of Moslem World, wrote the following in 1920 (in "Moslem World," Vol. 10, pp. 154-155):

“Its [Islam's] intolerance and persecuting spirit have been revealed within the past few years, the blood of a million martyrs testifying to the failure of Islam, its absolute failure to understand the words that open every chapter save one of their Sacred Volume: ‘God the Merciful and Compassionate’. A few years ago one of the leading Moslems of Baghdad wrote an article for a French journal entitled, The Final Word of Islam to Europe : ‘For us in the world there are only believers and unbelievers; love, charity, fraternity toward believers; contempt, disgust, hatred, and war against unbelievers. Amongst the unbelievers the most hateful and criminal are those who, while recognizing God, attribute to Him earthly relationship, give Him a son, a mother. Learn then, European observers, that a Christian of no matter what position, from the simple fact he is a Christian is in our eyes a blind man fallen from all human dignity.’…Can a religion which inculcates such principles make the world safe for democracy?"

This is an outrageous move by Turkey.

OT, but connected by a very slender thread..
HMMM Pinpatch, I looked at that site a little, but did not study it. It did appear to me to be very liberal, and multi conceptual, (all inclusive) as long as the the religious group claimed Christianity...or something...or nothing.

From site: We are a multi-faith group. As of 2007-AUG, we consist of one Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Wiccan and Zen Buddhist. Thus, the OCRT staff lack agreement on almost all theological matters: belief in a supreme being, the nature of God, interpretation of the Bible and other holy texts, whether life after death exists and what form it takes, etc.

I guess they can't agree on much, but what they do agree upon was listed on the same page. Not much was objectionable, but it is clear that these folks are diversity supporting, multicultural liberals with a spiritual bent. It does not surprise me if these folks think Islam is the religion of peace. They have obviously done no homework. Reminds me of the old 'Universal Life Church', where you could purchase your own religion, no matter what you believed.
I am going to have to send an e-mail and inform them of what Allah thinks of Wiccans...

telling the United States he would cut off U.S. access to the strategic Incirlik airbase in eastern Turkey

And would we in turn cut off ALL aid to turky in exchange? Probably not, we still send money to the palis.

Ther is a world war coming, and from what I can see, no way to stop it, so lets' get on with it while we still have military superiority.

I'm trying to be fair here. I DO remember writing that semi-endorsement. I believed it followed a revision (or clarification, to be generous) of your original thesis, one that was much more sober, qualified and realistic.

But since then, you've repeated the premise over and over...that we could convince the Turks to sign on not only to an independent Kurdish polity in northern Iraq (which is highly unlikely but at least plausible), but also to establishing the precedent of territorial revision, including the dismemberment of Syria and Iran, in order to carve out a greater Kurdistan, (which is fantasyland).

It would leave Turkish Kurdistan as the last piece of the puzzle in satisfying the ancient Kurdish aspiration of creating a Greater Kurdistan. In short, Turkish "acquiescence" (there's that word again; sorry) to such a policy would establish the optimum conditions leading to the dismemberment of Turkey and the loss of Turkey's southeast.

It simply will never happen.

This is just one of many problems with your Iraqi policy.

I say all this as a "hot under the collar," "quick off the mark" comrade who is in the trenches fighting the same war that you are. You wouldn't believe the abuse heaped on me at the Left-wing blogs where I've been doing my battling. I get called a racist almost everyday, even though I never write a word about about race.

I've struggled with your ideas on Iraq and discussed them in depth with friends and family. Many of your contentions are legit....and as I've written before, in the final analysis, you may be right.

But I'm troubled about the aftermath of withdrawal. It could indeed result in the interminable sectarian warfare you predict. But it could also result in: The empowerment of Iran; the establishment of an unfettered Al Qaeda entity in the heart of the region; the destruction of moderation in Iraqi Kurdistan; the toppling of Jordan's King Abdullah and the active subversion of other moderate regimes in the region (another area of disagreement between us is that you've expressed a desire to abandon moderate Muslim allies like Jordan, whereas I believe there are far worse alternatives to King Abdullah and that his survival is valuable for the West, for Israel and for the Jordanian people).

I'm even more troubled about the absence of realism in your Kurdish-Turkey formula. You might want to abandon the part about getting Turkish agreement for the dismemberment of Syria and Iran.

It's not about scoring points Hugh, it's about conceptualizing and articulating viable solutions...and preparing ourselves for likely eventualities.

I do not have any objection for your admiration for Louis Fisher; after all it's free country. I also do not have any objection over your feeling of frustration over Congress' inability to stop the war; again it's free country, and you my jump off high tower, which I promise I will not object either.

As to Louis Fisher, he is no expert in the US Constitution. Louis Fisher is a Budget Specialist. You may verify his Declaration in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, executed July 6, 2004, in which he declared that he received his PhD in Social Research, in which he also declared that the book he published was nothing but his own personal view. He said so to quench the challenges, which he may receive from schools of laws through out the US. By so doing, he is left alone by all experts in the subject of the US constitution.

I do admire your scholarship in the subject of Islam, but I find it rather sad that you are a man of such caliber would swallow whole what's spoon fed to your by Louis Fisher. I would not dare to argue with a giant like you, but I don't wish to see the Goliath be taken down by a little shepherd David. It's should be sufficient that I only wish you do what you do best, that is to educate us all the danger of Islam.

There is much reason why I appreciate you. Though I personally was a victim of Islam (the reason why I arrived at a Christian orphanage at age six), I still enjoy learning from you, but you do us no favor by encroaching upon subjects where you are found inimical.

After all, you were born of this land. You ought to know the Congress can grant war power to the President. Though Congress has no power over the military, it can repeal the authorization in turn to end it. There are many factors that affect the outcome. One of which is "The People's Power." People can end the war, which Congress knows full well. Why didn't Congress do it? Obvious: Congress knows the poll you cited was non-existence. Fisher needs no accountability for what he claimed whatsoever under the freedom of press. One of the other factors is Louis Fisher's motive; he makes his money by sell his books--of course there is nothing wrong with it, since everyone wants to make some money. To sell his book well, he made the book very provocative. By now, as a grown up you should know political provocative books sell like hot cakes.

I don't wish to bring more points to expound my point; it should suffice. Please don't let what I said make very you angry. Islam is what you specialize.

Please see the following for Fisher's Declaration in court:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/foia/1947/fisher.pdf

Hugh,
Please read my response above.

Pelosi and many other Democrats are pretty clearly being political with this new Armenian genocide resolution. As the Wall Street Journal editorial page today (Ocotber 16th) noted, such a resolution was presented for passage back in 2000 and was then tabled by Democrats pushing for it now because it was unnecessarily provocative to Turkey. As the Journal article went on to point out, it is much more in the interests of the United States now not to have such a resolution put forward, unless of course one wants to see American defeat in Iraq. What's really irresponsible above all about this is that Democratic hatred of Bush once again triumphs over any concern for American soldiers on the ground in Iraq. Even if one has been against this war from the beginning, surely it takes only half a brain to see that if this resolution passes the American soldier in the Middle East is put into even greater danger.

It has been a long time since Warner Brothers wartime cartoons have been shown on TV. There was a cartoon where Porky Pig was learning American History. In the story of Paul Revere, he was shown riding to Concord shouting "To arms, to arms." When I saw this as an adult I noticed he did not say, "To arms, the British are coming." I suppose we did not want to offend our British allies. Nevertheless, I do not think the British would pull their troops out of Sicily or kick us off their island because of a perceived insult. The British were true allies, we needed them and they really needed us. Turkey ain't no ally, let them fend for themselves.

Someone should show us just how important Incirlik really is after the USSR disappeared. There was a lot of hand wringing when the Philippines were voting to close our bases. It took a volcano to seal the deal. We are doing quite well without any Philippine bases. We will do quite well without Incirlik. We could save some money too. Let us watch how Turkey reacts to a resurgent Russia. Move Incirlik to Mosul.

"As to Louis Fisher, he is no expert in the US Constitution. Louis Fisher is a Budget Specialist."
-- from a posting above

Louis Fisher may be a “budget specialist" – I have no idea why you call him that – but he is, most importantly, a specialist in the Congressional Research Service attached to the Library of Congress for the past 37 years. He focuses on the issue of constitutional law and public policy as these relate to the question of Separation of Powers. He is the author of many books and many articles, and among those books may be noted, in particular, "Constitutional Conflicts Between Congress and the President” (4th ed. 2007) and “Presidential War Power” (2nd 2004). Merely a “budget specialist”? Read his testimony, to which I gave a link above. Or read the books of his that I have mentioned.

Hugh,
The testemony was only a politcal stunt.

Circus as usual. What have congress done lately?

So how DO we get Turkey out of NATO? They should be happy to go. The Cold War is over. The Russians aren't a threat to them (or so it seems). Ataturk's gambit worked. Now it's on to bigger and better things for the descendants of the Ottomans.

There's something ironic in the idea of one of America's most important "allies" in the Cold War teaming up with a government that wants to wipe the US off the map.

What about their own religious differences? This Shia-Sunni alliance just might be the beginning of the end of Islam's own internecine strife. Hmmm.

Ssa, people power? I was witness to what was happening in this country when people power was the last resort. The result of Johnson's stupidity and arrogance, was that he was hounded out of a second full term. (I'm not complaining mind you.) Because of Bush's s. and a. we will have a Democrat in the White House and Democratic control of congress. How's that?

It appears our key "ally" has been busy the last few days...

(Story 1) This story tells of Iran-Syria gas deal and guess where pipline goes through....TURKEY! Oh yes our wonderful ally has been investing real money in their neighbor to the south.

http://www.upi.com/International_Security/Energy/Analysis/2007/10/15/analysis_iran_syria_in_gas_deal/8072/

(Story 2) Turkey also said they will "mediate" between israel and Syria in this article..

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/16/africa/ME-GEN-Syria-Turkey.php

(Story 3) Also the Turkish PM wants sanctions against Armenia...how dare they for not submitting!

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1192380567490&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

"The testemony [sic] was only a politcal stunt.

Circus as usual. What have congress done lately?"
-- from a poster above

This is how nations fall. This level of thought.

As the Journal article went on to point out, it is much more in the interests of the United States now not to have such a resolution put forward, unless of course one wants to see American defeat in Iraq.
--posted by Wellington

Sorry to pop your bubble, but the USA lost this "war" in Iraq before it even began. It is, as General Sanchez said, "a nightmare." That jackass and self-serving assclown named George Bush told the American people that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was "a grave threat to the United States."

