Posted on 10/14/2007 4:12:31 AM PDT by LonesomeHawk
Kurds don't fear Turks
By Betsy Hiel TRIBUNE-REVIEW Sunday, October 14, 2007
QANDIL MOUNTAINS, Iraq Turkey's threat to invade northern Iraq and attack PKK guerrillas comes when U.S.-Turkish relations are at an all-time low.
It further complicates already-strained U.S. plans in the region, including efforts to end sectarian violence across Iraq and to isolate Washington's regional arch-nemesis, Iran.
A recent Pew opinion poll showed only 9 percent of Turks hold a positive view of the United States while 28 percent look favorably on Iran.
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
The Turks can go pound (or eat) sand. The stabbed the US in the back in the lead-in to the Iraq war after our having supported them for decades.
The Turks can go pound (or eat) sand. They stabbed the US in the back in the lead-in to the Iraq war after our having supported them for decades.
Exactly. This is the same Turkey that slaughtered allied troops in WW1, could not find itself to fight Hitler in WW2 and have done nothing to help free Iraq from its past.
If they want to push this problem, bring em on, they could find themselves fighting Americans who they have such a low opinion of. The Kurds along with Israel are our only real allies in the region and I say we defend them against all invaders.
Can’t say I think much of the Kurd leaders brains. They aren’t very smart attacking the Turks,and risking all they’ve gained, instead of attacking the Iranian goons, where they know they’ll have the support of the US from being overrun. Not to mention that oil that flows through Turkey, contributes mightily to their present prosperity. If tthey keep attacking the Turks, they will lose everything they’ve gained in the last two decades, in tghe space of a few weeks.
Hey! I can dig it. Millions of Mexican citizens here are asking for their rights, too! All they want is their culture, their language, their government. . . Hey, what a deal!
"Iran is using the PKK as a public-relations tool to get into Turks' hearts," says Dr. Soner Cagaptay.
Interesting. We got people here that it's working on also. They prefer Iran's buddies, the Kurdish Marxist workers party (PKK), over Turkey also.
The Turks tried to extort us for $33 billion dollars for use of their bases near the Iraqi border, $33 billion! Yeah, real great “ally.” (nauseating sarcasm)
Ms Betsy Hiel is far more than a mere employee of the newspaper, she's a journalist.
Does Afghanistan count?
2005. "Turkey has assumed command of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan, a multinational UN-mandated force to assist the Afghan government and the international community in maintaining security.
"NATO has held the command of ISAF for the last two years and yesterday was the change of command from Eurocorps, which is a NATO Rapid Deployable Force, to the Rapid Deployable Corps in Istanbul," Karen Tissot van Patot, an ISAF spokeswoman, told IRIN from the Afghan capital, Kabul, on Monday. . .Turkish Lt-Gen Ethem Erdagi took command of ISAF from Lt-Gen Jean-Louis Py of France. . . ."
Posing a moral equivalent based upon our messican invaders and the Turkish Kurds is more than a bit specious......the Turkish Kurds are caught in Turkey because of the borders drawn arbitrarily by the Brits.....The same thing happened to the Kurds in Iran and Iraq.
Turkey, the center of the largest muslin caliphate that ever existed is the problem.
Can you document that the denial was solely a matter of money?
Yes, thank you. It's good to see some facts on these threads!
As far as Mexican v. Kurds IMO it's still a matter of culture / language preference regardless of how the borders came about -- BTW, I also draw an analogy with cross-border attacks on Turkish citizens and the violence on our border with Mexicorruption.
If the violence along our border continues to increase and drug criminals are killing our citizens in large numbers, would we stand by an watch? or go after the killers?
We used to say in the Army that one “Aw S*** wiped out 10 Attaboys.”
Turkey’s actions on Iraq is a big Aw Sh**.
Never unestimate the madness and delusion of an islamic people.
“Hey! I can dig it. Millions of Mexican citizens here are asking for their rights, too! All they want is their culture, their language, their government. . . Hey, what a deal!”
There are big differences between the situation of millions of Mexican immigrants in the United States and the millions of Kurds in Turkey.
The accepted borders of modern Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran were determined by Europeans in the aftermath of the break-up of the Ottoman Empire and the end of WWI. Just as in Africa, those borders were predicated on the “divisions” acceptable to others, mostly France, Britain and Russia and with no regard to the actual and natural divisions of the people in the Middle East.
In that process, the Kurds, a distinct ethnic group with an identity as old as the Jews, saw their lands divided and placed under the power of others - a king in Iraq, a Shah in Iran, a dictator in Syria and a “new” Turkey. Their basic lands have not changed. They were the dominant population in them at the time Europe carved up the Middle East, for its interests, and they remain so now, whether those lands are said to be part of Turkey, Syria, Iran or Iraq.
The Kurds in “Turkey” were there, since at least the 5th century B.C. if not longer, and thus at least more 1,400 years before the “Turks” arrived in the 9th and 10th centuries A.D.. While ruled over in the following centuries by various empires that the in-migrating “Turks” built - mostly the Seljuks and the Ottomans, the Kurdish people - their ethic identity, language and culture - remained unassimilated into their rulers cultures, as remains true today.
On the matter of genocide, I personally believe that it was. But I do not blame the modern democratic republic of Turkey for sticking with condemning the massacre as "horrific," a consequence of W.W.I, and demanding that the world acknowledge the hundreds of thousands of other victims of those times. I do not know their government's official position but I think that that is close to it.
I do not blame them for several reasons.
First, what difference will a word make to the victims? and how will it make the horror even worse than it was? worse than everyone admits that it was?
Second, there's no effort to pressure Germany to admit Her role. Kaiser Wilhelm II and German military and civilian personnel participated in the genocide, both actively and passively. Why? Because Germany allied with Ottoman Turkey in the early 1880s and stuck with them even after the Young Turks deposed the Sultan. Why did Germany participate? Because Kaiser Wilhelm II had big plans and the ridding of a Christian people separating Turkey from the Turkoman people further east could only help; to wit, his plan included a possible war between Islam and Christians and step one of the plan to control the world was to extend Germany's influence all the way to Persia.
Third, IMO "genocide" is necessary to enhance Armenia's demands for reparations and territory. That's what this is about IMO. Armenia claims much of eastern Turkey. It seems to me that genocide will go a long way to get worldwide backing for Her demands against Turkey, perhaps even forcing Turkey to yield territory. (Fat chance)
Perhaps "genocide" will even make the efforts to force U.S. life insurance companies to dig out the list of Armenians who had policies back then. Efforts are in the courts and public passion may sway the judges. In Amb. Morganthau's book he mentions the name of the companies and even describes the efforts of a Young Turk leader (1916) to get him to help collect the money arguing that the Armenians are dead and the money should go to the state. I guess the money is still out there.
The comments about Germany are based upon the book by Vahakn N. Dadrian, "German Responsibility in the Armenian Genocide: A Review of the Historical Evidence of German Complicity".
Now don't anyone get their bowels in an uproar and start screaming, "Denier!", Mr. Dadrian believes that it was genocide, he just researched and documented Germany's supporting role.
And note this, Mr. Dadrian argues that the full disclosure and knowledge of this heinous crime could have perhaps prevented the Jewish holocaust of World War II.
Germany, at al helped cover it up way back then.
RE: "There are big differences between the situation of millions of Mexican immigrants in the United States and the millions of Kurds in Turkey."
Yes Mexican citizens living here ILLEGALLY and making cultural/language/etc. demands do differ. The response is even a bigger difference. While Ataturk absolutely refused to concede on anything (If you live in Turkey, you are a Turk. Period) we blench. Regardless what one thinks of that and Turkey in general IMO it fair to say that Islam in Turkey went through a reformation -- and the Army with popular support intends to keep it that way.
“Can’t say I think much of the Kurd leaders brains. They aren’t very smart attacking the Turks,and risking all they’ve gained”
Just who is attacking the Turks? the terrorist PKK founded by the ruskies and currently funded by the mullahs or the Kurds of the Kurdistan Regional Government?
Here’s what I’ve been pushing for the 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.
Thanks for that. I hope no one thinks I fail to see the problems with illegal Mexican colonists here (and that is how they should be viewed - colonists and not immigrants).
The difference is that in the Middle East, with respect to the Kurds, they never were the immigrants in the lands they now live in and in Turkey, the “Turks” who now rule over them were.
You made a point about Ataturk striving to establish a Turkish national identity over and above a Turkish ethnic identity. And, that concept actually has a large degree of truth among everyone in Turkey accept for the Kurds. In the majority “Turkish” population of Turkey, the genetic component suggests only about a 30% complement from the “Turks” from central Asia. That suggests it is the language and systems of the ruling “Turks” that came to dominate a society of predominately local people in Anatolia, and elsewhere where the Turks migrated and conquered.
And, yet, that is not true in the lands of the Kurds (whether they be in Turkey, Iraq, Iran or Syria), where genetically and in every other way they have remained “Kurds”. So they are not to me analogous with our illegal Mexican immigrants.
Some archaeologists and anthropologists see the Armenians and Kurds as cousins among “families” of ethnic groups. They seem to have some common and distinct root group that their ancestors shared.
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.