Will Obama recognize the Armenia genocide on April 24?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 03:01:02 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Will Obama recognize the Armenia genocide on April 24?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: ?
#1
No
 
#2
Yes
 
#3
Possible, but unlikely
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 54

Author Topic: Will Obama recognize the Armenia genocide on April 24?  (Read 2676 times)
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 15, 2015, 10:05:56 PM »

Obama has been busy doing the right thing on a number of neglected areas here at the end of his second term. As a Senator he promised to recognize the Armenian genocide when he became President. He hasn't done it yet. April 24 is the international day of commemoration of the centennial of the Armenian Genocide and he will issue a statement on it. Will he finally recognize it?

http://www.horizonweekly.ca/news/details/65491

“The facts are undeniable. An official policy that calls on diplomats to distort the historical facts is an untenable policy. As a senator, I strongly support passage of the Armenian Genocide Resolution (H.Res.106 and S.Res.106), and as President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide


Senator Barack Obama on January 19, 2008

Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 15, 2015, 10:08:16 PM »

This is the current US recognition map btw. Guess Alabama, Mississippi and Texas just have to be on the wrong side of history on everything.

Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 16, 2015, 03:46:22 AM »

For some reason, US foreign policy is based on the principle of being tough and domineering with all your allies, except Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, which are treated with undue leniency and respect. So, probably not.
Logged
Bacon King
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,822
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.63, S: -9.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: April 16, 2015, 07:01:12 AM »
« Edited: April 16, 2015, 07:04:20 AM by Bacon King »

For some reason, US foreign policy is based on the principle of being tough and domineering with all your allies, except Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, which are treated with undue leniency and respect. So, probably not.

We do that with every ally we have in the Middle East, honestly. America's realpolitik strategy in the region requires us to make allies out of both sides of all the region's big feuds. We play nice with both Israel and Saudi Arabia, with the Turkish Government and the Kurds, with both Afghanistan and Pakistan, etc.

If we support one side over another in any of those conflicts, then some other major power like Russia would just support the other side against us. Playing both sides ensures the continuation of American hegemony in the region, and it also helps promote stability because it allows the US to play mediator whenever conflict begins to erupt.

Ultimately it's all about the oil; the United States' #1 geopolitical objective is to guarantee our energy needs are met indefinitely, and that requires us to stay on good terms with all the major producers as well as everyone else who might affect those producers. All other concerns are secondary.
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: April 16, 2015, 09:05:39 AM »

Unless Turkey decides to move it's location to another part of the world........never.
Logged
AelroseB
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 278


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 17, 2015, 01:48:22 PM »

With current, indirect U.S. reliance on Turkey for the fight against ISIS along the northern Kurdish border, I don't think that this will happen during the remainder of his presidency.
Logged
AkSaber
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,315
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.16, S: -8.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: April 17, 2015, 03:53:29 PM »

Doubt it.

Not only due to U.S.-Turkey relations, but Armenia happens to be very close to Russia. With things being the way they are, the timing of doing something beneficial to an ally of Russia (while simultaneously dinging one of our allies) is just not here.
Logged
RR1997
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,997
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: April 17, 2015, 04:43:01 PM »

Probably not because of all the reasons mentioned above.
Logged
TDAS04
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,475
Bhutan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: April 17, 2015, 05:12:08 PM »

Probably not, unfortunately.

Nice to see that most states have, though. 
Logged
Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook
The Obamanation
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,853
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: April 19, 2015, 02:27:07 AM »

Guess Alabama, Mississippi and Texas just have to be on the wrong side of history on everything.

Huh
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,600
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: April 19, 2015, 02:30:42 AM »

Guess Alabama, Mississippi and Texas just have to be on the wrong side of history on everything.

Huh

There are on the list of the 7 seven states NOT recognizing Armenian Genocide (with West Virginia, Indiana, Iowa and Wyoming).
Logged
Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook
The Obamanation
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,853
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: April 19, 2015, 02:43:54 AM »

Guess Alabama, Mississippi and Texas just have to be on the wrong side of history on everything.

Huh

There are on the list of the 7 seven states NOT recognizing Armenian Genocide (with West Virginia, Indiana, Iowa and Wyoming).

I know that, I want him to expand on the "everything" part.
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,600
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: April 19, 2015, 03:07:37 AM »

Guess Alabama, Mississippi and Texas just have to be on the wrong side of history on everything.

Huh

There are on the list of the 7 seven states NOT recognizing Armenian Genocide (with West Virginia, Indiana, Iowa and Wyoming).

I know that, I want him to expand on the "everything" part.

Slavery, gay marriage, sodomy laws (Lawrence v. Texas).
Logged
Ban my account ffs!
snowguy716
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,632
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: April 19, 2015, 03:23:26 AM »

For some reason, US foreign policy is based on the principle of being tough and domineering with all your allies, except Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, which are treated with undue leniency and respect. So, probably not.

Why is that the case?  I mean...if we're tough and domineering with everyone else and successfully so...why these three?
Logged
H. Ross Peron
General Mung Beans
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,406
Korea, Republic of


Political Matrix
E: -6.58, S: -1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: April 19, 2015, 12:15:16 PM »

This is the current US recognition map btw. Guess Alabama, Mississippi and Texas just have to be on the wrong side of history on everything.



I find it odd its the Red states considering that Turkey's quasi-Islamist government is hardly provoking sympathy among American conservatives rn while the victims of Armenian genocide were Christian. Certainly most evangelicals I've seen on the Internet who know about it are strongly it favour of recognizing the Armenian genocide.
Logged
ingemann
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,226


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: April 20, 2015, 08:49:47 AM »

For some reason, US foreign policy is based on the principle of being tough and domineering with all your allies, except Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, which are treated with undue leniency and respect. So, probably not.

Why is that the case?  I mean...if we're tough and domineering with everyone else and successfully so...why these three?

Israel: do you need to ask?

Saudi Arabia: Oil plus a long and close relationship between the elite's in both countries, and for all the ugly things, which can be said about the Saud Family, they're still better on all parameters than anything which would replace them (the best case would be a unpleasant congo-style war, where their neighbours partitioned them). Also the Saudi if we ignore their support for anti-American terrorism, have been very loyal to long term American strategic goals. Much more so than most European or Asian allies of USA.

Turkey: In this category I would also include Greece. Both countries have a important strategic position, especially when USSR still existed. Of course the fall of USSR together with the instability of Greece and "illoyality" of the Turkish government (toward American and to lesser extent European interests), means that USA have more and more begun to ignore these two countries interest. Kobane was a clear example that USA barely see the Turks as allies anymore.
Logged
Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas
Ray Goldfield
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,616


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: April 20, 2015, 09:28:29 AM »

Of course not. Turkey is unhinged on this issue and holds way too much power to seriously screw up America's interests in the region.
Logged
Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook
The Obamanation
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,853
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: April 25, 2015, 12:09:08 AM »

Looks like he didn't.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: April 25, 2015, 12:32:30 AM »

There are some things I can let pass when it comes to presidential candidates saying one thing, and then doing otherwise when it comes to having to face the pressing complex demands of the office. This is one of them. It would be a good thing to do in itself, unfortunately the timing is never right for it, as we are constantly in need to cooperate with them and can't risk the damage. I'm more concerned with the President dealing with human rights abuses that are current, and in that case I think he could speak out a bit more.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.046 seconds with 14 queries.