|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
On August 10 2014 21:58 ImFromPortugal wrote:
Why are you so opposed to them having their own state? Lets not forget how saddam killed thousands of them with gas supplied by western powers like your own country. I would like them to be able to have their own country and live peacefully with all the other peoples around them.
In a sense US has already given Kurds 2 decades of self-rule but in constant sporadic state of war against internal Iraq elements. Ever since 1991 with the Gulf War, Kurds have an autonomous/semi-autonomous political structure in their region. While there is no recognition of the Kurdistan as a country on the international stage, the defacto rule points to Kurdistan self-determination.
The only thing that really held Kurdistan within Iraq was the US support of Iraq and a share of foreign aid to the Maliki government. If Iraq provides no help to Kurdistan, then there is no reason for the Kurds to stay within the political union. As for providing help in the form of arms against IS, the Shiite controlled Iraqi government doesn't have the manpower to hold back IS but they do have the US provided materia. Either they provide the arms and get negotiated concessions or Kurds look elsewhere and then just take over administration of any new areas the Peshmerga takes from IS. But in this arena, everything depends on the fortunes of war.
|
On August 11 2014 05:38 Thor.Rush wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2014 04:38 Sub40APM wrote:On August 11 2014 04:08 Thor.Rush wrote:
The threat of IS has just started to be taken seriously by Western countries, which is ridiculous. You'd think that with a radical Islamist army recently capturing a city with a population of 2 MILLION would cause people to wake up...
why? Radical Islamist armies sometimes control whole countries and except those rare times when they provide homes for terrorists attacking the West no one really cares how many women they execute or how many goats they sexually assault. The reality is that if there was no oil in the middle east then everyone would treat this as another African scenario. Yes, oil is definitely a factor and IS has plenty of it, having control the largest oil refinery in Iraq. This army is different than other radical Islamist armies in many ways and they are all terrorists btw. There are so many foreign fighters from western countries and Al Qaeda thinking they are too brutal definitely says something. Their wealth is increasing rapidly, as is their recruitment and number of allies. The Kurds will be gaining momentum from US support, but will unlikely defeat IS anytime soon. However, I think it is dangerous to ignore the threat they pose to western countries in terms of future terrorist attacks.
IS might look more competent than other Islamists but as far as I can see they are Taleban level. They are successful in areas where the population supports them and not particularly successful in areas where it doesnt -- remember a month ago how they were about to seize Baghdad, what happened ot that? They just bounce around their territory, finding soft targets and thats that.
And all the Western supporters for them are too stupid to stay off Twitter. They like to brag, Western intel picks them up as soon as they try to come back. Personally I wish that Western governments would pass laws that would strip terrorist supporters of citizenship.
Anyone hear reports from the Kurds -- apparently -- that IS had managed to capture Abrams battle tanks from the incompetent and corrupt Iraqis? Whats the point of handing over advanced US arms to either the Shiite or the Kurds when they just run and the weapon systems then have to be destroyed by the US airforce ?
|
On August 11 2014 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +This is an incredibly idiotic comment, I'm sorry. For one, the US is not going to go in anywhere. Also, the US is still reeling badly from the last couple wars. The US is finally learning that for the past 60 years, it's only caused chaos, destruction, and death in the Mideast, so we're not about to go make a major war again. Also, everyone fucking hates us.
I've mentioned this before, but, you conveniently forget that Turkey is a US ally in NATO. The US will back Turkey any day of the week over Kurds, and will back Turkey against Kurdish insurgency. The US is also very focused on fostering cooperation and relations with Iraq. Even in this current conflict, we're purely focusing on the government in Baghdad, not Irbil. As for Iran, we certainly don't want to touch them, and I don't know what we think about Syria. So basically, we're going to have a quadruple-penetration that'll send the Kurds from the stone age to the wood age, because that's all that will happen in your scenario.
Also, I have no idea why you're promoting more massacring and war. You make us sound like a rogue terrorist nation that likes to massacre people.
I think you completely misunderstand my perspective so I think that makes this discussion a little tough. First, the US hasn't engaged in what I would call full scale war in generations. So while the killing in the middle east is horrific, a country like the US or Israel fully unleashed would wreck total and complete havoc. What you have seen from the US around the world has merely been real world trials of new technologies. We could essentially "knock on" the entire middle east and then turn every major city other than the ones for the refugees into craters. I'm not advocating it, I actually detest the idea on many levels. I just see it as inevitable. The Middle East had the opportunity to accept the closest thing they were going to get to an open hand with the Obama administration and they slapped it away (after taking cash and weapons). So it will inevitably end up as either 'the silent treatment' where our enemies will gain strength and influence until they are stupid enough to wake the giant again and it comes bumbling over there to kill a bunch more people and destroy a bunch of infrastructure. Then it's conscious kicks in and it takes loans from other countries to rebuild what it destroyed and we start the cycle again. Or, they get the 'fist', and we crush them soon while they are cocky and thinking they are running stuff, which emboldens a regional conflict bubbling into a global one (really just semantics). I also don't put as much stock in the value of current 'alliances' in the Middle East as you do. I guess in general I don't see a future set of conditions when the massive conflict will be more favorable in conditions to the US than it is right now/ in the near future. Not like I am making any decisions (or have any real influence) so I'm just making predictions from observations. I wouldn't say I'm super confident in them but I really don't see how this doesn't turn into an all out slugfest within the next couple of decades whether the world wants it or not. So I'm just offering a cynical perspective that suggests better fight now then wait for everyone to get more armed (unless of course we think we can realistically field significant unmanned forces in a similar time frame that could mean far fewer American deaths in such a large conflict). But truthfully I expect the 'silent treatment' option and we'll be back at this in a generation asking the same questions with new names as placeholders.
See my edit. The most likely outcome is the Kurds will be their own undoing hehe.
I'm sorry, but I don't put "stock" on US alliances. The US does though. You may not put much stock US 'alliances', but the US takes NATO pretty seriously. How you don't know that is beyond my understanding. If the US didn't take NATO seriously, then an aggressive Russia could take over Europe. lol
When did the Middle East become some collective bloc that collectively slapped away some "open hand" from Obama (we're as money-hungry and deceitful as they come, so can't say I blame them), and what was this "open hand"? By "open hand" do you mean we're not destroying countries? It's a whole collection of countries with very different relations and histories with the US.
And what's with the talk about what the US is able to do militarily. Minus the US in NATO, Russia could turn Europe into Africa, so what point were you trying to make with that? And Israel lol! Umm, they're at a stage where really what they've been able to do is harass Palestinians and Lebanese, and could also do it with Jordan and Syria. Egypt is a lot stronger than they were 40 years ago when things were about even and also have since been backed to the hilt by the US , and I don't think Israel stands any chance against Turkey, Saudi Arabia, or Iran. The scenes are a lot different nowadays. Israel's more and more in a precarious position, only kept in play by old peace agreements. A 21st century Sadat/Arab nationalist movement today would be disastrous for Israel, and let's not even discuss the Iranians or Gulf Arabs in today's world either.
The scenario you're suggesting of "Israel fully unleashed" will be the end of Israel. Sadly, very few people in the world have any qualms about that. I'd certainly be in that extremely small minority.
I guess in general I don't see a future set of conditions when the massive conflict will be more favorable in conditions to the US than it is right now/ in the near future.
You're right. The US is losing its power and dominance in the Mideast, and also in Asia, Latin America, and the amount of "insubordination" from many European states is shocking as well. Of course a future conflict will be less and less advantageous to the US. However, was it bad when the Mongol Khans became less able to conquer and destroy? I don't see a problem with that. More balance and parity tends to produce more stability and peace.
We could essentially "knock on" the entire middle east and then turn every major city other than the ones for the refugees into craters. .... So it will inevitably end up as either 'the silent treatment' where our enemies will gain strength and influence until they are stupid enough to wake the giant again
Lolwut. Is the US some death god or something that wakes up when it finds people it feels like killing? We aren't "awakened" by stupid things. We are awakened by independent nations who don't suck Uncle Sam's dick. Saudi Arabia is the world's biggest supporter of Islamic terrorism and one of the world's greatest scourges, and we're perfectly fine with them. I think being the world's biggest supporter of Islamic terrorism is as stupid a thing as someone can do.
Also, this "giant" is declining. We're losing our domination and influence. We aren't even in any position to wage war against Iran, and that has been on the table for years. Didn't you just say the US is able to do these things and destroy anywhere on a whim? Such an idea couldn't be further from the reality. This isn't Call of Duty. So why are you proposing a scenario where the US is a bloodlusty demon that can and should destroy everything on a whim? In addition, the US is no judicator, and is certainly not fair. It's an imperial power, and makes actions according to its interests, not when something "stupid" or "bad" is done or whatever. We are an imperial power like any in history. But we certainly are not the inherently murderous Death god you make it out to be. How you describe us just makes us look plain evil.
|
On August 11 2014 07:11 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2014 05:38 Thor.Rush wrote:On August 11 2014 04:38 Sub40APM wrote:On August 11 2014 04:08 Thor.Rush wrote:
The threat of IS has just started to be taken seriously by Western countries, which is ridiculous. You'd think that with a radical Islamist army recently capturing a city with a population of 2 MILLION would cause people to wake up...
why? Radical Islamist armies sometimes control whole countries and except those rare times when they provide homes for terrorists attacking the West no one really cares how many women they execute or how many goats they sexually assault. The reality is that if there was no oil in the middle east then everyone would treat this as another African scenario. Yes, oil is definitely a factor and IS has plenty of it, having control the largest oil refinery in Iraq. This army is different than other radical Islamist armies in many ways and they are all terrorists btw. There are so many foreign fighters from western countries and Al Qaeda thinking they are too brutal definitely says something. Their wealth is increasing rapidly, as is their recruitment and number of allies. The Kurds will be gaining momentum from US support, but will unlikely defeat IS anytime soon. However, I think it is dangerous to ignore the threat they pose to western countries in terms of future terrorist attacks. IS might look more competent than other Islamists but as far as I can see they are Taleban level. They are successful in areas where the population supports them and not particularly successful in areas where it doesnt -- remember a month ago how they were about to seize Baghdad, what happened ot that? They just bounce around their territory, finding soft targets and thats that. And all the Western supporters for them are too stupid to stay off Twitter. They like to brag, Western intel picks them up as soon as they try to come back. Personally I wish that Western governments would pass laws that would strip terrorist supporters of citizenship. Anyone hear reports from the Kurds -- apparently -- that IS had managed to capture Abrams battle tanks from the incompetent and corrupt Iraqis? Whats the point of handing over advanced US arms to either the Shiite or the Kurds when they just run and the weapon systems then have to be destroyed by the US airforce ?
^Taliban is nothing like IS. The inhabitants of the cities it controls do not necessarily support IS. The people of Mosul do not support IS for the most part, yet they are in control (they are somewhat tolerated due them being Sunni and also out of fear). The warfare is completely different from the Taliban, and IS is much better equipped and able to use and maintain its humvees and tanks. They never even attempted to seize Baghdad, that was just western media talking about the possibility. Their focus has been in the north and they have been very successful.
Abrams tanks are being used. The Iraqi army (not the Kurds) run away like cowards and leave the weapons to IS. It seems like the US air force is limiting their airstrikes to mostly Sinjar and outside of Irbil. Kurds retook a couple towns outside of Irbil and 20,000 Yazidis escaped from the mountains in Sinjar.
|
@JudicatorHammurabi Agree with most of what you said, except Israel, they have nukes.. and could easily destroy all of its enemies if it wanted/needed to.
|
On August 11 2014 08:12 Thor.Rush wrote:
@JudicatorHammurabi Agree with most of what you said, except Israel, they have nukes.. and could easily destroy all of its enemies if it wanted/needed to.
Ah yes, the nukes. Which if used would be followed by every Israeli being decapitated and eaten by dogs, but in any case, you can expect nations outside the Mideast to get involved to quell a rogue genocidal state using nuclear weapons, especially considering no one likes them. Seems like they lose either way. In addition, if they were the aggressor like in GreenHorizon's scenario, use of nuclear weapons would also be 100% unjustified and they'd even lose all US support (assuming they'd still exist as a country afterwards).
At least even if you're an aggressor and you are defeated in conventional warfare, no one hates you as much as if you were to commit genocide with nuclear weapons. At that point, the world would probably look on as even more countries join in to make sure Israel no longer exists, and you can certainly expect a counter-genocide. But no, the Israelis can be fanatical, but they're not anywhere near that stupid
|
I don't think IS stands much of a chance against Jordan either. USA has invested massively in buffing up particularly jordanese special forces and Jordan is far better developed than most other countries in its vicinity, making them capable of investing in more advanced equipment than most others in the area. They also have a standing army of several times the IS numbers. When it comes to Israel they have a heavy airforce, which is what will make them able to deal well with most threats. I don't mean war with Egypt or Turkey, but otherwise they should be able to hold their own. If Iran invades, it may be tough on sheer numbers where they have a huge advantage, but it is a bit naive to compare one country to another and expect no foreign involvement. Particularly when the countries do not share a border.
|
On August 11 2014 09:51 radiatoren wrote:
I don't think IS stands much of a chance against Jordan either. USA has invested massively in buffing up particularly jordanese special forces and Jordan is far better developed than most other countries in its vicinity, making them capable of investing in more advanced equipment than most others in the area. They also have a standing army of several times the IS numbers. When it comes to Israel they have a heavy airforce, which is what will make them able to deal well with most threats. I don't mean war with Egypt or Turkey, but otherwise they should be able to hold their own. If Iran invades, it may be tough on sheer numbers where they have a huge advantage, but it is a bit naive to compare one country to another and expect no foreign involvement. Particularly when the countries do not share a border.
