Is Iran Picking a Fight?

[Ecthy]

They'd take the opportunity and wipe out the Kurds, as they did the Armenians.

Haven't tried your cookies. If they are as good as your salad, you'll be my chef god.

[Lancer]

Sloww, pretty amazing how the poll is turning out isn't it?

Ecthy, there is a significant Kurdish population in Turkey today, and alive too! Also, if our allies the Kurds of Iraq didn't want to be turned over to Turkey we could keep that slice... with the northern oil fields.

The Kurds aren't blowing us up yet are they? If they start we give em to Turkey with the rest of the place.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Lancer
I've heard a few digs like Etchy's here, but no reason why the Turks couldn't take over.

Here's one hint at one of the many reasons...

Yeah yeah I know they were Bedouin and not Iraqis, the broad point is that Arabs inculcated with nationalist sentiment would have no more reason to accept occupation by their Turkish co-religionist "brothers" than modern-day Chileans would to accept Spanish occupation, Moldavians would to accept Russian occupation, or Moroccans would to accept Indonesian occupation. Add to that obvious problem Arabs' widespread historical awareness of past oppression by the Turks and the Salafists' perception that the modern Turks are apostates, and you've got a recipe for disaster. I hope to god you're being facetious.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Honestly, why should some good heating of some Iran nuclear plant spark WW3? Absolutely nonsensical!

1. It would really, really piss off Russia. They are the ones building the nuclear plant in the first place, and it's on their bloody continent.

2. It would really, really piss off China. They are doing A LOT of business with Iran wrt to oil and natural gas. Iran is part of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, [not a defensive alliance].

3. It would really, really piss off Pakistan. Their government's collaboration with the US is not popular with Joe Pakistani on the street, and nuclear weapons being wielded by US againt Joe Muslim two countries over won't make collaboration with the US any more popular.

4. It would really, really, really piss off Iran. They have the capability to block the Straits of Hormuz with a sunk tanker and then mince up the rest of the US navy trapped in the Gulf. They also have a large, decently equipped, loyal army.

5. It would piss off Europe. You do want allies when you piss off Russia and China, don't you?

[St Leo]

Originally posted by PLATO
No...very simply. We have not begun to exercise the conventional power that we could over the Iraqis. We tred very lightly due to political concerns. There is absolutely zero chance that the Shi'ites could "kick our ass outta Iraq" if we had the political will to stay.

There was a time when Iran may have provided that will for the U.S. Now I am not so sure. I sure hope that peaceful change in Iran can come about...

What's your objective in staying in Iraq? Is it compatible with brutality towards the local folks?

[Darius871]

Originally posted by St Leo
Iran is part of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a defensive alliance.

A) Official SCO statements have made abundantly clear it is not a formal alliance (defensive or otherwise)... at least not yet.
B) At any rate, Iran is only an 'observer' applying for membership, not a member.

I agree with the rest, but you can't get away with this one.

[Victor Galis]

Based on the current public support for the war in Iraq, do you honestly think you can start something with Iran too? I mean, all other issues of practicality aside, we might not have the political will to see the Iraq thing through.

You guys honestly want to start **** with the Iranians for trying to blow up a handful of soldiers that should have never been sent there in the first place?

Think about it this way, the US might be able to kick Iran's ass, while putting down the backlash in Afghanistan and Iraq, but there's no way in **** that that scenario will lead to more democracy in the Middle East. If there's a lesson to be learned from the Iraq war, it's that the military victory is the easy bit. It's the part that comes after where you lose. To be fair, the US military as it currently is was designed to kick ass not pacify an occupied country, and it's showing.

[chequita guevara]

Lancer, I don't know how much more simply it can be put. The Arabs hate the Turks. Period. No maybe about it. Only your complete and total ignorance of the region allows you to think that maybe the Iraqis would be okay with having their former, extremely brutal, murderous, torturing, imperial overlords back. And modern Turkey is no less brutal than the Ottoman Empire. The only reason the Turks control 3/4rs of Kurdistan is because they are slaughtering tens of thousands of Kurds.

PLATO, the 10,000 number came from the Pentagon, not the left. Every one just accepted that number. The total number of Coalition troops and contractors killed, however, is 3,000. The total number of Iraqis killed is, at the low estimate, 30,000. At the high end it is 300,000.

No one is underestimating the U.S.'s ability to kill mass quantities of people. What you are overestimating is the ability of the U.S. to continue to project its force when it is surrounded by hostiles on every side.

Again, the model you should consider, though you laugh, is BHD You scoff, but the only reason that unit made it out alive is because someone came to get them and they had somewhere safe to retreat to. If the U.S. attacks Iraq, no one will be coming to rescue them, and they will have no where to retreat to. They may kill 10 iraqis for every soldier they lose, but they will lose.

Also, the U.S. has already lost the will to occupy Iraq. A majority of Americans support the U.S. withdrawing within the year. That position, btw, is to the left of the Dem's Senatorial proposals, btw. Which shows why they are still not fit to rule, even if the GOP is less fit.

In the face of a general uprising, Americans demands would be to withdraw the soldiers immediately.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by PLATO
And if you think the Saudi's are going to wreck our relationship over a stern hand in Iraq, then you have a very, very limited understanding of the relationship...

The House of Saud may want to cuddle up to the US, but Saudi Arabia is more than just the House of Saud, dispite the name. As of now, the place isn't terribly stable. Any more messing about and it can easily end up being like another Iran.

[notyoueither]

The only reason the Turks control 3/4rs of Kurdistan is because they are slaughtering tens of thousands of Kurds.

Really?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by St Leo
2. It would really, really piss off China. They are doing A LOT of business with Iran wrt to oil and natural gas. Iran is part of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, [not a defensive alliance].

Iran is not a member of the SCO, at least not yet.

[Barnabas]

Kurds are just mountain turks who speak another langauge and have a different culture.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by notyoueither

The only reason the Turks control 3/4rs of Kurdistan is because they are slaughtering tens of thousands of Kurds.

Really?

25,000 dead since 1980. 2,000 villages destroyed. TThe Kurdish lanugage was only recently legalized. It was a crime to speak Kurdish or to use a Kurdish name. All Kurds were given Turkish names by the government. Hence the revolt.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
Kurds are just mountain turks who speak another langauge and have a different culture.

I hope you're saying that ironically, cuz that's the Turkish government's old official position.

[Jon Miller]

Yeah, it is pretty nasty there..

The kurds did help the turks against the armenians in the armenian genocide though...

JM