Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (43697)	9/13/2002 10:07:22 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 281500

My impression is that they want their own country, but we don't want to piss off the Turks, so we can't ally with them without reservations. Hey, we will promise the Turks anything, but taking out Saddam is "Job One!" Remember, we promised the Paks that we would not let the NA enter Kabul, but we could not stop them when the time came. My reading of a book by an ex-CIA Agent who was with the Kurds during the Clinton Admin, shows that anytime they were not fighting Saddam, they were at each others throats. I am sure we are promising the Turks that we will not let Iraq break up, and allow a separate "Kurdistan."

To: Ilaine who wrote (43697)	9/13/2002 4:52:10 PM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 281500

Hi CobaltBlue; Re: "To be honest, I don't understand the intricacies of our relationship with the Iraqi Kurds." Either (miraculously) Iraq eventually turns into an equal rights kind of country, sort of like Canada, or (much more likely) we betray the Kurds again. -- Carl P.S. It's not just the Kurds that we've betrayed in the past. We have a long history of abandoning small ethnic groups. The Montagnards in Vietnam comes to mind, but I'd guess that there are others. The basic fact is that small foreign ethnic groups are just not that important to US foreign policy.