Should Apolyton recognize Kurdistan?

[Jack the Bodiless]

Yeah, I'm sure MarkG uses UN observer status to determine whether to add a specific flag option to a games website...

[GePap]

According to this admin. the territorial integrity of Iraq will be maintained after the war, which means, no independent Kurdish state. t best, they get an autonomous Zone...but then, as Tuomerehu said: that leaves te door open for the many, many flags of autonomous regions (and then, why not regions within Federations, such as US states? I want my NY State Flag!)

[Az]

Yeah, I'm sure MarkG uses UN observer status to determine whether to add a specific flag option to a games website...

Mind you, I don't mind having a palestinian flag, but why not add flags?

[Jack the Bodiless]

Surely Kurdistan is a special case right now?

Or is New Hampshire preparing to invade you?

[GePap]

Yes, special case..now. It won't be in about 2 months, unless things go badly wrong for the admin., while NH will surely be there in a year.

As for Addign flags..its up to MarkG.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Turkey's power to act on this issue has been largely lost when they decided not to host Coalition troops. Kurdistan is now IN the coalition, while Turkey is OUT.

If the Turks were hosting all those troops and heavy equipment, we'd be there to "restrain" them. Now or in the future, they can unilaterally say the Kurds did whatever, and not be constrained by whatever defined role and command structure the "coalition" imposed on them. Not being part of something means you're not really obligated to follow it's orders.

[Jack the Bodiless]

If the Turks cross the border while fighting is still going on in Iraq: that's a rear attack on an ally in war, and I hope that will provoke a suitable response.

I have a cousin who's married to a Kurd, so I have some claim to that flag. Jamil is family, dammit.

He's not in Kurdistan right now, but I hope his folks will be OK.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
If the Turks cross the border while fighting is still going on in Iraq: that's a rear attack on an ally in war, and I hope that will provoke a suitable response.

I have a cousin who's married to a Kurd, so I have some claim to that flag. Jamil is family, dammit.

He's not in Kurdistan right now, but I hope his folks will be OK.

I hope they're ok too, but Turkey is a NATO member, and will just claim they're moving across the border to provide "security" due to rebel activity. They invoke their right to self-defense, and la de da, a whole new can of worms.

The best deal for them, and they're probably patient enough, is to wait until the occupation, or the end of occupation. It depends on what kind of "provocation" they can manufacture.

Considering Turkey's record with the Kurds, with Armenians, and at places such as Gallipoli, I'm rather glad to not have them along.

[GePap]

How is an attack into a state your ally itself is invading an attack against the ally?

If the Turks go in in force, there is little the US can do unless it has significant forces in the vacinity, and then, only by sort of blocking the Turks and telling them not to worry, they have things under control. Shooting at one of our NATO allies..well, after the stink people made about France and Germany blocking missile batteries for them, I think shooting at your ally is a bit more, well, shocking.

[Jack the Bodiless]

How is an attack into a state your ally itself is invading an attack against the ally?

Because the "state" is Kurdistan, NOT Iraq (according to the Kurds themselves), and they WILL shoot any Turks who try to cross the border. It will be instant all-out war between an active US ally and one that's only an ally on paper.

I'm not saying the US will fire on the Turks, but the Kurds will withdraw from the front and turn US-supplied weapons on the Turks rather than the Iraquis. US troops will be fighting alone with a war raging to the north of them (where their airfields and supplies are).

And they will be royally pissed about that.

[GePap]

But Jack, there is no Kurdistan: the US does not recognize anything called Kurdistan. If the Kurds shoot at turks, that complicates things for the US, but the Turks, over time, are more important to the US than Kurds, plus any Kurd-turk battle will end in a Turkish victory, followed perhaps by guerilla actions by Kurds.

Also, If the Kurds decide to shoot at Turks and not Saddam's army, that is a Kurdish decision, not a Turkish one, no?

[Jack the Bodiless]

Militarily, if not diplomatically, the US "recognizes" Kurdistan. The northern front of this war is the Iraq/Kurdistan border, with Iraqui and Kurdish forces facing each other across it. Fighting is underway, with at least three Kurdish villages attacked by Iraqui helicopters today (fortunately, they were largely deserted).

There are three airfields in Kurdistan which will be used to fly in US military supplies. Kurdistan, not Turkey, is the staging area for the northern front.

At the moment, the Kurds are vulnerable. They are infantry facing tanks. They're hoping for US air strikes against those, and soon.