United States does not mean United Nations?

Discussion in 'Multinational HQ' started by ArmyYid, Oct 11, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. WTF does the US think it is on by passing a resolution certifying a massacre perpetrated against Armenians in 1915 was genocide.

    Why on earth does anybody think this is important?? (Apart from the Armenian lobby here in the States). And moreover why did they do it and p1ss off a vital ally in the war on terror.

    Those in the Senate or Congress passing this resolution must be fukcing thick to think that anything good will come from this.

    Idiots!!!! :x :x :x
  2. Perhaps Turkey will do a 'genocide' motion on the massacre of the american indian to even thing out!
  3. A bit late on that one. Oh well
  4. Oddly enough, ArmyYid, a lot of Jewish groups here in the states were also pushing hard for it. The issue gets a lot of play here in LA and I live about 10mins along the freeway from Glendale, which is chock-a-block full of Armenians. (Your eyes can start stinging from the copious quantity of Drakkar cologne the moment you drop down over the hill into the San Fernando Valley.) Those who have opposed it in the past, such as Rep. Tom Lantos- himself a Holocaust survivor- did so purely on the pragmatic grounds, just as you suggest. This always struck me as odd, since to ignore acts of genocide in this way makes an even greater mockery of the Genocide Convention, which American Jews were instrumental in establishing. Today though, Lantos switched sides. Not sure why yet, but 7 out of 8 Jewish members of the Committee that passed the resolution voted for it- maybe they grew a conscience. The one that didn't cited the Israeli-turkish strategic relationship.

    I don't think it'll make that much of a practical difference either way though. In the first instance, this is a non-binding resolution even if it passes a floor vote. Secondly, and more importantly, my guess is that the Turks know which side their bread is buttered and won't kick up too much of a fuss in any real sense. Sure, they'll throw their dolls out of their pram for a while. Gul will make some political hay out of it and use it to show his opponents that he isn't in the US's pocket. In such circumstances, it might actually do the US some good in the long run since he's more likely to stay in power if he can convince his people he's not a lackey.

    At the end of the day they know that they're going to get more love from the US, with or without the Armenians, than they will from the EU anytime soon and the Middle East can be a lonely place without any friends. They have their own problems with AQ et al and they need the US as much, if not more than, the US needs them.
  5. True, crabby, but with the latest attack by the PKK, Turkey's man-in-the-souk will be getting hacked off at their government for not letting the army off the leash in Kurdish Iraq or getting the yanks to sorting it out themselves.

    13 blokes are a lot to lose inside your own borders to a foreign terrorist organisation. How much good will it do Gul in teh public eye to kick up a fuss over this when he's holding his army back from taking on the Kurds on their own turf?
  6. Crabby

    You make a good point, but I still fail to see why it was needed. Arguing that Turkey will have to put up with it due to a paucity of friends in the region is hardly justification for dredging up historical issues that are bound to inflame both sides.

    It smacks of 'holier than thou' politics in which hindsight is used to slight an ally in order to placate a small but vocal group of former Armenians. In a word - bollokcs.

  7. Is this the usual American claptrap that they are the important ones and to hell with everyone else. Steamrollering their opinions over everything. Telling everyone what they can do (while conveniently doing the opposite).
    A vote on genocide while ignoring the facts they carried out plenty on their own turf, lecturing countries on global warming while being the worst polluter and with a president who said 'I will not risk American jobs' when queried about it.
    Provide weapons to so called friends to get rid of unfavourable leaderships then wonder when they are turned on them.
    Provide weapons to terrorist organisations then complain when terrorists finally hit them (and they find out those terror organisations they support are training ones they are against).

    Is it any wonder they lose friends and make enemy's so easily

    Rant over