http://www.the-american-interest.com/201...sh-weapon/

Russians appear to be using Kurds to weaken the non-ISIS Assad opposition. Article talks about the shambles the US Syria policy is and how Putin is using it to divide and conquer.

Yeah, but we have a piece of paper. All is well.

I think its pretty clear he is using Ukraine to try to create fissures in NATO. He would probably love nothing more than to remove Turkey from NATO and is using Syria to create rifts.

I spent quite a bit of time in Erbil. It's where you learn what scum the Bush family are.

We have screwed over the Kurds too many times. It's a disgrace. My friends over there are still very pro-American, as are most of the regular folks, but it is to the point an honest American can't really tell you why.

But, the Kurds are as disorganized as any of the rest of them over there. There are more parties and groups and loyalties than you can shake a stick at.

(02-17-2016 11:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Yeah, but we have OBAMA . All is well.

FIFY

(02-17-2016 11:18 AM)bullet Wrote:  I think its pretty clear he is using Ukraine to try to create fissures in NATO. He would probably love nothing more than to remove Turkey from NATO and is using Syria to create rifts.

Meh, Turkey seemed like a forced 'square peg in a round hole' fit in NATO to begin with. In fact, why even have NATO. Entangling alliances and all that.

That said, Putin is who the Russians have been drooling to take the reins since 1991. An authoritarian cowboy to bring Mother Russia back to the forefront of the world stage. They weren't interested in enjoying western-style freedoms like the Eastern Bloc chose to do, post Berlin Wall.

(02-17-2016 11:32 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 11:18 AM)bullet Wrote:  I think its pretty clear he is using Ukraine to try to create fissures in NATO. He would probably love nothing more than to remove Turkey from NATO and is using Syria to create rifts.

Meh, Turkey seemed like a forced 'square peg in a round hole' fit in NATO to begin with. In fact, why even have NATO. Entangling alliances and all that.

That said, Putin is who the Russians have been drooling to take the reins since 1991. An authoritarian cowboy to bring Mother Russia back to the forefront of the world stage. They weren't interested in enjoying western-style freedoms like the Eastern Bloc chose to do, post Berlin Wall.

He picked a great time to do it as well. What we are seeing is a what the world is becoming without a strong United States.

(02-17-2016 11:22 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I spent quite a bit of time in Erbil. It's where you learn what scum the Bush family are.

We have screwed over the Kurds too many times. It's a disgrace. My friends over there are still very pro-American, as are most of the regular folks, but it is to the point an honest American can't really tell you why.

But, the Kurds are as disorganized as any of the rest of them over there. There are more parties and groups and loyalties than you can shake a stick at.

That lack of honor seems to be the case in other places as well. And I think that's part of the U.S.' problem overseas. Even those disposed to Western ideals and so on see it as risky to trust us. As well they should.

And before someone goes on about it all being Obama's fault, he's no more guilty than previous Presidents. We've a long history of screwing folks over. Perhaps not intentionally, but that matters little to the person getting screwed.

Let Russia play world police for a while. Or let the chickenhawks suit up.

(02-17-2016 11:22 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  We have screwed over the Kurds too many times. It's a disgrace. My friends over there are still very pro-American, as are most of the regular folks, but it is to the point an honest American can't really tell you why.
But, the Kurds are as disorganized as any of the rest of them over there. There are more parties and groups and loyalties than you can shake a stick at.

The one time in our lives that I have agreed with Joe Biden was his recommendation that Iraq should have been split into three countries--Kurdistan in the north, a Shia Mesopotamia in the Southeast, and a Sunni nation in the west. Maybe instead of purging all the Baathists, we could have let them run the western Sunni state. They would probably have allied with the Sunnis in eastern Syria to form something akin to ISIS today, although if we had slid them over to power in the area instead of purging them, they might have remained friendly enough to make that a viable option.

No question Bush and Cheney screwed the pooch on that one, and all that Obama and Clinton and Kerry have accomplished is to keep screwing it in new positions. The Kama Sutra approach to foreign relations.

(02-17-2016 11:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 11:22 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  We have screwed over the Kurds too many times. It's a disgrace. My friends over there are still very pro-American, as are most of the regular folks, but it is to the point an honest American can't really tell you why.
But, the Kurds are as disorganized as any of the rest of them over there. There are more parties and groups and loyalties than you can shake a stick at.

The one time in our lives that I have agreed with Joe Biden was his recommendation that Iraq should have been split into three countries--Kurdistan in the north, a Shia Mesopotamia in the Southeast, and a Sunni nation in the west. Maybe instead of purging all the Baathists, we could have let them run the western Sunni state. They would probably have allied with the Sunnis in eastern Syria to form something akin to ISIS today, although if we had slid them over to power in the area instead of purging them, they might have remained friendly enough to make that a viable option.

No question Bush and Cheney screwed the pooch on that one, and all that Obama and Clinton and Kerry have accomplished is to keep screwing it in new positions. The Kama Sutra approach to foreign relations.

Wouldn't a legit Kurdish nation really really mess up things with Turkey?

Little Ms. Putin shat on his tuffet eating her Kurds and Whey.

(02-17-2016 11:59 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Little Ms. Putin shat on his tuffet eating her Kurds and Whey.

(02-17-2016 11:35 AM)gsu95 Wrote:  Let Russia play world police for a while. Or let the chickenhawks suit up.

There's a problem with this concept of which most people aren't aware. We think of Bretton Woods as primarily a currency agreement. But there were other parts of it.

Basically, we agreed to take over world police duties from our allies, in order that their resources could be devoted to recovery from the WWII destruction, for the ultimate purpose of rebuilding them so that they could resist falling under Soviet domination. So countries like the Netherlands and even UK, which had maintained large standing navies prewar, cut way back on the size and scope of their military.

UK retained a presence East of Suez until 1971, and we then filled that void in the Indian Ocean and south Asia, and did so very badly.

There are those who think it is high time we revisited that agreement and starting requiring our allies to do more for their own defense and world peace. Certainly, ever since the Berlin Wall fell, the original purpose has been more than satisfied.

Unfortunately, it's a job that somebody needs to do. The Somali pirates and the Straits of Malacca pirates are two tangible indications of what can happen if nobody does it.

There seem to be three major potential regional conflict areas today--Europe, the Middle East, and the South China Sea. I've seen proposals that we orient our policy toward a two goals--1) keeping any conflicts regional by use of our military and diplomatic power to contain them, while 2) working with powers in the regions to maintain balance so that one side does not become dominant within a region. I think that's a useful framework. I would hope that such a framework would get us out of no-win limited wars and nation-building efforts. Those simply don't work, and getting our younger generation killed and maimed in a fight that can't be won is an incredibly stupid idea.

(02-17-2016 11:32 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 11:18 AM)bullet Wrote:  I think its pretty clear he is using Ukraine to try to create fissures in NATO. He would probably love nothing more than to remove Turkey from NATO and is using Syria to create rifts.

Meh, Turkey seemed like a forced 'square peg in a round hole' fit in NATO to begin with. In fact, why even have NATO. Entangling alliances and all that.

That said, Putin is who the Russians have been drooling to take the reins since 1991. An authoritarian cowboy to bring Mother Russia back to the forefront of the world stage. They weren't interested in enjoying western-style freedoms like the Eastern Bloc chose to do, post Berlin Wall.

Russia was a 3rd world country with corrupt officials everywhere. They had lost their communist founding myth. They were primed for a fascist just as Germany was after WWI.

(02-17-2016 11:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 11:22 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  We have screwed over the Kurds too many times. It's a disgrace. My friends over there are still very pro-American, as are most of the regular folks, but it is to the point an honest American can't really tell you why.
But, the Kurds are as disorganized as any of the rest of them over there. There are more parties and groups and loyalties than you can shake a stick at.

The one time in our lives that I have agreed with Joe Biden was his recommendation that Iraq should have been split into three countries--Kurdistan in the north, a Shia Mesopotamia in the Southeast, and a Sunni nation in the west. Maybe instead of purging all the Baathists, we could have let them run the western Sunni state. They would probably have allied with the Sunnis in eastern Syria to form something akin to ISIS today, although if we had slid them over to power in the area instead of purging them, they might have remained friendly enough to make that a viable option.

