Bad Resolution Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

Was out of pocket most of this week an am only getting to this now.  But I have to agree with Chris Nelson via Steve Clemons. 

Please forgive our blatant editorializing here, but dammit, it does not take a highly developed moral center to decry mass murder, or, for that matter, starvation in Darfur, brutality in Burma, et al.

And while we're at it, how about historical events in the US, like, say, the officially declared and systematically applied genocide against the American Indian tribes...and the truly blood curdling justifications offered routinely by Andy Jackson, or Grant, Sherman and Sheridan. . .American heroes all.

Since of course we don't torture, no apologies are needed for Abu Gharib, renditions, et al.

So the question remains on the table today: What strategic interests of the United States have been served by this vote? What US strategic interests will be improved by pushing this Resolution to the Floor? If the Resolution is passed by the House, will US interests be advanced in the Middle East?

Will US troops be safer? And for that matter, will the situation for Armenians still in Turkey be improved?

This resolution doesn't do anything to stop genocide.  It doesn't do anything to make anyone's life better.  It just makes an already complicated situation in the Middle East even more difficult.  Democrats spend plenty of time rightly arguing that minimizing the damages caused by Iraq will require deft diplomacy in the Middle East.  There is nothing deft or diplomatic about this resolution.

Comments

[Don Bacon]

So, this rather feeble cry against genocide upsets, or rather might upset, the dandy little war that the US is conducting which includes the gen.. the gen . . .oh, I mustn't say the word. It's the 'forced passing' of about a million Iraqis that otherwise wouldn't have "passed" if the US has stayed home.

We're told that his resolution against genocide "doesn't do anything to stop genocide". But it seems like only yesterday that some learned pundits were posturing against a certain Middle Eastern president who "denied the holocaust". Which leads one to the inevitable, unavoidable question: Is there a double standard here? Is the past genocide of Jews somehow so important that it should lead to war against a country where the president "denies" it? Is the past genocide of Armenians of so little import that it shouldn't be raised if it might impair the gen___de of Iraqis?

The question now on the floor is: What strategic interests of the United States have been served by this vote? First, most people in the world don't care two cents about "strategic interests". What most people DO care about is human interest. There are still many people in the world, believe it or not, who place human interest above strategic interest. So a better question is: What human interests of the United States have been served by this vote?

I think that the world's people, many of them at least, the majority of which now have an abysmal regard for the US, even within the US, might take some small comfort from this vote that there are some brave members of the US congress that still care about the mass killing of people. I know that this view isn't popular among the 'strategic thinkers' who dis-value human life (excepting for the holcaust, perhaps) when it gets in the way of "strategic interests", but, again, there are still many people in the world who place human interest above strategic interest. There should be more of these on in the US than there are, but we're working on it.

Finally might I suggest that if the US government were to focus more on the human impact of its policies, and less on its so-called strategic interests, that the US and the world would be a better place. As for US troops, they will be safer if they are brought home. Perhaps if this vote is really making the brutal US military occupation of Iraq "more difficult" it will promote withdrawal. Is this what the Congress is really trying to do? If so, double plaudits for them. Then it would be doing something to stop genocide.

[Vigilante]

What strategic interests of the United States have been served by this vote? What US strategic interests will be improved by pushing this Resolution to the Floor? If the Resolution is passed by the House, will US interests be advanced in the Middle East?

Maybe denial of Turkish bases will be one more inconvenient straw added to Bush's burden of dragging out this idiotic and pointless occupation of Iraquagmire until he removes his bony ass from the White House. That would advance US interests in the Middle East.

[J.]

Yes, you're absolutely right, Mr. Goldenberg, this resolution won't stop genocide or make anyone's life better. Along that theme, why don't we close the Holocaust museum, obviously it's also failed to make any points against genocide or "mass deaths."

Sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade.

[Mike M.]

Recognizing that the Turks committed genocide is a no-brainer. It happened, we should recognize it, no matter how much money Turkey spends on lobbyists. Given that it's a historical fact, it's impact on Darfur or Iraq shouldn't matter. Recognizing facts is the first priority.

[ugg boots sale]

UGG Boots is your best ugg boots sale online Outlet where you can buy the cheapest
Ugg Boots.

[cheap coach handbags]

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!