How Come Nobody Thought of This!?!?!

The Kurds apparently have a population of 25 mil.--roughly the size of Iraq--in four contiguous states. Nightmare.

wait - you mean to tell us that iraq isn't just a war of the imagination? it isn't just about american "will?" there is more to understanding iraq than that the "enemy" will follow us home? surely the bush administration would have told us by now if this were the case, wouldn't it?

Trouble, in short, is brewing.

Where's Matthew been? Trouble's been brewing for a LOOOOONG time before George W. Bush was in office, and the United States has been in the middle for a LOOOOONG time also. The problem isn't "going to arise" (as Matthew writes), it arose many years ago.

"...the Kurds are trying to take over Kirkuk and Mosul ..."

This is actually the solution to the larger problem. Once the Kurds begin ruling over a large Arab minority, they can no longer claim to be motivated by nationalism. They won't be able to complain about the Turks doing the same to a large Kurdish minority.

No, I'm not serious, and it saddens me to no end that I probably need to say so.

the Kurds are trying to take over Kirkuk and Mosul

This completely ignores history, BTW. You should replace "trying to take over" with "returning to areas they were forcibly removed from by Saddam".

Trouble's been brewing for a LOOOOONG time

Is that like, "It's still too early to judge the effects of the French Revolution"? Dude, nobody expects you to stop shilling for the Admin, but at least show some pride in your work.

They want oil and autonomy. Always have. Remember the oil pipeline to Israel? This problem has existed from the start. Does Ignatius forget the fandango with the Turks at the very beginning of the Iraq war? The Turks wanted to invade Kurdistan to "stabilize it" and the US refused. Subsequently the Turks did not allow US troops to invade from the north? Doesn't he remember all the discussion of how we would control Iraq without that northern pincer?

The Iranian Kurds aren't mentioned explicitly. They'd just as soon be free of Iran. The Kurd business could be a major destablizing influence in that entire area. I have seen no indication of any on-going diplomatic efforts. No surprise there. There will be an incident and the Turks will enter Iraq. We'll see what happens then.

It's funny how this post is exactly like Matthew's posts on Somalia. In both cases, Matthew doesn't seem to be aware of, or is actively ignoring, the history prior to when George Bush took action. (OMG, people are getting killed in Somalia now that Bush tacitly supported Ethiopia's invasion! As if this wasn't happening for continuously prior to the Ethiopian invasion.) It's like, for Matthew, history only begins when George Bush does something.

I seem to recall that Turkey refused to allow us to use their country as a staging area for the invasion of Iraq. We wanted to open a Northern front. Apparently the Turks thought there might be a problem with the Kurds or something down the road. We showed them though - we paratrooped in our forces in to the north. That'll teach them to try and stop us from doing something stupid.

Before Saddam "arabised" Mosul and Kirkuk, those cities were mainly Kurdish. So, as opposed to trying to take over those cities, I think they are merely trying to take them back.

Those rollicking,rambunctious Kurds have been a pain to several empires and kingdoms since they took up the name Kurd.

To the best of their knowledge, neocons did not know about this problem before they recommended that Iraq be showered with our bombs.

Question: With or without an invasion of Iraq in 2003, wasn't it inevitable that at some point the region would have to reconcile itself to the Kurds' aspirations? Kurds have long since been the largest geographically contiguous national group without a state, and since the end of the first Gulf War, they have demonstrated high levels of military, economic, and political organization. Their proto-state in the Kurdish north is better-run, more peaceful, and more prosperous than dozens of current UN-member states.

Since enlightened folks now speak of re-drawing the borders of Iraq in order to separate ethnic/sectarian groups, why stop there? And since the same enlightened folks advocate regional diplomacy as the preferred tack in stabilizing the region, why shouldn't the Kurds' concerns be part of this dialog? After all, if it's reasonable to carve Iraq into Kurdish, Arab Sunni and Arab Shiite states, isn't it reasonable that the Kurdish areas of Turkey and Iran be merged with the Kurdish region of Iraq? If not, than isn't it at least reasonable for the world to demand that Iran and Turkey give the Kurds greater regional autonomy?

