What will happen if we Withdraw from Iraq

[Hard Driver]

What would happen if the US created a 1 year timeline for the withdrawl of our troops from policing Iraq. Leaving maybe 10,000 - 20,000 just to secure the embassy, fight international foreign terrorists in special missions and assist the Iraqi government with training and intelligence?

[Reliant]

Iraq would experience the greatest reward any Nation could desire.... the right to self determination.

[BigRob]

Iraq would experience the greatest reward any Nation could desire.... the right to self determination.

After they killed each other for it in a major civil war. The situation is Iraq is terrible, we blew our chance to have a quick transition right from the get-go. Saudi Arabia and Iran and Turkey are not going to just sit there and allow this war to occur.

Turkey has already made very clear than any independent Kurdish area is totally out of the question given their large domestic Kurdish populations. Turkey has also moved troops to the border, and I think right after a US pull out, Turkey would move into the Kurdish areas.

Saudi Arabia is not going to sit by while an Iranian dominated Shiite government takes over either. The implications for Iraq becoming an Iranian puppet are to great and will upset the balance of power in the region as Iran would rise to more of a regional hegemon. Saudi Arabia will not sit by idly while this happens.

Iran would get involved as well. They are already involved backing certain militias (for many reasons), but they would certainly attempt to continue the shiite dominance and give that their backing, as they certainly want to rise to more of a regional hegemon.

The end result, I would say, would be that immediately following a pullout, you see Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia all quickly moving in to fill the void and pursue their own interests. As their interests will clash with each other, the war in Iraq will only get more bloody and more chaotic.

All of this will of course be blamed on the United States, since we started the entire problem by invading. And thus we are still left with the entire Middle East losing faith in the US (moderates especially) and seeing a rise in Iranian influence. Along with that rise, China and Russia will move in to fill the void as they are desperate to gain more influence in the region, something that the United States simply does not, and really cannot, allow.

[Popeye]

The end result, I would say, would be that immediately following a pullout, you see Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia all quickly moving in to fill the void and pursue their own interests. As their interests will clash with each other, the war in Iraq will only get more bloody and more chaotic.

All of this will of course be blamed on the United States, since we started the entire problem by invading. And thus we are still left with the entire Middle East losing faith in the US (moderates especially) and seeing a rise in Iranian influence. Along with that rise, China and Russia will move in to fill the void as they are desperate to gain more influence in the region, something that the United States simply does not, and really cannot, allow.

You've swallowed the entire Bush doctrine hook, line, and sinker. The Middle East lost faith in the U.S. a long time ago, the Iraq war has just made it worse. Iran has a right to be influential in the region,I mean, unlike us, they do reside there. Iraq has a right to self determination, no matter how bloody.

[BigRob]

You've swallowed the entire Bush doctrine hook, line, and sinker. The Middle East lost faith in the U.S. a long time ago, the Iraq war has just made it worse. Iran has a right to be influential in the region,I mean, unlike us, they do reside there. Iraq has a right to self determination, no matter how bloody.

The Middle East did not lose faith in the US a long time ago. Contrary to what you might think Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia are not the entire Middle East. Saudi Arabia still has faith in the US to an extent, along with the numerous more moderate Arab states who are watching to see what the US's next move will be in the region. None of these states have lost faith in the United States as of yet, but a pullout would ensure that this occurs.

As for swallowing the Bush doctrine, I think Bush is a moron when it comes to ME policy. And contrary to what you may think of me, I am well qualified to speak on this issue as I have a degree in International Relations with a focus on the Middle East. Obviously there will be dissenting opinions, but the majority of people looking at the issue agree that moderate arab states do retain some form of faith in the United States at this time.

[Reliant]

You've swallowed the entire Bush doctrine hook, line, and sinker. The Middle East lost faith in the U.S. a long time ago, the Iraq war has just made it worse. Iran has a right to be influential in the region,I mean, unlike us, they do reside there. Iraq has a right to self determination, no matter how bloody.

Precisely. And to believe that Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, or any other nation would invade Iraq and suffer the consequences of a global backlash is patently ridiculous.

[BigRob]

Precisely. And to believe that Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, or any other nation would invade Iraq and suffer the consequences of a global backlash is patently ridiculous.

And this comment shows your general ignorance of Middle East politics.

What global backlash? They are going to come in under some form of peacekeeping premise and go about exactly what I just outlined.

[Reliant]

And this comment shows your general ignorance of Middle East politics.

What global backlash? They are going to come in under some form of peacekeeping premise and go about exactly what I just outlined.

And you know that HOW? Oh ya, your degree in Middle East whatever.

Iraq has the right to self determination just like America did over a hundred years ago. To deny any nation this basic right shows that your degree would best be put to use in the bathroom. Why is it that people have the need to make others submit to their will?

[BigRob]

And you know that HOW? Oh ya, your degree in Middle East whatever.

Iraq has the right to self determination just like America did over a hundred years ago. To deny any nation this basic right shows that your degree would best be put to use in the bathroom. Why is it that people have the need to make others submit to their will?

I agree they do have that right, but a pullout has nothing to do with that and will not result in that. If you do not want to debate the points, just stop debating. You have yet to offer any valid response to any point I raised. (and there are some in case you were wondering). Please debate the points or just stop debating.

[Popeye]

.

Iraq has the right to self determination just like America did over a hundred years ago. To deny any nation this basic right shows that your degree would best be put to use in the bathroom. Why is it that people have the need to make others submit to their will?

Exactly, couldn't have said it better myself. By the way, just because he doesn't agree with you doesn't negate his right to debate.

[BigRob]

Exactly, couldn't have said it better myself.

What you fail to realize is that a pullout will not result in them gaining this right. Again, please debate the valid points that have been laid out, or just stop arguing.

[Popeye]

What you fail to realize is that a pullout will not result in them gaining this right. Again, please debate the valid points that have been laid out, or just stop arguing.

What "valid points",? more like Republican talking points. I've heard and seen it all before. It's all just an excuse for the U.S. to dominate the region. It's all about the oil my friend, but then, a man with your background should know that.

[Reliant]

What "valid points",? more like Republican talking points. I've heard and seen it all before. It's all just an excuse for the U.S. to dominate the region. It's all about the oil my friend, but then, a man with your background should know that.

I was wondering what "points" he was referring to also. :confused:

[BigRob]

What "valid points",? more like Republican talking points. I've heard and seen it all before. It's all just an excuse for the U.S. to dominate the region. It's all about the oil my friend, but then, a man with your background should know that.

I will paste them over since you cannot read them.

"Turkey has already made very clear than any independent Kurdish area is totally out of the question given their large domestic Kurdish populations. Turkey has also moved troops to the border, and I think right after a US pull out, Turkey would move into the Kurdish areas.

