Originally posted by khunmoon


First time we heard about German involvement on the intel front around Iraq, was earlier this year when the new German Foreign Secraritary Frank Walter Steinmeir, as former head of their intelligence service, had to answer for Germany's involvement allegedly sharing intel informations with the Americans up to the invasion of Iraq. I mean, Germany kept their hands clean, they didn't mindlessly join the willing.
What do they do in the Middle East?

Originally posted by mondegreen


I did not know that the kurds had a government that could be a go between to build a airport? What else can be there possibly Israeli military bases.
I believe that if Kurdistan was created as one nation that all the kurds could come to just like they did in israel, then neighbouring countries would regard this as a hostile act and it would destabilize the region. But, why is Israel pushing this too happen, is it to get the oil, or something else?

Originally posted by Regensturm
I'm glad you find the potential catastrophe arising from this amusing.

And so if sanctions are placed on Syria and Iran for supporting Hezbollah, to keep the balance of fairness,

Actually, Kurds follow many religions, Sunni Islam, Shia Islam, Christianity, Judaism among others.

This is a predominantly Nationalist movement.[/quiote]
Nationalism implies the support of the nation and the state, some groups in iraq fight for that, many others, such as those supported by iran, fight for islamic rule, which is NOT nationalist, its a theocratic position.

'Panadora's Box' or 'Opening The Gates Of Hell' are others to describe the invasion of Iraq.

They're others, but they're poor descriptors. If anyone opened the gates of hell, it was al qaida when it bombed the WTC and Pentagon.

The Kurds shall be the sacrifical lamb for creating a new front for Israel's enemies.

And out of their payment in blood their will get their nation and their protection from their own murderous enemies. Clearly its up to the kurds to decide what is in their bests interests. They've opted to work with the yehudis, rather than the iranians.

Originally posted by Nygdan
My, my, my, what a rose tinted view you have of anglo-yehudi training and equipping of armed groups! I would laugh if it was not so tragic!

A well armed and powerful kurdish army will mean that its enemies will be less likely to attack it. THis is precisely the logic that the iranians are using in their foreign policy, by becoming powerful militarily, it gives their enemies pause in deciding whether to attack them.

But what is Kurds killing Arabs and Iranians and Turks at the end of the day. Small fry. Their War. Let's care not a jot, right?

And now we're supposed ot be concerned about foreign powers fighting one another and commiiting atrocities against one another?
Glad to see that you support so ardently and passionately the basic premise and logic of President Bush's Global War on Terror, and more specifically that you are a strong supporter of the Iraq War.

Nevermind they were given the training and told where to point their guns.

The kurds will point their own guns at their own enemies. If someone, like hte iranians, have made both the kurds and the yehudis their enemy, then that was their own decision.

Just don't shout and cry when it all comes down on the Kurds like a ton of bricks.

I won't have to, because the kurds will have yehudi and probably american equipment, weapons, and support, to fight back that genocide.

The possibility of the massacre of the Kurds when Kurdistan tries to take shape is from the Kurds being within Iranian, Syrian, Turkish and Iraqi borders when they start to proclaim their state.

So, the villians aret the people seceeding from Iraq and creating their own state, not the turks, syrians, and iranians, for mass murdering the kurds in their own borders??

If the kurds of iraq want their own state, thats entirely up to them. The US and other nations should push them to not do this, as it will destabilize the region even further, but ultimately, its up to them. If their neighbhors decide to wipe out their internal kurds out of a fear over them starting their own seccesionist movement, then at least now the state of kurdistan will be well equipped enough to come to their rescue, because we know well enough that no one else is going to want to 'get involved'.

You have sectarian violence when you have Kurds in 4 different countries saying they want a Kurdistan.

That is up to the kurds of turkey, iraq, etc.

So it's okay for the Israelis to capitalise on this, and use the Kurds for a new front, and aggravate things further?

What you call aggrivation, they call an active defense. Indeed, you call it an aggrivation because the best interests of the israeli state don't coincide with your own best interests. Such is the way of nation-states, they are interested in their own people's needs.

Three years on from invasion, and Iraq is hardly under control.

They're not invading arabia, building WMD, or opposing the US on the international front, or engaging in acts of internal genocide anywhere near the scale of hussein's government, so who cares if its not under iron-fisted control.

If you think this is a good basis for invading Iran.....think again, do think again and learn.

If the iranians want to react to being defeated by the US by throwing their country into iraq like chaos, let them.

It's playing pawn with people's lives. If you don't see that as immoral and dangerous and stupid, I despair.

If you don't see that as a necessary factor in international politics, then I despair.

The Kurds are only important to the Israelis as far as creating a new front for Israel's enemies.

Indeed, an alignment of self-interests. People can be convinced and cajoled into working against their individual interests for some 'larger purpose', but those kinds of alliances are short lived, and usually cave to the more vital of the self-interests. If the yehudis and kurds are bound together by an allignment of self-interests, then you have a heck of a lot more stable relationship than some UN mediated comprimise or external hegemony.

Yes it is, but perhaps the Israeli's are whispering in their ears "Do it, do it, declare your independence, start your fight." and the Kurds started seeing and hearing visions of grandeur.

That is up to the kurds. If they go for nationhood, its not going to be anyone's responsibility other than theirs.

Either way, the Kurds will come in for hardship.

You think this is a new state of existence for them or something?

Who is more valuable to NATO in the present climate, [...]You decide.

Turkey wouldn't even let the US use its roads to send troops into iraq, and last I checked, the bulk of policing in afghanistan was done by americans and anglos, not turk contributions.
So no, Turkey ain't all that much of a benefit to NATO these days. Indeed, the Turks worked with NATO because they were the traditional enemies of the Russians, and NATO was an anti-soviet bloc, there was an alignement of self-interests. IF the kurds are a bulwark against a regionwide islamic caliphate, then there is again an alignment of self interests.
Indeed, which IS more important, a bloc against modern russia, or a block against the spread of islamic republics in the middle east?

Originally posted by khunmoon

23432, thank you for providing the information, I didn't know. But I do think it's only the rethorics of politic. And yes, in a state of war it would be in the interest of Turkey, to protect its territory and eventualy grab chance of expanding it.

Originally posted by Nygdan

What catastrophe? War in the middle east?? Heaven forbid even the thought that there might be war in the middle east. With this agreement, that war will end quicker, and preserve vast strectches of northern iraq. If you'd rather see it destroyed than have the kurds and jews work together, well thats a pretty odd opinion.

Originally posted by Nygdan
And now we're supposed ot be concerned about foreign powers fighting one another and commiiting atrocities against one another?
Glad to see that you support so ardently and passionately the basic premise and logic of President Bush's Global War on Terror, and more specifically that you are a strong supporter of the Iraq War.

Originally posted by Nygdan
They're not invading arabia, building WMD, or opposing the US on the international front, or engaging in acts of internal genocide anywhere near the scale of hussein's government, so who cares if its not under iron-fisted control.

Originally posted by 23432

Urging that if Iraq was divided, a civil war would erupt, Gul also noted that Turkey would protect the Kurds once again in the case of turmoil in the region, he said in an address at the meeting organized by the American-Turkish Association in New York.