⚡ The Forgotten Fire: The Holocaust And The Armenian Genocide

Wednesday, November 03, 2021 4:43:05 PM

The Forgotten Fire: The Holocaust And The Armenian Genocide



For no American news organization was better positioned to highlight the Holocaust than the Timesand no American news organization so influenced public discourse by its failure to do so. Bouquet clearly approved of Amherst's suggestion, but whether he himself carried it out Personal Narrative: Becoming A Veterinarian uncertain. Comparing Wang Zi And My Cottage At Deep South Mountain to Stefan IhrigWegner was a "broken man" by the s. I am not seminole or Florence Nightingale: A Woman In The 1900s to name a few The Forgotten Fire: The Holocaust And The Armenian Genocide the numerous other tribes that still exist The Forgotten Fire: The Holocaust And The Armenian Genocide survived the onslaught of an billy and slouch genocide. Cavalry had compiled a The Forgotten Fire: The Holocaust And The Armenian Genocide for aggressiveness, advantages and disadvantages of cloning animals in the wake of its surprise assault in on a Cheyenne village on The Forgotten Fire: The Holocaust And The Armenian Genocide Washita river in Kansas, where about Indians The Forgotten Fire: The Holocaust And The Armenian Genocide killed by General George Custer's men.

Turkey summons US ambassador over Armenian genocide recognition - DW News

In fact, it is more appropriate to see the latter, not as a singular event, but as an especially severe segment of an ancient and ongoing continuum. Three decades later, the raids were virtually nonstop. After thoroughly plundering the city, he ordered it, including churches, to be set ablaze and turned into a desert. Other contemporaries confirm the devastation visited upon Arzden. Without mercy, they incinerated those who had hidden themselves in houses and churches.

Who is able to relate the happenings and ruinous events which befell the Armenians, for everything was covered with blood. Because of the great number of corpses, the land stank, and all of Persia was filled with innumerable captives; thus this whole nation of beasts became drunk with blood. Innumerable and countless boys with bright faces and pretty girls were carried off together with their mothers. But that was impossible. The Turks naturally put the Armenians through much more in the intervening centuries—Sultan Abdulhamid massacred as many as , Armenians in the name of Islam between —but this should suffice as a glimpse of the past. While human conquests are as old as time, why was the initial Turkish conquest of Armenia so inundated with excessive acts of cruelty?

Equally telling is that the most savage treatment was always reserved for those visibly proclaiming their Christianity. Unfortunately, since its occurrence, the West has usually articulated the genocide through a singularly secular paradigm, one that only factors things such as territorial disputes and nationalism. While there is some merit to this approach, so too does it invariably project modern Western motivations onto vastly different peoples and projects. This is underscored by the often-overlooked fact that, along with killing 1. Christians were considered infidels kafir. The call to Jihad, decreed on November 29, and orchestrated for political ends, was part of the plan… [to] combine and sweep over the lands of Christians and to exterminate them.

As for the argument that, because all of these genocidal atrocities occurred during World War I, they are, ultimately, a reflection of just that—war, in all its death-dealing destruction—reality is different. War was a factor, but only because it offered the Turks the cover to do what they had long wanted to do anyway. The question is settled. There are no more Armenians. Sadly, recent events indicate that, far from being repentant for the Armenian Genocide, the Turks still regard the Armenians with genocidal intent.

In October , war erupted between Armenia and its other Muslim neighbor, Azerbaijan, over the disputed territory now known as Nagorno-Karabakh. Although it was Armenian for thousands of years, known as Artsakh, and remains predominantly Armenian, after the dissolution of the USSR, it was allotted to Azerbaijan, causing problems since and culminating in the recent war. Turkey quickly joined its Azerbaijani co-religionists and arguably even spearheaded the war against Armenia, though the dispute clearly did not concern it. Her family were only able to identify her by her clothes.

Similarly, video footage shows camouflaged soldiers overpowering and forcing down an elderly Armenian man, who cries and implores them for mercy, before they casually carve at his throat with a knife. According to a March 27, report , over the course of just two weeks, at least three Armenian churches in the Nagorno-Karabakh region were vandalized or destroyed—even though a ceasefire was declared in November. Video footage shows Azerbaijani troops entering into one of the churches, laughing, mocking, kicking, and defacing Christian items inside it, including a fresco of the Last Supper. In response to this video, Arman Tatoyan, an Armenian human rights activist, issued a statement :.

