War with Turkey?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7038762.stm

This should help.

 

War with Turkeys? Man....there goes Thanksgiving.





Oh....never mind.

 

Two NATO nations going to war? That'd be a first. I was wondering when this would happen. Perhaps the Kurds will break off and create Kurdistan. Then the Kurds in Turkey would have somewhere to go. The Turks would be happy, the Kurds would be happy. The rest of Iraq is too busy killing each other to even notice.

What the hell is the point of a bill recognising the killing of Armenians in Ottoman times as genocide? It's history. F@cking move on and stop being so self-righteous. It's not like we don't have blood on our hands.

 

If it can be proven that the Kurdish government (in that part of Iraq) has looked the other way, or even abetted the rebels, we should probably let the Turks kick a little butt up there for a few days. If not, Bush will be between a rock and a hard place. How can we let Turkey violate Iraqi "sovereignty" but not, say, Iran?

 

I fear we're moving closer to World War Three every day.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Oct 10 2007, 11:39 PM) [snapback]524056[/snapback]</div>

Nah. We'll be leaving shortly. Our position there is rapidly becoming completely untenable. It's gonna be ugly when we leave, but it's probably inevitable at this point. As an olive branch we should just extradite the current administration to the region and let the people there do whatever they think fit with that lot. It's really the only decent thing to do.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ 2007 10 10 22:49) [snapback]524058[/snapback]</div>

"Our" position was highly questionable a very long time ago. The hornets have left the nest, and will not be pacified by neocon heads on a platter now.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Oct 11 2007, 07:37 AM) [snapback]524054[/snapback]</div>

Really? Maybe you don't fully understand the politics of that region. The creation of a Kurdistan state is actually Turkey's biggest fear. They will actively resist against that with all possible means.

The long-term agenda of the PKK is to create a bigger-Kurdish territory, consisting of parts of Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria. The independence of the northeast part of Iraq as Kurdistan would certainly be the start of future territorial claims on parts of southeast Turkey.
Further on, the ethnic Kurdish part of Iraq has oil, and Turkey wants to avoid that the income of that somehow goes to the Kurds, because it would allow them to build a stronger position and a viable state. This is why Turkey will actively interfere with the internal politics in Iraq if the Kurds gain further power in their ethnic region.

This is one more nightmare scenario for the U.S. presence in Iraq: how to react if Turkey decides to intervene and knock down a Kurdish independence by military means? It is not an unlikely situation, since Turkey has said explicitly that they will do it if they feel the need.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Oct 11 2007, 12:01 AM) [snapback]524007[/snapback]</div>

The only thing this will help is maintain Congress's low approval ratings - and deservedly so. I am lost as to the point of this Bill.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Oct 11 2007, 01:37 AM) [snapback]524054[/snapback]</div>

Agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph except the blood on our hands - i cant recall an American based genocide.

Your first paragraph touches on a potential for great disaster there. I think that if we were to remove our forces from Iraq this conflict would ignite into a regional war involving multiple players - the first of which will be the Turks trying to resolve their "Kurdish" problem. You would quickly see Iran move into Iraq in greater numbers in order to extend its sphere of influence. You would then have all the reverberations of neighboring countries fearing the creation of a regional superpower - one that is chasing nuclear weapons - and this would force them into taking action. It would also threaten the stability of Kuwait, the UAE and other small entities in the region. To the North, back to the Kurds vs. "the kid" Turks - that conflict will draw in regional powers too. The destabilization and the aftershocks would be on the order of a major earthquake. It is my belief that Turkey never ever will allow a separate Kurdish State.

I am wondering why Turkey is moving now and whether or not they have some sort of implicit go-ahead from others??

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jack Kelly @ Oct 11 2007, 01:38 AM) [snapback]524055[/snapback]</div>

The Turks are not:
1. aiding in the death and destruction of American troops
2. aiding other terror groups like Hezbollah
3. calling for the destruction of sovereign States and members of the UN
4. enslaving their people and forcing sharia law on them
5. limiting freedom of the press, etc
6. stifling the voice of the people through not holding free elections
7. developing nuclear weapons
8. our direct adversaries - the Turks tend to be decent allies to the US and the West.

times up - gave myself 60 seconds to see how many things i could name. did i forget any??

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Oct 11 2007, 01:39 AM) [snapback]524056[/snapback]</div>

News Flash:

WWIV started about a decade ago give or take a decade - the "War on Terror". This i think must be viewed on a more global scale seeing how "Western" targets have been hit on nearly every continent.

WWIII tends to be viewed as the "Cold War".

And your point is well taken - we must be ever vigilant and pro-active given the availability and increasing availability of WMD's.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Oct 11 2007, 01:49 AM) [snapback]524058[/snapback]</div>

Even the Democratic candidates dont want to pull our forces out - and good arguments can be made as to our increasing success there. I am now waiting for a Walter Cronkite moment where the liberals or democrats or neo-communists try to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory - al-Qaeda is undoubtedly trying to create their own "Tet-Offensive" - they would also love to be able to suffer a huge military defeat as long as they can get a victory via our 5th column folks - the press, moveon.org, dailykos, etc....

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Oct 11 2007, 02:02 AM) [snapback]524060[/snapback]</div>

its our neo-communists here that are striving for an American defeat now. Thankfully, the current crop of democratic presidential nominees are stating that they dont want to withdraw american forces from iraq.

