Posted on 10/21/2007 6:34:35 AM PDT by Flavius
# Kurdish rebels kill at least 12 Turkish soldiers, Turkish government says # Turkish forces respond by killing 23 PKK rebels, government says # Fighting taking place inside Turkey near border with Iraq and Iran # Wedding convoy trips landmine nearby, injuring 12 Turkish civilians
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
It makes me wonder if Iran isn’t sending in people to make it look like PKK is attacking Turkey, in order to make life complicated for our side
The Marxist filth is doing this themselves. Death to tyrants. Idiots here in the US helped it along.
"Smugglers' ambush kills 12 U.S. soldiers; 30,000 civilians, military in 20 years. Mexico City asks 'restraint'"
Congress' cross-border green light has stoked anger among Mexicans
Is there really a need to look for the most convoluted conspiracy theory possible?
The US doesn’t have enough troops in the North of Iraq to take out the PKK terrorists themselves and the Kurdish government don’t seem to have the inclination to take care of the problem, I’d say that the Turks have been more than patient, but who can really blame them if they decide to take care of the problem themselves now?
If Kurdish terrorists are killing Turks inside Turkish borders, why are we sparring with Ankara over whether they can invade? We should be teaming up with them to destroy the PKK.
“Is there not precident for this happening? When AQ Syrians and Iranians cross the borders to act as combatant “Iraqis” against the US, is it far fetched to imagine AQ heading up the road to fire up some violence against the Kurds that welcomed us to the country (and provided safe conditions for our troops in the north?)”
Yes, quite far fetched. Plus you seem to be conflating Al Qaeda and Iran, so I’m losing track of what the conspiracy theory actually entails!
Or, headline 160 years ago....which still fuels 'anger' today.
Turkey need to make an example. Us not putting more preassure on the Kurdish goverment in northern Iraq when PKK (the kurdish terror group) is terrorist branded is a joke
I doubt it’s Iran, Saddam never tolerated PKK but the new kurdish goverment no doubt let them set up bases on their border, Iran would have no need to do it really.
Basicly, even though we have branded PKK as terrorists, northern Iraq is one of the few calm places in Iraq..and yes..pipelines go through that area.
Still we’re selling our souls, Turkey has as mentioned been way more patient than they need to be
I don't care. Bush 41 said we went into Iraq to "free" Kuwait, and we all knew it was bullsh*t.As Rush said at the time, we should not have been ashamed to say the goal was the "free flow of oil at market prices". Idealism is cheap. Keepling oil flowing without problems is paramount to our national interests.
PKK main base camp is in Iran, sanctioned by Iran, funded by Iran.
We should take this as an opportunity to help the Kurds establish autonomy & nationhood in the region.
Here’s my usual post regarding this area.
Maybe my tagline will come true.
We should withdraw from Iraq — through Tehran. Here’s how I think we should “pull out of Iraq.” Add one more front to the scenario below, which would be a classic amphibious beach landing from the south in Iran, and it becomes a “strategic withdrawal” from Iraq. And I think the guy who would pull it off is Duncan Hunter.
How to Stand Up to Iran
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1808220/posts?page=36#36
Posted by Kevmo to TomasUSMC
On News/Activism 03/28/2007 7:11:08 PM PDT · 36 of 36
Split Iraq up and get out
***The bold military move would be to mobilize FROM Iraq into Iran through Kurdistan and then sweep downward, meeting up with the forces that we pull FROM Afghanistan in a 2-pronged offensive. We would be destroying nuke facilities and building concrete fences along geo-political lines, separating warring tribes physically. At the end, we take our boys into Kurdistan, set up a couple of big military bases and stay awhile. We could invite the French, Swiss, Italians, Mozambiqans, Argentinians, Koreans, whoever is willing to be the police forces for the regions that we move through, and if the area gets too hot for these peacekeeper weenies we send in military units. Basically, it would be learning the lesson of Iraq and applying it.
15 rules for understanding the Middle East
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1774248/posts
Rule 8: Civil wars in the Arab world are rarely about ideas — like liberalism vs. communism. They are about which tribe gets to rule. So, yes, Iraq is having a civil war as we once did. But there is no Abe Lincoln in this war. It’s the South vs. the South.
