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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (27784)	4/17/2008 11:25:38 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Re: "The Kurds in this context wouldn't be insurgents, at least not in any serious numbers. When your talking about the conflict in Iraq, insurgents are the people who fight against the Iraqi government. Those who just try to target US forces or other non-Iraqis should also be included if the reason for the attacks is to try to weaken the position of the Iraqi government." Not sure who you are arguing with here... since I actually didn't label them as such. My complete comments about the Kurds are below: 2) The Kurds are mostly 'self-financed' (from smuggling or oil and other goods), although one very small group has been based in Iran, there is another Kurdish group which regularly attacks Iran. Remember... the Kurds would like to carve-off part of Iranian territory for their 'Greater Kurdistan', (as well as the Eastern third of Turkey, a small portion of Syria, more land inside today's 'Iraq', etc.) Today, the Kurds are mostly 'Red, White and Blue' armed (not Iranian armed....) (The discussion was mostly about Peter's charge that 'Iran supplied most of the weapons....') Re: "Some of the Kurds might reasonably be considered terrorists," (You mean like, by... TURKEY say? And even Iran? [Both of whom, but especially Turkey, fight against Kurdish insurgencies on their own territory on a daily basis...] Or even the U.S. of A., which has officially labeled various Kurdish groups as 'terrorists'?) Re: "... but not mostly terrorists against the US," Correct. They are attacking others.... Re: "... or the Iraqi government," That remains to be seen. (They certainly are contesting with the Baghdad government over control of Kirkuk! And are in open breach with them over the Kurds' insistence on signing their own oil deals --- which Baghdad says are "illegal". :-) Re: "... or even other Iraqi ethnic groups," Clearly you are wrong in that --- they are OPENLY expelling Sunnis and Turkomen from Kirkuk and Mosul... and preparing for a 'referendum' this Fall to officially declare (the oil rich area of) Kirkuk as a "Kurdish City"... very MUCH opposed by the Sunnis... and the Turks... and the Shia from the central government. Re: "... but instead against Turkey or Iran." CLEARLY Turkey perceives them as it's major threat. (The Eastern third of Turkey is populated by Kurds, and the Turks have been repressing them, and their language and culture and political rights, for a very long time.) The Kurdish-populated area of Iran (or of Syria, for that matter) is much smaller in extent... and the current relations between them are more nuanced. Re: "... We send more to the Shiites in the government, but the opposition gets more from Iran." Except for the Sunni opposition... (where the US military has reported that they receive 'unlimited finance and resupply from Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Monarchies around the Gulf region.) Most likely the largest amount of financing pouring into Iraq is from Uncle Sammy... followed by the riches flowing from Sunnis in Arabia, the gulf region, and elsewhere... and Iran, while no doubt trying to supply significant amounts of finance/training/support to the Shiites - both within and without the current governing coalition - is not financially capable of matching the cash amounts from the first two sources... the Iranian economy is just too weak.