 

i agree even, all his posts are negative and name calling, thats what neo cons do..lol..he doesnt have a prius and i'm not sure why the hell he posts all this crap on a car chat site, i think he's a troll and maybe its because he has found an audience here and not on hummerchat

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lefat1 @ Oct 11 2007, 11:44 AM) [snapback]524110[/snapback]</div>

soory, i meant evan

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lefat1 @ Oct 11 2007, 11:45 AM) [snapback]524110[/snapback]</div>

i meant sorry, having a dick lecsick moment

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Oct 11 2007, 08:51 AM) [snapback]524108[/snapback]</div>

Evan:

1. I do not consider thousands of people killed genocide
2. The American government was not behind slavery and in fact slavery was not a "white-only" event as you are aware. Slaves who died on their "journey" here was not KILLED intentionally - in fact the goal was to deliver them alive not dead... not genocide here either
3. i am not aware of the American government killing Japanese Americans here either - so no genocide
4. not close here either - in fact our enemies target innocent civilians not our boys.
so 4 for 4 here are no go's in terms of genocide.

I did not call one person a name. the term neocon or neocommunist or liberal or conservative is not calling a single person a derogatory name. if you are telling me that neocon or neocommunist should not be used as a rule of thumb here - fine. You will also have to list for me acceptable descriptive terms that can be employed in a conversation.

you definition of neo-nazi is a stretch here - .

David

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lefat1 @ Oct 11 2007, 11:46 AM) [snapback]524110[/snapback]</div>

Here is the difference....

He specifically sets his sights with his comments on me - fine - i dont mind being called a neocon - i dont believe in the term and realize it holds water with only those that subscribe to its inherent definition(s) - definitions that are self created and self serving. Heck, neocommunist is a term i came across recently being used in a way as a counterbalance to neocon. again a descriptive term not an attack on an individual - like being called a troll or doberman.

He casts a broad brush by saying "all his posts are negative and name calling" - an obvious lie and attack on my character.

Furthermore, he decides to act manly by joining a moderator's post and piling on me -

He calls me a "troll" which is a direct attack again on me - a term i believe i have NEVER used although it has been slung my way numerous times - as evidenced here again.

He obviously does not understand the role of FHOP too given this post.

Anyhow, i find it amusing in any event.

 

if u find it amusing then i have accomplished my task, just lighten up a bit, its all meaningless!!!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Oct 11 2007, 01:37 AM) [snapback]524054[/snapback]</div>

Isn't this one of the 'bad' scenarios that would occur if the only thing that is holding Iraq together at this point (the US military) departs?

Isn't the vaunted 'domino theory of Iraq' that an all-out civil war there would ultimately result in the disolution of Iraq as a country with it's three disparate ethnic groups (Kurdish, Shi'a, and Sunni), all creating their own separate states?

Then, since those individual countries would be too weak to defend themselves, they would quickly be absorbed by those respective countries that border Iraq: Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia/Syria/Jordan.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rudiger @ Oct 11 2007, 10:20 AM) [snapback]524122[/snapback]</div>

That's always possible, but it has always been possible, anywhere.

Vtie. I know. However, it could also solve a lot of their problems if done right. It seems to me that it would make it a lot easy for them to control the Kurds in some ways. They could also offer a good deal for a pipeline, that kurdish oil is pretty useless without one, and make money that way.

At this point we need to step back and let these people sort out their region. The current situation is nether natural or stable and we can't be involved in fixing it. Not now. If we'd spent half a trillion dollars trying to figure out how to make oil obsolete we wouldn't need to care what goes on there. In fact, that should be our highest priority. Not only will it vastly strengthen our security, it would be a path to a better world. We, and everyone else, wouldn't have to sell out our principles for hydrocarbons. But that's another story.

Evan, don't forget the Phillipines circa 1900. We killed about 250K people in 4 years.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rudiger @ Oct 11 2007, 12:20 PM) [snapback]524122[/snapback]</div>

You lost me. What do you think would happen if the US abruptly withdrew its forces from Iraq?

 

We're not the world's police force any longer; it's painfully clear to everyone --even some Americans-- that we'll reliably act on our own self-interest as much as any nation.

At what point will we say, "you know, I don't think sending fancy fighter planes and carrier groups over there is going to do the trick," and think more about our actions here at home...specifically, those which might make us stronger economically, as well as a less inviting target.

This "the best defense is a good offense" tactic is not working, and hasn't worked for the USA since the mid 1940's.

Perhaps we ought to (if you'll pardon the phrase) choose our battles a bit more carefully. Acknowledging limits is essential to our survival; it's also part of leaving one's childhood behind.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 11 2007, 09:13 AM) [snapback]524116[/snapback]</div>

First of all, it was not thousands, but at a minimum hundreds of thousands.

Modern estimates are that 1.1 to 1.8 million of the Ottoman Empire's 2.5 million Armenians perished during a massive campaign of killing orchestrated by the Young Turks.

Surely you would have considered this to be a genocide had the victims been Jewish.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 11 2007, 01:31 PM) [snapback]524185[/snapback]</div>

Exactly what is happening now: Turmoil, erosion of infrastructure, a power vacuum that's too easily filled by violence...that's the way it was, that's the way it is, and no amount of American Dollars or number of soldiers' lives will change this dynamic.

I think you continue to give the power of violence and the military solution *waaay* too much credit, especially in today's target-less conflicts.

-------

Since we're there now, and since no one can agree what will happen if we leave, are you suggesting that we have to stay there until...what...?

-------

Next: the USA determines that the official definition of genocide is "the killing of XX,XXX number of people within XX number of days" or like that. Then, we can quantify any transgressions and punish our enemies...I mean, the transgressors, whomever they are...

This is great..."I don't consider killing a few thousand people genocide."

I'm repeating those words to myself a few times, just to see if I like the sound of them more or less...