Rule 10: Mideast civil wars end in one of three ways: a) like the U.S. civil war, with one side vanquishing the other; b) like the Cyprus civil war, with a hard partition and a wall dividing the parties; or c) like the Lebanon civil war, with a soft partition under an iron fist (Syria) that keeps everyone in line. Saddam used to be the iron fist in Iraq. Now it is us. If we don’t want to play that role, Iraq’s civil war will end with A or B.
Let’s say my scenario above is what happens. Would that military mobilization qualify as a “withdrawal” from Iraq as well as Afghanistan? Then, when we’re all done and we set up bases in Kurdistan, it wouldn’t really be Iraq, would it? It would be Kurdistan.
.
.
I have posted in the past that I think the key to the strategy in the middle east is to start with an independent Kurdistan. If we engaged Iran in such a manner we might earn back the support of these windvane politicians and wussie voters who don’t mind seeing a quick & victorious fight but hate seeing endless police action battles that don’t secure a country.
I thought it would be cool for us to set up security for the Kurds on their southern border with Iraq, rewarding them for their bravery in defying Saddam Hussein. We put in some military bases there for, say, 20 years as part of the occupation of Iraq in their transition to democracy. We guarantee the autonomy of Iraqi Kurdistan as long as they don’t engage with Turkey. But that doesn’t say anything about engaging with Iranian Kurdistan. Within those 20 years the Kurds could have a secure and independent nation with expanding borders into Iran. After we close down the US bases, Kurdistan is on her own. But at least Kurdistan would be an independent nation with about half its territory carved out of Persia. If Turkey doesn’t relinquish her claim on Turkish Kurdistan after that, it isn’t our problem, it’s 2 of our allies fighting each other, one for independence and the other for regional primacy. I support democratic independence over a bullying arrogant minority.
The kurds are the closest thing we have to friends in that area. They fought against Saddam (got nerve-gassed), they’re fighting against Iran, they squabble with our so-called ally Turkey (who didn’t allow Americans to operate in the north of Iraq this time around).
It’s time for them to have their own country. They deserve it. They carve Kurdistan out of northern Iraq, northern Iran, and try to achieve some kind of autonomy in eastern Turkey. If Turkey gets angry, we let them know that there are consequences to turning your back on your “friend” when they need you. If the Turks want trouble, they can invade the Iraqi or Persian state of Kurdistan and kill americans to make their point. It wouldn’t be a wise move for them, they’d get their backsides handed to them and have eastern Turkey carved out of their country as a result.
If such an act of betrayal to an ally means they get a thorn in their side, I would be happy with it. It’s time for people who call themselves our allies to put up or shut up. The Kurds have been putting up and deserve to be rewarded with an autonomous and sovereign Kurdistan, borne out of the blood of their own patriots.
Should Turkey decide to make trouble with their Kurdish population, we would stay out of it, other than to guarantee sovereignty in the formerly Iranian and Iraqi portions of Kurdistan. When one of our allies wants to fight another of our allies, it’s a messy situation. If Turkey goes “into the war on Iran’s side” then they ain’t really our allies and that’s the end of that.
I agree that it’s hard on troops and their families. We won the war 4 years ago. This aftermath is the nation builders and peacekeeper weenies realizing that they need to understand things like the “15 rules for understanding the Middle East”
This was the strategic error that GWB committed. It was another brilliant military campaign but the followup should have been 4X as big. All those countries that don’t agree with sending troups to fight a war should have been willing to send in policemen and nurses to set up infrastructure and repair the country.
What do you think we should do with Iraq?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1752311/posts
Posted by Kevmo to Blue Scourge
On News/Activism 12/12/2006 9:17:33 AM PST · 23 of 105
My original contention was that we should have approached the reluctant “allies” like the French to send in Police forces for the occupation after battle, since they were so unwilling to engage in the fighting. It was easy to see that we’d need as many folks in police and nurse’s uniforms as we would in US Army unitorms in order to establish a democracy in the middle east. But, since we didn’t follow that line of approach, we now have a civil war on our hands. If we were to set our sights again on the police/nurse approach, we might still be able to pull this one off. I think we won the war in Iraq; we just haven’t won the peace.
I also think we should simply divide the country. The Kurds deserve their own country, they’ve proven to be good allies. We could work with them to carve out a section of Iraq, set their sights on carving some territory out of Iran, and then when they’re done with that, we can help “negotiate” with our other “allies”, the Turks, to secure Kurdish autonomy in what presently eastern Turkey.
That leaves the Sunnis and Shiites to divide up what’s left. We would occupy the areas between the two warring factions. Also, the UN/US should occupy the oil-producing regions and parcel out the revenue according to whatever plan they come up with. That gives all the sides something to argue about rather than shooting at us.
That leaves Damascus for round II. The whole deal could be circumvented by Syria if they simply allow real inspections of the WOMD sites. And when I say “real”, I mean real — the inspectors would have a small armor division that they could call on whenever they get held up by some local yocal who didn’t get this month’s bribe. Hussein was an idiot to dismantle all of his WOMDs and then not let the inspectors in. If he had done so, he’d still be in power, pulling Bush’s chain.
heh so all of a sudden Kurds are our best friends? Yeah I guess one barbaric tribe had to replace the talibans as our best friends.
And turkey turned their backs on us? You know from which country most of our wounded are shipped out from? They have helped and are still helping us a hell of a lot more than our “best friends” the kurds
heh so all of a sudden Kurds are our best friends? Yeah I guess one barbaric tribe had to replace the talibans as our best friends.
***So, I gather there’s a missing sarcasm tag, because we were never friends with the Taliban. And as far as “all of a sudden”, I’ve been posting this stuff for 2 years. No, they’re not our “best” friends, they are our friends. Turkey didn’t allow us to overfly their territory in Gulf WarII, so I guess we need to find another “barbaric” tribe that wants democracy and autonomy for themselves — Kurds fit the bill.
And turkey turned their backs on us?
***Yes
You know from which country most of our wounded are shipped out from? They have helped and are still helping us a hell of a lot more than our “best friends” the kurds
***I never said the Kurds are our “best friends”, so by quoting it, you’re quoting yourself in a circular argument. Did the Turks get gassed by Saddam Hussein when they followed the prompting of the U.S. and started fighting against him? NO, but the Kurds did. They help us where they can — the Turks denied us the help when we needed it. Do you favor democracy and autonomy for indigenous groups in the region? If not, why not?
“Did the Turks get gassed by Saddam Hussein when they followed the prompting of the U.S. and started fighting against him? NO, but the Kurds did.”
Historical nitpick. The Kurds got gassed by Saddam Hussain in 1988. At that point the US was exporting much dual-usage technology to Iraq and the administration managed to see off an attempt in Congress which would have stopped US military assistance, loans, exports, etc to Iraq. They were by no means encouraging the Kurds to fight Saddam Hussein.
They did encourage them to do this in 1991, whereupon Saddam slapped them down, but there was no gas involved.
The author of the linked article is no fan of Turkey but at least he sticks with facts and does come down on your side. But he does not gloss over our own Washington's roll in the confusion and foul-up.
Nor does he brush aside the democratic process vis-a-vis Turkey's decision -- it did play a role.
So many here simply toss out, "We got stiffed by Turkey when we needed them. Screw 'em forever!" and drive off.
The linked article comes close to answering why forty ships of infantry gear were shipped off to Turkey before Turkey's parliament even considered it -- and, as I recall, 80 percent of the public there opposed the war -- the author says 90 percent. It explains a little about what some unfinished business left over from the Gulf War had to do with pocketbook issues. Remember, we vote our pocketbooks (my words not the authors)?
Should Turkey not have "democracy and autonomy?"
My point: shouldn't those in Washington who made the war plans do some explaining about those forty ships of infantry gear headed for Turkey?
Deadly attack follow-up.. Democrat Icon on Mexican autonomy, America's borders
"'Native American genocide disallows U.S. rights of sovereignty. We betrayed our trust!'"
says annual Nobel Peace Prize winner, 113-year-old Democratic Party elder statesman, Al Gore
Tokyo. Gore and advisor Ramsey Clark interrupted their extended worldwide travels campaigning against worldwide travels . . . .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.