Saudi Arabia is not going to sit by while an Iranian dominated Shiite government takes over either. The implications for Iraq becoming an Iranian puppet are to great and will upset the balance of power in the region as Iran would rise to more of a regional hegemon. Saudi Arabia will not sit by idly while this happens.

Iran would get involved as well. They are already involved backing certain militias (for many reasons), but they would certainly attempt to continue the shiite dominance and give that their backing, as they certainly want to rise to more of a regional hegemon.

The end result, I would say, would be that immediately following a pullout, you see Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia all quickly moving in to fill the void and pursue their own interests. As their interests will clash with each other, the war in Iraq will only get more bloody and more chaotic."


All of these facts are well documented in the news and intelligence reports. A pullout is not going to result in Iraq being able to have self-determination.

You could perhaps argue that it was all about the oil, an argument that I do not buy into, but you cannot argue anymore that it is still about the oil. If you want to make the claim that it is all about the oil, please offer some evidence or facts to back your claim up and I will be happy to debate it with you, if not then your claim is invalid.

If your answer to every logical post with examples and evidence supporting it is simply "oh a Republican talking point" then a debate it pointless, and we can thank our lucky stars you do not work for the government.

[palerider]

Iraq has the right to self determination just like America did over a hundred years ago.

Over 100 years ago? Public education speaks.:rolleyes:

[BigRob]

Over 100 years ago? Public education speaks.:rolleyes:

The whole point he is making is invalid because a pullout is not going to result in that anyway, a point he refuses to acknowledge.

[Reliant]

Over 100 years ago? Public education speaks.:rolleyes:

I thought most people would know that I was referring to America's Civil War, mainly because we were talking about a civil war in Iraq. Our very own civil war started about 142 years ago or.... "over a hundred years ago". But I suppose there are still those were who were denied the Public Education System and just learned school yard etiquette. Too bad.

Can you get me some fries to go with that Mac?

[BigRob]

Lets not turn the thread into personal attacks on each other over immaterial things. Lets debate the points, such as the issues I brought up above, or any issues you all would like to bring up.

[Reliant]

The whole point he is making is invalid because a pullout is not going to result in that anyway, a point he refuses to acknowledge.
What "point" do I refuse to acknowledge?

[BigRob]

Exactly, couldn't have said it better myself. By the way, just because he doesn't agree with you doesn't negate his right to debate.

No it does not, except that there is no debate. I would love to debate, if a rational argument is made with valid evidence to back it up, none of which has happened yet. I put valid points out there, and they were ignored and dismissed with no debate. That is what I was referring to when I said debate the points please or just stop.

[BigRob]

What "point" do I refuse to acknowledge?

Every issue I raised in regards to Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, and the Sunni, Shiites, and Kurds, and how they will view a pullout. I have posted it two times, I am not posting it again.

[Reliant]

Every issue I raised in regards to Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, and the Sunni, Shiites, and Kurds, and how they will view a pullout. I have posted it two times, I am not posting it again.

I am not asking you to post it again. I asked a simple question.... What "point" do I refuse to acknowledge?

[BigRob]

I am not asking you to post it again. I asked a simple question.... What "point" do I refuse to acknowledge?

All of those issues you ignored with the response that "they will not invade".

[Reliant]

All of those issues you ignored with the response that "they will not invade".

Do you believe that Turkey, who is trying desperately to be accepted not only in Europe but on the world stage, Iran, that isn't even Arab, Saudi Arabia, that we just gave $billions$ for arms to, and Syria, who can't even get back land from 1967, is going to invade Iraq??
Come on man, use the Degree.

When I said Iraq had the right to self determination, you responded with..."I agree they do have that right, but a pullout has nothing to do with that and will not result in that".
How does a "pullout" not allow Iraq to self determination if clearly these countries would not invade?

[BigRob]

Do you believe that Turkey, who is trying desperately to be accepted not only in Europe but on the world stage, Iran, that isn't even Arab, Saudi Arabia, that we just gave $billions$ for arms to, and Syria, who can't even get back land from 1967, is going to invade Iraq??
Come on man, use the Degree.

When I said Iraq had the right to self determination, you responded with..."I agree they do have that right, but a pullout has nothing to do with that and will not result in that".
How does a "pullout" not allow Iraq to self determination if clearly these countries would not invade?

Because these countries are going to come. In you look at Turkey, yes, they are turning towards Europe, but they have a huge Kurdish domestic population and view an independent Kurdish state as a threat to their national security. If Europe punishes them for this, they simply turn towards Asia and away from Europe, especially with China and Russia dying to increase their influence in the region. Turkey can afford to do this.

Iran is not Arab no. But they back the Shiites in Iraq to a huge extent, and do not want to see Saudi Arabian and Sunni influence increase in the region either. Iran is already heavily involved, and will continue to stay involved to thwart any attempts and Saudi Arabian influence coming in.

Saudi Arabia is in the same situation. They are competing with Iran for regional hegemony. To idly sit by and let Iran increase its influence and dominance in the region is simply unacceptable, and they have said exactly that.

Syria is not the problem, I didnt even mention them because they will be mostly a non-factor in a post-war Iraq or a post-US Iraq.

It doesnt matter that we give aid to Saudi Arabia or Iran is not Arab or Turkey is trying to get in the EU. What matters is how these people view the security in their region. None of these states will trust the other one and all will be involved in a power struggle for Iraq after the US pulls out.


They are not going to outright invade, it will come in the form of "peacekeeping" after the US leaves, and will be played up as them cleaning up the mess the US made.

[vyo476]

More to the point, even if Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia don't get up the guts to actually send troops in, you can bet they'd do everything else under the sun to support whichever side of the Iraqi Civil War they favor, which would only prolong the conflict long past what it'd be like if it was just Iraqis vs. Iraqis. That isn't "self-determination," it's "whose friends have bigger guns."

[BigRob]

More to the point, even if Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia don't get up the guts to actually send troops in, you can bet they'd do everything else under the sun to support whichever side of the Iraqi Civil War they favor, which would only prolong the conflict long past what it'd be like if it was just Iraqis vs. Iraqis. That isn't "self-determination," it's "whose friends have bigger guns."

Yes, exactly, none of these countries are going to just let it be. Which is why a pullout does not equate to Iraqis having self-determination.

[Reliant]

They are not going to outright invade, it will come in the form of "peacekeeping" after the US leaves, and will be played up as them cleaning up the mess the US made.

