Aileron Posted October 26, 2007 Report Posted October 26, 2007 There has been news recently of Turkey starting to pursue "Kurdish rebels" into Iraq. They have come up short of a ground invasion, but are still behaving aggressively. My two cents: As an American, I think Turkey has finally reached the status of "liability". Throughout Operation Iraqi Freedom the Kurds have represented the most stabilizing force in Iraq. While the Sunnis and Shi'ites want some kind of Islamic revolution, the Kurd's goal wherever they are geographically is simply equal citizenship. The Kurdish population has been divided between Iraq, Iran and Turkey. For thousands of years they have been fighting whichever authority was present because they all wanted the Kurds to convert to either Sunni or Shi'ite Islam depending upon the religion of the authority. Because of their goals, they've been extremely pro-coalition, and have a big interest in true Iraqi democracy. There hasn't been any instances of Kurdish based violence in Iraq post-Saddam, and those populations have generated the least corrupt and most sane soldiers for the new Iraqi military. Their only weakness is a higher than average female population because Saddam Hussein's non-existent WMDs have wiped out most of the men in the early 90s. Turkey did not offer any support for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Their concern was that if the Kurds in Iraq were ever let out from under Hussein's thumb, that the Kurds in Turkey might want equal rights as well. That prediction was correct. I'd say we should support Iraq in this case. With the Cold War over, we have little benefit in maintaining the alliance with Turkey, but many reasons to support the Kurds. First off, as stated above they are very supportive of a democratic Iraq. Secondly, they also have a large population in Iran, that are also on the brink of demanding equal rights and could prove very usefull when trying to stop Iran from developing its nuclear program. Finally, its a long shot but if all of the Iraqis started viewing themselves as Iraqis repelling a Turkish threat rather than squabbling gangs, then they might unite together against it.
Confess Posted October 27, 2007 Report Posted October 27, 2007 Im not too informative on the turkish relationship....however, at first glance, for the simple fact that they wouldnt support us with Iraqi Freedom, they shouldnt be in Iraq as it is an invasion on their behalf, and it is technicolly "US/German/Canadian/etc Juristiction" atm. I dont know if Turkey is part of the UN (i think it is?) but they werent part of the people that helped free Iraq, and thus need to get their butts out...before we take action. To me, it'd be no worse then Iran coming into Iraq and start killing off people. Our goal is to not kill those in there, but to create a democracy where everything is done similiar to the way in the US. But, all in all, It comes down to what the Iraqi's want. It is their country, and so far they have shown little effort towards taking it back and rebuilding. I personally believe that the reason we are in Iraq is not to free them (although certainly that is one of the effects), but to establish a stronghold in the middle east, so that we can finally help settle issues. Which includes attacking Iran.
JDS Posted October 27, 2007 Report Posted October 27, 2007 free iraq? are you !@#$%^&*ting me? you mean destroy iraq for there own selfish needs go turkey
masscarnage Posted October 27, 2007 Report Posted October 27, 2007 (edited) turkey does need to get out, but im with aileron i think it should be done by the iraqi's which should unify them as IRAQI's not sunni's or shia's, which should then help things out in the long run because if they can see them selves comming together to protect their country then they might be able to finally settle their differences. and confess, im thinkin that unless someone just as crazy, or more lookin at the repub candidates, becomes president you wont see anything close to what your thinking. What your thinkin is pretty much what a side effect of bush's clean up daddy's mess brought about and is only shameful imperialism that is no different from russia claiming the north pole, and will lead to everyone scrambling around trying to conquer the world again. BUUT as we'se seen with the democratic majority in congress unless we get a democrat with some balls elected i dont see any changes at all, man some people are pansies Edited October 27, 2007 by masscarnage
SeVeR Posted October 27, 2007 Report Posted October 27, 2007 I personally believe that the reason we are in Iraq is not to free them (although certainly that is one of the effects), but to establish a stronghold in the middle east, so that we can finally help settle issues. Which includes attacking Iran. Why should we attack Iran? I really don't care if Turkey goes into Iraq or not. They have a right to defend their borders, as do Iran.
