sounds like the US hired baghdad bob

Weren't they warned that an invasion into Iraq would de-stabilize the region? Oh wait...

So what's the decider going to decide to do about this? Nothing decisive.

They have done this before, and will do it again. Can we really complain? They are fighting the terrorists there so they don't have to fight them at home.

Yep. They sure have moved into iraq. All the major news agencies are reporting it.

Now two MORE of our 'allies' are fighting each other in Iraq.

The entire executive branch needs to be awarded a "Scarlet I" -- for "incompetence".

No one could have predicted....

I just hope this doesn't spoil GZ and Rob's dream vacation.

They have done this before, and will do it again. Can we really complain? They are fighting the terrorists there so they don't have to fight them at home.

On the face of it, yes, Turkey has lattitude to attack PKK terrorists. However, the danger is if they stray and try to intimidate the average Kurds, to keep down the independence movement.

If the Turkish soldiers are too heavy handed with the general population, the Iraqi government may decide that they need to respond.
This would actually require action by the Iraqi government, so the risk of this is low, but it could happen.

Is the Iraqi government in charge of securing Iraq's borders, or are we?
If Iraq decides to expel the Turkish soldiers, if they ask for our help, which side do we take?

I read a statement from the turks stating it was not a full scale insertion. They were simply pursuing rebel Kurds that had carried out attacks on the border...

So is this an actual invasion or just a self defense move...

A man admits when he's wrong... I was wrong... I really didn't think they were going to do this...

I'd say I think they will pull out very quickly, but now I don't know... I will say they have been a pretty shitty ally.

I will say they have been a pretty shitty ally.


Because they are going after terrorists who are attacking their citizens? Or because Cheney called them whores and then they wouldn't toe the GOP line?
Maybe they should just accept their dead as a contribution to O.I.L.?
If you want to talk about shitty "allies", we could mention saudistan and pakistan...

"If the Turkish soldiers are too heavy handed with the general population, the Iraqi government may decide that they need to respond..."

What do you think the Iraqi "government" would or could do about it. They only control a small percentage of the country in the first place and are powerless to defend against internal threats, let alone an external threat.

That means, of course, the ball would be in our court, forcing us to choose between a NATO ally, and our puppet regime in Baghdad. Now THAT will be interesting.

If the kurds decide to use their militias, we're going to run low on Iraqi soldiers pretty quickly.

The question, of course, becomes "how do we (the US) handle this?"

Largely, we are still "in charge" to the extent that we are acting as the primary peace-keeping force (whether we're being successful at that is up for debate).

Essentially, we are an occupying force. Now there is a foreign incursion being perpetrated by an ally (whether or not they are a "shitty" ally or not, is pretty much moot at this point).

Obviously, I don't have the answers. I'm sure I don't need to point this out, but the already complicated issue of Iraq just got a butt-load more complicated.

Is the Iraqi government in charge of securing Iraq's borders, or are we?

It doesn't seem anyone is.......there or here at home either

FUBAR

FUBAR

SNAFUBAR

1st RULE: You do not talk about IRAQ CLUB.

2nd RULE: You DO NOT talk about IRAQ CLUB.

Because they are going after terrorists who are attacking their citizens?

No because Iraq is unstable enough as it is and the last thing we need is another country coming into the one area that is fairly peaceful and starting a seperate war. Maybe what Turkey should have done was seek a comprimise with the US... offer troop support so that we could divert our troops to the Iraq-Turkey border and deflate the situation...

A man admits when he's wrong... I was wrong... I really didn't think they were going to do this...

I'd say I think they will pull out very quickly, but now I don't know... I will say they have been a pretty shitty ally.

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at


we have been attempting to explain this to you for over 4 years now.

None are so blind as those who choose not to see

I'd say I think they will pull out very quickly, but now I don't know... I will say they have been a pretty shitty ally.

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2007-06-06 01:30 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Suck it up. You support Dubya's invasion in Iraq so You should be 100% supportive of Turkey Invading Iraq. If You are against it then You must at the same time be against Dubya's invasion of Iraq.

Larry

None are so blind as those who choose not to see

I don't know, man. Stevie Wonder's pretty friggin' blind.

Because they are going after terrorists who are attacking their citizens?

No because Iraq is unstable enough as it is and the last thing we need is another country coming into the one area that is fairly peaceful and starting a seperate war. Maybe what Turkey should have done was seek a comprimise with the US... offer troop support so that we could divert our troops to the Iraq-Turkey border and deflate the situation...

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

Turkey is not going to leave their stability in the hands of anyone.
US does not have enough troops to guard the Iraq Turkey border.
This is not a separate war.

"I'd say I think they will pull out very quickly, but now I don't know... I will say they have been a pretty shitty ally."
Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2007-06-06 01:30 PM


YEAH!

Now if only "they" weren't doing what "we" said we were going to do. That is "Fighting Terrorist where they find safe harbor". Like in Kurdistan! Like how we, the tax payer are funding terrorist who originate in Kurdistan!

Yup, shity allie all right! Doing what needs to be done!


"Any government that supports, protects or harbours terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent and equally guilty of terrorist crimes."
George W. Bush

"Any outlaw regime that has ties to terrorist groups or seeks to possess weapons of mass destruction is a grave danger to the civilised world and will be confronted. "
George W. Bush

"Free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction. "
George W. Bush

"For all who love freedom and peace, the world without Saddam Hussein's regime is a better and safer place. "
George W. Bush

Rob: The Turks have been getting blown off by Bush since 2003 over the kurdish terrorists. Because the terrorists are so closely tied to the kurdish government, Bush wouldn't do anything about them, in fear of inciting the closest things we've got to friends in Iraq.
Also, the Decider-in-Chief decided not to send enough troops to secure the borders and disarm the kurdish peshmurga, so he'd be facing about 40,000 well armed and well trained opponents.
Sucks to be incompetent, but that's what the GOP is all about.

we have been attempting to explain this to you for over 4 years now.

None are so blind as those who choose not to see

Posted by truthhurts


No you haven't... you haven't been saying Turkey is going to invade Iraq for four years you fucking liar... And plus you don't even know if this is an actual invasion... the article quotes turkish officials saying its a small scale raid...

Don't try to act like you were some prophet, you have no clue what is going on there now, or what will transpire from it.

.........we should get out quick and leave Turkey holding the bag........

None so blind....

take you stupid goggles off for one second.

I for one have been stating in clear and plain english right here on this board that Iraqi Kurds and Turks have been fighting constantly since 03. As have hte Kurds and the Iranians for that matter.

You are too stupid to understand that but whatever. WHere is you link to the Kurdish propoganda site?