Then we seem to agree that there is no invasion going to happen. So I guess that wasn't the "point" you referred to.:)

Let me tell you that none of these countries will have any influence on Iraq that Iraq doesn't want. Did you see Maliki and Ahmadinejad when the iranian President declared "Ties With Iraq 'Excellent'?
http://gdb.rferl.org/efdfc77c-59cd-4e7f-8306-f8b695b1777c_w220.jpg

Let them have a chance. Do you honestly believe that a puppet US government is going to last anyway? Let me remind you we have not had much success with puppet governments in the past. Eventually they also exercise their right to self determination.

[Popeye]

More to the point, even if Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia don't get up the guts to actually send troops in, you can bet they'd do everything else under the sun to support whichever side of the Iraqi Civil War they favor, which would only prolong the conflict long past what it'd be like if it was just Iraqis vs. Iraqis. That isn't "self-determination," it's "whose friends have bigger guns."

What is wrong with these countries determining the future of their own region? We seem to think that the whole world is our business,while we wouldn't stand for anybody meddling in the Americas. That's hypocrisy, and no amount of neo-con,Fox News, double-talk will change that.

[Reliant]

More to the point, even if Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia don't get up the guts to actually send troops in, you can bet they'd do everything else under the sun to support whichever side of the Iraqi Civil War they favor, which would only prolong the conflict long past what it'd be like if it was just Iraqis vs. Iraqis. That isn't "self-determination," it's "whose friends have bigger guns."

And who's friends have bigger guns?:D That's precisely why none of these countries would dare use military force to influence Iraq.

[BigRob]

Then we seem to agree that there is no invasion going to happen. So I guess that wasn't the "point" you referred to.:)

Let me tell you that none of these countries will have any influence on Iraq that Iraq doesn't want. Did you see Maliki and Ahmadinejad when the iranian President declared "Ties With Iraq 'Excellent'?
http://gdb.rferl.org/efdfc77c-59cd-4e7f-8306-f8b695b1777c_w220.jpg

Let them have a chance. Do you honestly believe that a puppet US government is going to last anyway? Let me remind you we have not had much success with puppet governments in the past. Eventually they also exercise their right to self determination.

I'll be the same outcome as an invasion, just let the Iraqi groups do the fighting.

Of course Iran wants ties with Iraq, after all they are next door to each other, but there are tons of reasons for this. To balance even more against the US, to exert even more influence over the Shiites dominated government. This statement does not mean a thing, because even right now, the government is Shiite dominated, obviously Iran wants to back it, thats what I have been saying.

Saudi Arabia will have to counteract this once the US leaves and Turkey will still have the issue with the Kurds. I am all for them "having their chance" however it will not be friendly once the US stops refereeing.

[BigRob]

And who's friends have bigger guns?:D That's precisely why none of these countries would dare use military force to influence Iraq.

They will just give it to the Iraqi groups who in turn massacre each other.

[vyo476]

What is wrong with these countries determining the future of their own region? We seem to think that the whole world is our business,while we wouldn't stand for anybody meddling in the Americas. That's hypocrisy, and no amount of neo-con,Fox News, double-talk will change that.

You wanted "self-determination" for Iraqis. Iranians representing Iranian interests in Iraq, Turks representing Turkish interests in Iraq, and Saudi Arabia representing Saudi Arabian interests in Iraq does not equal Iraqis with self-determination.

Look, I'm not saying that it's right that we're there. I'm just saying that if we leave, the Iraqis still won't have self-determination. You're the one who is spinning that into something else.

[vyo476]

And who's friends have bigger guns?:D That's precisely why none of these countries would dare use military force to influence Iraq.

What does that mean?

[BigRob]

What does that mean?

It means they are all going to back their respective groups and have the Iraqis destroy each other. They are not going to fight each other over this, just destroy Iraq even more.

[Reliant]

I'll be the same outcome as an invasion, just let the Iraqi groups do the fighting.

Of course Iran wants ties with Iraq, after all they are next door to each other, but there are tons of reasons for this. To balance even more against the US, to exert even more influence over the Shiites dominated government. This statement does not mean a thing, because even right now, the government is Shiite dominated, obviously Iran wants to back it, thats what I have been saying.

Saudi Arabia will have to counteract this once the US leaves and Turkey will still have the issue with the Kurds. I am all for them "having their chance" however it will not be friendly once the US stops refereeing.

Why do we need all this influence in the Middle East? Will we move on to South East Asia to exert our influence there next..... sorry.... bin there done that. And maybe you could tell us again why we invaded Iraq in the first place, I can't quite remember, but i thought it had nothing to do with exerting influence.

[Reliant]

What does that mean?

It simply means that no one is going to use military force in Iraq to exert their influence.... not Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, no one.

[BigRob]

Why do we need all this influence in the Middle East? Will we move on to South East Asia to exert our influence there next..... sorry.... bin there done that. And maybe you could tell us again why we invaded Iraq in the first place, I can't quite remember, but i thought it had nothing to do with exerting influence.

I was against the invasion from the get-go, but that hardly means that we are not there now, and that does not make any of these implications we are talking about any less relevant. The US exerts influence all over the world. The Middle East is especially important for their oil, just as SE Asia is important for cheap labor and trade. Alot of what has happened in the Middle East is an off shoot of the Cold War if you ask me, and we are still in a semi-Cold War mentality here in the US.

No one is saying if this is right or wrong, I am not the judge of that, I just look at what is happening now.

[Popeye]

It means they are all going to back their respective groups and have the Iraqis destroy each other. They are not going to fight each other over this, just destroy Iraq even more.

Let the Iraqis destroy each other, it's called a civil war, remember, we had one and things turned out all right. As long as we stay out of it, but then their's that darn oil and poor little Israel.

[BigRob]

It simply means that no one is going to use military force in Iraq to exert their influence.... not Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, no one.

Then how do you explain for the fact that they already are?

[Reliant]

Then how do you explain for the fact that they already are?

Please show us these facts...link.... which country is exerting their Military influence in Iraq.

[Popeye]

Then how do you explain for the fact that they already are?

They have a right to, it's their region. While we have no right to.

[BigRob]

Please show us these facts...link.... which country is exerting their Military influence in Iraq.

It is widely known that Iran is backing Shiite militias in Iraq. Just go to Iraq, you will it, they use Iranian weaponry etc... as for a link to prove it, I will look, but I have seen it with my own eyes.

[BigRob]

They have a right to, it's their region. While we have no right to.

So its ok for Iran to fight in Iraq since its their region, even though it is not their country? And Iran and Iraq were enemies under Saddam.

[Popeye]

It is widely known that Iran is backing Shiite militias in Iraq. Just go to Iraq, you will it, they use Iranian weaponry etc... as for a link to prove it, I will look, but I have seen it with my own eyes.

So what? They're Iraq's neighbors, what do you want them to do? Hide in fear of big, bad ,conservative, war mongering America?

