Turkish jets hit Kurdish rebels in Iraq

Chicken Turks. Do the Kurds have warplanes?

When the Kurds go into Turkey and blow up a train, don't complain. Turkey is attacking the Kurds with airplanes, Kurds will retaliate the best they can. < :-)

Well said adaydream.

I say make a deal with the Kurds and give them a nation. Obviously, they will not stop until they get it, no more than the American Founding Fathers were going to stop despite all the hardship they faced during the American Revolutionary War. How many times must this scene play out? When will we stop supporting people like the Turks who just hang on to people that do not want to be a part with them, while hanging on the land that belongs to those people? --Cirroc

Iraq is being bombed by Turkey. It comes down to more than one country militarily striking at a group of rebels on its own soil.

This situation underlines the disaster that was the decision to invade and then occupy Iraq. There is absolutely no way to re-stabalize the place. There are too many forces of both the immovable and unstoppable kind that are at work from both the inside and the outside.

Pity the poor Iraqi people. No matter what ethnic group they belong to they live in a thoroughly busted up country, with an all but totally destroyed society. The war there is far from over.

Wow, you'd think somebody would have thought of this before completely de-stabalizing the country. You'd have thought there would have been some evidence prior to the invasion to indicate how much Iraq's main three ethnic factions, and neighbours actually hate each other...

Hey, does the mccain surge include the turks surging into iraq and killing the kurds? If so then mccains surge is really working . . . gosh he should be so proud of putting lipstick on the iraqi invasion pig.

I agree with everyone here. A genocidal dictator was the best solution for Iraq.

Kurds have been attacking Turkey since they wondered into it way before the iraq war... So what does the war in Iraq have to do with it?

Becarful when you say shame on Turkey for defending its borders... Its no differnet then any other country defending its borders..

To stabalize a country that has never been stable (even when Sadumb was in charge the Kurds still ruled the north) is not possible.

Nippon5

Actually that potted summary of the history of the Kurds in Iraq and with Turkey and is myopic in the extreme.

Despite what Fox TV and CNN might tell you it isn't 'the Kurds' involved in military action against Turkey, it is the Kurdish Worker's Party (the PKK). All Kurds and certainly not all of those in Iraq are interested in armed conflict.

The victorious allies at the end of WW1 divided up the ME and created Turkey, a portion of the Ottoman Empire. Originally it was envisaged the Kurds would have their own state, as well as would the Armenians.

However, Turkish nationalists forced a revision of Treaty of Sevres in a 3 year war of liberaton. The British Empire had already tried to position the Kurds against the Ottoman Empire in order to control the oil-rich province of Mosul earlier, and did succeed in adding Mosul province to Iraq. Whereupon flushed with their success the Brits left the 26 million Kurds to their own ends.

That's how Turkey's borders emerged. No state for the Kurds though.

Nippon5

The PKK's fight to establish an independent state can be compared with that of the Palestinians or for that matter the Zionists prior to the establishment of the state of Israel. The Kurds have been the victims of the machinations of the great and regional powers in the Middle East for more than a century. The history of the Kurds is replete with tragedies, not least the treatment of them by Saddam. They fought for both sides in the Iraq-Iran war, they were basically treated as cannon fodder.

The PKK is not a terrorist organisation, but a mass nationalist organisation that has won influence and support due to decades of oppression of the Kurdish population, which continues to this day. It will probably shock you to learn they have also been supported in the past by many of the Turkish population.

To stabalize a country that has never been stable (even when Sadumb was in charge the Kurds still ruled the north) is not possible.

First up Iraq WAS stable. Iraq under Saddam was one of the most sophisticated and cultured of countrys within the Middle East, and btw that doesn't excuse the brutality with which Saddam repressed dissent within that state. Secondly and related to the last, the Kurds never "ruled the North".

Either you just came down in the last shower or you think everyone reading your post has.

to be a stable would mean he controlled the whole country and he didnt..

also stable is the term I use when I decribe countries that dont do genocide on its people and are not always in a war on their borders, what happens inside the country at that time might be great but it wasnt a stable country nor a stable goverment.

here is some history for you since you seems out of sorts on it http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2002/issue4/jv6n4a5.html

or maybe you can read this http://hnn.us/articles/1172.html

seems that they didnt have control of the Kurds in the northern part of Iraq in 1988 that was before the war I served in....

so it seems your post was all w e t

well i am a Turk. if you want me allow a new country,you can join the Rebels in Iraq.because thats the only way you can dream it.not even with democracy. or fight your way in a democratic way in the turkish parliment for your rights as blacks did in USA. Although kurds were never poor slaves.

Nippon5 Thanks for providing your links. I checked on the first. This is a quote. "Since the creation of the modern state of Iraq, the history of Iraqi Kurdistan has been one of underdevelopment, political and cultural repression, destruction, ethnic cleansing and genocide.(2) Al-Anfal (The Spoils) was the codename given to an aggressive, planned, military operation against Iraqi Kurds. It was part of an ongoing, larger campaign against Kurds because of their struggle to gain autonomy within the Republic of Iraq."

Resistence does not equal control. Saddam's military dictatorship controlled Iraq, all of it. That didn't mean he some like the Kurds resisted. But resisting the rule of a dictator does not equal the 'rule' of the resistance! You have a problem with terminology.

You also have a problem with facts. The Kurds did NOT wander into Turkey as you state in your post. They already lived there. Only it wasn't known as Turkey, and Iraq did not exist either. It was the victors of WW1 that created the two countries, outsiders, Western powers. The Kurds who were promised a state never received one. Why don't you at least read the damn posts you are attempting to engage with? I've already clarified this above.

You have even presented a link which clearly shows you to be totally wrong. You picked the link.

Nippon5

seems that they didnt have control of the Kurds in the northern part of Iraq in 1988 that was before the war I served in..

Read the Meria article again notice that Saddam's forces did a pretty adequate job of repressing the Kurds. Resistance does not equate with rule or control of a territory. Resistance means fighting against the rule of another, i.e. the resister does the resisting and the ruler does the ruling. I appreciate you MAY have been serving in Iraq. But, well, big surprise, appreciate this, there are others of us here who in one capacity or another have also have served in the ME, and who also know a thing or two about that place!

The fact you MAY have been there doesn't mean you are correct in your facts. You have to present credible evidence if you want to go making a series of inane statements like you have above. This is a public board and someone will pull you up for doing that.

You are out of your depth here. Come on, move on.

Brandonklex

You are right. This is what a nation state is all about.

Of course the Kurds have attempted the democratic route and that didn't seem to work for them. And no one would expect it to either. No state in the world is going to allow its territory to be annexed by seperatists. That is not how nations states operate. It is not how they were intended to operate.

The nation state system is an underlying cause of war throughout the world. The nation state system should be done away with. That is a foundational precept of the 4th International.

Stable is not a country fighting inside its own border...

Selective reading isnt reading....

The operation was carefully planned and included identifying villages in rebel held areas, declaring these villages and surrounding areas "prohibited" and authorizing the killing of any person or animal found in these areas

To hold an area would mean to control it....

Say what you want and show some facts that show Iraq had 100% control of the country at any time and Ill believe you, but every article states the fact Iraq has always been in war with others and with its self.

As for the wandering comment I misspoke, I should of said after Turkey was given its borders, the PKK decided it wanted to take over the lower part of Turkey, but because they have no real military force they just wander across the border and do ambush attacks... Sorry Proffesor

Thanks Proffesor for the lecture on what I should know or not, but I think I will believe the articles (news reports, histories,etc) from the rest of the world over a guy typing on a Japanese rag mag.... Sorry if that offends you but I try never to just take someones word for it..

Proffesor? Of a JT? Give me a break. You chose it pal, you came here.

If you go and make inane statements about issues others think important, or half arsed categorical statements with no evidence on a public board, what do you expect is going to happen? Someone is going to take you to task. It becomes a debate. Sometimes you are asked for evidence to support your claims.

That's the way it is. Its a jungle out here.

Stable is not a country fighting inside its own border...

If we employ that definition, I suppose any nation with resistance in its borders is unstable. I am pondering Ruby Ridge and Waco, Texas right now. I am sure there are yet people resisting the United States government. Never realized we were so unstable...

My definition of stability has a lot more to do with being assured that the status quo is not going take a major turn anytime soon. Everybody knew Saddam was the dictator. The Kurds in the north resisted him, even kept him out of the north (such is my understanding). But I never worried that the status quo was going to change, or that a power vacuum would be created until GWB decided to invade. I also was not worried that Iran was going to attack Iraq or any body else, again, not until GWB attacked.

The situation was, relatively, stable. It was even more stable than the situation on the Korean peninsula. We pretty much knew what was going to happen.

Stability is not a simple "on or off" deal. There are shades of grey. Yes, Iraq certainly could have been more stable, but it was stable enough for me. I am no fan of Saddam, but he was better than the clear instability that followed him.

Another test is that I actually was not much worried about Iraq until Congress passed that stupid vote to give GWB all that authority. Iraq was under control, and basically stable. And WMD rumors were obviously just that: unfounded rumor.

I am just glad the whole ME did not unravel. It seemed a real possibility. But the world continues to turn, and I see Iran greatly pressed and now wedged between two countries occupied by the U.S. Its not over yet, nor will it ever be. --Cirroc

well i am a Turk. if you want me allow a new country,you can join the Rebels in Iraq.because thats the only way you can dream it.not even with democracy. or fight your way in a democratic way in the turkish parliment for your rights as blacks did in USA. Although kurds were never poor slaves.

If the Turks had no country, I bet many would fight for one. Do you really think your people have a right to the land the Kurds already live on? Because the British carved it up that way? Or because your people can use brute force to keep it? There can be no end to the conflict that way.

A great opportunity was lost. Iraq was invaded and occupied. If Turkey had pressed for it, it might have been possible to create a Kurdistan comprised mostly of northern Iraq and a small part of Turkey. This new country might have been grateful for the Turkish blessings, and Turkey might have had a new ally.

Instead, all you will get is more blood and death. --Cirroc

If Turkey had pressed for it, it might have been possible to create a Kurdistan comprised mostly of northern Iraq and a small part of Turkey.

Could still happen, but I would guess by default rather than out of decision the ruling powers make.

Actually, didn't Turkey earlier make a fair bit of noise about how should a Kurdistan emerge or be granted by the US or their proxy in Baghdad, it would lead to conflict with Turkey? Just prior to the US led invasion of Iraq there were warnings from various corners that Saddam's removal would leave the Kurds with oil underneath their feet, and a likely emboldened Kurdish state on the border would drag Turkey into the conflict.

CavemanLawyer,

It's possible, isn't it, that blood and death is the only way that contested territory changes hands? If the US could have purchased its portion of North America the way the Dutch were reputed to have bought Manhattan, we would have saved lots of blood and death. But oddly enough many of the natives resisted the notion that the land was France's or Spain's to sell.

I agree that an opportunity was lost in the invasion of Iraq to settle a border dispute in the north. I don't agree that Turkey would have willingly given up its own territory any more than Serbia or Georgia are willing to give up what they consider to be theirs. However, there was no reason that in Iraq at least we could not have exercised the quintessential self-bestowed Anglo prerogative to redraw borders and redesign the world. Basically, with our no-fly zones we had already done that. Whether anyone would have been happy with the solution is another matter.

Turkey has the resident power in that region and it has been somewhat forbearing, I think. Apparently Turkey's patience is at an end. An independent Kurdistan might have been a good idea at one time and might be a good idea in the future. But I don't think the Kurds will presently consent to an independence without Kirkuk and I don't think the Iraqis will just give it to them. So, where do we go from here?

taniwha , That would be why I posted the articles showing the statements to verify my statments, but as they say.....

You can lead a horse to water but you cant make them drink.

Being a discussion board people will have different understandings of what they read and how they come to a conclusion on the facts, I dont agree Iraq was stable (even during the controlling times of the desert shield and the no flys and such) as it was always involved in wars and internal conflict. Sweden is stable, Canada is stable. But to you its a stabel enviroment and thats that its what you believe.

You are also correct on the part about Turkey stating they would not allow a Kurdish state in Northern Iraq, they claimed that would lead to a war. Also Sezwho2 is correct on the Kirkuk area being a stiking point on any change of borders from what they are now. Iraq doesnt wan to give up an oil rich area neither does the Kurds...

As where do we go from here, we dont its not our concern and we should allow those countries to work it out..

Nippon5,

I can live with allowing those countries to work it out if they keep it in their countries. However, as long as we (the US) are in Iraq, that will be kind of difficult.

Nippon5

Okay. this is getting away bit from the topic of the Kurds, but then Iraq is part of their story. What you saying now is a good deal different to what you said above.

I do think there are levels of stability. I find myself in agreement with much of CavemanLawyer's version of stability within a state.

When the term 'stability' is applied to a nation state, then it is likely we are assuming we agree on the principles behind nation building. To be fair, I admit to being a bit too strident, claiming "Iraq WAS stable". But what I was trying to get across is that Iraq was a dictatorship.

A dictatorship by convention is about repressing dissent with absolute authority in the hands of the dictator, al be it one individual or a group of them. Under that definition Iraq remained a dictatorship for 20 years. Remember that Stalin's Russia, Mao's China and Pinochet's Chile were dictatorship that lasted longer than a decade also.

Since you were talking about stability in terms of state control than I think Saddam's Iraq qualified as being stable enough, that is, for a single ruler to maintain rule (through the repressive security forces) and stay in power for 20 years. Which all just goes to show that stability can be mean many different things to many different people.

How do the Iraqis you meet these days rate their country's stability? You know that since the 2003 invasion of Iraq there has been 1 million Iraqis killed, and on top of that the number of Iraqi refugee exceeds 3 million people. I would hardly think that we should start talking just yet about stable Iraq was under Saddam's dictatorship. People will start making comparisons.

I don't agree that Turkey would have willingly given up its own territory

I did not say "would have" and I sure did not mean it. "Should have" would be more like it. Whether land that Kurds live on is Turkey's own territory is something I find debatable in the face of an independence movement.

All else I think we agree on.

So, where do we go from here?

All I got is continuing to preach fairness and justice and the right of a people to self determination over tight fisted selfish greed the depraved desire to rule as many people as one can. --Cirroc

SezWho2 at 01:25 PM JST - 7th October

Nippon5,

I can live with allowing those countries to work it out if they keep it in their countries. However, as long as we (the US) are in Iraq, that will be kind of difficult.

Yes and before us it was Russia and before them 3 times Britian... We need to allow the country to go its course, we cant always be the captain of the ship. I hope we can get out as soon as possible, but I dont want to have us leave it without Iraq having its own internal controls.. Hopefully soon this topic of the US in Iraq will not be a topic anymore....

Hopefully soon this topic of the US in Iraq will not be a topic anymore....

I believe our military industrial complex has every intent to keep a base in Iraq. They may view that as a means to distance ourselves from the Saudis. Allowing Turkey to attack Iraqi Kurds could present a compelling way to convince the Iraqis they need us for security. --Cirroc

CavemanLawyer,

Yes, I understood that you meant "should" have given up the land. My comment was that they "would not" have done so willingly. I think "should" invokes an action that appeals to a concept of the best thing to do. I think "would not" recognizes that there might be a difference of opinion about what is best. That's all I was saying about a Turkish refusal.

That's all I was saying about a Turkish refusal.

Agreed. Most unfortunately for the human race, it is par for the course.

I see that our disagreements are often small. Glad to know that another thinks much the same as I do. --Cirroc

I think you are all skipping over the point somewhat conveniently. Nippon5 touches on it -

Yes and before us it was Russia and before them 3 times Britian... We need to allow the country to go its course, we cant always be the captain of the ship. I hope we can get out as soon as possible, but I dont want to have us leave it without Iraq having its own internal controls.. Hopefully soon this topic of the US in Iraq will not be a topic anymore....

Iraq wasn't Iraq until the allies carved it out at the end of WW1. That colonialist desire to create a client state so that its resources could be harvested is still with us now. The problem the West faces is a direct result of messing with the locals to divest them of their resources/treasures. Today the imperialist aim is to control access to all the oil in the ME. That's about it.

Nippon5 is right, there will have to be some kind of "internal controls" in Iraq. But don't fool yourself, they won't be placed there by the common wishes of the Iraqi people. They will be placed there by a proxy government, like the one they have now, in the pocket of the US. Actually that is precisely what has already happening. And its not working. It won't work and it can't.

This is one of the main reasons the conflict in Iraq is not near over. The other reason is whole ME is totally destabalized at this point. It will blow up. That much is certain. Whether a major conflation just develops from here slowly growing, or explodes out of another major attack from the West, say upon Iran, it all can no longer be put back together.

Just because you and a group of you want to have a separate country does not mean everyone must be obliged to grant you one. If people here are going to root for everyone who wants to set up a separate state, bear in mind you will be going around in circles.

Turkey has a right to defend themselves and regardless of where their enemies lie, it should be understood that going into Iraq is more a fault of the PKK and not Turkey.

Hey Skip

We all have a right to defend ourselves.

But many who claim the right find themselves labelled terrorists, whereupon, like magic, they don't have any rights, not even to defend themselves.

We attacked Iraq and stole it from the Iraqi people, so by occupation, these people are Americans/Iraqi citizens.

So, by occupation, these PKK rebels are Americans/Iraqi citizens. This being said, why isn't the Iraqi government and/or United States involved in trying to resolve this cross border crisis.

I think it was last year that the United States turned a blind eye to Turkey's first attacks since our occupation. We allowed and by doing nothing condoned the killing of Americans/Iraqis by occupation. I hear all this crap about we protect our own. (Remember Georgia, and Russia attacking?) This is similar and we're saying and doing nothing. < :-)

Again, these are Americans by occupation and Iraqi citizens by birth. Both governments need to get off their ass and protect their citizens. < :-)

Wow...daydream is telling the US to attack and kill Turks. I never thought I'd see the day coming...heh.