U.S. v Turkey

Why does the United States act to discourage Turkey from carrying out raids against PKK terrorist strongholds in Iraq's autonomous Kurdish region?

If it was true that Kurdish PKK guerrillas are conducting terrorist attacks on Turkish soil, does Turkey have the right to take military action to defend itself?

Iraq’s Kurds, America’s only ally in that strife-torn nation, discreetly back the PKK, and are working for fully a independent Kurdish state. The Kurdish mini-state in northern Iraq is already de facto independent, with its own government, finances, army, and flag.

The feeble US-installed regime in Baghdad has almost no influence over the Kurds, even though its president, Jalal Talabani, is also one of the two senior Kurdish leaders.

The U.S. does consider the PKK group as a terrorist organization but will not act against them.

Turkey insists it is fighting "terrorism" and has every right to strike into Iraq to protect its national security – one of President George Bush’s justifications for invading Iraq.

Can anyone explain the difference? So protecting our national security interests have some sort of higher argument than Turkey's?

Comments

Posted by: poetryman69
Posted on: February 28, 2008 09:37 PM

Energy Independence Now!

No more Oil Wars!

Stop funding the terrorists!

Drill in Anwar.

Build more nuclear power plants

Use More coal.

Use more natural gas

Turn trash into energy

Double the efficiency of windmills and solar cells.

If France can do nuclear power so can we.

If Brazil can do biomass/ethanol power so can we.

If Australia can do LNG power so can we.

Domestically produced energy will end recession and spur the economy.

Posted by: rawdawgbuffalo
Posted on: March 2, 2008 12:27 AM

the us need to unify the kurds, sunni and shite, just a though on Iraq and the Taliban, they killing 2 birds with one stone