Aileron Posted October 27, 2007 Author Report Posted October 27, 2007 The Democrats can't have president because they have no platform. All they are currently is simply anti-Republican. The Democrating Congress is doing nothing because without Republicans to criticise they have no idea what to do. For the same reason I wouldn't vote for any of the Democratic candidates for president, because when Bush is gone, they won't have anybody to be against and will be at a loss for what to do. mass if you haven't figured it out yet, Bush Jr. is a much more powerfull figure than his father was. Face it, Bush Sr. was a whishy-washy vice president whe never really got beyond Reagan's shadow. If by 'finished his daddy's war' you mean 'Nuetralized a hostile en!@#$%^&*y that his two predecessors failed to deal with', then you would be correct. Turkey isn't really 'protecting their borders' as much as 'stopping a revolution'. The major meat of the organization opposing them comes from their own Kurdish citizens. Still, those organizations use Iraq as a safe haven to get supplies from. I do view that Turkey is taking the appropriate action by pursuing the rebels into Iraq. It has been proven enough times in history to show that proper defense against guerilla warfare does involve crossing some line on a map once in a while. However, my point is: we should want the rebels to win. I don't stand for invasion of Iran; I stand for diplomacy with Iran. However, in real life, fuctional diplomacy between half-hostile parties has little to do with sitting at tables and creating idle chatter and more to do with threats and blackmail. The Kurds can become a threat to Iran. Alternate ideas are very dangerous to a theocracy. If we support the Kurds now, they would support us later when we need to talk to Iran.
AstroProdigy Posted October 29, 2007 Report Posted October 29, 2007 Ok let's not turn this into an election debate. This is an issue of what Turkey does to Kurds not politics and let's not meddle up a clear right versus wrong issue with American politics. First off to Sever Turkey has a right to treat the largest portion of the Kurdish population like !@#$%^&*? Turkey just can't stand Kurds governing themselves because they always !@#$%^&*umed Kurds were just animals and how can animals govern themselves? If you think countries have a right to their own borders regardless of what they do to segments of their population then why does Turkey have a right to go into Iraq begging for an excuse to firebomb the North to try to destroy all the work Kurds have painstakingly done on the heels of a near annihilation from Saddam? The fact is that Iran actually treats Kurds better than Turkey. Iran has no quarrels about Kurdish culture. Kurds are allowed to be Kurds there, but as (mostly) Sunnis Iran distrusts them. They also have a lack of democratic representation rights because running an ethnic party is seen as anti-Iranian. Turkey on the other hand has denied Kurds even existed up until the 90s under strong European pressure. You see Turkey loves to deny things it doesn't like such as their steadfast denial of the Armenian genocide, a genocide that inspired Hitler. Anyway, To them Kurds should not exist. They should be Turks or else they're criminals. Up until recently speaking Kurdish would be prosecuted in Turkey. A female Kurdish politician in the Turkish Parliament said "may Turks and Kurds live in peace" in Kurdish and was condemned as a separatist and sent to prison. Today you can speak Kurdish, but anything that can be even slightly construed as "insulting Turkishness" such as what I found out having a swimming pool that looked too similar to a map of Kurdistan will be prosecuted. The Kurds don't want to live with Turkey because Turks are raised to despise Kurds who don't become Turks. Turkey is talking of incursions into Iraq because the PKK, a Kurdish separatist organization, has been doing to them what Iraqis have been doing to us and run back into the mountains of northern Iraq. The reason the Kurdish Regional Government doesn't try to stop them is that they are rightfully popular among Iraqi Kurds; one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If they did not only would it be near impossible to dislodge a force that lives in difficult mountain terrain, but it would be the undoing of the Kurdistan Regional Government because it is democratic and the people would not be happy. Now you understand why things are the way they are here. Frankly ever since the end of the Cold War Turkey has gone from an anti-communist !