Article

2003-04-12 Iraq

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by RW 2003-04-12 06:32 am|| || Front Page|| [11137 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Oops. Maybe [del] [/del] would have worked better.

Posted by RW 2003-04-12 07:01:43|| 2003-04-12 07:01:43|| Front Page Top

#2 If needed, we have every kind of plan, but for now we are not taking action."

Too late now Turkies. It's just too darn late. You've oppressed the Kurds long enough. Now the world is watching and the Kurds are free. Your own population is 99% opposed to war. Any treachery you plan now to pursue your greedy ambitions, will be far more painful than cutting your losses and moving on.

Posted by becky 2003-04-12 07:26:42|| 2003-04-12 07:26:42|| Front Page Top

#3 Well, gosh. It seems we just can't do anything right, eh? Or, perhaps, we just can't do anything that will please Arabs. I suggest we don't try - and toss it back: "Why didn't YOU do this 35 yrs ago, or 5 yrs ago. Why did WE have to come and die to set YOU free?" The blame society of Islam can kiss my hairy ass.

I am so phreaking proud to be an American, again, and happy for our troops and our relatively small losses - though I'm afraid even ONE of our people is worth the entire population of Mosul. No - more than Mosul - all of Iraq.

As for the Turkies, these gutless cowards had better keep their brave talk North of the line.

I am SO happy for the Kurds - maybe now they'll finally get a fair shake. A Federation would allow them to continue prospering - as they have done under the Northern No-Fly Zone.

Note that on the news just now, there is reported destruction (burning buildings, etc) and sniping in Basra and from Baghdad north - except Kirkuk, where the Kurds are... They are apparently smart enough not to burn down their own city, unlike the foolish Iraqis. In Baghdad, I'd bet they've done more damage in the last 3 days than the coalition bombing, which hit what it was supposed to.

The betrayal of the Turks should be treated as the worst possible act of an erstwhile ally - which is precisely what it was. I wonder how many of our troops have died because we couldn't execute the classic hammer & anvil pincer a Northern front would have permitted... not to mention DOUBLE the armored units & boots on the ground - which would definitely be saving American lives in Baghdad, today. Fuck Turkey, I spit in their general direction and hope they choke on the wishbone. I've added them to the AoW and will boycott ANYTHING coming from there, as well.

Posted by PD 2003-04-12 10:47:37|| 2003-04-12 10:47:37|| Front Page Top

#4 "Why are you late? Why are you late?"

Why are you, who are always so full of bluster, so impotent to solve your own problems? Why are you, who are always so full of bluster, so impotent to solve your own problems?

Posted by Tom 2003-04-12 11:22:23|| 2003-04-12 11:22:23|| Front Page Top

#5 Since it appears that some of you folks care so little for Turkey, which has that whole democracy thing and actually votes on the issues rather than have them dictated from a throne by the local monarch or dictator, I cannot help but wonder what the reaction will be if and when the new and democratic Iraqi government votes against US interests. And per Michael Ledeen's article, they were pressured into it by France in any event. Yes, they did cave under pressure, but this is hardly an unforgiveable sin in the realm of international diplomacy.

That being said, I would note that Turkey did allow us access to their airspace as well as the transporting of food and non-military supplies to our troops. Would you prefer that none of that occur and the US cut off all ties with Turkey simply to sate your egos?

As far as the Kurds go, Turkey has full right to be concerned there, regardless of how much of an idiot Murat is. The PKK is still alive and well inside of northern Iraq and there have been any number of skirmishes lately along the border.

Read this:

In particular, this section is rather illuminating:

In mid-1997 it was announced that 20,822 terrorists have been killed by the security forces in the 13 years since the PKK launched its operations. Some 4,239 security officers have also been killed and 9,277 injured in that same period. The terrorists murdered 4,276 and injured 5,083 citizens. Together with the death of nearly 2,500 people in terrorist acts caused by the PKK prior to 12 September [1980 coup], the organization has been responsible for the deaths of 31,837 people in all.(1)

The other side effects of terrorism for the same period were as follows: Some 3,223 schools, attended by 166,000 students in 22 districts of two provinces, remained shut in 1996, and 156 teachers have been killed so far. According to June 1995 findings of the State Ministry for Human Rights Affairs, 809 villages and 1,612 hamlets have been evacuated in 19 provinces. Whereas, the State of Emergency Region Governorate announced that 753 villages and 1,535 hamlets were completely evacuated, and 235 villages and 141 hamlets partially evacuated.(2)

The PKK operations significantly lessened when the PKK lost logistic support with the evacuation of the villages and hamlets. At this time, the terror organization started using Palestinian Hamas-style suicide bombings. It organized suicide operations, waged mainly by women terrorists, in Tunceli, Adana, and Sivas.(4)

These folks are every bit as nasty as Hamas and have killed more Turkish citizens (just look at the figures posted above) than we lost on 9/11 and it goes without saying that Turkey has a lot smaller population than we do. Now do understand that whenever you say "Kurdish nationalism" or talk about a "Kurdish state" to a Turk, that is the immediate image that comes to mind. Saying that they have no right to be concerned about these guys is like saying that Israel would have no right to be concerned if it suddenly looked like Hamas was going to take over the West Bank or Gaza Strip.