No question Bush and Cheney screwed the pooch on that one, and all that Obama and Clinton and Kerry have accomplished is to keep screwing it in new positions. The Kama Sutra approach to foreign relations.

The biggest mistake was disenfranchising the Baathists.

(02-17-2016 11:56 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 11:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 11:22 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  We have screwed over the Kurds too many times. It's a disgrace. My friends over there are still very pro-American, as are most of the regular folks, but it is to the point an honest American can't really tell you why.
But, the Kurds are as disorganized as any of the rest of them over there. There are more parties and groups and loyalties than you can shake a stick at.

The one time in our lives that I have agreed with Joe Biden was his recommendation that Iraq should have been split into three countries--Kurdistan in the north, a Shia Mesopotamia in the Southeast, and a Sunni nation in the west. Maybe instead of purging all the Baathists, we could have let them run the western Sunni state. They would probably have allied with the Sunnis in eastern Syria to form something akin to ISIS today, although if we had slid them over to power in the area instead of purging them, they might have remained friendly enough to make that a viable option.

No question Bush and Cheney screwed the pooch on that one, and all that Obama and Clinton and Kerry have accomplished is to keep screwing it in new positions. The Kama Sutra approach to foreign relations.

Wouldn't a legit Kurdish nation really really mess up things with Turkey?

The Iraqi Kurds get along pretty well with Turkey. The Syrian Kurds are getting shelled by Turkey. They don't fight Assad, but do fight ISIS.

In other news from the region, ISIS may have nuclear materials.

Reuters link

And in other international news, China installs anti-aircraft missiles on the disputed islands in the South China Sea.

Guardian link

And British jets are scrambled to intercept Russian bombers.

Independent link

In entertainment news, Secretary of State John Kerry meets with Hollywood studio heads to discuss portrayal of ISIS in movies.

Variety link

(02-17-2016 12:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 11:56 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 11:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 11:22 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  We have screwed over the Kurds too many times. It's a disgrace. My friends over there are still very pro-American, as are most of the regular folks, but it is to the point an honest American can't really tell you why.
But, the Kurds are as disorganized as any of the rest of them over there. There are more parties and groups and loyalties than you can shake a stick at.

The one time in our lives that I have agreed with Joe Biden was his recommendation that Iraq should have been split into three countries--Kurdistan in the north, a Shia Mesopotamia in the Southeast, and a Sunni nation in the west. Maybe instead of purging all the Baathists, we could have let them run the western Sunni state. They would probably have allied with the Sunnis in eastern Syria to form something akin to ISIS today, although if we had slid them over to power in the area instead of purging them, they might have remained friendly enough to make that a viable option.
No question Bush and Cheney screwed the pooch on that one, and all that Obama and Clinton and Kerry have accomplished is to keep screwing it in new positions. The Kama Sutra approach to foreign relations.

Wouldn't a legit Kurdish nation really really mess up things with Turkey?

The Iraqi Kurds get along pretty well with Turkey. The Syrian Kurds are getting shelled by Turkey. They don't fight Assad, but do fight ISIS.

Turkey's biggest problem is with the Turkish Kurds. If you made Kurdistan big enough to accommodate, maybe from Mosul north, I think a lot of the Syrian and Turkish Kurds would move back voluntarily--their sense of nationalism is very strong, and the chance to live in a Kurdish nation would be very appealing, particularly since the oil probably would give them a better economic future there then where they are now. That would actually be a positive for Turkey.

At the time Biden was talking about it, right after we deposed Saddam, it would have been fairly easy to do. Turkey very badly wanted into the EU, and France and Germany pretty much held the power over that decision. Give Schlumberger the contract to do the Halliburton thing in Kurdistan (they are probably one of the few companies that could actually do it), provided France agreed to drag Germany along with them and tell Turkey that Kurdistan is the price of EU membership. I don't think the EU has the same appeal for Turkey today, so that ship may have sailed. But it might still be possible.