How anyone (e.g., King Abdullah) can claim that the plight of the Palestinians is crucial to stabilizing Iraq and the region and completely ignore the plight of the Kurds seems ludicrous.

Ignatius doesn't even mention that the Kurds are trying to take over Kirkuk and Mosul . . .

Ignatius does mention that the Kurds assert a claim to Kirkuk and expect to win the referendum.

al, i was going to ignore your first few cracks, but since you keep it up: yes, there has been a potential for problems related to a kurdish desire for autonomy for a long time now.

the point is that this was completely and totally ignored in the rush to war, which exacerbated the problem, and even now, the "we can win" folks pretend it's a non-issue.

no, george bush didn't create most of the problems in the world today, but there are very few he hasn't made worse. the minimum requirement is to fulfill the hippocratic oath and first do no harm.

Some of these comment seem to imply that Matthew is the blinkered one regarding the Kurds. Or is that just carrying the sarcasm to the next logical step?

I am reminded that Saladin, scourge of Christendom, was a Kurd.

It's a rare day when even Fred has a more substantive comment to offer than Al. I mean, if the best you can do is pretend like the post wasn't sarcastic in order to profess shock at Matt's ignorance, you might as well have just stayed in bed.

Uhhhh, yeah he does:
A flash point is Kirkuk, an oil-rich city claimed by the Kurds, which the Turks regard as a special protectorate because of its large Turkmen population. The new Iraqi constitution calls for a referendum by December on the city's future, and the Kurds are confident they will win the vote. The Turks, fearing the same outcome, want the referendum delayed. The Bush administration seems to favor a delay but hasn't said so publicly, to avoid angering the Kurds and undermining the constitution.

I guess the proper "realist" response back in 1991 would have been for Bush 41 to not institute the no-fly zone and provide the Kurds with humanitarian relive and let Saddam Hussein completely wipe them out. Then we wouldn't have to worry about this pesky ethnic group. I guess that's another thing we can blame Clinton for too, since he maintained that no-fly zone for another 8 years.

the point is that this was completely and totally ignored in the rush to war, which exacerbated the problem,

Um, no. It was not ignored in the lead up to the war. In fact, it has been handled rather well, both before the war and since.

And the war changed nothing as regards the Kurd-Turkey problems. Every single sentence in Matthew's first paragraph applied prior to the war just as it applies now.

Matthew looks completely ignorant when he writes "this problem was going to arise". As I said above, either Matthew is not aware of history, or is actively ignoring it. Either way, it doesn't look good for him.

Fred - You make some very good points. From the moment this war was waged, I thought that whatever else would happen, one side-effect was that a Kurdistan would come into being.

I mean, if the best you can do is pretend like the post wasn't sarcastic in order to profess shock at Matt's ignorance, you might as well have just stayed in bed.

The "this problem was going to arise" part of Matthew's post was most certainly NOT sarcastic.

The whole point of Matthew's post is that Turkish-Kurdish tension already existed before the war. Blowing the lid off of that situation has caused new problems to arise.

Al is willfully misreading the obvious meaning of the post in order to intentionally muddy the waters. Al is a dishonest piece of shit.

And the war changed nothing as regards the Kurd-Turkey problems.

Except for removing that other bar to Kurdish national aspirations, Saddam Hussein, and making everything chaotic enough that all sorts of cherished goals seem possible. But nothing else.

and let Saddam Hussein completely wipe them out.

My recollection is that the vast majority of Kurds live outside of Iraq and inside other nations.

Except for removing that other bar to Kurdish national aspirations, Saddam Hussein

Well, yeah, we removed the person that had committed genocide against the Kurds. I realize you think that was wrong, but I fail to see how it affected the Kurd-TURKEY relationship.

I can remember being briefed about the PKK when I was in Germany in the late 80's and early 90's. The PKK was using Kurds in Germany as a source of funds for their insurgency. That was way before Bush 43 came along. This is not a new problem. It just has a new twist. If the autonomous region gets access to oil revenue then they may be better able to support the insurgency in Turkey and Iran.

Thanks for the post Matt. Whenever people bring up the splitting Iraq up solution, be it under a confederation or independent nations, I always bring this up. People just don't seem to notice that the Turks are really serious about not wanting a Kurdistan on their borders and are willing to deploy their comparatively formidable military to make sure there isn't one. Sigh...

"Al, you let Charles Manson escape from prison, and now he's on another rampage? It was always perfectly clear that this problem was going to arise."

Al: "Where's Matthew been? Trouble's been brewing for a LOOOOONG time before I let Charles Manson out of his cell. The problem isn't "going to arise" (as Matthew writes), it arose many years ago. Matthew looks completely ignorant when he writes 'this problem was going to arise.'"

Al, you stupid, dishonest, lying, worthless piece of shit HACK.

Ah, that feels better.

Anyway, Al, are you really trying to claim that the Kurds in northern Iraq consider themselves to be in the same situation now that they were in before 2003? Because that's exactly what you seem to be claiming, and using that claim to beat up Matt. But it's a stupid fucking claim.

So, Al, choose:

A. I, Al, believe that the last 4 years have done nothing to change the situation of Iraqi Kurds. I also believe that fire is cold and water is dry.
B. I, Al, am a dishonest piece of shit who should troll WOW and leave people who care about Planet Earth alone.

The only possible explanation for such denseness on the part of David Iglesias is that he's thick-headed. The next thing you know he'll be telling us how the wheel works and that wheels have been used in some parts of the world for millennia. The WaPo has gone way, way, way down, down, down and falling...

I realize you think that was wrong, but I fail to see how it affected the Kurd-TURKEY relationship.

You really don't see how the removal of Saddam has empowered the Kurds? You really don't see how this has emboldened the Kurds vis-a-vis Turkey? Is it really such a mystery?

Sorry, obviously I mean Ignatius.

isn't it reasonable that the Kurdish areas of Turkey and Iran be merged with the Kurdish region of Iraq?

No. I think the Kurds should be given some real estate elsewhere and resettled in their new homeland. They're desert folk, so Texas should do just fine.

BP:

"No. I think the Kurds should be given some real estate elsewhere and resettled in their new homeland. They're desert folk, so Texas should do just fine."

I'm glad to see your ignorance (thinking the Kurds are a "desert people" as opposed to the mountain folk they are) doesn't hold you back from posting. Whatever public school you attended clearly did a good job boosting your self-esteem. As for your geography skills: not so much.

Al, do you ever tire of being too stupid to live?

Whenever someone starts talking about what a great idea it would be for us to encourage all the geographically contiguous Kurdish people to secede from their current states and form their own nation, I can't help but be sadly amused. Didn't we fight a war once because some of our people with their own unique cultural identity tried to do the same thing? About 140 years ago, I think.

Not saying that in an ideal world it wouldn't be grand for them to have their own state. It's just that we don't live in an ideal world.

You really don't see how this has emboldened the Kurds vis-a-vis Turkey?

Where's the evidence? Everything Ignatius writes about has been the case for a long time.

"Unique cultural identity" = slavery

In case anyone gets befuddled.

Ignatius leads a Confederacy of Dunces

You know, there is a term for Turkey's attitude toward the part of Iraq inhabited by Kurds. It's called imperialism. Turkey seems to think it is justified in invading other countries (and annexing them/running them as proxy states) whenever it feels threatened. I fail to see why the United States should encourage this belief in them. If an indepedent state comes into being in northern Iraq called Kurdistan, I'd like to see the Turks try to crush it. It would be their own Vietnam.

Now, you can claim that America upset the apple cart here, and that is true, but it is by no means obvious to me that our relationship with Turkey is sacrosant, sealed by God, and should therefore lead us to support them in any and all measures they might wish to take, up to and including mass ethnic cleansing and democide.

The United States famously did not support the Brits, French, and Israel in the Suez crisis, and I think something of the sort should be the response to Turkish attempts to invade another country just because they are scared some of their own severely brutalized citizens might get a little uppity.

There is a clear pro-Turkey bias out there, and it needs to be combated.

Catsy,

You do realize that there is a UN recognized right to self-determination? You do realize that much of World War I and II were justified by this right, not to mention the most recent Kosovo War?

This has nothing to do with the American Civil War. I'd encourage you to read some non-American history.

