What are the Dems up to threatening Turkey?

[Battleborne]

LOL.............

Because it's a way to demonize democrats and SF will buy into anything if it allows him to do that.

It's his only interest actually. He uses "the troops" as his own cover, much like you correctly explain Turkey is doing in this post.

Well stated by the way.

and this diatribe from Ms.Code Pink who protests all wars using the cover of the troops as a talking point...the poor troops suffering 4 tours of duty all the mayhem etc...while all along the troops in theater even rebuffed Senator Kerry's visit!...Go figure! Get a life darla...the US troops in WWII spent on average some 2+years in country without a ticket home!


and by the way the troops of today spit on you akin to those who spit on Jane(Hanoi)Fonda!

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

First, the side note: I'm not suggesting that we support a Kurdistan, I'm telling you that we are currently supporting Kurdistan. Not a separate autonomous state mind you, but a semi-autonomous region in Iraq where things are actually going quite well with the exception of the Turkish problem.

Second, the Turkish threat doesn't mean nothing, but let's be clear about the real reasons for the incursion authorization. It has nothing to do with the resolution. Zero. Zilch.

Third, the Turks would have escalated with the Kurds regardless if they felt it was in their national interest. You seem to think that they have set aside the good of Turkey but this resolution has caused them to put their national interest back at the forefront. Not likely. This just gives them some cover. If the resolution never existed we would have ended up at this point sooner or later. The resolution merely gave them cover, cover that you seem to agree with and appear to be buying into wholeheartedly in your effort to criticize the Democrats. Cover doesn't work when people call you on it. Why do you insist on buying into it?

First....thanks for clarifying.... I appreciate it.

Second .... I will address your above three....

1) You stated that it was more likely support for "kurdistan" than the resolution that has caused this to pass in Turkey. While it is true that we have protected the Kurds in northern Iraq since the first Gulf War, we have been very clear all along that we would not support an independant state and Turkey knows this. So that is not likely to be the reason behind Turkeys vote.

2) They SPECIFICALLY stated that if the resolution were to pass that there would be consequences. The resolution passed, then this happened. To suggest there is no causual relationship is to be deliberately obtuse. That said, no one is saying it is the sole reason for Turkey wanting to go in. But it was the final straw that seems to have put their desire to deal with the Kurds in motion. Keep in mind, they are NATO allies and they were trying to be diplomatic and "ignore" the Kurds raids into Turkey for the sake of being "good" allies. Then this resolution comes up and they tell us they see it as an insult and that there would be consequences if it passes. I think one would have to be blind, deaf and dumb not to see the causual relationship here.

3) I agree that it is "cover" to do what they have wanted to do. As I stated previously, the resolution was the "excuse" they were looking for and our politicians handed it to them on a silver platter. I do agree that they may have eventually gone in with or without the resolution, but the resolution in my opinion seems to have escalated such a response.

 

[Bonestorm]

My god you just want to defend your precious political party any way you can, but you are denying everything I am saying like its not the truth!

Why the hell would they pass this resolution, despite this shit with the Kurds going on for decades, within a week after this? Because we have been preventing them from doing it since a bunch of idiots wanted to attack Iraq, and we are slapping them in the face, so they turn right around and say 'Fuck you' right back.

That second sentence is completely incomprehensible. Try again. Short declarative sentences are your friend.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Because it's a way to demonize democrats and SF will buy into anything if it allows him to do that.

It's his only interest actually. He uses "the troops" as his own cover, much like you correctly explain Turkey is doing in this post.

Well stated by the way.

and here I thought you were going to run away from this thread. Yet you come back and post more meaningless crap. I do not "hide behind the troops" you disingenous idiot. Nor do I actively look for ways to "demonize" dems. Take a look at threads that try to demonize either Reps or Dems. Which are there more of Darla???? Now tell me who has the fetish with the attempt to demonize.

But please, continue posting your idiotic crap.... it is quite amusing.

 

[Cypress]

Ok...

Turkey will cooperate with us in Northern Iraq (2003)
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/state/state-powellgul-040203.htm

They cooperate all the way until when? Right now...