What a joke!

Watch your wallets! The real threat is/was George Bush who is bankrupting America.

Did anybody here feel threatened by Iraq in 2003? How many of us feel threatened today by our governments craven capitulation to Muhammadans?

Meanwhile, Georgie Boy is too much of a pussy to stand up to jihad. He's too much of a pussy to even mention the word jihad. He's too much of a pussy to call the Muhammadan turkeys jihadi revisionists! Craven! It's no different than we acted during the massacre of Armenians in while it occured, turning a blind eye.

And now he is aiding and abetting these Muhammadans in burying the evidence of their jihad.

George Bush's crusade to win re-election in 2004 (after losing in 2000) was successful. Everything else was a failure.

But when did making life a nightmare for millions of people ever stop Bush from getting his greasy hands on the prize.

Hugh, Ssa, is trying to pretend it didn't happen or he didn't mean it.

I have been previously humbled by your intellect; I know how he feels.

What's really irresponsible above all about this is that Democratic hatred of Bush once again triumphs over any concern for American soldiers on the ground in Iraq.
--posted by Wellington

As if Bush or Cheney or anyone in their gang gives half-a-shit about Americans dying in Iraq. Hell, he couldn't be bothered with sending sufficient troops, couldn't be bothered with verifying intelligence, couldn't be bothered with fortifying armoured vehicles, or even equipping our soldiers with proper gear. Hell, we're not even allowed to see the coffins of the dead soldiers.

The democrats know that the Iraqi invasion has been a grave mistake. They know that Bush is just spinning bullshit. He won't draw down troops, because Georgie Boy Bush only cares about one thing.

Can you guess what that is?

Hugh,
The nation is falling when every commoner calling General in the battle field to surrender.

What's you credential, Gereal Hugh?

Be a Congressman or a Senator or run for Presidency, Hugh.

"Get out!"

The invasion of Iraq made sense if indeed there was a legitimate and not a concocated fear that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons. Was that fear legitimate, or was it concocted? I used to think it was legitimate. I assumed that the way Saddam Hussein behaved -- with Iran, not the United States, in mind (for it was Iran that truly worried him, Iran's Islamic regime that he wanted to constrain) -- was enough to fool the American government. Now I'm not sure.

But if one had known that the American government entered Iraq not only to find and seize or destroy every WMD or disrupt every project that might conceivably lead to the manufacture of WMD (I hate such abbreviations and the ease of alluding to certain things that they make possible, but in this case I will yield), but for any other reason, one would rightly have withheld support. And when that other reason turned out to be big and naive and ignorant plans to bring "democracy" to "ordinary moms and dads" in Iraq, and to do so naively by holding a purple-thumbed election that would ratify, for non-Muslims and Shi'a Muslims (the Sunnis in and out of Iraq were enraged), one had every right to object. Of course, as it turns out, the removal of the regime of Saddam Hussein, no matter what the incidental details -- whether 150,000 men invaded, or three times that number -- made inevitable the transfer of power from Sunnis to Shi'a, and if only those who make policy could begin to identify Islam, or the Camp of Islam, as the enemy that needs to be weakened, and further understand why both sectarian and ethnic fissures that already existed in Iraq, and neither needed, nor have received, any encouragement from the Americans, will if the Americans would only get out of the way do a great deal to use up Muslim resources, men, money, and materiel, and ideally be a source for constant instability and Sunni-
Shi'a hostlility in such places as Saudi Arabia (the Eastern Province), Bahrain, Kuwait, Yemen, Lebanon, Pakistan, and in the communities of Muslims that have been created, alas, in the Western countries.

Again I repeat: was the Iran-Iraq War, that lasted for eight years, a good thing or a bad thing for Infidels? It was a very good thing.

Well, I guess I don't know how Ssa feels.

What would the Framers, those well-read and well-educated merchants and farmers, in Massachusetts and Virginia, essentially cisatlantic Englishmen who wanted to be free of England, have thought of such exhibits of our current distemper as the comment just above by "ssa" and what it bespeaks? How would Jefferson or Madison or George Mason have reacted?

Pretext is exactly the right word, Robert. As usual, it's difficult to explain to conservatives that Turkey is not, in fact, our ally.

Hugh,
You have your own importance to this country. You need to do what you are good at to help your country.

Denial Pipes has joined Gulliani for his future Internationa Policy group of advisors.

Why can't you do as Deniel Pipes did.

Whining is not a stratergy to victory.

You are needed most at this time in the time of war to help you country to attain victory. Get up your comfortable chair, go into government.

Or constrain yourself to Islamic History where you are needed most.

It's time Huge. Quit whining.

Hey comic,

Thanks for recommending oxygen.

Can you requisition some juicy steaks as well ?

Correction,

That was Comet not Comic.

Still want steak. Thanks.

Isn't it sickeningly funny to think that Saddam's need to keep Iran afraid and wary was what brought him down. His apparent charade to be believed to have masses of megadeath weapons fooled the wrong people and was seized on by Bush as a reason to invade. Iran did suffer many thousands of csualties from poison gas used by the Iraqis.

or

Could all this be simple payback by the son because of a botched assassination attempt on his father in Kuwait. "See Daddy, I fixed him for ya; ain't you proud? See what a big boy I am."

Ynkedoodl2: I share neither your cynicism about Bush nor your defeatism about this war we're in. By any military historical standard you wish to invoke, we are not losing this war in Iraq. It is possible to argue that we are not presently winning it, but only an agenda-driven hatred for this conflict could lead to the conclusion we are losing it. Al-Qaeda in recent months has taken a pounding in Iraq. One knows this or should know it. In fact, al-Qaeda is being eviscerated there. No military historian worth his salt could look at what is going on in Iraq and conclude that the US is being beaten. I would suggest you consult a military historian like Victor Davis Hanson for trenchant analysis on this matter.

As for George Bush and Dick Cheney not giving "half-a-shit about Americans dying in Iraq," if you really do believe this, then sober assessments of this war are really not what you're interested in. I share your complete skepticism about the Islamic faith and continue to think that the weakest link in George Bush's strategy, to not just kill the snakes coming out of the Middle Eastern swamp but to drain the whole damn swamp, is Islam itself. He has put too much faith in the ability or capacity for a multitude of Muslims to assert their humanity over the many dark forces that reside in their religion. My guess is that deep down inside he knows, as do many other politicians in the West who say otherwise publicly, that Islam may indeed be hopeless. But if I'm correct here, Bush is not the leader to say that. We need someone else with great electability and communication skills, who knows that Islam is rotten to the core, to lead America and the West to a confrontational stand with all of Islam as we had with fascism and Communism in the twentieth century.

Finally, to the matter at hand, I would vigorously argue that this Congressional resoultuion about Turkish atrocities against the Armenians during WWI in no way makes the American soldier in the Middle East safer. In fact it puts him in greater jeopardy for logistical, strategic and tactical reasons. That's why it should never have been brought up at this time, irrespective of one's stance on this war.

Hey, dgene

No Steaks...but the "Turkey" is done...would you like stuffing with that?

Remember Ben Franklin wanted our national bird on our national seal to be a Turkey...even a great one can be wrong from time to time.

Oh the fun I would have had with that today if Ben had got his way.

One more thing Comet, since this poster(moi), is evidently mindless,

send up Paris Hilton as well (so one will have a better idea of what one is fighting for)

Many many thanks.

dgene

I will give you parachute and let Isaac Newton bring you back to earth. Now the world is not flat nor is it the end of history either.

SSA ... if you went off into the wilderness and studied for the next 10 years, you wouldn't know half of what Hugh knows.

I don't happen to agree with Hugh on this particular subject but your ad hominem self-congratulatory jihad of this afternoon just sucks.

And I've seen NOTHING in your supposed "expertise" that convinces me that you should be listened to about anything. The very idea you should be taking such a parental and condescending attitude toward him — telling him how his talents would be best used — is patently offensive.

More on the sock-puppet traitor pelosi and her conflict -of-interest owner pulling her strings, which caused this (see topic) to begin with...
pelosi the traitor
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1248
her senior counsel pulling her strings, and the behest of HIS own master, george "the capo" soros...
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2262
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Speaker%20Of%20The%20House%20Hires%20A%20George.html

What georgie "the capo" wants, georgie "the capo" gets...which is what this whole conflict-of-interest treason is all about.

Had it been any other time in hitory it wouldn't be such a big deal...the timing and motivation behind her acts is beyond question, and to exploit such an event like she did for other than honest reasons like she has, is beyond descpicable.
Only one reason, and one ONLY, that she's doing this now...and it has zero to do with the Armenian genocide, which is otherwise indisputable.

Legislators don't touch foreign policy, only the Executive Branch does, and the Executive Branch solely, exclusively...she's a legislator, and has overstepped her bounds, and she damned well knows it, especially today.
(I noticed a conspicuous absence of the "Constitution!"-shilling hypocrites now that it concerns one of their own hypocrites, but that's OT)

Thankfully, those that can stop her (yes, some of them DO read this site after all, too) & her anti-American coup from proceeding are onto this blatant act of treason, and are proceeding immediately with reminding her of her role, which isn't about making, or altering, foreign policy, which is what her stunt as ALL about to begin with.

Yes, There IS a GOD!
LOL

@Wellington

1)By any military historical standard you wish to invoke, we are not losing this war in Iraq. It is possible to argue that we are not presently winning it...

answer: If we're not winning, sir, then we're losing. Losing blood, losing money, losing morale, losing prestige, loosing allies, losing time, losing focus. In short, losing the war against Islam.

2)Al-Qaeda in recent months has taken a pounding in Iraq. In fact, al-Qaeda is being eviscerated there.

answer: As if Al-Qaeda is the only face of fundamentalist Islam in Iraq. What about the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution? They are our allies. And who/what are they? They are a Iranian-influenced, Shiite theocratic movement! Would you really argue that supporting this group of Shiite, Iranian-allied, fundamentalists in in America's interests? I wouldn't.

Also, Al-Qaeda will never be defeated in Iraq. We have radicalized a whole new generation of jihadis. You say we've defeated Al-Qaeda in Iraq. I say take a look at the Taliban in Afghanistan. We will no sooner defeat Al-Qaeda in Iraq, than we will defeat the Talibanistas in Afghanistan.