The bottom line is that potential Turkish military action to deal with the PKK is just as justified as the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in the 1980s.

As far as claims of Turkish oppression of the Kurds goes, I can dig up any number of sob stories from Chechen, Palestinian, Kashmiri, Irish, or the Basques. Whether or not their grievances are justified is irrelevant because nothing justifies terrorism, especially the suicide bombing variety.

Posted by Dan Darling 2003-04-12 11:59:16|| [www.regnumcrucis.blogspot.com] 2003-04-12 11:59:16|| Front Page Top

#6 RW,

That was great! That's the first time that ANYTHING relating to Murat has made me laugh!

Posted by charlotte 2003-04-12 12:51:38|| 2003-04-12 12:51:38|| Front Page Top

#7 Dan,
So you approve of destroying an entire civilization if it uses terror tactics to try to preserve itself? There are wrongs on both sides of the fence here, and Turkey's behavior is just as suspect as the PKK. Until ALL the factions are allowed to make decisions for themselves, instead of having them imposed upon them, there will be friction, and there's a good probability that friction will erupt in violence.

You can't put your foot on another's neck and be considered a "good guy" for very long. Turkey needs to find a different way of handling its Kurdish problem other than completely destroying Kurdish history, ethnic language, and culture. If you want to take a close look at how that works out in the long run, just read the history of the Balkan states.

Posted by Old Patriot 2003-04-12 13:08:42|| 2003-04-12 13:08:42|| Front Page Top

#8 So you approve of destroying an entire civilization if it uses terror tactics to try to preserve itself?

Hardly. What I'm saying is that the last manifestation of Kurdish nationalism was quite bloody for the Turks and occurred less than a decade ago, so they have good reason to be on their guard against it.

There are wrongs on both sides of the fence here, and Turkey's behavior is just as suspect as the PKK.

How so? Other than being a pain in the ass to the US by refusing to grant us bases, the Turks are a democracy and can conduct their internal affairs as they see fit. Is the situation ideal in regards to Kurdish rights? Hell no. But to draw any kind of comparison between a real democracy and the last batch of Marxist thugs who tried to create an independent Kurdistan is an exercise in faux moral equivalency. It's like saying we're just as bad as al-Qaeda or Iraq because they lost as many or more civilian dead in bombing than we did on 9/11.

Turkey needs to find a different way of handling its Kurdish problem other than completely destroying Kurdish history, ethnic language, and culture.

The same can be argued for the Palestinians, Kashmiris, Chechens, Filippino Muslims, ad infinitum. Or even our own experiences with the Native Americans. However, the fact that the Turks were bad doesn't excuse any of what the PKK did, especially given that they were living within a democratic system. My point is, as I said, given the Turkish experience with Kurdish nationalism they are well within their rights to be apprehensive and many conservative Americans' blanket condemnation of them for it is in my opinion little more than reflexive anger due to the fact that they wouldn't grant us access to their bases for an invasion of Iraq.

Posted by Dan Darling 2003-04-12 14:43:41|| [www.regnumcrucis.blogspot.com] 2003-04-12 14:43:41|| Front Page Top

#9 Dan, the numbers are impressive, but the motivations are more interesting. Long before the first Gulf War, Turkey was doing stuff like this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/international/europe/11KURD.html

Posted by Tom 2003-04-12 15:30:41|| 2003-04-12 15:30:41|| Front Page Top

#10 Dan: The Turkish "democracy thing" has become an Islamic thing. The Turkish military, which had earned its previously highly regarded status in NATO by guaranteeing a secular Gov't and full military cooperation for the last 50 years appears to have stuck its tail between its legs and whimpered off into a corner - in the face of the recently "elected" Islamic regime.

The Turks have been sitting at the big table all that time because they were a staunch and reliable ally. They have enjoyed major economic gains from their regard within NATO and the resulting ties with the West. They certainly would NOT have ever been considered for EU membership, were it not for their NATO standing and SECULAR government.

The installation of the Islamic-run government certainly puts the lid on their EU hopes - probably permanently - the EU is not interested in admitting a dogmatic Islamic regime, nor should they be.

As for Turkey and the US, we immediately came to their defense when France recently tried to sabotage NATO by denying Turkey defensive aid regards the looming war in Iraq. We even prepared a colossal aid package to make sure they did not suffer economically during the war. It was overly generous because the Turks whined about how they suffered from the loss of (mostly illegal) economic trade during and after the first Gulf War.

What was their response? An Islamic response. No use of OUR bases (Incirlik, in particular). No basing of troops. No right of passage for troops OR materiel. No overflights. Zip. Muslim BS regards infidels on Arab / Muslim soil and lots of sabre-rattling about the Kurds - one of the most maligned people on the planet.