"Turkey Authorizes Troops to Enter Iraq to Fight Rebels"
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/w...a010f54b1&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

This has nothing to do with demonstrating causality.

BTW: The Turks announced they were going to seek a vote from parliament authorizing military action BEFORE the house panel even voted on the proposed genocide resolution.


http://news.sg.msn.com/topstories/article.aspx?cp-documentid=672443


The House Panel vote was on wednesday evening Washington time. The turks announced their plans, prior to that vote.

 

[DigitalDave]

"What was preventing an operation was the fear that Turkey-U.S. relations might reach a new low, and concerns not to harm relations any further," said Ihsan Dagi in the international relations department of Middle East Technical University in Ankara.

"However, if the Armenian genocide resolution passes, that will be the moment when relations between Turkey and the United States collapse."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071009/ap_on_re_mi_ea/turkey_us_genocide

 

[Cancel7]

and here I thought you were going to run away from this thread. Yet you come back and post more meaningless crap. I do not "hide behind the troops" you disingenous idiot. Nor do I actively look for ways to "demonize" dems. Take a look at threads that try to demonize either Reps or Dems. Which are there more of Darla???? Now tell me who has the fetish with the attempt to demonize.

But please, continue posting your idiotic crap.... it is quite amusing.

You and Damo lied about what I said, and are so lacking in manhood that you both did anything you could, twisting and turning, to avoid admitting it.

What more do you want me to say? I'm sure in the circle jerk you and he inhabit "running away" means something, but to me, not bothering to answer the false accusations of a couple of liars, isn't running away...it's a matter of "why bother"?

And to top it off, after lying about me, you call me names.

I can call you names, but if I did I'd blow any name you can call me out of the water, and what would be the point of that? So I can look as stupid as you do?

Nah.

 

[Damocles]

This has nothing to do with demonstrating causality.

BTW: The Turks announced they were going to seek a vote from parliament authorizing military action BEFORE the house panel even voted on the proposed genocide resolution.


http://news.sg.msn.com/topstories/article.aspx?cp-documentid=672443


The House Panel vote was on wednesday evening Washington time. The turks announced their plans, prior to that vote.

That was escalation after the warnings of consequences. It was one of the ways that they clearly told us what would happen if the vote passed. I stated that they 'practically shouted' what they were going to do. Thank you for adding supporting documentation.

 

[DigitalDave]

This has nothing to do with demonstrating causality.

BTW: The Turks announced they were going to seek a vote from parliament authorizing military action BEFORE the house panel even voted on the proposed genocide resolution.


http://news.sg.msn.com/topstories/article.aspx?cp-documentid=672443


The House Panel vote was on wednesday evening Washington time. The turks announced their plans, prior to that vote.

Yes but the Turks knew about it before it came up, that is was coming up. Hence the warnings beforehand.

 

[Cancel7]

"What was preventing an operation was the fear that Turkey-U.S. relations might reach a new low, and concerns not to harm relations any further," said Ihsan Dagi in the international relations department of Middle East Technical University in Ankara.

"However, if the Armenian genocide resolution passes, that will be the moment when relations between Turkey and the United States collapse."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071009/ap_on_re_mi_ea/turkey_us_genocide

The resolution didn't pass Congress. It was voted out of committee and onto the floor for a full vote.

Don't let SF get you confused. He has no idea what he is talking about.

The idea that Turkey passed that resolution in response to this, is kind of silly. They have a right to protect their own citizens, which we have proved we are unable to do.

If this were Israel, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. And SF and Damo would be wearing their Israel cheerleading outfits while the bombs fell.

I don't think Turkey should go into Iraq, but I think they have the right to go into Iraq, and if they do go in, it won't have anything to do with this.

 

[Cypress]

Yes but the Turks knew about it before it came up, that is was coming up. Hence the warnings beforehand.

LOL


O-tay!

 

[DigitalDave]

The resolution didn't pass anything. It was voted out of committee and onto the floor for a full vote.

Don't let SF get you confused. He has no idea what he is talking about.

The idea that Turkey passed that resolution in response to this, is kind of silly. They have a right to protect their own citizens, which we have proved we are unable to do.

