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 : Israel to U.S. : Now Deal with Syria and Iran -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (16777)	10/25/2007 11:20:04 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22250

This guy doesn't seem to think that the Turkish Kurds even want to secede.... Iraqi Kurds should stick to Iraq By Francis Matthew, Editor at Large Published: October 24, 2007, 23:44 gulfnews.com The recent deaths of Turkish soldiers fighting the anti-Turkish militants of the Kurdish PKK, and the threat of Turkish future incursions into Iraq by Turkish troops in hot pursuit of units of Kurdistan Workers' Party (better known by its Kurdish acrynom as PKK), has flung the recently dormant issue of how Iraq (and Iraq's Kurds) will work with their northern neighbour back into the limelight with a vengeance. The effective independence of Iraq's Kurds since the allies imposed a no fly zone in the Kurdish areas on Saddam Hussain's military in the early 1990s has meant that Iraqi Kurds have run their own affairs with very little interference for over 15 years. They have set up government structures, run schools which taught in Kurdish, established hospitals, and also built up a successful economy. They have also fought a vicious civil war in 1994 which left Massoud Barzani's KDP in control of northern Kurdistan around Erbil and Dohuk, and Jalal Talabani's PUK running the more southern Suleimaniyah. After this effective division of Iraqi Kurdistan, the two parties settled down and have worked well together. Situation The Americans were happy to accept this situation when they invaded Iraq and the Kurds had their control of the territory confirmed by the occupying forces and also later by the Iraqi government. Anyway, it would be almost impossible for an Iraqi government to challenge this, since the Kurds will not give up their status voluntarily, and their peshmerga are the largest and most coherent military force in the country, including the emerging Iraqi army. This is a totally different situation compared to across the border in Turkey where the Kurds have no autonomy, but have been part of the unitary Turkish state since it started almost 90 years ago. Their large population is double that of the Iraqi Kurds, and they see themselves as a lot more sophisticated. They have had the benefits of being part of a fully operating civil society, as opposed to oppression and violence from the Baath government in Iraq. While the Turkish Kurds certainly resent any discrimination against them, only a very small group has resorted to violence, any only minority supports the peaceful Kurdish parties: less than a third of Kurdish voters support the Kurdish Party, the DTP; and in the recent election many Kurds voted for the ruling AK Party, and many AK deputies are Kurdish. One of the most startling examples of how complete assimilation can be is that the Turkish minister of interior from 2002 to 2007, responsible for internal security and therefore for dealing with Kurdish insurgency, was a Kurd from Diyarbakir. The key test for Iraq is how it will handle any elements of the PKK operating out of its territory. It can certainly argue with justice that Turkey should not send troops over the border, but in turn Iraq will be forced to stop any PKK actions. This week's round of diplomacy in Europe and the Middle East has focused on exactly such questions, as the Turks are seeking reassurance that their borders will be respected. If it comes to a crunch and it almost certainly will, the Iraqi army or the Iraqi Kurdish peshmerga will need to stop the PKK fighters, with the use of force if needed. Kurds will have to fight Kurds, but this is nothing new as their recent history has shown, but it will be a big step for the Kurdish establishment in Iraq. Their recent history is all about resistance to Saddam's government, enduring savage violence, and fighting their way to effective independence, led by two tribal leaders who draw their authority from their traditional social positions. Both leaders now play important parts in the Iraqi state: for example, Jalal Talabani is the Iraqi president. Their experience of violence and struggle will have to give way to the process of nation building and the adoption of civil politics as the way to get things done. The whole of Iraq is wrestling with this challenge but the Kurds have the unique situation of having almost two decades of managing their own territory. Their challenge is in two parts: working out how the Iraqi constitution will give them what they want; and also establishing long term relations with their neighbours in Turkey and Iran, both of whom have substantial Kurdish populations and do not want active support for autonomy or independence spreading into their populations. Achieved a lot It will be important for the Kurds of Iraq to recognise that they have achieved a lot in the past two decades, and their ambitions should focus on the task of building their position inside Iraq, in cooperation with their fellow Iraqis who are Arab. Their leaders should make clear that this is their priority. They cannot find themselves backing the ambitions of the PKK because if they get sucked into supporting even loosely a demand for an independent Kurdistan stretching across territories which might include parts of Iraq, Turkey and Iran, and even Syria, they will have lost their way. It will create opportunities for violence and destablisation which will whip back on the Iraqi Kurds and threaten their own situation. Your comments The writer sadly needs to realise that it is TURKEY that should stick to Turkey. Anybody with the smallest understanding of the politics of the region, would understand that what Turkey is currently trying to do is destroy any hope of Kurds, no matter where they are from, of succeeding. Turkey speaks of Kirkuk like it belongs to Turkey, perhaps it should concentrate on Diyarbakir, Istanbul and other cities where Kurds are oppressed on a daily basis. Ali London,United Kingdom

To: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (16777)	10/25/2007 7:38:03 PM
From: 49thMIMOMander	Respond to of 22250

I wasmany times about to reply to your erlierpost(s(, but not enough time to read even this one. Yes, it seems there is a severe religious spit-split (freedom and authoritarian loving, one and only dictator) in the republican party. I happily admit, that is the major reason why USA is not mature enough for a proportional multy-party system. Any US-style "third party" must be self-suicidal within the US election system, especially for the one of the two major parties which have to struggle with them those there these extreme ones. However, it is the same thing everywhere, and my real "thing", is the real thing of all more evolved democracies, the matter of a "third party" in the "moderate middle" (and not out on some silly fringe) PS It seems Nader vs Michael Moore had an almost interesting debate on this issue, but then they all run into the holy tabu of not talking about this intersting, funny, silly "issue". "The two-party system , it has served USA well" is still the most one can get a top or money-depending amurrican to say. When that is well established (in USA) everyone can enjoy those (other) wxtreme "third parties" (which only exist, even by definition, in a true and silly two-party system) on the extreme (funny) fringes. That is, it is only in USa that "third parties" mean what it means in USA. That is why "USA-Third-Parties" sillies are mainly scary. Bottom line, it seems it will take some additional 200 years before USA can enjoy their sillies and "third parties".

To: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (16777)	10/25/2007 9:18:10 PM
From: 49thMIMOMander	Respond to of 22250

Moderni pogledi na konec sveta?? I think it means "modern anglo-urrican two-party systems"?? PS "koneca" obviously means something which has evolved to the bitter two-party end, the final endgame, the final calypso?? I know that because that is what their movies say in the end, that their text in black and gray say, "The End". PS In french it says "Fine stuff"

To: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (16777)	10/25/2007 9:21:25 PM
From: 49thMIMOMander	Respond to of 22250

The Final (modern) Calypso?? muchoswing.com After a Quick search in my latest favorite links, maybe not the best, but I would not say the worst. Note, this is from the same hemisphere as the dictatorially stable present, extremely well gerrymandered USA two-party system, which thinks it is strange that Iran too demands a supreme approvement of their wrong-party candidates. Must be USA-tough-Shxt, because of the supreme ones that IRan allows besides the two parties, they are not that happily and skillfully gerrymandering (as USA??) hmm, maybe I should contruct a banner: "parental advisory, moderate-viable-proportional-center-party content" That is, in such a system those USA "third parties" are called "silly extremists which we all enjoy" That is because they cannot upset a regular majority government, except in some very few cases (to understand this some parental advisory is needed, or some basic math and dditional understanding, post-1886)

To: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (16777)	10/25/2007 9:42:15 PM
From: 49thMIMOMander	Respond to of 22250

However, sometimes I tend to agree with that Montesqeu, who inspired the US founding and funding fathers. He claimed that true (trully truly true) democracy can only exist with a smaller number of citizens. He said the upper limit was about 150 citizens, but I would claim that the limit is (now) appr 30-50 millions, but well below 300 millions. Basic math, starting from proportional representation and the number of seats in the parliament and the forming of a majority government. However, the USA system was, in terms of those issues, based on how long a horse could carry a senator in a couple of months. This horse-thing is actually really truly true, with some minor modifications (they mainly considered a wagon and just two months) Some in USA still thinks it is a matter of 1000 years and the carriage going up into the skies, rising from the last calypso (that new third party, yes??) Obviously, they do not think it should be fueled by arabian muslim oil, nor the metan gas rising from the chinese rice-fields?? (that should work well for appr 150 citizens?? maybe the reason why Bush and Rice plans to go to mars, leaving the Cheneys behind) PS It is actually true that they feared democractic mob-rule, so they went for an easily manipulated dictatorial two-party rule, trusting that the mob could be easily handled, gerrymandered and easily kept totally and continuosly ignorant.