The Turkish authorities have done the same or have openly encouraged the same policy. The aforementioned hate, which is always a precursor to genocide, is evident everywhere in modern-day Turkey. What is an Armenian doing in my country? If the object is too take the land of an ethnic group; and, to do so, you must kill the ethnic group; is the killing of an ethnic group to take their property genocide? If a government's goal is to remove an ethnic group from their land so another group of people can take the land, is that ethnic cleansing? I would appreciate the opinions of the scholars? Thanks, Blue Eagle.

Today if a region of the world is overrun by outsiders using force, the inhabitants might resort to warfare as a form of self-protection. If disease, slavery, loses of property hunting grounds , lose of whole ways of life and other actions mass murder, rape and etc. Why are Native Americans not given the same protection now and in the past by the politically correct , as African Americans, Hispanics and other peoples in the World.

Their Lands and Way of Life are lost forever. They as a People will never again be a major player in the USA. We now have an African American President. Hispanics will soon be the majority in this country. Yes I know that many Hispanics have Native American blood. I found the conclusions of the article "Were the American Indians the Victims of Genocide" insulting. I am a person with American Indian heritage. There is no question that the land and population of Native Americans were decimated by white European settlers.

Yet the author concludes that "In the end, the sad fate of America's Indians represents not a crime but a tragedy. The logic ability of a small child would know the answer to that, why doesn't your author. I expect much more from a high standard of Historical accuracy quality organization like the History Network. The conduct and methods of the European Conquest of the Americas can only be described as ethnic cleansing, with the genocide of the Native American Peoples. The Smithsonian Museum in Washington D. The assaults, lies and cover ups continue as America carries into the 21st Century. The museum itself is another shameless act in a tragedy that will not be hidden. The Smithsonian has become partners in a year old crime.

Inherent in the term is the intent of the perpetrator, as in the case of "homocide. Reminds me of Bush lawyers and torture. No quantity of intellectual lipstick will help this pig, to borrow from recent politics. If it is not clear from the writings of the European invaders which is what they were about their attitudes, as a whole, and particularly with those that ended up with the practical power, towards the native tribal people of the Americas and yes, it is obvious , then surely their actions and the results of those actions are all you need to know. They indeed erased the peoples and cultures of the "savages" and "infidels" as was clear from their "manifest destiny" as they repeadedly, systematically took their lands, their resources, and when they resisted, their lives.

They are gone. The invaders did this. On purpose. They were for the most part glad of it, unless fairly recent re-evaluations. Another in the long line of cultures wiped out by other cultures. Not surprising in human history. But the culture that did this one is in time and structure very close to our own. We should face this truth bravely, and stop trying to explain it away. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house. Deep down, they know. They need the torturous weaving of logical arguments always utterly dependent on the assumptions to cloak themselves in dark robes, and blot out the sun of truth. Time and again the Europeans invade Indian land, forced them out, wrote treaties they failed to stick to, and murdered them with guns or infected blankets when they could not have their way.

They systematically suppressed their language and culture. And with the aid of guns and germs, they effectively erased them from the "new world. And everyone else in the world but them can see it for what it is.. Ah, the inevitability of genocide. Speaks well for humankind, does it not? And what is this argument except to say that the stronger always wipe out the weaker? God is on the side of the more recently advanced, be it weaponry, organization, farming, etc. The erasure of entire peoples for one's own gain, which accurately describes the genocide of the Americas, is "inevitable" in the same sense all barbarous acts of humanity are.

Take that as you will - it has many levels. Genocide by the provisions of the convention of the United Nations in Dec. Let me remind you only of the witch-hunts of the middle ages, the horrors of the French revolution, or the genocide of the American Indians He admired the camps for Boer prisoners in South Africa and for the Indians in the wild west; and often praised to his inner circle the efficiency of America's extermination - by starvation and uneven combat - of the red savages who could not be tamed by captivity. That is genocide, in result, if not in intent. Manifest destiny and the like - there was a purpose, a belief behind it all.