[BigRob]

So what? They're Iraq's neighbors, what do you want them to do? Hide in fear of big, bad ,conservative, war mongering America?

No, if I was an Iranian adviser I would be advising the exact same path they are following right now. It is really quite a smart path.

[Reliant]

So what? They're Iraq's neighbors, what do you want them to do? Hide in fear of big, bad ,conservative, war mongering America?

No, I believe he thinks it is better if we exercise our unwanted influence in the region. I find that a concept that is hard to accept.

[BigRob]

Please show us these facts...link.... which country is exerting their Military influence in Iraq.

Ok, here is a link from 2004 of Iran conducting operations in Iraq.

Link (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-02-12-iran-iraq-usat_x.htm)

I am not sure what to tell you on links, I have alot of Middle East and Foreign policy journals sitting on my shelf that discuss this issue in depth, but to get them online you have to pay or subscribe, so it wouldnt be any good to link them because it would ask you for money lol.

[Reliant]

No, if I was an Iranian adviser I would be advising the exact same path they are following right now. It is really quite a smart path.

Smart? By whose standards? Certainly not Americas.

[BigRob]

No, I believe he thinks it is better if we exercise our unwanted influence in the region. I find that a concept that is hard to accept.

Well it depends on what group you are asking if we are unwanted or not, not everyone wants us gone. I am of the mindset that we went in and caused this mess, and we need to at least help solve the problems, instead of bailing out.

[BigRob]

Smart? By whose standards? Certainly not Americas.

Smart from an Iranian foreign policy perspective, it really is dead on what they should be doing. (If you were the Iranian leadership)

[vyo476]

They have a right to, it's their region. While we have no right to.

So if we didn't like Mexico's foreign policy, it'd be okay for us to invade them?

They're "in our region" after all.

[vyo476]

Well it depends on what group you are asking if we are unwanted or not, not everyone wants us gone. I am of the mindset that we went in and caused this mess, and we need to at least help solve the problems, instead of bailing out.

I'm of a similar mindset. Regardless of whether or not we should have gone in the first place, we're there now and I see us leaving creating more problems than it would solve.

The only thing that'd change my mind would be if a majority of Iraqis were to say that they wanted us gone.

[Popeye]

Ok, here is a link from 2004 of Iran conducting operations in Iraq.

Link (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-02-12-iran-iraq-usat_x.htm)

I am not sure what to tell you on links, I have alot of Middle East and Foreign policy journals sitting on my shelf that discuss this issue in depth, but to get them online you have to pay or subscribe, so it wouldnt be any good to link them because it would ask you for money lol.

That "link" is probably some conservative think tank. Again, let Iraq and Iran determine their own destiny.

[BigRob]

That "link" is probably some conservative think tank. Again, let Iraq and Iran determine their own destiny.

USA Today is a newspaper, not a conservative think tank.

[BigRob]

That "link" is probably some conservative think tank. Again, let Iraq and Iran determine their own destiny.

I do not get your point. You claim Iraq should have self-determination and the US should leave them alone, but then do not care that Iran is influencing this and denying Iraq this self-determination your preach.

[vyo476]

That "link" is probably some conservative think tank. Again, let Iraq and Iran determine their own destiny.

It's USA Today. A newspaper.

If this had been your argument from the beginning this thread would never have gotten so large. You said you wanted "self-determination" for Iraqis, and all Rob and I have been doing is pointing out that American withdrawal would not result in Iraqi self-determination.

Don't change the rules midway through the game.

[Popeye]

You said you wanted "self-determination" for Iraqis, and all Rob and I have been doing is pointing out that American withdrawal would not result in Iraqi self-determination.


What kind of logic is that? We have to be there to make sure Iraq determines it's own future without outside influence? In other words, they can have self determination as long as they see things our way. Great.

[BigRob]

What kind of logic is that? We have to be there to make sure Iraq determines it's own future without outside influence? In other words, they can have self determination as long as they see things our way. Great.

But its ok if Iran does it instead of us? No one is saying we are there for Iraq to have self-determination. We are simply saying that if we leave, they certainly are not going to have any form of self-determination, as you and reliant have claimed.

[Popeye]

But its ok if Iran does it instead of us? No one is saying we are there for Iraq to have self-determination. We are simply saying that if we leave, they certainly are not going to have any form of self-determination, as you and reliant have claimed.

Oh, I see, we're there to keep the peace, and to keep those "axis of evil" members Iran from influencing Iraq"s puppet government. All that, despite the fact that Iran is right next door and we are thousands of miles away. Again, it's all about oil and Israel.

[BigRob]

Oh, I see, we're there to keep the peace, and to keep those "axis of evil" members Iran from influencing Iraq"s puppet government. All that, despite the fact that Iran is right next door and we are thousands of miles away. Again, it's all about oil and Israel.

Ok, you can make that case, if you actually make it, which I doubt you can do. But I am all ears.

Saying its all about oil is offering a very simplistic view of the situation. The USA has to protect its interests in the ME for yes oil, and also to limit the power of China and Russia in the region. Its more than just oil, but oil does play a very large role.

Israel also most likely played zero factor in the Iraq invasion decision.

[BigRob]

Oh, I see, we're there to keep the peace, and to keep those "axis of evil" members Iran from influencing Iraq"s puppet government. All that, despite the fact that Iran is right next door and we are thousands of miles away. Again, it's all about oil and Israel.

And as pointed out, you are changing the subject, your point of a US pullout resulting in Iraqi self-determination has been completely refuted.

[Reliant]

And as pointed out, you are changing the subject, your point of a US pullout resulting in Iraqi self-determination has been completely refuted.

So this is the point where your argument deteriorates and you claim yourself the winner.:D :D

I see Petraeus is looking at a troop drawdown in the spring as "The United States would be hard-pressed to maintain the current level of nearly 170,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely". I guess then we will see a massive invasion of Iranian, Saudi, and Turkish military roll into Iraq to take up where the US left off. Give me a break. I suppose next you'll be telling us the Mongol Hordes are planning a mammoth incursion.

[Popeye]

And as pointed out, you are changing the subject, your point of a US pullout resulting in Iraqi self-determination has been completely refuted.

I never changed the subject. Your so called U.S. "interests" are all based on oil and Israel. Otherwise, why would we even care about the region? We've got big oil and Jewish lobbyists crawling all over Capital Hill. They fill the coffers of politicians of both parties. That's the main reason we won't allow Iraq to decide it's own future. So what if Iran influences them?, they're right next door after all, it's regional. We sure as heck influence Canada and Mexico. Self determination can be a messy process, but something will become of it.

