Traps

Robert Fisk writing for the Independent (UK) claims that President Bush's u-turn on the Armenian genocide makes him the David Irving of the White House :

Thought Leader » Michael Trapido » Robert Fisk: Bush is a holocaust denier

He goes on to say that Bush's conduct paves the way for Germany, should it become a regional power to do the same.

Could Bush have acted differently considering how strategic Turkey is to both the US and Nato and could a Democratic president done it any differently?

Dreadnought

Political drivel. They are just looking to name a scapegoat and who better then Bush. Funny how that term came to light with Irans president and now its being focused on America's.

Because Bush didnt back it that makes him a denier?

In other words because Bush heads one of if not thee most powerful nations on the globe today since he abstains from condemnation due to strategic interests does that make him,me or you a denier?

Also let me ask you this Mr. Traps just how well do you really know Americas friendship with Turkey and how deep that friendship goes?

__________________
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

Traps

Dread I know that Turkey is strategic in that it allows use of its air space which alone is vital to the Iraq war.

I know that she has a powerful military presence in a region where America can ill afford an ally to Iran of this stature.

Whether the "friendship" is strong or otherwise she is vital to American interests.

BTW don't for a second conclude I endorse Fisk. His views, in the main, are anti-West and loaded with conspiracy theories.

As a Jew I must also look at Israel's reluctance on the Armenian question which considering Jewish history is not only ironical but stresses the importance of Turkey.

Just my opinion.

Dreadnought

Mr Traps.
One main reason that you will find speculation over this article is due to the fact that it happens to be election season and the Dems are trying thier damdest to do in any Republican nomination. Some of the questions that comes to mind for me inparticular are.

1) Timing. When Bush is at his lowest this particular subject comes up. You will notice that all of this existed during the times of a Demo presidency (many Repubs and Dems) so why was this issue only brought to light now to a Republican (albeit an unpopular one due to the WOT)president and other presidencies during times of peace. It rings of political agendas especially those trying to derail the WOT and a Republican canidate.

2) If he chooses not to engage the subject on strategic value why would this brand him as a denier anymore then myself or yourself in general. He is doing right by his troops and by a country that has served well as an allie. He has not denied any knowledge of said incident nor denied it has happened he simply has not addressed it probably due to in depth information involved and the political fallout if he does.

I would find it very hard for anyone to claim he is a denier of any holocust simply due to the fact his own father (former) was a WWII aviator (decorated) and most of us know that when the US went into WWII it wasnt just because of Pearl but the horrors of the holocust itself as well.

Just my opinion.

Dwarven Pirate

More like a promoter if you ask me.

Dreadnought

jame$thegreat

__________________
Sometimes things dont end up how they should, a son, a brother, a mentor, a teacher, a cousin, a nephew, a grandson and a god in my eyes.

Who knows what he more could have been...

Christopher Muzykant

April 9, 1976-November 4,2005

My Brother, Always and forever

Trooth

I can't see any of the points trying to be made frankly.

Calling a spade a spade now in terms of Armenian genocide is not going to change the events of 1915, no one is coming back from the dead, no one will be put to justice (other than the emotional scars perhaps). The only thing might be compensation / reparations, but since 90 years have passed that too seems unimportant.

However if it upsets an ally like Turkey and causes problems in the here and now then clearly that will affect people.

The argument regarding Germany is spurious. It ignores German law for one thing which would have to change substantially. It also ignores the whole Nuremburg trails for what became the NATO viewpoint.

It is very important to have principles. And yes, all things being equal the events of 1915 should be correctly described. However all things are not equal. Declaring the events a genocide is counter-productive. Hopefully the situation will change soon enough that it won't be, but until then US/ NATO has enough on its plate.

__________________
The world as it should be at surrealscoop.blogspot.com

JohnFlint1985

I think it is purely political thing for Bush. And also it is possible that Bush don't think about it too much. He is beset by problems all over and he has only one year left. It is not in his interest to start a fight about something he hardly cares about.
For me as a Jew it is also hard to understand , but Israel also don't officially recognize Armenian genocide. Though I think it should as a courtesy as regards to the same process that happened to Jews in WWII.

__________________
"We Shall Never Surrender" Winston Churchill

Feanor

Is this guy a liberal? Or a conservative? I can't tell. He hates Bush and wants to alienate Turkey.

JohnFlint1985

Are you talking about me - I am independent.

Feanor

No. The michael trapido guy

Traps

I would classify myself as centre-right. I would normally support the Republicans and Tories (UK) but ANC in South Africa.

Dreadnought

Dont you have a travelocity commercial to make or something to color?

smilingassassin

Care to elaborate on that one?

__________________
Facts to a liberal is like Kryptonite to Superman.

-- Larry Elder