I really hate to get this nitpicky, but dude, Jordan is very poor and a small country. US investment in their forces doesn't mean they have an amazing economy or are developed. I don't know where this "far better developed and capable of investing" stuff comes from. Economically they're worse off than everyone around them except Syria, and that's largely thanks to the civil war. Also for reference, I'm speaking about the World Bank's statistics on GDP PPP and other related indicators.
GH's discussion didn't consider "foreign involvement", not that it would change things. No naivety here, except his scenario where Israel could be "fully unleashed" and basically wreck everyone they don't like, which is.. everyone lol. I just noted how ludicrous such a situation was and why Israel would never even think to do such a thing, as it would be suicidal. As for "foreign involvement", do you mean other people helping Egypt and Co.? Because no one except the US is going to get involved for Israel, and historically, there's never been any direct action by the US, even in the period where the US backed Israel much more than we do now. Nowadays, US politicians including the President, openly denounce Israel, something that would have been political suicide in the recent past. AIPAC's losing their grip. Also, Iran is closely allied with Syria, so for all intents and purposes, they do share a border with Israel if Israel were to go "fully unleashed" and attack everyone, though Iran's involvement would be unnecessary.
|
Judicator you really don't put any stock whatsoever in popular opinion do you?
The US could if it wanted invade and conquer Iran. I am 100% certain of it. Why don't we? Because you cannot wage a military operation like that without popular support. It's a lesson we learned from Vietnam (and ironically that the British learned from the American Revolution). As bad as Iraq and Afghanistan are, the US got involved INITIALLY with mostly public support, less so with Iraq but definitely with Afghanistan. Those two conflicts are NOTHING compared to what Vietnam was, and what Iran would be if we invaded it.
We lost in Vietnam because the public's disapproval of the war eventually forced the government to back off. If the public had been completely supportive of it like we were in the World Wars, we might still be there.
Why are things different now in the Middle East than they have been in the past? Why are the Kurds in a different position, why is IS different? Public Opinion.
It matters.
|
On August 11 2014 04:51 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2014 16:19 Sub40APM wrote:On August 10 2014 13:25 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On August 10 2014 13:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2014 12:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On August 10 2014 12:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2014 11:32 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On August 10 2014 10:54 Vindicare605 wrote:
The reason I say it is because the Kurds in Syria and the Kurds in Iraq are for all intents and purposes their own country, they govern themselves completely independently and up until now have been fighting the IS entirely on their own also.
I say we just recognize their own state. Give them their own nice chunk of Iraq after we finish taking it back from the IS.
I think the people deserve it, they're already fighting to defend their homeland, they're buying their right to be recognized. About as much as Native American reservations. But they're as reliant on state authorities and Washington as the Kurds are on Baghdad, and especially Turkish Kurds on Ankara. I guess if most of your money, resources, and development comes from the rest of the country you're a part of, but "govern" yourself, that sounds like"completely independently"? Just trying to understand your logic. Actually the Kurds are almost entirely economically reliant on Baghdad. Your claim of "govern themselves completely independently" is not something I've heard. Even the Kurds are not directly for secession, except fanatic groups like PKK or whatever. More important, the Kurdish forces are currently very overextended, and will have to cede a lot of their "gains". In fact, they're in a state right now where they're relying heavily on the regular Iraqi military, especially for heavy firepower and munitions. I read a couple days ago that they're literally running out of ammo too. Basically the situation's becoming worse for Irbil and better for Baghdad, if we're to look at this like the political struggle you're exhibiting it as. But if you think that's bad for the dreams of Kurdish fanatics for independence, that's not all. This isn't even the most important thing in all of this! Nuri Al-Maliki, arguably the most unpopular guy in Mesopotamian history, is being told by everyone to lead office, and the US is looking forward to a new leader and reorganized government. If history says anything, it's most likely going to be a strong, Iraq-minded guy who's going to do away with Maliki's tradition of sucking Iranian Ayatollah cock and fucking up Iraq, and fix things, firstly with the ISIS invasion. Yeah, let's have Turkey and Iran do the same. Divide and conquer amirite? Let's also give most of the USA back to the natives we exterminated while we're at it. Or California and Texas to the Mexicans.  Yeah, over my dead body. While we're talking about Iraq, let's also give Assyria back to the Assyrians. Sound good? They've always been peaceful people too, silently suffering massacres by Turks/Kurds or Islamic extremists for the past century. No insurgency or terrorism from them. Seems like they'd deserve it more imo. Also, news flash, the US focus, unsurprisingly, is on Iraq-proper, not on the KurdsThey were also fighting against their own country in support of the Khomeini's jihad in the 1980s, so for all I care, they're just starting to make up to their countrymen for past wrongs. On August 10 2014 10:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2014 10:12 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On August 10 2014 08:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I say forget Iraq and just secure a Kurdistan and completely shift support from Baghdad to Kurdistan. Of course it would all be easier if we hadn't inadvertently armed ISIS ourselves.
The Kurds are going to likely need Israeli-lite level support for as long, in order to remain a safe and secure ally in the region.
On August 10 2014 09:52 Vindicare605 wrote:
If the Kurds don't get their own country after this I'm going to be furious. Lol. Both these posts, I don't understand the logic. What substantiates these statements? I'll get to the second post in a bit. But, Vindicare, please tell that to the Turks and Iranians as well to do the same for Kurds. What's funny though, is during the Iraq War, there was a proposition in the US Congress to split up Iraq (yes absurd as that sounds that we were deciding what to do with foreign countries) into Kurdish, Sunni, and Shiite sections. Iraqis were vehemently opposed to it, including Kurdish administrators. The Kurds find your fury funny :s On August 10 2014 10:09 ImFromPortugal wrote:
[quote]
You broke Iraq long before you invaded the 2nd time... but then you made it even worse... Saddam looks like a nice guy now compared to what is going on.
If you've read my posts in the last few pages, you would have seen my references to the embargo. Yes, that's what crashed the country, and destroyed any semblance of economy, infrastructure, and society in the country. Let's not talk about the death toll. We (US) are the modern-era's Mongols. This is why it is not a good idea to fuck with us :3. Especially in the decade following the USSR's collapse, we ruled the world haha, making such a thing possible. If only Hussein had sucked Uncle Sam's dick. The country would be the one decent society/economy in western Asia aside from Israel and certainly our most valuable ally in the region. Iraq in whole is going to be a mess for decades. Trying to fix what the Bush Administration broke is a lost cause at this point. The Kurds are potentially our most loyal allies in the region and have practically the most acceptable social structure of the region. It makes more sense, to me at least, to defend a Kurdistan, than to try to forge an Iraq that just isn't going to happen. I bet if you asked the Kurds now they wouldn't be so opposed to it. Without arms support from countries such as the United States, the Kurds face uncertainty in direct battles with the Islamic State. Recent talks between U.S. and Kurdish officials focused on unifying Iraq. As Iraq shows signs of fragmentation and a decreasing hold on power, the Kurds are pushing for independence.
“The right to independence is a legitimate right of any nationalistic country. We have history and have suffered as Kurds of Iraq. Historically and geographically, Iraq is divided both spiritually and physically,” Mr. Hikmet said. “The Kurds want their independence and autonomy.”
As for Kurds spread into other regions, yeah those countries should probably make concessions too, but that seems like something that would come much further down the road. Actually, what George Bush Jr. did didn't even damage Iraq as bad as George Bush Sr. did with the embargo. Yes, two terrible murderers and brutes, but one had less violent means of destruction. The Kurds are not specifically loyal to anyone really, especially not to imperial warmongers lol, and the term "ally" is very loosely used, especially in US politics. However, when we actually look at the reality rather than your own painted scenario, they're not who we're pushing for. That's why the entire US policy and security in Iraq is focused on and working with Baghdad and Iraqi govt. politicians, not the Kurds. Obviously, you see something that everyone in the US government doesn't see for the sake of American interests. Considering the US govt. acts strictly in line with US interests, it says a lot that their focus is on Baghdad. I bet if you asked the Kurds now they wouldn't be so opposed to it. You'd lose a lot of money on that bet. At the height of chaos in Iraq during the Iraq War, Kurdish leaders were against secession, even when the US Congress voted to split up Iraq. At the height of Kurdish nationalism in the 70s-00s, only fanatic militant groups like PKK and Peshmerga were really pushing for secession in Turkey and Iraq. Both realizing the realities and critical importance of the reliance on and cooperation with Baghdad, and the fact that, for all intents and purposes, most Kurdish leaders and Kurds are normal level-headed people, who are alright with the status quo, your statement couldn't be further from the truth. When asked directly, Kurdish region leaders can't even give a straight answer on what they want on the matter. Hell, there's a lot of internal political division among the Kurds themselves (on all matters, not necessarily this one). They're hardly a united faction. The total number of Kurdistani voters participating in the referendum was 1,998,061 people.
- 1,973412 people voted for independence.
- 19650 voted for Kurdistan to remain as part of Iraq.
Thus 98.8% of the people of Kurdistan have voted for independence.
The committee stated that the referendum was held in all Kurdish areas including Kirkuk, Khanaqin and Kurdish areas in Mosul province. But it excluded the Kurds living in Baghdad and other Arab cities and towns. SourceSeems like the Kurdish people disagree with your assessment of their desires. I suppose the ones outside of where it would be probably feel less motivated toward independence. It seems like the US's focus is to reduce agitation and independence struggles are pretty much the opposite. “From now on, we won’t hide that that’s our goal,” Massoud Barzani, president of the Regional Kurdistan Government, told the BBC in an interview. “Iraq is effectively partitioned now. Are we supposed to stay in this tragic situation the country’s living? It’s not me who will decide on independence. It’s the people.” Source LOL! 98%? Also, 99% of people voted for Saddam Hussein, and 97% of Crimeans voted to join Russia. Do you believe these numbers as well? You are telling me you trust Saddam Hussein and Putin? Because that's exactly what you're telling me. And as far as I'm aware the Kurds have very dirty politics, like everywhere else in the region. Nothing says otherwise, so this claim by Kurdish administrators doesn't surprise me. It looks like business as usual in the Mideast to me. You're about the same as the Russians who believe the 97% in Crimea was legit. Please, results are never that ridiculously one way or the other. All it says is a dead giveaway that someone's obviously giving bs numbers. All it tells us, is the person telling us the results is full of shit, whether it's a 3rd world government or a highly-politically-motivated 3rd world faction. And I don't know man, overall, Kurdish leaders are overall not necessarily on any side on the matter: http://rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/30032014We can't go with the rhetoric from one fanatic like Barzani and claim it as the entire opinion of the KRG leadership or that of millions of people. Now that's absurd. Unless we should do things the Putin way and just throw sham numbers around. In any case, lots of things from my last post went unaddressed. I'll treat it as your agreement. But one of many points from my last post, perhaps we should give the land back to the Assyrians. Having faced genocide and persecution, they deserve to be restored in their homeland, and their actual ethnic/racial where they've been living for millenia, constantly persecuted and devastated by Arabs and Kurds and Turks. We did it for the Jews, so why not with Assyrians? lol I didn't agree with them I just assumed they weren't directed at me. I'm not arguing the Kurds should get the land for any reason related to their historical treatment so I don't think that is the precedent that would be applicable. I was speaking from a mostly pragmatic standpoint. Honestly, I don't see a solution that doesn't take us into WWIII anyway so I'm all for throwing the 'first punch' I'd love to still think peace without war was possible but I just don't see it happening. (I guess this would still be the yelling escalating into shoving stage). The shit brewing is not something that can be 'settled' this fight is happening whether the 'people at the party' want it to or not. I was just suggesting that we try to give support and weapons to the guys that will be least likely to use them against us. We can settle the humanitarian stuff after the war when people are more amiable to peaceful resolutions. I wasn't suggesting my opinion was unassailable truth, just my perspective. What resolution to this did you have in mind? So let's say this happens. How will Iran and Turkey respond to a "Kurdish spring"? They'll absolutely crush it. Assuming Iraq didn't already have "permission", this will prompt Iraq to do the same, and all national govts. involved will establish a much tighter leash on their Kurdish populations and a stronger effort for "Turkization", "Arabization", and "Persianization". This is why Barzani is a short-sighted village idiot. Just like Maliki's idiocy promoted sectarianism, Barzani's already doing a good job of pissing everyone off with his rhetoric, at a time where he needs outside help more than he ever did. . Erdrogan is exporting Kurdish oil as we speak, he would be totally fine with a Kurdistan that doesnt involve any of his territories, and compared to the Shiites he doesnt trust in Baghdad or Syria he'd welcome it since it would be wholly dependent on his good will. -- but I agree, people who are viewing Kurds as some sort of Israel 2.0 need to wake up, Iraqi Kurdistan is divided between two families. The only reason they arent at each others throats is they taste a bigger prize. Of course Erdogan is okay with that, as long as it isn't HIS own Kurds doing the same. He's okay with anything that can destabilize the "evil" Arab countries and "evil" Israel. The Turks are pretty much the country no one in Europe, the Mideast, or their ethnic Turkic relatives in Central Asia like, so best to continue playing the villain. I lol'd when he publicly denounced Israel as the new Nazi Germany a week or two ago. Fun guy. I agree, the Kurds are so underdeveloped and unorganized that they're practically the furthest thing away from an Israel 2.0. They'd be closer to Albania 2.0 than to Israel. Show nested quote +The only reason they arent at each others throats is they taste a bigger prize. So independent Iraqi Kurdistan, which is pretty tribal, results in chaotic feudalism between Kurdish groups, and then Iraqi forces move in, conquer the territory, and absorb it as a non-autonomous part of Iraq. Doesn't seem like they'll achieve much lol. Show nested quote +On August 10 2014 17:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2014 13:25 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On August 10 2014 13:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2014 12:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On August 10 2014 12:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2014 11:32 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On August 10 2014 10:54 Vindicare605 wrote:
The reason I say it is because the Kurds in Syria and the Kurds in Iraq are for all intents and purposes their own country, they govern themselves completely independently and up until now have been fighting the IS entirely on their own also.
