Interesting perspective

[Oss]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6PIRa4TAug

I do not understand why we dont do more to help the Kurdish
who are engaged fully fighting ISIS both in Syria and Iraq and have been working with us for decades

[Valkorado]

But that would make sense, Oss!  Can't have that!  Seems we've been on the wrong side of the ISIS battle since the start, maybe because the current administration won't acknowlegde the first I in ISIS stands for Islamic. 

Or, maybe because they do...     ???   

Either way, it's time for change.

[Jess from VA]

The main problem is our longstanding great NATO ally Turkey, which is well aware the Kurds want their own homeland in Eastern Turkey (1/3?) and Western Iraq (2/3?).  The Turks are not giving away any land, and now have been in a long (smallish) violent conflict with the Kurds for decades.  The Turks call them terrorists (PKK), and others call them freedom fighters.  Both are Sunni and no one but a local could tell the difference between them.  Both sides kill each other off from time to time.

Even from the first Desert Shield/Storm, we (the US) had to balance our military/political goals over there between our longtime allies the Turks and the Kurds (who had the balls in Iraq to shoot at Saddam's men, and got gassed for it) (and who have always been on our side over there with Saddam and ISIS, and could be compared to the mountain tribesman we armed and trained in RVN, with great results). 

Most of our Northern air missions in all land battle over there has been out of Incirlik AB Turkey (where I did a tour then returned to the US only months before Desert Shield).  Both the Turks and Kurds want to kill ISIS, but also each other (though this may be somewhat on hold with ISIS so nearby Kurdish territorial areas).  From a diplomatic, NATO, treaty (and we still keep nukes there) point of view, the Turks must come first, but we appreciate all the help we can get against ISIS from the Kurds, and try hard not to hurt them in our military actions (bombing) across the border.  The Turks would see arming/direct assistance to the Kurds (beyond immediate attacks on ISIS) as arming people who shoot at them, and they would have a point.

There are similarities between the Kurds and Jews, both long persecuted and desperately wanting a homeland.  I have always thought that giving the Kurds a small homeland out in that desolate territory (think Apache reservations) would be a good thing for everyone.  My Turkish friends said they would just use it as a base for further fighting against Turkey.  Just another part of the impossible political/tribal/religious quagmire that is the Middle East.

One thing I find interesting about US (ex-military) guys fighting with the Kurds, I bet their rules of engagement book is really small.   

[The emperor has no clothes]

The main problem is our longstanding great NATO ally Turkey, which is well aware the Kurds want their own homeland in Eastern Turkey (1/3?) and Western Iraq (2/3?).  The Turks are not giving away any land, and now have been in a long (smallish) violent conflict with the Kurds for decades.  The Turks call them terrorists (PKK), and others call them freedom fighters.  Both are Sunni and no one but a local could tell the difference between them.  Both sides kill each other off from time to time.

Even from the first Desert Shield/Storm, we (the US) had to balance our military/political goals over there between our longtime allies the Turks and the Kurds (who had the balls in Iraq to shoot at Saddam's men, and got gassed for it) (and who have always been on our side over there with Saddam and ISIS, and could be compared to the mountain tribesman we armed and trained in RVN, with great results). 

Most of our Northern air missions in all land battle over there has been out of Incirlik AB Turkey (where I did a tour then returned to the US only months before Desert Shield).  Both the Turks and Kurds want to kill ISIS, but also each other (though this may be somewhat on hold with ISIS so nearby Kurdish territorial areas).  From a diplomatic, NATO, treaty (and we still keep nukes there) point of view, the Turks must come first, but we appreciate all the help we can get against ISIS from the Kurds, and try hard not to hurt them in our military actions (bombing) across the border.  The Turks would see arming/direct assistance to the Kurds (beyond immediate attacks on ISIS) as arming people who shoot at them, and they would have a point.

There are similarities between the Kurds and Jews, both long persecuted and desperately wanting a homeland.  I have always thought that giving the Kurds a small homeland out in that desolate territory (think Apache reservations) would be a good thing for everyone.  My Turkish friends said they would just use it as a base for further fighting against Turkey.  Just another part of the impossible political/tribal/religious quagmire that is the Middle East.

One thing I find interesting about US (ex-military) guys fighting with the Kurds, I bet their rules of engagement book is really small.   

It is really sad. The Kurds seem to be the only ones willing and able to fight.

[3fan4life]

The main problem is our longstanding great NATO ally Turkey, which is well aware the Kurds want their own homeland in Eastern Turkey (1/3?) and Western Iraq (2/3?).  The Turks are not giving away any land, and now have been in a long (smallish) violent conflict with the Kurds for decades.

I've seen that land.

It's a worthless POS!

As far as I'm concerned the entire area is the Armpit of the earth!

The Turks wouldn't miss it and would probably be better off without it.

[DDT (12)]

Very accurate and insightful view of the situation, Jess. You've provided a very succinct yet comprehensive analysis of the situation... the micro perspective. The macro perspective is that people generally bristle at the 'overbearing' treatment of outsiders (them) exercising hegemony over 'us'.

All minorities have some real, many more perceived, injustices to point to as justification for their own 'homeland' or autonomy, or outright independence... Every race, ethnic group, religion, all 'groups' and sub groups of people all over the planet have at one time or other been on both sides of that equation. It seems to be the human condition...

By extension, as long as humans are involved there will be tensions and friction, flash points and conflict. Ironically, the only true remedy would be to remove human nature, especially human weakness, from the picture... but then there would be nothing to fix without humans...

We're witnessing one point in the cycle of joining and banding together into nations and empires, then breaking apart into tiny nation states and city states... The pendulum swing of political history is almost rhythmic... There is no one 'right' or final solution... there is only the constant ebb and flow... the rising and falling tide of history.

DDT

[Jess from VA]

You bet Bruce.  A lot of folks on our side of the water are beginning to feel pretty strongly that if we can't get some relief from the left in Fed, State and urban Govts through elections and our courts, we might at some point feel inclined to revert to Jefferson's thoughts:

And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."