To even argue it borders on obscene. Intellectual work is empty without a moral foundation. According to your opinion; if someone is a WASP, he has a right take possession of other humanbeings properties doesn't he? In fact,despoilment is the mother lode of western culture Mister Lewy has a very huge apologies Bank in his brain to be able to exonerate his cutthroat cutthroat culture! American indians had been able to increase in numbers abroximetely approximately And than,They started to evanesce rapidly because of simply different diseases. It is so funny and bullshit! Latin American Indians were exposed to the same European diseases that the North American Indians were but they still make up the majority of the ethnic background of the people of Mexico and other Central and South American countries.

They were also exposed to the same warfare tactics. To call the U. The Nazi's were not creating an Aryan state. This was to establish an unalienable identity. Jews are know to hid amongst other populations create circumcised nations for some unknown reason. They assassinated Ferdinand and they were brash enough to assassinate US presidents Lincoln and Kennedy.

They brought the slaves to America and set the south upon itself. They had Martin Luther King killed and others. They always say it wasn't a Jew. Jew killed Jon Benet Ramsey. I'm not joking. They hate what they are and so they kill what they can't be. Look at the Israeli's. I have no doubt they were involved in the Native American affairs. They have a way of not taking up arms except to assassinate but getting others to -- Vietnam. Whites are usually more docile than this. It takes a lot of proding to get them to kill. Look at European murder rates: 1 in , compared to 80 in Africans -- regardless of culture or nation.

The propaganda of Genocide was used to open the American immigration gates for Jews. This is sort of mixed war where Jews are never really disavowed of their desire to "come here" and "go there". The lack of Jewish control in the US brought about the invitation and the means of making this happen. Every time a Jew breaks from the Jewess it is considered Death. The number of Jews who have come to America alone exceeds the number of native Americans who were on their own soil. Not mingling with some other population.

Diddling and fiddling with everything for the lost tribes of Johnstown. I cannot believe people even try acting that genocide did not take place. Just like how denying the holocaust ever took place Germany you can get arrested for doing so. What the white man Europeans? Please I hope anyone reads the following. Classification People are divided into "us and them". Symbolization "When combined with hatred, symbols may be forced upon unwilling members of pariah groups Dehumanization "One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects or diseases. Hate crimes and atrocities should be promptly punished. Organization "Genocide is always organized Special army units or militias are often trained and armed Polarization "Hate groups broadcast polarizing propaganda Identification "Victims are identified and separated out because of their ethnic or religious identity Extermination "It is "extermination" to the killers because they do not believe their victims to be fully human.

Real safe areas or refugee escape corridors should be established with heavily armed international protection. Denial "The perpetrators Now tell me genocide did not take place? Sorry if my text seems very messy im writing this at AM I have a class which need to pick my final essay topic most certainly will be this. But being a YAQUI INDIAN i have no say i just watch our people die in there own vermillion sleep and just wish the fucking mexican goverment never did any thing to us but then again we would be stuck in poor wrecked mexico and not the ''free'',greedy america i call home today.

I have no anger for what they did ,they thought they were playing god but ended up killing themselves and good people in the way of trying to be free from something they were trying not to be. So yes indians are Genocide surviviors been here longer than the damn jews and still ignored. I realize that this discussion is several years old, but I just came upon it.

As I read the arguments for and against the position of the original article, I wondered when somebody would bring US policies regarding Indian boarding schools into the discussion. Thank you. Someone finally did. Even if one can choose to rationalize the many atrocities suffered by American Indians - Indians defending the land of their ancestors, their way of life, their livelihood, their religion - as the tragic result of westward expansion, one cannot deny that the well-documented series of acts committed by agents of the US government through its system of Indian education were committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such.

Hayes, "I am at this time, 'fighting' a greater number of 'the enemies of civilization,' than the whole of my regiment put together, and I know further that I am fighting them with a thousand times more hopes of success. It had both the intent and the result of destroying, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such. I cannot disagree more with the conclusion of the originator of this discussion who wrote, "In the end, the sad fate of America's Indians represents not a crime but a tragedy, involving an irreconcilable collision of cultures and values So many today wish to dismiss this truth as ancient history and as an excuse of some survivors today's Indians not to take responsibility for their failures to succeed in white society.

And while we use this get-over-it mentality to rationalize our past, most will acknowledge that for many crime victims, the first step in healing comes when the accused both gives a full accounting of his criminal actions and shows genuine remorse for the results of those actions. Why do we insist on adding further injury by denying Indians this first step in healing? We can learn the lessons of our history only when we acknowledge the truth of our history. This is how we serve history. The american people of many european descents did commit genocide. I am hopi. I am not navajo or iriquois. I am not seminole or sioux to name a few of the numerous other tribes that still exist and survived the onslaught of an american genocide.