[BigRob]

So this is the point where your argument deteriorates and you claim yourself the winner.:D :D

I see Petraeus is looking at a troop drawdown in the spring as "The United States would be hard-pressed to maintain the current level of nearly 170,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely". I guess then we will see a massive invasion of Iranian, Saudi, and Turkish military roll into Iraq to take up where the US left off. Give me a break. I suppose next you'll be telling us the Mongol Hordes are planning a mammoth incursion.

Funny a draw down and a pullout are not the same thing. Also, not being able to maintain our presence, and the idea that we should maintain our presence are very different things. I feel dumber arguing with you people, at least the people at work have a clue about what is really going on.

And when we create the void, I guarantee that Iranian backed militias (as is already the case) gain more influence, and Sunni militias will get help from Saudi Arabia.

You clearly lack any real understanding of politics and how the system works, and I am not going to go through it all. Goto Iraq perhaps, do some research, talk to people on the ground, and see for yourself.

[Popeye]

Funny a draw down and a pullout are not the same thing. Also, not being able to maintain our presence, and the idea that we should maintain our presence are very different things. I feel dumber arguing with you people, at least the people at work have a clue about what is really going on.



You clearly lack any real understanding of politics and how the system works, and I am not going to go through it all. Goto Iraq perhaps, do some research, talk to people on the ground, and see for yourself.

You must have a degree in insults too, congratulations.

[BigRob]

You must have a degree in insults too, congratulations.

I do, I minored in it. Thanks for disputing the facts. I guess they do not teach that in High School anymore. Oh well, keep doing your thing, I am glad that the people who I work with are a bit more focused on the issues and have good backgrounds in this stuff.

[vyo476]

If you're reading reports on our own troop reduction ideas, you either read or skipped over the reports saying that the Iraqi military/police forces are not ready to assume control of the country. Let's think about this logically for a minute - if we leave, and they can't control things, what happens? Anarchy! How well do neighboring countries put up with anarchy? Not well! How much of an interest do Iraq's neighbors have in Iraq? Quite a bit! Do you suppose that, at the very least, they'll lend extreme support to whichever violent militia group represents their cause? Of course! Do you suppose they might even invade, seeing as mini-wars and invasions have not been uncommon in the Middle East over the past fifty years? Yes!

What part of that equals "Iraqi self-determination"?

[BigRob]

If you're reading reports on our own troop reduction ideas, you either read or skipped over the reports saying that the Iraqi military/police forces are not ready to assume control of the country. Let's think about this logically for a minute - if we leave, and they can't control things, what happens? Anarchy! How well do neighboring countries put up with anarchy? Not well! How much of an interest do Iraq's neighbors have in Iraq? Quite a bit! Do you suppose that, at the very least, they'll lend extreme support to whichever violent militia group represents their cause? Of course! Do you suppose they might even invade, seeing as mini-wars and invasions have not been uncommon in the Middle East over the past fifty years? Yes!

What part of that equals "Iraqi self-determination"?

They don't get it and never will because they really have no clue how the Middle East works. Its not worth it anymore.

[Popeye]

If you're reading reports on our own troop reduction ideas, you either read or skipped over the reports saying that the Iraqi military/police forces are not ready to assume control of the country. Let's think about this logically for a minute - if we leave, and they can't control things, what happens? Anarchy! How well do neighboring countries put up with anarchy? Not well! How much of an interest do Iraq's neighbors have in Iraq? Quite a bit! Do you suppose that, at the very least, they'll lend extreme support to whichever violent militia group represents their cause? Of course! Do you suppose they might even invade, seeing as mini-wars and invasions have not been uncommon in the Middle East over the past fifty years? Yes!



So what? can't the Middle East work things out for themselves without the interference of a western imperialistic power? Mr. degree says no, I say yes.

[vyo476]

So what? can't the Middle East work things out for themselves without the interference of a western imperialistic power? Mr. degree says no, I say yes.

And reliant says:

Iraq would experience the greatest reward any Nation could desire.... the right to self determination.

And that's really all I'm refuting.

[Reliant]

I feel dumber arguing with you people, at least the people at work have a clue about what is really going on.
You are dumber when you argue with us, but it's only because we are smarter than "the people at work".:D

And when we create the void, I guarantee that Iranian backed militias (as is already the case) gain more influence, and Sunni militias will get help from Saudi Arabia.
Yes, perhaps you're right. It would be far better for us to throw American cannon fodder into the fray than let Iraq determine it's own future. How many more kids should we let die before we finally realize that this is a secular conflict and not a political one? Two thousand more, five thousand, or should we try to break the record set in Viet Nam? Please, give us a number.

You clearly lack any real understanding of politics and how the system works, and I am not going to go through it all. Goto Iraq perhaps, do some research, talk to people on the ground, and see for yourself.
Thank you for fustian sermon but it only shows your narrow-mindedness when faced with differing opinions.
Cheers.

[Hard Driver]

The only thing that'd change my mind would be if a majority of Iraqis were to say that they wanted us gone.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721.html

OK, you must be convinced.. Because the Majority of Iraqis DO want the US to leave immediately.

[Hard Driver]

I only see Big Rob answering the question of what would happen in Iraq..

vyo476 agrees with him.

Everyone else seems to just be saying they have a right to self determination... what bigrob says won't happen...

So back to the original question... What would happen if we withdraw in an orderly manner over the next year?

[vyo476]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721.html

OK, you must be convinced.. Because the Majority of Iraqis DO want the US to leave immediately.

I guess I was expecting this sort of thing to make bigger headlines, because yes, I missed it.

Okay. I'm convinced. If they want us gone now and have the solidarity to express it like that, then we have no business staying.

[Hard Driver]

My take..

All our troops are doing is buying time.. Bush want sour troops there so that the fubar in Iraq can be passed to someone else and he doesn't take all the blame...

But if our troops leave now, or they leave in 10 years, the only difference is how much money we spend and how many American lives we sacrafice in the meantime. This concept that we need to say to provide "security" so that the Iraqi government can take root is wrong.

The facts as I see them are that the Iraqi people in general don't like us... They hate Al Qeada more, but they don't like us either. SO to think that they will form a representative government that is a little american friend in the middle east, but is autonomous and not reliant on US troops if we just stay long enough will never happen.

The government in Iraq is going to need to be completely autonomous before the Iraqi people support it.. While the US troops are there, support of the government means support of the USA and that does not sit well with the Iraqi people, hence their support for attacks against US troops.

If the US leaves, the sectarian fighting will continue.. But that is not any different... What will be different is that the Iraqi people can not blame it on the US not protecting them and they will quickly realize they need to do something about it themselves..

Yes, Iran will have an influence in Iraq, but that does not mean Iraq will not remain autonomous.. And if this is going to be a representative government in Iraq, than the Shiite majority in Iraq will have some ties to Iran... get over it.

