It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Little Problems They Failed To Tell Us About

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 04:49 PM
So you want to know what "TROUBLE" really is?


As yet not widely reported the Kurds of Northern Iraq have suspended their unilateral cease fire with Turkey, and at the same time reasserted their right to establish an independent and democratic free state.

This is a disturbing incident, following soon after, American movement in granting Iraqi sovereignty. This event creates an escalation of tensions in an area already at flash point.

To follow the obvious and progressive steps this action may precipitate and will provide the Bush Administration’s one of its most dangerous international dilemma since the Iraq war:

Kurdish assertion of a free and independent state technically creates a state of civil war within the new and almost sovereign state of Iraq; it also pits the Kurds against Turkey.

If the Kurds attack Turkey, a state of war exists and automatically triggers NATO’s “attack on one is an attack on all” clause of mutual defense; given our support of the new government of Iraq and out commitment to protect the state we would find ourselves technically at war with ourselves.

A condition which - impossible in any other Administration - not out of possibility given our current leadership.

Dismissing the insanity of that “oddity”, It leave the USA committed to suppression of the Kurds desire for a free and independent country by attacking the only free and functioning unit in Iraq.

It seem to me that it takes colossal intelligence to have arrived at this position or stupidity of beyond measure.

I look forward eagerly to hear the spin the Administration puts on this one. The Talking Points will have to be top class sophistry even to pass the smell test.

posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 06:21 PM
I think if they want to be indepandent let them, but try to prevent war though.

posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 06:32 PM
Since the Iraq war the Kurds has been in their littler part of the country with no problems like the rest of Iraq showing the world that they do not want any part of it.

To me they are already a country and all they need is US money to get their economy going.

posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 06:38 PM
This is one of those little blow-back consequences that the Administration should have been better prepared for. There is no way, no way, that Turkey will go along with sovereignty for the Kurds. They made it perfectly clear that if the Kurds attempt a separate state, they'll invade.

You'd think Turkey would, using current borders would want a Kurdish homeland. It would solve the Kurk problem for them at home through immigration.

posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 06:48 PM
Kurdistan - Turkey []

The PKK cause was not helped by the Kurds of Iraq, who depended on Turkey to keep their enclave protected from the forces of Iraqi president Saddam Husayn. In October 1992, Iraqi Kurds and the Turkish army carried out a joint offensive against PKK bases in Iraqi Kurdistan, forcing the surrender of more than 1,000 PKK fighters.

Even reading that, I'm not surprised by Turkey's position. I don't think they'd want their territorial integrity to depend on the goodwill of Iraqi Kurds, which could evaporate if unrest provoked a crackdown on Turkey's Kurds (relative to the current situation obviously). Some could say that crackdown would be unlikely given talks on joining the EU, but it isn't a given that the EU will accept Turkey, and why would Turkey take that chance?

posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 08:36 PM
I've stopped guessing the "what ifs" any more.........The "how the hell did we get here" defies the most gifted of fictionists.......... (Standing mute with jaw agape ………)

Fair to say tinder box............power keg?????????????

What a mess!

posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 08:59 PM
It just keeps getting better and better, there was absolutely no planning for this fiasco at all. Start a second offensive without finishing up Afghanistan, go in with halve the troops that were originally called for without enough equipment even for them and then no plan for afterwords.

posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 09:03 PM
Ya hear!

Were pulling troops out of Korea and Germany to fill the gap.........

Who needs planning? A damed Waste of good paper..........

posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 09:35 PM
If the aim of the war was to establish US friendly Iraqi government to secure some control over the oil supplies, and that ends up looking impossible to achieve, is it possible the west have a back-up strategy to induce the country to split, through cival war, into three separate Kurdistan in the north, Shiastan(?) in the south and Sunnistan(??) in the west.

An independant Kurdistan would be oil rich, in a geographically/strategically important position, and be courted intensely by all the superpowers and would-be's. If it did become indepentant it would be interesting to see what happened.

Would a three state solution work?

posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 09:45 PM
I've posted this link a few times in the past, but it's a good article for basic understanding of the tensions concerning terriority in the Middle East, particularly Saddams reasoning for invading Kuwait. It's about the last time we carved up the region, in the 1920's. The link's a little old and seems to have got a little 'deformed' over time, but it might just be my browser.

posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 10:02 PM
Sounds like a good Idea but with in this mix of cultures I am very doubtful it will work. AS stated above the Kurds are pushing for their own state which is a threat to the Turks.
The US is trying to get a UN Resolution to solve tons of problems they have on their heads. As the rest of the world is slowly extracting their “pound of flesh” for the ill mannered behaviors of Bush et. al. and the Kurds are pushing for some acknowledgement of their demands.
There was no chance that the resolution will mention what the Iraqi Kurds are demanding. They are threatening to quit the government unless the measure endorses the autonomy granted to them these laws.
"We are not bluffing here, we are serious -- it's the right of our people," Nechirvan Barzani, head of the Kurdistan Regional Government in northern Iraq, told Reuters.
The transitional laws would remain in effect but are not mentioned in the resolution because of objections from the leading Shi'ite cleric, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. He says in so many words if the Resolution says anything about an Iraq sans the Kurds there will hell to be paid…………….
The cry goes out, “Where’s Solomon when you need him?”
I guess he’s not a Republican.


posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 10:13 PM
Good background and sets the stage for today.........


Saw the Irish Labour leader( Forgive me I forget his name) speak in the House on the Iraq Prisoner abuse debate................he spoke 'forever' with copious detail and facts extemporaneously boxing Tony about the head and giving one good nose-bleed, I’m sure.

Wondrous speaker. Was mesmerized by his craft and guile………and with passion too.
A real pleasure to see and hear such a fine public speaker an art us Yanks need more so in our public debate


log in