President Bush Caves into Turkish Pressure over Armenia

[Ulsterman]

Those issues are taken care of with treaties and the UN (ha). American internal policies and politics are the decision of the American people. No doubt there are plenty of issues for you to concern yourself with the British government, such as Prince Charles' royal ring size.

Is the condemnation of Turkey's part in the genocide of Armenians and "internal" affair? Are there now more than 50 states? Is Turkey one of them... must have missed that.

Yes, we have much to concern ourselves with here in the UK, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, being fought in response to the 9/11 attacks. According to you we should have viewed those attacks as your problem, a matter of internal policy for the US administration and kept our troops at home. The US, like every other nation under the sun, has a responsibility to its international neighbours. The fact is that Turkey has got the President over a barrel. So, rather than speak the truth, he bottled out. So much for the home of the brave.

 

[saturneptune]

Is the condemnation of Turkey's part in the genocide of Armenians and "internal" affair? Are there now more than 50 states? Is Turkey one of them... must have missed that.

Yes, we have much to concern ourselves with here in the UK, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, being fought in response to the 9/11 attacks. According to you we should have viewed those attacks as your problem, a matter of internal policy for the US administration and kept our troops at home. The US, like every other nation under the sun, has a responsibility to its international neighbours. The fact is that Turkey has got the President over a barrel. So, rather than speak the truth, he bottled out. So much for the home of the brave.

I am an American citizen, and do not appreciate a foreign national sticking his nose into American policy. Yes, we criticize President Bush, but that is our President, not yours. We chose him for better or worse. The point is, you can butt out.

Foreign trade and the like no doubt affects our economy with viabrant economies like China, India, and Japan. Your country is so socialist, if it has any effect on our country, it would be to drag it down. If Britain ceased to exist, American life would continue.

 

[EdSutton]

I am an American citizen, and do not appreciate a foreign national sticking his nose into American policy. Yes, we criticize President Bush, but that is our President, not yours. We chose him for better or worse. The point is, you can butt out.

Foreign trade and the like no doubt affects our economy with viabrant economies like China, India, and Japan. Your country is so socialist, if it has any effect on our country, it would be to drag it down. If Britain ceased to exist, American life would continue.

C'mon, tell us how you really feel.

BTW, what about the only "American nationals" who are not citizens, the residents of American Samoa? Should they be allowed to criticize? Or would you consider any of them a "foreign national", as well? How about the residents of Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands and Guam? Do you consider them to be citizens?

Or is this an acceptable vestige of 'colonialism' and second class- 'racism', somewhat similar to what was in existence in the US prior to the Civil War, just not as violent?

Personally, I think it is far beyond "high time" the residents of AS were accorded full citizenship, just as those of us who are in the 50 US states, DC, GU, PR, VI, and MP. (For those of you who may not know, MP is the designation for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, which like the state of Texas, was never merely an American 'possession', after becoming 'American soil'.) Every place other than those two, and the original thirteen states, was at some point of another, an "American possession." We gave 'back' (or 'away') some of them, including the Phillipines and the CZ. These were unlike the Trust Territories of the Pacific, which were only 'administered' by The United States, under a 'League of Nations' (to which the USA did not ever belong) mandate.

FTR, aside from the nominating process in the primaries (where incidentally, these "American Nationals" of AS, along with the citizens of PR, VI, GU, and MP, do get a say in the selection of the candidates for the Republican and Democratic Party nominations, at least), these same nationals, as well as the resident citizens of PR, VI, GU, and MP do not get a say in the actual selection of the president in the 'Electoral college'.

How about a constitutional Amendment that gives AS, VI, GU, MP, PR, and AS one electoral vote each, which I believe they, as Americans, deserve, with PR receiving its full compliment upon becoming the fifty-first state, which I do think will happen at some point in the future?

Or did I just open a real

or an even larger

??


Ed

 

[Ulsterman]

I am an American citizen, and do not appreciate a foreign national sticking his nose into American policy. Yes, we criticize President Bush, but that is our President, not yours. We chose him for better or worse. The point is, you can butt out.

Foreign trade and the like no doubt affects our economy with viabrant economies like China, India, and Japan. Your country is so socialist, if it has any effect on our country, it would be to drag it down. If Britain ceased to exist, American life would continue.

He's a world leader. I can criticise him if I choose, after all the U.S. is supposed to be the guardian of human freedoms, and that includes freedom of speech. We still value that on this side of the pond. Supposedly George Bush values it, he has said so many times, even about "foreign nationals" who oppose his policies. Why do you attack my nationality and country? It is very insulting of you to so readily disregard the blood of young British soldiers who are fighting to save all our freedoms. Good luck with China, India et al. I am sure they will make great allies, just like Turkey. This thread was never an attack on the US, George Bush personally, the Republican party or apple pie. It was simply pointing out that the President, IMO, and in the opinion of some of your fellow countrymen, failed to do right when faced with the issue of the Armenian genocide.

The point is you can offer no real argument. You acerbic spirit is ill becoming of a Christian, and if that is the best you have to offer you should stay on saturn/neptune or whatever other planet you are on, for you obviously don't live in the real world.

