Iraq talk fuelled by Kosovo pull-out

Financial Times ^ | July 12 2002 5:00 | By Judy Dempsey

[DeaconBenjamin]

Britain is to withdraw most of its 2,400 troops from Kosovo, fuelling talk it is preparing to provide support to any US military attack against Iraq.

A senior Nato official in Brussels said the Ministry of Defence in London "was mentally preparing for new challenges". When asked if this would involve Iraq, he retorted: "Well what do you think?" suggesting that the British Army was readying itself for a possible war in the Middle East. A British diplomat agreed that there would be speculation about future deployments - "plans further east - but not too far east", indicating that he himself was surprised by the suddenness and scale of the withdrawal.

British officials insisted, however, that London was withdrawing troops from Kosovo for purely practical reasons. Rumours of US plans for an attack on Iraq have been building in Washington for several weeks but the Bush administration has given no information about deployment of troops in the region.

"We are reviewing our troops deployed abroad," said a British official. "We are simply overstretched at the moment. We have troops serving in over 80 countries."

The extent of the phased withdrawal, expected to begin in a few weeks, has also surprised some of Britain's European allies, particularly France and the Netherlands. Only a few hundred British troops will remain in Kosovo.

"The US does not hide that it may need its troops serving in the Balkans to be reduced in number and deployed in the fight against terrorism further afield," said a Nato diplomat. "What are we to make of the British reductions?"

[Wraith]

Their is different aspects of cracking down on the KLA. The British Sector Pristian Region was their area of responsibility and was no where near the Macedonian border. The intelligence initiative to learn about the KLA started from day 1 when NATO arrived in town and has gathered momentum ever since. This initiative to learn "everything" about the KLA in order to deal with the criminal element one day was also shared by the other intelligence cells from the partner NATO countries. The US I will have to admit were frustrating to deal with because of their closer relationship with the KLA i.e. working with them during the Kosovo conflict. I will have to say the U.S. military in particular were not as eager to get on the deal with the KLA band wagon in regards to their sector after all it was their sector. The majority of the NATO countries saw the KLA for what the are very early after the NATO take over. IT was what the KLA did to their own people that made me see the light to understand that their is more to this bunch. Very good manipulators.

[Banat]

Yes, I agree with you. The condition of the Kurds is desperate. I firmly believe that when the nations were carved out following WWI & WWII by Britain and France that they made a serious mistake not giving the Kurds their own homeland. How many know that these nations (Iraq, Syria, etc. are not "ancient" nations but were created less than a hundred years ago.)

I beg to differ. Iraq and Syria are both ancient - very ancient! - nations. But we're talking about the Kurds, right? There are some 25 million of them. They're mostly found in SE Turkey and Northen Iraq.

Since Iraq has been designated an 'international pariah', we'll turn to Turkey for the time being.

Turkey should be forced to respect the rights of its minorities, especially the Kurds. Turkey doesn't have to give them their own country or make them more special than any other minority. Turkey just has to act like a normal country. Did you know that the Turkish Kurds aren't even allowed to use their own language (not to mention anything else a minority should have the right to)?

How can such a country be a member of NATO? I always thought the club was for democracies only.

Turkey wants to join the EU, too. With such a poor HR record, there is no way it will be accepted anytime soon.

They should immediately receive northern Iraq. It would be appropriate punishment for Hussein.

Well, read that one again. You are so wrong. Screw Hussein! What about the Iraqi people? Why should anyone break Iraq apart? Yes, what about the Iraqis? Do you think they'll appreciate their country being butchered? They have rights too, and one of them includes the right to their own country. Would you support an independent "Aztlan"? Didn't think so.

They would be protected until able themselves by Nato.

I don't like the idea of NATO protecting anyone. That's called nation-building and it always ends in disaster (The Serbian Province of Kosovo and Metohia, Bosnia...). The International Law is there to protect the World's nations.

But, as I've already said, the Kurds' rights must be respected in both Turkey and Iraq. The Kurds are Kurds anywhere you go. I don't see why Turkey should be allowed to opress the Turkish Kurds. We turn a blind eye to that but we never seem to miss when Saddam does it. It's called double standards - and I hate double standards.

All the best.

[xzins]

It is a fact that the Kurds are a separate people. As such they deserve their own homeland.

It is true that Iraq and Syria represent ancient peoples, but what I have said is that the BORDERS established by primarily Britain and France were arbitrary borders.

We should simply redraw those borders to establish a Kurdish nation.

The difference between Aztlan and the Kurdish nation is that the US has the power to prevent its borders being carved up. Iraq does not AND they deserve to be punished for using chemical weaponry against the Kurds.

[Banat]

The Iraqi people don't "deserve" anything. Gassing the Kurds doesn't merit a break-up of the country of Iraq. It's like hanging a shoplifter.

Absent is your criticism of Turkey for human rights violations much worse than Saddam's. Why?

[xzins]

Absent is your criticism of Turkey for human rights violations much worse than Saddam's. Why?

What do you mean, Why? Because Turkey's on our side, part of Nato. Isn't that obvious! You don't hurt your friends, you hurt your enemies. Iraq is our enemy and a scourge on the face of the earth.

Turkey hasn't used chemical warfare against its own people, those Kurds you mention. Kurdish separatists are waging a revolution in whatever country they're in. Everyone's fighting them, and in the midst of fighting bad things happen. But you don't gas your own people; you don't use chemical weapons against them.

Set up Kurdistan in former Iraqi territory. Use tanks, planes, and cruise missiles to keep the Husseinites at bay until you've fully armed the Kurds. Then let them have at each other with us on the side of Turkey, Kurdistan, Jordan, and Israel.

Make Saddam wish he never knew how to spell "Kurd."

[Banat]

What do you mean, Why? Because Turkey's on our side, part of Nato. Isn't that obvious! You don't hurt your friends, you hurt your enemies. Iraq is our enemy and a scourge on the face of the earth.

So, as far as you're concerned, your friends can oppress all they want but your enemies can't? A crime is a crime is a crime - whoever commits it. Same rules M U S T apply to both Iraq and Turkey. Where does this leave the Kurds, anyway? We're talking about THEM, you know. It's painfully obvious that you couldn't care less about the Kurds - you're just using them to criticize Iraq. Disgusting.

Turkey hasn't used chemical warfare against its own people, those Kurds you mention. Kurdish separatists are waging a revolution in whatever country they're in. Everyone's fighting them, and in the midst of fighting bad things happen.

Oh, I see. So, in Turkey - they don't deserve their own country but they do in Iraq? Nice. In Turkey it's a "fight against separatism", but in Iraq it's not? Bad things sure do happen and I am sure Turks know a lot about 'bad things'... as do Armenians.

But you don't gas your own people; you don't use chemical weapons against them.

Oh? You use more humane means like total ban on the Kurdish language, tradition, culture, customs and an occassional massacre...?

Set up Kurdistan in former Iraqi territory. Use tanks, planes, and cruise missiles to keep the Husseinites at bay until you've fully armed the Kurds. Then let them have at each other with us on the side of Turkey, Kurdistan, Jordan, and Israel.

Wipe the foam off your mouth, lad...

[ABrit]

"A crime is a crime is a crime - whoever commits it."

That's why Milosevic is on trial, why don't you condemn him. Because you hate muslims, therefor you must hate the Turks. Why do you not condemn the Russians for their treatment of Chechnya? Because the Russians are Orthodox Christians, like you.

To you, an Orthodox Christian can do no wrong. Even crimes against the Christian Croats are ignored by you, because they are Catholic, not Orthodox.

You are blind to criminal activity when it suits you. You are a bigot.

[Banat]

The Kurds are Muslim and here I am defending them. The Iraqis are Muslim and here I am defending them. Your theory is, therefore, flawed.

I have no reason to criticize Miloshevich vis-a-vis Kosmet because I have yet to see one atom of solid evidence against him. Testimony along the lines of "my neighbour said his aunt's brother told his aunt that one of his neighbour's nephews heard from his best friend's grandfather that the Serbs shot an Albanian family" is not evidence.

[xzins]

So, as far as you're concerned, your friends can oppress all they want but your enemies can't?

So far as I'm concerned, Iraq was at a minimum indirectly complicit in killing 3000 Americans on 9-11. There is voluminous circumstantial evidence of the same.

Listen again...the Kurds deserve ONE homeland, not one in Turkey, another Iraq, and another in Syria or Iran. That one homeland would then be a beacon for all Kurds.....just as we have one Israel for all Jews, unless you've a mind to cut a little Israel out in every country wherein Jews appear. Kurdistan deserves to be Iraq, because Iraq has gassed them, oppressed them, tortured them, hated them. Kurdistan primarily deserves to be in Iraq because Iraq deserves punishment and secondarily because Iraq boundaries are artificial lines drawn 8 decades ago by Western Europeans.

[Banat]

"So far as I'm concerned, Iraq was at a minimum indirectly complicit in killing 3000 Americans on 9-11. There is voluminous circumstantial evidence of the same."

BULL$HIT! There is absolutely no evidence that Iraq was in any way, shape or form involved. What's more, all clues point to SAUDI ARABIA. But, I guess they're 'our friends', right? We can't piss them off cause we depend on them for oil. Noooo, we can't piss them off even if those 3,000 poor souls are in question. D I S G U S T I N G. No spine whatsoever.

Listen again...the Kurds deserve ONE homeland, not one in Turkey, another Iraq, and another in Syria or Iran. That one homeland would then be a beacon for all Kurds.....just as we have one Israel for all Jews, unless you've a mind to cut a little Israel out in every country wherein Jews appear.

Well if they are to have a country, let's take some from Turkey and some from Iraq and then unite them. They're adjacent, anyway.

Kurdistan deserves to be Iraq, because Iraq has gassed them, oppressed them, tortured them, hated them.

And that, like, differs from what Turkey has done to the Kurds? Sorry, but I don't see the difference. In both cases the victims are innocent people (the Kurds) whose misery is exploited by creatures like you for God knows what purposes.

Kurdistan primarily deserves to be in Iraq because Iraq deserves punishment and secondarily because Iraq boundaries are artificial lines drawn 8 decades ago by Western Europeans.

"Iraq deserves punishment"? That sounds awfully similar to somethin' like "America deserves punishment! Let's fly a couple of planes into the WTC! Allah is great!"

Who are YOU to decide who deserves punishment? 1.5 million INNOCENT IRAQIS have died since 1991. Not enough, eh? Let's murder them all! Iraq is not a person. It's a country inhabited by millions upon millions of very unfortunate and miserable people who have had to put up with a madman and his enemies for a decade. You know, before 1990, Saddam was "our friend", too. Don't you ever forget it.

[xzins]

What's more, all clues point to SAUDI ARABIA. But, I guess they're 'our friends', right?

Nope, I think we should just take Saudi and keep it....maybe let Jordan or Bahrain run it for us. Saudi and Iraq are so deep into each other's business that they can smell the color of brown.

Just because Hussein killed 1.5 million innocent Iraqis by putting his money into his military instead of into food is EXACTLY the reason we should slice and dice his country.

Who am I?

One pissed off American who knows who our enemies are. Iraq, Saudi, Iran, Syria, Libya, Egypt, Cuba, China, Vietnam, N. Korea, Somalia, Afghanistan, Sudan, Yemen.....how's that for a start?

If they moved, I'd slap 'em.

PS: And what country you from....think I'll add that to the list :-)

[getoffmylawn]

Nope, I think we should just take Saudi and keep it....

Who am I? One pissed off American who knows who our enemies are.

Liar. You're German and you think it's 1941.

[xzins]

Liar. You're German and you think it's 1941.

Nope. I'm American and I think it's LIKE 1941....right after Pearl Harbor. It's time to kick ass and call an enemy an enemy.

Liar!? Is that the best name you can call? Buy a thesaurus.

[Libertarian_4_eva]

They should immediately receive northern Iraq. It would be appropriate punishment for Hussein. Kurds from worldwide would be allowed to arrive and settle there. They would be protected until able themselves by Nato.

That would never happen. I honestly feel for the kurds but no way in hell would the Turks stand for a kurdish nation on their border were a large minority of kurds live right across in south eastern turkey. The Turks are just too important for the united states and europe to piss off.

[xzins]

Yep, that could be a problem. But I think the Turks would like the Kurds to go away.

Ok, you've convinced me. We'll let them have southern Iraq.

[Banat]

There's really no point discussing the matter with you. You simply want to murder innocent people, which makes you no different than Bin Laden, IMHO. You can't tell a country from a person; you employ double standards; you're claiming moral high ground even though it's obvious you're a midget when it comes to morality; and so on and so on.

It doesn't matter where I am from. What matters is that I think. Have a nice life. Oh, BTW, will your kids be there when Iraq is invaded or will someone else's sons and daughters bleed and die? Will you be there, fighting for what you believe in?

[Oplenac]

I saw the last part of "Wide Angle," on PBS. James "Jamie" Rubin was interviewing Richard Perle of the Pentagon. Here, was James Rubin, a minor yet deadly player in the destruction of Yugoslavia--so close to Thaci in friendship and in spirit(Has he no memory of what happened to the Jews of the Balkans during WWII?)--here was Rubin discussing with Perle the destruction of another country, Iraq. Rubin asked Perle if The US allies would help pay for the reconstruction of Iraq after Saddam is deposed, no doubt, with extensive damage to Iraqi infrastructure. Perle's response was direct: Iraq is a rich country and will be able to pay for its own reconstruction. Did Perle even mention oil? But here you see what the planners and managers are thinking. A totally devastated Iraq will have to use its oil to cover its debt, and interest payments, much as the Congo is strangled even amidst its immense natural resources. The fawning Rubin nodding in agreement, not a thought apparently given to the over a million innocent dead Iraqis because of a failed and inhumane US policy. And no thought for the tens of thousands more innocent deaths to come if Iraq is attacked, destabilizing the entire region, and creating an environmental catastrophe. Rubin is young and should think of these things. Not Perle. His is a face of one who gorges on falsehood and for that is forever hungry. He manifests--as the US more and more does--the deadly hubris that knows nothing but its own power, needing continually to exert it. As Banat says: Iraq is not one person. There has to be some way to help the people--without killing them! The US employed that strategy in Vietnam, another time of hubris. Here is another PBS interview with Richard Perle http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/perle.html

[ABrit]

IRAQ is a country rich in resources, resources which are being spent by a megalomaniac dictator, not to benefit his own people, but to benefit himself. IRAQ is developing weapons of mass destruction, and will use them. Anyone who waits for that to happen first is guilty of the crime of negligent homicide, as bad as if someone who had for-knowledge of 9/11 and let it happen. Saddam can let weapons inspectors have full access, or he can take the consequences.

Not doing anything now is as bad as leaving a mass murder, armed with a machine gun, in a room full of innocent people

[ABrit]

"Testimony along the lines of "my neighbour said his aunt's brother told his aunt that one of his neighbour's nephews heard from his best friend's grandfather that the Serbs shot an Albanian family" is not evidence."

You can't be serious. Evidence has been given against Milosevic by people who still have the bullet wounds and burns from murder attempts by Milosevic's gangsters. People who are the only survivors of large families, or communities have tesified against him!

[xzins]

will your kids be there when Iraq is invaded or will someone else's sons and daughters bleed and die? Will you be there, fighting for what you believe in?

I am a career retiree from the US Army with over 20 years of service. I have 2 sons currently active duty: one Air Force and one Army.

The safest strike is a total strike....safest for our nation and safest for my sons.