what's your point? On Mar 9, 3:56 pm, Diogenes <[email protected]> wrote: > So like the right to evade an issue or worse yet to muddy the field so > that thoughts are polarized against anything that resembles > individuals right to think for themselves. Surely even the most > clouded mind can understand that the events even though they took > place years in the past influence the reasoning and humanity of today. > Surely, when the President acknowledges the sins of the past nothing > is changed, but it adds to the acknowledgment of the failure of > civilized people to understand where and how they have ignored the > human rights of people to hold opposite opinions and determine the > truth for themselves. And not be lead around by the nose because they > missed the relevance of the history. > > On Mar 9, 1:50 pm, plainolamerican <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > lobby groups that represent foreign countries, like AIPAC, should be > > thrown out of the US asap > > > On Mar 9, 10:08 am, "M. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Lobbyistsby Doug Bandow > > > 03.08.2010 > > > U.S. foreign policy matters, especially to other countries. Just ask the > > > citizens of nations invaded or bombed by Washington, or suffering under > > > American sanctions, or simply annoyed by our tendency to hector, pester > > > and insist regarding all manner of issues, big and small. > > > Today Washington is deeply involved in a war in Afghanistan and ongoing > > > civil strife in Iraq. The United States continues to threaten Iran with > > > military action. Washington has promiscuously issued security guarantees > > > throughout Asia and Europe. American bases and troops circle the globe; > > > American ships and aircraft dominate the oceans and atmosphere. The price > > > for this presence is high: at a time of budget crisis, the United States > > > spends more, adjusted for inflation, on the military than at any point > > > since World War II and accounts for nearly half the globe’s military > > > spending. > > > So what issue is roiling Congress today? Whether the Ottoman Empire > > > committed genocide against its Armenian subjects during World War I. It > > > is a bizarre question. And it is being asked only because foreign policy > > > has become yet another battlefield for influential interest groups. > > > Americans now are routinely held hostage by ethnic groups determined to > > > use the U.S. government to aid their families, friends, and co-ethnics > > > abroad. Policy toward Cuba, Eastern Europe, Haiti, Israel, Turkey and > > > more has been deformed by domestic politics. > > > Consider the Armenian genocide resolution, approved by one-vote margin by > > > the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Why are American congressmen judging > > > the character of mass killings which occurred nearly a century ago > > > halfway around the world? > > > The nation accused of committing genocide no longer exists. Every > > > government official who plotted the murders and almost certainly every > > > soldier or civilian who committed a murder is dead. Whether or not the > > > actions technically constituted “genocide” does not affect the obvious > > > brutality and inhumanity of the killings. > > > And the pronouncement of Congress will not matter. American legislators > > > can neither make a genocide where none existed nor eliminate one that did > > > occur. No historian will care one whit how a majority of American > > > lawmakers opine. > > > Indeed, if U.S. policy makers are entitled to judge the Ottoman Empire, > > > why stop there? Perhaps Congress should charge Great Britain with > > > committing genocide through the Irish potato famine. Even more bloody was > > > London’s partition of its Indian colony. > > > Certainly much should be said about the casualties caused when Attila the > > > Hun and his hordes ravaged Eurasia. Rome could be charged with genocide > > > in the destruction of Carthage; even the Nazis did not sow with salt the > > > lands which they conquered. And who can forget the death, destruction and > > > rapine set off by the French Revolution continuing on through the > > > Napoleonic Wars? > > > Obviously, the resolution on genocide against Armenians has nothing to do > > > with genocide against Armenians. Instead, the measure has everything to > > > do with criticizing Turkey. Members of the 80,000 member > > > Armenian-American community are in the lead, aided by many > > > Greek-Americans who have their own reasons for disliking Ankara (the > > > invasion and occupation of Cyprus, mistreatment of the Orthodox Church in > > > Turkey, threats of war against Greece over border issues, and more). > > > Turkish-Americans, backed by the Turkish government, are on the other > > > side. > > > There are plenty of genuine policy issues at stake with Turkey. Whether > > > American policy makers really should view it as a security bulwark for > > > the United States increasingly is in doubt. Turkish policy towards Cyprus > > > and the Kurds in particular raise important issues for Washington. None > > > of these have anything to do with Armenian genocide, however. Getting > > > Congress to vote on this “issue” won’t encourage sensible policy > > > formation elsewhere. > > > Another ethnic immigrant group similarly holds U.S. policy towards Cuba > > > hostage. It is easy to understand the anger within Florida's large > > > Cuban-American community toward the prolonged Castro dictatorship. That > > > anger, however, offers no justification for the continuing trade embargo > > > against Cuba. > > > Sanctions made sense during the Cold War; at least one could imagine war > > > between the United States and Soviet Union, with Cuba as an advanced base > > > for Moscow. But the Cold War is over and the embargo has manifestly > > > failed. Today Fidel Castro & Co., apparently as secure in power as ever, > > > is facing its tenth American president. All Washington has managed to do > > > is turn the petty dictator of a small, impoverished island penal colony > > > into a celebrated symbol of international resistance to Yanqui > > > imperialismwhile offering him an excuse for his own manifest economic > > > failures. > > > America’s large Eastern European ethnic diaspora long has played a role > > > in U.S. policy towards that region. Much of its work was laudable: > > > reminding the world of the brutality of Soviet rule in the “Captive > > > Nations.” > > > However, once the Berlin Wall fell, the Warsaw Pact dissolved and the > > > Soviet Union disintegrated, there was no longer any need for NATO, or at > > > least a U.S.-dominated NATO. Yet Eastern Europeans applied their > > > considerable political clout towards speedily expanding the alliance > > > eastward to nations never thought to be important let alone critical for > > > American security. > > > The result was to make conflict between Moscow and Washington more > > > likely, hardly a good result from America’s standpoint. While the United > > > States has no interest to justify war with nuclear-armed Russia over the > > > status the newly independent Eastern European states, their conviction > > > that Washington stands behind them encourages them to behave more > > > provocatively. Nowhere was that more evident than when NATO-aspirant > > > Georgia fired the first shot in a war with Moscow over disputed > > > territories seeking independence. U.S. policy makers should offer their > > > thanks that Germany and other European states blocked Tbilisi’s path to > > > NATO membership. > > > Similarly foolish has been pressure on Washington to intervene openly in > > > Ukrainian politics. Ukrainian-Americans tended to back the so-called > > > Orange Revolution and 2004 election triumph of Viktor Yushchenko; their > > > pressure encouraged the U.S. government to do likewise. Admittedly, > > > Yushchenko seemed like the better choice from America’s standpoint. But > > > his opponent, Viktor Yanukovich, appeared committed to a pragmatic > > > course, even if one tilted slightly towards Moscow. And since America had > > > prospered even when Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire and Soviet > > > Union, such a tilt should have been of little policy concern in > > > Washington. > > > The result of U.S. policy has not been pretty. Yushchenko managed five > > > years of divisive, petty, and at times even crackpot, incompetence, and > > > was turned out of office in December after receiving less than six > > > percent of the vote. Yanukovich won the run-off and now Uncle Sam has > > > nothing to show for his efforts, other than ample egg on his red face. > > > Ethnic Americans also helped craft a Balkan policy which can only be > > > described as the Serbs always lose. Many ethnic Croatians supported > > > Croatia’s brutal ethnic cleansing of the minority Serb population in the > > > Krajina. Washington trained the Croat military and refused to call ethnic > > > cleansing by its name when hundreds of thousands of Serbs were the > > > victims. > > > Similarly, the Albanian-American lobby actively pushed for U.S. > > > intervention in what amounted to a civil war in Kosovo. That territory’s > > > status barely concerned Europe and was irrelevant to America. True, the > > > ruling Serbs often acted as thugsjust like other governments in similar > > > circumstances, including most recently NATO member Turkey in Kurdistan. > > > Once America and its allies defenestrated the Serb authorities, the newly > > > ascendant ethnic Albanians conducted their own campaign of ethnic > > > cleansing against Serbs, gypsies and others. Now Washington and Brussels > > > have a potentially permanent dependent, economically poor and politically > > > unstable nation on their hands, one denied recognition by most countries > > > and UN membership by a Russian Security Council veto. > > > Even Haiti has suffered from the tyranny of interest group politics. The > > > target of multiple military interventions by the United States, this > > > island nation has suffered through brutal authoritarianism and violent > > > instability, while remaining mired in poverty. Although there was no > > > reason to expect a better result from yet another American invasion, in > > > 1994 the Clinton administration forcibly restored to power Jean-Bertrand > > > Aristide, a violent demagogue. A number of influential African-Americans, > > > including members of the Congressional Black Caucus, pushed the president > > > to act. A decade later the Bush administration sent in troops to force > > > the very same Aristide into exile. Even before the recent earthquake, > > > Haiti remained perhaps the most tragic spot in the Western Hemisphere. > > > Then there is Israel. There’s much to say for the democratic > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
-- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
