This thread discusses the Content article: PELOSI AND THE PKK

Dr. Wheeler, this article is great. You've given lots more folks a huge heads up on the real deal on what old Nan and her crew were up to. Don't ever think, she'll get away with it. She and others involved with this will go down in flames. [Putting out how stupid her move was...makes her look too stupid to be the Speaker of the House...and the flip side makes her a traitor which is even worse...so NO way does she win here.] It's time for congress to investigate her!!!!

Yes, we do have enemies within 'the clowns of congress'...and it is scary, if one looks at it head on. But I've got news for ALL...we're heading into some wonderfully positive happenings. There was is a major shift that happened/is happening in October. It may take a few months to actually see it with the eyes and hear of it with the ears, but it did happen.

I know many have a President Bush problem however Bush will leave the WH completely vindicated and with honor world-wide.

Thank Our Lord for the ground work left by President Ronald Reagan.

"A Time for Choosing"~2007 Redux~ President Ronald Reagan



The appeaser is the one who feeds the alligator, hoping he will be eaten last. Sir Winston Churchill<br><br>Post edited by: ella, at: 2007/10/25 21:22

Jack,
This goes hand-in-hand with Ralph Peters op-ed piece in USA Today from the 10-23-07 issue. As FDR once proclaimed: &quot;There are no such things as accidents in politics.&quot;
He should know.
Your article fills the blanks.

Turkey's identity crisis
Domestic conflicts are steering the country toward a battle with Iraq’s Kurds. The fallout could hurt not only Ankara and the United States, but the entire region.

By Ralph Peters

The eastern quarter of Turkey isn't Turkish. It's inhabited by Kurds, the descendents of tribesmen whom the Greek soldier and author Xenophon encountered in those mountains 2,500 years ago — more than a thousand years before the first Turk arrived.

If a referendum on independence were held today, Turkey's Kurds, who make up about 20% of its 73 million people, would vote overwhelmingly to secede from the shrunken empire Ankara inherited from the Ottomans. That's part of what Turkish saber-rattling on the border with northern Iraq is about — the fear that even an autonomous Kurdistan-in-Iraq threatens Turkey's territorial integrity because the region's Kurds might view it as the core of a Kurdish state.

(Illustration by Sam Ward, USA TODAY)

For its part, Washington fears a Turkish-Kurdish conflict that would further destabilize the entire region — just when Iraq shows glimmers of hope.

No regional government ruling over a Kurdish minority has ever allowed an honest head count, but estimates give the Kurds a population of 27 million to 36 million, spread across portions of Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Syria and the Caucasus. Up to 14 million of these people without a state reside in Turkey.

In addition to its determination to preserve its eastern frontier, Turkey faces internal political challenges that propel the huge Turkish military — with more than 500,000 active-duty troops — toward an intervention in northern Iraq.

The immediate justification for a parliament-authorized move across the border is Turkey's allegation that the PKK (The Kurdistan Workers' Party), a Marxist organization that has employed terror, continues to attack soldiers and civilians inside Turkey. The remnants of the defeated PKK, a few thousand men and their families, have taken refuge in Iraq. Turkey claims it wants them handed over — knowing such a course is politically impossible for any Kurdish leader.

PKK a weak threat

Ankara's allegations suffer under scrutiny. One need have no sympathy for the PKK to recognize that the organization has been shattered by Turkey's anti-terror campaign. Its aging members encamped in Iraq have begged asylum from their fellow Kurds (who find them an embarrassment). With pressure from all sides for Iraq's Kurdish officials to &quot;do something&quot; about the rump PKK, the last thing most of its members intend is to give the Turks an excuse to cross the border.

Why attack now?

Because Turkey's generals are desperate to revitalize their image at home. Humiliated by the repeated electoral successes of Turkey's Islamist party the AKP, the army, which views itself as the defender of the secular state, has seen its stock decline in the political marketplace.

In the past, the Turkish military would have staged a coup. That remains a longer-term possibility, but there's now a sense that popular support for military rule would not be as strong as in the past, when Turkey's economy was moribund and terrorism haunted the streets of Istanbul. The military has been a victim of Turkey's success.

The generals view a foray into Iraq as a double win — a body blow to Kurdish aspirations and a chance to rally Turks around the flag. Though an invasion would anger the United States, Ankara feels it has Washington over a barrel, given the United States' need for access to Incirlik Air Base and the criticality of Turkish supply routes and airspace to Operation Iraqi Freedom.

As for Europe's reaction, the Turks believe it would amount to no more than a few white papers filed away in Brussels.

Over the years, I've personally found Turkish generals and diplomats irrational on two subjects: The Armenian genocide (as we saw again in the recent fuss about the House resolution) and the rights of Kurds anywhere to enjoy independence. These topics invariably ignite fiery lectures from Turkish officialdom: The mouths are open, but the ears are shut.

