Hi! I'm Dr. Santana! I love your site! Looking for Viagra?
order viagra order viagra
http://www.blinklist.com/_-ORDER-VIAGRA-ONLINE-CHEAP!-_/]order viagra[/url]
Thank you!

Is this a joke? Sure, the resolution serves no big purpose, but the comparisons are ridiculous. Comparing the Armenian genocide, which was a government killing hundreds of thousands of its own citizens to Hiroshima, Korea, Vietnam, and Hungary in '56 plays off the hope that people will either be too stupid or lazy to actually think about the comparisons.
Hiroshima killed 80,000 people in an instant, but the big difference was that the nation of Japan instigated and continued a war throughout the Pacific. The bombing was completely justified in that the people of Japan did nothing to stop the belligerent government and US experience freeing islands in the Pacific demonstrated that an attack on the home islands would have cost hundreds of thousands of lives.
What resolution should be made regarding the war in Korea? That a multinational force under a UN mandate stopped an invasion backed by the Chinese aimed at forcing South Koreans to live under a government that they did not support or elect. If anything, there should be a resolution thanking all those who died to prevent the entire Korean pennisula from becoming communist. Look at the differences in the two Koreas now and how many have died in the North from starvation and other problems due to a corrupt government that cares more about the supreme leader than any and all other citizens and state that the war was not worth the price.
Vietnam was a terrible and misguided war, but again, the US and allies went into Vietnam to help prevent a communist invasion of the south. There were other reasons that were not so idealistic, but is it your contention that the US should have done nothing while one group invaded and forced their beliefs on another? If so, then your last compariosn makes no sense.
Bringing up Hungary in '56 and the lack of US invovlement after implying that the US over-stepped its bounds in Korea and Vietnam shows either your ignorance or hypocrisy. Are you implying that in Europe the US should have been more proactive and sent military support in '56, but that the US should not have sent military support and been less proactive in Asia? Were Asians not worthy of being free from communism, while Europeans should have expected all support possible to be free from communism? Also, would US support in Hungary have been worthwile if it led to open war between the US and USSR?
If you are going to use historical comparisons, at least try to avoid blatant hypocrisy.

Miklos Vamos says:

"But where is the resolution condemning Hiroshima, or the wars in Korea and Vietnam? "

Garak replies:

Failing to condemn one war does not foreclose condemning genocides. Wars are one thing; genocide quite another. Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrible things, but based on what was known at the time, the alternatives would have been far worse. And Japan was trying to develop its own nukes. Does one think for a minute the same nation that used biological weapons on the Chinese would have hesitated to use nukes on the US? If one murderer goes free, does this foreclose going after others?

Miklos says:

"Where is the resolution condemning the U.S.’s passive stance toward Hungary in 1956?"

Garak replies:

Again, is this on the same moral level as a genocide? Our failure to help the Hungarians was not the proximate cause of the extermination of the Hungarian people. Our leading on the Hungarians with false claims of aid should they rebel against their Soviet masters was shameful, but it did not rise to the level of a genocide. Just as turning our backs on the people of Iraq when they rebelled against Saddam was shameful. But the result was not a genocide.

Miklos Vamos says:

"Why did the U.S. administration not do anything to stop the Armenian killings when they occurred?"

Garak replies:

There was nothing we could do. We had no armed forces capable of intervening. We were not allies of the Turks. Even the German allies of the Turks complained, but were rebuffed. We protested. We publicized. But there was nothing else we could do.

The US has done much in its history that was immoral, to say the least. Slavery, the genocide of the Native Americans. We should admit these shameful acts. To have a Holocaust Museum on the Mall but no Slavery Museum is in itself shameful. But this does not excuse ignoring the Armenian Holocaust. Perhaps the rest of the world should pass their own resolutions recognizing the genocide of the Native Americans. If they do, great, I'll support them. But this doesn't excuse ignoring what Turkey did to the Armenians.

To respond to the point you seem to be making rather than morph into a political position, as others have done, let me say that Congress passes resolutions as if it is "the only perfect representatives of justice" because it believes deeply in that self image.