3) He (Bush)as put too much faith in the ability or capacity for a multitude of Muslims to assert their humanity over the many dark forces that reside in their religion.

answer: I agree wholeheartedly. And I would add: the many dark forces in the religion of Islam prevent them ever being our allies.

If the Muhammadans can't be our allies, if the muhammadans reject democracy and liberty and separation of church and state and instead want to be faith slaves to allah, then what possible sense can there be in trying to shove democracy and American pluralistic values down their throat.

NONE!

Waste of blood, money, time, etc.

There is nothing to win. Hence we have lost.

Wellington, A candidate "with great electability and communication skills, who knows that Islam is rotten to the core, to lead America and the West to a confrontational stand with all of Islam as we had with fascism and Communism in the twentieth century" is not electable especially if the candidate speaks candidly. The majority of American people (especially the under forty types) want to close their eyes, open them again and see that all this has gone away. They will vote for a candidate who makes them believe that he (or she(gulp)) will make it go away with the least amount of fuss.

When it comes to answers and solutions, the simplest almost always turn out to be the best and most likely.

Muslims will ally with Muslims. Westerners will ally with Westerners.

It's time for us to take the evidence before us to heart and see that the simplest truth is the most painful -- we are at war with the Islamic world because the Islamic world is at war with us. Countless terrorist acts in the name of Islam not enough for everyone to get the message? Well, then just hold on tight for a few more years. Even the most stalwart Pollyanna is bound to get a vicious wakeup call one of these mornings over breakfast and the morning news.

Let me state this again:

Strike Iran's nuclear facilities and military infrastructure, Mr. President. Do it immediately.

Strike Syria and Turkey, too, if they seem intent on allying with Iran and believe themselves immune. Remove the BOXING GLOVES from our military. We are far stronger than we are allowing the world to witness because we have become weakened by our moral imperatives. Innocents in War? How would WWII have ended if we played by the current rules? The Allies would have lost, that's how it would have ended!

After cutting the knees out from under Iran THEN make preparations to pull our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. We are not going to work some magic act in those nations and make them understand Freedom and Democracy! They are not fighting for either on their own!

Bring our people home and seal the borders tight. These basics once in order can lead to new longterm strategies to deal with the Islamic threat, but if we are going to cave into Islam here domestically in the USA, then Europe is doomed. Perhaps the world.

Damnit, we need a few real leaders -- men and women willing to make dangerous, difficult and unpopular decisions because they MUST be made.

Is anyone out there that isn't a greedy, lazy, ignorant rich scoundrel?

We all see that these muslim countries have never been our friends, they are just taking our money to act like friends.

The Democrats condemn Turkey of genocide, but won't do the same with Sudan. I agree the Democrats are playing politics with national security in the area of the Middle East, but don't think that they don't already have an agreement with the Turks.

Do not think that the Democrats have not met with officials in Turkey and discussed what they (democrats) are orchestrating. I will bet money that the Democrats have even 'offered the Kurds' on a silver platter to the Turks. The Democrats will be silent on Turkish incursions and killings of Kurds. The Democrats will still be able to get Turkey into the E.U. if the win in 08'.

If Turkey has a problem with our military being on their soil, then we can move across the border into Iraq and build new bases and protect the Kurds.

Our Good Friends, The Shiite Al-Qaeda:

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Shi'ite Islamist political parties are imposing strict Islamic rules in the oil-producing southern provinces of Iraq and using their armed wings to create a state of fear, a group of tribal Shi'ite leaders said.

The four tribal leaders approached Reuters on condition of anonymity, fearing assassination if their names or even their home provinces were made public.

==========
AND THOSE ARE THE GOOD GUYS!

This resolution is not a ursupation of foreign policy. It is not a law. It calls on the president to do something; the word "requires" is not in it. I believe that he can ignore it. All it requires the president to do is grovel and suck upto the Turks, that's why Bush is so miffed.

Darfur resolution? Here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:4:./temp/~c110l1lwQh::

Bosnia? Here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:4:./temp/~c110l1lwQh::

Iran:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:6:./temp/~c110l1lwQh::

More bils and feel good resolutions:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/thomas

Morgaan Sinclair
Don't worry. I still like the man Huge.
Yes, agree I let him derailed me from my focus.

Morgaan,
I would not say you carry youself like a gentlman, either.

I am sure, Hugh knows in his heart I wasn't trying to be hurtful.

Morgan,

Please stay out of our conversation.

Hugh,

you know me, I wont hurt you, eh?
Remember, Hugh you asked whether I end up marrying the Lebanese babe? I don't know where she is now, or I'll bring her to you if she is within reach.

Remember? I didn't let her cutoff my Willie.

Alaskan1000, Darfur?

Here ya go:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:9:./temp/~c110l1lwQh::

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:23:./temp/~c110l1lwQh::

Ssa, Of course Morgaan doesn't carry herself like a gentleman.

Yes, Maam Pelayo.

Sorry folks, those links expired. Go here and "search bill text" with genocide:

http://thomas.loc.gov/

SSA ...

Well, I think you might lighten up a wee tiny bit, ya think? And I don't think Hugh is Huge, so you might stop with the 9th-grade stuff, too, no?

And no, Pelayo, one does not carry oneself as a gentlemen when one is negotiating 3-inch heels, a heavy briefcase full of books, a large purse, and a large hat. One is lucky not to fall over, and, in fact, one learns to fly. Flying is, of course, learning to thrown yourself at the ground and miss (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy).

OT ... BUT DO PLEASE READ THIS.

FROM DISSIDENT VOICE, an American communist website. TOTAL PROPAGANDA ... and it shows better (actually worse) than any other I've read the incredibly dangerous mindset that's developed between radical Islamists and socialists.

Notice that NOWHERE is it mentioned that women are worse than slaves in this society.

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/10/hamas-islamic-democracy-and-national-liberation/

SSA ...

You request that I stay out of your conversation? When you act like this, well ... no ... people should speak up about how you're behaving.

But ... if you act decently, I'd imagine people won't comment at all.

Oh boy ! Everyone is busy here on Turkey. I thought we need damn turkeys on ThanksGiving!

There is too much coverage about another unproductive Islamic State.

Morgaan,
You have your point. I do appreciate your courage. Well, you cannot be all wrong, but let's not expand this away from Turkey.

Miss Morgaan, I did't mean to hurt you. Don't worry Miss Huge can hold his own. I wont object to you came to his succor.

I had been here for a year ago before going to Afghanistan and remember seeing a lot of your posts. Making enemy with you is not my aim. This is only a very short visit; I thought just come to peek in to say Hi, but, sorry it turned out this way.

I have seen Pelayo longer that a year. Well, man cannot help being rough once in a while.

Well, Morgaan, I am done for the day.

Ladies and Gentlemen, please returen to Turkey talk.

Please resume a pleasant Turkey talk.

Well, g'night SSA. See you soon. We will roast a little more turkey at that point. [s] ...

@Wellington

BAGHDAD - An explosives-laden sewage truck blew up near a police station and a car bomb struck an Iraqi army checkpoint Tuesday — attacks that bore the hallmarks of al-Qaida and showed extremists can still hit hard despite recent gains by U.S.-led forces.

A U.S. military spokesman said the terror network is on the run in some areas, but it "obviously remains very lethal."

The bombings and a series of shootings mainly targeted Iraqi security forces and tribal leaders facing internal rivalries, but bystanders also were struck. At least 25 people were killed or found dead nationwide.

The deadliest attack occurred when a car blew up near a gas station across the street from an Iraqi army checkpoint, killing four civilians and two Iraqi soldiers and wounding 25 others.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071016/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

Not exactly eviscerated

greatcomet-

"Remember Ben Franklin wanted our national bird on our national seal to be a Turkey...even a great one can be wrong from time to time."

How about the moon landing?:

"Mr President, the turkey has landed, the turkey has landed."

An explosives-laden sewage truck blew up

That gives a whole new meaning to "dirty bomb."

Dear Pelayo, Thanks for making me laugh. I needed it!

poetcomic1

I know...

Here are a few others from history that would have been changed.

(1) Iron Turkey

(2) Operation Turkey Claw (migth as well had been called that thanks to Carter)

(3) F-15 Turkey

(4) Screaming Turkeys

(5) On the wings of Turkeys

(6) Turkey Scouts

Somehow if that had been our national bird I have a feeling we would never have become a super power.

Maybe we'll gobble up Turkey when we go after Iran.

Ben Franklin on Turkeys and Eagles in his own words...(Letter to his daughter)

"For my own part I wish the Bald Eagle had not been chosen the Representative of our Country. He is a Bird of bad moral Character. He does not get his Living honestly. You may have seen him perched on some dead Tree near the River, where, too lazy to fish for himself, he watches the Labour of the Fishing Hawk; and when that diligent Bird has at length taken a Fish, and is bearing it to his Nest for the Support of his Mate and young Ones, the Bald Eagle pursues him and takes it from him.

With all this Injustice, he is never in good Case but like those among Men who live by Sharping & Robbing he is generally poor and often very lousy. Besides he is a rank Coward: The little King Bird not bigger than a Sparrow attacks him boldly and drives him out of the District. He is therefore by no means a proper Emblem for the brave and honest Cincinnati of America who have driven all the King birds from our Country . . .

I am on this account not displeased that the Figure is not known as a Bald Eagle, but looks more like a Turkey. For the Truth the Turkey is in Comparison a much more respectable Bird, and withal a true original Native of America . . . He is besides, though a little vain & silly, a Bird of Courage, and would not hesitate to attack a Grenadier of the British Guards who should presume to invade his Farm Yard with a red Coat on."

I would say that old Ben had too much drink in him when he wrote this. Although he is spot on with our performance as of late. Too fat and too rich sitting on our limb watching all those fish go by...the Fishing Hawk is called outsourcing...

Turkey needs to be partitioned. It is too big and unruly to be a reliable ally of the West. Smaller entities will more likely to do as we tell them.

The Allies tried that in 1920, in the Treaty of Sevres. You may recall how well that turned out.

Democracy for the Iraqi soccer moms and dads is only about, oh, 13 months away. Yes. That's it. Please, Republicans, support the war until November 2008. That should about do it. Democracy surly win by then! 4,000 or 40,000 U.S. casulties and a trillion dollars, SO WHAT! FREEDOM! FREEDOM! FREEDOM! for Iraq. Yea! Bush is the greatest! Go Bush! Yea!