Turks face embarrassment

Yet, a potential problem that the Turkish military does not appear to have grasped is that a move into northern Iraq might not go as smoothly as the generals intend. Well-armed and determined, Iraq's Kurds would resist any major invasion, and the mountainous region is ideal for defensive fighting. For all the on-paper strength of the Turkish military, it could suffer a significant embarrassment in Iraq.

A military disappointment — it needn't be a debacle — in Iraqi Kurdistan would profoundly alter Turkey's internal balance of power. The army has thrived on the perception of its invincibility. A botched cross-border move would damage its all important image, further empowering the political Islamists, who've already subverted many of the laws and values the military inherited from Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (the father of modern Turkey).

Success would fail

On the other hand, should a Turkish military operation succeed, it could excite a land-grab mentality that could draw in Iran, further destabilizing the region. And a Turkish attack on Iraqi Kurdistan — a remarkably successful experiment in self-government — would incite waves of anti-Turkish terrorism, rather than reduce the terrorist threat.

For their parts, Iraq's Kurdish leaders seek to build good relations with Ankara, by policing the PKK and granting concessionary terms to Turkish businessmen in the hope that shared profits will reveal shared interests. Nobody — not the PKK, other Kurds, the Iraqi government or the United States — wants to see a Turkish military adventure.

In the end, such an invasion wouldn't really be about the future of the PKK — which has none — but the future of Turkey. Ankara's military, pledged to defend the state that Ataturk built from the Ottoman ruins, could thoughtlessly hasten its deterioration and decline.

Ralph Peters is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors and the author of the recent book Wars of Blood and Faith.

It's all a question of cause and effect. You say that the PKK started it's own &quot;surge&quot; after Pelosi cranked up the the heat on the Armenian issue. It's possible that the Kurdish militants in the PKK are closely watching the American political scene and simply struck when they got wind of a favorable opening- a chance to sour American-Turkish relations that was handed to them room service by Congresswoman Pelosi. She is surely not in collusion with the PKK, but is being used by them instead. The question that must then be raised is the soundness of her judgement in the timing of her motion.

What about Colombia? Why the sudden emphasis on Colombia when Pelosi came in? Why take on Uribe at a time when he was saving what was left of Colombian democracy?

I absolutely agree there was a deal with Damascus and the PKK. Was there one with Chavez and the FARC as well?

It’s outrageous to even think the thoughts outlined in this piece, but given what we’ve seen from Pelosi &amp; crew so far, it is totally believable! I need some help thinking this through, and I know I’m in the right forum to get that kind of help.

1. Why would anyone (especially the PKK, remembering the failure of U.S. support after the first Iraq War) have any faith in an American politician to follow through on any long-term agreement such as this? Particularly when this politician leads a Congress whose approval rating is spiraling downward. President Bush holds the Kurds’ fate in his hands for the next year or so, not Pelosi.

2. What immediate advantage can the PKK gain from Pelosi, to incite them to provoke Turkey at this time? Usually it’s money to bribe leaders, but where would this money come from? (Isn’t it always “Follow the money to solve the crime.”?)

3. Pelosi &amp; crew don’t seem to think things through very well (e.g., making comments that appear to denigrate the military, the MoveOn ad against Petraus, etc.), but can they be so short-sighted that they don’t recognize that THEY, if they win the presidency, will be left to clean up the mess that could result from this? What kind of plan for recovery can they have conceived, when they have fallen far short of the goals they set for themselves at the beginning of this year? They have to realize that they’re not very good at long-range planning. These people might be evil, but they’re not stupid (or maybe they are!!!!).

4. It appears to me that Turkey has much to gain by allowing/fomenting the conflict at this time. They see the Iraq war possibly winding down, and they might think that if they wait too long to make their grab, it will be too late – we will be in position to oppose them instead of being tied down in a hot war, which will get hotter if Iran makes a move into Iraq. Turks won’t have the same kinds of “Rules of Engagement” with which we hamper ourselves – they will kill every Kurd they encounter. Very risky from my point of view, but they think differently from me, I’m sure.

5. I have a healthy dislike of Pelosi and crew, but I have trouble picturing them being able to pull this off. I also dislike the Turks, ever since they refused to allow us to stage the northern assault into Iraq in 2003 from Turkey, but I believe they have the experience to judge the timing and consequences far better than Pelosi. Maybe the Turks got to Pelosi and put her up to her actions to incite popular support for their incursions?

Usually the simplest answer is the best answer, but all this second-guessing gets complicated very quickly. We will probably have to wait for the investigation, if we ever get an honest one.

Well, it's good news that the Armenian Genocide resolution has been shelved, for now. Pelosi, for whatever reason, backed down, and so a crisis has been averted. But Jack's definitely correct in stating that the LAST thing Turkey, Syria, and Iran want is for the Kurds to take Kirkuk. Maybe Pelosi was working with the PKK, maybe not, but expect Turkey, Iran, and Syria to do whatever they can to keep Kirkuk in Arab hands.

BTW, what the Turks did in Armenia really was a genocide. With the goings on in Turkey these days, it's high time to find new friends - say, Armenia and Georgia - and pass the resolution once and for all. After the Kurds are secure, of course.