@#$%^&*et to a meddling Middle Eastern liability. They would be a liability if we invaded Iran or Syria too. Their interests are going to continually run counter to ours so why are we still beating this dead horse we call an alliance? People make the argument that this would turn Turkey towards the Middle East, but what they've ignored is that the Middle East at best doesn't like Turkey and at worst hates Turkey. Turkey has a reputation stemming from the Ottoman Empire of being imperialist and countries that were formerly in the Ottoman Empire are wary of them. Iran hates what they stand for as well nor do they appreciate the role Turkey is itching to play of dislodging the Azeris, who are a rare example of how to treat a minority right, from Iran. I'm not sure how it happened, but I almost completely agree with Aileron here except for one point. You will never win this type of guerrilla war without winning over the people. As long as Turkey treats the Kurds like an inferior culture to be snuffed out and keep them impoverished the support for the guerrilla war will never end short of a genocide. The fact is the Kurds are the best ally in the Middle East today that Turkey once was during the Cold War. They are smack in the middle of it all and would be a very strong supporter of whatever US interests are simply as a matter of self preservation. They also are naturally inclined to be secularist whereas Turkey needs to force it on their people in order for it to last. That means a lot. The Kurds reject extremists in Islam because their oppressors are Muslims of various creeds. We could use the Kurds as a bargaining chip while at the same time aiding in their development. If Turkey wants to stop us all we need to do is cut off all aid to their military that we've been giving to prop it up and demolish their American maid air force. Then we don't need to occupy all of Turkey, simply the Kurdish part extending to a port in the Mediterranean from which we have permanent access to the heart of the Middle East. Keep in mind that only Turkey has a vital interest in stopping Kurdish independence. Syria and Iran have much smaller portions of Kurdistan and this we could conceivably make a deal with them. To Syria we can trade a poor province in the Northeast where they have the biggest trouble for the highly profitable city of Antioch that historically belongs to them and was stolen by Turkey. To Iran we can take the Sunni part of Kurdistan that they don't want anyway because Iran is a Shiite state and trade them the Shiite Iraq that loves Iran anyway. We shouldn't see Iran and Syria as enemies. In fact we should slowly work to flip our alliance from one fundamentalist and one secularist country (Saudi Arabia and Turkey) to another (Iran and Syria). The oil Saudi Arabia has is found in the Shiite northeast strip that belongs with Shiite Arabs in Mesopotamia anyway and on top of that Iran could exert influence over the oil rich and Shiite Azerbaijan too. I know most of you haven't had the patience to read up to here, but all I'm saying is American interests are not well served with a Cold War mentality and flipping our support to the other side would give us monumentally greater potential. It is morally justified in finally freeing the Kurds of foreign oppression, economically justified in the potential to have access to the vast majority of the oil in the Middle East found in Kurdistan, Shiite Arab lands, and the Caspian Sea, logistically justified in switching our support from the outskirts of the Middle East to it's very center, and militarily justified because flipping support from one side to another is called divide and conquer and that is the most powerful strategy ever invented.
SeVeR Posted October 29, 2007 Report Posted October 29, 2007 Don't get me wrong, i support the Kurdish cause for independence. I just think that when a group of Kurds attacks Turkey, then Turkey have a right to attack back. Also thanks for mentioning two more minority groups that are treated with respect in Iran (the first being the Jews). America would have us believe Iranians are racist, anti-semitic, m!@#$%^&* murderers.
Aileron Posted October 29, 2007 Author Report Posted October 29, 2007 Well, Iran is still a bunch of fundimentalists Shi'ites who are also meddling with Iraq and are the force behind the attacks on Israel. I would say that Israel is still more usefull than Iran. Dropping Saudi Arabia and Turkey only to pick up Syria and Iran would not be an improvement. I wouldn't entirely say that we should drop Saudi Arabia either. Yes, they are the most backwards nation in the Middle East, possibly the world. However, domestically they are torn between pro-west and anti-west factions, the latter of which is responsible for the more fundimentalist domestic policies. If we dropped support, the pro-west factions would die out, and the anti-west factions would just get worse. I can't say I like the status quo, but dropping support for Saudi Arabia is not a solution. Fundimentally, the choice of allies involves which allies would serve our interests the best. If our interests were to bring about 'stability', pull all support out of the Middle East as soon as possible, and pretend their historical streak of violence won't happen again and won't spread, then Iran would be a good choice. However, I believe our goal isn't to bring 'stability', but to destabilize a system that will routinely rage war in its stable state, and replace it with a system that has balance and democracy, and that's where we wouldn't want Iran as an ally. Yes, Iran wants short-term peace, but they will always want their neighbors to convert to Shi'ite Islam. Its good to see people thinking about this. JDS' rash comments on the subject scare me.