Ynkedoodl2: Thanks for your comments. Two things here. First, I do believe that war is not so black and white as to be the case that you are either winning or losing. There are many shades of gray between these two martial extremes. We're in the gray area right now. Of course, we can agree to disagree here. Two, I proceed on the assumption, and please tell me if you think otherwise, that the American Armed Forces will have to be killing Islamic radicals in large numbers for decades to come, perhaps even longer than this. We could be in the early stages of a new Hundred Years War. I therefore find merit in the argument that it's better to take them on in Iraq and Afghanistan than in Pennsylvania or California. Even assuming going into Iraq was a mistake, leaving now will not be costless and new fields of battle will appear. Perhaps we can be in accord that it is very likely that the greatest threat to Western Civilization will not have come from the secular totalitarian ideologies of fascism and Marxism but from the ultimate totalitarian ideology, Islam.

Pelayo: I agree with you that many Americans are asleep right now respecting the mortal threat to our liberties posed by the Islamic faith. That is why we need a superlative leader with numerous skills, including electability, who can convince Americans of the direction in which we have to go. Leadership at the highest level should count among its attributes the capacity to take a people to a place most yet do not realize they have to journey to. Most Americans still don't comprehend how lethal Islam is to freedom and democracy. A leader of the type I strongly think we soon will need will have to possess this capacity to properly instruct Americans of the mortal danger we are in. That person has not yet appeared. We will need that person soon, someone along the lines of a Winston Churchill. Perhaps it will take another 9/11 before that person will appear or can appear. If we do not get that individual within a decade or so, we face the distinct possibility of oblivion, either by demographics or terror or both.

To Seamus:

When it gets partitioned, I dibs the breast.

I guess now's a bad time to also add the traitor pelosi has a 100 rating (total approval) from CAIR?
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={CF822C12-9767-4914-A254-20BFB27329B7}
Interesting...most interesting.

jcom972: Pelosi has a 100 rating from CAIR? Thanks for that. Most interesting. Quite telling. Still, I don't think of her as a traitor, just a fool.

usurping the authority of executive powers of the president is, which is the ONLY reason for her timing, and motivation in this.

Reagan already addressed/acknowledged the Armenian Genocide issue 25 years ago...
http://www.anca.org/genocide/reagan.php
and rehashing it NOW, so closely and conveniently after such timely events as discussing foreign policy is no coincidence, & is nothing less than a calculated scheme on her part, and well beyond her role.
http://www.regnum.ru/english/897320.html
(written BY an Armenian)

But it makes no difference now, as even her supporters are feeling the heat...even her ally wapo admits now...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/16/AR2007101601457.html
the hill reports...
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrats-split-on-genocide-resolution-2007-10-16.html
not for rehashing something indisputable as the Armenian Genocide (nobody disputes that) it's ALL about orchestrated timing, and disingenuous motivation of the worst caliber, all to force an issue that she has no authority to do (senate can, but with 60% vote, not her house).

from the same newsmax site the left hates, which reported this topic...
pelosi's war...
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/pelosi_turkey/2007/10/16/41296.html
why now...
http://www.newsmax.com/limbaugh/turkey_resolution/2007/10/16/41241.html
and proper context of said timing and motivation...
http://www.newsmax.com/koch/hostile_turkey/2007/10/15/41036.html

Once the feelgoodism (which I actually agree with-no disputing the genocide, but it's not THE crux of the whole deal here) is removed, all there is left is malicious timing and ulterior motivations, which tell only one tale of what would be left to gain: disrupting foreign policy in direct circumvention of a sitting President, hence, Treason. And that's all there is to this.

And based on the reactions on Capitol Hill right now, a lot more folks agree with me that agree with her...not because anyone's denying the genocide, but precisely for the reasons I stated.
El gato is out of el baggo.

Alienating Turkey may seem appealing to purists, but if Iran succeeds in attaining nuclear weaponry, surely, Turkey would be a prime location for Iranian weapons (or other Pakistani nukes, Russian nukes, etc.) aimed at Europe. There must be someone on this site who knows whether this is plausible or not.

Since Putin is making noise opposing our weapons in his backyard, the chess piece of Iranian nukes on Turkish soil must seem like a ready-made advantage in the ongoing nuclear brinksmanship.

Simply telling the Turks to take their indignation and stuff it seems quite easy. But, in the larger scheme, even a lukewarm ally providing overland transport routes for water, fuel and supplies is preferable to the loss of said lukewarm ally.

If the thinktank geniuses of the last fifty years had paid attention they would have noticed that the civilized world is simply not repopulating itself with the same insane fundamentalist zeal evidenced in the Muslim world. Even if we pull out of Iraq and stick our heads in the sand, keeping as many of the Islamists out as we can by identifying them, we are doomed to repeat the mistake of the past if we do not stop murdering/aborting babies in this country. Any theory (ZPG)or any facsimile which convinces us to keep our numbers low is a threat to Western Civilization.

So, our sons will go to war and fight, if necessary, WWIII and all this armchair intellectualizing about making Turkey pay for the Armenian Genocide, will be just a lot of hot air. I sincerely hope the intellectuals on this site are all 100% correct because I would not send any son of mine to a battlefront where water, fuel, medical supplies and food would be scarce or non-existant because somebody had to make a political point to jeopardize the War in Iraq or to advance the political campaign of some selfish, egotistical, megalomaniacal political harridan.

Or, I should have said, I would not want to send any son of mine to a battlefront where water, fuel, medical supplies and food would be scarce or non-existant because somebody had to make a political point to jeopardize the War in Iraq or to advance the political campaign of some selfish, egotistical, megalomaniacal political harridan.

I wonder how many sons Nambla Pelosi and Hitlery Clinton will be sending to Iraq. I wonder how many sons, Tom Lantos and Dennis Kucinich and Harry Reid and Dick Durbin and ....?

I thought not. The Congressional Generals will surely find a way to make up for the loss of the Turkish supply routes, for, in their infinite wisdom, they can solve any problem, even though, as Michael Savage, so eloquently points out, they can't seem to associate the name Muslim with the Ottoman Empire.

"plausible", yes...probable? Ummm, no.
Turks & iranians h-a-t-e each other, & only thing they have in common is the kurdish issue (hence this topic, caused by pelosi's coup attempt under the subterfuge of armenian genocide).
Turks it's the PKK (communist kurds),
the iranians hate ALL the kurds, which are also a thorn in their side.
Turks also h-a-t-e syria, pelosi's latest chummy pal, and would love to take them out.
Turks also have a working military agreement with Israel (which is also why the successful raid on syrias nuke site)-iran (and syria) would love to derail that one.

Also, strikingly strange how this happens so closely correlative to the iranian lunatics scheduled "final response" bit...but just something that makes ya go "HHMMMMmmmmm".

timing & motivation, the crux of the matter, and by someone 100% supported by CAIR, makes this whole episode highly suspicious in real motives at the very least...but that's quickly coming to a head as we speak.

Just a few facts, from my estimation:

Pelosi is a traitor.

Bush is a traitor.

The "war" in Iraq is lost, regardless of current short-term gains.

Pelosi is using the Armenians as political clout to undermine Bush and further her political agenda. She couldn't care less about the Armenians.

Any "success" in Iraq that lingers until the election hurts the Democrats immensely.

Pelosi, in the odd-timing of this resolution, will only harm US troop security in the region.

Bush will, in spite of these new revelations, not discontinue this exercise of folly in Iraq.

Turkey is not, nor has it ever been, a US ally, just a fair-weathered friend when it suits their needs.

Islam is Islam...always was, and always will be.

Bush and Pelosi are equally ignorant of Islam or comparative in their respective capability to lie.

Bad news on both sides.

Contrary to statements about Islam by both Pelosi and Bush, Islamic nations despise us and seek our demise. Any surface capitulation by the Islamists is simply the whispering of "sweet-nothings" in our collective ear.

The US, as Bush and Pelosi would both have it, will reward these empty promisings with our blood, sweat and most importantly...money.

Both Pelosi and Bush took the same class in Islam, with both passing obscure love notes to each other, both learning absolutely nothing about the subject itself.

The next crop of "politicians" in line look equally as inept in this vital area of comprehension.

Saudi Arabia is laughing all the way to the bank, not the West Bank, but our bank, only stifling their laughter long enough to further undermine and weaken the US and the West with their economical Jihad that they wage regularly, and without any opposition from the likes of Both Pelosi and Bush.

Political correctness has now run amok in the West, nearly irreversible.

Ramadan will be given equal quarter in clear violation of secular values.

The ACLU will not comment on the matter.

"Moderate" Muslims and so-called Muslim "reformists" wil continue to baselessly smear Robert Spencer and Jihad Watch as bigots and purveyors of hate, contrary to all logical sensible evidence otherwise.

Business as usual, in this once great nation.

Oh, and by the way, regarding Iraq, Hugh was, and remains 100% correct in his estimation of the end result there. Those who think otherwise, must have attended the same class about Islam as Pelosi and Bush did...probably sitting across the aisle from Condi and many, many others.

Choose your candidates wisely in 2008.

so what if we lose bases in Turkey they're not really needed anymore and the loss would hurt Turkey and their economy would hurt them more than us one thing Muslims have always been good at is rewriting history all we have to do is look at how the Turks hide the Armenian genocide and their actions and deeds over the past hundred years and their denial of the Temple Mount of ever being anything but a Muslim sanctuary despite historical records showing the Jews had Temple there long before the Dome of the rock was built

"Alienating Turkey may seem appealing to purists, but if Iran succeeds in attaining nuclear weaponry, surely, Turkey would be a prime location for Iranian weapons (or other Pakistani nukes, Russian nukes, etc.) aimed at Europe. There must be someone on this site who knows whether this is plausible or not."

It isn't. Turkey and Iran are historic rivals dating back centuries. Today, the rivalry is being played out over Azerbaijan.

The inhabitants of this small country are cousins of the Turks, but they are blood-brothers of the Azeris who inhabit northern Iran and comprise almost a third of Iran's population. Iran is intensely interested in pulling the country into its orbit so as to forestall any support for separatist sentiment among Azeris inside Iran.