 

[Matt Black]

President Bush and his policies are an American concern.

Oh, come on! President Bush and his policies are a problem for the whole world.

 

[saturneptune]

The point is that YOU are not part of the argument. Our duly elected leaders will decide American policy towards Turkey. If we the people do not like the way they conduct business, we elect new ones IAW the US Constitution. Concern yourself with Britain's policy towards Turkey. If that gets too boring, you can get the latest update on Diana.

 

[Matt Black]

I am an American citizen, and do not appreciate a foreign national sticking his nose into American policy. Yes, we criticize President Bush, but that is our President, not yours. We chose him for better or worse. The point is, you can butt out.

Fine...once you've got your President to butt out of our affairs and release our nationals illegally detained at Guantanamo Bay.

Foreign trade and the like no doubt affects our economy with viabrant economies like China, India, and Japan. Your country is so socialist.

:laugh:

 

[Melanie]

Dear me.....I can not believe what I am reading in this thread, I pray that the American majority does not think like some of the responses....absolutely unchristian at the very least.........is it because the Armenians were foreigners, historical or orthodox............or did Armenia not have something greedy old America wanted........sheeesh

 

[saturneptune]

C'mon, tell us how you really feel.

BTW, what about the only "American nationals" who are not citizens, the residents of American Samoa? Should they be allowed to criticize? Or would you consider any of them a "foreign national", as well?

Or is this an acceptable vestige of 'colonialism' and second class- 'racism', somewhat similar to what was in existence in the US prior to the Civil War, just not as violent?

Personally, I think it is far beyond "high time" the residents of AS were accorded full citizenship, just as those of us who are in the 50 US states, DC, GU, PR, VI, and MP. (For those of you who may not know, MP is the designation for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, which like the state of Texas, was never merely an American 'possession', after becoming 'American soil'.) Every place other than those two, and the original thirteen states, was at some point of another, an "American possession." We gave 'back' (or 'away') some of them, including the Phillipines and the CZ. These were unlike the Trust Territories of the Pacific, which were only 'administered' by the United States, under a 'League of Nations' (to which the USA did not ever belong) mandate.

Ed

I agree with your point. I do not see why they all could not be states.

 

[EdSutton]

I agree with your point. I do not see why they all could not be states.

I definitely do not recommend they all be 'states', in the sense of the current 50 states (except for PR), unless all these are 'admitted', along with DC, on "its consent" with no Senators, on the basis of the last phrase of Article V of the US Constitution.

As in my proposal as such, the proportional representation of all these would exceed all the states in the House of Representatives, save Wyoming, with Washington, DC having a few more residents than Wyoming, at this current time.

Under our system of federalism, the smallest state (Rhode Island) currently has an area of ~ 1200 sq. mi. and a Pop. of ~ 1.1M. The least populous (Wyoming) has an area of 97, 818 sq. mi. & a population of ~ 500K.

Contrast DC at 75 sq. mi. & 580K; (compare the 48th and49th states in population ND @ ~650K, and VT @ ~610K) [One Congressman and (DC keeps its current) three electoral votes.] (BTW, this fully passes Constitutional muster, as Congress still retains the full Constitutional right to 'exercise all legislation' in the "seat of the government', as they do or do not choose.)

GU @ ~210 sq. mi. & ~175K; [One Congressman & one electoral vote.]

VI @ ~135 sq. mi. & ~125K; The British Virgin Islands should be allowed to unite with the US VI, if that is acceptable to both them and the UK, increasing this area by 60 sq. mi. and population by 60K.) [One Congressman & one electoral vote.]

MP (Northern Mariana Islands or CNMI) @ ~185 sq. mi. & ~85K; [One Congressman & one electoral vote.]

AS @ ~200 sq. mi. & ~58K. [One Congressman & one electoral vote.]

These 5 collective territories, commonwealths, and districts have a total area of ~800 Sq. mi. and a total population of ~ 1.2M or two thirds the area of the smallest state, and total population with DC included of that of 0.4% of the total US Pop. or a few more than RI (or a few less than HI), alone, or without DC, a pop. of ~440K or <90% of that WY.

PR, by contrast, would (eventually, when a state) get the full complement, as a state, of 2 Senators and 5 or 6 Representatives, @ ~3500 sq. mi. and 4M Pop. [Seven or Eight Electoral votes.]

And the number of Representatives in the US House should be increased to 445 members, in that event, and at that time.

The total 'Electoral College' becomes 549 members, and 275 Electoral votes elect the President and Vice-President, in my little scenario.

Personally, I think that is about as fair representation as one could possibly have, given the realities of geography and population, with these five (including DC, but not PR, as Puerto Rico becomes a "full state") as "mini-states", so to speak.

I'm open to why this is or is not a good idea, from anyone, BTW. But be forewarned, be willing to defend it with something other than simply 'jingoism'!
Ed

 

[saturneptune]

It sounds like you are trying to create a new entity between territory and state, except for Puerto Rico. You are basing this on land area and population of present small states.

