Democrats Find Way to Stop War - Get Soldiers Killed

by joellerose | October 11, 2007 at 05:49 am
437 views | 0 Recommendations | 4 comments

Photos

In one of the most breathtaking displays in history of irresponsibility, a House Committee yesterday voted to label the mass killings of Armenians almost 100 years ago – a genocide.  What’s behind this senseless resolution at this time against a country that is not at all the same country that was defeated in World War I?  Is it ignorance of history?  Is it total arrogance, or is it a clever attempt to hamstring deliveries of needed supplies to American forces in Iraq and complicate our attempts to keep Turkey from acting militarily against Kurdish militants?  It appears that Congressional Democrats have found a way, they think, to get us out of Iraq – get lots more American soldiers killed and cause chaos in the most peaceful area of Iraq.

 

The problem is, their meddling will not only make things worse, their meddling will ensure a continued major presence of the American military there to deal with the chaos they have caused.


 

 Turkey condemns US over Armenian genocide resolutionThursday October 11, 2007Guardian Unlimited

Turkey today condemned a US congressional committee for approving a resolution that recognises the 1915 massacres of Armenians by Ottoman Turks as genocide.

 

Calling the move "irresponsible", and with reference to tensions on its border with Iraq, the Turkish government warned it could damage a strategic partnership at a sensitive time.

 

"Our government regrets and condemns this decision. It is unacceptable that the Turkish nation has been accused of something that never happened in history," it said in a statement.

 The House of Representatives foreign affairs committee yesterday approved the resolution by 27 votes to 21. It goes to the House floor, where there will be a vote by mid-November, say Democratic leaders.

The committee approved the resolution despite warnings from the president, George Bush, and other top administration officials, who said it would damage relations with a key Nato ally and jeopardise an important route for US supplies to Iraq.

 

About 70% of US air cargo going into Iraq goes through Turkey, and US commanders fear access to airfields and roads will be put at risk.

 

Turkey also provides thousands of truck drivers and other workers for US operations in Iraq. Supplies also flow from Turkey's Incirlik air base to troops in Afghanistan.

 

More worrying for the US is that the congressional move will weaken its influence over Turkey at a time when the ruling Justice and Development (AK) party is under pressure from the military to authorise a major incursion into northern Iraq against Kurdish rebels.

 

Pressure for major military action has intensified because fighters from the outlawed Kurdistan Workers party (PKK) have killed some 30 soldiers and civilians in the past two weeks.

 

Turkey has complained that US and Iraqi authorities have failed to crack down on 3,000 PKK rebels based in northern Iraq. But large-scale incursions by Turkey in 1995 and 1997, involving an estimated 35,000 and 50,000 troops respectively, failed to dislodge the rebels.

 The US fears such an operation could destabilise one of the few relatively peaceful areas in the country.

Yesterday's vote was widely condemned in Turkey.

 

"Twenty-seven foolish Americans," the daily Vatan newspaper said on its front page, in reference to the committee members who approved the resolution. The Hurriyet newspaper called the resolution a "Bill of hatred".

 Some politicians in the US had "once again sacrificed important matters to petty domestic politics despite all calls to common sense", said the president, Abdullah Gul.

recommend This comment thread is now closed
0
Tom van B

It is time we all faced up to atrocities committed no matter how long ago. Atrocities committed by the Turks on the Armenians or by the Chinese on the Japanese. When will the nations of this world correct their history books so we all know what really took place and face up to our past. It sounds like you are more interested in political expedience. I for one applaud this first move by the Americans.

0
joellerose

I'm much more interested in protecting the lives of American men and women serving in Iraq and the mission there than I am in making a statement about something that happened 100 years ago - particularly when the event is clouded by history and war.  This is an act by American socialists who want their country to fail and like to insult our commander-in-chief.

0
Tom van B

What in your own words is the "mission" in Iraq?

0
joellerose

Some do not hear and do not see.


Are liberals victims of SHD?
By James Lewis, October 07, 2007, American Thinker

Teenagers have very selective hearing. Ask the average teen to take out the garbage, and they can't hear you. But inquire whether they want an iPhone for their birthday, and suddenly their hearing is excellent. They're not faking it. It's just selective hearing.

The idea that liberals have a Selective Hearing Disorder -- known to medical doctors as SHD (*) --- suddenly struck me as an explanation of the wildly false charge about Rush Limbaugh that stirred up all the political swamps and mud-holes for over a week. This one will sink away soon, like some slithering swamp creature, and the Hillary-Soros attack machine will turn to a different target.

So it's only one passing piece of political sleaze in a long, long series. Since we are all becoming connoisseurs of media smears, notice that there's something different about this one. Usually it takes about 24 hours to find out the truth about some poisonous rumor. But with Rush, the truth has been out there in throughout the land for eighteen years. Rush Limbaugh hasn't tried to hide his beliefs. So while Soros Popular Fronts and Democrat Senators have been trying to squirt a little toxin into our national bloodstream, it'll never take hold. Nobody believes that Rush is anti-military. The whole shebang runs against the Official Leftist Manual: How can Rush be a bloodthirsty war-monger if he doesn't love the military? It doesn't work.

Rush has about 20 million listeners per week, and he is often echoed by other radio hosts and bloggers. Call it 30 million people every week --- very conservatively speaking --- and who knows how many more over eighteen years of broadcasting? So what Rush says is really out there, and you have to selectively tune it out so as not to know what he's saying.

So -- maybe that's how their minds work. They just tune out alien voices like a kid faced with homework.

SHD explains why liberals don't understand how conservative solutions can be used to achieve goals they claim to care about. In education, charter schools are making a difference, and scholarships for inner city kids to get out of failed neighborhood schools would make a huge difference. (If teachers' unions weren't fighting it all the time). In health care, pre-tax savings plans would help get coverage for people who want it but can't pay for it. In crime control, Rudi' Giuliani's Broken Windows program worked miracles in New York City. In welfare, Bill Clinton was finally convinced by Newt Gingrich to change sick-making welfare to workfare, and by gum, it worked! It actually helped people get out of poverty. There should have been ticker tape parades -- after decades of making life worse and worse in the inner cities, this thing actually worked.

Market-based solutions just have a better chance of working all the way from South Korea to Harlem, NY. So why don't liberals get that? It's not hard. Hillary could understand it if she tried. It's just takes an open mind. So - it's gotta be SHD
!

Libs are the victims of their own media dominance. They're talking to themselves when they turn on the news or read the paper. The trouble is that talking to yourself keeps you deaf and blind to new ideas. You always stay in the same mental box, creating a vicious cycle when liberals enforce speech codes, which just protect them from new ideas again. (They must feel very, very vulnerable intellectually.)

I have a liberal friend who simply will not talk about gun ownership. It's not that he argues against it, but rather than he won't even talk about it. That strikes me as weird, because what's wrong with talking about things you disagree with? This friend claims to be very openminded, and to prove it, he cites the fact that he has made a real effort to listen to Black Panthers.

I'm not kidding. True story.

The solution is obvious. It is to define liberalism as a kind of victimhood. Start a campaign to cure Selective Hearing Disorder (Liberal Subtype), and fund scientists to start a whole new research field on SHD. After decades of diligent research they may discover the cure (called "listening"), and since liberals celebrate victims, they will reach out to SHD sufferers wherever they might be. The National Ad Councel can start a nationwide campaign to raise awareness, colleges can teach courses in Life with SHD, and Public Service Announcements will make us all feel sorry for its victims. Hollywood stars will wear I Care About SHD buttons, and Senator Hillary will propose a $5,000.00 per child lifetime bond to protect young babies against ever getting SHD.

Now, economists might say that we'll end up just increasing SHD by subsidizing its victims. But what do economists know? (*)

(*) This is satire.

This story was created over 3 months ago, the comment thread is now closed.

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from