I read and write about all the resolutions and bills you question and will note that there is something else about the practice. Because they do not become law, resolutions are not bound to accuracy. Far too often flawed facts are telling of the political agenda the sponsor or the sponsor's caucus or party has when introducing such nonsense. That and the fact that we Americans, especially conservatives, have always found it more easy to point out perceived flaws in other cultures rather than be introspective and clean up our own act. I hope, as an American, that the world simply ignores those legislative efforts for the crap that they are.

Genocide vs. 'massacres'

Miklos equates massacres to genocide! This is an uninformed approach. While massacres are tragic results of conflicts, they are not equal to genocide.

Genocide is the following: "the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national or racial group with an intent to destroy". This 'intent to destroy' makes genocide the most nefarious of acts. It attempts to wipe out a group and kill its members for simply belonging to that group. Hence, the need to condemn genocides and especially their denial. This factor of denial is the last stage of genocide, as many scholars insist. It victimized the victims one last time.

The need to set the record straight is especially important in the case of the Armenian Genocide. The historical/scholarly debate is over: it was a genocide. Period.

It is the Turkish government that has made the issue political, by 1) not acknowledging the historical fact, and 2) putting immense political pressure on other countries to comply with Turkish denial. Thus the need to counteract the politics of Turkish denial, with equally potent politics.

The question is: Should we placate an ally who is guilty of genocide denial (though not genocide, since it was carried out by the Ottoman predecessors) by compromising our own moral stance. Denying the Holocaust is abominable and Ahmadinejad should not be given a break for it. Agreed? But would it be perfectly OK for him do deny the Holocaust if Iran happened to be an ally? I hope not...

Another so-called intellectual trying to whitewash a genocide and equate massacres everywhere with a specific genocide. Learn the difference between genocide and massacre, Mr. Vamos. The difference is huge.

The last crime of genocide is denial and forgetting, and by whitewashing the difference between genocides and massacres, you are aiding and abetting the deniers, who themselves claim that massacres did happen.

This is a repugnant point of view you are peddling, and it makes you complicit in the wholesale denial of this genocide which we see prevalent in the American press.

Miklos Vamos says:

"But where is the resolution condemning Hiroshima, or the wars in Korea and Vietnam? "

American Observer replies:

Why should there be a resolution condemning the bombing of Hiroshima, Miklos? Because you think Japan would have been better if we had allowed the Soviets to occupy the entire Korean Peninsula and the island of Hokkaido, as the Soviets agreed to do at Potsdam, and as they would have done if we had not dropped a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima? Miklos, do you know anything about the Second World War at all?

As for the 'war in Korea,' Miklos, you are the first European that I have ever heard criticize America for protecting South Korea. Where do you get your ideology? Is it just a result of your Stalinist education, or what?

Miklos says:

"Where is the resolution condemning the U.S.’s passive stance toward Hungary in 1956?"

American Observer replies:

Miklos, first you condemn America for going to war to protect South Korea, and then you condemn America for not going to war to protect Hungary. Where is the logic?

Miklos Vamos says:

"Why did the U.S. administration not do anything to stop the Armenian killings when they occurred?"

American Observer replies:

What should we have done, Miklos? Should we have declared war on the Germany and Turkey and joined the First World War? Oh, that's right -- we DID declare war on Germany and Turkey, and we DID join the First World War. Miklos, your ignorance of history boggles the mind.

The reason why this is being done is the Democrats know that they cannot force the White House to end the war directly, so they are bypassing the President and trying to deliberately sabotage our relationship with our allies making a military victory in Iraq impossible and forcing the President to make some hard decisions. This obscene bill, which has absolutely no relationship to the present government in power in Turkey and which will likely lead to the deaths of many more Americans and Iraqis, will force Turkey out of the coalition and then Pelosi will turn her eye to alienating some other country, the only question is which one? Will she introduce a bill condemning Israel for acts taken against the Palestinians? Will she dig up some dirt on the British? The French? The Saudis? The Kuwaitis? The UAE? Are the Democrats so willing to let the situation in Iraq fall apart that they would destroy the USA's overseas relationships for decades to come? Without a decisive victory in Iraq, then we end up with another radical Islamist state in control of a large part of the world's energy reserves. It is also no secret that Turkey's newly elected government consists of more Islamist elements than in the past. Would they also seek to destabilize the Turkish government and put the Islamists in power there, as well? Destroying the only working democracy in the Muslim world would be the worst thing that could possibly happen.