"Sob stories"??? Your knowledge of the Kurds appears a bit thin. They have been repeatedly screwed. They were annexed by the Ottoman Empire in 1514. They lived under the heel of those upstanding Turks you have so much regard for until the end of WW-I - and just when it looked as though they would regain their nation, they were screwed by the British (Sykes-Picot). They were once an independent people - and throughout the last 500 years they have maintained an undeniable identity. They deserve their own country as much as any people you can name. Period.

The numbers you quote are these people trying to regain their freedom. Don't like it? Stay away - they will probably continue fighting for as long as they can muster the men to try. The perjorative use of the term "terrorist" is definitely in the eye of the beholder. In THIS case, I reject the term and I side with the Kurds, not the Turks.

Back to the Turks you seem so concerned with: Overflights (but still no use of OUR air bases) and medical / food overland shipment were finally allowed AFTER the damage was done: about 3 weeks of dithering and delays and rumors of new votes, etc. I do not think it was accidental - it was intended to foil or thwart the US, period, full stop. The 4th Inf Div is now coming online in Kuwait 3+ weeks late solely due to the Turks. Their delaying tactics were overt deliberate sabotage and made their eventual offers of piddling overflights worse than moot - they were insulting. This was an out and out betrayal - because of Islamic BS. You need to recite the entire sequence, not just what's convenient to your argument.

I return to the central question (for me) that you did not address: The Turks are responsible for some (or many) of the US casualties BECAUSE we had to fight and slog through a single-front war - and that fact lies like a pile of dog turds on the doorstep of the Turks. Any American lives lost due to this betrayal are unacceptable - and you can bet your ass that any US military officer in Iraq would agree (certainly in private) that they cost us American soldiers.

My ego has nothing to do with it, moron. American troops' lives and the fact that yet another nation has fallen under the spell of Islamofascism has everything to do with it.

The Islamic World View and the Western World View are in collision. The chief Mugwump of Saudi Arabia says the battle has already begun - obvious even to the blind since 9/11. He characterizes it as virtue vs. freedom (his words). I pick freedom.

Since the Islamic gig is implacable and can only be "sated" by converting the entire world to Islam, you may rest assured that only ONE of these World Views will emerge from the collision. If you don't know this, then you'd better get yourself up to speed, they're here already. I live and work in Saudi Arabia (finally leaving this shit hole in 6 days, forever) and know WTF I'm talking about.

We certainly agree on suicide bombers. That may be all, however.

Posted by PD 2003-04-12 15:59:02|| 2003-04-12 15:59:02|| Front Page Top

#11 --Since the Islamic gig is implacable and can only be "sated" by converting the entire world to Islam,--

Nope, only the right brand of islamofascism, convert to the wrong and you're going to die by the hand of the "right" muslims.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-04-12 16:59:44|| 2003-04-12 16:59:44|| Front Page Top

#12 PD, how can write a post that is so right and make a statement that is so wrong? "The perjorative use of the term "terrorist" is definitely in the eye of the beholder. In THIS case, I reject the term and I side with the Kurds, not the Turks." Aaack! Wrong!! Wrong!! Wrong!! You are just plain wrong. Take it back and go take a shower to get the stench of such a terrible comment off yourself.

The truth is somewhere in the middle between you and Dan. I believe Dan is wrong to think of Turkey as the Turkey that he once knew: the Democratic Turkey; the Turkey on the road to civilization. But Dan is right to point out that the crimes of the Kurds can not be washed away or ignored by the Turks.

Think of it this way, the Turks miscalculated when they thought they could screw us, because they thought America would act like the America of Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton or Al Gore. But that is not the America of today. That was America under the leadership teams who brought out the worst nature of a self-absobed, spoiled me-generation. Of an America who thought the world was fair and who thought evil could be cured with a group hugs and a feel-good words. That America became history on 9-11. Likewise, I think Dan is still thinking of Turkey as the Turkey that was- but is no more. Turkey has been hijacked by treacherous Islamists now.

You are both right and wrong. The Kurds deserve a state, but only if they can rid the terrorists in their midst. The Turk leaders are no longer our friends, but Islamists...and should be treated as such.

Posted by becky 2003-04-12 18:03:43|| 2003-04-12 18:03:43|| Front Page Top

#13 "...blanket condemnation of them ...due to the fact that they wouldn't grant us access to their bases for an invasion of Iraq."
It's also the timeliness of their decision. They should have said no the first time, and not dick everybody around for an eternity. Yes-No-Yes-No-Maybe-Yes-No-No-Yes-Yes,but-We-don't-know.

Posted by RW 2003-04-12 18:40:38|| 2003-04-12 18:40:38|| Front Page Top

#14 The installation of the Islamic-run government certainly puts the lid on their EU hopes - "

The EU insisted on allowing the Islamic parties.
("islamic parties" oxymoron.)

The Turkish military had kept a lid on them, knowing they would have a retrograde influence.

The EU wished them to adhere to democratic principles.