I say we just recognize their own state. Give them their own nice chunk of Iraq after we finish taking it back from the IS.
I think the people deserve it, they're already fighting to defend their homeland, they're buying their right to be recognized. About as much as Native American reservations. But they're as reliant on state authorities and Washington as the Kurds are on Baghdad, and especially Turkish Kurds on Ankara. I guess if most of your money, resources, and development comes from the rest of the country you're a part of, but "govern" yourself, that sounds like"completely independently"? Just trying to understand your logic. Actually the Kurds are almost entirely economically reliant on Baghdad. Your claim of "govern themselves completely independently" is not something I've heard. Even the Kurds are not directly for secession, except fanatic groups like PKK or whatever. More important, the Kurdish forces are currently very overextended, and will have to cede a lot of their "gains". In fact, they're in a state right now where they're relying heavily on the regular Iraqi military, especially for heavy firepower and munitions. I read a couple days ago that they're literally running out of ammo too. Basically the situation's becoming worse for Irbil and better for Baghdad, if we're to look at this like the political struggle you're exhibiting it as. But if you think that's bad for the dreams of Kurdish fanatics for independence, that's not all. This isn't even the most important thing in all of this! Nuri Al-Maliki, arguably the most unpopular guy in Mesopotamian history, is being told by everyone to lead office, and the US is looking forward to a new leader and reorganized government. If history says anything, it's most likely going to be a strong, Iraq-minded guy who's going to do away with Maliki's tradition of sucking Iranian Ayatollah cock and fucking up Iraq, and fix things, firstly with the ISIS invasion. Yeah, let's have Turkey and Iran do the same. Divide and conquer amirite? Let's also give most of the USA back to the natives we exterminated while we're at it. Or California and Texas to the Mexicans. Yeah, over my dead body. While we're talking about Iraq, let's also give Assyria back to the Assyrians. Sound good? They've always been peaceful people too, silently suffering massacres by Turks/Kurds or Islamic extremists for the past century. No insurgency or terrorism from them. Seems like they'd deserve it more imo. Also, news flash, the US focus, unsurprisingly, is on Iraq-proper, not on the KurdsThey were also fighting against their own country in support of the Khomeini's jihad in the 1980s, so for all I care, they're just starting to make up to their countrymen for past wrongs. On August 10 2014 10:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2014 10:12 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On August 10 2014 08:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I say forget Iraq and just secure a Kurdistan and completely shift support from Baghdad to Kurdistan. Of course it would all be easier if we hadn't inadvertently armed ISIS ourselves.
The Kurds are going to likely need Israeli-lite level support for as long, in order to remain a safe and secure ally in the region.
On August 10 2014 09:52 Vindicare605 wrote:
If the Kurds don't get their own country after this I'm going to be furious. Lol. Both these posts, I don't understand the logic. What substantiates these statements? I'll get to the second post in a bit. But, Vindicare, please tell that to the Turks and Iranians as well to do the same for Kurds. What's funny though, is during the Iraq War, there was a proposition in the US Congress to split up Iraq (yes absurd as that sounds that we were deciding what to do with foreign countries) into Kurdish, Sunni, and Shiite sections. Iraqis were vehemently opposed to it, including Kurdish administrators. The Kurds find your fury funny :s On August 10 2014 10:09 ImFromPortugal wrote:
[quote]
You broke Iraq long before you invaded the 2nd time... but then you made it even worse... Saddam looks like a nice guy now compared to what is going on.
If you've read my posts in the last few pages, you would have seen my references to the embargo. Yes, that's what crashed the country, and destroyed any semblance of economy, infrastructure, and society in the country. Let's not talk about the death toll. We (US) are the modern-era's Mongols. This is why it is not a good idea to fuck with us :3. Especially in the decade following the USSR's collapse, we ruled the world haha, making such a thing possible. If only Hussein had sucked Uncle Sam's dick. The country would be the one decent society/economy in western Asia aside from Israel and certainly our most valuable ally in the region. Iraq in whole is going to be a mess for decades. Trying to fix what the Bush Administration broke is a lost cause at this point. The Kurds are potentially our most loyal allies in the region and have practically the most acceptable social structure of the region. It makes more sense, to me at least, to defend a Kurdistan, than to try to forge an Iraq that just isn't going to happen. I bet if you asked the Kurds now they wouldn't be so opposed to it. Without arms support from countries such as the United States, the Kurds face uncertainty in direct battles with the Islamic State. Recent talks between U.S. and Kurdish officials focused on unifying Iraq. As Iraq shows signs of fragmentation and a decreasing hold on power, the Kurds are pushing for independence.
“The right to independence is a legitimate right of any nationalistic country. We have history and have suffered as Kurds of Iraq. Historically and geographically, Iraq is divided both spiritually and physically,” Mr. Hikmet said. “The Kurds want their independence and autonomy.”
As for Kurds spread into other regions, yeah those countries should probably make concessions too, but that seems like something that would come much further down the road. Actually, what George Bush Jr. did didn't even damage Iraq as bad as George Bush Sr. did with the embargo. Yes, two terrible murderers and brutes, but one had less violent means of destruction. The Kurds are not specifically loyal to anyone really, especially not to imperial warmongers lol, and the term "ally" is very loosely used, especially in US politics. However, when we actually look at the reality rather than your own painted scenario, they're not who we're pushing for. That's why the entire US policy and security in Iraq is focused on and working with Baghdad and Iraqi govt. politicians, not the Kurds. Obviously, you see something that everyone in the US government doesn't see for the sake of American interests. Considering the US govt. acts strictly in line with US interests, it says a lot that their focus is on Baghdad. I bet if you asked the Kurds now they wouldn't be so opposed to it. You'd lose a lot of money on that bet. At the height of chaos in Iraq during the Iraq War, Kurdish leaders were against secession, even when the US Congress voted to split up Iraq. At the height of Kurdish nationalism in the 70s-00s, only fanatic militant groups like PKK and Peshmerga were really pushing for secession in Turkey and Iraq. Both realizing the realities and critical importance of the reliance on and cooperation with Baghdad, and the fact that, for all intents and purposes, most Kurdish leaders and Kurds are normal level-headed people, who are alright with the status quo, your statement couldn't be further from the truth. When asked directly, Kurdish region leaders can't even give a straight answer on what they want on the matter. Hell, there's a lot of internal political division among the Kurds themselves (on all matters, not necessarily this one). They're hardly a united faction. The total number of Kurdistani voters participating in the referendum was 1,998,061 people.
- 1,973412 people voted for independence.
- 19650 voted for Kurdistan to remain as part of Iraq.
Thus 98.8% of the people of Kurdistan have voted for independence.
The committee stated that the referendum was held in all Kurdish areas including Kirkuk, Khanaqin and Kurdish areas in Mosul province. But it excluded the Kurds living in Baghdad and other Arab cities and towns. SourceSeems like the Kurdish people disagree with your assessment of their desires. I suppose the ones outside of where it would be probably feel less motivated toward independence. It seems like the US's focus is to reduce agitation and independence struggles are pretty much the opposite. “From now on, we won’t hide that that’s our goal,” Massoud Barzani, president of the Regional Kurdistan Government, told the BBC in an interview. “Iraq is effectively partitioned now. Are we supposed to stay in this tragic situation the country’s living? It’s not me who will decide on independence. It’s the people.” Source LOL! 98%? Also, 99% of people voted for Saddam Hussein, and 97% of Crimeans voted to join Russia. Do you believe these numbers as well? You are telling me you trust Saddam Hussein and Putin? Because that's exactly what you're telling me. And as far as I'm aware the Kurds have very dirty politics, like everywhere else in the region. Nothing says otherwise, so this claim by Kurdish administrators doesn't surprise me. It looks like business as usual in the Mideast to me. You're about the same as the Russians who believe the 97% in Crimea was legit. Please, results are never that ridiculously one way or the other. All it says is a dead giveaway that someone's obviously giving bs numbers. All it tells us, is the person telling us the results is full of shit, whether it's a 3rd world government or a highly-politically-motivated 3rd world faction. And I don't know man, overall, Kurdish leaders are overall not necessarily on any side on the matter: http://rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/30032014We can't go with the rhetoric from one fanatic like Barzani and claim it as the entire opinion of the KRG leadership or that of millions of people. Now that's absurd. Unless we should do things the Putin way and just throw sham numbers around. In any case, lots of things from my last post went unaddressed. I'll treat it as your agreement. But one of many points from my last post, perhaps we should give the land back to the Assyrians. Having faced genocide and persecution, they deserve to be restored in their homeland, and their actual ethnic/racial where they've been living for millenia, constantly persecuted and devastated by Arabs and Kurds and Turks. We did it for the Jews, so why not with Assyrians? lol I didn't agree with them I just assumed they weren't directed at me. I'm not arguing the Kurds should get the land for any reason related to their historical treatment so I don't think that is the precedent that would be applicable. I was speaking from a mostly pragmatic standpoint. Honestly, I don't see a solution that doesn't take us into WWIII anyway so I'm all for throwing the 'first punch' I'd love to still think peace without war was possible but I just don't see it happening. (I guess this would still be the yelling escalating into shoving stage). The shit brewing is not something that can be 'settled' this fight is happening whether the 'people at the party' want it to or not. I was just suggesting that we try to give support and weapons to the guys that will be least likely to use them against us. We can settle the humanitarian stuff after the war when people are more amiable to peaceful resolutions. I wasn't suggesting my opinion was unassailable truth, just my perspective. What resolution to this did you have in mind? What resolution? Well, let's see the situation with Barzani. Give Barzani an inch, and he'll want a planet. But, how I see it, the concern bigger than Barzani's wet fantasies is that if we give Barzani what he wants (which no one wants except him and his supporters, numbering only among some Kurds) there is a good chance of a "Kurdish spring", and this wouldn't be the first time. You see, this whole matter isn't simply an insulated Iraqi or an Iraqi Kurdish thing. This also very much concerns the Iranian and Turkish and Syrian governments and affects the Kurds there as well. Turkey has been fighting Kurdish radicals since at least the 1980s, who, also influenced Iraqi Kurdish insurgency and (vice versa) against Iraq, conveniently timed while Iraq was fighting Khomeini. Even back then, Kurdish action was influenced even across borders. And the Kurds in Turkey are pretty rowdy folks. The PKK is rather extreme. So let's say this happens. How will Iran and Turkey respond to a "Kurdish spring"? They'll absolutely crush it. Assuming Iraq didn't already have "permission", this will prompt Iraq to do the same, and all national govts. involved will establish a much tighter leash on their Kurdish populations and a stronger effort for "Turkization", "Arabization", and "Persianization". This is why Barzani is a short-sighted village idiot. Just like Maliki's idiocy promoted sectarianism, Barzani's already doing a good job of pissing everyone off with his rhetoric, at a time where he needs outside help more than he ever did. You're right. Peace without war sometimes isn't possible. But here, war is a disastrous option. The Kurds will get quadruple-penetrated if they tried open armed revolt in their 4 host countries. And considering the US is significantly more interested in its NATO alliance with Turkey and relations and cooperation with Iraq, don't expect the US to be helping them. Even now, they're dependent on Iraq for ammunition shipments and heavy firepower against the terrorists. It would very much behoove the Kurds not to take the path of war. So what is the resolution, you ask? Keep the status quo for now. Any action in the short term will only be disastrous for Kurds. They should be worrying more about the terrorists poised to invade Arbil and thanking based god for the Iraqi support, despite Barzani's extremism and rhetoric. Hopefully, ISIS will meet its maker in Iraq soon enough, and then in Syria. Then decapitate all of them and send their corpses to Riyadh. Perhaps the Saudis will reconsider their limitless support for terrorism and jihad. Or maybe the Saudis and Iranians will do the whole world a favor and destroy each other. It would cripple the world's two biggest backers of Islamic terrorism. Can't argue with that. I'm not even really sure what the 'status quo' really means? Looking at the Kurdish history it looks like independence isn't something only a few of them want...? Either way the way the world has been working they seem like a likable enough people (more so than the leaders in all of their resident countries), so I could imagine a situation where we back a modest independence plan and when the other countries go all ballistic on them, we use the inevitable human disaster as a pretext to go in and set the whole region back to the stone age. I don't know, perhaps the Kurds have some ISIS like agenda I'm unaware of? But I don't see how at least breaking them off a piece of Iraq is bad, other than it upsets bigger despots in the region. Is there something from common people showing antihises toward independence? I guess since I see a huge regional/global conflict as inevitable (if not already brewing) I guess I don't see the benefit in stalling? Unless there is some important tech just over the horizon? If it isn't already apparent, one Kurdish agenda is land-grabbing, which is what they were doing in June/July before ISIS pushed them back. They want to do a lot of it. Historically speaking, they even want Mosul under their control. But they're at the very least about land-grabbing, and the Kurds are not very intelligent, and could just try more of it somewhere down the line, assuming they aren't completely overrun by ISIS. The US doesn't want Irbil to be conquered because we have a consulate there, but if it did happen, it would fracture Kurdish political goals and what little organization they have. The Kurds aren't very peaceful people either. Assuming an independent Kurdistan isn't destroying itself from within (lots of internal divisions and whatnot that's kept at bay for the time being due to the independence dream), they're going to be fighting to take more Iraqi land. I don't know what other sinister goals Barzani and his mates have, and I probably don't want to know. But it's never a good sign when Mideastern guys are as fanatical as him. lol. I guess, I'll be a smart ass and say any people are likable, but in terms of politics and society and whatnot, the Kurds? lol. They're on par with aggressive Arab tribal guys. In fact, they are tribal guys themselves. Many Kurdish tribes and conflicting powerful families. Given the internal divisions that are only kept at bay by the fact that the Kurdish independence thing is a bit of a glue, I think Kurdish independence would end up with them killing each other lol, and then Iraq comes in to clean up the mess. Show nested quote +so I could imagine a situation where we back a modest independence plan and when the other countries go all ballistic on them, we use the inevitable human disaster as a pretext to go in and set the whole region back to the stone age. This is an astonishing comment, I'm sorry. Are you for real dude? For one, the US is not going to go in anywhere. Also, the US is still reeling badly from the last couple wars. The US is finally learning that for the past 60 years, it's only caused chaos, destruction, and death in the Mideast, so we're not about to go make a major war again. Also, everyone fucking hates us. I've mentioned this in a previous post, but, you conveniently forget that Turkey is a US ally in NATO. The US will back Turkey any day of the week over Kurds, and will back Turkey against Kurdish insurgency or any Kurdish matters, like we have for the past 30 years. The US is also very focused on fostering cooperation and relations with Iraq. Even in this current conflict, we're purely focusing on the government in Baghdad, not Irbil. In fact, we give zero fucks about the Kurds except for the fact that we have a consulate in Irbil. As for Iran, we certainly don't want to touch them, and I don't know what we think about Syria. So basically, in this scenario you have given us, what we're going to have a quadruple-penetration that'll send the Kurds from the stone age to the wood age, because that's all that will happen in your scenario. But in all honesty, as I theorized and Sub40APM too, the Kurds will end up with lots of civil war and violence if given independence. Considering the internal fissures and the fact the Kurds are not very socially developed (think Arab tribes in less developed society settings in the Mideast, Kurds have the same thing), Iraq, Turkey, Iran, and Syria won't even have to do anything. Then, Iraq will use the inevitable human disaster as a pretext to go in and set the whole region back to the stone age. Incredible how that plot twist happened! I even used your last sentence word for word. :O Also, I have no idea why you're promoting more massacring and war from Uncle Sam. We've done enough damage to the world, and particularly that region. You make us sound like a rogue terrorist nation that likes to massacre people. Show nested quote +On August 10 2014 21:58 ImFromPortugal wrote:On August 10 2014 11:32 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On August 10 2014 10:54 Vindicare605 wrote:
The reason I say it is because the Kurds in Syria and the Kurds in Iraq are for all intents and purposes their own country, they govern themselves completely independently and up until now have been fighting the IS entirely on their own also.
I say we just recognize their own state. Give them their own nice chunk of Iraq after we finish taking it back from the IS.
I think the people deserve it, they're already fighting to defend their homeland, they're buying their right to be recognized. About as much as Native American reservations. But they're as reliant on state authorities and Washington as the Kurds are on Baghdad, and especially Turkish Kurds on Ankara. I guess if most of your money, resources, and development comes from the rest of the country you're a part of, but "govern" yourself, that sounds like"completely independently"? Just trying to understand your logic. Actually the Kurds are almost entirely economically reliant on Baghdad. Your claim of "govern themselves completely independently" is not something I've heard. Even the Kurds are not directly for secession, except fanatic groups like PKK or whatever. More important, the Kurdish forces are currently very overextended, and will have to cede a lot of their "gains". In fact, they're in a state right now where they're relying heavily on the regular Iraqi military, especially for heavy firepower and munitions. I read a couple days ago that they're literally running out of ammo too. Basically the situation's becoming worse for Irbil and better for Baghdad, if we're to look at this like the political struggle you're exhibiting it as. But if you think that's bad for the dreams of Kurdish fanatics for independence, that's not all. This isn't even the most important thing in all of this! Nuri Al-Maliki, arguably the most unpopular guy and least productive dictator in Mesopotamian history, is being told by everyone, including his own party, to leave office, and the US is looking forward to a new Iraqi leader and reorganized government to cooperate with. At this point, people are just waiting for him to give his formal resignation. If history says anything, it's most likely going to be a strong, Iraq-minded guy who's going to do away with Maliki's tradition of sucking Iranian Ayatollah cock and fucking up Iraq, and fix things, firstly with the ISIS invasion. So, conclusively, once Iraq reorganizes its government and the US has an administration they'll work a lot more closely with, and as the Iraqi counter-offensive is put into full swing, the Kurdish fighting effort will be swept under the rug, or remembered for being beaten back by ISIS until the Iraqi military got its shit together and won. Yeah, let's have Turkey and Iran do the same. Divide and conquer amirite? Let's also give most of the USA back to the natives we exterminated while we're at it. Or California and Texas to the Mexicans. Yeah, over my dead body. While we're talking about Iraq, let's also give Assyria back to the Assyrians. Sound good? They've always been peaceful people too, silently suffering massacres by Turks/Kurds or Islamic extremists for the past century. No insurgency or terrorism from them. Seems like they'd deserve it more imo. Also, news flash, the US focus, unsurprisingly, is on Iraq-proper, not on the KurdsThey were also fighting against their own country in support of the Khomeini's jihad in the 1980s and teamed up with the Turks to commit genocide against Armenians and Assyrians (the latter who is from Iraq), so for all I care, they're just starting to make up to their countrymen for past wrongs. They're not "buying" any right. And the shift in military importance is quickly moving to the standard Iraqi military's as the peshmerga are increasingly in deep shit, especially after the loss at Sinjar. On August 10 2014 10:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2014 10:12 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On August 10 2014 08:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2014 08:07 Vindicare605 wrote:The British are deploying special forces to Iraq to help spot for air strikes. Hints that more special forces groups could be on the way. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/sas-deployed-iraq-british-special-4026869#.U-aoAmMn-Cf“It may be that in the coming months the British presence there will increase and a small number of specialist units will join them but that is a long way off.
“The political will for a significant British military presence in Iraq is non-existent but this humanitarian effort is enormous and these people need protecting.”
The strikes this afternoon came after Obama gave the green light to protect Christians and avert “a potential act of genocide” of tens of thousands of members of the ancient Yazidi sect.
They have taken refuge on a desert mountaintop from Islamic State forces who have threatened to exterminate them unless they take up Islam.
The Daily Mirror understands plans for British specials forces to go to northern Iraq have been underway for some weeks but they have only recently been sent.
American crack special forces troops including Navy SEALs and army Delta Force and CIA spies have been in Baghdad and Arbil for weeks helping with the Iraqi effort to tackle the growing IS threat.
Sunni Muslim fighters from the Islamic State, barred from al-Qaeda for being too extreme, are obsessed with establishing a caliphate or Muslim region and eradicating unbelievers.
I say forget Iraq and just secure a Kurdistan and completely shift support from Baghdad to Kurdistan. Of course it would all be easier if we hadn't inadvertently armed ISIS ourselves. The Kurds are going to likely need Israeli-lite level support for as long, in order to remain a safe and secure ally in the region. On August 10 2014 09:52 Vindicare605 wrote:
If the Kurds don't get their own country after this I'm going to be furious. Lol. Both these posts, I don't understand the logic. What substantiates these statements? I'll get to the second post in a bit. But, Vindicare, please tell that to the Turks and Iranians as well to do the same for Kurds. What's funny though, is during the Iraq War, there was a proposition in the US Congress to split up Iraq (yes absurd as that sounds that we were deciding what to do with foreign countries) into Kurdish, Sunni, and Shiite sections. Iraqis were vehemently opposed to it, including Kurdish administrators. The Kurds find your fury funny :s On August 10 2014 10:09 ImFromPortugal wrote:On August 09 2014 02:56 xDaunt wrote:On August 09 2014 02:48 Sub40APM wrote:On August 09 2014 02:44 xDaunt wrote:On August 09 2014 02:23 BallinWitStalin wrote:
[quote]
You have made some good points regarding issues like this before, but I don't think this is one of them. As others have pointed out, people all over the world fight islamist extremists, particularly if they are in close regional proximity.
I think the world primarily views this issue as a "you broke it you bought it", with respect to their own involvement vs. American involvement. Sure, other countries are more than happy to clean up domestic and even regional messes that are more like large scale police actions than real military interventions. What's going on in Iraq/Syria is in a whole different class than these far lesser conflicts. I've yet to see another nation be willing to lead military action to solve an actual large problem. The closest example was European intervention in Libya, but that only happened because of how important Libyan oil is to Europe. Even with Libya slowly falling apart, it remains to be seen if Europe is in it for the long haul. Or put it another way, if "You broke it, you fix it" mentality is really true than the UK-France should be deploying their troops into the Libyan war which is currently has as many causalities as Gaza. But mysteriously neither the governments who 'broke' the country nor the masses of people who went out to protest Israel -- but just Israeli caused deaths, guess Arabs killed by other Arabs are less valuable -- seem to give 0 fucks. I love little more than seeing examples of European hypocrisy given how much shit they give us. EDIT: Just to be clear, I don't really buy the argument that the West "broke" any of these countries anyway. You broke Iraq long before you invaded the 2nd time... but then you made it even worse... Saddam looks like a nice guy now compared to what is going on. If you've read my posts in the last few pages, you would have seen my references to the embargo. Yes, that's what crashed the country, and destroyed any semblance of economy, infrastructure, and society in the country. Let's not talk about the death toll. We (US) are the modern-era's Mongols. This is why it is not a good idea to fuck with us :3. Especially in the decade following the USSR's collapse, we ruled the world haha, making such a thing possible. If only Hussein had sucked Uncle Sam's dick. The country would be the one decent society/economy in western Asia aside from Israel and certainly our most valuable ally in the region. Iraq in whole is going to be a mess for decades. Trying to fix what the Bush Administration broke is a lost cause at this point. The Kurds are potentially our most loyal allies in the region and have practically the most acceptable social structure of the region. It makes more sense, to me at least, to defend a Kurdistan, than to try to forge an Iraq that just isn't going to happen. I bet if you asked the Kurds now they wouldn't be so opposed to it. Without arms support from countries such as the United States, the Kurds face uncertainty in direct battles with the Islamic State. Recent talks between U.S. and Kurdish officials focused on unifying Iraq. As Iraq shows signs of fragmentation and a decreasing hold on power, the Kurds are pushing for independence.
“The right to independence is a legitimate right of any nationalistic country. We have history and have suffered as Kurds of Iraq. Historically and geographically, Iraq is divided both spiritually and physically,” Mr. Hikmet said. “The Kurds want their independence and autonomy.”
As for Kurds spread into other regions, yeah those countries should probably make concessions too, but that seems like something that would come much further down the road. Actually, what George Bush Jr. did didn't even damage Iraq as bad as George Bush Sr. did with the embargo. Yes, two terrible murderers and brutes, but one had less violent means of destruction. The Kurds are not specifically loyal to anyone really, especially not to imperial warmongers lol, and the term "ally" is very loosely used, especially in US politics. However, when we actually look at the reality rather than your own painted scenario, they're not who we're pushing for. That's why the entire US policy and security in Iraq is focused on and working with Baghdad and Iraqi govt. politicians, not the Kurds. Obviously, you see something that everyone in the US government doesn't see for the sake of American interests. Considering the US govt. acts strictly in line with US interests, it says a lot that their focus is on Baghdad. We're literally waiting for Maliki to resign. Everyone in Iraq and even the US wants Maliki to step down so there can be a new Iraqi leadership. We are so focused on Baghdad that we're watching their politics more than we're watching anyone else. With the amount of focus we have on Baghdad, you'd forget there was a KRG. I bet if you asked the Kurds now they wouldn't be so opposed to it. You'd lose a lot of money on that bet. At the height of chaos in Iraq during the Iraq War, Kurdish leaders were against secession, even when the US Congress voted to split up Iraq. At the height of Kurdish nationalism in the 70s-00s, only fanatic militant groups like PKK and Peshmerga were really pushing for secession in Turkey and Iraq. Both realizing the realities and critical importance of the reliance on and cooperation with Baghdad, and the fact that, for all intents and purposes, most Kurdish leaders and Kurds are normal level-headed people, who are alright with the status quo, your statement couldn't be further from the truth. When asked directly, Kurdish region leaders can't even give a straight answer on what they want on the matter. Hell, there's a lot of internal political division among the Kurds themselves (on all matters, not necessarily this one). They're hardly a united faction. Why are you so opposed to them having their own state? Lets not forget how saddam killed thousands of them with gas supplied by western powers like your own country. I would like them to be able to have their own country and live peacefully with all the other peoples around them. Yeah, what are you supposed to do against violent insurgencies killing your people and treason while you're single-handedly fighting history's greatest jihad? High-five them? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. However, let me present to you a more justified scenario. Let's not forget how the Turks and Kurds (yes, the Kurds) killed off 100,000s of Assyrians, or how Islamic terrorists have eliminated much of the 1.5 million Christians (mostly Assyrians) in Iraq since 2003. In all of this, the Assyrians have been a peaceful people who go about their daily lives, whether they lived in big Iraqi cities or their own ethnic towns, never causing trouble. By your argument, it looks like we should be giving Assyrians their own land lol!
So you dismiss the gassing of the kurds completely ? whats the problem of them getting their own country, please tell.
|
On August 11 2014 08:29 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2014 08:12 Thor.Rush wrote:
@JudicatorHammurabi Agree with most of what you said, except Israel, they have nukes.. and could easily destroy all of its enemies if it wanted/needed to. Ah yes, the nukes. Which if used would be followed by every Israeli being decapitated and eaten by dogs, but in any case, you can expect nations outside the Mideast to get involved to quell a rogue genocidal state using nuclear weapons, especially considering no one likes them. Seems like they lose either way. In addition, if they were the aggressor like in GreenHorizon's scenario, use of nuclear weapons would also be 100% unjustified and they'd even lose all US support (assuming they'd still exist as a country afterwards). At least even if you're an aggressor and you are defeated in conventional warfare, no one hates you as much as if you were to commit genocide with nuclear weapons. At that point, the world would probably look on as even more countries join in to make sure Israel no longer exists, and you can certainly expect a counter-genocide. But no, the Israelis can be fanatical, but they're not anywhere near that stupid
Maybe I'm just a sour sally, but like I said, I don't like it, but I see the world heading toward genocidal levels regardless, unless somehow the most radical of radicals have nuclear weapons and other advance weaponry and suddenly lose their 'win at any cost' mentality. Because eventually the AK's are going to become more and more advanced weaponry (consider all the equipment the US just dropped off in the middle east) the plots will eventually become more terrifying (Not hard to come up with), etc... At that point and after the violence there wont be much of a world left to be mad about the nukes and no one will ever agree about who started it anyway.
I heard a commentator compare IS to Ghangis. Of course I don't think it fits for a lot of reasons, but one reason I do is that they will stop at nothing for their goals... Ever... I mean the other option I see is somehow go a few generations without inflaming any new hate in new generations so that they may possibly see reason. Yeah go several decades without pissing off the middle east... that'll happen.
Do I agree with the US dicking around all over the world to further our interests (sometimes in direct conflict with our declaration of independence [the ideas about self determination]) Hell no! But that's the world I live in. So long as it is, I don't see a whole lot of advantage in waiting until the US's technological head start has dissipated further.
|
On August 11 2014 11:08 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2014 04:51 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On August 10 2014 16:19 Sub40APM wrote:On August 10 2014 13:25 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On August 10 2014 13:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2014 12:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On August 10 2014 12:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2014 11:32 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On August 10 2014 10:54 Vindicare605 wrote:
The reason I say it is because the Kurds in Syria and the Kurds in Iraq are for all intents and purposes their own country, they govern themselves completely independently and up until now have been fighting the IS entirely on their own also.
I say we just recognize their own state. Give them their own nice chunk of Iraq after we finish taking it back from the IS.
I think the people deserve it, they're already fighting to defend their homeland, they're buying their right to be recognized. About as much as Native American reservations. But they're as reliant on state authorities and Washington as the Kurds are on Baghdad, and especially Turkish Kurds on Ankara. I guess if most of your money, resources, and development comes from the rest of the country you're a part of, but "govern" yourself, that sounds like"completely independently"? Just trying to understand your logic. Actually the Kurds are almost entirely economically reliant on Baghdad. Your claim of "govern themselves completely independently" is not something I've heard. Even the Kurds are not directly for secession, except fanatic groups like PKK or whatever. More important, the Kurdish forces are currently very overextended, and will have to cede a lot of their "gains". In fact, they're in a state right now where they're relying heavily on the regular Iraqi military, especially for heavy firepower and munitions. I read a couple days ago that they're literally running out of ammo too. Basically the situation's becoming worse for Irbil and better for Baghdad, if we're to look at this like the political struggle you're exhibiting it as. But if you think that's bad for the dreams of Kurdish fanatics for independence, that's not all. This isn't even the most important thing in all of this! Nuri Al-Maliki, arguably the most unpopular guy in Mesopotamian history, is being told by everyone to lead office, and the US is looking forward to a new leader and reorganized government. If history says anything, it's most likely going to be a strong, Iraq-minded guy who's going to do away with Maliki's tradition of sucking Iranian Ayatollah cock and fucking up Iraq, and fix things, firstly with the ISIS invasion. Yeah, let's have Turkey and Iran do the same. Divide and conquer amirite? Let's also give most of the USA back to the natives we exterminated while we're at it. Or California and Texas to the Mexicans. Yeah, over my dead body. While we're talking about Iraq, let's also give Assyria back to the Assyrians. Sound good? They've always been peaceful people too, silently suffering massacres by Turks/Kurds or Islamic extremists for the past century. No insurgency or terrorism from them. Seems like they'd deserve it more imo. Also, news flash, the US focus, unsurprisingly, is on Iraq-proper, not on the KurdsThey were also fighting against their own country in support of the Khomeini's jihad in the 1980s, so for all I care, they're just starting to make up to their countrymen for past wrongs. On August 10 2014 10:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2014 10:12 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
Lol. Both these posts, I don't understand the logic. What substantiates these statements? I'll get to the second post in a bit. But, Vindicare, please tell that to the Turks and Iranians as well to do the same for Kurds.
What's funny though, is during the Iraq War, there was a proposition in the US Congress to split up Iraq (yes absurd as that sounds that we were deciding what to do with foreign countries) into Kurdish, Sunni, and Shiite sections. Iraqis were vehemently opposed to it, including Kurdish administrators. The Kurds find your fury funny :s
[quote]
If you've read my posts in the last few pages, you would have seen my references to the embargo. Yes, that's what crashed the country, and destroyed any semblance of economy, infrastructure, and society in the country. Let's not talk about the death toll. We (US) are the modern-era's Mongols. This is why it is not a good idea to fuck with us :3. Especially in the decade following the USSR's collapse, we ruled the world haha, making such a thing possible. If only Hussein had sucked Uncle Sam's dick. The country would be the one decent society/economy in western Asia aside from Israel and certainly our most valuable ally in the region. Iraq in whole is going to be a mess for decades. Trying to fix what the Bush Administration broke is a lost cause at this point. The Kurds are potentially our most loyal allies in the region and have practically the most acceptable social structure of the region. It makes more sense, to me at least, to defend a Kurdistan, than to try to forge an Iraq that just isn't going to happen. I bet if you asked the Kurds now they wouldn't be so opposed to it. Without arms support from countries such as the United States, the Kurds face uncertainty in direct battles with the Islamic State. Recent talks between U.S. and Kurdish officials focused on unifying Iraq. As Iraq shows signs of fragmentation and a decreasing hold on power, the Kurds are pushing for independence.
“The right to independence is a legitimate right of any nationalistic country. We have history and have suffered as Kurds of Iraq. Historically and geographically, Iraq is divided both spiritually and physically,” Mr. Hikmet said. “The Kurds want their independence and autonomy.”
As for Kurds spread into other regions, yeah those countries should probably make concessions too, but that seems like something that would come much further down the road. Actually, what George Bush Jr. did didn't even damage Iraq as bad as George Bush Sr. did with the embargo. Yes, two terrible murderers and brutes, but one had less violent means of destruction. The Kurds are not specifically loyal to anyone really, especially not to imperial warmongers lol, and the term "ally" is very loosely used, especially in US politics. However, when we actually look at the reality rather than your own painted scenario, they're not who we're pushing for. That's why the entire US policy and security in Iraq is focused on and working with Baghdad and Iraqi govt. politicians, not the Kurds. Obviously, you see something that everyone in the US government doesn't see for the sake of American interests. Considering the US govt. acts strictly in line with US interests, it says a lot that their focus is on Baghdad. I bet if you asked the Kurds now they wouldn't be so opposed to it. You'd lose a lot of money on that bet. At the height of chaos in Iraq during the Iraq War, Kurdish leaders were against secession, even when the US Congress voted to split up Iraq. At the height of Kurdish nationalism in the 70s-00s, only fanatic militant groups like PKK and Peshmerga were really pushing for secession in Turkey and Iraq. Both realizing the realities and critical importance of the reliance on and cooperation with Baghdad, and the fact that, for all intents and purposes, most Kurdish leaders and Kurds are normal level-headed people, who are alright with the status quo, your statement couldn't be further from the truth. When asked directly, Kurdish region leaders can't even give a straight answer on what they want on the matter. Hell, there's a lot of internal political division among the Kurds themselves (on all matters, not necessarily this one). They're hardly a united faction. The total number of Kurdistani voters participating in the referendum was 1,998,061 people.
- 1,973412 people voted for independence.
- 19650 voted for Kurdistan to remain as part of Iraq.
Thus 98.8% of the people of Kurdistan have voted for independence.
The committee stated that the referendum was held in all Kurdish areas including Kirkuk, Khanaqin and Kurdish areas in Mosul province. But it excluded the Kurds living in Baghdad and other Arab cities and towns. SourceSeems like the Kurdish people disagree with your assessment of their desires. I suppose the ones outside of where it would be probably feel less motivated toward independence. It seems like the US's focus is to reduce agitation and independence struggles are pretty much the opposite. “From now on, we won’t hide that that’s our goal,” Massoud Barzani, president of the Regional Kurdistan Government, told the BBC in an interview. “Iraq is effectively partitioned now. Are we supposed to stay in this tragic situation the country’s living? It’s not me who will decide on independence. It’s the people.” Source LOL! 98%? Also, 99% of people voted for Saddam Hussein, and 97% of Crimeans voted to join Russia. Do you believe these numbers as well? You are telling me you trust Saddam Hussein and Putin? Because that's exactly what you're telling me. And as far as I'm aware the Kurds have very dirty politics, like everywhere else in the region. Nothing says otherwise, so this claim by Kurdish administrators doesn't surprise me. It looks like business as usual in the Mideast to me. You're about the same as the Russians who believe the 97% in Crimea was legit. Please, results are never that ridiculously one way or the other. All it says is a dead giveaway that someone's obviously giving bs numbers. All it tells us, is the person telling us the results is full of shit, whether it's a 3rd world government or a highly-politically-motivated 3rd world faction. And I don't know man, overall, Kurdish leaders are overall not necessarily on any side on the matter: http://rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/30032014We can't go with the rhetoric from one fanatic like Barzani and claim it as the entire opinion of the KRG leadership or that of millions of people. Now that's absurd. Unless we should do things the Putin way and just throw sham numbers around. In any case, lots of things from my last post went unaddressed. I'll treat it as your agreement. But one of many points from my last post, perhaps we should give the land back to the Assyrians. Having faced genocide and persecution, they deserve to be restored in their homeland, and their actual ethnic/racial where they've been living for millenia, constantly persecuted and devastated by Arabs and Kurds and Turks. We did it for the Jews, so why not with Assyrians? lol I didn't agree with them I just assumed they weren't directed at me. I'm not arguing the Kurds should get the land for any reason related to their historical treatment so I don't think that is the precedent that would be applicable. I was speaking from a mostly pragmatic standpoint. Honestly, I don't see a solution that doesn't take us into WWIII anyway so I'm all for throwing the 'first punch' I'd love to still think peace without war was possible but I just don't see it happening. (I guess this would still be the yelling escalating into shoving stage). The shit brewing is not something that can be 'settled' this fight is happening whether the 'people at the party' want it to or not. I was just suggesting that we try to give support and weapons to the guys that will be least likely to use them against us. We can settle the humanitarian stuff after the war when people are more amiable to peaceful resolutions. I wasn't suggesting my opinion was unassailable truth, just my perspective. What resolution to this did you have in mind? So let's say this happens. How will Iran and Turkey respond to a "Kurdish spring"? They'll absolutely crush it. Assuming Iraq didn't already have "permission", this will prompt Iraq to do the same, and all national govts. involved will establish a much tighter leash on their Kurdish populations and a stronger effort for "Turkization", "Arabization", and "Persianization". This is why Barzani is a short-sighted village idiot. Just like Maliki's idiocy promoted sectarianism, Barzani's already doing a good job of pissing everyone off with his rhetoric, at a time where he needs outside help more than he ever did. . Erdrogan is exporting Kurdish oil as we speak, he would be totally fine with a Kurdistan that doesnt involve any of his territories, and compared to the Shiites he doesnt trust in Baghdad or Syria he'd welcome it since it would be wholly dependent on his good will. -- but I agree, people who are viewing Kurds as some sort of Israel 2.0 need to wake up, Iraqi Kurdistan is divided between two families. The only reason they arent at each others throats is they taste a bigger prize. Of course Erdogan is okay with that, as long as it isn't HIS own Kurds doing the same. He's okay with anything that can destabilize the "evil" Arab countries and "evil" Israel. The Turks are pretty much the country no one in Europe, the Mideast, or their ethnic Turkic relatives in Central Asia like, so best to continue playing the villain. I lol'd when he publicly denounced Israel as the new Nazi Germany a week or two ago. Fun guy. I agree, the Kurds are so underdeveloped and unorganized that they're practically the furthest thing away from an Israel 2.0. They'd be closer to Albania 2.0 than to Israel. The only reason they arent at each others throats is they taste a bigger prize. So independent Iraqi Kurdistan, which is pretty tribal, results in chaotic feudalism between Kurdish groups, and then Iraqi forces move in, conquer the territory, and absorb it as a non-autonomous part of Iraq. Doesn't seem like they'll achieve much lol. On August 10 2014 17:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2014 13:25 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On August 10 2014 13:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2014 12:39 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On August 10 2014 12:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2014 11:32 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On August 10 2014 10:54 Vindicare605 wrote:
The reason I say it is because the Kurds in Syria and the Kurds in Iraq are for all intents and purposes their own country, they govern themselves completely independently and up until now have been fighting the IS entirely on their own also.
I say we just recognize their own state. Give them their own nice chunk of Iraq after we finish taking it back from the IS.
I think the people deserve it, they're already fighting to defend their homeland, they're buying their right to be recognized. About as much as Native American reservations. But they're as reliant on state authorities and Washington as the Kurds are on Baghdad, and especially Turkish Kurds on Ankara. I guess if most of your money, resources, and development comes from the rest of the country you're a part of, but "govern" yourself, that sounds like"completely independently"? Just trying to understand your logic. Actually the Kurds are almost entirely economically reliant on Baghdad. Your claim of "govern themselves completely independently" is not something I've heard. Even the Kurds are not directly for secession, except fanatic groups like PKK or whatever. More important, the Kurdish forces are currently very overextended, and will have to cede a lot of their "gains". In fact, they're in a state right now where they're relying heavily on the regular Iraqi military, especially for heavy firepower and munitions. I read a couple days ago that they're literally running out of ammo too. Basically the situation's becoming worse for Irbil and better for Baghdad, if we're to look at this like the political struggle you're exhibiting it as. But if you think that's bad for the dreams of Kurdish fanatics for independence, that's not all. This isn't even the most important thing in all of this! Nuri Al-Maliki, arguably the most unpopular guy in Mesopotamian history, is being told by everyone to lead office, and the US is looking forward to a new leader and reorganized government. If history says anything, it's most likely going to be a strong, Iraq-minded guy who's going to do away with Maliki's tradition of sucking Iranian Ayatollah cock and fucking up Iraq, and fix things, firstly with the ISIS invasion. Yeah, let's have Turkey and Iran do the same. Divide and conquer amirite? Let's also give most of the USA back to the natives we exterminated while we're at it. Or California and Texas to the Mexicans. Yeah, over my dead body. While we're talking about Iraq, let's also give Assyria back to the Assyrians. Sound good? They've always been peaceful people too, silently suffering massacres by Turks/Kurds or Islamic extremists for the past century. No insurgency or terrorism from them. Seems like they'd deserve it more imo. Also, news flash, the US focus, unsurprisingly, is on Iraq-proper, not on the KurdsThey were also fighting against their own country in support of the Khomeini's jihad in the 1980s, so for all I care, they're just starting to make up to their countrymen for past wrongs. On August 10 2014 10:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2014 10:12 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
Lol. Both these posts, I don't understand the logic. What substantiates these statements? I'll get to the second post in a bit. But, Vindicare, please tell that to the Turks and Iranians as well to do the same for Kurds.
What's funny though, is during the Iraq War, there was a proposition in the US Congress to split up Iraq (yes absurd as that sounds that we were deciding what to do with foreign countries) into Kurdish, Sunni, and Shiite sections. Iraqis were vehemently opposed to it, including Kurdish administrators. The Kurds find your fury funny :s
[quote]
If you've read my posts in the last few pages, you would have seen my references to the embargo. Yes, that's what crashed the country, and destroyed any semblance of economy, infrastructure, and society in the country. Let's not talk about the death toll. We (US) are the modern-era's Mongols. This is why it is not a good idea to fuck with us :3. Especially in the decade following the USSR's collapse, we ruled the world haha, making such a thing possible. If only Hussein had sucked Uncle Sam's dick. The country would be the one decent society/economy in western Asia aside from Israel and certainly our most valuable ally in the region. Iraq in whole is going to be a mess for decades. Trying to fix what the Bush Administration broke is a lost cause at this point. The Kurds are potentially our most loyal allies in the region and have practically the most acceptable social structure of the region. It makes more sense, to me at least, to defend a Kurdistan, than to try to forge an Iraq that just isn't going to happen. I bet if you asked the Kurds now they wouldn't be so opposed to it. Without arms support from countries such as the United States, the Kurds face uncertainty in direct battles with the Islamic State. Recent talks between U.S. and Kurdish officials focused on unifying Iraq. As Iraq shows signs of fragmentation and a decreasing hold on power, the Kurds are pushing for independence.
“The right to independence is a legitimate right of any nationalistic country. We have history and have suffered as Kurds of Iraq. Historically and geographically, Iraq is divided both spiritually and physically,” Mr. Hikmet said. “The Kurds want their independence and autonomy.”
As for Kurds spread into other regions, yeah those countries should probably make concessions too, but that seems like something that would come much further down the road. Actually, what George Bush Jr. did didn't even damage Iraq as bad as George Bush Sr. did with the embargo. Yes, two terrible murderers and brutes, but one had less violent means of destruction. The Kurds are not specifically loyal to anyone really, especially not to imperial warmongers lol, and the term "ally" is very loosely used, especially in US politics. However, when we actually look at the reality rather than your own painted scenario, they're not who we're pushing for. That's why the entire US policy and security in Iraq is focused on and working with Baghdad and Iraqi govt. politicians, not the Kurds. Obviously, you see something that everyone in the US government doesn't see for the sake of American interests. Considering the US govt. acts strictly in line with US interests, it says a lot that their focus is on Baghdad. I bet if you asked the Kurds now they wouldn't be so opposed to it. You'd lose a lot of money on that bet. At the height of chaos in Iraq during the Iraq War, Kurdish leaders were against secession, even when the US Congress voted to split up Iraq. At the height of Kurdish nationalism in the 70s-00s, only fanatic militant groups like PKK and Peshmerga were really pushing for secession in Turkey and Iraq. Both realizing the realities and critical importance of the reliance on and cooperation with Baghdad, and the fact that, for all intents and purposes, most Kurdish leaders and Kurds are normal level-headed people, who are alright with the status quo, your statement couldn't be further from the truth. When asked directly, Kurdish region leaders can't even give a straight answer on what they want on the matter. Hell, there's a lot of internal political division among the Kurds themselves (on all matters, not necessarily this one). They're hardly a united faction. The total number of Kurdistani voters participating in the referendum was 1,998,061 people.
- 1,973412 people voted for independence.
- 19650 voted for Kurdistan to remain as part of Iraq.
Thus 98.8% of the people of Kurdistan have voted for independence.
The committee stated that the referendum was held in all Kurdish areas including Kirkuk, Khanaqin and Kurdish areas in Mosul province. But it excluded the Kurds living in Baghdad and other Arab cities and towns. SourceSeems like the Kurdish people disagree with your assessment of their desires. I suppose the ones outside of where it would be probably feel less motivated toward independence. It seems like the US's focus is to reduce agitation and independence struggles are pretty much the opposite. “From now on, we won’t hide that that’s our goal,” Massoud Barzani, president of the Regional Kurdistan Government, told the BBC in an interview. “Iraq is effectively partitioned now. Are we supposed to stay in this tragic situation the country’s living? It’s not me who will decide on independence. It’s the people.” Source LOL! 98%? Also, 99% of people voted for Saddam Hussein, and 97% of Crimeans voted to join Russia. Do you believe these numbers as well? You are telling me you trust Saddam Hussein and Putin? Because that's exactly what you're telling me. And as far as I'm aware the Kurds have very dirty politics, like everywhere else in the region. Nothing says otherwise, so this claim by Kurdish administrators doesn't surprise me. It looks like business as usual in the Mideast to me. You're about the same as the Russians who believe the 97% in Crimea was legit. Please, results are never that ridiculously one way or the other. All it says is a dead giveaway that someone's obviously giving bs numbers. All it tells us, is the person telling us the results is full of shit, whether it's a 3rd world government or a highly-politically-motivated 3rd world faction. And I don't know man, overall, Kurdish leaders are overall not necessarily on any side on the matter: http://rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/30032014We can't go with the rhetoric from one fanatic like Barzani and claim it as the entire opinion of the KRG leadership or that of millions of people. Now that's absurd. Unless we should do things the Putin way and just throw sham numbers around. In any case, lots of things from my last post went unaddressed. I'll treat it as your agreement. But one of many points from my last post, perhaps we should give the land back to the Assyrians. Having faced genocide and persecution, they deserve to be restored in their homeland, and their actual ethnic/racial where they've been living for millenia, constantly persecuted and devastated by Arabs and Kurds and Turks. We did it for the Jews, so why not with Assyrians? lol I didn't agree with them I just assumed they weren't directed at me. I'm not arguing the Kurds should get the land for any reason related to their historical treatment so I don't think that is the precedent that would be applicable. I was speaking from a mostly pragmatic standpoint. Honestly, I don't see a solution that doesn't take us into WWIII anyway so I'm all for throwing the 'first punch' I'd love to still think peace without war was possible but I just don't see it happening. (I guess this would still be the yelling escalating into shoving stage). The shit brewing is not something that can be 'settled' this fight is happening whether the 'people at the party' want it to or not. I was just suggesting that we try to give support and weapons to the guys that will be least likely to use them against us. We can settle the humanitarian stuff after the war when people are more amiable to peaceful resolutions. I wasn't suggesting my opinion was unassailable truth, just my perspective. What resolution to this did you have in mind? What resolution? Well, let's see the situation with Barzani. Give Barzani an inch, and he'll want a planet. But, how I see it, the concern bigger than Barzani's wet fantasies is that if we give Barzani what he wants (which no one wants except him and his supporters, numbering only among some Kurds) there is a good chance of a "Kurdish spring", and this wouldn't be the first time. You see, this whole matter isn't simply an insulated Iraqi or an Iraqi Kurdish thing. This also very much concerns the Iranian and Turkish and Syrian governments and affects the Kurds there as well. Turkey has been fighting Kurdish radicals since at least the 1980s, who, also influenced Iraqi Kurdish insurgency and (vice versa) against Iraq, conveniently timed while Iraq was fighting Khomeini. Even back then, Kurdish action was influenced even across borders. And the Kurds in Turkey are pretty rowdy folks. The PKK is rather extreme. So let's say this happens. How will Iran and Turkey respond to a "Kurdish spring"? They'll absolutely crush it. Assuming Iraq didn't already have "permission", this will prompt Iraq to do the same, and all national govts. involved will establish a much tighter leash on their Kurdish populations and a stronger effort for "Turkization", "Arabization", and "Persianization". This is why Barzani is a short-sighted village idiot. Just like Maliki's idiocy promoted sectarianism, Barzani's already doing a good job of pissing everyone off with his rhetoric, at a time where he needs outside help more than he ever did. You're right. Peace without war sometimes isn't possible. But here, war is a disastrous option. The Kurds will get quadruple-penetrated if they tried open armed revolt in their 4 host countries. And considering the US is significantly more interested in its NATO alliance with Turkey and relations and cooperation with Iraq, don't expect the US to be helping them. Even now, they're dependent on Iraq for ammunition shipments and heavy firepower against the terrorists. It would very much behoove the Kurds not to take the path of war. So what is the resolution, you ask? Keep the status quo for now. Any action in the short term will only be disastrous for Kurds. They should be worrying more about the terrorists poised to invade Arbil and thanking based god for the Iraqi support, despite Barzani's extremism and rhetoric. Hopefully, ISIS will meet its maker in Iraq soon enough, and then in Syria. Then decapitate all of them and send their corpses to Riyadh. Perhaps the Saudis will reconsider their limitless support for terrorism and jihad. Or maybe the Saudis and Iranians will do the whole world a favor and destroy each other. It would cripple the world's two biggest backers of Islamic terrorism. Can't argue with that. I'm not even really sure what the 'status quo' really means? Looking at the Kurdish history it looks like independence isn't something only a few of them want...? Either way the way the world has been working they seem like a likable enough people (more so than the leaders in all of their resident countries), so I could imagine a situation where we back a modest independence plan and when the other countries go all ballistic on them, we use the inevitable human disaster as a pretext to go in and set the whole region back to the stone age. I don't know, perhaps the Kurds have some ISIS like agenda I'm unaware of? But I don't see how at least breaking them off a piece of Iraq is bad, other than it upsets bigger despots in the region. Is there something from common people showing antihises toward independence? I guess since I see a huge regional/global conflict as inevitable (if not already brewing) I guess I don't see the benefit in stalling? Unless there is some important tech just over the horizon? If it isn't already apparent, one Kurdish agenda is land-grabbing, which is what they were doing in June/July before ISIS pushed them back. They want to do a lot of it. Historically speaking, they even want Mosul under their control. But they're at the very least about land-grabbing, and the Kurds are not very intelligent, and could just try more of it somewhere down the line, assuming they aren't completely overrun by ISIS. The US doesn't want Irbil to be conquered because we have a consulate there, but if it did happen, it would fracture Kurdish political goals and what little organization they have. The Kurds aren't very peaceful people either. Assuming an independent Kurdistan isn't destroying itself from within (lots of internal divisions and whatnot that's kept at bay for the time being due to the independence dream), they're going to be fighting to take more Iraqi land. I don't know what other sinister goals Barzani and his mates have, and I probably don't want to know. But it's never a good sign when Mideastern guys are as fanatical as him. they seem like a likable enough people lol. I guess, I'll be a smart ass and say any people are likable, but in terms of politics and society and whatnot, the Kurds? lol. They're on par with aggressive Arab tribal guys. In fact, they are tribal guys themselves. Many Kurdish tribes and conflicting powerful families. Given the internal divisions that are only kept at bay by the fact that the Kurdish independence thing is a bit of a glue, I think Kurdish independence would end up with them killing each other lol, and then Iraq comes in to clean up the mess. so I could imagine a situation where we back a modest independence plan and when the other countries go all ballistic on them, we use the inevitable human disaster as a pretext to go in and set the whole region back to the stone age. This is an astonishing comment, I'm sorry. Are you for real dude? For one, the US is not going to go in anywhere. Also, the US is still reeling badly from the last couple wars. The US is finally learning that for the past 60 years, it's only caused chaos, destruction, and death in the Mideast, so we're not about to go make a major war again. Also, everyone fucking hates us. I've mentioned this in a previous post, but, you conveniently forget that Turkey is a US ally in NATO. The US will back Turkey any day of the week over Kurds, and will back Turkey against Kurdish insurgency or any Kurdish matters, like we have for the past 30 years. The US is also very focused on fostering cooperation and relations with Iraq. Even in this current conflict, we're purely focusing on the government in Baghdad, not Irbil. In fact, we give zero fucks about the Kurds except for the fact that we have a consulate in Irbil. As for Iran, we certainly don't want to touch them, and I don't know what we think about Syria. So basically, in this scenario you have given us, what we're going to have a quadruple-penetration that'll send the Kurds from the stone age to the wood age, because that's all that will happen in your scenario. But in all honesty, as I theorized and Sub40APM too, the Kurds will end up with lots of civil war and violence if given independence. Considering the internal fissures and the fact the Kurds are not very socially developed (think Arab tribes in less developed society settings in the Mideast, Kurds have the same thing), Iraq, Turkey, Iran, and Syria won't even have to do anything. Then, Iraq will use the inevitable human disaster as a pretext to go in and set the whole region back to the stone age. Incredible how that plot twist happened! I even used your last sentence word for word. :O Also, I have no idea why you're promoting more massacring and war from Uncle Sam. We've done enough damage to the world, and particularly that region. You make us sound like a rogue terrorist nation that likes to massacre people. On August 10 2014 21:58 ImFromPortugal wrote:On August 10 2014 11:32 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On August 10 2014 10:54 Vindicare605 wrote:
The reason I say it is because the Kurds in Syria and the Kurds in Iraq are for all intents and purposes their own country, they govern themselves completely independently and up until now have been fighting the IS entirely on their own also.
I say we just recognize their own state. Give them their own nice chunk of Iraq after we finish taking it back from the IS.
I think the people deserve it, they're already fighting to defend their homeland, they're buying their right to be recognized. About as much as Native American reservations. But they're as reliant on state authorities and Washington as the Kurds are on Baghdad, and especially Turkish Kurds on Ankara. I guess if most of your money, resources, and development comes from the rest of the country you're a part of, but "govern" yourself, that sounds like"completely independently"? Just trying to understand your logic. Actually the Kurds are almost entirely economically reliant on Baghdad. Your claim of "govern themselves completely independently" is not something I've heard. Even the Kurds are not directly for secession, except fanatic groups like PKK or whatever. More important, the Kurdish forces are currently very overextended, and will have to cede a lot of their "gains". In fact, they're in a state right now where they're relying heavily on the regular Iraqi military, especially for heavy firepower and munitions. I read a couple days ago that they're literally running out of ammo too. Basically the situation's becoming worse for Irbil and better for Baghdad, if we're to look at this like the political struggle you're exhibiting it as. But if you think that's bad for the dreams of Kurdish fanatics for independence, that's not all. This isn't even the most important thing in all of this! Nuri Al-Maliki, arguably the most unpopular guy and least productive dictator in Mesopotamian history, is being told by everyone, including his own party, to leave office, and the US is looking forward to a new Iraqi leader and reorganized government to cooperate with. At this point, people are just waiting for him to give his formal resignation. If history says anything, it's most likely going to be a strong, Iraq-minded guy who's going to do away with Maliki's tradition of sucking Iranian Ayatollah cock and fucking up Iraq, and fix things, firstly with the ISIS invasion. So, conclusively, once Iraq reorganizes its government and the US has an administration they'll work a lot more closely with, and as the Iraqi counter-offensive is put into full swing, the Kurdish fighting effort will be swept under the rug, or remembered for being beaten back by ISIS until the Iraqi military got its shit together and won. Yeah, let's have Turkey and Iran do the same. Divide and conquer amirite? Let's also give most of the USA back to the natives we exterminated while we're at it. Or California and Texas to the Mexicans. Yeah, over my dead body. While we're talking about Iraq, let's also give Assyria back to the Assyrians. Sound good? They've always been peaceful people too, silently suffering massacres by Turks/Kurds or Islamic extremists for the past century. No insurgency or terrorism from them. Seems like they'd deserve it more imo. Also, news flash, the US focus, unsurprisingly, is on Iraq-proper, not on the KurdsThey were also fighting against their own country in support of the Khomeini's jihad in the 1980s and teamed up with the Turks to commit genocide against Armenians and Assyrians (the latter who is from Iraq), so for all I care, they're just starting to make up to their countrymen for past wrongs. They're not "buying" any right. And the shift in military importance is quickly moving to the standard Iraqi military's as the peshmerga are increasingly in deep shit, especially after the loss at Sinjar. On August 10 2014 10:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2014 10:12 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On August 10 2014 08:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2014 08:07 Vindicare605 wrote:The British are deploying special forces to Iraq to help spot for air strikes. Hints that more special forces groups could be on the way. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/sas-deployed-iraq-british-special-4026869#.U-aoAmMn-Cf“It may be that in the coming months the British presence there will increase and a small number of specialist units will join them but that is a long way off.
“The political will for a significant British military presence in Iraq is non-existent but this humanitarian effort is enormous and these people need protecting.”
The strikes this afternoon came after Obama gave the green light to protect Christians and avert “a potential act of genocide” of tens of thousands of members of the ancient Yazidi sect.
They have taken refuge on a desert mountaintop from Islamic State forces who have threatened to exterminate them unless they take up Islam.
The Daily Mirror understands plans for British specials forces to go to northern Iraq have been underway for some weeks but they have only recently been sent.
American crack special forces troops including Navy SEALs and army Delta Force and CIA spies have been in Baghdad and Arbil for weeks helping with the Iraqi effort to tackle the growing IS threat.
Sunni Muslim fighters from the Islamic State, barred from al-Qaeda for being too extreme, are obsessed with establishing a caliphate or Muslim region and eradicating unbelievers.
I say forget Iraq and just secure a Kurdistan and completely shift support from Baghdad to Kurdistan. Of course it would all be easier if we hadn't inadvertently armed ISIS ourselves. The Kurds are going to likely need Israeli-lite level support for as long, in order to remain a safe and secure ally in the region. On August 10 2014 09:52 Vindicare605 wrote:
If the Kurds don't get their own country after this I'm going to be furious. Lol. Both these posts, I don't understand the logic. What substantiates these statements? I'll get to the second post in a bit. But, Vindicare, please tell that to the Turks and Iranians as well to do the same for Kurds. What's funny though, is during the Iraq War, there was a proposition in the US Congress to split up Iraq (yes absurd as that sounds that we were deciding what to do with foreign countries) into Kurdish, Sunni, and Shiite sections. Iraqis were vehemently opposed to it, including Kurdish administrators. The Kurds find your fury funny :s On August 10 2014 10:09 ImFromPortugal wrote:On August 09 2014 02:56 xDaunt wrote:On August 09 2014 02:48 Sub40APM wrote:On August 09 2014 02:44 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Sure, other countries are more than happy to clean up domestic and even regional messes that are more like large scale police actions than real military interventions. What's going on in Iraq/Syria is in a whole different class than these far lesser conflicts. I've yet to see another nation be willing to lead military action to solve an actual large problem. The closest example was European intervention in Libya, but that only happened because of how important Libyan oil is to Europe. Even with Libya slowly falling apart, it remains to be seen if Europe is in it for the long haul. Or put it another way, if "You broke it, you fix it" mentality is really true than the UK-France should be deploying their troops into the Libyan war which is currently has as many causalities as Gaza. But mysteriously neither the governments who 'broke' the country nor the masses of people who went out to protest Israel -- but just Israeli caused deaths, guess Arabs killed by other Arabs are less valuable -- seem to give 0 fucks. I love little more than seeing examples of European hypocrisy given how much shit they give us. EDIT: Just to be clear, I don't really buy the argument that the West "broke" any of these countries anyway. You broke Iraq long before you invaded the 2nd time... but then you made it even worse... Saddam looks like a nice guy now compared to what is going on. If you've read my posts in the last few pages, you would have seen my references to the embargo. Yes, that's what crashed the country, and destroyed any semblance of economy, infrastructure, and society in the country. Let's not talk about the death toll. We (US) are the modern-era's Mongols. This is why it is not a good idea to fuck with us :3. Especially in the decade following the USSR's collapse, we ruled the world haha, making such a thing possible. If only Hussein had sucked Uncle Sam's dick. The country would be the one decent society/economy in western Asia aside from Israel and certainly our most valuable ally in the region. Iraq in whole is going to be a mess for decades. Trying to fix what the Bush Administration broke is a lost cause at this point. The Kurds are potentially our most loyal allies in the region and have practically the most acceptable social structure of the region. It makes more sense, to me at least, to defend a Kurdistan, than to try to forge an Iraq that just isn't going to happen. I bet if you asked the Kurds now they wouldn't be so opposed to it. Without arms support from countries such as the United States, the Kurds face uncertainty in direct battles with the Islamic State. Recent talks between U.S. and Kurdish officials focused on unifying Iraq. As Iraq shows signs of fragmentation and a decreasing hold on power, the Kurds are pushing for independence.
“The right to independence is a legitimate right of any nationalistic country. We have history and have suffered as Kurds of Iraq. Historically and geographically, Iraq is divided both spiritually and physically,” Mr. Hikmet said. “The Kurds want their independence and autonomy.”
As for Kurds spread into other regions, yeah those countries should probably make concessions too, but that seems like something that would come much further down the road. Actually, what George Bush Jr. did didn't even damage Iraq as bad as George Bush Sr. did with the embargo. Yes, two terrible murderers and brutes, but one had less violent means of destruction. The Kurds are not specifically loyal to anyone really, especially not to imperial warmongers lol, and the term "ally" is very loosely used, especially in US politics. However, when we actually look at the reality rather than your own painted scenario, they're not who we're pushing for. That's why the entire US policy and security in Iraq is focused on and working with Baghdad and Iraqi govt. politicians, not the Kurds. Obviously, you see something that everyone in the US government doesn't see for the sake of American interests. Considering the US govt. acts strictly in line with US interests, it says a lot that their focus is on Baghdad. We're literally waiting for Maliki to resign. Everyone in Iraq and even the US wants Maliki to step down so there can be a new Iraqi leadership. We are so focused on Baghdad that we're watching their politics more than we're watching anyone else. With the amount of focus we have on Baghdad, you'd forget there was a KRG. I bet if you asked the Kurds now they wouldn't be so opposed to it. You'd lose a lot of money on that bet. At the height of chaos in Iraq during the Iraq War, Kurdish leaders were against secession, even when the US Congress voted to split up Iraq. At the height of Kurdish nationalism in the 70s-00s, only fanatic militant groups like PKK and Peshmerga were really pushing for secession in Turkey and Iraq. Both realizing the realities and critical importance of the reliance on and cooperation with Baghdad, and the fact that, for all intents and purposes, most Kurdish leaders and Kurds are normal level-headed people, who are alright with the status quo, your statement couldn't be further from the truth. When asked directly, Kurdish region leaders can't even give a straight answer on what they want on the matter. Hell, there's a lot of internal political division among the Kurds themselves (on all matters, not necessarily this one). They're hardly a united faction. Why are you so opposed to them having their own state? Lets not forget how saddam killed thousands of them with gas supplied by western powers like your own country. I would like them to be able to have their own country and live peacefully with all the other peoples around them. Yeah, what are you supposed to do against violent insurgencies killing your people and treason while you're single-handedly fighting history's greatest jihad? High-five them? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. However, let me present to you a more justified scenario. Let's not forget how the Turks and Kurds (yes, the Kurds) killed off 100,000s of Assyrians, or how Islamic terrorists have eliminated much of the 1.5 million Christians (mostly Assyrians) in Iraq since 2003. In all of this, the Assyrians have been a peaceful people who go about their daily lives, whether they lived in big Iraqi cities or their own ethnic towns, never causing trouble. By your argument, it looks like we should be giving Assyrians their own land lol! So you dismiss the gassing of the kurds completely ? whats the problem of them getting their own country, please tell.
Lol. Great bait mate. No, I'm not dismissing the gassing of Kurds by any means. I'm putting it into context. It wasn't something that randomly happened for the hell of it. There was a violent insurgency and a very large one at that, and when that happens, it's going to be dealt with, especially while the country is simultaneously fighting a war. Your implication that they should have just been giving high-fives to the Kurdish insurgents while they're attacking Iraqi people and forces is absurd. No country would put up with that.
Also, I've been ranting for the last 5+ pages about the Kurdish issue, economically, politically, strategically, socially, you name it. Have you read a single one of my posts? lol. But one random note: Kurdish independence would actually be a good thing for the Turks, Iranians, Syrians, and Iraqis. They'll turn to infighting since Kurdish society is extremely tribal and quite the opposite of "modern" societies, also with lots of internal divisions and seemingly only kept at bay by the independence dream and the nationalism that rests entirely on that. Once they have that and there's no more glue, expect chaos heh. The Kurds would most likely be their own undoing. Then for "humanitarian reasons", said host countries (especially Turkey, who has Uncle Sam's complete blessings) can move in to end the violence and then justify a much tighter leash on Kurds. Hmm, doesn't sound like a good deal to me.
I don't condemn or support the Kurds' politics, but I'm just looking at it without the fantasy lens and the Kurds aren't really victims. If you want to look at victims, then look at the Assyrians or the long-gone Jews of Baghdad kicked out by the old monarchy. But still, if someone's to get their own country for whatever silly reasons, I'm far more convinced that Assyrians far more deserve their own country for previously stated reasons in other posts. They're like the only people in the Mideast aside from non-tribal urbanized people in secular countries who aren't out to jihad or fight everyone or have ridiculous tribal feuds/violence. Then again, they're not Muslim to be influenced by the crazy Muslims like many are nowadays, and they have a very genial culture. And speaking of Kurds, they were even victims of genocide by the Kurds.
Also, Turkey's a scary country. Their rhetoric is frighteningly nationalistic and hateful (how many countries compare Israel to Nazi Germany?), and they don't put up with any bs, especially not from the Kurds. If the US had to side with anyone, they'd side with their NATO ally 10/9 times (yes, more than 100% of the time) assuming there was to be a serious issue or revolution from Kurds.
On August 11 2014 10:52 Vindicare605 wrote:
Judicator you really don't put any stock whatsoever in popular opinion do you?
The US could if it wanted invade and conquer Iran. I am 100% certain of it. Why don't we? Because you cannot wage a military operation like that without popular support. It's a lesson we learned from Vietnam (and ironically that the British learned from the American Revolution). As bad as Iraq and Afghanistan are, the US got involved INITIALLY with mostly public support, less so with Iraq but definitely with Afghanistan. Those two conflicts are NOTHING compared to what Vietnam was, and what Iran would be if we invaded it.
We lost in Vietnam because the public's disapproval of the war eventually forced the government to back off. If the public had been completely supportive of it like we were in the World Wars, we might still be there.
Why are things different now in the Middle East than they have been in the past? Why are the Kurds in a different position, why is IS different? Public Opinion.
It matters.
American people are in general pretty damn stupid. If the govt. wanted to, it can whip up something (even completely fabricated things like we've done since the 1800s, and Vietnam too, now that you mention it (and most recently Iraq lol). See the Second (as opposed to the first) Gulf of Tonkin incident, which was entirely a myth) to get everyone hyped and scared and support a war. So popular opinion isn't even the issue in regards to Iran. Unlike Vietnam, which was a place and war where no one had any business, least of all us, Iran is at the heart of global terrorism and destabilization of countries like Iraq and Lebanon. We can far more easily get support for that than for Vietnam.
Also, Vietnam was going on for like 8 years before it lost support. Jeez. We were not making gains, the South Vietnamese army was being routed in terms of manpower, equipment, and morale, and it was practically turning into a stalemate. Even if it had popular support, we would have pulled out pretty soon. It wasn't a winning cause at all. Let's not blame it on popular support. It was for all intents and purposes not a won war. The "public didn't support it" is almost face-saving bullshit. No, the war was going south and South Vietnam was pretty much falling apart. It was already over. We were going to withdraw sooner or later, with or without public support.
The US is not in a strategic, political, and economic position to fight a major war right now. That's why we're not touching Iran. Another major war too soon would be extremely detrimental. Really the only thing saving us is our infinite debt heh.
|
I find it farfetched to think the US would support a Turkish invasion of Kurdish territory.
Modern societies are pretty tribal too, and every nation features infighting. Most nations, including ours, have a history of civil war.I don't know why you think the Kurds are special in this regard. Its a little absurd to dismiss Kurdish independence on grounds that they might fight among themselves.
Lastly the US would have plenty of national interest reasons to support Kurdish independence especially if our puppet government we tried to install in Iraq is defeated by ISIS or becomes a proxy government for Iran.
|
On August 11 2014 14:50 sc2isnotdying wrote:
I find it farfetched to think the US would support a Turkish invasion of Kurdish territory.
Modern societies are pretty tribal too, and every nation features infighting. Most nations, including ours, have a history of civil war.I don't know why you think the Kurds are special in this regard. Its a little absurd to dismiss Kurdish independence on grounds that they might fight among themselves.
Lastly the US would have plenty of national interest reasons to support Kurdish independence especially if our puppet government we tried to install in Iraq is defeated by ISIS or becomes a proxy government for Iran.
Turkish invasion of Kurdish territory isn't what I stated. I was stating in the scenario of Kurdish armed revolt and the following Turkish response. Either way, the US would have to pick sides although it's a no-brainer. Its NATO ally, or some group not lucrative for US interests? Also, the US supports Islamic terrorists when it sees it fit, so it's not farfetched to see why they'd support a NATO ally. lol
You're being a bit silly now. "LOL EVERYONE in teh world is tribal" is just wrong and irrelevant. I'm sorry, but Kurdish/Arab tribalism is a completely different beast than 21st century Beverly Hills society. I don't even know how you can possibly compare the two (you're literally comparing apples and orangutans) and the fact that you're trying to just doesn't make sense. Kurdish/Arab tribalism is a very aggressive and violent kind of thing. And while a good number of Arab societies especially in urban areas are beyond that, Kurds are still very, very tribalistic.
No, this is the kind of violent/backward tribalism we see in Gulf Arab countries (where much of these terrorists come from), and parts of Anbar and southern Iraq, for example, which was big in the Iraq War sectarian violence. It's that kind of tribalism. I don't see that happening in California bro. Next you're going to tell me villagers in some jungle in Malaysia are as advanced as Silicon Valley.
I don't know if you've been following this thread or the news, but the US is entirely focused on its cooperation with the Turkish and Iraqi governments regarding this situation, hardly with the Kurds. Even a lot of the coordination with the Kurds is done through the Iraqi government funnily enough. Even when we deal with our Iranian enemy, we deal directly with Tehran, not with their large Kurdish minority, despite that it would behoove our interests to support Iranian Kurds against an enemy, and yet we don't even do that. And you expect us to do so against our Turkish ally or Iraqi friend? To say the least, the reality of the situation is a far cry from what you're stating.
Also, I see you're quite new to this thread. There were many reasons and things discussed, not just the Kurds forming a state that could quickly fall into chaos. The dependence on Ankara, Baghdad, Damascus, and Tehran is also extremely understated by the cheerleading squads.
Also, ISIS's sights right now are on Irbil and Kurdish territory. Except for redneck Anbar and ISIS gains in the north, Iraq-proper isn't under anywhere near the threat the Kurds are. And you realize why everyone's trying to kick out Maliki? Besides being a brutal dictator and arguably the worst and least popular leader in Mesopotamian history, he's kinda tried to put Iraq under Iran (probably to pay Iran back for hosting him for a long time; if you recall, he comes from a terrorist group quite active during the Iran-Iraq War). So the proxy thing is kinda out the window.
|
Mailiki just declared a coup against his own president because he didnt name him as the next Prime Minister!
This is hilarious because under American laws, the US cannot provide any aid to a military coup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Assistance_Act)
|
On August 11 2014 15:07 Sub40APM wrote:
Mailiki just declared a coup against his own president because he didnt name him as the next Prime Minister!
This is hilarious because under American laws, the US cannot provide any aid to a military coup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Assistance_Act)
I don't get it. What does this have to do with us? And since when have we followed that law? I know we're not going to back him at all though, because even the US wants Al-Maliki out of office as much as the Iraqi government and people do.
Anyhow, here's what's happening in a bit more detail.
> The new Iraqi president Faoud Masoum didn't call Al-Maliki to a third term in office.
> Maliki's party pulled support from him too.
> Maliki's response is deploying military forces to shutdown the Green Zone and orders the arrest of President Masoum.
What the fuck....
Hopefully he just vanishes soon and someone with any amount of decency becomes Prime Minister. The guy has not even a single good thing to his credit. A baseless murderer, destroyer of freedoms and political/social rights, heavily stoked sectarianism/violence in his country, was top 5 most corrupt regime in the world, was overly cozy with Iran's regime, etc. And it's not even like he developed the country's infrastructure beyond a bare minimum, despite all the money and contracts coming from US, France, Italy, Russia, SK, etc. Jesus H Christ.
|
Well, in this particular case the law is going to be useful cover since America has been pressuring Maliki to go. And he doesnt want to because he made too many enemies and he knows it so now his alternative is to throw his lot with Iran completely. The Kurds are probably ecstatic, dreaming of that declaration of independence from the dictatorships of Maliki.
|
I would be ecstatic too. He's done nothing but make matters worse and has pissed off literally everyone. He's made all religious and ethnic groups hate each other in addition to all the foreign terrorists who entered the country, with the peaceful ones like Assyrians, Armenians, and Yazidis killed off and victimized. All he's achieved.
Iraqis generally seem to appear to not like politicians too much but he's just a new breed of fail. Just bring in an Iraq- and unity-minded guy with some real resolve and things will get better overnight.
|
Well, now we see why Maliki replaced all his competent officers and troops with pure loyalists, the militia that were brought in to 'fight ISIS' is actually there to ensure he stays in power. What a total and complete dick.
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/11/world/middleeast/iraq.html?_r=0
The wreckage of three heavily armed trucks lay twisted and scorched in Gwer, one of the recaptured towns, a few hours after the strikes, and body parts from at least three militants were scattered nearby. Kurdish militiamen, known as pesh merga, confirmed seeing the airstrikes, and celebrated Sunday afternoon near the still-smoldering wrecks.
See, articles like this make me oh-so-skeptical about the Kurds claims that they were about to be overrun by ISIS. A couple trucks, a single artillery piece and suddenly the Kurds have momentum? Seems to me the Kurds played the media and the US perfectly "Oh no we are about to be overrun, please provide us with lots of guns and air strikes or we will all die" while actually holding back most of their forces for their inevitable independence push/defense of Kirkurk if Maliki comes-a-knocking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
