http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7048234.stm

- I know there's a discussion on this in the 'Partition' thread, but seen as that's somehow got on to the American election...

It seems Turkey is gearing up for cross border military action.
Now of course, this is a problem as the Kurds in Northern Iraq are the only ones with their heads remotely on their shoulders. Allowing an American ally to attack an American ally on American occupied soil from American supply line bases... well, the dynamic goes on.

But as the precedent-setter for military campaigns against terrorism, how can the US deny Turkey the right to do so?

Ironic, eh?

how can the US deny Turkey the right to do so?

With a tank Battalion.

oooo, I wonder if that'll make the 6 o'clock news?

Update

Turkey approves Iraq incursion

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/17/turkey.iraq/index.html

The US has been touting the success of the Kurds in northern Iraq in creating a safe, well-policed and governed area. Now would be the time for Secretary Rice to be talking with the Kurd leaders to ratchet up their efforts to achieve their goals diplomatically, and that would include the need to take action against those in their midst who are committing criminal acts.

Similar to the Palestinian situation, there is a faction that wants to use violent methods to attain their aims, and the larger group that wants to have a peaceful existence while seeking change. With all the economic and diplomatioc successes the Kurds in Iraq have been seeing, I believe the proper carrots would be much more useful than a stick in getting cooperation to halt the terroristic acts of the few.

Now is the time for Rice to show what she is capable of, and get the Turks and the Kurds to find a solution to the problem without open warfare. The Turks have given impetus to the process by amassing the troops along the border, so now the Kurds need to step up and act to curtail those who are putting all their gains in jeapordy.

Agreed Byl, it is an amazing opportunity for Rice.

However I suspect any attempt by Rice to broker a real high PR deal would be sabotaged by Pelosi.

Any reason for this conjecture or just manifesting Pelosi Derangement Syndrome? ;)

Sure, and I think you know my stance on this Thor.

Pelosi is a power mongering bad example of a politician. A win for Rice would equte to many to be a win for the Repulican party. Pelosi has shown lately that she's willing to risk all to better her party.

Sure, and I think you know my stance on this Thor.

Pelosi is a power mongering bad example of a politician. A win for Rice would equte to many to be a win for the Repulican party. Pelosi has shown lately that she's willing to risk all to better her party.

However her stances on Human rights have been the very fabric of her run in politics. Therefore I dont know how much weight your argument holds.

Pelosi has long been an advocate for human rights around the world. She has fought to improve China's human rights record, attempting to tie trade to increased human rights standards. She has also been a leader on efforts to free the people of Tibet.

She has also been on the front lines of Healthcare for quite some time.

Pelosi fought for America's families. She has been a leader in increasing educational opportunity, protecting workers, and promoting health care, including women's health and the creation of a nationwide health tracking network to examine the links between environmental pollutants and chronic disease. She has been a strong proponent of increased investments in health research, and has secured funding to double the budget for the National Institutes of Health. Pelosi also has successfully defeated repeated attempts to reduce funding for international family planning programs. One of Pelosi's first legislative victories was the creation of the Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS program. She has also worked to accelerate development of an HIV vaccine, expand access to Medicaid for people living with HIV, and increase funding for the Ryan White CARE Act, the Minority HIV/AIDS Initiative and other programs vital to people living with or at risk for HIV/AIDS.

Pelosi also successfully increased access to health insurance for people with disabilities by ensuring continuation of their health care coverage. She was instrumental in passing legislation to assist nonprofit organizations in the creation of affordable housing.

http://www.house.gov/pelosi/biography/bio.html


Is it appropriate to bad mouth her when she is representing the people that vote for her?

The San Francisco Bay Area has a long established Armenian community numbering in the thousands. Once primarily in the city of San Francisco, the community has spread to San Jose and Oakland and everywhere in between.

http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=San_Francisco

(http://www.house.gov/pelosi/biography/bio.html)

Pelosi is a power mongering bad example of a politician. A win for Rice would equte to many to be a win for the Repulican party. Pelosi has shown lately that she's willing to risk all to better her party.Power-mongering compared to who? Bad example compared to who? Even if all this were true, I imagine she'd pick a better fight than an attempt to broker piece between Turk and Kurd. I hope Rice is able to do it -- tricky situation that's been brewing for years.

Jesus christ guys - are you capable of ANYTHING other than talking about party-politics. HONESTLY?!?!

Thats what it all comes down to Halo.

At this point anyway... we are still in control of events.

All this talk about Turkey and Rice makes me hungry for some reason :)

Oh nice I am hungry now.

All this talk about Turkey and Rice makes me hungry for some reason If this sort of thing is continuing at Thanksgiving I won't be afraid to pun-ish those responsible.

