Turks throw spanner in Bush's plan

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Oerdin
They'll come alone in the end because if they don't the Kurds will likely declare an independent Kurdistan which will have territorial claims over half of Turkey.

The only way the Turks can stop the Kurds from declaring independence is to get lots of troops into Kurdistan before the Kurds can consolidate their position after Saddam goes to the great dictator resort in the sky.

There is no way I can see the US standing for an independent Kurdistan either. So they might as well let Uncle Sam commit the gross human rights violations required to keep the Kurds down.

[DanS]

Interesting. You have to believe that the ruling party has sufficient control over its members to make good on vote promises...

[Az]

I don't see why wouldn't the US have an independent Kurdistan.

They, unlike the turks have no reasons to dislike the Kurds. they'll be able to put some major itchpowder in the panties of both Syria and Iran, as well as punishing Turkey for not being good, when the US needs them the most.

[Andrew1999]

Originally posted by DanS
Interesting. You have to believe that the ruling party has sufficient control over its members to make good on vote promises...

Well, they got more "yes" votes than "no" votes, but not a majority of votes cast--there were some abstentions. I suppose it dependes on what their parliamentary rules are.

The vote was 264 in favor, 251 against, and 19 abstaining. With 534 ministers present, a "yes" vote of 268 was needed, according to the opposition.

I wonder how long it would take the U.S. troops to set up on the border after a vote? It's pretty rough contry there, not like Kuwait where they can drive off the boats and right up to the border in an hour.

[Dinner]

The U.S. is opposed to an independent Kurdistan because the Turks are opposed to an independent Kurdistan. The Kurds already have a quasi-independent state but they'd like to take advantage of a military conflict to declare themselves completely independent of Baghdad and then they would have a state which could sponser revolts of Iranian, Syrian, & Turkish controled territories that have large Kurdish populations.

[GePap]

The admin. has stated that it will maintain the territorial integrity of Iraq. And independent Kurdish states is out of the question: if the Kurds decide to go for one, the US will not help when the Truks come to crush them.

I must say this was utterly unexpected. The fact that over 100 of the members of the rulig party either voted against or abstained is significant.

[Eli]

Well, look on the bright side. The Turks have a political system that votes against the interests of the country. So we're not alone in the club of Middle Eastern Democracies.

[Az]

The U.S. is opposed to an independent Kurdistan because the Turks are opposed to an independent Kurdistan

Well, since the Turks apparently cluster****ed the US' plan to invade from the north, it seems that this barrier is off. The other ones are actually very nice side effects for the US.

[KrazyHorse]

I don't see why wouldn't the US have an independent Kurdistan.

They, unlike the turks have no reasons to dislike the Kurds. they'll be able to put some major itchpowder in the panties of both Syria and Iran, as well as punishing Turkey for not being good, when the US needs them the most.

Because Iraq breaking apart is the last thing the US wants. Not because of the Kurds necessarily, but because of the likely divide this'll lead to between Sunni and Shi'a...

[KrazyHorse]

Let one bit break off and it becomes a much greater likelihood that the rest of the country will fragment too. Which is not in the US interests at all.

[Az]

The admin. has stated that it will maintain the territorial integrity of Iraq. And independent Kurdish states is out of the question: if the Kurds decide to go for one, the US will not help when the Truks come to crush them.

The Turks wouldn't be able to do this if they want to get EU membership. Unless the euros will slip it through since the turks would be actually attacking a US ally, just to spite them.

Because Iraq breaking apart is the last thing the US wants. Not because of the Kurds necessarily, but because of the likely divide this'll lead to between Sunni and Shi'a...

how about a "Kurdistan" and an "Iraq", both around?

[GePap]

The US wants Iraq to remain a counterweight to Iran. If the Kurds get a state, not only does it weaken Iraq, but it makes the Shi'a an overwhelming majority in what is left, and in theory if not practice, make it a more friendly state to Iran: and the Saudis and other Gulf monarchs, all of whom have Shia minorities, also fear such an outcome. So, states that have reaons to quelsh an independent Kurdistan?

Iran, Turkey, Syria, SA, Kuwait, Baharian, Qatar.

States that want an independent Kurdistan?

Maybe Greece... probably not even.

Also Azazel, isn't Turkey Israel's only local friend?

[Andrew1999]

Plus there's a general reluctance in the West to change national boundaries in any way for any reason, not matter how ridiculous they've become. Just look at the bizarre arrangements to keep Serbia and Montenegro "united".

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Frogger
Let one bit break off and it becomes a much greater likelihood that the rest of the country will fragment too. Which is not in the US interests at all.

My sentiments exactly.

[KrazyHorse]

how about a "Kurdistan" and an "Iraq", both around?

See the post immediately above yours.