IRAQ vs USA/UK

[Will]

This is probably a slight aside, but whats the grudge between Turkey and the Kurds?

 

[old.D0LLySh33p]

Turkey don't want the kurd's getting an independent state because then the kurds in Turkey may push for their own land... then Turkey will be generally fucked and go the way of the USSR.

In a very small and generalised nuthshell!

 

[old.D0LLySh33p]

Nuthshell - d0lly's bad version of a nutshell.

rah!

 

[Tom]

Turkey sees northern Iraq as its own land (part of the Ottoman Empire), and would like it back. It's the easy option, because no way are the Serbs gonna let them have their land back.

I would suggest that 'The Kurds' are his people, they live within his borders, and you could hardly justify Tony Blair gassing a few thousand Welshmen because they 'weren't his people'.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by Nos-
ehahahehaha??//

After that bollocks Tom, nothing you say can be taken seriously, ever again.

Ever :/

Only in your opinion, which I hardly rate, because you haven't contributed anything worthwhile to this thread.

 

[Perplex]

Kurds were owned by the Ottoman empire for centuries, Ottoman empire disolved after WW1 and the Kurds were promised their state back.

England (and France) decided they were too violent, and cut their Kuristan and gave it to the Turks, Syria and Iraq. (Second time the fantastic UK have done that - hey, Palestine anyone?)

The Kurds want Kurdistan reunited and theirs again - the Turks, Syrians, and Iraqies don't want to give the land back.

Again, blame England

 

[Perplex]

Originally posted by Tom[SHOTTEH]
Turkey sees northern Iraq as its own land (part of the Ottoman Empire), and would like it back. It's the easy option, because no way are the Serbs gonna let them have their land back.

Wrong. They all got a slice of former Kurdistan after the UK cut the land up and handed it to Turkey, Syria, and Iraq

Originally posted by Tom[SHOTTEH]
I would suggest that 'The Kurds' are his people, they live within his borders, and you could hardly justify Tony Blair gassing a few thousand Welshmen because they 'weren't his people'.

Wrong - I'm pretty fucking sure you don't classify asylum seekers as, 'your own people'

//Edit: Granted Turkey would like some of the parts Iraq got, as they are very oil rich and they use the 'we used to own it all in the Ottoman Empire days anyway...' line, but it doesn't substantiate shit

 

[Will]

Thanks Perp, I was wondering what was going on with that.

 

[dysfunction]

Originally posted by Perplex
England (and France) decided they were too violent, and cut their Kuristan and gave it to the Turks, Syria and Iraq. (Second time the fantastic UK have done that - hey, Palestine anyone?)

Not quite the second time. They have screwed up quite a few countries that way...mostly in Africa

 

[Perplex]

Originally posted by dysfunction
Not quite the second time. They have screwed up quite a few countries that way...mostly in Africa

Hence you can directly attribute many of the African, and Middle East problems to England. Nice!

 

[Munkey-]

Whilst I agree that Saddam should be removed, I believe that the motives behind the war are suspect. Conflict and dictatorships have been inplace throughout the world much longer than Saddam has and the effects have been much worse than his actions. For example, certain African states have been in an almost perpetual state of civil war with massacres, war atrocities and the such. Then theres Isreal who posses weapons of mass destruction.

And then theres Turkey, who've killed far more Kurds than Saddam has, who are preparing to move into Northern Iraq to "supress" any bid of freedom or indepdance from the Kurdish people.

In a conversation with an American Officer where I asked him the causes for the war he stated "he has weapons of mass destruction". In a reply to where these supposed WoMD might be he said.......North Korea. Now mightn't this be an enourmos(sp) oversight if the very country you're invading doesnt have these weapons and that a "red" country with nuclear armaments and chemical and biological weapons has them instead. Either that or the mental intelligence present within the American army has fallen dramatically.

Already Afghanistan is beginning to lapse back into its old ways as the international media sweeps to its latest carcass which gives me serious doubts to the future of Iraq after the, I'm sorry to say, inevitable conquest. We've seen how America's efforts to free countries has so far proceeded, needing only to look at South America and Iraq for this. People say that this topic will be given to the UN to debate upon.

We've all seen how effective the UN are and, with the US and UK having already defied the UN's general wishes, will they be willing to follow them again. The recent summit of the Arab nations has shown almost unanimous resent against the US for this war, with Kuwait being the only one for the war. Presumably the topic of Palestine has been brought up again, another area within which the Arab nations can unanimously agree upon.

I can only say that it is a sad state of affairs if a regime is one of the only nations to show their support for the Palestinian cause and to have actually acted upon it, so far as to bomb Isreal.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by Perplex
Hence you can directly attribute many of the African, and Middle East problems to England. Nice!

Gosh! What bullshit. You might as well go back 1500 years and start blaming the Italians for all of the problems in Europe.