Right now, Iran supports Christian Armenia in that country's struggle against Azerbaijan. But this is just geo-politics, a reaction to Azerbaijan's closeness to Turkey and the relative moderation of its Muslim society. Should Azerbaijan ever fall prey to radical Islamists, Iran will switch its allegiance overnight.

There is a confluence of interests linking Turkey and Iran such as suppressing Kurdish nationalism, but the confessional differences and national rivalry will most likely preclude any formal alliance.

This news header is misleading as many others you read about Turkey's fight against terrorism.

It says "Turkey Forms Alliance With Iran Against Kurds"
1- Turkey isn't against Kurds
2- PKK isn't guerilla. It is a terrorist group.
3- Turkey will strike the Terrorist PKK bases in Qandil if the parliament votes for it.
4- Turkey has the right to attack terrorists over the border when homeland security is under threat according to international conventions.

And what is more is Turkey isn't an ally of Iran in global politics. It is just that both parties are trying to get rid of the terrorist PKK.

There are millions of Turkish citizens of Kurdish roots which we live happily (and will live happily ever after if let alone).

PKK is a terrorist group who killed 30000 Turkish citizens since 1992 (check: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/docs/50/plenary/a50-372.htm )

We have been asking our so very loyal ALLY, US. to help us defeat the Terrorist PKK in Iraq. It has been almost 2 years now that US didn't take even the slightest step towards helping us get rid of the terrorist PKK. They have been stalling us with fake promises. In the last month over 60 soldiers were killed by this terrorist group (The last example: http://haber.tnn.net/haber_detay.asp?ID=1853292&cat=eng )

What would US's reaction be if only 10 of their soldiers were killed in, say, New York by, say, Al Qaeda? Oh wait, their reaction was clear. They invaded Iraq on such an occasion (only 2819 US citizens were dead)

And you are blaming Turkey for trying to clear the region of PKK terrorists who killed a total of 30000 citizens (combatant+non-combatant, Kurdish rooted, non-Kurdish rooted)? And you call yourself fair?

Hah..

P.S.
The Armenian Genocide Resolution has little or nothing to do with this upcoming attack against PKK terrorists. The only relevance is that we feel less and less that US is our ally. By the way, did your congressmen vote any resolution against Indian massacres? Or was that irrelevant too? (Check www.tallarmeniantale.com for a different view on this genocide issue.)

This news header is misleading as many others you read about Turkey's fight against terrorism.

It says "Turkey Forms Alliance With Iran Against Kurds"
1- Turkey isn't against Kurds
2- PKK isn't guerilla. It is a terrorist group.
3- Turkey will strike the Terrorist PKK bases in Qandil if the parliament votes for it.
4- Turkey has the right to attack terrorists over the border when homeland security is under threat according to international conventions.

And what is more is Turkey isn't an ally of Iran in global politics. It is just that both parties are trying to get rid of the terrorist PKK.

There are millions of Turkish citizens of Kurdish roots which we live happily (and will live happily ever after if let alone).

PKK is a terrorist group who killed 30000 Turkish citizens since 1992 (check: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/docs/50/plenary/a50-372.htm )

We have been asking our so very loyal ALLY, US. to help us defeat the Terrorist PKK in Iraq. It has been almost 2 years now that US didn't take even the slightest step towards helping us get rid of the terrorist PKK. They have been stalling us with fake promises. In the last month over 60 soldiers were killed by this terrorist group (The last example: http://haber.tnn.net/haber_detay.asp?ID=1853292&cat=eng )

What would US's reaction be if only 10 of their soldiers were killed in, say, New York by, say, Al Qaeda? Oh wait, their reaction was clear. They invaded Iraq on such an occasion (only 2819 US citizens were dead)

And you are blaming Turkey for trying to clear the region of PKK terrorists who killed a total of 30000 citizens (combatant+non-combatant, Kurdish rooted, non-Kurdish rooted)? And you call yourself fair?

Hah..

P.S.
The Armenian Genocide Resolution has little or nothing to do with this upcoming attack against PKK terrorists. The only relevance is that we feel less and less that US is our ally. By the way, did your congressmen vote any resolution against Indian massacres? Or was that irrelevant too? (Check www.tallarmeniantale.com for a different view on this genocide issue.)

Sorry for the double post (connection issues). I wanted to correct myself on the date when killing s of terrorist PKK began.

PKK has been killing Turkish citizens since 1984 and it has killed 30000 Turkish citizens since then. The link I've provided shows during the period between 1991-1995, 5292 Turkish citizens were killed.

Well, looks like the "nobody better mess with me" traitor got the situation explained to her...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,302497,00.html
...amazing what a few pushed buttons will do to park a 5th columnist who was reminded of her true role.

Don't mess with WHOM, nancy?
;-)

I therefore find merit in the argument that it's better to take them on in Iraq and Afghanistan than in Pennsylvania or California.
--posted by Wellington

So the solution is to kill vast numbers of Muhammadans by provoking unnecessary wars so that in the future less of them are around to request visas to the USA or to try entering illegally?

???????

Seems to me a very circuitous, round-about way to confront global jihad. Not to mention, futile.

@comkedi

You're barking up the wrong tree, here.

Certainly the US did nothing to help Turkey defeat the PKK. We've got our tits in a wringer trying to bring democracy to the Muhammadan barbarians in Iraq. It isn't going so well. Muhammadans want to be slaves of allah, not members of the twenty-first century. They have no concept of democracy let alone human rights or a thing called "liberty."

We never understood how hopelessly barbaric the Muhammadans are. Now we're finally getting it. What a joke that we are wasting blood and money to make the lives of Muhammadans any better. I say, "let them rot in their shitholes."

In short, comkedi, don't expect any help from the USA. We'd all be much better off if Saddam Hussein were still in power. I, for one, miss him.

....This may be another genocide incident to happen than will go down in history as never occuring....according to Turkey....

I bet nancy misses him too...much like those who ASSume a great deal about ME.

"The reason jcom972 defends the Iraqi trainwreck is that once upon a time jcom972 was gungho about invading Iraq. He bought the Bush-bullshit hook, line and sinker.

There are none so blind as those who will not see. And their motto might as well be:

Once gungho always gungho!

Some people are never wrong. Some people never sing off key. Some people's shit don't stink. You know the type.
Posted by: Ynkedoodl [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 30, 2007 11:36 AM"

ASSumptions are the mother of all F**kups, case-in-point...and a great deal was ASSumed about me, then...and now.

;-)

Oh...is now a bad time to suggest getting out of ladue more often? It might clear that fog.

;-)

Ynkedoodl2: Both bin Laden and Zawahiri have asserted that Iraq has now become the central front in what they see as the war on their faith. Why not take them at their word and battle them there? Where would you propose the central front should be? What place would be your preference? Extremely mountainous Afghanistan? The remote North-West Frontier of Pakistan? Are you prepared to maintain that having no central front in this war is possible? I'd like to know how that could be accomplished.

Something else, suppose we had not gone into Iraq. By now it is highly likely that Saddam Hussein would have bribed enough Europeans to have made the sanctions against his country 100% ineffective and thus would be in the process of completely reconstituting his military, having all kinds of contacts with Islamic terrorist groups, providing money to suicide bombers' families in the West Bank and Gaza, thrusting himself forward as the savior of all Arabs and actively pursuing the stockpiling of WMDs. Sometimes life leaves you with only lousy options and you have to choose what you consider to be the least bad of the bunch.

Whether it is Iraq or Afghanistan or wherever, sadly I see that America will be at war with militant Islam for a very long time to come. What would be your approach in battling these untold numbers of Islamic zealots? Create a Festung America? Overnight tell the Saudis to kiss off and tell Japan, the second largest economy on earth, that from now on where they get their oil is their problem? Let Musharraf fall and hope for something better there? I think it possible to argue that being in Iraq is about the best of all possible options right now. What we must do is win there and if that means being ruthless, so be it. I am in agreement with you that the Islamic world is almost certainly hopeless, but it's not going to go away. What do we do with it? How do we prevail?

"We'd all be much better off if Saddam Hussein were still in power. I, for one, miss him."

You miss him? You have got to be kidding. Well, that pretty much tells me how whacked your political position is. Next....

I think it possible to argue that being in Iraq is about the best of all possible options right now. What we must do is win there and if that means being ruthless, so be it?
--posted by Wellington

What does winning look like? Spell out your vision of victory in Iraq. Right now we have a Shiite theocracy in power, the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution. Those are our allies.

Would you keep pouring money and blood into tarbaby Iraq until the Fundamentalist Shiites of The Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution finally succeed in defeating the Sunnis? How long do you think that might take. You mentioned 100 years.

150 Billion dollars x 100 = mucho dinero

In response to your question "What do we do with it? How do we prevail?" Let me go get Hugh Fitzgerald, the James Joyce of the anti-Jihad.

As part of the "bleed-until-bankruptcy plan," bin Laden cited a British estimate that it cost al Qaeda about $500,000 to carry out the attacks of September 11, 2001, an amount that he said paled in comparison with the costs incurred by the United States.

The total U.S. national debt is more than $7 trillion. The U.S. federal deficit was $413 billion in 2004, according to the Treasury Department.
====
@Wellington

Are we using our money and resources wisely?

Bin Laden, whose al Qaeda network carried out the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, proved he's kept a close eye on U.S. politics as he detailed al Qaeda's strategy of bleeding America bankrupt, even as Americans weighed their presidential votes largely on the issues of terror and the economy.

He provided a financial analysis of al Qaeda's destruction in his latest 18-minute video, a full transcript of which was posted Monday on the Internet.

According to bin Laden's math, each $1 al Qaeda has spent on strikes has cost the United States $1 million in economic fallout and military spending, including emergency funding for Iraq and Afghanistan.

"As for the size of the economic deficit, it has reached record astronomical numbers," bin Laden said, estimating the deficit at more than $1 trillion.

In reality, spending in the war against terror and other factors have resulted in an expected $377 billion shortfall for 2003 — the highest deficit since World War II when inflation is factored out. The total U.S. national debt is near the $7.4 trillion statutory limit.

It is the ignorance of Islam (and, secondarily, of Iraq) that explains the American failure to achieve its goals in Iraq. It is ignorance of Islam (and, secondarily, of Iraq) that explains the American failure to realize that the goals the Administration wishes to achieve are exactly the wrong goals, that instead of trying to unite Iraq it should welcome the sectarian and ethnic divisions within Iraq, and within the larger Camp of Islam as well, and should wish the fissures to widen in Iraq so that co-religionists on both sides outside Iraq would squander their money, their men, their war matériel.

It is the ignorance of Islam, finally, that explains why Bush and his loyalists continue to believe that somehow the problem with the Shi'a refusal to collaborate in what the Americans think should be done is not due to the failure of an individual leader, an al-Maliki or al-Jaafari before him. It is the collective will of the Shi'a not to surrender to the Sunnis any of the power the Shi'a now possess, and they will not do it. And it is not this or that obstinate Sunni group that refuses to acquiesce in the new balance of power in Iraq; it is the Sunnis, period. And the failure to make those compromises that the Bush Administration believes possible are due entirely to the texts, tenets, attitudes, and atmospherics of Islam, which make such compromise impossible.
--Hugh Fitzgerald

"Our first priority should be the successful completion of the war on terrorism. Today we Americans are more vulnerable to international terrorist organizations than we are to Saddam Hussein."

Lindsey O. Graham (R-SC)
2003

Hmmmm...interesting...
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html
reports (verified through congressional record via congress member elsewhere)
http://www.house.gov/list/press/ar04_ross/morenews/floor_110905.html

"On October 18th 2005, the Outstanding Public Debt rose to $8,003,897,406,911.24 -- the first time it had risen above $8 trillion." two years ago, before current standing claim, and when the GDP was even less than it is now...
(hint- 8 trillion two years ago is more than 7.4 trillion today, $600 billion more, which in turn is a lot more than the 377 billion shortfall too)

...relevance to this topic (other than sit-n-spin anti-war ranting)?

That reminds me...
what's the price of tea in china?
(/sarc)

Let's get back to topic.

Victory in Iraq would mean a divide and conquer strategy has worked. As you know, I find Islam deplorable but I agree with Abraham Lincon's approach that one can hate the sin without necessarily hating the sinner. There are many Muslims in Iraq who not only do not mean America and Americans harm, but actually prefer us there, actually prefer we're the boss for some time to come. The Kurds in northern Iraq are the best example here. What must be done is that the Islamic terrorists must be killed, no mercy shown, and so-called moderate Muslims must understand that we will brook no stupid, protracted dissent among themselves. This will take time. Hell, we're still in Japan and Germany more than sixty years after WWII.

This war we are presently in has seen extremely light losses for American forces by the standards of past wars. Every death or maiming of an American soldier is tragic, and I fault the dysfunctional Islamic world front and center for this, but we were suffering a thousand casualties a day from July 1944 to the end of WWII. We lost more men in the first hours of D-Day then we have in the four and a half years that we have been in Iraq. Perspective is important. Something else. Soldiers I have spoken to who have come back from Iraq are amazed at the almost unremitting negative reporting of the war back here at home. They have conveyed to me and others I know that much good has occurred in Iraq, from the building of schools, to the consturction of roads and bridges and, most important, to an understanding with many Iraqis who see us as necessary and detest the Islamic radicals as much as we do. Are you prepared to just say the hell with all this and leave? Do you not see that even assuming we should not have gone into Iraq in the first place, we are there now and leaving will not by any means be costless?

I think it is possible for many Muslims to observe more or less a shell of their religion. Ideally, I wish all Muslims would wake up tomorrow Christian, Hindu, Buddhist or any religion but the one they adhere to now. But that's not going to happen. Unless we are prepared to declare war on all of Islam (and that might happen), then our only course is to align ourselves with moderate Muslims against the radicals.

Am I ticked off about all this? You bet I am. Just as I fault the Germans for allowing Hitler to come to power, so I fault the Islamic world for their many idiocies, their self-pity and their dysfunctional, violent and intolerant behavior. But I remain adamant that the world is indeed a silly place as I watch it blame Bush, who wants to bring democracy and prosperity to Iraq, far, far more than it blames the Islamic fruitcakes who want to stop all this and return the Middle East to the seventh century. The world should be in unison shaming Islamic terrorists. Instead it wishes to see Bush and the Americans as the real enemy. Stupid in the extreme.

We're in Iraq. That's a fact. We must establish a democracy there however long it takes. Every alternative is at least as bad. If you doubt me, what is yours?

Wellington,
Interesting points.
I agree, I'm pretty ticked about certain aspects of it, too (namely, that we're not tough ENOUGH there- my brother's take, and he's in the sandbox now)- this PC pussyfooting is not only getting nowhere, but is killing our guys worse than the enemy is (90% of whom aren't even iraqis).

Keep 'em coming...

@Wellington

Thank you for polite, well-written posts. Always.

Too bad Hugh isn't around. Your post would challenge him to new heights of eloquence.

I am unshakeable in my belief that Muhammadans will not accept a western way of life imposed on them. We can temporarily subdue this or that part of Iraq, but we are infidels and everything about us is illegitimate beginning with our notion of democracy which sanctions man-made government.

The Shiites are 60& of the population of Iraq. But the Sunnis will not accept being ruled by the Shiites. In order to impose the will of the Shia on the Sunnis, the USA would have to kill millions of Sunnis. Are you okay with that?

It's a moot point because the USA will always try to be the good guy, adjudicating in this civil war for everyone's benefit. It won't work.

The continued displacement of populations, destruction of infrastructure, lack of opportunity will only increase jihadi violence. Sooner or later, the USA will become responsible for millions of these "homeless" people, refugees and accept them into the USA. Major mistake.

The best that can be hoped for is a decisive Shiite victory over the Sunnis. However, there is no possibility of anything being quick in the Middle East. This could go on for 100 years; it could go on for a thousand years.

The Shiites are allies with Iran, the greater threat. The more we support and empower the Shiites, the greater the influence of Iran. The Shiites are even more fundamentalist than the Sunnis. We have no future as allies or friends of the Shiites. None, zero, zip, nada.

So in the end, there is no victory. It doesn't matter what happens. The main thing is to think of ourselves first.

I'm embarassed. I'm ashamed. I'm very patriotic and love the USA will all my heart. But that self-serving ass clown Bush has made a fine mess of things.

The Sunnis are not fighting "democracy." They are fighting the loss of their own rule. They have convinced themselves, by the way, that they represent a majority of the population. How have they done so? They think that Sunni Arabs are being undercounted, and that roughly 45% of the population is Sunni Arab. (The lowest figure I have heard being offered by the Sunnis is 42%, reported by Fouad Ajami). And to this figure -- let us say 42% -- they then blandly add as "Sunnis" the Kurds (who, though mostly Sunni, are non-Arab, and have been the chief victims of Sunni Arabs). Thus, presto-magico, it seems that the Sunnis have some kind of divine right to rule.

In some Sunni countries, the division of the world is between Muslim, Shi'a, and Infidel, with the Shi'a not accorded the full status of Muslim, but not -- save in the wilder desert shores of Saudi Arabia and those who follow it -- outright called Infidels. But the Jordanian-born Palestinian Zarqawi certainly calls all Shi'a Infidels -- and we know what that implies for how they are to be treated, and indeed are being treated.

Nor do the Shi'a want, in the abstract, something called "democracy." They want power. They constitute 60% of the population. Hence "democracy" for them, as so far interpreted, means power for the Shi'a. That's it. The Shi'a did not march off to express their faith in democracy, that universal yearning for freedom that Bush keeps telling us is a feature common to all men. He has it wrong. He assumes that culture (in the anthropological sense) does not matter. But many men, and women, especially those raised in Islam, by Islam, for Islam (which alas shall not perish from the earth), yearn not for individualism but for Belonging to the Ummah, for the Belonging that depends on others Not Belonging, and that those others are the Infidels, and Americans are among them.

No, Bush posits the kind of world one hears about in the most banal of commencement speech addresses, or those essays on What Democracy Means to Me that used to be assigned in eighth-grade civics classes, and which, while often touching (especially if written by a real refugee from a hellhole), are not the stuff that should be filling the mind of someone whose duty it is to craft coherent policies based on reality, not on the pieties of some Citizenship Day at Ellis Island, circa 1930.

The Shi'a do not want democracy any more than the Sunnis. Rephrased, this becomes: If the Shi'a want democracy more than the Sunnis in Iraq, it is only because there are more of them. The big-shots in Washington who are now disposing of the fates of all those American soldiers should get the drift, learn to deal with Islam, and stop believing in this cockamamie Light-Unto-the-Muslim Nations business.

Stick to this:

1) Get out of Iraq, using the December elections as the terminus ad quem -- the point when the American Timothy gives the Iraqi Dumbo the magic feather, and tells him "Good Luck" and "I'm sure you can fly" and then leaves.
2) Offer hint-hint nudge-nudge support to the Kurds who, in Kurdistan, are not exactly pleased with the compromises the Kurds in Baghdad have made. Begin reading Turkey the riot act. At the same time suggest that a free Kurdistan's boundaries would never include parts of Anatolia -- "we garontee" in a Cajun accent -- as long as Turkey, which now has nowhere else to turn (certainly not to wary and hostile Europe), leaves Kurdistan alone. Explain to the Turks that in the end they may find that the pressure a free Kurdistan puts on Syria and Iran can work to Turkey's advantage. Explain that the Americans have been deeply disappointed in Turkey, which relies for military equipment, training and resupply (of spare parts, for example) entirely on the Americans, and that things will go hard for them if they do not collaborate --that the failure to allow that fourth division in from the north was the last, no the antepenultimate straw. The penultimate straw has been the last two years of vilification of the United States in the Turkish press, and the final straw has been the attempt to punish Orhan Pamuk on the little unforgotten matter of the Armenian massacres -- which Turkey sooner or later must own up to. Turkey should, if it is clever and wishes to encourage secularism, correctly attribute the genocide not to "Turks" but rather to a campaign engaged in by "Turks and Kurds and Arabs" -- for until they reached the safe havens of Christian parts of Aleppo and Beirut, those Armenian refugees in the Syrian Desert were subject to rape and looting by local Arabs, something that those Armenians who found haven in Lebanon and Syria have preferred not to look at too closely. And those Turks, Kurds, and Arabs, they can say, were all "misusing" (uh-huh) Islam to attack "Christian" Armenians -- not because they were Armenians, but because they were Christians, and sufficiently numerous, so the Muslim Turks thought, to constitute a threat to Muslims and the right order of things.

