Iraq and Turkey See Tensions Rise After Ambush

[tw]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

We also offended them recently by finally acknowledging the Armenian genocide.

We do not blame the Germans for the holocaust. We blame the Nazis. Do we blame the Turks for the Armenian genocide? Or do we blame it on a dying Ottoman Empire. Especially important here is that Ataturk had nothing to do with that Armenian genocide. But who gets blamed? Ottomans or Turks?

Turks also acknowledge the Armenian deaths. However it is not defined as genocide. It is defined as victims of war. Ottoman Empire citizens who sided with the French and Russians and who therefore got their just due.

[ZenGum]

I'm wondering what the hell the PKK are hoping to achieve. Suppose they provoke Turkey into invading Northern Iraq ... This would greatly weaken Kurdish military strength which will be sorely needed if Iraq does descend into all out civil war. It would alienate American support, which they also need. It would provide a pretext for continued occupation of Kurdistan by the four local nations.
Do they really think they can win a fight if a big one erupts? I favour independence for Kurdistan, but I don't see what their strategy is. Any guesses?

[queequeger]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

This would greatly weaken Kurdish military strength which will be sorely needed if Iraq does descend into all out civil war.

What do you mean by 'sorely needed?' Do you think the Kurdish militias and political groups will do anything but withdraw into themselves and defend their own borders? They'll do what they've done since they got what autonomy they have: mind their business. If there is a civil war (which I really doubt, I don't think the US will be pulling out any time soon), the only stable area will be pseudo-Kurdistan, but they wont do anything for anyone else's stability.

On a different note, I don't think we should be dealing so favorably with Turkey. They're just as bad toward the Kurds as the Israelis are to the Palestinians (except the Kurds are better at fighting back and the Turks can't bring as much force to bear).

This 'allies in the war on terror' thing is crap for two reasons: One, the 'war on terror' is another name for 'excuse to do whatever we want.' Two: what have the Turks done to help us in this 'war on terror?' If you hold that Iraq was about terrorism (which I don't), why didn't they let us fly from their soil like in the 90s? Where was the Turkish troop aid? They certainly chipped in a lot of money, I know.

Newsflash: PUK and PKK are not terrorist organizations, they're militias. How does Turkey rattling a sabre at Northern Iraq compare to 'fighting terrorism?' It don't neither.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by queequeger

What do you mean by 'sorely needed?' Do you think the Kurdish militias and political groups will do anything but withdraw into themselves and defend their own borders? They'll do what they've done since they got what autonomy they have: mind their business. If there is a civil war (which I really doubt, I don't think the US will be pulling out any time soon), the only stable area will be pseudo-Kurdistan, but they wont do anything for anyone else's stability.

That is what I meant: sorely needed to defend their borders. They have plenty of oil, and the other groups, and neighbouring countries, might well try to seize some oilfields amongst the chaos if all-out civil war does get going. And I agree that while the US and friends are there, they will keep a lid on things enough to prevent complete Balkan-style or Rwandan-style war. But the US isn't going to stay forever. Consider Vietnam - things were relatively stable in 73 for the pullout ... but by 75 ... that is what I would anticipate in Iraq. A period of stability, a pullout, a brief pause, a few mosque bombings, then whoooommmm!

Originally Posted by queequeger

On a different note, I don't think we should be dealing so favorably with Turkey. They're just as bad toward the Kurds as the Israelis are to the Palestinians (except the Kurds are better at fighting back and the Turks can't bring as much force to bear).

I agree. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter ... in most cases. Some are just psychos. But the Kurds do seem to me to have a legitimate claim for nationhood being repressed by various powers.

Originally Posted by queequeger

This 'allies in the war on terror' thing is crap for two reasons: One, the 'war on terror' is another name for 'excuse to do whatever we want.' Two: what have the Turks done to help us in this 'war on terror?' If you hold that Iraq was about terrorism (which I don't), why didn't they let us fly from their soil like in the 90s? Where was the Turkish troop aid? They certainly chipped in a lot of money, I know.

One: yeah it has become that way hasn't it. A while back I asked folks what it would take for the US to "be over" the September 11 attacks, but got very little response. It made me wonder, though. Catching Osama would make a lot of people (especially outside the US) feel that the job was done and the war was over. So I started wondering if the US had deliberately taken the pressure off catching Osama for this very reason - as long as he's loose, they have a license to invade anywhere, but if they get him, in a lot of people's minds, that license expires. mmmmmmmaybe. Conspiracy theories are sooooo tempting, we must guard against their seductiveness.

Regarding Deadbeater's suggestion, that the PKK are trying to spark a region-wide war in the hopes that a Kurdish nation will emerge from the rubble... possibly, but that's one hell high risk strategy. If it were up to me, I'd be concentrating on consolidating Kurdistan-in-Iraq, surviving any troubles in Iraq, and waiting for future opportunities to "liberate" the rest of Kurdistan from Turkey, Iran and Syria.

[queequeger]

For the record, I think that outlandish conspiracy theories involving illuminati and such are fun and all, but some 'conspiracy theories' could very well be the truth. Watergate, CIA 'family jewels...' these things would have easily been dismissed as 'crackpot conspiracy theories' if there weren't definitive evidence there.

I don't dismiss the possibility that there are some dirty minded, handsy people involved that are using 'the war on terror' to get some things done they've wanted to do for a while.

A. 'The man' caused/ignored 9/11 on purpose... pretty outlandish.
B. 'The man' used 9/11 to muster support for things that otherwise would have less... sounds more likely.