As far as the ISIS/Kurd conflict, here is the problem. The ISIS area (western Iraq and eastern Syria) is pretty dreadful economically. Their one hope would be to take over the Kurdish oil fields. I suppose they could go after the Shias and their oil in the south, but there are a lot more Shias that Kurds (although eh Kurds are definitely better fighters). This would have been a problem with the Sunni state under the Biden proposal, as I have noted previously. My idea previously was that the Saudis would take them under their wing. That might still be an option. If the Saudis thought that they could buy loyalty to the Royal Family, they would do it in a heartbeat. I think there is some real risk that the Sunni state could have allied with the Sunnis in eastern Syria and evolved into something pretty close to ISIS. But if we had not purged the Baathists, but instead moved them to the west, and given them support, I think we could have kept them friendly to us. One thing for sure, western Iraq and eastern Syria truly belong under some kind of Sunni government, which neither Iraq nor Syria offers today.

(02-17-2016 12:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 12:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 11:56 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 11:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 11:22 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  We have screwed over the Kurds too many times. It's a disgrace. My friends over there are still very pro-American, as are most of the regular folks, but it is to the point an honest American can't really tell you why.
But, the Kurds are as disorganized as any of the rest of them over there. There are more parties and groups and loyalties than you can shake a stick at.

The one time in our lives that I have agreed with Joe Biden was his recommendation that Iraq should have been split into three countries--Kurdistan in the north, a Shia Mesopotamia in the Southeast, and a Sunni nation in the west. Maybe instead of purging all the Baathists, we could have let them run the western Sunni state. They would probably have allied with the Sunnis in eastern Syria to form something akin to ISIS today, although if we had slid them over to power in the area instead of purging them, they might have remained friendly enough to make that a viable option.
No question Bush and Cheney screwed the pooch on that one, and all that Obama and Clinton and Kerry have accomplished is to keep screwing it in new positions. The Kama Sutra approach to foreign relations.

Wouldn't a legit Kurdish nation really really mess up things with Turkey?

The Iraqi Kurds get along pretty well with Turkey. The Syrian Kurds are getting shelled by Turkey. They don't fight Assad, but do fight ISIS.

Turkey's biggest problem is with the Turkish Kurds. If you made Kurdistan big enough to accommodate, maybe from Mosul north, I think a lot of the Syrian and Turkish Kurds would move back voluntarily--their sense of nationalism is very strong, and the chance to live in a Kurdish nation would be very appealing, particularly since the oil probably would give them a better economic future there then where they are now. That would actually be a positive for Turkey.

At the time Biden was talking about it, right after we deposed Saddam, it would have been fairly easy to do. Turkey very badly wanted into the EU, and France and Germany pretty much held the power over that decision. Give Schlumberger the contract to do the Halliburton thing in Kurdistan (they are probably one of the few companies that could actually do it), provided France (and they drag Germany along with them) agrees to tell Turkey that Kurdistan is the price of EU membership. I don't think the EU has the same appeal for Turkey today, so that ship has sailed. But it might still be possible.

I agree; however, Turkey's issue is if a Kurdistan nation is born that nation will want Turkish land due to the amount of Kurds living in Turkey, etc. I mean the PKK and all have been bombing Turks (and vice-versa) for decades. Turkey wouldn't take that too well I imagine.

(02-17-2016 12:54 PM)VA49er Wrote:  I agree; however, Turkey's issue is if a Kurdistan nation is born that nation will want Turkish land due to the amount of Kurds living in Turkey, etc. I mean the PKK and all have been bombing Turks (and vice-versa) for decades. Turkey wouldn't take that too well I imagine.

My idea was to make Kurdistan big enough that it could accommodate the Turkish (and Syrian) Kurds, and their sense of nationalism would make them want to relocate, particularly considering that Kurdistan's oil would give it a better economy that either Turkey or Syria are offering their Kurds right now. That would actually be a plus for Turkey, which right now has lots of Kurds living there, plus lots more right over two borders (Iraq and Syria).