NationStates Jolt Archive

The PKK, a Kurdish terrorist organisation (so says the USA), has waged a bloody conflict which has been responsible for over 37,000 deaths. Turkey wants to launch a 1-year incursion into northern Iraq to try to break up the PKK's operations. Turkey accuses Iraqi authorities of been unable or unwilling to restrain the PKK's activites in northern Iraq - so Turkey wants to do it itself.

What was the US's response?

paraphrased: We may have unilaterally invaded Iraq to disrupt the activities of a terrorist organisation, but that doesn't mean you can or should be doing similar activities.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jdqIeyeBsiD_KtZ91IKVw2KV0XaQ

Is anyone shocked? Besides, the Kurds are our "allies".

Iraq is already fucked up, I don't mind if turkey wants to go chasing after another group. There probably wont be any negative effects, but there likely will be benefits for turkey.

It was a bad idea when we did it, it would still be a bad idea.

Is anyone shocked? Besides, the Kurds are our "allies".The PKK is not. The USA officially classes the PKK as a terrorist organisation as I have said. And has been shown the USA does not tolerate countries which allegedly harbour terrorists.

*ahem*

free abdullah ocalan

What was the US's response?

paraphrased: We may have unilaterally invaded Iraq to disrupt the activities of a terrorist organisation, but that doesn't mean you can or should be doing similar activities.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jdqIeyeBsiD_KtZ91IKVw2KV0XaQ


You're paraphrasing poorly. Allow me to do better: "You Turks were such a GREAT help when we really needed you, now we're going to return the favor. Maybe if you'd try cooperating, now and then, you wouldn't have these problems."

Or even "we unilaterally invaded this place with the unilateral help of Poland, the UK, Australia, Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, South Korea, Kuwait, Togo, Mongolia, Spain, Armenia, etc, etc, etc, so take a hike and get back to us when you can unilaterally produce the same level of unilateral support- and learn what the word unilateral means."

You could also look at it from the Turkish side: "So many of our NATO allies are helping the Americans, but we would never, no, because national borders are inviolable, sacred*... um... and you know, invading is a crime, and well, regional stability and all, until it's our butts getting shot at, in which case f**k it all."

(*except Greek borders. Those don't really count, and the foreign occupation is perfectly OK if it's a question of Turks occupying Greece.)

LOL, the US invasion of Iraq, no matter how many allies you have, was wrong and lead to thousands of deaths. Saddam was doing nothing, his people were dying, yes, but primarily due to the embargoes put on by the US after 1991.

His greatest use to the US was to keep Iran in-check, something the US cannot do now without him, irony.

The PKK, a Kurdish terrorist organisation (so says the USA), has waged a bloody conflict which has been responsible for over 37,000 deaths. Turkey wants to launch a 1-year incursion into northern Iraq to try to break up the PKK's operations. Turkey accuses Iraqi authorities of been unable or unwilling to restrain the PKK's activites in northern Iraq - so Turkey wants to do it itself.

What was the US's response?

paraphrased: We may have unilaterally invaded Iraq to disrupt the activities of a terrorist organisation, but that doesn't mean you can or should be doing similar activities.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jdqIeyeBsiD_KtZ91IKVw2KV0XaQ

Blackwater just recently got caught selling arms to the PKK (Kurdistan Worker's Party) a Marxist-Leninist group. It's all still cloaked in secrecy right now, but I'm willing to wager that the PKK has been moving towards the status of "tacit ally" with the US, since the US doesn't want to deal with more sectarian violence in Iraq. The US won't fuck with the PKK if the PKK doesn't fuck with the American occupation, something along those lines.

Remember, the US funded Pol Pot after he was ousted from power. The US has historically shown a willingness to disregard human rights and vast global crusades against some shadowy enemy (communism before, terrorism now) if it serves its own interests. Whats to say they won't give commie terrorists a break now too?

*ahem*

free abdullah ocalanWhy? The Council of Europe ruled that he had a fair trial.

You're paraphrasing poorly. Allow me to do better: "You Turks were such a GREAT help when we really needed you, now we're going to return the favor. Maybe if you'd try cooperating, now and then, you wouldn't have these problems."

Or even "we unilaterally invaded this place with the unilateral help of Poland, the UK, Australia, Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, South Korea, Kuwait, Togo, Mongolia, Spain, Armenia, etc, etc, etc, so take a hike and get back to us when you can unilaterally produce the same level of unilateral support- and learn what the word unilateral means."

You could also look at it from the Turkish side: "So many of our NATO allies are helping the Americans, but we would never, no, because national borders are inviolable, sacred*... um... and you know, invading is a crime, and well, regional stability and all, until it's our butts getting shot at, in which case f**k it all."

(*except Greek borders. Those don't really count, and the foreign occupation is perfectly OK if it's a question of Turks occupying Greece.)US troops accounted for 84% of the original invasion force. Only the UK, Australia, Poland and Denmark joined in the original invasion. The total of Australia's Poland's and Denmark's commitment made up less than 1% of the force.

Yes, that sounds like it was unilateral to me, and with a few ass-kissers in tow to make the invasion look legitimate.

Why? The Council of Europe ruled that he had a fair trial.

fairness of trial doesn't enter into it, so much as overall justness of cause.

fairness of trial doesn't enter into it, so much as overall justness of cause.Violence is rarely a just means with which to pursue a cause.

Violence is rarely a just means with which to pursue a cause.

disagreed. violence is often the most just way to pursue all sorts of just causes. in fact, in a large class of such cases, refusing to engage in violence merely perpetuates the injustice.

disagreed. violence is often the most just way to pursue all sorts of just causes. in fact, in a large class of such cases, refusing to engage in violence merely perpetuates the injustice.The reverse is equally true, if not more so. And not just of the injustice, but of injustice as a whole. Violence be gets violence.

The PKK, a Kurdish terrorist organisation (so says the USA), has waged a bloody conflict which has been responsible for over 37,000 deaths. Turkey wants to launch a 1-year incursion into northern Iraq to try to break up the PKK's operations. Turkey accuses Iraqi authorities of been unable or unwilling to restrain the PKK's activites in northern Iraq - so Turkey wants to do it itself.

What was the US's response?

paraphrased: We may have unilaterally invaded Iraq to disrupt the activities of a terrorist organisation, but that doesn't mean you can or should be doing similar activities.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jdqIeyeBsiD_KtZ91IKVw2KV0XaQWell, the U.S. is pretending to care about the Kurds at the moment, so allowing Turkey to wage war against them wouldn't be good.

Ha, when it comes to insurgency the Kurds are masters of it. Turkey invading would just add ANOTHER nation to the quagmire that's Iraq.

Plus you'd have tons of anti-Turk groups up in arms over it.