LMAO THor, yikes;P

Jesus christ guys - are you capable of ANYTHING other than talking about party-politics. HONESTLY?!?!Should give a pretty accurate assessment of politics in the US at the moment. It's party lines, not constituents or common sense. How do you feel about global warming? Check your party! How do you feel about abortion? Check your party! Support the president? Check your party! Those darned homosexuals? Check your party - minus a few errant senators and their foot tapping, of course!

And yes, before someone feels the need to call me on it, I realize it's not all quite that black and white. But step back a few feet for a better view, and it all looks pretty crazy.

Did you check your party before posting that?

Actually I tend to think the average American is very middle of the road. The unfortunate part is they tend to be silent, and the only ones we ever hear from are the screaming lunatics from the extreme Right and Left because that's what drives the ratings.
Remember Oz the Great and Powerful? Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!

Party line voting has increased dramatically over the last decade or two. Partisanship is at an all time high. I really don't see how most Americans are middle of the road. The 'check your party' mentality is right on, both in theory and in practice.

http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2007&m=January&x=20070109140913HMnietsua0.1988794

Looks like you are right Ainwein.

In a November 2006 Gallup Poll (a leading barometer of public opinion operated by the Gallop Organization), approximately 59 percent of Americans identified themselves as either Republicans or Democrats.

Did you check your party before posting that?

Actually I tend to think the average American is very middle of the road. The unfortunate part is they tend to be silent, and the only ones we ever hear from are the screaming lunatics from the extreme Right and Left because that's what drives the ratings.
Remember Oz the Great and Powerful? Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!I don't vote with a party, can't stand either (any?) of them. My own beliefs are too circumstance-based to go with a black and white view of the world, not to mention (toe tapping senators, anyone?) I find many of the beliefs of both major parties to be hypocritical when put into action. The parties made a great starting point for organizing people, and they do serve as a decent basis for promoting candidates. When it comes to voting and running the country, they're killing us.

And I meant our leaders, far more than the average person. Although individuals like my father scare me. Growing up, he was a staunch democrat, voted democrat on everything and blamed the Republicans for every mistake, whether it was true or not. At some point he shifted so dramatically in his political stance that he's now the exact opposite. He can't even begin to understand why some individuals would have problems with the Glorious Leader. He'll vote Republic regardless of the issue, or the circumstances surrounding the issue. Why think for yourself when your party leaders will tell you how to vote?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment


/shrug

If this sort of thing is continuing at Thanksgiving I won't be afraid to pun-ish those responsible.

Oh that's bad, but you win :p

Looks like you are right Ainwein.

What exactly are you trying to show? That there isn't increased partisanship, or that most people vote the party lines? Regardless, you succeeded at neither.

People always want to believe that they are independent. Bill O'Reilly claims to be independent. Still, most voters tend to identify with one party and vote straight down the line.

According to surveys, most people who claim to be Independents are in fact closet partisans who lean toward one part or the other. These Independent leaners - about a quarter of the total elctorate - hold attitudes similar to those of partisans. Not only do they favor one party over the other, but they also share many (thought not necessarily all) of the party's values and say they will vote for the party's candidates - if they bestir themselves to vote.

Only a small percentage of citizens (5 to 10 percent) are true Independents; they are unpredictable, however, and have dismal turnout rates. "I would encourage candidates not to play them," advises David Magleby of Brighan Young University, "because they tend to jump on bandwagons, to follow tides. You're better off [working] on your weak partisans and your leaners.

"... the number of voters in surveys between 1952 and 1988 who reported that they split the ticket between presidental and House candidates increased from 12 to 25 percent. Those who split their ballots between different parties' House and Senate candidates grew from 9 percent to 27 percent."

"Over the past four presidential elections, however, ticket splitting plummeted to less than 10 percent"

"If surveys are to believed, however, rank-and-file party identifies have become more polarized than in past elections. Many of them, after all, heed the partisan rhetoric dispensed by Congressional leaders and other sources, including media, cable, and Internet outlets that may be blatantly biased. Moreover, these loyal voters increasingly make up the U.S. elctorate. Thus they are ardently wooed by parties and candidates - who seek reliable supporters (rather than waverers) to turn out at the polls.

Taken from this book. (http://www.amazon.com/Congress-Its-Members/dp/087289357X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-3785119-0378810?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192737800&sr=8-1) I can furnish specific references to the aforementioned studies if need be.

Everyone would like to be considered an independent, yet few truly are. Furthermore, the ones that do switch sides are completely ignored by lawmakers seeking election. You cater to the base - your supporters and your loyalists. Politics is extremely black and white right now, and the elctorate reflects this accordingly.