Saudi Arabia does not want the Sunni minority slaughtered, so they will support those militias..

However, I don't think that the whole thing will extend beyond the Iraqi borders.. What will happen if we withdraw is that the fubar will get a bit deeper... The Iraqi leaders, religious leaders and general population will then know they need to forge a solution that does not rely on the USA, Iran or Saudi Arabia and the POLITICAL progress that is needed in the country will finally happen and some stable government will form...

This WILL NOT be a terrorist base for Al Qeada...

This will not be a clone of Iran...

And in the long run, less people will probably die, even though more may die in the short run, because the final working government in Iraq will emerge sooner rather than later. Because no working government is going to emerge while the US basically occupies the country and the government is seen as a US puppet.

[BigRob]

You are dumber when you argue with us, but it's only because we are smarter than "the people at work".:D

Your right, I suppose you are more intelligent that a room of PHD's with actual on the ground experience, who have way more information than you can even get. Good call.

[Popeye]

Your right, I suppose you are more intelligent that a room of PHD's with actual on the ground experience, who have way more information than you can even get. Good call.

Congratulations on your conversion. I'm glad you see that all the information in the world isn't worth a damn if that information is skewed.

[Reliant]

Your right, I suppose you are more intelligent that a room of PHD's with actual on the ground experience, who have way more information than you can even get. Good call.

Thank you. :D
You are far too full of yourself to offer any credibility. And telling me how smart you are when providing me with evidence to the contrary is, quite frankly, pointless. Perhaps you are a PhD, but in your case it is Piled Higher & Deeper.

Now back to the topic-

I do not believe that any other country will invade Iraq. They will try to influence Iraq, but that is the same thing America is trying to do. I consider Iraq an opportunity to build better relationships in the ME, but not by fanning the flames of a secular struggle that has been going on for centuries. It's high time the people of Iraq stepped up to the plate and if they need help, we should offer anything we can. There is no such thing as democracy at the point of a gun.

[palerider]

I thought most people would know that I was referring to America's Civil War, mainly because we were talking about a civil war in Iraq. Our very own civil war started about 142 years ago or.... "over a hundred years ago". But I suppose there are still those were who were denied the Public Education System and just learned school yard etiquette. Too bad.

Can you get me some fries to go with that Mac?

Exactly what parallels do you draw between our civil war and the civil war that will erupt in iraq if we leave that you believe are so obvious that everyone should see them?

[top gun]

Hard Driver;21811]I
So back to the original question... What would happen if we withdraw in an orderly manner over the next year?

That's the problem with limited choices in a poll... all you can do is guess which one is "close" to what you really think. I personally think a combination of things will happen.

There are a couple things we need to accept up front. When we leave some Iraqis will die... but that's the same if we stay. Iraqis are dieing now, the only real difference is our guys are sometimes dieing with them.

There is a certain amount of inevitability that some just refuse to see because they're all caught up with this "win" thing... whatever that means. Because it's never going to mean Iraq is a little America in the Middle east... ain't gonna ever happen!

We've been an occupying force in Iraq for too long now. Actually should have never went in...

But what we should tell them now is this. We are starting an orderly redeployment over the next year or so and either the current government consolidates its authority or it doesn't. It's their country. If they want to kill each other or split it up rather than accept a centralized government they'll at some point have to learn by their own mistakes. The US enabling them is like a friend buying an alcoholic a drink... it only continues the real problem and puts off recovery.

What we're doing now would be like if France had came over to the United States during the lynching of blacks in our Civil Rights struggle and said... We're here to straighten you guys out and do things the civilized French way.:confused:

[BigRob]

Thank you. :D
You are far too full of yourself to offer any credibility. And telling me how smart you are when providing me with evidence to the contrary is, quite frankly, pointless. Perhaps you are a PhD, but in your case it is Piled Higher & Deeper.

Now back to the topic-

I do not believe that any other country will invade Iraq. They will try to influence Iraq, but that is the same thing America is trying to do. I consider Iraq an opportunity to build better relationships in the ME, but not by fanning the flames of a secular struggle that has been going on for centuries. It's high time the people of Iraq stepped up to the plate and if they need help, we should offer anything we can. There is no such thing as democracy at the point of a gun.

Im gonna assume comprehension is not your forte. I never once spoke of any country "invading" until after you brought it up, I said right from the get go that all of these countries would simply try to exert influence and fill the power void. So put words in my mouth all day long, but it does not make them true.

[Castle]

That's the problem with limited choices in a poll... all you can do is guess which one is "close" to what you really think. I personally think a combination of things will happen.

There are a couple things we need to accept up front. When we leave some Iraqis will die... but that's the same if we stay. Iraqis are dieing now, the only real difference is our guys are sometimes dieing with them.

There is a certain amount of inevitability that some just refuse to see because they're all caught up with this "win" thing... whatever that means. Because it's never going to mean Iraq is a little America in the Middle east... ain't gonna ever happen!

We've been an occupying force in Iraq for too long now. Actually should have never went in...

But what we should tell them now is this. We are starting an orderly redeployment over the next year or so and either the current government consolidates its authority or it doesn't. It's their country. If they want to kill each other or split it up rather than accept a centralized government they'll at some point have to learn by their own mistakes. The US enabling them is like a friend buying an alcoholic a drink... it only continues the real problem and puts off recovery.

What we're doing now would be like if France had came over to the United States during the lynching of blacks in our Civil Rights struggle and said... We're here to straighten you guys out and do things the civilized French way.:confused:

Crap!
I agree with 95% of this post. How can this be?

-Castle

[top gun]

Crap!
I agree with 95% of this post. How can this be?

-Castle

It's hard to say... but now I have to go back and look at it again myself... Crap! :D

[vyo476]

I hate to say "I told you so," but...

Turkey issues fresh warning of military incursion into Iraq

55 minutes ago

ANKARA (AFP) - Turkey on Tuesday threatened a military incursion in northern Iraq as part of stepped up measures against Kurdish rebel bases there following the deaths of 15 soldiers in weekend attacks.


The government said in a statement that it had given orders allowing for all legal, economic and political measures, "including a cross-border operation if necessary," against a "terrorist organisation in a neighbouring country".

The statement was taken to refer to the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) presence in Iraq.

Earlier, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan had met senior government and military officials to discuss tougher action against the PKK after the rebels killed 15 soldiers in weekend attacks. The group is listed as a terrorist group by Ankara and much of the international community.

Ankara says the PKK enjoys free movement in northern Iraq and obtains weapons and explosives there for attacks across the border.

It has also accused Iraqi Kurds of tolerating and even supporting the rebels.

The government has forwarded to parliament a proposal to authorise such a venture, the CNN-Turk television channel reported, adding that it was currently under consideration.

