As you may have inferred from the title I was headed in a completely
different direction when I started. So if Turkey is a whore who is the pimp?
Who is the John? We already know who is going to get s*****d.

That the US is using other nations to provide mercenaries is bothersome
enough. The fact that Turkey is going to get paid to take control of Iraqi
Kurdistan is frightening, talk about your Sabra and Shatila. Why is no one
in the world is even mentioning that the intent is to allow the wolves,
forget the foxes, to control the henhouse?

The Turks taught the 20th century how to commit genocide. Now they are
allies. In 1937, the Turks were the first government to use poison gas
against the Kurds. They dropped the gas along with bombs and artillery
shells. No one kept records but thousands were killed. Saddam Hussein may
have killed more Kurds in a single campaign but the Turks have him beat
overall because they have been at it longer.

The US has backed the Turkish oppression and aggression against Kurds living
in Turkey. The US has labeled and allowed the Turks to label the Kurdish
resistance as terrorists. The Iraqi Kurds resisting the Iraqi regime are of
course "freedom fighters."

When confronted with these realities can you really use the old "lesser of
evils" gambit? Dead folks don't care if the devil or his younger brother
killed them. Right now Iraqi Kurds are not dying at the hands of the Iraqi
regime. The same cannot be said of Turkish Kurds. The allowing of the Turks
to take control of Iraqi Kurdish territory proves that the US is not
concerned with the Kurds except as an excuse to get Saddam Hussein.

After reading through some of the other posts on this thread, I need to make
a few comments. First, the unindicted war criminal Bill Clinton is
irrelevant to this discussion but the answer to the question is yes I would
rather see the current unindicted war criminal occupant of the Oval Office
be a little less sexually frustrated. Second, the fact that Dubya, or anyone
else, wanted to be president shows they are not fit to hold the office.
Third, I do not have to have a detailed plan of what is right to know what
is wrong and to be against it. (I do however, like many of you have my own
ideas of what should and could be done.) Fourth, every time someone does not
wish to punch someone in the nose (unless they are number 7 frustrated ;-))
does not mean they are cowards. Fifth, the current policy is not making
friends of our enemies and it is not making our allies closer. Sixth,
threatening that you are going commit a war crime is not committing a war
crime. Clinton did not actually attack Iraq, well not very much anyway; let
us hope Dubya is also only going to threaten. Last, The answer to the
question "Why was that ok in 1998 under a Democrat president, but it is not
ok in 2003 under a Republican president, with one more UN resolution to
boot?" is that is not OK for Clinton or Bush and John smith to go to war in
these circumstances. (I would say in any circumstances but I realize that to
some war is justifiable, sometimes.) I don't see what party politics has to
do with it.

Let Peace be the maxim by which we act because we will Peace to become a
universal law.
Work For Peace
The opinions expressed herein are my own and not necessarily those of my
employer.
Yosef Rosenblatt

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *