I was a serving Soldier in the British Army during the Iraq war (2003). I was informed that the Turkish government refused to allow American troops to enter Iraq from their boarders during the war. Also I heard from media sources that their own Troops had 'Crossed' over the boarder? Was this something to do with the Kurds that live in these parts of Iraq/Turkey? Can anyone shed any light on this for me please?
210244
PKK is a Kurdish (declared by the EU and US as) armed terrorist organisation aiming to create a Kurdish communist state on the area that is part of Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Iran, Armenia. They are mainly based in the northern Iraq no-fly-zone created by the US and UK after the 1990 gulf war, which also created a bargain weapons market. PKK's main source of income is (like other terrorist organisations) drug trafficking in Europe through (Afghanistan, Iran, Turkey, Greece, Germany, Benelux) about 1 million Kurds (mostly ex Turkish citizens) in Europe, donations, and extortion. \n\nWhenever PKK's activities increase in Turkey, the Turkish army runs a cross border operation to destroy their camps in Iraq. PKK targets Turkey's stability, peace, and international image by creating terror and chaos in the country. Turkish government is currently blaming US for allowing PKK operate freely in north Iraq.\n\nRef: PKK behind minibus bombing that killed 1 British, 1 Irish, 3 Turkish tourists in Kusadasi (near Ephessus, mother Mary's house).\nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4690181.stm\n\nTurkish agents captured PKK leader in Greek embassy which was proving shelter to him in Kenya. He was holding Greek-Cypriot passport though he was on Interpol's red list.\nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/280622.stm\n\nhttp://internettrash.com/users/pkk/a-trialDAY-2.html\n\nLatest build up at the Iraqi border.\nhttp://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=41571
372569
I served in Afghanistan and received quite a bit of hate mail from back home. I was injured while on patrol and upon returning home had garbage and other things thrown at me as I entered the base for my discharge. Iraq is far more controversial so I am glad that I do not have to bear coming home from Iraq and receive even worse criticism. Joining the Army was my CHOICE!. You people may not like wars but you are not fighting in it so I don't know what gives anti war protesters the right to spit on me when I am only serving my country and my countrymen, including them. We are told not to argue, but I wish they would put their time to better use than standing outside all day and ridiculing the soldiers. Fortunately others and I are far too proud to take too much offense.
98590
I support the American troops with out a doubt!  100%  My thanks goes out to your son and many other Americans in Iraq.  A true American SHOULD NEVER be negative towards our troops.  No matter what you think of the Iraq war our American troops need us....the USA.....behind them!  My prayers are with your son as well as the other troops.
271963
The troops should never have been there in the first place.\nI'm not saying I thought Saddam was a good man- he was a moron. \n\nBut let's look at another factor: who said these guerrilla soldiers are actually insurgents? The Iraqi military were trained for years by the US and the UK. The standard procedure if the UK were successfully invaded is for the auxiliary troops to begin assassinations and terror campaign against the invaders. The Iraqi's are doing just that and the insurgents are the foreigners going in to Iraq to help them.\n\nI don't remember hearing any Iraqi's saying they wanted they're country invaded. Do you?\n\nIt's the same old story of politicians sending troops to war while they sit back and get rich. Of course they don't send their own children off to war, just other peoples.
362064
Close to the entire army and Marine Corp is involved in the yearly cycling of troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm not even too sure where they dig up the extra troops they did manage to find after I left the Army a couple of years ago except by screwing troops out of much need rest from duty in Iraq. In other words, the situation can't be maintained indefinitely. \n\nEven if we did have our military up to a point where it could continue indefinite combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, we still don't have the money to do what we're doing for an extended period, especially with the lack of accountability for the funds that have been given to Iraq.
384092
One really powerful primary source about Iraq and Afghanistan is the Sandbox blog on the Doonesbury website.  Every day there are a couple posts by soldiers involved over there.  There is a range of content, but it gives you the sense that there really are good people working hard to improve the lives of Iraqis even though there is also a lot of disastrous stuff happening.  It might open their eyes a little.  I think they'll find glimpses of the good side there, regardless of their politics.
137735
As a soldier I obviously have strong feelings about this question which are I would hope obvious enough not for me to point out here. \n\nI would like to mention something else though.  Many of the respondents have said "I support our troops but not the war."\n\nI have a very difficult time with this assessment.  Essentially what they are saying is that the soldiers are working for nothing.  We went to Iraq and removed a cruel dictator from power.  The fact that Hussein had chemical weapons was well documented by the thousands of Kurds he killed with them.  Had he agreed to allow documentation of their disposal (I believe he didn't because he sold them to other nations but that isn't a discussion for here) indicated a guilt.  The diplomatic process had failed years ago and whatever liberals think was not going to be reserected.\n\nMany of us do not necessarily agree with why we are at war but think that the ends do justify the means in this case.
506714
They are towards leaving Iraq.  They really don't have a plan right now.  They wanted to use scare tactics against Americans, so they get the vote.  As of now, I haven't heard any plans yet.
647658
i couldnt help but leave a comment.. even if it's late. true there are bedouin in kuwait, but logically, there's no such thing as bedouin! it merely states the fact that those people do not have kuwaiti nationality or any nationality as a matter of fact; they dont have a passport of any color! personally, i know some. and they say they orginitate from KSA or Iraq. it's that simple, if they originate from there, why can't they just go and get a citizinship of Iraq or KSA! and how could they live in kuwait for 40 years without any paper?! where were they born? have they never gotten sick or what! just because Kuwait is a rich country, that doesn't mean it should give away nationalities to whoever doesn't have one! That would be unfair to original Kuwaities who are actually Kuwaities by history!