Like Lawn Darts. One of those things that seem great in theory.

Posted by redclay 2003-04-12 19:59:52|| [www.deadjournal.com/users/redclay/] 2003-04-12 19:59:52|| Front Page Top

#15 The Turks watched the war too. Do we really think that they want their own "road of death" on the way to Kirkuk?

Posted by john 2003-04-12 20:18:04|| 2003-04-12 20:18:04|| Front Page Top

#16 Tom:

I am not currently registered at the New York Times website and as such cannot read the article you linked. If you want to summarize or transcribe it, that would indeed be helpful.

PD:

The Turkish "democracy thing" has become an Islamic thing.

Really? The last time I checked the sha'riah wasn't being implemented in Ankara.

The Turkish military, which had earned its previously highly regarded status in NATO by guaranteeing a secular Gov't and full military cooperation for the last 50 years appears to have stuck its tail between its legs and whimpered off into a corner - in the face of the recently "elected" Islamic regime.

Hardly. The Turkish military is constitutionally allowed to overthrow the government if it acts against the founding principles of the Turkish republic, not every time somebody makes a crappy political decision. If that had been the case, they would've overthrown the last government for its completely inept handling of the economy.

They certainly would NOT have ever been considered for EU membership, were it not for their NATO standing and SECULAR government.

If you have any evidence that the current government in Turkey is not secular, I would urge you to post it. Otherwise I'm going to dismiss it the same way I do liberal whining about some type of Christian theocracy forming in America every time a conservative Protestant gets elected.

The installation of the Islamic-run government certainly puts the lid on their EU hopes - probably permanently - the EU is not interested in admitting a dogmatic Islamic regime, nor should they be.

The Turks have abolished their death penalty in order to be accepted to the EU, which is one of the reasons why that monster Occalan has yet to be iced. This would tend to conflict with the goal of implementing the sha'riah that you ascribe to them. Their primary obstacle in joining the EU is what looks rather suspiciously like racism amongst the Euroleft elites.

As for Turkey and the US, we immediately came to their defense when France recently tried to sabotage NATO by denying Turkey defensive aid regards the looming war in Iraq. We even prepared a colossal aid package to make sure they did not suffer economically during the war. It was overly generous because the Turks whined about how they suffered from the loss of (mostly illegal) economic trade during and after the first Gulf War.

Not sure about the illegal trade before the Gulf War and I'm not defending Turkey's abysmal policy decision and acting against its own interests in refusing to grant us basing rights. My point is that their refusal does not transform them from extremely reliable allies into some kind of genocidal maniacs.

What was their response? An Islamic response. No use of OUR bases (Incirlik, in particular). No basing of troops. No right of passage for troops OR materiel. No overflights. Zip. Muslim BS regards infidels on Arab / Muslim soil and lots of sabre-rattling about the Kurds - one of the most maligned people on the planet.

You can talk a lot about how the Kurds have gotten the shaft and I would tend to agree with you. But simply dismissing Kurdish concerns about the PKK (which was only defeated less than 5 years ago) off-hand because they wouldn't give us basing rights is patently absurd. And if their refusal to grant us basing rights was all part of some gigantic Islamist strategy, then why the hell did Attaturk's party vote along with them in opposing a US military presence in Turkey? The answer lies not in Islamism, but in Paris.

Your knowledge of the Kurds appears a bit thin. They have been repeatedly screwed. They were annexed by the Ottoman Empire in 1514. They lived under the heel of those upstanding Turks you have so much regard for until the end of WW-I - and just when it looked as though they would regain their nation, they were screwed by the British (Sykes-Picot). They were once an independent people - and throughout the last 500 years they have maintained an undeniable identity. They deserve their own country as much as any people you can name. Period.

Given that you identify yourself as supporting the PKK, I sincerely hope that you are unaware of their activities. Have the Kurds by and large gotten the shaft at the hands of larger powers in the Middle East? Yes. So have the Irish, the Basques, the Palestinians, and the Kashmiris. But you can't justify what the last bout of Kurdish nationalism did to Turkey without admitting that same defense can be used for the Intifada.

The numbers you quote are these people trying to regain their freedom. Don't like it? Stay away - they will probably continue fighting for as long as they can muster the men to try. The perjorative use of the term "terrorist" is definitely in the eye of the beholder. In THIS case, I reject the term and I side with the Kurds, not the Turks.

Substitute "Kurd" for Palestinian and "Turk" for Israeli and that passage would look great for any supporter of the Intifada.

Back to the Turks you seem so concerned with: Overflights (but still no use of OUR air bases) and medical / food overland shipment were finally allowed AFTER the damage was done: about 3 weeks of dithering and delays and rumors of new votes, etc. I do not think it was accidental - it was intended to foil or thwart the US, period, full stop. The 4th Inf Div is now coming online in Kuwait 3+ weeks late solely due to the Turks. Their delaying tactics were overt deliberate sabotage and made their eventual offers of piddling overflights worse than moot - they were insulting.

