Like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football held by Lucy, I naively expected a hard hitting account of Turkey's repression of its Kurdish minority. Not to be measured with the suffering of Armenians during the First World War, but quite bad, not the less.

Instead we have this lone limp wristed comment that the Turkey should be nicer to its Kurdish minority.

"So, let us be clear on a few things. The European Union, to which Turkey has applied for membership with warm American support, has insisted on recognition of Kurdish language rights and political rights within Turkey. We can hardly ask for less."

What about Nato? Turkish minority rights values are Nato values, by definition since Turkey is a Nato member. Where is the condemnation of Nato.

The Kurds, like the Macedonians in Greece (see Human Rights Watch) have been subject to systematic cultural genocide since both Turkey and Greece entered Nato. A subject, at least regarding the Macedonians of Greece that Hitchens remains slient, notwithstanding the many opportunities he has had to include it in his reporting in the Balkans.

Before Nato bombed Kosovo, Albanians enjoyed far more rights than the Kurds of Turkey and the Macedonians of Greece. Maybe Nato should also have bombed Athens and Ankara to secure their rights. We would now be talking about independence for Turkish Kurdistan as well as Kosovo. Why not?

Hitchens has always taken the opportunity to take a swipe against the Macedonian, but has never discussed their mistreatment as a minority in Greece, all the while droning on and on about Cyprus. Maybe its was part of the divorce settlement with his ex-wife (the Greek Cypriot) that he should urinate in public on Macedonian ethnic identity.

Hitchens has adopted the "realist position" of US foreign policy by deciding who gets the elevator and who gets the shaft.

Hitchens has always reminded me of being the Oliver Reed of journalism. My wife and I were in England watching "the tele" a few years ago, before Reed's death. Reed came on the TV looking puffed disheveled and glassy-eyed, praising the merits of some liquor or wine. I turned to my wife and said there is only one word that can adequately describe him ... debauched.

You say that like debauched is a bad thing.

"Turkish minority rights values are Nato values, by definition since Turkey is a Nato member" - David Edenden

NATO has no values with regard to human rights, or minority rights. This is a figment of your imagination. NATO is a military treaty whose members agree to defend each other against attack by non-member states. Genocide is not covered under the terms of that treaty. Kosovo, as a case in point, was undertaken because NATO was convinced that the escalating conflict posed a credible threat to neighboring NATO members, and as an organization acting under U.N. mandate.

This is similar to Afghanistan where NATO operations continue, and where there is a U.N. mandate to deploy that force as a defensive measure (save the world, which includes NATO countries, from the terrorist hiding Afghanis etc etc). Iraq doesn't remotely resemble that situation, nor would a Turkish invasion of northern Iraq. Like the United States in Iraq, were Turkey to do such a thing, they would be acting as a rogue soverign state rather than as a member of any known organization.

But again, this is all beside the point. Your argument relies on a NATO mandate to protect human rights. Such a mandate does not exist.

There is, I suppose, a form of admiration for a person who has lived life to the extreme.

Turkey applied to Nato several times for PKK which fell to deaf ears. According to Nato's article #5, the Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.Nato's article 5 states that any attack to a member state an attack to all.

US used this for Afganistan. Turkey made efforts to use this for PKK. What Turkey is considering is very different than what the US did. US invaded a country under false assumptions (e.g. WMD, terrorism, etc.) without being attacked by Iraq. I remindyou that the US could have waited for UN to complete its studies. In Turkey's case the terrorism both inside and outside of Turkey has increased significantly in the past 4 years. Turkey has been voicing this concern, and has requested a political solution from Iraq and the US for the past 3 years. Unlike the US, Turkey is being attacked and can not waste time. Turkey would not be acting as a rogue state - and she has every right to retaliate to protect its people, and land.

I was kidding. I don't think Hitchens is corrupt. I just disagree with him... except when I don't.

Neither Article 51 of the UN charter nor Article 5 of the NATO treaty specifies that an "armed attack" can only be carried out by a state, however, there are a number of arguments that hold this definition implicit, and so, terrorism, insurgency and the like have so far been considered outside the definition of "armed attack". Or said another way, "Armed attacks" are things that only states can do.

For Afghanistan, it was argued that because of the Afghani relationship with Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda could be considered an organ of the Afghani state, and so, action could be taken against them.

If Turkey can convince NATO that the PKK is an organ of Iraq, then their appeals would probably no longer fall on deaf ears.

I am not sure what else Turkey needs to do to convince PKK is an "organ" of Iraqi state. Al Qaeda had bases in Afganistan where training was performed to terrorists. All Taliban did was allow Al Qaede to be "guests" in that country. The same applies to PKK where they have bases in northern Iraq, they buy their food/supplies from Iraqi Kurds. PKK gets along great with the local towns and even provides security to the local people in efforts to win their hearts and minds. Al Qaeda attacked other countries - PKK attacks Turkey and escapes back into Iraq.

"I am not sure what else Turkey needs to do to convince PKK is an 'organ' of Iraqi state" - jkandem

If the current Iraqi government refused extradition of a PKK leader whom was known to be in Iraq, that would suffice, as it did in Afghanistan. However, the Iraqi government has done exactly (maybe not exactly) the opposite, promising to close down PKK offices in Iraq, and trying, it seems, to sort out an extradition treaty with Turkey.

Meanwhile, Turkey intones that that every PKK member in Iraq is "guilty [...] We want all of them to be handed over." They've even been so good as to provide a list of Iraqi citizens allegedly associated with the PKK who are to be handed over. Unlike OBL, this list isn't accompanied by video taped confessions. It's not hard to imagine the difficulties that would create.

But, there are other incidents. Israel and Lebanon, for example. Not too long ago, Israel invaded Lebanon in reaction to Hezbollah attacks into Israeli territory. However, Hezbollah really is an organ of the Lebanese government... if an uncomfortably autonomous one. Unless one wants to exaggerate the distance between the political wing and the military wing.

One could, I suppose, argue that Iraq was not doing enough to show that the PKK is not an organ of that state, but even the Turks themselves have called the Iraqi diplomatic effort "sincere" and "well-intentioned".

"All Taliban did was allow Al Qaede to be "guests" in that country" - jkandem

The Taliban protected Al Qaede under the auspices of sovereignty. Iraq is actually trying to do something about the PKK. There is a very wide difference.

I think Turkey, the United States, and Israel, all had/have good reasons to be upset. I think all three rushed to escalation, not giving diplomacy enough of a chance. At the same time, for all three (but particularly Turkey and Israel) it seems like nothing happens until sabres rattle. Of course, it's worth noting that Iraq, Lebanon, and Afghanistan all suffer from tragically instable governments who find it extremely difficult to act against those taking refuse in their borders (particularly Lebanon - I think the Taliban actually liked Al Qaeda so, you know).

I am not a supporter of the PKK. However, I do think that Turkey and Greece should be expelled from Nato because of their repression of their respective Kurdish and Macedonian minorities.

I don't understand why it's important for the United States Congress to make a statement about the genocide of Armenians. How would the passing of such a resolution help anyone? Would this force Turks to agree that it really happened? Would this improve US relations with any country other than Armenia?

This tragedy occurred. It has been written about in history books. Anyone who wants to read about it, including Turks can do so. Clearly what happened was wrong.

My biggest objection to this movement is that I don't think it's the place of the United States to make official declarations about the mistakes of administrations of other countries and peoples. Who are we to judge others?

Does anyone out there know how many other similar resolutions have been passed by Congress?

Finally, in how many other countries are lawmakers spending time discussing resoltions condemning the United States. And if there are such examples, are these the countries that we aspire to model?