In my opinion, the British Empire (not the English Empire) did more good than harm, it actually left good systems of government in each colony it had, it was the people who came after that fucked it all up.

 

[Perplex]

Originally posted by Tom[SHOTTEH]
Gosh! What bullshit. You might as well go back 1500 years and start blaming the Italians for all of the problems in Europe.

In my opinion, the British Empire (not the English Empire) did more good than harm, it actually left good systems of government in each colony it had, it was the people who came after that fucked it all up.

Have you ever heard of the term Divide and Rule? The British Empire pretty much invented this. Invade an area, cut it up into smaller pieces, get them to fight amongst each other which distracts their aggression from you, giving you easy access to plunder and rule

 

[Munkey-]

Originally posted by Tom[SHOTTEH]
Gosh! What bullshit. You might as well go back 1500 years and start blaming the Italians for all of the problems in Europe.

In my opinion, the British Empire (not the English Empire) did more good than harm, it actually left good systems of government in each colony it had, it was the people who came after that fucked it all up.

did more good? Have you seen what they have done for Qatar??

The old Emiri wanted to setup schools, hospitals and the such to help advance the country from its backwards standard of living. They requested the help of the British in implementing this system, help that was never forthcoming. Thus effectivley holding back this country until it was handed back.

I still have serious doubts to if Britain would've handed back Qatar if they had known at the time of the oil and gas deposits here.

 

[Tom]

Well I still think that The Empire was a good thing, nobody doubts that the Roman Empire was anything but a good thing to happen.

I'm quite prepared to accept that I could be wrong about the history of the region, I'm more interested in British history tbh, but quick web searches have revealed that the Turks did indeed control large areas of Iraq. Britain, France, and the United States carved up most of the Ottoman Empire, and formed what we call the modern Turkish state.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by Munkey-
I still have serious doubts to if Britain would've handed back Qatar if they had known at the time of the oil and gas deposits here.

Of course Saudi Arabia, a country rich in Oil deposits, is a well governed, corruption-free country, with a happy populace.

heh

 

[Perplex]

Originally posted by Tom[SHOTTEH]
Of course Saudi Arabia, a country rich in Oil deposits, is a well governed, corruption-free country, with a happy populace.

heh

Errrrrr, Saudi Arabia doesn't have a government you mong. It's goverened by their Royal Family (of which are VERY corrupt)

And as for your so-called 'happy populace' - women have little rights, aren't allowed to drive cars etc.

Seriously, wake up please.

 

[dysfunction]

Originally posted by Tom[SHOTTEH]
In my opinion, the British Empire (not the English Empire) did more good than harm, it actually left good systems of government in each colony it had, it was the people who came after that fucked it all up.

Thats not true at all!!

The colonialism that Great Britain started practically raped countries of all their resources...and left their economies reliant only only one type of product/service for export...

I wouldnt call that very helpful...

 

[adams901]

heh, don't ya just love the americans.....

During combat air operations...Monday a U.S. F-16 fighter engaged a U.S. Patriot battery approximately 30 miles south of An Najaf, The F-16 pilot executed the strike against the Patriot while en route to a mission near Baghdad.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....0G21YUCRBAELCFEY?type=topNews&storyID=2445549

 

[xane]

You missed that little smiley out Tom.

 

[Munkey-]

There seem to be an awful lot of friendly fire incidents within a week.

 

[Tom]

Some people just don't get irony, do they?

 

[Munkey-]

Corruption exists within almost every government in the world in one form or another.

Perhaps the USA should invade Saudi Arabia for its breach in civil rights?

More than enough oil there

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Perplex
Have you ever heard of the term Divide and Rule? The British Empire pretty much invented this. Invade an area, cut it up into smaller pieces, get them to fight amongst each other which distracts their aggression from you, giving you easy access to plunder and rule

The first thing the Arab nations did after independence was set up an Arab League, around 1946 iirc, with rule one: don't fight each other (actually Article V in the declaration of the League).

Any explaination now why it still happens ?

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by Munkey-
Corruption exists within almost every government in the world in one form or another.

Perhaps the USA should invade Saudi Arabia for its breach in civil rights?

More than enough oil there

Hey, while we're at it, why doesn't Texas cecede (it has a constitutional right), then Bush can invade Texas!

Of course corruption exists in all governments, but at least in a democracy you can do something about it.

 

[dysfunction]

Originally posted by Tom[SHOTTEH]
Some people just don't get irony, do they?

irony or sarcasm?

 

[Munkey-]

hopefully, in Tom's world, the USA's government will moralise itself

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by dysfunction
irony or sarcasm?

The initial post wasn't personal, therefore 'irony'

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by Munkey-
hopefully, in Tom's world, the USA's government will moralise itself

I think you'll find that most US states are fiercely moral, much more so than Europe.

 

[Munkey-]

and yet within America there still exists the constitutional right to bear weapons. Which adults then go teach kids with "unforseen" repurcussions