The Americans are not making Iraq safe for democracy. They are helping the Sh'a suppress the Sunnis. They are training what they like to call, insist upon calling, an "Iraqi" army but it is nothing of the kind, and cannot be. This army, and these police, are almost entirely Shi'a and Kurd. And so the Americans are now engaged in raising up a Shi'a army to better defend itself against the Sunnis. At the same time, Iranian agents in Iraq are also training Shi'a. So here we have the Americans doing the work of the Iranians, though Iran and Saudi Arabia, are the most powerful and dangerous supporters of Jihad in the world. And Iran has that science project that must be damaged, if not completely destroyed.

The American government can prate about "democracy" all it wants. It certainly keeps it from analyzing the nature of the problem, a problem that does not come from "a handful of extremists." Attention to Iraq, and repetition of this phrase "war on terror," obscures reality. If all we are worried about is a "war on terror," then, provided only those caught in terrorist acts or overt support for such acts are deported, we should not care one whit about the islamization of Europe.

Well, do you care or don't you care about the islamization of Europe? If you regard it with horror, as a civilizational threat akin only to that of a permanent Nazi victory over Europe, then you should be furious at the continued refusal even to hint, synecdochically, at the belief-system that has been strengthened, rather than weakened, in Iraq itself.

There was only one reason to go to Iraq that made sense: to destroy all major weaponry and weapons programs, because it was unclear exactly what Saddam Hussein possessed, or was in the process of producing. That's it.

The squandering of resources -- men, materiel, money, morale of soldiers and civilians, at the very moment when they need to be carefully husbanded for a new policy of containment (this time, of Islam) that will need to be conducted over many decades, and perhaps without any end in sight -- is maddening.

It maddens me.

Does it madden you?
--Hugh Fitzgerald

Speaking of sanchez...hey Wellington, here's a good point worth noting, including the first part ignored by the MSM:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,302117,00.html
I don't "believe" he was, I KNOW he was, referring to the MSM, the rest was parroted by the MSM so we already know that part.

Ynkedoodl2 and jcom972: Let me say to both of you that I take your viewpoints seriously and thank you for them. Besides, I think we can agree on one thing and that is that the world would be much better off if Islam didn't exist. Excuse my digression here into wishful thinking.

But, damn it, it does exist. So what should be done? Ynkedoodl2, your contention that Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq will never get along is one that only a fool would dismiss cavalierly. You may very well be right. But let's hope you're not. The only real chance for democracy in Iraq (assuming there is one) is if Sunni Arabs, Shiite Arabs and Kurds agree on a formula that is reminiscent of that in Lebanon from before 1975 or so. A true sharing of power has to occur or democracy in Iraq is doomed. America has to make that crystal clear, backed up with the threat of force, as long as an American presence remains there, and accompanied by an additional threat of exiting Iraq, should compromise not ensue, pursuant to a timetable that reasonable minds will disagree about but eventually have to reach accord on.

There is one other alternative and that is splitting Iraq into three countries-----a Kurdistan in the north (with appropriate guarantees to Turkey that not a single square mile of the Turkish state will ever be incorporated in this Kurdish polity); a Sunni Arab middle state around Baghdad; and a Shiite Arab southern nation. Of course, the real problem with this is that the Shiite Arabs will get most of the oil reserves. They would also be more vulnerable to outside pressure (read mostly Iran here) precisely because they would be a relatively small country (some 50,000 square miles). This option should be one of last resort and thus a unified Iraq must be strongly encouraged by the Americans.

Another matter. Iran as presently constituted is a first-rate menace. Under no condition should it be allowed to develop a nuclear military option. I see a showdown coming. In a way I welcome it because a devastation of Iran's military capacity, which I think should accompany any forceful dismantling of its nuclear capability, would remove the single greatest destabilizing factor in the entire Middle East. I'm not talking about another full-blown war here but rather massive hits on Iran's infrastructure. For all those who think we have not been ruthless enough in Iraq, I would hope all such folk realize we cannot spare being ruthless if (when?) we strike Iran. It will be a very delicate situation because the regime is hated by at least a simple majority of Iranians but we must be careful not to alienate this element. That's why an attack (massive I would suggest) be limited to infrastructure. If Iran's regime is overthrown, all kinds of new dynamics, virtually all of them working to America's advantage, would manifest themselves. And, getting back to Iraq, it would send a message to quarreling Arabs there that we mean business big time. You know, my major criticism of President Bush respecting his venture into Iraq is that he has not been bold and thorough enough. The Middle East, hell the whole world, respects the strongest horse, as bin Laden himself has said. We must be that horse. To date, we have not been. I hope Ralph Peters is not correct when he asks the rhetorical question is civilization too decent to survive. No one knew better than Winston Churchill that civilization cannot hesitate when taking on the barbarian. Bush has hesitated I would contend.

Thanks, jcom972, for the article on General Sanchez. His excoriation of the media is right on point. They have done their damndest to help America lose this war. I'm reminded here of the Grenada invasion of 1983 which President Reagan authorized because anarchy was breakiing out there. There was a 24-48 hour press blackout that Reagan imposed and, of course, the press was indignant about this. When Richard Nixon was questioned by some journalist regarding this matter and the journalist reminded Nixon that during WWII the press was kept informed at virtually all times about Allied military plans and operations, Nixon responded with a great come-back line by saying, yes, that was true but the press was on our side in that war.

Well, I wish you both the best and thank you again for your analyses about Iraq et al. I hope we can continue exchanging ideas. I close by wondering aloud if the time is not coming when, assuming the Islamic world doesn't get its act at least somewhat together, the West will have to take on all of the followers of Mohammed as a mortal threat to so much we hold dear---------democracy, true tolerance, progress, equality under the law, women's rights, separation of church and state and the greatest right of all, the right to be free.

@Wellington

Thank you for great post.

I would encourage you google up some H Fitzgerald on the subject of tarbaby Iraq. Please ponder Hugh's contention that tarbaby Iraq, above and beyond it being an exercise in futility, also lets the Sunni Arab neighboring states off the hook for the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq. For example how Saudi Jihadia should be made to cough up some of those OPEC Billions for the sake of their correligionists; and how this just ain't happening now. How the USA is in effect paying a jizya to the Arabs through its endless outlays for project democracy in tarbaby Iraq, just as it pays a jizya to Egypt for undemocratically restraining jihadism; or the ridiculous jizya paid to the Paleostinians or the endless waste of time, money and material trying to civilize the savages of Afghanistan.

Go back and read almighty Bush justifying the invasion of Iraq with nonsense like the following:

"All free nations have a stake in preventing sudden and catastrophic attack."

The man was/is delusional. Do you Iraq was on the verge of launching a sudden, and catastrophic attack on the US and that the threat was imminent. Well Bush did or said he did!

Bush said:

Bush is speaking like Adolph Hitler. He takes a non-existent fact, emotionalizes it, and then tries to terrorize his audience into following him into a hasty and ill-advised action. This is the speech of a full-blown narcissist in a high degree of dysfunction.

But I digress.

We don't agree today, sir, but tomorrow or the next day or the year after after next we might agree with you finally seeing that a sow's ear cannot be turned into a silk purse; that a perfumed pig is still a pig. When the deficit mounts up to the point of real economic distress; when oil hits $150 a barrel because of the worthless dollar.I don't want America to lose and the democrats don't either. Nobody wants failure; but Bush has lead this country to the brink of real disaster.

All of us Americans were stirred up by Bush; we said collectively "Go get 'em George!" We had never seen anything like this guy. So bold , so arrogant and just like a kid with his first paycheck we were eager to spend down our prestige (earned) and the world's heartfelt compassion for the suffering of 911; and the Clinton surplus. "Go ahead George," we said. "Go all in! Give him Hell."

And those were exactly the opposite of what we should have done.

Gotta go. As Bush said after his press conference "I enjoyed it."

You see, it's always about him.

Thanks Wellington,

You're a gentleman and a scholar...just remember, no matter who says what or what scenario transpires-
make your deductions based on accuracy, facts and complete data-so much has been assumed by masses who get incomplete or downright inaccurate (if not outright misleading) data which is not based on facts, but ideology (see Gen Sanchez' excoriation of the MSM in the fox link I provided, and was completely ignored by the same MSM as if it never happened)...such actions is discoraging at best, and downright disingenuous at worst...

One thing we learned in the military, bad news is better than no news...as long as it is accurate, and complete. To do less than a complete job of finding out everything possible is no different than outright propaganda of the enemy.

The masses today don't get that from the MSM because of that same major difference between them and me-
-if it's bad news, but accurate, and complete-you won't hear me criticizing it.
-if it's bad, and/or inaccurate, and/or incomplete, I will make a point to correct that, especially when I know it was presented with malicious intent, context, etc (such as my smackdown of pelosi-she wasn't fooling anyone-the results you now see) and is/was, unmistakably, ideologically driven, which doesn't help anyone, especially our men & women in uniform.

I've dealt with that same old pattern for decades and it is a pitfall in life one needs to avoid like the plague, lest they become that very same person they claim to hate...case-in-point, nazi germany.
I used to be disgusted by them-now I'm just amused.

As long as you base your call on the same, facts, accuracy, and complete data (which is critical), in proper context, you will never go wrong.

That way, regardless of who says what, you'll conclude (such as this case):
Things aren't going as well as the pro-(whatever)s
They're not as going as badly as the anti-(same)s,
And above all, scrutinize all-don't take it blindly-I would, because it's what I do.
...like Dr Jack Wheeler, creator of the Reagan Doctrine http://www.tothepointnews.com , coined:
"Trust...but verify".

That's all that matters-getting it right.

From Ynkedoodl2: "How the USA is in effect paying a jizya to the Arabs through its endless outlays for project democracy in tarbaby Iraq, just as it pays a jizya to Egypt for undemocratically restraining jihadism; or the ridiculous jizya paid to the Paleostinians or the endless waste of time, money and material trying to civilize the savages of Afghanistan."

Boy oh boy! Talk about hitting the nail firmly on the head.

Jizya it is. Pure and simple.

Well well said, that man.

PS- Wellington...once you get past the peanut gallery groupies, that is...but that's another story.
lol

Ynkedoodl2 and jcom972: Just got back from work and read your last posts here. Thank you for them. We may have a disagreement here or there, but I think we all know that Islam is bad news and can do America no good but much harm. As the future becomes the present and then the past, may America remain vigilant and free through all time, whatever course it may have to take in this age made darker by a religion that should have never been.

Any time, my friend...any time.
Oh, as per my point made about this whole timing & motivation thing (note I'm not attacking the genocide, but using it for malice):
Looks like Victor Davis Hanson finally brought it out public now...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/congresss_new_role_undermining.html

From Ynkedoodl2 who quoted a fine Hugh article - aren't they all."The squandering of resources -- men, materiel, money, morale of soldiers and civilians, at the very moment when they need to be carefully husbanded for a new policy of containment (this time, of Islam) that will need to be conducted over many decades, and perhaps without any end in sight -- is maddening."

That money that's being used in Iraq is Jizya pure and simple. Jizya

Wonderful comments YK2

From Ynkedoodl2:I am unshakeable in my belief that Muhammadans will not accept a western way of life imposed on them. We can temporarily subdue this or that part of Iraq, but we are infidels and everything about us is illegitimate beginning with our notion of democracy which sanctions man-made government."

Yep. This should be a nobrainer but to those who support Operation "Iraqi Freedom", muslims are just like Ohio Presbyterians in silly clothes

"The Shiites are 60& of the population of Iraq. But the Sunnis will not accept being ruled by the Shiites. In order to impose the will of the Shia on the Sunnis, the USA would have to kill millions of Sunnis. Are you okay with that?"

Well said.

"It's a moot point because the USA will always try to be the good guy, adjudicating in this civil war for everyone's benefit. It won't work."

Yup. Techniacally it's call a disaster:a car wreck in slow motion: a nightmare with no end. ________ ( fill in as appropriate )

" Sooner or later, the USA will become responsible for millions of these "homeless" people, refugees and accept them into the USA. Major mistake."

I'll guarantee they'll be allowed in. The Iraqi Infidels will be kept out. The US and British forces have armed the Shites, the Sunnis but refuse to let the large infidel communities defend themselves. I'll guarantee the Iraqi muslims will be allowed into the US by the boatload. No questions asked. They're just like Ohio Presbyterians you see. In silly costumes.

"The best that can be hoped for is a decisive Shiite victory over the Sunnis. However, there is no possibility of anything being quick in the Middle East. This could go on for 100 years; it could go on for a thousand years."

Yup. Let's do the Maths. Four odd years has cost the US about a trillion bucks. So a 1,000 years comes out at.....oooooh........a lot of money.

"The Shiites are allies with Iran, the greater threat."

Iran's a country all those Operation "Iraqi Freedom" supporters hadn't previously heard of. Which is a pity really.

"The more we support and empower the Shiites, the greater the influence of Iran."

Irans a country all those Operation "Iraqi Freedom" supporters hadn't previously heard of.

" The Shiites are even more fundamentalist than the Sunnis."

Iran's a country all those....blah blah blah

"We have no future as allies or friends of the Shiites. None, zero, zip, nada."

Irans a country all those.....blah blah blah

"So in the end, there is no victory. It doesn't matter what happens. The main thing is to think of ourselves first."

Yup.

"I'm embarassed. I'm ashamed. I'm very patriotic and love the USA will all my heart. But that self-serving ass clown Bush has made a fine mess of things."

On the one hand the Iraqi infidels are dog meat, Iran has never been stronger and the war is bankrupting the US. But on the bright side, the Iraqi war allowed Dubya to land on an aircraft carrier, strike a macho pose and proclaim "Bring it on" in a fake Texan accent.

So it's pluses and minuses really.

...as well as the washed-up commie-following slobo-vians on their own crusade of another sort entirely, but that's another tro...errr, forum entirely.

Tnanks again, Wellington...and to you and yours as well.
lol

From Ynkedoodl2 :"But that self-serving ass clown Bush has made a fine mess of things."

Oh, "clown" just sums him up so wonderfully. It's really difficult to hate the guy. His incompetence - looking through those binoculars, trying to open those locked doors - is all quite endearing really. And the same goes for this whole Operation "Iraqi Freedom" too.

I really believe that he -and those who supported the war - thought the Iraqis would welcome the US. The logic being

1)Saddam is a naughty boy.
2)Muslims are just like Pennsylvanian Quakers.
3)In silly outfits.
4)So they'll all love us 'cos we taught Mr Naughty a lesson.
5) Iran? What's that?
6) Sunni/Shite rift? What's that?
7) Power vacuum? What's that?

So there you have it.

Also, I think that if you read those posters who defend the whole hilarious "Iraqi Freedom" enterprise on JW you'll find similar characteristics that Dubya possesses.

An clownish mixture of
1) Innocent and parochial knowledge of world history and affairs.
2) A very naive and blinkered understanding of human nature
3) Simplistic thinking.
4) Unbelievably optimistic forecasts.

It's altogether quite endearing really.

Here's another heavy hitter for ya, Wellington.
(sorry about the white noise in here)
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=957D1353-62EE-40FB-81E0-8E25602449B4
("when political gain trumps the nations interest" was the other subtitle).

Hi,

I cant see any traitors, the only traitors are those that forgot the genocide of armenians, greeks and assyrians. Surely Bush has some business interests over there but this is not our business. Our grandparents suffered from Kemal's genocide, our villages were destroyed and the 3000 years old civilisation was destroyed.

So what's your problem? YES THE GENOCIDE OCCURED

Well said Chris.

But you see we can't upset Turkey. They might have an even bigger temper tantrum, and huff and puff, and scream forever, and then blub and demand their dummy. So the US simply has no choice but to do what the Turks say.

Like I said, Wellington...sorry about the white noise in here...my greatest fans seem to get a little carried away at times...lol

Dont forget how turkey was built....few years ago they ethnic cleased and illegaly occupy North Cyprus, did USA forgot that along with relative UN decision, including an embargo on Turkey that was never applied. Turkey is built on the blood of million christians, just becoz seems a modern country does not mean that thats its real face. The reality is that it does not differ from Iran and other evil nations.

Obviously someone doesn't bother to read my posts...otherwise this argument over peripherals to the real problem (a treasonous traitor, something the peanust gallery knows little about, trying to alter foreign policy where she has NO authority to do so, at the behest of her puppetmaster soros) wouldn't be occurring at all.

malicious timing and malicious motivation, exploiting something otherwise indisputable (which was already addresed 26 years ago by the President then), to change the outcome of something entirely unrelated-foreign policy, completely outside her pay grade, rank, and role...even her peers know they got caught, and promptly ran like cockroaches from the light of obvious reality of the situation when reality saw the motives behind this effort (which had ZERO to do with a genocide resolution that even I agree with otherwise, and everything to do with forcing something she had NO authority to do...jumping chain of command will get ones wings clipped faster than a first-year academy plebe...and she was, rightfully so)

But the peanut gallery already knows it...and this is nothing more than diversionary damage control which won't work...she didn't know her role-and was promptly reminded of it by the age-old enemy of hers, and her peers political correctness philosophy: common sense and reality.

Even her peers see that now and knew to back off from the obvious when they bit off more than they can chew... obviously her lackeys could take the clue on that one as well.

One day, they'll actually READ my posts instead of skimming over and ASSuming.
ASSumptions are the mother of all f**kups...
they ASSumed a great deal,
and are as naive as those they excoriate.
She got nailed, she knows it, her peers know it, and that's that...some can't get over that fact.

Sad.
lol

Oh, almost forgot...

It also helps to get real info from places OTHER than the kook-left websites-echoing those talking points of SPindymedia & their ilk only make such folks look like the hyper-ideologues they are...and it doesn't help anyone or anything.

Hello All

It's really very tragedic that while you are trying to bring democracy to the middleeast, you are about to begin to lose your own freedoms at home.The microchips i mean.I previously saw a comment which was saying: "Incrementalism referred to making minor changes to programs that already exist in some form such as the current situation with the S-CHIP children's health insurance"
Make minor changes , stick it to humanly causes and then use it secretly.You will think it’s good for our children and for ourselves but not knowing the effect of it to our brains which will be sent pulses secretly via chips to make us think in the way they want.This is the main tactic of the evil since human advanced some: Cause the events in the way that human will be convinced.
Current good situation later slavery.Obviously the evil doers have found a different way instead of using the mass media control which you've already begun to shout at .The new brain control system via chips!!! And you think muslims are doing this?!?
You are not only losing the war in the middleeast but also the personal war for your freedoms.You were already warned by the biblical scriptures by Jesus. WAKE up Americans!!! The enemy is not outside. It is already ruling your country for some decades. The events occuring in the middleeast are neither for your interests nor the muslims.Guess for whom!!!
The Us policies are well planned and established some 25 years before the events.Whats happening now cannot be occuring by chance.This is very well organized.All your hidden governers knew what would happen. As they knew the 9/11 before it occured.American dreams, freedoms are not good for evil. Evil just uses your super power and will get rid of you until he doesn't need you anymore.China and Russia are his waiting puppets.You are always creating your enemies by yourself.You supported Laden against Russia.You supported Saddam against Iran.There are lots of examples in the history.You always need new pearl harbours.Do all of these politics fit to justice,human values? How evil are your politics since some decades, are you aware???
Now you are using the pkk kurds against Iran which is also giving harm to your 50years ally Turkey although you recognize it as a terrorist organization.
First you feed the evil and then complain about it.This exactly shows how your foreign policies are at evil's hands.Now you tend to oppose Turks for just being muslims.Muslims on one side and the christians on the other side.Huhh! What a humanly solution.! So, why aren't and can't you be friends with Russian christians , if there is/should be a religious lining up.?
Lastly, if u have been able to cause a so called IRan&Turkey ally who are historically enemies , you better look at your own politics. The thing between Turkey and Iran is simply just because of intersection of interests, nothing more.

I think this time the events on earth are too complicated and this war is not only Americans’ war.This is a war against all humanity which is being managed by Evil secretly. The sides are deliberately being changed.God bless all good people.

Wake up World !

Peace at home peace in the world.

LMAO

Get a clue...your reality check bounced.

Oh...and just you watch...same trollster will start copycatting the same lame lecturing "you should read the posts first" mental projectionism they themselves get parked with...probably to save face (as if)...not that it will make him look any better- just expect it as it's coming...
Ooops, too late...see Oct 21 banters.
lol...so predictable the hacks are!

Enjoy!