554384
Saddam unfortunately gets a death sentence by the great justice of US govn!!! And I confused by the interpretations of some European foreign ministers about this decision. No one told anything against this decision of the US govn in spite of the death sentences being forbidden in European countries!!! I couldnt understand their contradiction.\n\nA.Öcalan? His freedom is one of our EU reforms!!!\n\nSo, US/EU or Türkiye? Who is barbarian?
347010
Modern History\n\nOttoman rule over Iraq lasted until the Great War (World War I) when the Ottomans sided with Germany and the Central Powers. British forces invaded the country and suffered a major defeat at the hands of the Turkish army during the Siege of Kut (1915–16). British forces regrouped and captured Baghdad in 1917. An armistice was signed in 1918.\nImage:LittleIraq.png\n\nIraq was carved out of the Ottoman Empire by the French and British as agreed in the Sykes-Picot Agreement. On 11 November 1920 it became a League of Nations mandate under British control with the name "State of Iraq".\n\nThe British government laid out the political and constitutional framework for Iraq's government. Britain imposed a Hāshimite monarchy on Iraq and defined the territorial limits of Iraq without taking into account the aspirations of the different ethnic and religious groups in the country, in particular those of the Kurds to the north. Britain had to put down a major revolt against its policies between 1920 and 1922. During the revolt, Britain used phosphorus bombs against Kurdish villagers. Legal experts consider phosphorus bombs chemical weapons. (See Gas in mesopotamia)\n\nIn the Mandate period and beyond, the British supported the traditional, Sunni leadership (such as the tribal shaykhs) over the growing, urban-based nationalist movement. The Land Settlement Act gave the tribal shaykhs the right to register the communal tribal lands in their own name. The Tribal Disputes Regulations gave them judiciary rights, whereas the Peasants' Rights and Duties Act of 1933 severely reduced the tenants', forbidding them to leave the land unless all their debts to the landlord had been settled. The British resorted to military force when their interests were threatened, as in the 1941 Rashīd `Alī al-Gaylānī coup. This coup led to a British invasion of Iraq using forces from the British Indian Army and the Arab Legion from Jordan.\n\n\nThis is just a piece of Iraq's "modern history".  If you read more from any source on its entire history you will see that the illusion of a stable government is not a reality. \nI've not included the juicy parts on  British Petroleum etc.  You will enjoy reading that for yourself.                                                                                       HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF AND POLITICIANS REFUSE TO LEARN FROM IT!!!
638519
I don't think you have a choice. If you are drafted you are going, unless you want to pay some sort of penalty. Don't worry, I was confused about the same exact thing you are questioning... I asked my dad and that is what he told me. If you refuse to go over seas then you are penalized. \n\nAnd its not that people don't support the troops... they just dont support BUSH!!
338208
I have been thinking that way for a long time. there are some dodgy questions being asked. a couple i have seen, How Many Exactly US troops in Iraq.How do you get to a certain navel station. How many tanks has US got in Iraq. Do you know when a certain Division is about to be moved over to Iraq. these are just some of the ones i think are suspicious.
131724
I know KBR (subsidy of Halliburton).  Did you ever check out that PBS special regarding this topic? \nhttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/warriors/view/\n Very interesting.  You can actually watch it online.\n\n"How many private security firms are working in Iraq?"\n\nNo one knows the exact number of private security contractors that rushed into Iraq following the war. In April 2004, in response to a request from Congress, the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) compiled a list of 60 different firms employing a total of 20,000 personnel (including U.S. citizens, Iraqis and third-country nationals).\n\nBefore handing over power to the newly elected Iraqi government in January 2005, the CPA established "Memorandum 17," a notice that called for all private security companies operating in Iraq to register by June 1 and established an oversight committee led by Iraq's Ministry of the Interior. \n\nAccording to Lawrence Peter, a former CPA official and the director of the Private Security Company Association of Iraq, as of June 21, 2005, 37 security contractors have registered with the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior. One is awaiting approval, and at least 18 additional security companies are in the process of registering.\n\nhere's the link for more info:  \n\nhttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/warriors/\nhttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/warriors/faqs/
447197
I suggest reading 'armed madhouse' by greg palast. In this book he makes the arguement (with footnotes) that the reason we went into Iraq is for the oil. But not to take the oil. No ... we want to keep the oil in Iraq. You see economic supply and demand would dictate that if the second largest oil producing nation was bogged down by an occupation then prices would soar. Hmmmm and how have the oil companies been fairing since the invasion???? Who's side do you think this honest patriot is on?? http://blogs.it/0100206/stories/2004/03/15/houseOfBushHouseOfSaud.html
515831
The insertion of troops was a major mistake. The entire region under Islamic influence from Morocco to Indonesia is far less stable as a result. The U.S. is increasingly seen as dictatorial by increasing numbers of people around the world. Our economy has been vastly weakened. We do not have enough troops available should other emergencies develop. The Civil War, denied by the Bush administration but acknowledged as being fully underway by the rest of the world, deepens daily and leaves American troops there as sitting ducks. There can be no victory in Iraq. Just as the British learned after World War I, the Iraqis will not be conquered. There is too much value underground (oil) and too much division above-ground. The only result of continued occupation will be increasing governmental debt for the U.S. and more dead and injured American soldiers. Military contractors such as Halliburton are being enriched. The Bush administration has no idea of what they mean by "victory", nor does Tony Blair in England.
22806
If you ask Bush he will say "Because God wants me to be president."  If you ask me, I think people were afraid to change the guard because of the war.  Basically, the American public said: hey, you guys messed up with this war thing but why don't you try and finish it anyway.  I am still shocked.