JDS Posted October 29, 2007 Report Posted October 29, 2007 well really.. what is usa doing in other country's buisness do they think they have the 'right' to influence everyone?
SeVeR Posted October 29, 2007 Report Posted October 29, 2007 (edited) Yes, Iran wants short-term peace, but they will always want their neighbors to convert to Shi'ite Islam. A rather rash !@#$%^&*umption seeing as Iran won't even convert their own people to Shia Islam! What evidence do you have to back up your claim that Iran will inevitably try to convert neighboring countries to Shia Islam? Is your belief a symptom of America's media tactics, which paint a rather distasteful picture of Islam? Edited October 29, 2007 by SeVeR
jacob hunter! Posted October 29, 2007 Report Posted October 29, 2007 rofl jds dont mess with the big boys in this discussion rofl... your a stoner
Aileron Posted October 29, 2007 Author Report Posted October 29, 2007 I'd say the history of Hamas would serve as the example. Its predecessor, the PLO, was mostly a secular organization. Israel and the PLO had managed to reach a peace agreement. Suddenly, Iran started funding Hamas. Iran in turn made sure that Hamas was a Shi'ite organization. The agreement between Israel and the PLO wasn't good enough for Hamas, so Hamas resumed terrorist activity. Point being, Palestine was secular and on the road to a two-state solution, but Iran swooped in and replaced the major party with Shi'ite fundimentalists who want to 'wipe Israel off the map'. Similarly, Lebanon was fast moving towards democracy, then Iran swooped in and funded the Shi'ite fundimentalists Hezbollah, who are currently demanding that the democratic government step down. Finally, you have Iraq, where Iran is giving weapons to Shi'ite groups in order to kill Sunnis.
JDS Posted October 30, 2007 Report Posted October 30, 2007 rofl jds dont mess with the big boys in this discussion rofl... your a stoner what the !@#$%^&* is that suposed to mean, your just an idiot
AstroProdigy Posted October 30, 2007 Report Posted October 30, 2007 Hamas is a Sunni organization for one. Iran is also allied with a rival Shia sect that controls Syria. The fact is that what Iran wants is respect. Remember Iran is basically the successor of the Persian Empire. THE PERSIAN EMPIRE PEOPLE!! They have the numbers and the religious influence required to be a major regional power and while the US at first helped them greatly and they wanted to cooperate with us because of it, we (Bush) basically slapped them in the face and now they're exerting their influence in any way they can. Hamas was elected democratically in a free and fair election so you can hardly say Hamas is just a puppet. The same goes for Hezbollah. The only reason they survive such strict opposition from the major powers is because they have massive support from their people. The point being that Palestinians themselves chose not to continue on the path that was started with the renewed cooperation between Israel and the PLO. It was completely Democratic as was the election of Ahmedinejad and we really need to acknowledge that. Palestinians didn't want a messed up solution where Israel keeps all the most fertile terrain in the West Bank and the water resources along with the city of Jerusalem that is their only real choice for a plausible capital. Lebanon wasn't headed towards jack !@#$%^&*. It's permanently locked in bitter sectarian tensions and nothing short of a Syrian occupation would change that. The Shiites represent Shiites, the Sunnis represent Sunnis, the Christians represent Christians and only the Druze represent Lebanese interests as a whole. Keep in mind the Druze pride themselves in loyalty of whatever state they're in and they only comprise 5% of the population. The point is that Lebanon is divided and even without Iran that division would still be there and you can't possibly expect Syria to stay out of Lebanese affairs seeing as the existence of Lebanon as separate from Syria is entirely a French colonial move created as a Christian majority state that will never be a Christian majority state and is, therefore, defunct. I agree Hezbollah's attacks on Israel were total !@#$%^&* done for the sake of Iran, but Shiites only have fellow Shiites to help them here. As for democracy being served here, Lebanon is run on a completely undemocratic system and if the system were based on true democracy then Hezbollah, along with half the Christians who support them would likely win. As for Iraq, what Iran is doing there is destabilizing and hurts our interests, but then again we're threatening them and they're just doing what they can to hurt us. Sunnis have a history of oppressing Shiites in Iraq and on top of that there are still suicide bombers killing 100 Shiites at a time. They have also bombed and virtually destroyed one of Shiite Islam's holiest sites. If someone bombed Mecca or Medina what would happen? How about the Vatican or the Wailing Wall? This is a sectarian battle and if Shiites didn't fight it Sunnis would kill them. I agree the US should stop the violence by creating greater local control and regions for the different groups to be safe, but that's something Bush would not be willing to do for some reason. We share a lot of the blame here. The Kurds already have their own control and look how great that's turning out? You've also had the region ethnically cleansed so much by now that regions would be plausible without facing too many people on the wrong side. The problem isn't Iran. The problem is false borders and incoherent US policies that have allowed ethnic and religious tensions to thrive.
