U.S. Armenian "Genocide" Bill

Originally posted by utherpendragon
gen·o·cide [jen-uh-sahyd]
–noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

[b]The U.S. did not do this in the WAR w/Japan.[/b]

Indeed. After the war, the US helped a devastated Japan rebuild itself, institute a democratic government, and chart a course that made Japan one of the world's leading industrial powers.

Far better treatment than Japan gave to the countries it occupied or would have given the US if positions were reversed.

Originally posted by FMF
Head to head: Was it genocide? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/europe/7042209.stm

Turkish anger at 'genocide' vote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/8550928.stm

The White House vows to block the bill: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/8553013.stm

[b]If you had been a member of Congress, how would you have voted? Why?

If you were the White House administration, what would you do now? Why?
[/b]

I'm with Melanerpes.

I'd vote against this resolution on the grounds that it's Congress' job to set legislative policy for the present, not answer questions of history. Answering a controversial 100 year old question, even if it's the "right" answer, is clearly beyond the scope of Congress' Constitutional role.

On their own time, they can do what they like. On my time, work to make the country safer, improve the economy and employment, etc.

Originally posted by Sam The Sham
Indeed. After the war, the US helped a devastated Japan rebuild itself, institute a democratic government, and chart a course that made Japan one of the world's leading industrial powers.

Indeed. This is yet another reason why the 'genocide' charge against the U.S. in the case of the A-bombs is weak. However the U.S.'s refusal to compensate or atone make any amends for the genocidal-level death tolls and havoc it wrought on South East Asia 1960-75 paints a different picture than the one we get from their rehabilitation of Japan.

Far better treatment than Japan gave to the countries it occupied or would have given the US if positions were reversed.

The Japanese attitude and action towards the Chinese, for instance, certainly did smack of genocidal fervour and specific callous, mass-murderous disregard for their humanity.

Originally posted by sh76
I'm with Melanerpes. I'd vote against this resolution on the grounds that it's Congress' job to set legislative policy for the present, not answer questions of history.

Yes. A persuasive argument. But on balance, I think it is appropriate for nations to 'take positions' on issues of history. I suppose doing so should not obstruct normal legislative business and, if it is to be done at all, it should be consistent. At a lower level - for example corporate entities such as student unions - I think debating and passing motions addressing issues - even contentiously or by slim majorities - is a valid and intellectually healthy part of the non-formal education process and the forming of the organisation's identity, outlook and principles - while at the same time having no concrete implications.

Originally posted by FMF
These alleged instances do not interest me so much.

The ones I'd be more intrigued to hear from the U.S. on would be things like their aerial bombardment of Cambodia 40 years ago and what happened in the Belgian Congo 100 years ago.

The former seems to slip under the Condemnation Radar so often, depite perhaps costing 600,000 or more innocent lives in a f ...[text shortened]... o Armenians pales in the face of what Belgium did in Africa - and yet the timescale is similar.

Lets issue a statement condem pot pol too.

Originally posted by Hugh Glass
Lets issue a statement condem pot pol too.

Good idea, especially seeing as he received material support and diplomatic cover from the U.K. and the U.S. Such a condemnation/apology would actually be beneficial whenever the moral high ground is sought in the future.

When we look at Pol Pot's grotesque alleged death toll we need to work out, and acknowledge, how many 100s of 1,000s of them were in fact killed by the U.S. aerial bombardment only to be 'covered up' by the Khmer Rouge's deeds.

Clinton's apologies, on behalf of the U.S., to Central American countries like Guatemala was an admirable step in the right direction.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
gen·o·cide [jen-uh-sahyd]
–noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

[b]The U.S. did not do this in the WAR w/Japan.[/b]

They didn't?
What other method of attempted extermination was it then, if not systematic?
Oh, they didn't attempt to exterminate?
Well... neither did the Turks.

Originally posted by Sam The Sham
Indeed. After the war, the US helped a devastated Japan rebuild itself, institute a democratic government, and chart a course that made Japan one of the world's leading industrial powers.

Far better treatment than Japan gave to the countries it occupied or would have given the US if positions were reversed.

Create a vassal State? Is that what you're implying?

Originally posted by shavixmir
Create a vassal State? Is that what you're implying?

What should the US have done once Japan surrendered, shav? I have a feeling you'd criticize it no matter what it was.

Originally posted by FMF
Good idea, especially seeing as he received material support and diplomatic cover from the U.K. and the U.S. Such a condemnation/apology would actually be beneficial whenever the moral high ground is sought in the future.

When we look at Pol Pot's grotesque alleged death toll we need to work out, and acknowledge, how many 100s of 1,000s of them were in fact k ...[text shortened]... to Central American countries like Guatemala was an admirable step in the right direction.

Babble on Leon

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
What should the US have done once Japan surrendered, shav? I have a feeling you'd criticize it no matter what it was.

yep. he would. since shav is so critical of the US in WW2 let's return the favor.

Hey shav how many dutch jews did your wonderful country happily send off to the extermination camps during the war? I think it was almost all of them, wasn't it?
For that matter, how many dutch men joined the Waffen SS and fought alongside the Germans?

Originally posted by FMF
If another country refuses to acknowledge its perpetration of genocide, why should it not affect relations and why should such a country be entitled to 'reassurance'? Germany is "an important ally" too but if it were to, say, pass a policy position 'law' questioning whether the holocaust of the mid-20thC happened exactly as people say it did or whether it was re ...[text shortened]... thinks" in order that relations should not be damaged by their decision to condemn?

If another country refuses to acknowledge its perpetration of genocide, why should it not affect relations and why should such a country be entitled to 'reassurance'?

Because the genocide happened almost 100 years ago, and although it is shameful of Turkey to refuse it committed genocide, its really not wise to provoke a diplomatic crisis with the country right now.

Germany is "an important ally" too but if it were to, say, pass a policy position 'law' questioning whether the holocaust of the mid-20thC happened exactly as people say it did or whether it was really a 'genocide' as such, would you try to "distance" yourself from critics of the German position and say things like you "have no control over what congress does or thinks" in order that relations should not be damaged by their decision to condemn?

Well, I would be cautious not to create any sort of conflict.

Originally posted by FMF
Good idea, especially seeing as he received material support and diplomatic cover from the U.K. and the U.S. Such a condemnation/apology would actually be beneficial whenever the moral high ground is sought in the future.

When we look at Pol Pot's grotesque alleged death toll we need to work out, and acknowledge, how many 100s of 1,000s of them were in fact k ...[text shortened]... to Central American countries like Guatemala was an admirable step in the right direction.

And what good does an apology do???

Originally posted by Hugh Glass
And what good does an apology do???

Sets the record straight. Contributes to reconciliation. Exhibits a kind of international 'moral' courage and integrity. Strengthens the aplogizing nation's hand in the future.

The hapless Japan - in terms of the last 65 years in its relationships with China and Korea - is a case in point. Demands for acknowledgement of its missteps may well have been, to a degree, a political football, but coming to terms with its past would have gone a long way towards hoofing the political football out of the park and fostering reconciliation.

Originally posted by FMF
Sets the record straight. Contributes to reconciliation. Exhibits a kind of international 'moral' courage and integrity. Strengthens the aplogizing nation's hand in the future.

The hapless Japan - in terms of the last 65 years in its relationships with China and Korea - is a case in point. Demands for acknowledgement of its missteps may well have been, to a d ...[text shortened]... long way towards hoofing the political football out of the park and fostering reconciliation.

I agree 100%.

If we claim the heritage, successes and culture of the USA, we need to claim the crimes too. Otherwise we're just hypocrites.