Iranian, Tukish forces moving to Iraq's borders to quell Kur

[Jersay]

BAGHDAD, Iraq - President Jalal Talabani expressed his concern Sunday over reported Iranian and Turkish troop concentrations on those countries' borders with Iraq.

ADVERTISEMENT

Turkey has moved thousands of troops to the border region in what its military said was an offensive against Turkish Kurd guerrillas.

Iran also reportedly has moved forces to the border, and last week shelled a mountainous region inside Iraq used by Iranian Kurd fighters for infiltration into Iran, according to Iraqi Kurd officials. No casualties were reported from Friday's artillery and rocket barrage.

Talabani said that so far Iranian and Turkish forces have stayed on their sides of the border.

But "I have expressed my concern over these concentrations ... Iraq is a sovereign independent nation that won't let other nations interfere in its internal affairs," he said at a press conference with U.S. ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad in the northern city of Irbil.

Turkey has called on the United States to crack down on rebel bases in northern Iraq. But U.S. commanders, struggling to battle Iraqi insurgents elsewhere, have been extremely reticent to fight the rebels, who are based in the remote mountain areas in one of the few stable parts of the country.

Meanwhile, Khalilzad said planned talks between the United States and Iran over stabilizing Iraq must wait until an Iraqi government is formed. Talabani said he would participate in any U.S.-Iran talks.

"We see it as good that after an Iraqi government is formed, this issue can take shape," Khalilzad said.

"If the United States holds talks alone with Iran without an Iraqi government being formed, that would certainly be a problem for the Iraqi government," the Afghan-born Khalilzad said, speaking in Dari.

Once the government is formed, "we have no problem with meetings with Iranian officials," he said.

Prime Minister-designate Jawad al-Maliki was tapped on Saturday to put together a government and has 30 days to do so.

The talks — a rare, direct high-level meeting between the Iran and the United States — are to deal exclusively with calming the situation in Iraq, where Iran holds enormous influence.

But Washington is under pressure to negotiate directly with Tehran on the nuclear issue amid rising tensions over Iran's determination to push ahead with uranium enrichment despite a U.N. Security Council demand it stop the program.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060423/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_iran_turkey

 

[Finder]

Re: Iranian, Tukish forces moving to Iraq's borders to quell

Would be an interesting war. Tuckey would never attack because the USA is an ally, even though the kurds in Iraq are pissing them off. Iran , could do a lot of damage to the USA forces in the area by launching a sneak attack.

 

[Jersay]

Re: Iranian, Tukish forces moving to Iraq's borders to quell

Agreed, espcially with its long-range missiles. They could actually launch a missile attack hitting a U.S or Iraqi base and claim they were trying to get rebels.

And I don't know about Turkey, islamists are getting really powerful.

 

[Finder]

Re: Iranian, Tukish forces moving to Iraq's borders to quell

The Turks might if things go really nuts their, they may enter the conflic claiming to support the USA and the USA if they were hit by Iran may not do much as they would be in need of support and would not wish to piss off the turks by forcing them out.

Iran could do much harm, at least at first. The USA would have to committ even more forces to Iraq after a sneak attack and would also have to commit even more forces for Iran if they wished to "liberate" Iran as well.

 

[jimmoyer]

Re: Iranian, Tukish forces moving to Iraq's borders to quell

Google Image

Edited as link too long and scrolled off page - Kreskin

 

[Finder]

Re: Iranian, Tukish forces moving to Iraq's borders to quell

Jim, but the Turks won't invade ifthe Americans are in a strong posistion as they know the Americans would demand them to leave and they would leave.

 

[jimmoyer]

Re: Iranian, Tukish forces moving to Iraq's borders to quell

Beyond Kurdistan overlapping Turkey, Syria, Iran, Iraq
it also had an area in Azerbaijan and Armenia, two recently
created countries from USSR dissolution:

This is a map of Kurds during the 20s after WWI, known
as Red Kurdistan during the USSR.