My people were and continue to be farmers, not nomads. I only implore the World, outside of the united states to remember that the natives of numerous tribes request that somebody remembers we still exist and like the jews we survived a genocide of enormous proportions. American history if written by the likes of the no fault is ours americans will rewrite history and the worse can only come from that. Remember, I am hopi not similar or kin to almost any other tribe in the united states as it is now. Much like the europeans, the french don't call themselves germans, nor do the english see themselves as Danes. Different cultures for different people. This is one glaring fact that most people, especially in ths country neglect to remember or think about.

I've got a lot more to say but i'm tired and I have to go and work for the white man because we don't want casino handouts. We'll be here long after the us is gone. That lets us i. At least as long as history is written by the victors. OK, let's take a look around us: rather than being populated and governed by Amerindians, North and South America are, as Alfred Crosby aptly called them, "neo-Europes," firmly under the control of the descendents of the "explorers. All the rest -- and bless Mr. Lewy, his attempt at even-handedness almost does the trick -- is rationalization in the service of the existing power structure. Here's why we can -- indeed, why we must -- "apply today's standards to events of the past": if we're not willing to look honestly at our own past, how can we be honest about what we're doing as a nation now?

Further, Mr. Lewy commits another common error of the historian: he suggests that peoples of an earlier era in effect were incapable of distinguishing right from wrong. Discrimination against the dead is just about the only remaining form of allowable bias. But isn't it more likely that the colonists knew exactly what they were doing? Dear Mr Severance, I just read your comment and I felt the urge to reply as simply as possible. I am a European and live in Europe.

It has never been in anyone's mind here that the Western Roman Empire was the object of any genocide. The invaders were either assimilated or returned home. We in France are the produce of many invasions: the founding populations were the Gallic Celtic tribes, but even them probably met some pre-Gallic populations that they assimilated. Ever since we have been "invaded" by different populations or warriors, but the basic population never disappeared from the surface of earth. When the Franks invaded us they gave us our name: France , they settled here and then were assimilated.

They didn't take the place of the Gallo-Roman population. In the case of the Indians I feel you're comparing what hapened to a soccer match: 2 teams competed and the strongest won. Except that the team who had the trophy before is not here anymore. But it's not like in a match: it had been the territory of the Indians and the bisons for thousand years and they were invaded. Their country was stolen from them, then they disappeared or almost : even if there was no intent, when you make an action and the result of that action is that the person who was there disappears because of your action, it is still homicide. Genocide is when a population or a distinct human group disappears.

How do you call the Indian disappearance? There is for sure a difference with what the Nazis did: they had a planned project to wipe out from the surface of earth and wherever they were, a distinct population that they hated. In the case of Indians the problem didn't come up because they were Indians: if the Indians had been living somewhere else, there wouldn't have been any problem which was not the case of Jews and other populations in the eyes of the Nazis.

Alas, they were on a territory that was the object of desire by other people who had otherwise no desire to share without saying so. At some point you say that the motive was not extermination per se as much as land acquisition coupled with the need to eliminate the threat to security. I find this a bit hypocritical. Wouldn't you laugh? Do you really think so? Land acquisition? Would you be happy today to have people coming from overseas to make "land acquisitions" forced land acquisitions and ensure their own safety with guns?

You can't just say it was a mere competition and poor Indians, they lost: we wanted to take the land and the country, but not kill them. The result is that they are killed, but we didn't intend to. That's life, no guilt. Come in Europe and ask people in general. You will be surprised how they view all this. And we have our share of guilt as those were European governments and nations who initiated the first inroads in the Americas. I agree with you that there are mass movements in history that are unavoidable in the human course. That's true. Human history is full of that. But what does this have to do with genocide? Even if it is the result of an historically unavoidable trend, a genocide is still a genocide if the conditions to a genocide are fulfilled.

And talking about unavoidable trends always questionable anyway does not take away the guilt, does it? In on e of your sentences, you say that " You're not implying that the Indians were not civilized or that a civilization is superior to another, right? Otherwise, do you know anything about the different "Indian" civilization"? Do you think it's "civilized" to invade a territory and take over? Finally, why did you have to add that the Indians if they were still there would have lost little sleep if it had been the other way around?? Is it about one side against another in your eyes?

How would you react then if, again, you were invaded today and someone told you, sorry, it's the human history and, sorry, it's just too bad for you? Sorry for this long comment that I am not sure you will even read. Anyway, I realize how European outlooks differ from today Americans' outlook. Acknowledging a fault speaks in your honor and means you start to master you own history: denying it is getting ready to do it again. We have made so many mistakes in our long European history: we are still learning from that, but we have progressed. Just look at how peaceful Western Europe now is, France and Germany for instance have moved a long way forward. Note: there have been actual genocides, as the dictionary uses the word: "The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

Note the key word "extirmination" which, is something quite different from "expulsion. Friedman, then genocide has not actually been commited. Attempted yes, but commited no. Charging anyone with Genocide would be like charging someone with murder who had failed to kill their intended target. When the charge should actually be attempted murder. Genocide never happened to the Jews, granted genocide was attempted. What happened to the Jews falls more in the catagory of ethnic cleansing. Since Jewish peoples were never exterminated. See Synonyms at abolish. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Given the attitude perpetreated by the Church prior to "Discovery"?

I think there was a definite intent form all the European countries to carry out a genocidal directive upon arrival to our lands!? Repudiation of documented "settlment" activities makes it exponentially immoral! Secwepemc Nation Member. I believe Guenter Lewy is correct with the exception of the California Indian. California following the Weber Creek Massacre engaged in genocide. Governor Peter H. Burnett publiclly called for the "extermination" of the tribes.

Therefore the state government established a policy of genocide. The argument is not popular with California historians. I say knowledge and intent was clear in California. This may be a late objection, but I think your comments that Eurasian culture is somehow superior is a badly founded emotional opinion, even if you cite Jared Diamond, Durant, or anyone else. Native Americans DID adapt in many ways. They were capable of creating and keeping diplomatic relationships, holding to treaties in reference to the old quip that the US never signed an Indian treaty that it did not break , providing key strategic and tactical support for centuries to European and American forces, and contributing to the later part of the Enlightenment.

The Iroquois Confederacy alone contributed dormant and ignored ideals such as a democratic process involving declarations of war, balanced and effective hierarchy, and female leadership. John Locke and countless other European philosophers and Founding Fathers mirror this sentiment in observing that egalitarian government was possible in such an "uncivilized" setting. And by the way, it was not that the Native Americans could not adapt to European culture.

It was that they were eventually forbade to by law for centuries. Imagine trying to integrate into a culture that systematically confiscates your property cross reference Cherokees and creates laws to prevent you from reading or writing their culture in effect until the 's and even beyond. I'm pretty sure Chris didn't actually read the article. My guess is he just saw an opportunity to mention Palestinians and genocide in the same sentence, so he went for it.

Correction: If we cannot distinguish one thing from another, they are the same thing. Adam, You enjoy arguments for the sake of arguing no more. Where do you put the Israelis in your argument. Are not they commiting genocide against the Palestians every day of the year. Why do not you save your words to explain current events in the world and not the past. What do you call the American Army attack on Afganistan and Iraq. Tons of explosives are used to wipe entire populations. Wht do you call this legal warfare. May be they will refer to this genocide as saving humanity from potential terrorists. How about not long ago, the Nuclear genocide of two Japanese cities. What do you call that? Our best fight against genocide is love of each other. Yes, we should all love one another and respect the greatest gift that GOD bestowed on people; their lives.

Let us not dwell much on terms but results. Killing is killing is killing no matte what politicized conventions say about them. People on earth classify all killings as genocides. It is really interesting to make a similar resemblance between the Native-Indians genocide and the new Iraqi genocide. In both cases, the American Government and Its Army not the American People are killing masses of people for the simple pupose of changing their heritages. No matter what the cause might be, no one should ever have the right to kill another man. Americans should revolt against their government genocide practices in every country on earth.

This article is an exagerration. The history of the Native Americans is very complex and it is not fair or accurate to question the history by questioning only two situations: tragedy or genocide. Both situations are true but more importantly is that the settlers never did anything to help stop the tragedy of the Natives infectious diseases. Between and , the Native American population decreased from 12 million to about , We are not talking about a holocaust of 6 million, we are talking about the biggest genocide in our world's history. Are we strong enough to acknowledge this? Of course not. History has been told and history has lied. They did what they did, the US government is still up to the same stuff and has never changed throuout history.

They only "help" a country when they have an investment in somethinf they have. Look what they have done to the African Americans, are you going to try and deny that too? If not, why would you deny actions based out of the same greed and evil, during the same time done to the Natives? What they changed their ways suddenly? The cause of the effect is what we are debating, and parsing this or parsing that aside, you need to remember that even the thinnest pancake always has two sides. Looks to me that both Leo Geshekter and Val Jobson both make vail points. That A. But is it genocide to destroy in that manner a few isolated villages or subdivisions of a few tribes? In any event, there was no organized U. Certainly there never was anything on the scale of the Turkish early 19th Century genocide of Armenians.

From this it appears God does support those with the bigger battalions. In sum, once European man came to these shores, the existing Stone Age cultures were doomed. It is beside the point that the American Indian as well as the European was an immigrat. The Indian merely came here sooner and was fortunate to find the land unoccupied.. On the other hand, various tribes in New Guinea have not been destroyed in confrontations with Industral Age societies, because they are isolated enough in a very rugged land, a land that is of little value to Industral Age man.

But rugged terrain isn't always enogh to permit a society to exist in the face of invasion--witness the Tibetan, who is slowly being dispossessed by the Chinese. The relationship between the Holocaust and the removal of the indian people from the western americas, isn't one that I would consider logical. First of all the extermination of millions of Jews should be the definition of genocide. I don't know how you can say that it isn't. Look at the root words, geno genetics , cide extermination. Hitler was killing off the Jews because he didn't approve of their genetic structure. I do not believe this is in the same catagory as America's Manifest destiny. The unethical and "bullied" way we herded Native Americans was horrible, but nothing close to the Holocaust.

Some say that the domination of the American continent was "survival of the fittest". I don't necessarily agree with that, but i do believe it had its purpose. American settlers had no intention of removing their race from the planet. They only wanted to move them out of the way. It was just unfortunate that the west wasn't big enough for the settlers and the Indians. Without speaking for Lewy,unavoidable may be close to the truth in the sense that I cannot think of a confrontation between a culture of of illiterate, hunting-gathering animists and a farming culture that ended in a manner other than the hunting-gathering culture being displaced, eliminated or absorbed.

This certainly includes the frontier between the hunting-gathering cultures of Europe and the wave of Neolithic farmers that entered Europe from the Near East. Keeley The same holds true for encounters between hunting-gathering bands and cultures that live by either farming or herding. Even when two groups of farmers meet, but one is illiterate and organized on a tribal level, while the other is literate, and organized on a larger scale around a king - the tribal group lost was displaced, eliminated, or absorbed, even before the advent of gunpowder.

The history of China could be written as a series of encounters of this kind as the tribal peoples are pushed back and the Han Chinese move in to form what we now think of as the Chinese provinces of Guangdong, Hunan, Sichuan, etc. Inevitable sounds terrible, like shirking blame, but it is very close to being a universal phenomenon some reservations in the case of nomadic herdsmen in suitable environments. And it is still going on today: 24 November e-news from Survival International, supporting tribal peoples worldwide. Founded in , registered charity UK no. The more relevant, underlying question here is "why don't governments, inside or outside of the UN, do more to prevent genocide and other mass horrors"?

There are many reasons, but I think probably the most important is the one I already mentioned above. People tend to get really concerned only when it happens to "their people". From the many examples, witness, for one, all the tributes in the U. The "history" of western intervention in the Mideast in your latest post is confused, to put it charitably.

Roughly half of all oil in the world is in Saudi Arabia. Saddam's conquest of Kuwait immediately threatened those Saudi reserves AND was a clear-cut act of blatant aggression against a sovereign UN member state. This is collosally different from the disastrous set of messes resulting from the George Bush Junior administration's foolish stumbling in Iraq. If you want to focus on the oil aspect of these very divergent histories certainly an improvement from constantly viewing things through the lens of Islamophobia , take a look what happened to oil prices after the liberation of Kuwait, versus the movement of such prices after Wolfowitz's non-cakewalk of Clever hyperbole is an improvement on crass missrepresentation but bogus bull still stinks.

No industrialized nation gives less of its wealth to international "humanitarian causes" than the US, for example. Ditto bogus logic. I doubt it. Even if you count Warholesque trash art donated to the Met for gazillion-dollar tax writeoffs, which has about as to do with humanitarianism as photograph-taking at Abu Ghraib. After watching and rewatching the planes hit the towers a few million times on prime time TV, Americans "knew" and "acted".

No more box cutters aboard aircraft now. The same American political party that has lately been trumpeting its supposed policy of "spreading "freedom" did its best to torpedo efforts to intervene in the Balkans in the s against mass murder there. The deliberate ignorance and arrogance on the part of the current US administration towards the rest of the world most recenty evidenced by the shuffling of likely war criminal Wolfowitz into a new senior international job he has next to no qualifications for gives the lie to the claims of advancing freedom. One cannot bluster and BS the UN, stomp on its charter, and insult several of its key members in the runup to the botched Iraq invasion , and then expect it to do one's bidding in Darfur. Siegler, I did not remotely imply that "the "ignorance and arrogance of the U.

The principal war crime associated with the current Pentagon, and its soon to be ex Nr 2 there, is torture. A principal, though surely not the only, obstacle to international intervention in Darfur is indeed, however, the lack of global credibility of the US government and the lack of US troops, both of which are largely a result of W's hypocritical and badly bungled Iraq misadventure. And who, pray tell, did all the heavy lifting and giving in the tsunami aftermath?

You also forgot to mention that the European soldiers are erudite, educated, empathetic evian-drinkers, while our boys are single-minded purpose-built knuckle-draggin' stone-eyed techno-augmented killers Thank God. Hey, I love to give America a good bashing as much as the next man. It used to be a favorite pastime of mine. The problem is that this sort of thing has become so frequent that it's becoming tiresome to me as well.

But your constant attempts to relate everything, even a discussion about genocide and how it might be dealt with, to your buddy Bush is becoming even more tiresome. With Mr. Wonderful's reelection it's a lot more difficult to seperate America from Bush, especially in European eyes. So let's go back to discussing something more uplifting than him, like, say man's inhumanity to man. Peter, I think you are incorrect when you write No industrialized nation gives less of its wealth to international "humanitarian causes" than the US, for example.

That figure you have in mind refers only to the US government's generosity. When the private giving is also counted - and, you will note, Americans are very charitable compared to the rest of the world -, the US ranks at or very near the top of the world in giving. Friedman, Yessir. Clark, If any of us cared that much we'd be writing letters to our representatives urging them to take action on Darfur instead of blabbering with each other on this website.

And I wasn't aware that the U. The point is that if George Bush were not president and Hussein was still in charge of Iraq, the genocide in Sudan would have been ended by now. Because America is the only nation on earth that's capable of responding to situations like the one in Darfur, America is in fact responsible for them. If it wasn't for Bush and his his total failure to implant democracy in Iraq we wouldn't have this problem. Recall how effectively Clinton responded to Rwanda and Carter dealt with the genocide in Cambodia. These sucesses took place because Carter and Clinton are not Bush. If it wasn't for Bush the world would have regained its inherent morality and would have put a stop to Darfur immediately.

And don't you dare imply that the Sudanese bear any responsibility for what's going on there. Peter, The issue we were discussing is why no one intervenes in Sudan while there was intervention in Iraq including in I think I identified the pertinent information. You, by contrast, forgot the topic.

Mark up languages is a man's part to discern The Forgotten Fire: The Holocaust And The Armenian Genocide, as much in the Golden Rhinoplasty Procedure as in his own house. If the U. The Forgotten Fire: The Holocaust And The Armenian Genocide, according to Ward Churchill, a professor The Importance Of Hang Nails ethnic The Forgotten Fire: The Holocaust And The Armenian Genocide at the University of Colorado, the reduction of the North American Indian population from an estimated 12 million in to The Forgotten Fire: The Holocaust And The Armenian Genocidein represents a"vast genocide. Retrieved 30 May I The Forgotten Fire: The Holocaust And The Armenian Genocide that there was in fact the knowing attempt to exterminate Native peoples and cultures. Character Analysis Of Woody In Farewell To Manzanar say that the Relationship Abuser Analysis of the American continent was "survival of the fittest". Although the majority of able-bodied Armenian men had been conscripted into the army, others deserted, paid the exemption task, The Forgotten Fire: The Holocaust And The Armenian Genocide fell outside the age range of conscription.

Web hosting by Somee.com