Also, the Decider-in-Chief decided not to send enough troops to secure the borders and disarm the kurdish peshmurga, so he'd be facing about 40,000 well armed and well trained opponents.

That's not something we would do anyways... disarm the militia that is. They were an enemy of Hussein and probably the reason that the Kurdish North has remained relatively calm and peaceful when compared to the south parts of Baghdad...

I for one have been stating in clear and plain english right here on this board that Iraqi Kurds and Turks have been fighting constantly since 03. As have hte Kurds and the Iranians for that matter.

Posted by truthhurts


I want a link to one of your posts telling me that Turkey is going to invade Iraq. You said you've been saying it for years, so it should be easy to find.

I have the day off, let me go check the News channels and see if they're doing anything on it.

Because they are going after terrorists who are attacking their citizens?

No because Iraq is unstable enough as it is and the last thing we need is another country coming into the one area that is fairly peaceful and starting a separate war.

How dare they invade another country in actions claiming to protect there own citizens.

You have to look at the BIG Picture.

If a situation is contained diplomacy, sanctions, economic pressure will work.

The last thing you want to do is take a controlled situation and loose the chaos of war.

Quagmire followed by Civil War could ensue!

The balls of the Turks Invading a Sovereign Nation.

I shoot myself in the foot and the chest.

The foot is calm and peaceful compared to the chest.

So, Rob are you trying to contend that no one warned you that invading Iraq would cause this instability between the Kurds and Turkey???
It was quite well known that the Turks feared that the fall of Saddam would empower the Kurds in Iraq to attempt to join with Kurds in Turkey to form Kurdistan. Turkey warned that they would not allow that to happen and right now it is coming down to exactly that.
This was a well known probable result of removing Saddam.

I want a link to one of your posts telling me that Turkey is going to invade Iraq. You said you've been saying it for years, so it should be easy to find.


Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at


no stupid, I am stating emphatically that Kurdish Iraqis and the Turks have been fighting each other nearly continuously for 4+ years.

Don't try to act like you were some prophet, you have no clue what is going on there now, or what will transpire from it.

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole


Well .... specifics may not be subject to 100% prediction accuracy, but in general, there are those who have been right more often than not about how things would turn out in Iraq, and then there is your side of the Iraq issue.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH I think this is so fucking funny. NOT Turkey invading but Rob having a Coniption fit because of it. Buck Up Rob We lost the ability to condemn this action. We have lost the Moral Authority to condemn this action. Now what have to say for Yourself now??

Larry

bwhahahahahaha Karma is a bitch buddy.

ROFLMMFAO

I will say they have been a pretty shitty ally."
Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2007-06-06 01:30 PM



why you goddamn pinkie commie pig dog. how dare you insult a close ally in the war on terror, you terrorist loving girlie man

I will say they have been a pretty shitty ally."
Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2007-06-06 01:30 PM



why you goddamn pinkie commie pig dog. how dare you insult a close ally in the war on terror, you terrorist loving girlie man

Will this hurt the chance of Turkey being accepted into the EU anytime soon?

No because Iraq is unstable enough as it is and the last thing we need is another country coming into the one area that is fairly peaceful and starting a separate war.

How dare they invade another country in actions claiming to protect there own citizens.

You have to look at the BIG Picture.

If a situation is contained diplomacy, sanctions, economic pressure will work.

The last thing you want to do is take a controlled situation and loose the chaos of war.

Quagmire followed by Civil War could ensue!

The balls of the Turks Invading a Sovereign Nation.



Posted by Zap at 2007-06-06 01:58 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

{{{{{{{{{{{ Zap }}}}}}}}}}}} hehehehe You tell em.

Larry

no stupid, I am stating emphatically that Kurdish Iraqis and the Turks have been fighting each other nearly continuously for 4+ years.

Posted by truthhurts


I said I didn't think Turkey would send troops into Iraq, and you said, "we've been trying to explain this to you for 4 years now"... Don't get all pissy cuz you worded your statement poorly, but you have not been trying to explain that Turkey will invade Iraq for 4+ years.

rob, turkey has been invading northern iraq for 4 years now,

Iraq get used to it.

NOT Turkey invading but Rob having a Coniption fit because of it.

I'm not having a coniption... we don't even know what is going on... Turkey's Foreign Minister says they haven't even gone into Iraq, 2 of their officials (anonymous) say it is a small raid to pursue fighters... If that's all it is, then its really not a big deal, and you're right, not something to condemn...

Now if they repeat their 1997 type invasion and send 50,000 troops into Iraq then there will be a problem.

invading, incursioning, attacking, bombing, artillerying, assaulting, chasing, etc.

While it may or may not have been posted, it was a pretty reasonable assumption that it would happen.

Rob, you said you thought it wouldn't. That's okay. There was a chance it wouldn't have. It was a logical train of thought that Turkey wouldn't want to screw with the US (which an incursion would likely do), but at the same time, however, we have pretty much lost any high ground we might have had to condemn this.

The Kurds are to Iraq wot the Palestinians are to Israel.

A country, in all but name, who will never give up fighting for independence and autonomy.

This was all so predictable before boot one hit the ground into Iraq.

During the ten years of relative peace when they were protected by the no-fly zone the Kurds have made preparations.

Iraq is an artificial construct put together for the benefit of western oil interests many decades ago.

Kurds in Iran and Turkey want to join with their bretheren in Iraq and make themselves a real country. Iran and Turkey fight against it.

Everyones been playing a waiting game to an extent. The time for waiting is coming to an end.

Anybody with even a smattering of info on the history of the region can see the inevitability of all this.

Be Well.

bwhahahahahahahahah pffffffffffffffft

Larry

ROFLMMFAO

rob, turkey has been invading northern iraq for 4 years now,

Iraq get used to it.

Posted by truthhurts


Actually they've been doing it since about 1984... but nothing major since '97 when they sent in 50K troops... that doesn't appear to be what they've done here...

I suspect this is more of a move to get Bush to bring this issue to the forefront, and try to work out some deal to get the Kurds to stop attacking Tureky. If it were a full scale invasion like in 97 there wouldn't still be denials, and the US military would be able to confirm it...

If that's all it is, then its really not a big deal, and you're right, not something to condemn...

I understand your point, but I have a strong feeling that the Kurds would disagree with your assessment.

It was a logical train of thought that Turkey wouldn't want to screw with the US (which an incursion would likely do), but at the same time, however, we have pretty much lost any high ground we might have had to condemn this.

Posted by RevDarko


For what it is, no it doesn't sound like we can or would say anything about it...

When I first read the title it looked like they had sent in all the troops they have been massing on the border... that does not appear to be the case. I was still wrong in thinking they wouldn't send in any troops while we were still in the country, but it doesn't sound like this is the event Liberals have been hoping for the past week or so either.

