|
I have no idea what the intent is, but this bill has been going on so long (we discussed a version of it in one of my poli sci classes back in 1993) that I've no doubt that its presence is independent of any issues in Iraq.
But if introducing it for the goal of indirectly creating logistical problems in Iraq would be treason (and I wouldn't say that necessarily is since I have no doubt we'd get whatever supplies were needed into Iraq), then what is it if it came up without considering that possibility, were warned about the potential realpolitik repercussions and then decided anyway that a non-binding essentially meaningless declaration was worth that risk?
Personally, I think the word genocide is overused and doesn't really have the power it should have because of it. And both sides have valid points in the Turkey/Armenia case (though I tend to come down on the side of Armenia). In an era of total war (kicked off a decade earlier in South Africa and perfected by Hitler and the United States in WWII) how does one distinguish genocide from a straightforward war between two ethnically homogenous sides?
Everybody would go nuts if Congress passed a non-binding resolution calling Taiwan and independent country. Not because it is untrue but because of the inflammatory effect it would have on international relations. And I would say that the real world importance of officially recognizing the independence of the ROC is a lot more relevant and important than officially calling the Armenian slaughter from 90 ago genocide as opposed to unofficially calling it genocide.
|