Turkey's Ambassador In Washington: U.S. Should Not Protect Iraqi Kurds

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

http://www.turkishpress.com/turkishpress/news.asp?ID=14721

WASHINGTON D.C. - Turkey's Ambassador in Washington D.C. Faruk Logoglu Tuesday called on United States not to protect Iraqi Kurds in determination of Iraq's future. He said, ''in case it is said 'north of Iraq belongs to Kurds' this will be a disaster.''


Replying to questions of reporters at a meeting in Washington, Logoglu criticized Washington and U.S. administration in Baghdad in failing to exert necessary efforts to convince Iraqi Interim Governing Council on dispatch of Turkish soldiers to Iraq.


Logoglu said Ankara would not be insistent to send soldiers unless ''an open invitation'' comes from Iraqis to Turkey.


Stating that Turkey was concerned that U.S. gave more strength to Kurdish groups within Iraqi Interim Governing Council, Logoglu said, ''favouritism shown towards several groups was reflected in Governing Council and interim council of ministers. If they say north of Iraq belongs to Kurds while determining future of Iraq, this will be a disaster. Kurds were protected more regarding the future of the country. We don't have any problems with the Kurds. We had protected them for more than 10 yeas. We want the best for them but everything should be done under equality basis.''
<snip>

[LittleApple81]

1. Maybe 10b more in loans will make them see the wisdom of our ways. n/t

[amlouden]

2. figures

never trust turkey

[eissa]

3. I support the Turks

Never thought I'd say that given that my family were victims of their genocide post-WWI (which they still deny and it drives me crazy). BUT.....Iraq is Iraq; ALL OF IT, including the northern part, NOT "Kurdistan."

[damnraddem]

4. Because some idiot British Empire functionary drew some lines ...

on a map, Iraq is Iraq -- so Kurds, who were fighting for their independence long before the demise of the Ottoman Empire, have no right to their own nationality? Sorry, but I'm with the Kurds on this one. So long as the Kurds want it, there SHOULD be an independent Kurdistan, and it should include parts of Iran and Turkey as well as Iraq. Turkey knows that Kurds in Turkey will never be content if a mini-Kurdistan is created from northern Iraq -- but neither will they be content in the absence of Kurdish gains in Iraq.

One reason that Dubya was urged to leave Iraq alone was that it was an artificial construct that was inherently centrifugal, and that Sadam's repressive tactics were effectively holding it together. Dubya didn't listen. Now Turkey wants the U.S. to use whatever repressive tactics are necessary to ensure that Iraq is held together, and they are willing to share in that repressive enterprise, so long as the U.S. will agree to those repressive goals. In fact, introduction of Turkish troops into Iraq is one of the further actions best calculated to ensure an explosion of Iraq, because no sector of Iraq (other than small Turkoman populations) want to once again be repressed by Turkey.

[eissa]

5. There should be a Kurdistan....

but not in northern Iraq. That region is home to the indigenious people of Iraq, the Assyrians. The Kurdish homeland is rightfully in Turkey, but they have no support there. Turkey has continually and brutally oppressed them and the west does nothing because Turkey is a strategic NATO ally; but they all look the other way when it's in Iraq. I support a Kurdish homeland -- but I do not support the landgrabs that the Kurds have practiced for years now. They have taken over the homes of the original Assyrian inhabitants by either squatting in them and refusing to leave, or by simply terrorizing them until they do. They Kurds are another case of the oppressed being the oppressors.

[knowledgeispower]

6. Turkish Ambassador says: U.S. should let us kill Turks

n/t

[NNN0LHI]

7. US ambassador answers back, "let us sleep on it" n/t