Larry, please don't feed the troll. Don't let him hijack this thread as he tries to do every time and turn it into an "it's all about me" kind of thing. Let us please stick to the topic, which is not the anal sphincter.

I think we need to do whatever serves our best interest in this situation, probably to play both sides against each other while staying in the middle. Turkey has been a lousy ally lately, in that they did not allow us to use their land so that we could go into our illegal invasion of Iraq from the north, which would have been the right way to do it, then we could have encouraged the Kurds to join in and fight against Saddam and his army in a land war that develops people's support as it goes along. But no, we could not do that because Turkey did not act like a good ally. So the US went in with the cut off the snake's head approach which was a recipe for causing an insurrection, which we got. On the other hand, Turkey is the only secular based country over there so we have got to support them somehow and not make enemies of them. But we need the Kurds to help balance out the other powers. What a mess.

So far, I have only been able to locate the number of Turkish troops listing as "several thousand". That description, being somewhat cryptic, may mean a number of things.

Anyone who can watch TV or listen to the radio: can you find a more desriptive number?

It can't be that big of a deal, I just spent 20 minutes chacking all the news outlets at the top of the hour and not one of them even mentioned it.

Kurds in Iran and Turkey want to join with their bretheren in Iraq and make themselves a real country. Iran and Turkey fight against it.


Maybe this will be the catalyst to get all parties talking with a mediator nation to allow those Kurds to go into Northern Iraq... Could be worth a shot anyways, if it will help stabalize the situation.

but it doesn't sound like this is the event Liberals have been hoping for the past week or so either.

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2007-06-06 02:14 PM


please elucidate

but it doesn't sound like this is the event Liberals have been hoping for the past week or so either.

Sorry, Rob, but I don't think any liberals have been hoping for any kind of incursion or invasion by Turkey. The Kurds have largely been helpful to us. I doubt anyone wants to see them pulled away to fight a seperate battle (or war), thereby making Iraq MORE difficult for us.

Larry, please don't feed the troll. Don't let him hijack this thread as he tries to do every time and turn it into an "it's all about me" kind of thing. Let us please stick to the topic

Dude where have I been off topic (besides this question of course)? Where have I been trolling? Someone posts a comment to me, I respond...

Sorry, Rob, but I don't think any liberals have been hoping for any kind of incursion or invasion by Turkey

OH I'm gonna have to disagree with you whole heartedly on that one Rev... a full scale invasion by the Turks into Iraq would just be one more talking point, one more failure by Bush to talk about, and therefore one more victory for the Dems... I think there are a good amount of people on the left who were outright wanting something big like that to happen...

please elucidate

Posted by briwo


The Bush Administration will be mostly judged on Iraq... any failures in Iraq are welcomed with open arms by the left to use against a president they despise.

can u spell Armageddon ?

Bushco and the Religious whackos should be pleased...

Now all we need is for Iran to say it is chasing "Terrorists" and invade Iraq.

Who will stop them?

You see where your lies get you?

The so-called "War on Terror" is a scam that looks like it is about to backfire badly.

We call this blowback...kinda like Saddam Hussein was...remember Rummy shaking his hand?

Nice going Bushco.

"Armageddon is not foreign policy."
Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright

"Armageddon is not foreign policy."
Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright

Posted by donnerboy


"Here Kim Jong-Ill, have this signed Michael Jordan basketball, in exchange for not making nukes. How could this plan fail?"

~Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright

When did Turkey get UN approval for this?

How could this plan fail?"


Add John Bolton and a couple of pounds of #5 Moustache Wax.

The Bush Administration will be mostly judged on Iraq... any failures in Iraq are welcomed with open arms by the left to use against a president they despise.

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2007-06-06 02:24 PM


Yes but have you actually read or heard of anyone who is for more war? Besides the Administration I mean.

When did bush get UN Approval?

Albright is hack, and an uncaring one at that. She believes children being killed during war are acceptable "collateral damage"

When did Turkey get UN approval for this?

Posted by Petrous at 2007-06-06 02:30 PM | Reply

Oh the fucking Irony of this. bwhahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Larry

No you haven't... you haven't been saying Turkey is going to invade Iraq for four years you fucking liar...

There were numerous articles written at the time of the invasion stating that it could lead to a Turkish invasion of Northern Iraq.

Oh the fucking Irony of this. bwhahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Larry

Posted by LarryMohr


Case in point Rev... LarryMohrGravy seems to be very happy about today's events...

There were numerous articles written at the time of the invasion stating that it could lead to a Turkish invasion of Northern Iraq.

Posted by rcade

I'm sure there were... that has nothing to do with what Truthhurts said... unless of course he authored them, and then repeatedly reposted them to me over the last 4 years...

Case in point Rev... LarryMohrGravy seems to be very happy about today's events...

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2007-06-06 02:38 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Yep I sure am and not for the reasons You think. It is because it will wake You guys up to Your own fucked up Policies and Your support for Illegal Behavior has consequences.

Larry

There were numerous articles written at the time of the invasion stating that it could lead to a Turkish invasion of Northern Iraq.


This issue was sighted in '91 as YET another reason to stop in Kuwait.

A thought just occured to me (Yes it hurt a little...)

we have been attempting to explain this to you for over 4 years now.

None are so blind as those who choose not to see

Posted by truthhurts


Just the original premise of explaining it to me is untrue... but the timeframe is also a lie:

Rob_The_A_Hole

Contact User
No Home Page

Joined 2005/09/07

Rcade...

Since you're here, please take the above link and make a thread from it. It destroys any notion that the White House was ignorant of everything thats occurred since we invaded. They were told it would happen, they just felt that somehow, they were immune to fate, and the repeating of history.

Just the original premise of explaining it to me is untrue... but the timeframe is also a lie:

Rob_The_A_Hole

Contact User
No Home Page

Joined 2005/09/07

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole



Must have been another A Hole.

Since you're here, please take the above link and make a thread from it.

Well it can be seen as bad news for bush so up it will go...

still waiting for that Mullah Dadullah thread... (but you guys don't focus on bad news)

Must have been another A Hole.



Posted by Zap


We are a species that is far from endagered... we're kinda like that fish that gets into lakes and destroys the ecosystem...

We are a species that is far from endagered... we're kinda like that fish that gets into lakes and destroys the ecosystem...

Hans...mark the tape! Rob has finally said something that no one will disagree with!

Why is it that when ever I read of all the subterfuge spoken by the travel banned TB patient. I think of Rob.

The Bush Administration will be mostly judged on Iraq... any failures in Iraq are welcomed with open arms by the left to use against a president they despise.

It goes both ways, Rob.

allow al-Qaida to establish the presence in Iraq and opportunity to strike at American it did not have prior to the invasion.

Okay I'm gonna need an explanation on this... How would a presence in Iraq give Al Qaeda an ability to strike America that it didn't have before we went in? What materials or weapons would they be given in Iraq that would allow them to strike America... something's wrong with this statement...

We are a species that is far from endagered... we're kinda like that fish that gets into lakes and destroys the ecosystem...

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole


Perhaps evolution is a misnomer.......

"Here Kim Jong-Ill, have this signed Michael Jordan basketball, in exchange for not making nukes. How could this plan fail?"

~Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright


Source?

When Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 25, 2003 to discuss preparations for a possible invasion of Iraq, he was asked by Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) to estimate the size of a successful occupation force after victory.

Email
Print
Comment
"Something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably a figure that would be required," said Shinseki, a highly-decorated officer with almost four decades of service, including extensive combat duty in Vietnam. "We're talking about a post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant, with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems."

"It takes a significant ground force presence to maintain a safe and secure environment, to ensure that people are fed, that water is disturbed, all the normal responsibilities that go along with administering a situation like this."

Shinseki was immediately jumped by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. Rumsfeld said publicly that Shinseki was "far off the mark" in his prediction, while Wolfowitz called his views "wildly off the mark" and said, "I am reasonably certain that they will greet us as liberators, and that will help us to keep requirements down."



I'm sure glad Bush appointed competent people to help him make the critical decision to got to war.

It goes both ways, Rob.

Posted by LeeAtwater


I'd rather be seen as the guy who always welcomes the positives and is optimistic then be Tony, Truth or Larry and always look at the negatives and bring everyone down with my pessimism... If not just cuz I'd be more fun to be around... those three Debbie Downers must be the life of every party...

Source?

Posted by LeeAtwater


Well it was a made up quote, a joke that apparently bombed, but the gift of a signed MJ basketball is pretty easy to find...

Okay I'm gonna need an explanation on this... How would a presence in Iraq give Al Qaeda an ability to strike America that it didn't have before we went in? What materials or weapons would they be given in Iraq that would allow them to strike America... something's wrong with this statement...

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2007-06-06 02:53 PM
what's wrong with it? What's right with it?

There was no Al-Queda in Iraq before we invaded.
As far as where did they get the arms? Why don't you ask Rummy, he was the one who told the Joint Chiefs that they didn't need all those troops to help secure the ammo dumps, so when we invaded, they were abandoned and then were raided and all the munitions looted.

Rob: this is all documented.

There was no Al-Queda in Iraq before we invaded.


Not exactly true, but okay, how are they able to attack America better then when they weren't in Iraq?

Rob: this is all documented.

Posted by briwo


Then I guess I could find in that documentation that Iraq had missiles capable of reaching the United States? seems like that would be justification for the invasion if it were true...

Okay I'm gonna need an explanation on this... How would a presence in Iraq give Al Qaeda an ability to strike America that it didn't have before we went in?

Put your glasses on old man. It doesn't say America, it says American(s), which are precisely who is being targeted and killed by AQ in Iraq, which also didn't exist until after our invasion.

Understand now?

TONY,

If you can take a listen to this:

This American Life producer Nancy Updike tells the story of Conrad Crane, the head of the U.S. Army Military History Institute. Along with Andrew Terrill, he was commissioned by the Army to look at previous post-war occupations and give advice about how to stabilize and reconstruct post-war Iraq. The booklet they produced, which includes nine pages of detailed instructions on how to occupy Iraq, predicted many of the problems that eventually came to haunt the occupation. Although it was admired by successful commanders in Iraq, including H.R. McMaster, Updike explains why it was ignored by Pentagon officials. (22 minutes)

Second Half Prologue.

Ira speaks with Milt Hileman of the Center for Army Lessons Learned about the single most-requested publication they put out, Soldiers' Handbook: The First 100 Days: Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures. It explains how to avoid getting killed in your first hundred days in Iraq, which is when a disproportionate number of U.S. casualties occur. The information in the booklet came from Iraq vets. (5 minutes)

"Okay I'm gonna need an explanation on this... How would a presence in Iraq give Al Qaeda an ability to strike America that it didn't have before we went in?"

I think the original post said Americans, not America. Even so it seems pretty obvious to me. We invade Iraq and open the flood gates for Al Qaeda to set up shop there. We have 140,000-160,000 ready made targets in place for them to hit at. Voila, opportunities to strike us that didn't exist before.

Put your glasses on old man. It doesn't say America, it says American(s), which are precisely who is being targeted and killed by AQ in Iraq, which also didn't exist until after our invasion.

Understand now?

Posted by tonyroma


You added the "(S)" he left it out... don't get pissy with me cuz he has a shitty proof reader...

allow al-Qaida to establish the presence in Iraq and opportunity to strike at American it did not have prior to the invasion."


And if he's saying that it gave them an opportunity to strike at Americans that they didn't have before then that is a lie, because we were still in Afghanistan and they could strike at Americans there.

And if AQ is in Iraq and are targeting and killing our soldiers, why do you want to retreat from Al Qaeda, shouldn't we be fighting them?

We have 140,000-160,000 ready made targets in place for them to hit at. Voila, opportunities to strike us that didn't exist before.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue


And those however many soldiers we had in Afghanistan the base of Al Qaeda didn't actually exist?

Oh and that type of stuff actually works both ways... if they can strike at us, we can strike at them... ask Zarqawi... Oh right he's dead...

"You added the "(S)" he left it out... don't get pissy with me cuz he has a shitty proof reader..."

And you removed the "N" he DID put in so don't get pissy ditto.

"And if he's saying that it gave them an opportunity to strike at Americans that they didn't have before then that is a lie, because we were still in Afghanistan and they could strike at Americans there."

Yes, they did have that opportunity in Afghanistan. And we gave them 140,000 more opportunities in Iraq.

Yes, they did have that opportunity in Afghanistan. And we gave them 140,000 more opportunities in Iraq.


Posted by SanAntonioRogue


So according to your logic, we need to stop fighting al qaeda and bring every single soldier stationed overseas home because they are all just targets for the ultra badass Al Qaeda, whom apparently we are incapable of fighting.

Then I guess I could find in that documentation that Iraq had missiles capable of reaching the United States? seems like that would be justification for the invasion if it were true...

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2007-06-06 03:00 PM
First, please provide proof that Al_queda was in Iraq before we invaded, and I don't mean 1 guy, I mean a force that could cause terror.

2nd: If you have proof that Iraq had ICBM's, I sure would love to see it. So would Dubya, if had that proof that would seal his legacy and destroy the opposition. Why do you think he's so quiet about it?

So according to your logic, we need to stop fighting al qaeda and bring every single soldier stationed overseas home because they are all just targets for the ultra badass Al Qaeda, whom apparently we are incapable of fighting.

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2007-06-06 03:12 PM |


Since we haven't gbeaten them yet, or even come close to it, I'd say your assesment was right on the money.

And if he's saying that it gave them an opportunity to strike at Americans that they didn't have before then that is a lie, because we were still in Afghanistan and they could strike at Americans there.

And if AQ is in Iraq and are targeting and killing our soldiers, why do you want to retreat from Al Qaeda, shouldn't we be fighting them?

First, no one is getting pissy with you. You are the one who decided to morph American into America. Reading the sentence makes it completely clear since it references in Iraq, not in Afghanistan. Without having enough troops to secure the borders it was obvious that sympathetic jihadis would flock to Iraq in order to target Americans whom they loathe, and also because OBL directed them to do just that! No Americans in Iraq, no AQ in Iraq, its that simple.

Yet again, Rob, AQ are Sunni. They are a minority within Iraq. The Shiites are not going to allow AQ to stay in Iraq once we're gone. As a matter of fact, they may try to eliminate the Sunnis outright, then AQ won't be an issue, will it? Our presence is the only thing keeping AQ inside Iraq. If you want AQ gone from Iraq, then let the Shiites have at them without us in the middle.

if they can strike at us, we can strike at them... ask Zarqawi... Oh right he's dead...


Why do you always have to bring up painful memories for me, Rob?

- Truthhurts

First, please provide proof that Al_queda was in Iraq before we invaded, and I don't mean 1 guy, I mean a force that could cause terror.


Right... Zarqawi was there alone... just stumbled in there one day... didn't have any people with him... that makes complete sense.

2nd: If you have proof that Iraq had ICBM's, I sure would love to see it.

I can't, but the article said that AQ in Iraq had the ability to strike at Americans (he left off the S though, leading to discussion of America or Americans) that they didn't have before... since they had Afghanistan before, he was either lying in the article, or he meant striking at America... I was asking how they would be able to do that, you mentioned unsecured ammo or something like that...

Thanks Gal....

if they can strike at us, we can strike at them... ask Zarqawi... Oh right he's dead...


Yes, killing Zarqawi did us alot of good, it's not like the death rate for Americans has risen since we killed....oh wait.

Rob, you're so good at running off on a tangent.

"So according to your logic, we need to stop fighting al qaeda and bring every single soldier stationed overseas home because they are all just targets for the ultra badass Al Qaeda, whom apparently we are incapable of fighting."

I certainly made no such leap of logic. It was not even part of the discussion. My post was a response to your query...

"Okay I'm gonna need an explanation on this... How would a presence in Iraq give Al Qaeda an ability to strike America that it didn't have before we went in?"

I addressed that by giving you the explanation you requested. Anything more that you extrapolated was in your mind, and therefore a deflection and a strawman.

you mentioned unsecured ammo or something like that...

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2007-06-06 03:15 PM


Yes but not ICBM's Saddaam had no such thing and anyone who says he was capable of striking America with long range missles is a liar or an idiot.

"Right... Zarqawi was there alone... just stumbled in there one day... didn't have any people with him... that makes complete sense."

Not to get "pissy", but that's not proof, just amateur conjecture, completely unsubstantiated.

"since they had Afghanistan before, he was either lying in the article, or he meant striking at America..."

Uhm, asked and more than adequately answered so it appears that you are the liar now.

Yes, killing Zarqawi did us alot of good, it's not like the death rate for Americans has risen since we killed....oh wait.

Posted by briwo


Same will be true when we get Bin Laden... are you saying we shouldn't capture/kill him?

"What the Administration also kept from the American people were the sobering intelligence assessments it received at the time warning that the post-war transition could allow al-Qaida to establish the presence in Iraq and opportunity to strike at American it did not have prior to the invasion."

Reading comprehension for Dummies (or Rob, same difference)

"post war transition"---where? INSIDE IRAQ!

"establish the presence in Iraq and opportunity to strike at American(s) it did not have prior to the invasion."

Invasion where? IN IRAQ!

There is no lie, there is no obfuscation. There is only an inability to discern a complex sentence who's grammatical structure defines its interpretation beyond argument.

Uhm, asked and more than adequately answered so it appears that you are the liar now.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue


He said they were given an opportunity they didn't have before... your answer says they were just given more troops as an opportunity to target. There is a big difference in going from having none to having a lot, and going from having some to having more.

He was either lying or he meant America... there's no getting around that.

Just answer this question Rob - yes or no.

After we invaded Iraq did that provide Al Qaeda with more opportunities to strike at Americans?

(Or if you want to get "pissy", I would submit that striking at Americans is the same as striking at America so get off that red herring)

By the way Rob, Zarqawi is a Jordanian who went to Afghanistan.

He didn't even get to Iraq until late 2002 and then he was in Northern Iraq help the locals fight against the Kurds.

if they can strike at us, we can strike at them... ask Zarqawi... Oh right he's dead...


Why do you always have to bring up painful memories for me, Rob?

- Truthhurts

Posted by JeffJ at


cause all the problems in Iraq are solved, life is just peachy

-Robtada al Sadr.

"He said they were given an opportunity they didn't have before... your answer says they were just given more troops as an opportunity to target. There is a big difference in going from having none to having a lot, and going from having some to having more."

Nope, you are reeking of desperation on this one Rob.

There was no analogy drawn between Afghanistan and Iraq. So the point is that invading Iraq provided AQ with an opportunity that didn't exist before. (ie: Afghanistan is 1 opportunity, Iraq is another, and different one)

Same will be true when we get Bin Laden... are you saying we shouldn't capture/kill him?

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2007-06-06 03:21 PM


Where did you get that? We should kill him when ever we have the oipportunity. My point was, don't drag Zarqawi up in defens of AQ in Iraq prior to our invasion, that BS won't fly.

But maybe you should write and tell Dubya because he:

"Doesn't consider him a priority. He's not really concerned about him."

After we invaded Iraq did that provide Al Qaeda with more opportunities to strike at Americans?

Yes... just like invading AFghanistan gave them more opportunities to strike Americans.

But see you're taking the pessimist debbie downer approach. You say, "those 140,000 will just be targeted by Al Qaeda, let's retreat." I say, "Those 140,000 are kicking the shit out of Al Qaeda." See the difference?

Now unfortunately I have to move some servers into a secure rack and will be offline, but I'll check back in a few hours...

What ever you guys do, don't look at that link about the Sunnis revolting against Al Qaeda in Iraq... It will mess with the whole, everything is bad pessimism vibe we have here...

zarqawi was one of the many boogey men that the US inflated to scare teh beejesus out of drones like robtada al sadr into supporting the invasion of iraq.

"You say, "those 140,000 will just be targeted by Al Qaeda, let's retreat."

Didn't say that at all - why do you feel the need to lie about this?

As I stated before - I simply responding to your request for help in understanding... "How would a presence in Iraq give Al Qaeda an ability to strike America that it didn't have before we went in?"

I gave you the answer. Anything more you are simply making up.

I await your apology.

Same will be true when we get Bin Laden... are you saying we shouldn't capture/kill him?

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

Bush has said something close to that.

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

"I am truly not that concerned about him."

Wed Jun 6, 9:53 AM ET

"An Iraqi militant group said on Wednesday it has reached a ceasefire deal with Iraq's wing of al Qaeda to end clashes between the two Sunni insurgent groups waging a violent campaign against U.S.-led forces in
Iraq.

news.yahoo.com

Maybe you should follow your own advice, huh?

Posted by tonyroma"

Oh Tony, don't be such a "debbie downer". You're harshing Rob's buzz.

Divide and conquer. The US is going to have to stick our neck out and come out openly for an independent country of Kurdistan. At the same time we will condemn the Kurds attacking Turkey. We will do whatever it takes to bolster the secular powers in Turkey and weaken the Islamicist trend there. We can use the Kurd problem to help in this. Because we are trying to rein in the Kurdish raider types this will give Iran less excuse to get involved. Really we owe it to the Kurds to help them more than anybody because of the way we allowed Saddam to abuse them. But the other Iraqis will not like the Kurds ripping off so much Iraqi oil so we will tell them that we will help them and make the Kurds give up a part in reparations.

There was no Al-Queda in Iraq before we invaded.


Not exactly true

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2007-06-06 03:00 PM

LIAR! It is EXACTLY TRUE!

you show us a RELIABLE source that confirms Al-Queda had a presence in Iraq before we INVADED.

Many thousands of people have died because of this lie.

How does that make you feel?

"Doesn't consider him a priority. He's not really concerned about him."

Posted by briwo


He's not the only one... who has said things like that...
www.washingtonpost.com

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2007-06-06 03:29 PM


PLEASE ROB! This source is weak even for you.
A General who works for Bush echoing Bush's own words?? Say it isn't so??!!??

Now go ask Americans if they believe it's a higher priority to be in Iraq than it is to kill OBL.

If we have to have a military mission, shouldn't it be to catch and kill him? The one DIRECTLY responsible for 9/11?

Oh Tony, don't be such a "debbie downer". You're harshing Rob's buzz.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2007-06-06 03:34 PM


FF! And I just spit beer all over my monitor.

Damn, Rob has to go and actually work right when it's getting good.

how convenient for him...

I don't know how long I will be able to post... servers are shutting down but they have to run updates so I'll try to retort to as many as I can using the old LIFO (Last In, First Out) system...

Okay... here we go...


how convenient for him...

Posted by donnerboy


You look really stupid right now, because everyone here knows that I never run away even if I'm getting stomped on... I have work that needs to be done before work starts tomorrow morning. Nice try douche...

Damn, Rob has to go and actually work right when it's getting good.

Yep, when he was getting good and skewered from all sides. We know he never cowers from a skirmish, but he should just admit that he's wrong about his interpretation of the sentence regarding AQ and Iraq. Only he could link Afghanistan to a sentence which explicitly states a tacit relationship directly to Iraq twice, without referencing any connection to Afghanistan in the slightest.

A General who works for Bush echoing Bush's own words?? Say it isn't so??!!??


What Bush and this general are saying in the quotes up above is not that they don't want him dead or captured... if intel comes across that shows where Bin Laden is they will take the shot without thinking twice... case in point the home and couple families they blew up because it was rumored Zawahiri would possibly be there...

what they are saying is that this a war against literally millions of Muslims and one man's death isn't going to really make that much of difference in regards to the war...

Yep, when he was getting good and skewered from all sides.

Tony you look as stupid as donner... I've never ran from a thread and you know it, and I've certainly never ran from you...

Is there any chance of returning to the actual subject of the thread?

Tony you look as stupid as donner... I've never ran from a thread and you know it, and I've certainly never ran from you...

Do you ever bother to read anything in its entirety before spouting off about something already spoken to?

Yep, when he was getting good and skewered from all sides. We know he never cowers from a skirmish,....

Geesh, what's a brother got to do, read it for you?

"We know he never cowers from a skirmish,

Posted by tonyroma"

Might try actually reading the post before you say someone looks stupid, stupid.

I await your apology.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue


You will get no such thing, because nothing said about you was false... you claim to have answered the question, but you did not... you explained how there were more soldiers then before, but not how there were none before Iraq as the author stated...

I've never ran from a thread and you know it, and I've certainly never ran from you...

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole


You've run from me though!

- Frank Cotton

We know he never cowers from a skirmish,....

Geesh, what's a brother got to do, read it for you?

Posted by tonyroma


Ouch!!

Might try actually reading the post before you say someone looks stupid, stupid.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue


I read the first sentence and then didn't care what contradictory statements came next... I didn't leave because I was getting skewered on all sides as Tony suggested...

Geesh, what's a brother got to do, read it for you?

Posted by tonyroma


See... there's another one...

You've run from me though!

- Frank Cotton

Posted by JeffJ at


I'll take you to the fucking cleaners Frank!

Okay... looks like its time to get going on this gay server rack move... I'll check back later...

"You will get no such thing, because nothing said about you was false..."

Why yes, it was.

"You say, "those 140,000 will just be targeted by Al Qaeda, let's retreat."

Didn't say THAT.

"So according to your logic, we need to stop fighting al qaeda and bring every single soldier stationed overseas home because they are all just targets for the ultra badass Al Qaeda, whom apparently we are incapable of fighting."

Didn't say anything like THAT either.

Dishonest and cowardly - tsk tsk tsk.

you explained how there were more soldiers then before, but not how there were none before Iraq as the author stated...

Rob has got to be sitting at his computer laughing his ass off as we bite on every single thing he says on purpose, and here I go again....

Reread the sentence. The author never says anything about whether AQ was in Iraq or not prior to our invasion.

...the post-war transition could allow al-Qaida to establish the presence in Iraq and opportunity to strike at American it did not have prior to the invasion."

Was there a public presence of AQ prior to Saddam being deposed? Of course not, and Powell's words don't state this as fact either. AQ stands against everything Saddam stood for as a despot, and would have been a threat to his rule.

Why yes, it was.

Nope...

PS I hate affirmative action... sure would be nice if I could fire this network admin... Guess why I can't?

Rob has got to be sitting at his computer laughing his ass off as we bite on every single thing he says on purpose, and here I go again....

Since I'm annoyed at the situation here... yeah I am trying to find humor anywhere I can...

The author says they, "to strike at American(s) it did not have prior to the invasion."

It did have the opportunity to strike at Americans prior to the invasion so the statement is incorrect... and since everyone knows it we had troops in Afghanistan it is deliberately incorrect... meaning it is a lie.

If J. Edgar Hoover and friends had taken the attitude that they don't need to catch 'public enemy number one', folks like Dillinger, Pretty Boy Floyd, Capone, and a long list of others, then our justice system would have failed the safety of the American people.

Same applies to Bin Laden. He IS important because he's 'public enemy number one' right now. We should have been REALLY REALLY looking for him. His death at our hands would have been justice in any country in the world - and especially the Middle East, where to NOT try after an event like 9/11 makes you weak in their eyes. Iraq has just driven that point home over there. We aren't so bad as we think we are they say.

I read the first sentence and then didn't care what contradictory statements came next... I didn't leave because I was getting skewered on all sides as Tony suggested...

Damn, Rob has to go and actually work right when it's getting good.

Yep, when he was getting good and skewered from all sides. We know he never cowers from a skirmish....

Where did I imply you left because you were getting skewered? I didn't! I answered Briwo's suggestion that you had to go work, and followed it up by stating that you don't run from a fight, you stay and skirmish unless work or time pulls you away.

Really, work on reading what is written, not what you want to read inside your head, so we can stop having these types of discussions about nothing.

If J. Edgar Hoover and friends had taken the attitude that they don't need to catch 'public enemy number one'

Good thing no one has ever taken that attitude in America... including this administration.

Where did I imply you left because you were getting skewered?

The first sentence...

so we can stop having these types of discussions about nothing

And let you guys bash the president and stay on topic of bad news stories?

Hi, apparently we've never met... I'm Rob_the_A_Hole... professional thread distractor.

fucking finally... okay... gone for real... I think...

"Why yes, it was.

Nope... "

Well, then of course you can refer back to the post times when I supposedly said the things you attributed to me, right? Wrong. You're trying to save your ass by flat out lying.

Rob - If I buy a lottery ticket that gives me 10 "opportunities" to win the game. And then someone gives me another lottery ticket that gives me 10 "opportunities" to win the game. Are the 10 on the second ticket the same opportunities as the ones on the first ticket, or are they opportunities that didn't exist before????

It did have the opportunity to strike at Americans prior to the invasion so the statement is incorrect... and since everyone knows it we had troops in Afghanistan it is deliberately incorrect... meaning it is a lie.

...presence in Iraq AND opportunity to strike at American it did not have prior to the invasion."


Do you understand what a conjunction is as it refers to grammar? "And" is a conjunction, and in being one, any time you see the word in a sentence the words following the conjunction must be viewed as joined with the words preceding the conjunction! They have to go together Rob, and Iraq is joined with a new opportunity that did not exist prior to the invasion. Were we in Afghanistan "prior to the invasion" of Iraq? Then don't the freaking words EXCLUDE Afghanistan from inclusion in this reference to AQ?

Words and sentences mean what they mean Rob, not how you want to define them!

Rob...

"YEP" means that I agreed with Briwo that you left to work, not that you left because you were getting skewered. My statement stands with his and no implication that the skewering was the cause of your leaving can be discerned in my reply!

During Zarqawi's stay in Baghdad, nearly two dozen of his associates set up a base of operations in the capital to move people, money and supplies throughout the country, said Powell.

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2007-06-06 03:56 PM


Powell also said Iraq had WMD's, he now admits he was wrong.
Hitching your wagon to Powell isn't the brightest idea.

I'm sure someone briefed the Pentagon and White House on this particular scenario when they tried and failed to get permission to invade Iraq through Turkey in 2003 as well. Remember, we ony had one way in when we invaded because of Turkey's refusal to allow staging, and even overflights into Iraq.

Surely this scenario was as inevitable as everything else that was predicted by not only invading, but failing to send in a large enough force post invasion to prevent the chaos we're mired in now - four years after the chocolates are gone and the flowers dried up.

looks like its time to get going on this gay server {sic}... I'll check back later...

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2007-06-06 04:00 PM


How come they'll let gay waiters work for public servants like Rob, but they can't actually serve in the military?

Didn't the Turkish VP say they will be greeted by the Kurds as "liberators"?

How soon until Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria decide they need to chase some terrorists into Iraq?

Rob,

Where did I imply you left BECAUSE [emphasis mine] you were getting skewered? I didn't! I answered Briwo's suggestion that you had to go work, and followed it up by stating that you don't run from a fight, you stay and skirmish unless work or time pulls you away.



Posted by tonyroma

sure glad Rob came back to NOT answer any questions...

*ignores Robs childish insults as usual*

so where is that link the proof that AQ was in Iraq BEFORE we invaded?

*chirping crickets*

The only post that was on topic since my last post was by AllAmerican, thank you for that one at least, AA.

All the rest of you suckers know you are suckers but you keep on letting yourselves get sucked in to the suck-ass program of the a-hole.

This could have been a great thread actually discussing what is going on in the world. Sighhhhhhh .......

Grumpy-

Me thinks you already summed it up earlier-

What a mess.

Posted by grumpy_too at 2007-06-06 02:15 PM

DonB, true it is a mess, but I would hope that there are some guys in the State Department who are trying to figure out a way to extract something beneficial out of it.

Deeper and deeper and deeper we go into this.

A wearying demonstration of the principle that things can only get worse when you begin down the path of aggressive warfare.

How long before this conflagrates into another nation added to the mix? And then they bring two friends, and they bring two friends?

The idiots that brought this upon us have no friggin' clue where this open ended experiment in lunacy will go. They have no hope of controlling it, or imagining a rational way of bringing the killng machine to a halt.

There is just going to be more killing.

What a horror.

History will be exceptionally unkind to the monsters that inflicted this on us in their greed for the treasure of others.

Tonight while I was playing poker I checked out the waitress with the big round butt. Real sexy. It dawned on me that Iraq is kind of like that butt. Everybody wants a piece of it. I'm waiting for Kuwait and Jordan to make their moves.

How long before this conflagrates into another nation added to the mix? And then they bring two friends, and they bring two friends?

History repeats itself over and over, look at the history of WWI and that area.

And so it goes.

"History repeats itself over and over, look at the history of WWI and that area.

And so it goes."


AOS

History repeats itself
Coiling down into the future
When it's one second to twelve
The hands touch and follow deeper

History repeats itself
I didn't learn, I wouldn't listen
I couldn't see the books were on the shelf
For my good sense, I never missed 'em

Wish I was standing by the shore
Feel the wind blow in my face
See the waves roll in for an encore
They take a bow, they know their place

I do not want, I do not feel
I've turned away in myself
I can't find anything that's real
But history repeats itself

Looks like Armageddon might be about to start. Now I understand why Bush wants another 50,000 troops in Iraq.

I don't normally post whole articles but I found this particular article in the Washington Post really explains all the players and sums up the new Turkey/Kurdish threat pretty clearly (at least it did for me). I'm going to post it below for anyone interested in getting a fast summary of what's been happening and what may very likely set off total war across the Middle East.

THANKS, BUSH!

(PART 1)

A New Threat In Iraq

Wednesday, April 18, 2007;

While the Bush administration struggles to stabilize Baghdad, a major new threat is emerging in the Kurdish areas of northern Iraq. If it isn't defused, this crisis could further erode U.S. goals in Iraq -- drawing foreign military intervention, splintering the country further and undermining U.S. hopes for long-term military bases in Kurdistan.

The core issue is Kurdish nationalism, which worries Iraq's powerful northern neighbor, Turkey, which has a substantial Kurdish minority.

The Bush administration has tried to finesse the problem, hoping to keep two friends happy: The Kurds have been America's most reliable partner in Iraq, while the Turks are a crucial ally in the region. But in recent weeks, this strategy has been breaking down.

As with so many aspects of Iraq, the Bush administration has wandered into a conflict that is encrusted with centuries of ethnic hatred.

Iraqi Kurds push their politicians toward defiant assertions of independence; Turks are demanding that their leaders move to crush the Kurdish upstarts. Meanwhile, the American public is increasingly fed up with the fractious mess of Iraq and wants U.S. troops home yesterday.

PART 2

The administration, realizing that it was drifting toward a confrontation over the Kurdish issue, last year appointed retired Air Force Gen. Joseph Ralston as a special emissary.

His mission is to urge the Iraqis to crack down on the militant Kurdish political party known as the PKK, which uses Iraqi Kurdistan as a staging point. The Turks denounce the PKK as a terrorist group and threaten that if the United States doesn't take decisive action to suppress it, the Turkish army will.

Ralston is said to have warned top administration officials in December that the Turks might invade by the end of April unless the United States contained the PKK.

Other knowledgeable officials are similarly worried, and one analyst has predicted that the Turks may seize a border strip about eight miles deep into Iraq. Ralston has tried his best to defuse the crisis, clearing a Kurdish refugee camp of suspected PKK members and talking regularly with both sides. But the time bomb continues to tick.

A flash point is Kirkuk, an oil-rich city claimed by the Kurds, which the Turks regard as a special protectorate because of its large Turkmen population.

The new Iraqi constitution calls for a referendum by December on the city's future, and the Kurds are confident they will win the vote. The Turks, fearing the same outcome, want the referendum delayed. The Bush administration seems to favor a delay but hasn't said so publicly, to avoid angering the Kurds and undermining the constitution.

Turks and Kurds have fired heavy rhetorical barrages the past few weeks. Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani warned that if the Turks meddled in Kirkuk, "then we will take action for the 30 million Kurds in Turkey."

The head of the Turkish general staff, Gen. Yasar Buyukanit, responded that "from an exclusively military point of view," he favored an invasion of Iraq to clean out PKK havens. If the Turks do attack, counters one Kurdish official, "their own border will not be respected. They will not be the only ones to choose the battlefield."

A wild card in the Kurdish problem is Iran. Like the Turks, the Iranians have a restless Kurdish minority and would be tempted to intervene militarily against a militant group called PJAK that operates from Iraqi Kurdistan. Indeed, top Iranian military officers met in Ankara recently for discussions with the Turkish general staff about possible military contingencies in Iraq, according to one U.S. official.

Kurdish sources report that the Iranians have recently shelled Kurdish targets inside Iraq and that Iranian-backed Islamic groups have attacked border posts in northern Iraq. The Iranians want to destabilize Kurdistan, partly to damage America's wider policy aims in Iraq, Kurdish officials argue.

Adding to this toxic brew is growing tension between the United States and Kurdish leaders. The Kurds were furious when they weren't given prior notice about a U.S. Special Forces raid in January that attempted to snatch two top Iranian Revolutionary Guard officers at the Irbil airport in Kurdistan. Unwitting Kurdish pesh merga troops at the airport nearly opened fire on the Americans. Although the airport raid was a failure, U.S. forces did manage to grab five Revolutionary Guard members at an Iranian consular office, which embarrassed the Kurdish leadership. The Kurds feel their friendship for America has been taken for granted.

Iraqi Kurdistan has been a success story, one of the very few since the U.S. invasion four years ago. But its status as a haven and future American base against Iran and al-Qaeda is in jeopardy. Of bad news in Iraq, it seems, there is no end.

Could Jimmy Carter's staff have been anywhere near as INCOMPETENT as Dubya???

Thanks, Dickie and Dubya for raising the status of former DEMs who were constantly criticized. You guys have set an all time low for incompetence. On top of that, you set the record for arrogance! WOW!

Could Jimmy Carter's staff have been anywhere near as INCOMPETENT as Dubya's???

Thanks, Dickie and Dubya for raising the status of former DEMs who were constantly criticized. You guys have set an all time low for incompetence. On top of that, you set the record for arrogance! WOW!

The Turks will end up doing what Israel did in 1967:

Plowing into Northern Iraq to create a miles wide buffer zone. From there who knows? That's the least they'll do.

The incursions will go deeper and deeper into each other's territory and it will be all the world can do to stop Turkey and the Kurds from having it out.

Problem is, once the Shiite and Sunni see that the Kurds are getting busy with Turkey, they're liable to use that opening to create some havoc of their own with the Kurds up north.

I sure wish Bush hadn't started this war. Geesh, what a lot of time and resources it's taken from the myriad of other national issues. Then again, maybe that was the whole idea to begin with. Distract the populous. Thank God for checks and balances or who knows what skullduggery might have taken place in D.C. these last two lame duck years.

I for one, welcome our new Turkish masters.

Is Iraq still funding suicide bombers?

I think they're just testing the waters to see what everybody's reaction would be.

"yeah, not gonna happen... well not until we pull out anyways.

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole


well except it alreadyhas. I am sure you are aware about the violence between turkish and kurdish forces over the past 4 years.

Posted by truthhurts at 2007-06-01 09:55 AM"

"PS I hate affirmative action... sure would be nice if I could fire this network admin... Guess why I can't?

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2007-06-06 04:08 PM"

Why do you want to fire him? Does he spend the whole day blogging when he's supposed to be working or something?

(Imagine what Rob's supervisor's thinking right now: "Fuck! We were supposed to have those servers moved by now, but fucking Rob-the-Asshole (they call him that in real life too) has been blogging all day, as usual. Man, I wish we were allowed to fire handicapped people without getting sued.")