Spontaneous demonstrations were meanwhile held Wednesday across various Turkish cities in support of incursions.

The Turkish military has long sought authorisation to strike against PKK bases in northern Iraq but Ankara has held back pressure from the United States. Washington does not want its Iraqi Kurdish allies forced into confrontation with the Turkish army.

Turkey and Iraq signed an accord last month to combat the PKK but failed to agree on a clause allowing Turkish troops to engage in "hot pursuit" against rebels fleeing into Iraqi territory, as they did regularly in the 1990s.

Washington meanwhile immediately issued a warning to Ankara.

"I am not sure that unilateral incursions are the way to go, the way to resolve the issue," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in Washington.

"We have counseled them both in public and private for many, many months (on) the idea that it is important to work cooperatively to resolve this issue," McCormack added.

Many observers here doubt whether the embattled Baghdad government, which has virtually no authority in northern Iraq, can cajole the Iraqi Kurds into action against the PKK.

The group's 23-year armed campaign for self-rule in southeast Turkey has left more than 37,000 dead.

A PKK ambush on Saturday killed 13 soldiers in southeast Sirnak province bordering Iraq, the worst losses the army has suffered against the rebels since 1995.

Another soldier was killed in a clash with the rebels Saturday and one early Monday in a remote-controlled landmine explosion.

The attacks followed the killing of 12 people, mostly civilians but including anti-PKK Kurdish "Village Guard" militia, in an ambush on a minibus in Sirnak on September 29.

Tuesday's government statement said rising PKK violence was due to a series of economic, social and political measures that had improved the living conditions of the country's sizeable Kurdish community, leading the PKK "to lose popular support" in the southeast.

Under European Union pressure, Turkey has in recent years broadened Kurdish cultural freedoms and lifted emergency rule in the southeast of the country.

The July 22 parliamentary elections saw Erdogan's Justice and Development Party considerably increase its support in the region at the expense of the country's main Kurdish political movement, the Democratic Society Party.



In other words, the Turks are ready to land with both feet on the Kurds in Iraq. So much for believing that no other country will invade Iraq.

[BigRob]

I hate to say "I told you so," but...

Turkey issues fresh warning of military incursion into Iraq

55 minutes ago

ANKARA (AFP) - Turkey on Tuesday threatened a military incursion in northern Iraq as part of stepped up measures against Kurdish rebel bases there following the deaths of 15 soldiers in weekend attacks.


The government said in a statement that it had given orders allowing for all legal, economic and political measures, "including a cross-border operation if necessary," against a "terrorist organisation in a neighbouring country".

The statement was taken to refer to the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) presence in Iraq.

Earlier, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan had met senior government and military officials to discuss tougher action against the PKK after the rebels killed 15 soldiers in weekend attacks. The group is listed as a terrorist group by Ankara and much of the international community.

Ankara says the PKK enjoys free movement in northern Iraq and obtains weapons and explosives there for attacks across the border.

It has also accused Iraqi Kurds of tolerating and even supporting the rebels.

The government has forwarded to parliament a proposal to authorise such a venture, the CNN-Turk television channel reported, adding that it was currently under consideration.

Spontaneous demonstrations were meanwhile held Wednesday across various Turkish cities in support of incursions.

The Turkish military has long sought authorisation to strike against PKK bases in northern Iraq but Ankara has held back pressure from the United States. Washington does not want its Iraqi Kurdish allies forced into confrontation with the Turkish army.

Turkey and Iraq signed an accord last month to combat the PKK but failed to agree on a clause allowing Turkish troops to engage in "hot pursuit" against rebels fleeing into Iraqi territory, as they did regularly in the 1990s.

Washington meanwhile immediately issued a warning to Ankara.

"I am not sure that unilateral incursions are the way to go, the way to resolve the issue," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in Washington.

"We have counseled them both in public and private for many, many months (on) the idea that it is important to work cooperatively to resolve this issue," McCormack added.

Many observers here doubt whether the embattled Baghdad government, which has virtually no authority in northern Iraq, can cajole the Iraqi Kurds into action against the PKK.

The group's 23-year armed campaign for self-rule in southeast Turkey has left more than 37,000 dead.

A PKK ambush on Saturday killed 13 soldiers in southeast Sirnak province bordering Iraq, the worst losses the army has suffered against the rebels since 1995.

Another soldier was killed in a clash with the rebels Saturday and one early Monday in a remote-controlled landmine explosion.

The attacks followed the killing of 12 people, mostly civilians but including anti-PKK Kurdish "Village Guard" militia, in an ambush on a minibus in Sirnak on September 29.

Tuesday's government statement said rising PKK violence was due to a series of economic, social and political measures that had improved the living conditions of the country's sizeable Kurdish community, leading the PKK "to lose popular support" in the southeast.

Under European Union pressure, Turkey has in recent years broadened Kurdish cultural freedoms and lifted emergency rule in the southeast of the country.

The July 22 parliamentary elections saw Erdogan's Justice and Development Party considerably increase its support in the region at the expense of the country's main Kurdish political movement, the Democratic Society Party.



In other words, the Turks are ready to land with both feet on the Kurds in Iraq. So much for believing that no other country will invade Iraq.

Ill say it then, I told you so! :D

[vyo476]

Okay, so this is becoming less amusing by the second...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071015/ts_nm/turkey_iraq_dc

What happens if Turkey crosses the border? Or do you suppose this is just them flipping us off over the Armenian Genocide resolution?

[Bunz]

Okay, so this is becoming less amusing by the second...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071015/ts_nm/turkey_iraq_dc

What happens if Turkey crosses the border? Or do you suppose this is just them flipping us off over the Armenian Genocide resolution?

I have been paying attention to this for a few days now and started a thread that nobody seems to have replied in yet...regardless. This is very concerning to me. There are two major potentials. The Turks having cross border raids, and also ejecting or at least suspending use of Incirlik. Incirlik is a very critical supply base for US operations in Iraq. Despite me not approving of this war. We need Incirlik.
Also, the Armenian Genocide resolution is not something that is wise to be taken up at this point. It is nothing but provacative and generally useless. It is non-binding, and targets something that happened nearly 100 years ago, and under a totally different government. Armenian Genocide whether you agree with that it was or not, was done under the Ottoman Empire. Not the Turkish democracy. Of the people the participated, none of them are alive today and there is no recourse against them as individuals or as a government body. There are much more important items to be addressed in my opinion. This appears to be a largely democratic effort and they are doing nothing but shooting themselves in the foot.

[PoliticalGrrrl]

What would happen if the US created a 1 year timeline for the withdrawl of our troops from policing Iraq. Leaving maybe 10,000 - 20,000 just to secure the embassy, fight international foreign terrorists in special missions and assist the Iraqi government with training and intelligence?

I would vote for the following:

Al Qeada would take over creating a terrorist state
A Bloody civil war would errupt until a powerful government emerged that squashed all other factions
A Civil war would spread leading to massive regional war between Sunnia and Shiite states

Basically, everything that is happening now. Horrible thing is, we're damned if we do, damned if we don't.

There is a light at the end of the tunnel.... bad thing is.....it's a train.

[vyo476]

This time I really will say "I told you so."

Turkey launches ground operation in Iraq

By CHRISTOPHER TORCHIA

ISTANBUL, Turkey - Turkish troops launched a ground incursion across the border into Iraq in pursuit of separatist Kurdish rebels, the military said Friday — a move that dramatically escalates Turkey's conflict with the militants.

It is the first confirmed ground operation by the Turkish military into Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein. It also raised concerns that it could trigger a wider conflict with the U.S.-backed Iraqi Kurds, despite Turkey's assurances that its only target was the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK.

The ground operation started after Turkish warplanes and artillery bombed suspected rebel targets on Thursday, the military said on its Web site. The incursion was backed by the Air Force, the statement said.

Turkey has conducted air raids against the PKK guerrillas in northern Iraq since December, with the help of U.S. intelligence, and it has periodically carried out so-called "hot pursuits" in which small units sometimes spend only a few hours inside Iraq.

The announcement of a cross-border, ground incursion of a type that Turkey carried out before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a major development in its conflict with the Kurdish rebels, which started in 1984 and has claimed as many as 40,000 lives.

Turkey staged about two-dozen incursions in Iraq during the rule of Saddam, who launched brutal campaigns against the Kurdish population. Some Turkish offensives involved tens of thousands of troops. Results were mixed, with rebels suffering blows to their ranks and supplies but regrouping after the bulk of the Turkish forces had left.

PKK spokesman Ahmad Danas said two Turkish troops were killed and eight wounded in clashes along the 240-mile border, but there was no comment from the Turkish military and no way to independently confirm the claim.

The Kurdish militants are fighting for autonomy in Turkey's predominantly Kurdish southeast, and have carried out attacks on Turkish targets from bases in northern Iraq. The U.S. and the European Union consider the PKK a terrorist organization.

"The Turkish Armed Forces, which values Iraq's territorial integrity and its stability, will return as soon as planned goals are achieved," the military said. "The executed operation will prevent the region from being a permanent and safe base for the terrorists and will contribute to Iraq's stability and internal peace."

Private NTV television said 10,000 troops were taking part in the offensive and had penetrated six miles into Iraq, though some reports said that not all the troops had been deployed. The operation was reportedly concentrated in the Hakurk region, south of the Turkish border town of Cukurca.

The state-run Anatolia agency reported that warplanes were seen taking off from the air base in Diyarbakir in southeast Turkey. It said planes and helicopters were conducting reconnaissance flights over the border region, and that military units were deployed at the border to prevent rebel infiltration.

Dogan News Agency reported that the Habur border crossing, a major conduit for trade between Iraq and Turkey, was closed to vehicle traffic.

CNN-Turk television, however, quoted Deputy Prime Minister Hayati Yazici as saying the border gate was not closed but that priority was being given to Turkish military vehicles. Trucks routinely ferry supplies bound for U.S. military bases in Iraq through the Habur crossing.

Rear Adm. Gregory Smith, a U.S. spokesman in Iraq, said the military had received assurances from its NATO ally Turkey that it would do everything possible to avoid "collateral damage" to innocent civilians or infrastructure.

"Multi-National Forces-Iraq is aware Turkish ground forces have entered into northern Iraq, for what we understand is an operation of limited duration to specifically target PKK terrorists in that region," Smith said in a statement.

"The United States continues to support Turkey's right to defend itself from the terrorist activities of the PKK and has encouraged Turkey to use all available means, to include diplomacy and close coordination with the Government of Iraq to ultimately resolve this issue," he added.

Matthew Bryza, U.S. deputy assistant secretary for southeastern Europe, cited the importance of a Nov. 5 meeting in which President Bush promised Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan that Washington would share intelligence on the PKK.

"The land operation is a whole new level," Bryza said in Belgium. "What I can say is that what we've been doing until now has been working quite well."

The European Commission appealed to Turkey to act with restraint.

"Turkey should refrain from taking any disproportionate military action and respect human rights and the rule of law," said Commission spokeswoman Krisztina Nagy.

"The EU understands Turkey's need to protect its population from terrorism," she said. "We encourage Turkey to continue to pursue dialogue with international partners."

Turkish President Abdullah Gul spoke with his Iraqi counterpart Jalal Talabani late Thursday and gave him information about the goals of the operation, Gul's office said. Gul also invited Talabani to visit Turkey.

The military said its target was PKK rebels and that it does not want to harm civilians "and other local groups that do not act in enmity against the Turkish Armed Forces."

Nihat Ali Ozcan, a terrorism expert with the research center TEPAV, said the operation was likely launched to hit the group before the traditional start of the fighting season in the spring.

"I think it is aimed to keep the PKK under pressure before the group starts entering Turkey," he said on CNN-Turk television.

Iraqi border forces officer Col. Hussein Tamer said Turkish shelling on Thursday hit several Kurdish villages in the Sedafan area, some 20 miles from the border.

Jabbar Yawar, a spokesman for Iraqi Kurdish security forces, said sporadic bombing had taken place in the border areas, but no casualties were reported.

Fouad Hussein, a spokesman for the semiautonomous Kurdish government in Iraq, said the Kurdish Peshmerga forces had been put on alert.

He said Iraqi Kurdish forces also had tightened security around bases housing Turkish military monitors operating in northern Iraq with permission from local authorities under a 1996 agreement.

"The government of Kurdistan ordered the Peshmerga forces to be on alert in fear of any Turkish incursion on Iraqi territory," he said, claiming that Turkish military monitors had tried to leave their bases in violation of the accord.

"Those troops tried to move out, but the Peshmerga forces forced them to return to their camps within half an hour," he said.

Turkish media reports said Friday that a total of 1,200 Turkish monitors in four camps in Iraq were helping to coordinate the ground offensive.



So yeah...I told you so. And we didn't even have to leave for this to happen.

[heyjude]

We desparately need someone in the WH who reads something besides the sports page. Someone who has an interest in the history of the world and some knowledge of what got us where we are. This is an clear indication that on the job training doesn't work very well, but at least an interest in the history would have helped.

[Dr House]

I have no idea. All I know is that it's not our responsibility. We have no business getting in the way of a civil war, it's not our fight.

-Dr House :cool: