Debate:Is President Bush right NOT to condemn the Armenian genocide?

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search
! THIS IS A DEBATE PAGE, NOT AN ARTICLE. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Conservapedia.
Your opinion is welcome! Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions.
New Users: Please read our "Editing etiquette" before posting
Conservlogo.png

Yes

No

Genocide is genocide, he shouldn't be so politically correct and worrisome about offending Muslims. Maestro 14:09, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

The Armenian genocide was the prototype for Hitler in World War II, including the apathy shown that led him to believe genocide could be committed without ruffling many feathers. That this statement is sadly still true for non-politically correct mass murder boggles the mind. Since when do trade agreements trump the systematic loss of over 1 million people? Learn together 15:32, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

Bush promised in 2000 when campaigning to recognize the Armenian genocide, and he needs to keep his word. I'm well aware of the political consequences, but it's dehumanizing not to call genocide what it is. Also, how can the United States take a moral stance against genocide in China, Sudan and Uganda if they aren't willing to recognize it when it's less politically convenient? DanH 15:40, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

Links

White House: Genocide resolution would hurt relations with key ally

Personal tools