I was just started liking the guy specially after meeting with him in New Hampshire. However I slowly recognized how far away he is from able to handle world politics. His name even reminded me a Turkish name Burak, and appeared he was going to unite us, which will not happen by promoting haterism in order to gain votes. What a big disappointment.
Barack Obama that is and his position on (so-called) Armenian Genocide can be found here.
I am sure he will realize if he ever gets elected (which will not be possible as if he runs against McCain, I do not see him winning) that his way of thinking will change and will need to take a 180 degree change on the subject.
What can we say about Hillary? Smart politician. She knows what is the right thing to do, and that is why you can not find any references on her website to what below article was reporting. Are Clintons better for Turkey or should we look at McCain? Absolutely not McCain as both McCain and Obama will continue Bush plan for Turkey and Middle East which brought the what is called "soft Islam" to Turkish politics and the country where Turkey has been positioned to be used as an example to Middle East where religions and government co-existing together. That is not what Ataturk build and secularism has to be protected at any cost. However Clintons will promote Turkey's joining EU and become part of Europe where the solution for Turkey's future looks much more promising.
For those who can vote in the US, if you vote for either McCain or Obama, you will be voting for a Turkey, promoted to become a soft islamic state (ilimli islam), further supporting a weak Kurdish state formed most likely in Kirkuk area where Israel will have full control. If you vote for Clintons, you will help Turkey get closer to Europe and keep it's secular position. Since Clintons would be closer to Turkey, chances of seeing a Kurdish state will be very low.
Below is from the article at Washington Times, Embassy Row By James Morrison February 26, 2008
A grim but tireless debate between Turks and Armenians for more than nine decades found its way into the U.S. presidential campaign, as Turkish-Americans began organizing politically against any change in Washington's policy toward the "Armenian genocide" of 1915.
Officially, the United States recognizes the killings of hundreds of thousands of Armenians as a tragedy, but not genocide. Washington repeatedly has cited its concern over angering Turkey, a key NATO ally, as the reason for avoiding the loaded word. Turkey and Armenia also dispute the number of victims, with Turkey claiming about 300,000 and Armenia 1.5 million.
Yesterday, the Assembly of Turkish American Associations warned its members that the "Armenian dispute with Turkey is being politicized to the point of becoming an issue in the U.S. election campaign."
Democratic hopefuls Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama have promised to reverse U.S. policy and recognize the slaughter of Armenians under the old Ottoman Turkish Empire as genocide, if either of them is elected president. Republican front-runner Sen. John McCain stuck to the U.S. line and referred to the massacre as a "tragedy."
"Far from the desired change that Americans are calling for, this sadly appears to reflect old-style politics as usual," the assembly said, referring to the statements of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama.
"As Turkish-Americans, we are getting involved, watching the debates, volunteering and voting in this election process."
The assembly, which represents more than 40 Turkish-American organizations, called for Turkish and Armenian scholars to work jointly to study documents from the period.
"It is critical that this matter be handled by objective experts in proper forum," the assembly said. "It is our firm belief that historians should write history, not politicians." |
Search 