If this were Israel, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. And SF and Damo would be wearing their Israel cheerleading outfits while the bombs fell.

I don't think Turkey should go into Iraq, but I think they have the right to go into Iraq, and if they do go in, it won't have anything to do with this.

I am not listening to SF, I am listening to a professor of International Relations. I've already corrected Damo that this wasn't voted in the House yet and it was just a committee vote.

 

[Bonestorm]

First....thanks for clarifying.... I appreciate it.

Second .... I will address your above three....

1) You stated that it was more likely support for "kurdistan" than the resolution that has caused this to pass in Turkey. While it is true that we have protected the Kurds in northern Iraq since the first Gulf War, we have been very clear all along that we would not support an independant state and Turkey knows this. So that is not likely to be the reason behind Turkeys vote.

2) They SPECIFICALLY stated that if the resolution were to pass that there would be consequences. The resolution passed, then this happened. To suggest there is no causual relationship is to be deliberately obtuse. That said, no one is saying it is the sole reason for Turkey wanting to go in. But it was the final straw that seems to have put their desire to deal with the Kurds in motion. Keep in mind, they are NATO allies and they were trying to be diplomatic and "ignore" the Kurds raids into Turkey for the sake of being "good" allies. Then this resolution comes up and they tell us they see it as an insult and that there would be consequences if it passes. I think one would have to be blind, deaf and dumb not to see the causual relationship here.

3) I agree that it is "cover" to do what they have wanted to do. As I stated previously, the resolution was the "excuse" they were looking for and our politicians handed it to them on a silver platter. I do agree that they may have eventually gone in with or without the resolution, but the resolution in my opinion seems to have escalated such a response.

1) Kurdistan isn't the main issue. The main issue is that the PKK is operating out of Northern Iraq against targets in Turkey and we are doing absolutely nothing about it even though the PKK is a terrorist organization. That is the main reason for the authorization, to take out the PKK since no one else will, specifically, the US.

2) I say that the resolution did not cause the authorization in that the resolution was not the driving force behind it. There are myriad other reasons why the authorization was passed, they were the cause. At best, the resolution caused the timing of the authorization.

As an aside, to say that the Turks have been ignoring the Kurdish raids is wrong. There have been active hostilities between Turks and Kurds along the border in both Turkey and Iraq for quite a while now. Indeed, just a few weeks ago Turkey authorized "hot pursuits" into Iraqi territory to pursue Kurdish rebels, well before the resolution became an issue.

(By the way, the resolution has not passed either house of Congress).

3) Fair enough, but emphasizing the Turkish point of view simply lets them off the hook. I think a fair assessment of the situation is that Turkey would have done this anyway and they are using an ill-timed resolution as cover for their actions.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You and Damo lied about what I said, and are so lacking in manhood that you both did anything you could, twisting and turning, to avoid admitting it.

What more do you want me to say? I'm sure in the circle jerk you and he inhabit "running away" means something, but to me, not bothering to answer the false accusations of a couple of liars, isn't running away...it's a matter of "why bother"?

And to top it off, after lying about me, you call me names.

I can call you names, but if I did I'd blow any name you can call me out of the water, and what would be the point of that? So I can look as stupid as you do?

Nah.

Right darla... you are so full of shit today I am just going to call you Cypress2.1.

take a look back at the thread.... look who started the personal attacks. There was no false accusation. You clearly stated that you did not care about the Dems voting on or passing the resolution. You did not clarify that you would change your position when we suggested that in passing that resolution... the troops would likely be put in greater danger. Or do you now, after the events unfolded just as the Turks TOLD US they would... do you change your position?

That resolution passing led to the liklihood of an escalation between Turks and Kurds. Whether you believe the war was a mistake or not, whether you believe the troops should still be there or not..... DOES THIS put our troops in greater danger?

If your answer is "yes, it does" then do you change your position on whether or not you care about the resolution being passed????????

 

[Cancel7]

I am not listening to SF, I am listening to a professor of International Relations. I've already corrected Damo that this wasn't voted in the House yet and it was just a committee vote.

And from what I've read today, it probably will no longer pass the house.

Both REPUBLICAN AND Democratic supporters, are backing off out of fear of Turkey.

So when Turkey does invade, no doubt it will be because 25 Congresspeople "thumbed their nose at Turkey" with a committee vote.

 

[Cypress]

The resolution didn't pass Congress. It was voted out of committee and onto the floor for a full vote.

Don't let SF get you confused. He has no idea what he is talking about.

The idea that Turkey passed that resolution in response to this, is kind of silly. They have a right to protect their own citizens, which we have proved we are unable to do.

If this were Israel, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. And SF and Damo would be wearing their Israel cheerleading outfits while the bombs fell.

I don't think Turkey should go into Iraq, but I think they have the right to go into Iraq, and if they do go in, it won't have anything to do with this.

More turks have been killed by PKK than israelis by hamas. Damned straight bush voters would be cheering for the bombs to drop, if this was Israel versus lebanon.

This is stupid. Turks expect their government to protect them. They're no different than us. The domestic pressure for turkey to do something about PKK goes way above and beyond whatever Nancy pelosi is doing.

I for one, hope that whatever they do (if anything) is limited and proportional: unlike the israeli reaction to hamas in lebanon.

 

[Battleborne]

Right...............!

The resolution didn't pass Congress. It was voted out of committee and onto the floor for a full vote.

Don't let SF get you confused. He has no idea what he is talking about.

The idea that Turkey passed that resolution in response to this, is kind of silly. They have a right to protect their own citizens, which we have proved we are unable to do.

If this were Israel, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. And SF and Damo would be wearing their Israel cheerleading outfits while the bombs fell.

I don't think Turkey should go into Iraq, but I think they have the right to go into Iraq, and if they do go in, it won't have anything to do with this.

KGB ho...thats what Jane said after thousands of US troops took casualities after the TET offensive...her visit was so productive...but alas to the wrong side! I am sure your buddy Putin is having a field day in Iran about now...thanks to your ilk!

 

[Cancel7]

Right darla... you are so full of shit today I am just going to call you Cypress2.1.

take a look back at the thread.... look who started the personal attacks. There was no false accusation. You clearly stated that you did not care about the Dems voting on or passing the resolution. You did not clarify that you would change your position when we suggested that in passing that resolution... the troops would likely be put in greater danger. Or do you now, after the events unfolded just as the Turks TOLD US they would... do you change your position?

That resolution passing led to the liklihood of an escalation between Turks and Kurds. Whether you believe the war was a mistake or not, whether you believe the troops should still be there or not..... DOES THIS put our troops in greater danger?

If your answer is "yes, it does" then do you change your position on whether or not you care about the resolution being passed????????

Why on earth would I change my position over something you and Damo "suggested" that I clearly stated I did not agree would even happen?

Are you crazy?

Are you this enamoured of your stupid opinions that you would open your fat mouth and think that I should then change my opinion because of something you uttered?

Who the fuck do you think you are? And what does any of that have to do with the fact that I NEVER SAID I DIDN'T CARE HOW THIS EFFECTED THE TROOPS, WHICH IS THE LIE DAMO TOLD AND YOU SECONDED.

You fucking idiot.

I started the insults? Because I pointed out that you're a liar?

You are a liar.

 

[Cancel7]

More turks have been killed by PKK than israelis by hamas. Damned straight bush voters would be cheering for the bombs to drop, if this was Israel versus lebanon.

This is stupid. Turks expect their government to protect them. They're no different than us. The domestic pressure for turkey to do something about PKK goes way above and beyond whatever Nancy pelosi is doing.

I for one, hope that whatever they do (if anything) is limited and proportional: unlike the israeli reaction to hamas in lebanon.

You think this is stupid?

I CHANGE MY OPINION.

A MAN HAS SPOKEN.

 

[Cancel7]

Yes but the Turks knew about it before it came up, that is was coming up. Hence the warnings beforehand.

You know what, forget everything I said.

You're right. I change my opinion

A man has spoken.

Unless, SF disagrees withyou, then I will have to "change my opinion" again, because he is the chief dick around here.

But for now, unless I here differently from the chief, I agree with you Dave.