NBVegita Posted October 30, 2007 Report Posted October 30, 2007 They have the numbers and the religious influence required to be a major regional power and while the US at first helped them greatly and they wanted to cooperate with us because of it, we (Bush) basically slapped them in the face and now they're exerting their influence in any way they can. Statements like that astound me. Since the 79" hostage crisis, bombings, and lord knows how many events since then, we've been on bad terms with Iran. Clinton even enacted an economic embargo on them in 1995. m(http://www.ladas.com/BULLETINS/1995/1195Bulletin/Iran_EconomicEmbargo.html)
Aileron Posted October 30, 2007 Author Report Posted October 30, 2007 Yes, but the reason why Hamas and Hezbollah are so popular is because they do a lot of social welfare activities. The reason they can afford to do those activities is because Iran is funding them. That's standard missionary tactics - send agents to a foreign country, give them funds, have the missionaries donate the funds to the poor, and the missionaries gain converts. The thing that's unique here is that after the missionaries get their converts, they get them to keep restarting the same war over and over. I admit this takes a very high understanding of good and evil to identify this. But one thing about evil and evil people is that their first order of business is to emulate good people, for the purpose of confusing their possible enemies. Otherwise they would be identified and defeated quickly. Here the emulation is in the form of social programs, but the glaring identifier is the fact that these groups keep starting the same war. Your statistics admit that 90% of Iran is Shi'ite. They also admit that Shi'ite Islam is the official state religion of Iran, so Iran doesn't believe in seperation of church and state. If they are even close to a pluracracy, then about 90% of Iranian Law is based upon Sharia Law, based upon the fact that 90% of the population's views are Shi'ite views, and there is no compunction about using religious views as official policy. Sharia Law is consistant with tolerating other religions to a point, but it will also brand them as infidels. But we have digressed. As for the question of whether or not Iran is radical enough to prompt radical action at this time, the answer is no or atleast not yet. However, Astro's suggestion isn't about "not invading" Iran, this is about forming some sort of alliance with Iran. So, the question would not be "What proof do we have that they are?", it is "What proof do we have that they are not?" If we wanted to form an alliance with them, we would have to absolutely positively trust them. Based upon past behavior, if we sold Iran a bunch of Abrams tanks, Iran would give them to Hezbollah and the next time we would see them, they'd be the spearhead of some attack on Israel, which would quickly destroy our alliance with them (as if the alliance with Iran wouldn't have). Or, they could be given to some Shi'ite faction in Iraq, which would use them on some Sunni faction, and then the Sunnis ask us why they are being attacked by American made tanks. You don't form alliances with people you kinda-sorta-think-they-won't-turn-on-you, you form alliances with nations which you are absolutely trustworthy. I mean, the concept of being allies with Iran is insane. Whether or not we want to be hostile towards them is debatable, but we don't want to be friendly towards them.
AstroProdigy Posted October 30, 2007 Report Posted October 30, 2007 Statements like that astound me. Since the 79" hostage crisis, bombings, and lord knows how many events since then, we've been on bad terms with Iran. Clinton even enacted an economic embargo on them in 1995. m(http://www.ladas.com/BULLETINS/1995/1195Bulletin/Iran_EconomicEmbargo.html)And after 9/11 they offered us peace and cooperation because we were attacked by the people they hate too and we went ahead and destroyed their two biggest enemies in the Middle East: Click Here. We went ahead and continued on with the rhetoric and embargoes anyway and refused cooperation. For Aileron:The reason Hamas and Hezbollah are so popular is because they offer a lot of social services that otherwise would NOT be offered and they attack a popular enemy. This is not missionary work as no one is converting their religion. The US sends financial and other support to organizations we support ALL THE TIME! Why is the US special? If anything Iran has more of a right in participating in Middle East politics than the US because it's actually part of the Middle East. I agree that Iran is a very oppressive country, but the only way to really defeat that is if the masses in Iran reject it and oust the theocracy. As long as we act as the antagonist and impoverish the people there they will unite against us. The funny thing is Iranians like America more than the French do and would love to be partners with us in the Middle East. There are countries with a state religion that are not oppressive, however, and while I agree Iran should be more tolerant towards other religious views I absolutely reject the notion that Iran should not have a vested interest in protecting Shiites and being a proponent of Shia Islam. If we become willing to ally with Iran then they absolutely cannot have nuclear weapons. We expect the same thing from countries like Turkey and Saudi Arabia. However as long as our only offer to Iran is annihilation they will never want to cooperate. We don't have to form a friendly alliance right away. All we need to do is work towards warming our relations with them and then see where things go from there. We might just become a neutral party with Iran, but then at least we still get the trading relations and thus the oil as well as help with any Shiite population if we cut a deal with them. Imagine if Shiites stopped attacking us in Iraq and all we had to focus on was a Sunni Arab insurgency that we could largely phase out by giving them local autonomy from the central authority in Baghdad and the possibility of an autonomous Sunni state. THAT is the solution to the quagmire in Iraq. Also think of what would happen to Hamas if Israel started offering a fair solution to the PLO and at the same time Iran cut it's support from Hamas. Poof no more Hamas or at the very least we'd force Hamas to be reasonable. Don't forget that Iran is a mostly Shiite non Arab state and thus has little forced interest in Palestine. Their interests are voluntary and thus like Turkey they aren't ethnically forced to be popularly the enemies of Israel.
NBVegita Posted October 30, 2007 Report Posted October 30, 2007 And after 9/11 they offered us peace and cooperation because we were attacked by the people they hate too and we went ahead and destroyed their two biggest enemies in the Middle East: Click Here. We went ahead and continued on with the rhetoric and embargoes anyway and refused cooperation. I've read similar things to this prior to this argument. But in this instance I take a stance similar to severs on religion. It's not that I deny that such a proposal exists(ed), I just can't personally believe the proposal with all of the "sources" unable to be named. It would even be a larger concern to me if it had been made more public, but with all of the enemies of the conservatives/republicans/bush administration, if this were in fact true, it would be cannon fodder for the democrats/liberals, SPECIALLY with the primaries and the presidential elections coming up. Of course all of the top democrats and republicans seem against diplomacy with Iran, so it might fall on deaf ears.
AstroProdigy Posted October 30, 2007 Report Posted October 30, 2007 I agree with the last sentence there. Also when this was being offered it was 2003 and since then we've basically thrown that away and will need to try a lot harder to get cooperation again. When Obama said to talk with Iran he was attacked within his own party and with the likely candidates for the Democratic and Republican tickets I seriously don't see it happening. Maybe Hillary could give in to her own party's pressure if things get really bad and the Democrats push for it, but Guliani would rather nuke Iran than cooperate. It's too bad because we could have access to ALL the remaining Middle East oil that we aren't getting or are barely getting access to. On top of that we could use Shiites and a few choice allies to keep the Middle East under wraps. It's not like Saudi Arabia stops the attacks that hit us where it hurts anyway (terrorism) and Turkey will never be the ally they once were anyway. At best they'd side with Europe against us and at worst they'll take a pan Turkic stance on all issues and seriously mess things up.
JDS Posted November 3, 2007 Report Posted November 3, 2007 america is like a big hand it sticks out of USA like .. a big hand and goes places people do not want it to go (iraq, turkey, pretty much anywhere... gtfo america leave us alone were none of your buisness) when i find the time i will make a sign 'no american "aide" is wanted here' and put it on my lawn.
darkhosis Posted December 19, 2007 Report Posted December 19, 2007 Well, they have now... as i'm sure ya'll have read. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ational/Africa/ there's an article about it... they also had the bombing on Sunday..
SeVeR Posted December 19, 2007 Report Posted December 19, 2007 I've read reports that say Turkey has been pursuing the PKK into northern Iraq for months. I'm not sure if this latest incident is anything new.
Recommended Posts