October 10, 2007


House panel OKs Armenian genocide resolution (Tabassum Zakaria and Susan Cornwell, October 10, 2007, Reuters)

A U.S. House committee approved on Wednesday a resolution calling the 1915 massacres of Armenians genocide, brushing aside White House warnings that it would do "great harm" to ties with NATO ally Turkey, a key supporter in the Iraq war.

The House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee approved the resolution 27-21. It now goes to the House floor, where Democratic leaders say there will be a vote by mid-November. There is a companion bill in the Senate, but both measures are strictly symbolic, and do not require the president's signature.

...passed a resolution condemning our similar suppression of the Confederate rebellion as a genocide?

Posted by Orrin Judd at October 10, 2007 8:15 PM

Call me vindictive, but I still haven't forgiven the Turks for pulling the rug out from under the 4th Infantry back in 2003. (There's also the small matter of that Gary Bussey propaganda movie which had Americans committing atrocities in Iraq.) Turkish sensibilities are offended? My sympathy meter reads "off-scale low."

Posted by: Mike Morley at October 10, 2007 10:48 PM

Not comparable instances. Civil war is civil war (people were not killed because they were Northmen or Southmen and civilians were not targeted) but
Armeanian Genoice is purely targeting of unarmed civilians.

Posted by: Bisaal at October 11, 2007 3:00 AM

Time to quit coddling Turkey, as they are not the best ally in the world.

Posted by: Stormy70 at October 11, 2007 5:57 AM

...in revolt against a sovereign government, who died not because of systematic extermination but in the course of putting it down.

Posted by: oj at October 11, 2007 6:22 AM

If we had forcibly relocated all Virginians across the Appalachians, allowing 90 pct of them to die on the trip, not targeted civilians in the rest of the South and allied ourselves with non rebelling slaveholding southerners in the border states, then the situations might be more nearly comparable.

Posted by: Steve at October 11, 2007 8:11 AM

The South didn't rebel, they attempted secession.

I hold no sympathy for the Turks after they withdrew their agreement for troop passage, resulting in subsequent US casualties in Iraq. They've proved undependable when the chips were down and caved in to the Germans and French.

Posted by: genecis at October 11, 2007 9:07 AM

We divided Virginia and allied with half, no? Intentionally targeted civilians in N.O., Atlanta, etc. Freed the slaves and asked them to rise up.

The situations are identical except that the Armenians chose a moment when the nation was at war to stage their rebellion. Had the South risen during WWII imagine what FDR would have done to them?

Posted by: oj at October 11, 2007 10:16 AM

They've been one of our best, as witness Korea.

Posted by: oj at October 11, 2007 10:18 AM

The difference is primarily in the degree of intentional targeting of civilians.

And that, very unusually, the Armenians got to write the Western history.

Posted by: Steve at October 11, 2007 10:38 AM

The blockade of the South was intentional war on civilians as well.

Indeed, if we accept pre-war estimates of the effects of our sanctions on Iraq, we intentionally killed more Iraqi civilians from '91 to '03 than the Turks killed Armenians.

Posted by: oj at October 11, 2007 2:14 PM