There are many players who do not wish that United States succeeds in establishing freedom to Iraq. Turkey, Iran Syria, all regimes in the region and superpowers are interested in their vision in that part of the world. Their vision does not comply with U.S. goal, at list with a vision of free democratic Iraqi state. Prior to the removal of Saddam Hussein in 2003, Turkey refused U.S. access to bases for a possible northern front in the war against Iraq and blocked transit of tanks and heavy equipment delaying military operation. In July 2007 U.S. arrested 11 Turkish special force soldiers in northern Iraq for allegedly conspiring to assassinate a Kurdish governor. Relation with Ankara is very tense in the last 5 years or so. I do not want to sound sexist when an old saying comes to mind “where the devil can not succeed then he sends a woman” and it may apply to what Tom Tancredo (R-CO) said in the Orlando GOP presidential candidate debate (10/22):
&quot;Nancy Pelosi is not a very good Speaker and is a lousy Secretary of State.
Armenian Genocide Resolution passed years ago may give more awareness of this genocide committed on Christians by followers of religion of peace and lead to sober understanding and approach of Mohammedan’s system. Unfortunately genocide of Armenians Christian’s is used as a tool in hands of unscrupulous vultures. Money for politicians is like a honey for a bear. If you “follow the money to solve the crime.” then not much is here from Syria or Iran or Turkey. Chinese and Saudis play the game. The closer it gets to November 2008 the more chips used in election’s game comes from them.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
It is very interesting that Turkish ultra – nationalist, expansionists’ movement, in violent opposition to Kurdish PPK and everybody else, called Grey Wolves is forgotten or ignored on TTP forum.
Grey Wolves may be another serious player in Mesopotamia’s conflict. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_Wolves<br><br>Post edited by: Jan, at: 2007/10/26 16:26

jwroblewski, says; &quot;It's possible&quot;? It's absolutely certain!

And: &quot;She is surely not in collusion with the PKK, but is being used by them instead&quot;.

I'm not so sure. By &quot;being used&quot; the PKK would have to have some insights that Pelosi would come up with the Armenian thing. That's a bit of a stretch. I think, instead, that she knew what the PKK's reaction would be, in that, as you say, they were just waiting for their opening.

jwroblewski, says &quot;The question that must then be raised is the soundness of her judgment in the timing of her motion.&quot;

This Armenian bill so clearly transparent that her judgment, um, clearly, sucks. The timing, and its purpose, is as deliberate as one can be. Which, as you also observe, goes back to my previous sentence.

roberteredpath agrees: 3. Pelosi &amp; crew don’t seem to think things through very well (e.g., making comments that appear to denigrate the military, the MoveOn ad against Petraus, etc.), but can they be so short-sighted that they don’t recognize that THEY, if they win the presidency, will be left to clean up the mess that could result from this? What kind of plan for recovery can they have conceived, when they have fallen far short of the goals they set for themselves at the beginning of this year? They have to realize that they’re not very good at long-range planning. These people might be evil, but they’re not stupid (or maybe they are!!!!).

roberteredpath, these people are so drunk on the Kool-Aid of their liberal mindset that they are mentally out of control, which over rides the thinking needed to resolve the issues in your paragraph above. Jack illuminates this very well in his commentaries about envy.

We watch the Pelosi's, Murthas, Conyers, Kerrys, Kennedys, and ask: how can these people actually believe what they say? Are they insane? How can they be so obviously wrong on virtually every issue? And I don't think this is a matter of opinion. If we simply ask; what does the left stand for, what have they implemented into American society, and how has their programs worked? We come to the conclusions that most of us share.

I've mentioned that our military graveyards contain those who died fighting against everything that the left stands for.

If we look at the results LBJ's &quot;great society programs, we see a portion of society that sees the federal government as their &quot;father&quot;. They're enslaved to a welfare mentality. They've been indoctrinated into believing that &quot;they're owed&quot; because of the past.
We've spent an estimated 6 trillion dollars on &quot;welfare&quot;-type programs in the past 35+ years and the line of those with their hand out is longer than ever. A total leftist failure.

Government &quot;education&quot;. Need I elaborate? The dumbing down is deliberate! &quot;Give me a child for the first.....how many years? Was it Marx?

Okay....I'm trying to listen to the Sox and Rocks, and I'm preaching to the choir here.
eddd7

The Democratic Party is the party of treason.

This is not said often enough or loud enough. Conservative commentators -- with the exception of Ms. Coulter and some others -- seem to shy away saying this, but why? The facts support the statement.

As for Benedict Arnold, on net, he was an asset to the Republic. That is, overall, he did more good than damage. The same cannot be said for the Democrats (Kennedy, the Clintons, Biden, Dodd, Pelosi, Reid, etc., etc., etc).

Jack, this is off subject, but what's up with that book on Cortez and Mexico?

And regarding the invasion of the U.S. by illegal aliens from Mexico and Central America, who exactly is it coming in. It's not the &quot;Spanish.&quot; Is it the Azetcs or some other Indian group? And does it matter?