Red Kurdistan during the USSR
Edited to be a link as photo is oversized - Kreskin

And presenting a map of Kurdistan to San Francisco 1945
during the creation of the United Nations:

 

[Finder]

Re: Iranian, Tukish forces moving to Iraq's borders to quell

It is too bad that Kurdistan was never really fully made after ww2 and that the only attempt was a soveit republic.

It's an issue which needs to be dealt with for sure and none of the sides of this conflic are willing to really talk about a Kurdish state being made.

 

[jimmoyer]

RE: Iranian, Tukish forces moving to Iraq's borders to quell

Somehow this thread got really really wide.
Notice that ?

Finder, the Kurds came to Versaille after WWI
to Woodrow Wilson.

Then to San Francisco in 1945.

You see how much the Palestinians get all the ink ?
The Kurds could never get the same press.

 

[Finder]

Re: Iranian, Tukish forces moving to Iraq's borders to quell

Well you will hate me for saying this, look at how much the Jewish people got, to that of the Palistiinians and then compare it further to the Kurds. It's really sad.

 

[jimmoyer]

RE: Iranian, Tukish forces moving to Iraq's borders to quell

LOL, Finder !!!

Although the Jews got a lot of press, you'll have
to agree for the last millenium most of the ink they
got was BAD PRESS, way before Israel and After.

But sympathetic press is quite strong for the
Palestinian and quite non-existent for 80 years for
the Kurds.

 

[Finder]

Re: Iranian, Tukish forces moving to Iraq's borders to quell

jimmoyer, with all due respect Jim, though the Jewish people were treated unfairly by the Europeans, the same ones who took the Palistinians lands and gave them to the Jewish people. That would be like Iraq giving the Native Americans Iraq... Well slightly different but you should get my point. Anyhow as I was saying they were treated badly but the Kurds have been treated just as badly yet were almost ignored during the 20th centry, besides briefly, but all too briefly by the soviets who were actually (if I remember my history correctly) ordered to deconstruct the The Kurdish Soviet Republic.

The kurds are most likely the most screwed civ in the 20th centry. Though as you could mention, not the only one sadly.

 

[jimmoyer]

RE: Iranian, Tukish forces moving to Iraq's borders to quell

I think this subject of the Kurds is instructive of our own passions.

We see passionate defenders of Israel and
passionate defenders of Palestine get epileptic
seizures in their righteousness about the subject
and yet is this passion not due to being creatures
of headlines ?

Lack of headlines for the Kurds exhibits no similar
Rightwinger and Leftwinger battles.

Do we really owe our righteous stands to some
praiseworthy logic we own, or are we really just
creatures of the Headlines ???

Whatever gets the press ?

Think of the Uighurs !!!!

 

[Finder]

Re: Iranian, Tukish forces moving to Iraq's borders to quell

jimmoyer, with all rhetoic aside, that of Palistine, Isreal, Basque, Northern Ireland and yes even Kurdistan, should it not be the goal of all like minded people to defeand the freedom of all peoples. I think the UN has taken a great injustice in not being strong then it was at creation, and not staying strong enough to effect the world in any meaningful way. The only reasons the above nations don't truly have the home land they should have is either because of a Tyranical nation holding onto a possession which doesn't belong to them, or because of the inability to share. If the UN had some balls and some tteth these matters should have been dealt with long ago.

If a peoples and or a nations wishes to be free, they should have the right to self determination. This is a basic human right which is widely ignored, even by Canada in some reguards.

 

[jimmoyer]

RE: Iranian, Tukish forces moving to Iraq's borders to quell

That is a noble sentiment, Finder.

But even noble sentiments have psychological
exceptions that go deeper than a nice wish.

For example, some groups might do better incorporated
within a larger nation with a federalist system of
some autonomy THAN it would on its own soveriegnty.

We can't always be sure which is better, nor can
we determine this by fiat, but only by a tough natural
process, organic history.

For example would Quebec or Alberta do better on
its own, or within a more federal state of some
delineated autonomy like the States ?

Will a Kurdistan do better on its own with hateful
and distrustful neighbors or will it do better in a
federal system as part of Iraq ?

Who is to say?

 

[Finder]

Re: Iranian, Tukish forces moving to Iraq's borders to quell

ahuh let me get this right.... ok you say as long as we federate them in states it's all ok to be under a federation. Ah let me think. How about something in theory which is even better. We make a lose orginization and each state can be it's own republic. Hell they can have there own republican government. Everyone will be free in theory at least... hmmmm... Some can even have their own seat on the UN... Wait a second... We already tried this a few times... It was called the soviet union and such theories only work in the mind of the convalueded it would seem. If you call it a federation, a union or whatever you want you are only as free as the central government allows you to be.

If Quebec chose to leave Canada, if the people said they wished to form their own society, is it not their right? If we force them by means of military to stay in what do we really gain from this besides land and their oppression? What would it mean to be Canadian if we forced Quebed to stay in a confederation they wanted no part with and voted against? Federations, Confederations, Unions and so on are great.... but only if all the parties agree on it. When they do not you risk what happend in the Yugoslavian Federation. Once abone a time the federation was healthy and most the parties where happy with each other. Then nationalism gripped the federation and republics wished to leave while Serbia the strongest republic in the federation wanted to keep the federation together.... we all know how this ended up.

Though I totally agree with you that federations are good, I disagree with you on forcing peoples to join or stay in them when they do not wish to be in them.

 

[jimmoyer]

RE: Iranian, Tukish forces moving to Iraq's borders to quell

At the time, giving the Ukraine and Byelorussia (now known as Belarus) seemed to give USSR two extra, unnecessary votes in the UN. Yet years later it appears they retained a nationality during all those long years.

And regarding Yugoslavia, never was it once upon
a time did that federation become healthy. That's a false impression given the gullible West by Tito, the
strong man, similar to the false impression of a viable
Iraq by a similar strong man. That false impression
is simple: lack of headlines. We are creatures of it.

Not once did those 2 strongmen cure or stamp out
the fierce nationalism hidden from us creatures of
headlines. Nor did the Soviets stamp it out within
their own borders.

The only countries that seemed to have retained
nations within nations are democracies such as
Canada.

But not once in my post did I indicate forcing
a federation or union. In fact I posted," ...nor can
we do this by fiat."

The only way this gets done is in the context of
harsh historical forces that no theorist can control
or predict.

 

[Finder]

Re: Iranian, Tukish forces moving to Iraq's borders to quell

well then I stand by my argument, federations only work when both sides agree to them. So even federation of Turkey and Kurdistan or any of the other states, may not work even if the Turks are willing to do so in the first place. The easyist way of solving this problem is to come to terms with the end of empire and let the people go but keep being diplomatic and talk about federation as equals.

Well I also relieze what I said about Yugoslavia is debatable, and well perhaps could be a completely different thread in itself. But history has showed us that the Republics of Yugoslavia generally got along with one antoher during Tito's time and in general nationalism was not force, be it serb or any other. Such area's like Kosovo were actually given more local power and autonomy during these times, which were only later removed by fascists like Slobo and his nationaist policities.

I totally agree this could be debated but... I think it's a different thread and a debate I would have to get a little more research done then I'm willing to do right now. lol

 

[Finder]

Re: Iranian, Tukish forces moving to Iraq's borders to quell

oh and I wasn't just trying to use only those two federations/unions, but those were the best two which in theory gave the partners the most power, but ended up being the least free. There are many federations around the world which work or don't work to different extents.

 

[jimmoyer]

RE: Iranian, Tukish forces moving to Iraq's borders to quell

Yugoslavia, Iraq, and the Soviet Union are very
bad examples of federations only held by the glue
of a strong man, giving us Western creatures of
headlines a false faith in them.

The federations that hold together are those such
as Great Britain, with England, Scotland and Wales.

Or commonwealths as England with Canada and Australia, etcetera.

Or federations such as the United States.

Or federations such as Canada with its provinces
and semi-autonomous Nunavaat.


Even the Chinese federation of Tibet and Sinkiang Uighers are a false relationship.

The only federations that are durable to any degree
are those as you said, Finder, by the will of the
people.