The Iraq Thread 2

[The Frenchman 0]

[theavonlady 2]

I wanna see the tacky tie!

[theavonlady 2]

I wanna be your bodyguard (not).

[Balschoiw 0]

The US and Turkey may be considering “joint action†against PKK Kurd rebels operating in northern Iraq. A Turkish statement said the NATO allies were examining what joint actions could be taken against the “PKK-KADEK terror organization.†The US Dept of Defense said that an American goal is “purging†the area of the PKK. This, of course, follows the problems generated by the US arrest of 11 Turk special ops soldiers in northern Iraq. Eliminating the PKK would help resolve a major Turkish security concern and would be a “confidence building measure†of the highest order (confidence building being a diplomatic term for improving strained US-Turk relations over Iraq). Iraqi Kurdish factions would be asked to help the US in these operations. (Austin Bay)

And another step-up in rhetoric. The US ambassador to Turkey said Turk Kurd rebels (PKK/KADEK) who operate in northern Iraq should “leave the region.†If they don’t they face military attack -- the implication being a combined US and Turkish military attack. Stay tuned.

[-TU--33ker 0]

Hmm... the US have helped the Kurds to get rid of Saddam. But what are they going to do when the Kurds start to attack Turkey with terrorist methods? Will they turn against their allies in northern Iraq and attack them, or will they use a diplomatic way? this situation reminds me of Saudi Arabia. america's friend and home of many Al Quaeda groups.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

The Kurds are not in fact one great homogenous group and i dont think the PUK or KDP have a massive amount to gain now by associating with the PKK (except perhaps a feeling of solidarity) but on the contrary have something to gain from keeping them out of Northern Iraq (or appearing to do so to the coalition).

Dont forget Turkey is trying to get into the European Union and so has taken a visibly softer attitude on the Kurdish issue (though not without exception) which has reduced the motivation for the PKK to commit terrorist attacks (the PKK anyway announced an end to their attacks in 2000)

This may actually turn out to be a good situation for the kurds. Saddam is gone ,the kurds are (theoretically) free to take an important role in the Iraqi government, Turkey is softening its attitude and allowing greater freedom for Kurds. If kurds for now give up on the idea of a unified Kurdistan they could become empowered (but non unified) rulers of the trans national Kurdish zone (with the exception of Iran perhaps).

where the heck did that smilie come from?

[Schoeler 0]

Does anyone still believe Iran is next? I doubt that the US still has the financial capabilities to support another battlefield. It is another proof that even the strongest economies of our times are not capable to conquer and occupy small-to-medium-size countries. The limitating factors are lack of  financial resources and moral support on the home front.

We seem to be reaching another turnaround of military orientation. I bet in the future military science will have to invest more time into developing the "after-war" logistics. Means that enable better supervision of occupied territory. That an old T-72 is no match to a Stealth bomber we know since quite a few years now.

But that a boy with a kalaschnikov can be just as lethal as a a Delta force soldier ...well that we know since ocupation scenarios such as the Middle East conflict and the AFTER-PARTY now in Iraq!

I think any military action in Iran would be a grave military and political mistake tantamount to suicide by the TBA. Even though this is the TBA we are talking about, I doubt they are that stupid. Everyone can see that Iran is tottering on the edge of another revolution, so why go in all hamhanded and overt? Instead, the wiser course would be to covertly supply and train resistance units and local anti-government factions and let the sort it out for themselves. 3/5 of the Irania population is under 30 and desires a secular government. Eventually they'll get tired of waiting for reforms.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Quote[/b] ]" Instead, the wiser course would be to covertly supply and train resistance units and local anti-government factions and let the sort it out for themselves. "

does this strike noone as history repeating itself?

'Supplying and training 'resistance units' (a la Mujahideen, Al-Quaida)

'and local anti-government factions' (a la taliban)?

How exactly does the US exert control over these 'friendly' 'freedom fighters' .

And where is the proof that employing various proxies to attack the Iranian government would actually help to bring it down (at the least in a way that would actually allow it to be replaced by a better government), in fact where is the proof that training and supplying proxies would do anything other than result in the deaths of many many people with little actual positive effect as turned out to the case in too many cold war hotspots? How does the US stop the various groups fighting amongst themselves (or against the US) if the government actually falls?

I hope the legacy of the war on terror will not be as negative as the legacy of the cold war (which it seems we are still dealing with in this war against 'terror' and 'rogue states' )

.Yes the west won and communist invasion was avoided which i am happy about for the record, but i am not happy with the way the west won. How many people died needlessly and how many brutal dictators were propped up without real justification? Will we win this 'war' and disrupt or destroy all anti western terrorist havens only to face a broader and deeper threat as a consequence of our actions now?

[FSPilot 0]

You can't just not make friends because they might turn on you tommorow. Just because we trained Al Queda and the Taliban and they turned out bad doesn't mean we should avoid training other soldiers.

[ran 0]

You can't just not make friends because they might turn on you tommorow.  Just because we trained Al Queda and the Taliban and they turned out bad doesn't mean we should avoid training other soldiers.

the main word is soldiers .....

Al Qaeda and Talebans aren't soldiers , even if they call themselves as such , they are just terrorists , armed civilians with bad intentions

i'm not against training soldiers , but i'm against training the men of unpredictable organisations such as terrorist ones

and 2 times (that's much more than that actually) should be more than enough to get the lesson btw , that + the 3000+ deaths on the 9th of september 2001

[Schoeler 0]

I'd think for a Frenchman, the difference between resistance units and terrorist organizations would be easily distinguished ran. Afterall, your nation has a proud history of resisting corrupt and oppressive government. Personally I don't see anything wrong with aiding freedom fighters or groups interested in throwing off the shackles of oppression or government operating against the will of the majority. The very basis for the idea of government is derived from the social contract, thus government fundamentally operates on behalf of the people in exchange for the limited surrender of certain freedoms. When that contract is violated, it is the duty and the right of the people to overthrow the government. This from my point of view is a completely moral and justifiable act, and any nation acting in support of such efforts is also behaving morally. How many of the wars in Europe in the last two centuries were over the right to national self determination and the social contract? I'd bet most all of them were, even those based on the precursor to modern government, the church.

[ran 0]

I'd think for a Frenchman, the difference between resistance units and terrorist organizations would be easily distinguished ran.  Afterall, your nation has a proud history of resisting corrupt and oppressive government.  Personally I don't see anything wrong with aiding freedom fighters or groups interested in throwing off the shackles of oppression or government operating against the will of the majority.  The very basis for the idea of government is derived from the social contract, thus government fundamentally operates on behalf of the people in exchange for the limited surrender of certain freedoms.  When that contract is violated, it is the duty and the right of the people to overthrow the government.  This from my point of view is a completely moral and justifiable act, and any nation acting in support of such efforts is also behaving morally.  How many of the wars in Europe in the last two centuries were over the right to national self determination and the social contract?  I'd bet most all of them were, even those based on the precursor to modern government, the church.

once the two towers were down , were the talebs and AQ still seen as freedom fighters ?

the difference is that for exemple when the war ended , we didn't go on a bombing spree in Vichy or in Berlin

the US administrations took the bad habit to forget things and to abandon people

that's obvious in Liberia for exemple , but also in Afghanistan and even in Iraq

-edit-:

sorry if i'm not too clear , just woke up

[denoir 0]

Personally I don't see anything wrong with aiding freedom fighters or groups interested in throwing off the shackles of oppression or government operating against the will of the majority.  The very basis for the idea of government is derived from the social contract, thus government fundamentally operates on behalf of the people in exchange for the limited surrender of certain freedoms.  When that contract is violated, it is the duty and the right of the people to overthrow the government.  This from my point of view is a completely moral and justifiable act, and any nation acting in support of such efforts is also behaving morally.

See this thread. You'll see that you are in a clear minority.

Most of the people that post in this thread consider democracy to be a culturally dependant and not universal value.

I find your idea of forcing demcratic principles onto others be as justifiable as the idea of forcing a religion onto others, as we did for so many years.

[Schoeler 0]

The Taliban were not supported by the United States in the war against the Russian occupation, and neither was Al-Qaeda. Bin Laden was a foreign mercenary who went to fight for the Mujahadeen. The Taliban came along after the war. The problem with Afghanistan I, was that the U.S. tried to do it on the cheap, and acted, not in the interests of the Afghani people, but in their own selfish interest in containing the Soviets and fighting communism. Had the U.S. acted on behalf of the Afghani people, I'd wager the results would have been dramatically different, ala France in WWII etc..

[ran 0]

The Taliban were not supported by the United States in the war against the Russian occupation, and neither was Al-Qaeda.  Bin Laden was a foreign mercenary who went to fight for the Mujahadeen.  The Taliban came along after the war.  The problem with Afghanistan I, was that the U.S. tried to do it on the cheap, and acted, not in the interests of the Afghani people, but in their own selfish interest in containing the Soviets and fighting communism.  Had the U.S. acted on behalf of the Afghani people, I'd wager the results would have been dramatically different, ala France in WWII etc..

yeah , but now it's too late

[Schoeler 0]

Personally I don't see anything wrong with aiding freedom fighters or groups interested in throwing off the shackles of oppression or government operating against the will of the majority.  The very basis for the idea of government is derived from the social contract, thus government fundamentally operates on behalf of the people in exchange for the limited surrender of certain freedoms.  When that contract is violated, it is the duty and the right of the people to overthrow the government.  This from my point of view is a completely moral and justifiable act, and any nation acting in support of such efforts is also behaving morally.

See this thread. You'll see that you are in a clear minority.

Most of the people that post in this thread consider democracy to be a culturally dependant and not universal value.

I find your idea of forcing demcratic principles onto others be as justifiable as the idea of forcing a religion onto others, as we did for so many years.

I'm not talking about democracy per se Denoir, and I'd hope that you could make the distinction between democracy and national self determination, which are two completely different concepts.  One is an ideology, the other the basic human right to determine one's form of government.  That is the freedom I mean.  I think its possible to be free outside of a democratic form of government so I don't associate the words as you may have assumed.

My example goes back to the fact that 3/5 of the Iranian population is dissatisfied with their form of government.  Thus it has violated the social contract, and as such should and of right ought to be overthrown.  The mandate of the people to have a form of government which meets its obligations to them is a moral one, whether that government be a democracy, communist, socialist, monarchy or even a theocracy.

edit: spelling errors.

[denoir 0]

I'm not talking about democracy per se Denoir, and I'd hope that you could make the distinction between democracy and national self determination, which are two completely different concepts.  One is an ideology, the other the basic human right to deterine one's form of government.  That is the freedom I mean.  I think its possible to be free outside of a democratic form of government so I don't associate the words as you may have assumed.

My example goes back to the fact that 3/5 of the Iranian population is dissatisfied with their form of government.  Thus it has violated the social contract, and as such should and of right ought to be overthrown.  The madate of the people to have a form of government which meets its obligations to them is a moral one, whether that government be a democracy, communist, socialist, monarchy or even a theocracy.

Determining your government is not a bloody human right *rolls eyes*. It's a fairly new ideological concept that is shared by a minority of the world. An absolute majority of the world's cultures does not incorporate that ideology.

Locke's social contract theory is an extremely European/Western way of thinking that is not at all shared throughout the world. And forcing others to follow it is just as bad as what the christian missionaries did around the world during the colonial times. They also did it in the interest of those that they converted by force.

[Schoeler 0]

Well, I'd disagree. Sure, Locke gave voice to it relatively recently in historical terms, but the idea and actions based upon it existed for much longer than that. Revolution is as old as the concept of government itself. At any rate, its after 2:00 am here and I'm tired. I'll pick up this argument with you guys again tomorrow. Goodnight all,

[denoir 0]

Most societies are and have been based on a patriarchal-hierarchical social structure. The father/leader/god knows best, not the people. Dissatisfaction of the people in such structures are associated with the lack of the complete big picture.

In such a model (that is by far the dominating in the world) the people are considered to be like children and the leaders like their parents.

I understand that it might be difficult for you to accept because your country's existance is based on a revolt against those principles. They are however agreed upon by a clear majority of the world. And if you look at it in a historical perspective, you'll see that such trends as 'national determination' and the leader's accountability to the people are very young concepts.

[ralphwiggum 6]

and i thought this was Iraq thread?

[theavonlady 2]

and i thought this was Iraq thread?

No. It says it's an Iraqi thread, too.

[fraggit 0]

Bush Takes Responsibility for Iraq Claim

[FSPilot 0]

You can't just not make friends because they might turn on you tommorow.  Just because we trained Al Queda and the Taliban and they turned out bad doesn't mean we should avoid training other soldiers.

the main word is soldiers .....

Al Qaeda and Talebans aren't soldiers , even if they call themselves as such , they are just terrorists , armed civilians with bad intentions

i'm not against training soldiers , but i'm against training the men of unpredictable organisations such as terrorist ones

and 2 times (that's much more than that actually) should be more than enough to get the lesson btw , that + the 3000+ deaths on the 9th of september 2001

But we didn't know they were terrorists back in those days. As far as we knew they were honest freedom fighters fighting the oppressive Soviet regime.

[FallenPaladin 0]

Bush Takes Responsibility for Iraq Claim

Now is the question what can we expect from him taking "responsibility"?

I guess nothing. Words like hot air.

[booradley60 0]

and 2 times (that's much more than that actually) should be more than enough to get the lesson btw , that + the 3000+ deaths on the 9th of september 2001

*11th of September 2001