THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

RPT-Turkish troops kill five Kurdish rebels

Quote:

TUNCELI, Turkey, July 5 (Reuters) - Turkish soldiers killed five Kurdish guerrillas, including two women, in clashes in eastern Turkey, military sources said on Thursday.
...

I am curious, Ican, what are your thoughts on the escalating Kurdist/Turkey situation and who are the bad guys (in your opinion) and who are good guys. I think Turkey has a right to defend themselves, but I am wondering what you think.

The use of armed contractors raises several concerns for many Members,
including transparency and accountability.
...
Transparency issues include the lack of public information on the
terms of their contracts, including their costs and the standards
governing their hiring and performance, as well as the background and
training of those hired under contract.
...
Contractors working with the U.S. military (or with any of the
coalition forces) in Iraq are non-combatants who have no combat
immunity under international law if they engage in hostilities, and
whose conduct may be attributable to the United States.
...

ican

You are as full of crap as when you insisted that the Al Qaeda camp in NE Iraq was under Saddam Husseins control.

I don't think poor ican will ever get a grip on reality.

<4> the USA three times requested that Saddam Hussein extradite the leadership of that sanctuary prior to the invasion;

That's the reason I rarely read ican's posts; it's usually full of crap, and some of his posts show his antisocial, inhuman streak. He believes in killing a whole group of people based on his personal misinformation. Scary.

ican wrote:

<4> the USA three times requested that Saddam Hussein extradite the leadership of that sanctuary prior to the invasion;

Saddam couldn't extradite the leaders because Saddam had no control over the territory so it was not in the realm of reality for the Bush administration to demand their extradition.

Saddam had no control over NE Iraq when he was invited in 1996 by a Kurd group to invade Irbil in NE Iraq. He invaded it anyway. But perhaps by 2003, Saddam lacked the means to invade it a second time when the USA invited him do that by requesting the extradition of the leaders of al-Qaeda then in NE Iraq.

However Bush could have destroyed the camp and killed the leaders. Three times the CIA requested him to do that. Three times Bush said no. Three times Bush gave the terrorist more protection than Saddam could.

I agree! Bush is incompetent!

One more time: Bush is incompetent!

Saddam had no control over NE Iraq when he was invited in 1996 by a Kurd group to invade Irbil in NE Iraq. He invaded it anyway.

ican wrote:

Saddam had no control over NE Iraq when he was invited in 1996 by a Kurd group to invade Irbil in NE Iraq. He invaded it anyway.

This makes no sense.

Saddam invaded Irbil because he was asked by the Kurds to do so. Saddam was not asked by the Kurds to eliminate Al Qaeda so he couldn't do it. Saddam was not allow to go into Kurd territory unless he was given permission by the Kurds.

Saddam was not allowed to go into Kurd territory unless he was given permission by the Kurds or the USA. After all it was principally the USA that established and policed the no-fly zones including the one over the Kurds.

You said Bush is incompetent. I agree and that's why he is a great friend of the terrorist. His incompetence has made AQ far stronger in the Iraq under his control than they would be under Saddam's control. That's why AQ like him so much.

From that perspective I agree. But AQ did in fact support the Democrats in the last election. I suspect they did that because they presumed the Democrats would eventually cause the USA to flee like Clinton did. In other words, the AQ likes ALL of us who are losers.
...

But AQ did in fact support the Democrats in the last election.

Quote:

But AQ did in fact support the Democrats in the last election.

I feel it's necessary to point out that there is no evidence of this, and it's a ridiculously partisan thing to say.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

But AQ did in fact support the Democrats in the last election.

I feel it's necessary to point out that there is no evidence of this, and it's a ridiculously partisan thing to say.

Cycloptichorn

There is plenty of evidence of this. AQ was stating in its broadcasts (radio and TV) during that period the same things about the war in Iraq as the Democrat leaderships were. If that is not support of the Democrats, I don't know what support of the Democrats is.

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

But AQ did in fact support the Democrats in the last election.

I feel it's necessary to point out that there is no evidence of this, and it's a ridiculously partisan thing to say.

Cycloptichorn

There is plenty of evidence of this. AQ was stating in its broadcasts (radio and TV) during that period the same things about the war in Iraq as the Democrat leaderships were. If that is not support of the Democrats, I don't know what support of the Democrats is.

Then you apparently don't know what support for the Democrats is. Agreeing with someone's position doesn't equal supporting them.

Of course, it makes for a good inflammatory comment on your part; but there is absolutely zero validity to it, and you really should refrain from repeating this.

Cycloptichorn

Well, when Zardozz.com reports it, why, you know it must be true!

You crack me up, ICan.

Cycloptichorn