Skip to comments.
Peshmerga Advance Towards Kirkuk (Turkey, Kurds)
ZAMAN ^
| 03-30-03
| editor
Posted on 03/30/2003 7:00:02 AM PST by pkpjamestown
The same Iraqi troops that have displayed such strong resistance to the coalition forces in the south of the country have reportedly shied away from encounters with the Kurdish peshmerga in the north and retreated to their lines around the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk.
The peshmerga are believed to have advanced approximately 25 kilometers and are nearing Kirkuk, after having begun their operation several days ago. In addition, the Kirkuk-Kurdistan Web site claims that forces of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) are currently 20 kilometers outside of Kirkuk.
During negotiations conducted with the United States, Turkey had demanded that peshmerga not be used in potential attacks on Mosul and Kirkuk and that control of the region rest totally with U.S. troops. Turkey has warned that it will intervene in northern Iraq in the event that the Kurdish peshmerga enter Mosul and Kirkuk.
TOPICS: Breaking News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: iraq; iraqifreedom; kurds; northernfront; peshmerga; puk; turkey; warlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-96 next last
To: Travis McGee; MadIvan
Ivan: We ought to tell the Turks, "sod off" - if the Iraqis fear the Kurds, so much the better. Turkey lost its say when it refused to allow American troops to open a second front from the north.
Travis: Let Turkey decide if it wants to go to war with America.
We know that we've had a good alliance.. But there have been a few occasions which have given us Turks reason to save a few notes of suspicion.
Ivan, why is it that while the UK had been a guaranteur of the independence of Cyprus, she made no noise in the face of
Greek aggression and designs on that very independence? Also, why is it that London gave the PKK political cover? Even a broadcast lisence?
Travis, why is it that, even though we were supposed to be allies, the US blocked arms sales to Turkey to hamper her fight against terror during the 90s and is now
doing business with people who harbor those terrorists? Also, why is it that the terror organization I mentioned was able to demonstrate for months across from our embassy in DC?
Lay down with dogs, get up with flees, guys.. Sorry to say...
41
posted on
03/30/2003 5:31:13 PM PST
by
a_Turk
(After all the jacks are in their boxes, and the clowns have all gone to bed..)
To: a_Turk
Irrelevant. If Turkey wanted to ensure there was no such thing as an independent Kurdistan, they should have let the troops in. Now the Turkish government has no leverage whatsoever. We will do what victory demands, and damn the country or the individual (e.g., Chirac) that gets in the way.
Regards, Ivan
42
posted on
03/30/2003 5:33:26 PM PST
by
MadIvan
To: MadIvan
>> Irrelevant.
Hardly.
These things have a way of building up.
As far as leverage, that remains to be seen. We have a long way to go yet.
"Don't swing your legs before you mount the donkey."
43
posted on
03/30/2003 5:43:22 PM PST
by
a_Turk
(After all the jacks are in their boxes, and the clowns have all gone to bed..)
To: a_Turk
As far as leverage, that remains to be seen. We have a long way to go yet. Too late. Had you let the troops in, then there would be leverage. Now we have 70,000 Kurdish troops which can help open up the Northern front and will tear the Ba'athists to pieces, or we can "please" the Turkish government.
Anyone sensible will choose victory. I will take great pleasure in seeing the Kurds get their hands on Saddam's generals.
Ivan
44
posted on
03/30/2003 5:45:22 PM PST
by
MadIvan
To: MadIvan
Once Baghdad falls, Mosul, Kirkuk and Tikrit will just fold.
As for your newfound allies.. Their level of discipline is sure to embarras you, should you decide to use them.
As far as leverage, that remains to be seen. We have a long way to go yet.
45
posted on
03/30/2003 5:54:15 PM PST
by
a_Turk
(After all the jacks are in their boxes, and the clowns have all gone to bed..)
To: MadIvan
The Turks have forces in Iraq and more on the boder. That is leverage. I don't think they want the fields: just the oil coming from them.
46
posted on
03/30/2003 6:01:25 PM PST
by
RobbyS
To: RobbyS
>> I don't think they want the fields: just the oil coming from them.
Stealing the fields would violate the Lausanne treaty..
47
posted on
03/30/2003 6:06:32 PM PST
by
a_Turk
(After all the jacks are in their boxes, and the clowns have all gone to bed..)
To: a_Turk; Southack; Travis McGee
![](http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/images/0120-01.jpg)
Turks Protest Against and Threaten America after Taking Billions
48
posted on
03/30/2003 7:10:52 PM PST
by
eleni121
Comment #49 Removed by Moderator
To: a_Turk
More to the point, they don't need physically to possess the fields, anymore than we need to possess the fields in Mexico and Canada--or Iraq.
50
posted on
03/30/2003 7:36:20 PM PST
by
RobbyS
To: JackRyanCIA
>> What a third world hell hole!
That was the intent of the movie..
It's actually pretty nice.
There are similar movies about the USA circulating in Arabia..
51
posted on
03/30/2003 7:52:45 PM PST
by
a_Turk
(After all the jacks are in their boxes, and the clowns have all gone to bed..)
To: RobbyS
It has always been the position of Turkey that the fields should remain property of a unified Irak. If there's a free-for-all, Turkey suggests she'll insert herself.
52
posted on
03/30/2003 7:54:33 PM PST
by
a_Turk
(After all the jacks are in their boxes, and the clowns have all gone to bed..)
To: eleni121
HEY !
That guy in the middle swiped my "guess the name of the operation" pick, "operation Bushfire"
![](http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/images/0120-01.jpg)
Must be a lurker...
(whadda pri¢k!)
53
posted on
03/30/2003 8:21:03 PM PST
by
TLI
(Continuing the sporting tradition of "lights on in the kitchen, how many roaches can one stomp!")
To: a_Turk
Only time will tell.It's not as if they have so many other great options. They're our friends, and they have no choice in the matter.
54
posted on
03/30/2003 8:38:45 PM PST
by
xm177e2
(Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
To: xm177e2
>> They're our friends, and they have no choice in the matter.
Well, being from that part of the world, I choose not to count on the locals being rational thinkers.
Maybe the Kurds are the only rational people in the whole neighborhood.. That might be a possibility..
55
posted on
03/30/2003 8:46:15 PM PST
by
a_Turk
(After all the jacks are in their boxes, and the clowns have all gone to bed..)
To: a_Turk
Maybe the Kurds are the only rational people in the whole neighborhood.. That might be a possibility..As Samuel Johnson said, "Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully." The Iraqi Kurds don't have the luxury of taking to flights of fancy.
56
posted on
03/30/2003 9:06:23 PM PST
by
xm177e2
(Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
To: pkpjamestown
"Turkey has warned that it will intervene in northern Iraq in the event that the Kurdish peshmerga enter Mosul and Kirkuk."
Aren't the Kurds herein mentioned, Iraqi citizens? Aren't they effectively a militia force, warring against the forces of their oppressing dictator?
That being so, I'd classify their actions to be in alliance with the US led coalition, which has stated objective to keep intact Iraq's territorial integrity (keep present national borders).
If Turkey crosses over the border, to interfere, it is going against the US led coalition's objectives.
It would make matters very complex, to say the least. I cannot see a case for Turkey having ANY claim over Kirkuk, for it is part of Iraq.
Is Turkey playing poker with the Texan? Others have played, and lost.
To: a_Turk
Ok, I'll bite. Why exactly are the Kurds in Turkey throwing eggs and tomatoes at US troops?
To: a_Turk
"It has always been the position of Turkey that the fields should remain property of a unified Irak. If there's a free-for-all, Turkey suggests she'll insert herself."
Well they have been part of unified Iraq, and retaining that is the stated objective of the US led coalition, which Turkey has effectively obstructed.
Are you trying to say that Turkey intends to "insert herself" insofar as further obstructing the US led coalition, and its stated objective of maintaining a unified Iraq.
As one of the largest aid recipients, Turkey has already inflicted severe strain, to its relationship with the US. Pissing off one's benefactor isn't wise.
It sure isn't doing itself any more good, by implied (or real) threats. I know Turks aren't arabs, but I'm beginning to learn that their mental functions may bear a close relationship.
Maybe it is an islamic disability, which crosses racial lines.
A far more wise position would have been for Turkey to assist the US led coalition, with the quid pro quo of maintaining Iraq territorial integrity. The US would have honored such a deal.
Turkey isn't in such a great position to be making threats, now that they have betrayed the US. The best outcome for Turkey to redeem herself, would be to stop obstructing and threatening, and to start cooperating.
To: Citizen of the Savage Nation
>> Ok, I'll bite.
Heck if I know..
60
posted on
03/31/2003 4:19:02 AM PST
by
a_Turk
(After all the jacks are in their boxes, and the clowns have all gone to bed..)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-96 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson