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: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (91362)	4/9/2003 12:41:40 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 281500

This is the reason we are airlifting Tanks into Northern Iraq. washingtonpost.com Turk General Faces Tough Choice in Iraq Military Could Step In To Block Kurd Gains By Philip P. Pan Washington Post Foreign Service Wednesday, April 9, 2003; Page A23 ANKARA, Turkey, April 8 -- Gen. Hilmi Ozkok, chief of the Turkish armed forces, receives a briefing every day about the position and strength of Iraqi Kurdish militias advancing slowly toward the oil cities of Kirkuk and Mosul in northern Iraq. With the help of U.S. airstrikes and Special Forces, these pesh merga fighters have moved within 20 miles of both cities in recent days. Turkey considers Kurdish control of the Iraqi oil fields a security threat, and if the Kurds enter either city, Ozkok will face the most important decision of his 44-year military career: whether to order an invasion of northern Iraq that could lead to clashes between his troops and those of the United States and its Kurdish allies. In theory, Turkey's elected leaders have the final say over any deployment into Iraq. But the politically vulnerable and relatively inexperienced government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan almost certainly will defer to the judgment of the military, which has a long tradition in Turkey of intervening even in matters unrelated to national security. Whether that should be of comfort or concern to the United States now is a matter of quiet debate in Washington and Ankara, where diplomats and others have been scrutinizing Ozkok's background and public statements for clues to what he might do in a crisis. Several thousand Turkish soldiers are already based in northern Iraq, and about 40,000 more are massed along the border awaiting orders. REST AT:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59162-2003Apr8.html

To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (91362)	4/9/2003 8:04:51 AM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 281500

It would still have come to "regime change" in the end. I agree. And regime change would have meant war. Saddam's regime wasn't willing to leave the stage willingly. But there wouldn't have been UN support for it then either. So it would still have been a case of American "unilateralism". And pre-911, America wasn't willing to act unilaterally. Even now, America has been reluctant. Look at the extensive, though unsuccessful, efforts to get UN support. And why the campaign to "Arabize" Kirkuk was not seen as a violation of UN resolutions. The ethnic cleansing of Kurds was done by Arabs. World opinion doesn't hold Arabs accountable for their bad actions. But the US was wrongly focussed on wmd. Which makes everyone question its motives, because as has been demonstrated, after all this loss of life, the threat was way over-exagerated. I think the jury is still out on this. The Sunni heartland from Baghdad north to Kirkuk is still unoccupied by coalition forces. This is the region where Saddam had the most support. Who knows what we will encounter there.