Great. Consider us insulted. I'm hardly thrilled by these developments, but according to Michael Ledeen they were the result of Paris's manipulations, not Ankara's. The Turks got played by the French. That must make Chirac rather happy, but we should recognize that they were played and attempt to address their legitimate concerns in regards to the Kurds (the PKK, being Marxist, isn't too big a fan of the US) in an effort to help the new government to recognize that it screwed up royally and work it out from there. This is the same tactic that Mansoor Ijaz suggested in his recent article in the National Review.

The Turks are responsible for some (or many) of the US casualties BECAUSE we had to fight and slog through a single-front war - and that fact lies like a pile of dog turds on the doorstep of the Turks.

Ignoring that Iraq has hardly been the meat grinder that some predicted it to be, no American dead can be rationalized away through the sophistry you accuse me of (while ignoring your own?). However, Turkish actions need to be understood in the light of the larger French manipulations to thwart the US in Iraq, not as an independent action. If you want to be angry over US losses in Iraq, I suggest you direct your fury squarely towards Jacques Chirac.

My ego has nothing to do with it, moron. American troops' lives and the fact that yet another nation has fallen under the spell of Islamofascism has everything to do with it.

For someone who has yet to provide any evidence whatsoever that Turkey has become a second Iran, methinks you are a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black when you call me a moron.

The Islamic World View and the Western World View are in collision. The chief Mugwump of Saudi Arabia says the battle has already begun - obvious even to the blind since 9/11. He characterizes it as virtue vs. freedom (his words). I pick freedom.

I reject his entire paradigm. The battle is between Wahhabism/Khomeinism and the rest of civilization. These folks are the same in their mindset as barbarians who sacked Rome. The only difference is religion. You kill the barbarians, meaning those regimes and individuals who aid to them. Once that happens, the whole damn framework collapses.

Since the Islamic gig is implacable and can only be "sated" by converting the entire world to Islam, you may rest assured that only ONE of these World Views will emerge from the collision. If you don't know this, then you'd better get yourself up to speed, they're here already.

As I said, I reject the whole "clash of civilizations" spiel (ideologies is another matter entirely). The Wahhabis/Khomeinists want to kill/enslave all of us so this is a kill or be killed situation. I choose to kill.

I live and work in Saudi Arabia (finally leaving this shit hole in 6 days, forever) and know WTF I'm talking about.

I believe you. You have my sympathies for your current residence and I hope you stay safe.

The Kurds deserve a state, but only if they can rid the terrorists in their midst. The Turk leaders are no longer our friends, but Islamists...and should be treated as such.

While I disagree with you on the Turkish leadership as I regard the Turkish decision as a result of the larger French manipulation (as I said, the secular party of Attaturk also voted against us in the parliament), you articulated my position on a Kurdish state fairly nicely. If Kurdistan must rise out of the ashes of the Iraq war, I don't want to see it being yet another "People's Republic."

Posted by Dan Darling 2003-04-12 20:47:39|| [www.regnumcrucis.blogspot.com] 2003-04-12 20:47:39|| Front Page Top

#17 Dan,

Answer this:

Is Trukey really a free country?

If you claim it, then why is it legislators are in jail for speaking Kurdsih? whi is it a little boy had the police called on him for merely saying "I am proud to be a Kurd"?

The reason the PKK and terrorists like that exist is that there is so much oppression and genocide practiced by the Turks that terrorists have no trouble taking advanatage of the situation.

The Kurds saw the Armenians killed, and learned the lesson well - so the Turks continued erosion and unjust laws against the Kurdish minority have sown the seeds of rebellion deep.

Unlike a lot of traditional terror movements which funded by the Soviets to engage and slow the West, the Kurds are a truly indigenous movement that has been led astray by outside elements.

Had the Turks simply lived up to their obligations under the UN Charter of Human Rights, they'd not have this problem.

As it stands, the Turks deserve all the crap they are getting in terms of the repression and genocide they have used for generations going back to the Ottomans. Not the death, but the rebellion.

Posted by OldSpook 2003-04-12 20:52:00|| 2003-04-12 20:52:00|| Front Page Top

#18 OldSpook:

Is Trukey really a free country?

If you claim it, then why is it legislators are in jail for speaking Kurdsih? whi is it a little boy had the police called on him for merely saying "I am proud to be a Kurd"?

I would be careful with this question, because it raises a number of questions about America's own past. Was the US a free country before the emancipation of slaves? Was it a free country when it accepted the integration of immigrants from European Catholic and Southeast Asian countries into its society? Heck, if you talk to some gay rights advocates they'll tell you that the US isn't a free country because of some of the anti-sodomy laws we have still on the books in some states.

Is Turkey a utopia? Hell no. Do the Kurds likely suffer discrimination and oppression of some kind? I think it varies from place to place, but the overall answer is probably yes. But if you judge Turkey by the standards of other nations in the region (try being a Palestinian in Lebanon or a Berber in Algeria or a Copt in Egypt) it comes out light years ahead. More to the point, as a democracy, it has a built-in mechanism for positive change.

I have my own suspicions about the New York Times story that was posted here on Rantburg the other day. But if you'll notice the quote in that very same story by Muharrem Erbey, the Human Rights Association guy, this anti-Kurdish stuff is only 15 years old. And what happened about 15 years ago? The PKK started its antics according to ICT.

There are people here in the US who want every Muslim expelled from our shores or locked up internment camps because of 9/11. And that was just one terrorist attack. Try living through years of that crap and the Turkish position becomes a lot more defensible. Am I defending the Turkish policies in regards to the Kurds? No. I think a lot of the Israeli settlement stuff is crap too. But at the same time I understand why both are the way that they are. If al-Qaeda launches two or three more 9/11s our way, I don't think the Turkish stance is going to look so horrible to a lot of Americans.

The reason the PKK and terrorists like that exist is that there is so much oppression and genocide practiced by the Turks that terrorists have no trouble taking advanatage of the situation.

Read the ICT article I linked above. It provides a good explanation as to how the PKK formed and why.

The Kurds saw the Armenians killed, and learned the lesson well - so the Turks continued erosion and unjust laws against the Kurdish minority have sown the seeds of rebellion deep.

The Armenian genocide took place during World War 1. If one truly wants to compare, one can look at US policies towards blacks or Native Americans during the same period. The anti-Kurdish laws are a fairly recent reaction to the PKK.

As it stands, the Turks deserve all the crap they are getting in terms of the repression and genocide they have used for generations going back to the Ottomans. Not the death, but the rebellion.

I don't buy into the whole collective guilt thing, nor do I think that the current Turkish government has any responsibility for what the Ottoman sultan did back during World War 1. If a kind of legitimate Kurdish nationalist movement (like the way the East Timorese got their indepedence) were going on, this would be a completely different story. When a Turk thinks of Kurdish separatism the image that immediately enters their mind is that of the Marxist PKK and its suicide bombings. All I'm saying is, is it any wonder they're apprehensive about the situation given their last experience with Kurdish separatists.

Posted by Dan Darling 2003-04-12 21:40:22|| [www.regnumcrucis.blogspot.com] 2003-04-12 21:40:22|| Front Page Top

#19 "Sorry, had some trouble gettin' the ol' Military Machine started."

Posted by mojo 2003-04-12 22:29:29|| 2003-04-12 22:29:29|| Front Page Top

#20 Dan Old Chap,
Let me see if I have this straight: 1.Turkish foreign policy is made in Paris. 2. The U.S. pursued a policy of intended starvation against blacks and indians in early 20th century. Sounds as if you recently graduated from a San Francisco public school.
tsk tsk

Posted by leonidas 2003-04-12 23:58:40|| 2003-04-12 23:58:40|| Front Page Top

#21 Hardly.

You have misconstrued my positions.

Turkish foreign policy is made in Paris.

I recommend you read the Michael Ledeen article before ridiculing my position. Manipulating policy does not equal making it.

The U.S. pursued a policy of intended starvation against blacks and indians in early 20th century.

I would challenge you reproduce a statement on my part to that effect. What I said was:

If one truly wants to compare, one can look at US policies towards blacks or Native Americans during the same period.

That period being the early part of the twentieth century. And the comment was made in response to a statement that Kurdish terrorism was a reaction to what happened to the Armenians. You shouldn't throw stones if you want to live in a glass house.

Posted by Dan Darling 2003-04-13 00:12:33|| [www.regnumcrucis.blogspot.com] 2003-04-13 00:12:33|| Front Page Top

#22 Dan / Becky -
Ok, lessee (I gotta rush this since I have a job and I'm already late) it seems that there are 4 points with substance:
1) My language in this sentence: "The perjorative use of the term "terrorist" is definitely in the eye of the beholder."
2) That you have identified the PKK as a terrorist group guilty of some serious atrocities against the Turks - and the Turks are, therefore, justified in, well, pretty much anything they choose to do.
3) That the Turks are mere tools of the French
4) The Turkish Military has a constitutional right to remove any regime for (unclear) reason(s).

Dan: There was no other substance to the tome, for half of it was quoting me.

Becky: I assume you are referring to the extremist PKK, like Dan, and not the majority of the Kurds (PUK & KDP)

Okay.

I stand by #1. Your objections are based upon a facile attempt to hang me with the PKK. This is obviously disingenuous as I named no party or splinter group - I talked about the people who have maintained their idenitity for almost 500 years in spite of the shit sandwich they have been handed.

On #2 I understand the Turks being nervous over such a fresh memory - but this is, again, the assumption that I'm some sort of PKK supporter, which I'm not. I do NOT support terror. If the PKK is nothing but a terrorist group, then they should be flushed by the Kurds, for they harm them far more than they help - your comments being a prime example of this. If the Kurds won't do this - then they are fools. If they CAN'T do this, then it's absurd to saddle them with blame for the acts of PKK. Don't shoot all the dogs cuz one of them has fleas.

On #3, you seem to be saying that the new Islamist Gov't in Ankara is a bunch of poofs incapable of handling their Int'l affairs - and were simply (simplisme') manipulated by the French. Are you suggesting that they acted against their own better judgment - and that the true wishes of their Islamic legislature and leadership were otherwise? I don't believe it. Do you actually think this somehow makes it OK and discharges them of responsibility for their actions? I would have to disagree in the extreme. My MAIN point was the war in Iraq and the fate of US soldiers. I don't give two shits WHY the Turks are French tools - I care about the people who step up and do their jobs when the US calls upon them. They undoubtedly suffered greater losses due to the single front - a direct result of Turkish decisions and duplicity. Period. That was my main thrust and point for responding. I'll grant you all sorts of latitude regards the PKK, but I cannot accept your dismissal of this point. I can't help but wonder if you've ever been in the Green Machine and had your ass on the line... if not, then you should to take my point. If so, then you have my sympathy because you have Alzheimer's. That the Kurds, the people, should get a break in this world was a sidelight, but one that would please my sense of fair-play. Truth is, your use of the phrase "sob stories" was the invitation to include this. I was suckered! I stand by my desire for the Kurds to get their chance.

As for #4, they're too late, now. Damage done and no amount of future squirming will bring back a single US soldier. In my perverse mode, I would LOVE to be a fly on the wall at the next NATO meeting to hear the ranking Turkish military rep explain to the US military rep all of the reasons for their betrayal. Sorry, but they fucked us and will be held to account. It's that simple / simplisme'.

Summary - keep your cool about the PKK. Go after their supporters - not me. And, BTW, I am not intimidated by volume.

The country of Turkey, no matter how sympathetic you are for their being relegated to simpletons and badly used by the French does not change anything. They are complicit at the same level as the French, but the truly galling (gauling?) aspect is that their betrayal was NOT expected.

Truth is always the action(s), or lack, and words play no part.

BTW, wasn't there a Barzani or Bardzini guy whacked by Vito's kid Michael during the christening?

Posted by PD 2003-04-13 01:01:38|| 2003-04-13 01:01:38|| Front Page Top

#23 PD:

A couple of things here. I never called you a member or a supporter of the PKK, I simply noted that your argument would make perfect cannon fodder for someone justifying the Intifada.

for half of it was quoting me.

I find that quoting a debate opponent is the best way to refute their arguments. A personal taste, I admit.

If the PKK is nothing but a terrorist group, then they should be flushed by the Kurds, for they harm them far more than they help - your comments being a prime example of this. If the Kurds won't do this - then they are fools.

The PKK has had a relative sanctuary in northern Iraq ever since 1999 when Occalan was captured and his little insurgency was crushed inside of Turkey proper. That is KDP/PUK turf. They sure didn't waste time when it came to Ansar al-Islam, yet they have ignored the threat posed by the PKK. This may be stupid on their part, but it is what they are doing.

Don't shoot all the dogs cuz one of them has fleas.

I agree. If the Turks move against the PUK/KDP, then they're the ones in the wrong. They want to wipe out the PKK, more power to them.

you seem to be saying that the new Islamist Gov't in Ankara is a bunch of poofs incapable of handling their Int'l affairs - and were simply (simplisme') manipulated by the French. Are you suggesting that they acted against their own better judgment - and that the true wishes of their Islamic legislature and leadership were otherwise? I don't believe it.

I would like to try to convince you otherwise on this one, as the secular party in the parliament also voted against the motion to allow in US, troops, but I think we can discuss this at another time.

Do you actually think this somehow makes it OK and discharges them of responsibility for their actions?

Unequivocally no. I thought I said as much above.

That the Kurds, the people, should get a break in this world was a sidelight, but one that would please my sense of fair-play. Truth is, your use of the phrase "sob stories" was the invitation to include this. I was suckered! I stand by my desire for the Kurds to get their chance.

I agree! They should get their chance, but not under some kind of Marxist rule that sees Stalin or Lenin as some kind of a warped visionary. I think the Palestinians deserve their chance to, but handing them a state only to see it become an Islamic theocracy or a military dictatorship isn't giving them freedom or a real country, as they'll have no say in how things work.

Damage done and no amount of future squirming will bring back a single US soldier. In my perverse mode, I would LOVE to be a fly on the wall at the next NATO meeting to hear the ranking Turkish military rep explain to the US military rep all of the reasons for their betrayal. Sorry, but they fucked us and will be held to account.

Fair enough. I'm not excusing Turkish actions or what they did for our war plans and the losses that were potentially inflicted on our troops as far as losing our bases there goes. My primary point was that them making a bad decision (which I think they were manipulated into, you don't, we can agree to disagree) does not prevent them from having entirely legitimate concerns about the Kurdish terrorists in the northern part of Iraq and I think a lot of the anger and support for Kurdish nationalism that has come about in the last several weeks since Turkey refused to grant us basing rights is a result of misdirected anger that would not exist had those basing rights been granted.

BTW, wasn't there a Barzani or Bardzini guy whacked by Vito's kid Michael during the christening?

I'll have to watch the movie again, but I believe so.

Posted by Dan Darling 2003-04-13 01:27:22|| [www.regnumcrucis.blogspot.com] 2003-04-13 01:27:22|| Front Page Top

#24 Hah! I may be out of my league here in terms of historical facts, but that won't stop me from jumping in. I'm only going to address #3 (tools of the French) because I think there is actually more concensus than disagreement on the other points.

While I agree with Dan that the Turks desire to get into the EU was the primary factor that led the Turks astray, I completely agree with PD that, (despite Michal Leeden and other conventional wisdom), the Turks were NOT hapless victims but greedy opportunists who gambled (went "for broke", if you know the term) and lost.

Originally I based my belief simply on their actions, (I did call the fact that the Turks would screw us while everyone else was claiming they would eventually come on board) but since that time I now base it on two facts, though I may be somewhat alone in heralding them: First - back in June/July of 2002, Yipee Er' Dog[an] met with "business leaders" in Iraq and came back and told Turkish business leaders that Iraq was their number one trading partner and that he was Mister Somebody for opening trade deals with them. Why is this relevant? Because it meant that for several years he worked towards ..and had an personal, if not actual financial, investment in improving trade relations with Iraq. What were the deals, if any? I don't know. But the fact that he issued press releases at the time bragging about his efforts to expend personal capital in this regard should be considered.

Second, in mid January of 2003, Yippie met with leaders in China and ON THE SAME DAY that he issued a press release announcing improved trade relations in terms of BILLIONS of dollars between Iraq and China, he made the statement that he supported a "peaceful solution" to the conflict in Iraq.

My analysis is this: With promises of increased trade in the billions of dollars from China, he could make up the billions lost from the deal with the US. By denying us the front, he would gain favor with the French and thus increase his chances of obtaining admittance to the EU.

At the time, there was much made about how the Turkish Generals would force the political leaders open the front to US troops. But they delayed, promising that after the election, things would be better. When Yippie was elected supposedly it was a BIG SURPRISE that they voted against us. Hmmm..I'm not buying it. Yippies stance must have been known to them. Denying us the front was Yippies best dream come true. He would curry favor with France and gain admittance to the EU (so he thought) and he would curry favor with the Arab Street(tm) by denying the us the front, thus humilating George Bush. The loss of financial incentives from the US would be made up with new deals in China (and deals in Iraq?). Yippie would be the HERO! Also believed at that time was that Britian would not be able to join us, as 1441 did not provide "legal" justification for the war. That "problem" was resolved only hours before the announcement of the 48 hour ultimatum.

I think they believed that the inability of Britian to join us, and their denial of the front were unsurmountable problems for the US. With France's encouragement they believed they held the cards that could make George Bush tuck his tail and run.

I think that the Turkish Generals, for reasons unclear to me, felt that by denying us the front, they would have better control over the Kurds in Iraq and the oil fields (I'm not going into detail here ...this is already too long). That Yippie was the man elected...a man with a personal stake in improving trade relations with Iraq and a promise from China to open billions in new channels of trade (while promoting a peaceful solution)....Yippie was their man. There were no "surprises" after the election, as they would have us believe.

They gambled they lost. But it was calculated and cunning. It wasn't happless and misguided.

Dang..this is too long. I need to get some sleep.

Posted by becky 2003-04-13 03:11:23|| 2003-04-13 03:11:23|| Front Page Top

#25 oops..I think it was June/July of 2001 (before 911) that Yippie was working towards opening trade channels with Iraq.

Posted by becky 2003-04-13 03:20:46|| 2003-04-13 03:20:46|| Front Page Top

#26 Does Turkey have ligit concerns about the Kurds?
Most certainly.
Should the Kurds wipe out the PKK?
Absolutly.
Is Turkey complicit in the deaths of Allied personel and Iraqi civliians?
Damn straight,it was Turkey's haggling like a Souq merchant that kept the 4ID sitting around on ships for weeks.
Was Turkey played by the French?
Yep,Chiraq played Turkey like a virgin.
Should the Allies forgive Turkish duplicity,and make nice?
Hell no,the should be treated as the venal,money grubbing creatures they are.

Posted by raptor 2003-04-13 09:46:59|| 2003-04-13 09:46:59|| Front Page Top

10:16 Michael E. McNeil
09:46 raptor
07:16 raptor
06:53 raptor
04:27 Ned
04:00 Ed Becerra
03:52 Ed Becerra
03:20 becky
03:11 becky
01:42 HULUGU
01:27 Dan Darling
01:01 tbn
01:01 PD
00:51 Baba Yaga
00:47 Old Patriot
00:43 Baba Yaga
00:40 Baba Yaga
00:32 Old Patriot
00:16 Baba Yaga
00:15 Dar
00:12 Dan Darling
00:11 Rex Mundi
23:58 leonidas
23:13 Scott