There is no real set pattern to become a state. I see no reason your plan would not work. Do you think it unreasonable that all five entities together could be a state?

 

[Ivon Denosovich]

Is Turkey hurting diplomatic relations with the US?

 

[Ivon Denosovich]

What hasn't been said on this issue is the impending war Turkey is chomping at the bit to engage in. Turkey has been at ware off and on for years with the folks in Northern Iraq. Turkey has shown much restraint in recent years at the request of the President. Wether turkey is right or wron in this we do not need turkey creating more issues in Northern Iraq. This resolution is not helpful at the moment. It's all about timing.

It's true that there is an argument to be made for pragmatism. It's also true though that the Iraqi parliament isn't immune from learning about Bush's imploring for leniency. To stand up for human righs in Iraq for principle's sake and not do so in Turkey for the principle's sake of principle sends a very noticable sign of desperation. This probably explains why the Iraqi's don't feel remotely pressured to do anything other than drag their feet: Bush will not cease to help them because his entire legacy depends on the success of this one single policy and they know it.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

It's true that there is an argument to be made for pragmatism. It's also true though that the Iraqi parliament isn't immune from learning about Bush's imploring for leniency. To stand up for human righs in Iraq for principle's sake and not do so in Turkey for the principle's sake of principle sends a very noticable sign of desperation. This probably explains why the Iraqi's don't feel remotely pressured to do anything other than drag their feet: Bush will not cease to help them because his entire legacy depends on the success of this one single policy and they know it.

I am not happy with the President but claiming he is worried about his legacy is just as ridiculous as claiming the Iraq war is for oil.

 

[KenH]

This probably explains why the Iraqi's don't feel remotely pressured to do anything other than drag their feet: Bush will not cease to help them because his entire legacy depends on the success of this one single policy and they know it.

You are totally correct, Ivon. This is also why George W. Bush will go down in history as the second worst president so far in United States history. Only Jimmy Carter has been worse.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

This is grandstanding by Congressman Schiff. Sad that it happened? Yes. But it was during WWI. There are other issues today, and this is old history perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire. Schiff must have Armenian constituents.

 

[Ivon Denosovich]

I am not happy with the President but claiming he is worried about his legacy is just as ridiculous as claiming the Iraq war is for oil.

In all fairness you could be right... perhaps he doesn't care about his legacy. But my guess is that he does and that's driving his quest to make good in Iraq. Just my two cents.

KenH, it's amazing how much we think alike. Carter then Bush it is. I've said that to my friends for the past two years.

 

[KenH]

KenH, it's amazing how much we think alike.

Great minds think alike, Ivon. Great minds think alike.

 

[EdSutton]

It sounds like you are trying to create a new entity between territory and state, except for Puerto Rico. You are basing this on land area and population of present small states.

There is no real set pattern to become a state. I see no reason your plan would not work. Do you think it unreasonable that all five entities together could be a state?

More like 'mini-states'. My idea would have that effect. I do give some consideration to land area, as well as population, here.

I do not think, realistically, that DC, VI, MP, AS, and GU collectively work well as a state, simply because of the great geographical disconnects involved. GU and MP might work as one geographical entity, as GU is actually the largest island in the Marianas chain, and is separated by only about 50 miles from Rota in MP, compared to the several thousand between GU/MP and DC and VI. AS is some 3000 mi. from GU and 2500 mi. from HI, and GU/MP is some 3000 miles from HI, as well. Compare HI where no more than about 50 miles separates any of the eight major islands from one another.

However, I do not see 2500 miles as realistic geographical separation. Nor do I think one could realistically overlook both this, and the cultural and historical gaps, as well.

The Virgin Islands could geographically be potentially allied as a part of PR, I guess, but the history and culture are almost radically different.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

You are totally correct, Ivon. This is also why George W. Bush will go down in history as the second worst president so far in United States history. Only Jimmy Carter has been worse.

Gimme' a break on the "worst Presidents" bit.

Presidents Bush, both 41 and 43, Carter, Clinton, Reagan, Ford and Nixon, collectively covering a forty year span, from both of the major parties and points of view from very 'conservative' to fairly 'liberal', on their worst days, all stand head and shoulders above such luminaries as Presidents Harding, Pierce, Fillmore, Buchanan, and Grant as the occupiers of the White House!

Don't get me wrong. U. S. Grant was a great military leader, one of the greatest in our history. But not as President. Presidents Andrew Jackson, George Washington, and Dwight Eisenhower were similarly extremely able Generals. They were also competent occupiers of the White House.

Actually read and study the history about all the 43 individuals who have served as President, thus far. Then repeat the statement. I suspect one just might have a slightly different POV, in which case.

FTR, one will never know how effective leaders some, such as Presidents W. H. Harrison, Taylor, and Kennedy could have become, had they all lived and served longer. Certainly President Kennedy had a fairly good start in the Oval Office.

That does not mean I would have agreed with everything any of them, do, did, or would have done, had I lived in all their times. But to rate Presidents G.W. Bush and Carter below Harding, Buchanan, and Pierce borders on insane, in my not-so-humble opinion, here.

Ed