Here's a big I told you so from a thread in the archives: http://www.hipforums.com/viewarchive.php3?FID=90&TID=92898&year=2004 http://www.hipforums.com/viewarchive.php3?FID=90&TID=66769&year=2002 And here's the latest news: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7049348.stm So Turkey wants to protect it's interests in northern Iraq to stop the Kurds gaining their own homeland so that they don't threaten eastern Turkey. I wonder when Iran and Syria will pick off some pieces? It's been said before, I'll say it again, Bush has A LOT to answer for!!
I've always been skeptical of how rosey the Bush administration paints the situation in northern Iraq. I wonder how Bush will take foreign countries naming their own terrorist interests.
Fucking Bush. Always causing problems. Anyway, because I find many of your posts entertaining, I can't help but throw gas on the fire once in a while. And since I got into Google stock at the right time and believe that it has just about petered out, I might throw a couple more cookies out there for you in a last ditch effort to see another dollar in gain. I am not going to do all the work however. You will have to translate it. http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/dunya/7342735.asp?gid=180&sz=73051
so turkey wants to go to war with kurdish guerillas. if they send troops across the border, northern iraq will become a real warzone. syria may send in troops as well, claiming self defense. i believe the iraqi government will take the logical course of action and defend its land. now the US will have its long awaited causus belli with syria but with the side effect of also fighting turkey. iran will probably join the conflict as well and thus russia. congrats, ladies and gentlemen, we have world war III. if were lucky, the two major powers will keep nukes out of the mix. this seems logical since there is no incentive to use them. no government is going to initiate the destruction of the world just cause it's a sore loser (i fucking hope to god anyway) tens of millions of people die and america loses its position as superpower (the iranians have supersonic cruise missiles that could sink entire fleets of US ships. with the debt sprialing out of control, we cant afford a new navy) imo, what the US should do is try to stall for a while; give the iraqi government a few months or a year or so to consolidate its power. give the entire country plenty of weapons for cheap and get our forces the hell out of there. once the US has retreated from the region, let the situation develop as it may. the iraqi government will try to put down the pkk. the turks and syrians may consider their efforts unsatisfactory and invade anyway. at this point it would be syria and turkey at war with iraq. from here i have no idea what would happen, who would go to war and who wouldnt. but i feel that the answer to the problems of the middle east is not less conflict, but more conflict. because if the majority of the region is at war, the current countries will be weakened. new countries may immerge and new governments in existing ones. also, the UN may get off its dead ass and try to quell the situation, as well as the major powers. though they would be cooperating or at least staying out of each other's way. or maybe im just loony and have no idea wtf im talking about. i really need to get to bed.
Reviving a 10 year old thread to tell people 'I told you so!' Worthy bump Didn't take a genius though... Erdie doesn't know when to stop.
Erdie was told by the Trumpies to wrap up his operation in Afrin of Northern Syria. Erdie asked Trumpy when he planned to wrap up his operations in Syria and Iraq? I think the people of Iraq and Syria are able to recognize American designs for their natural resources, as had been done in Afghanistan. America is all about stealing other people's wealth.
Uhm... are you sure the Turks are releasing them? That sounds badly worded. They are escaping as i understood, not being released. But terrible (and expected) consequence, yes. If Kurds have to choose between defending their homes and guarding IS terrorists and supporters (of which many are from other, incl western, countries) they choose the first of course. It's not that the west seems very loyal to them at this moment (except in word).
But how were the US expecting to get these resources by helping defeat IS? I mean even expecting it from Kurds in a deal or something afterwards would be an enormous gamble. Aiding Syrians (including Kurdish Syrians) in their fight against Assad had a bigger chance/makes more sense (so the US could make a deal with Assads replacement).
I agree, but they were already involved in Iraq and the Syrian civil war before IS conquered land and terrorized the people. Both Russia and US hoped to get what they want by backing Assad against the syrian rebels (Russia) and backing the syrian opposers of Assad and the future new leader (didn't really work out). IS was an extra factor every faction in that region had to deal with.