Well, speaking as an Libertarian (don't hate me!) I can say the 1 thing that pisses me off more than anything is partisan politics.
Nothing makes me blow a fuse faster than hearing a Republican or Democrat say the idea put forth by the other side is a bad one, simply based on the fact they it was brought up by the other side.
Speaking to Bill O'Reilly, I've seen him take to task people from both sides of the aisle. He tends to be Conservative (In his words a Traditionalist) so if you have to fit him in somewhere, he seems to fit better in the Republican niche, rather than the Democrat.
Same thing with Michael Moore. He is a Liberal, but seems to fit better in the Democrat side of things, rather than the Republican.
The only thing I was pointing out with that link was, that you seem to be right. Most people vote along party lines, in the past decade.
Your link was far more comprehensive.

L2, regarding that experiment, our evolution has led us to that point. In the past, the ones that followed the "Alpha" of the group were most likely to succeed. Anyone that didn't follow their lead were beaten down or driven out, thus reducing the chances they would get to pass along their genes to the next generation. We are conditioned to "go along" with authority, and even nowdays a common defense is "I was just doing what I was told to do".
Consience and Wisdom are the keys of knowing when to follow the leader, and when to strike out on your own.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7074361.stm

- /Bump.. interesting.

Unfortunately, the Kurds are a fractured people, with Turkish Kurds, Iraqi Kurds, Afghan Kurds, Chechnyan Kurds, cheese curds, and so on. While the semi-autonomous Kurdish region in Northen Iraq presented a golden opportunity to demonstrate the qualities of political and economic stability that would help pave the way for possible recognition as an independent people, the radical factions will continue to push for more.

If the leaders of the PKK had any sense they would have maintained the ceasefire and instead worked toward gaining a foothold in the world's eyes as a viable autonomous state, which would of course have both good and bad affects in resolving the Iraq situation. The manner in which the Kurds in Northern Iraq have conducted themselves since the invasion has been a sharp contrast to the rest of the country, and there has been minimal violence there, and actually sounds to be an upturn in the quality of day to day life for most.

It is heartening to hear the Turkish leaders say that any military action would be aimed only at the militants and not the rest of the Kurdish people.

Good news.

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article3129675.ece

Kurdistan Workers Party = PKK.

Now that, dammit, is a good reason for kids to stay in school.


Thanks for posting that link Akipt. It is good to see that there are some rational thinking folks involved in this mess, anyway.

I remember the PKK providing security for the U.S. Army when we were flying missions into Northern Iraq during Operation Provide Comfort II.
They seemed like good guys, but I defenitely wouldn't have wanted to try and fight them in that area.

Good news indeed, illustrating the difference between fanatacism and pragmatism. "Yes, we really hate the Turks and want to form our own country. But they have a large army 20 miles away. Give them the prisoners." The Kurdistan economy is vulnerable to Turkey closing the main trade route over the Habur Bridge.I'm pleased to read that Kurdistan has an economy, particularly one that relies in part on connections to Turkey. "We want Turkey to release our president, Abdullah Ocalan," he said. Ocalan is serving a life sentence in Turkey.Ocalan is evidently a revolutionary communist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Ocalan) and center of much strife before his imprisonment. FWIW, the Wiki article states that he's called for peace between PKK and Turkey.

I remember the PKK providing security for the U.S. Army when we were flying missions into Northern Iraq during Operation Provide Comfort II.
They seemed like good guys, but I defenitely wouldn't have wanted to try and fight them in that area.

Durng WWII, there were Turkish fighters (who have been claimed to have been Kurdish) called "Gurkhas" I think, tho maybe mis-spelled. They had a reputation of being some of the baddest mo-fo's many of the GI's had ever encountered. Fortunately, they were allies and fought on our side.

The only Gurkhas I know of in WW2 were from northern India... British supplied.. not sure about training though.. and yes, some bad asses. But not Turkish.

Indeed, Ghurkas were batallions of the British Army, supplied by the Kingdom of Nepal as auxillaries to Britain's Indian Army after their defeat by the East India Company in 1815.

They were used as crack troops, often charging earthworks or breaking formations with their very much feared kukris (a curved, scythe knife used for hand-to-hand combat). An old chap I used to know had one hanging on his wall, a Major of a Ghurka batallion up country from Calcutta gave it to him on the eve of Independence when he was a captain in a naval squadron convoying the Mail flottila back to England via the Cape.

Ghurkas were considered - besides the Sikhs and Pathans - the best troops in the Indian Army, and were used to good effective in both WW1 and WW2.

Boy, did I get that one messed up, heh.:o

Bush met (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-usturkey6nov06,1,4650019.story?coll=la-headlines-world&ctrack=1&cset=true) with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey to discuss the PKK issue. Outside of stepping up contact between our military and theirs, we don't seem to have much in the way of policy. A senior Bush administration official, speaking on White House rules of anonymity, said the administration had looked at concrete steps over the last week.

"We had some ideas. The Turks have had some ideas. The Iraqis have had some ideas. The Kurds have had some ideas," the official said.