I'm glad to see your ignorance (thinking the Kurds are a "desert people" as opposed to the mountain folk they are) doesn't hold you back from posting.

Well then, put them someplace where there are mountains. Give them Colorado. Don't Be Part Of The Problem, Be Part Of The Solution!

Turkey seems to think it is justified in invading other countries (and annexing them/running them as proxy states) whenever it feels threatened.

That ain't Turkey you're discussing here, Buddy.

BP,

How about we try something a lot less expensive. How about we let people live in the towns and area they grew up in and let them speak their own language and choose their own leaders. Surprisingly, Iran, Turkey, and Syria seem strangely opposed to these widely recognized rights. Why do you support mass migration over implementation of simple human rights treaties to which all of these countries are signatories?

Hector: The Turkish problem is far more intricate. Many of the Kurds in Turkey want their independence. They agitate, or worse. Turkey has legitimate concerns that agitation, and the means to implement it, will be imported from an independent Kudistan. Given the nasty problem of the Kurds in Turkey, I suspect that Turkey has little interest in integrating another whole nation of Kurds. If they had their druthers, Turkey would want the Iraqi Kurds suppressed by someone else.

Certainly greed to acquire a source of oil could inspire the Turks to imperialism, but you and I know that the oil would cease to flow due to sabotage. The Kurds want autonomy. The best solution for Turkey is for Kurdistan to be a dependent province of Iraq. For that to be the most probable outcome, the elections in Kirkuk, etc. must result in Kurdish defeat. That looks like a long shot.

It's a problem. And I would not attribute it to Turkish imperialism.

BP,

Actually, it is Turkey we are talking about. Their military has repeatedly threatened to invade Iraq if Kirkuk joins the Kurdish autonomous region, even though that is a clearly domestic decision by the government and people of Iraq. Turkey currently occupies and largely administers through a puppet government part of Cyprus after ethnically cleansing its inhabitants. Turkey got Syria to eject Abdullah Ocalan after threatening to invade Syria. It blockades Armenia because it opposes the Armenian efforts to support Nagorno-Karabakh and because it refuses to recognize the Armenian genocide. There are recurrent tensions with Greece, a country it occupied and deported a large number of people to through a process of ethnic cleansing.

It isn't ok for the US to engage in preemptive war on flimsy grounds, and the justification for Turkey to invade IRaq is even flimsier.

No one could have predicted that Iraq and Turkey was full of millions of Kurds. This is a troubling development.

Why do you support mass migration over implementation of simple human rights treaties to which all of these countries are signatories?

Because it's the Anglo-American Way. It works, too, mostly.

Does Al get his inanities emailed through his rnchq.com account, or does he have to phone in for new ones after the initial crop get laughed out of town?

I'm not sure it's widely known, but much of Turkish Kurdistan used to be the bit of the Ottoman Empire inhabited by Armenians. It's more widely known what happened to those Armenians.

Mudge,

The nasty problem of the Kurds in Turkey is entirely of Turkey's making. They were forcibly incorporated into Turley by Attaturk with great brutality, and every time they have attempted to assert their right to self-determination, they have been repressed. Until very recently, the _existence_ of Kurds in Turkey was not acknowledged, and their language and culture were outlawed. You could literally be arrested for speaking Kurdish in Turkey. There are something like a million internal refugees in Turkey from the Turkish war against the Kurds in the 80s and early 90s. Huge numbers of villages were burned to the ground and the inhabitants forcibly expelled to quell Kurdish separatism. Only recently, under pressure from the European Union, has Turkey started to recognize the cultural distinctiveness of the Kurds, and the army is unhappy with that and has actually planted bombs just to implicate the Kurdish guerillas and justify another round of repression and killings.

The problem of the Kurds in Turkey is a Turkish problem. For whatever reason, the Turkish government and large sections of Turkish society think that people who self-identify as Kurdish and wish to promote a Kurdish cultural identity have forfeited their human rights and deserve to be suppressed or killed.

I believe that the majority of Kurds in Turkey would not support independence if given cultural rights and a little breathing room. But this is intolerable to sectors of the Turkish state, so much so that they would prefer to invade other countries and kill their inhabitants instead.

BP,

Did it work in Israel/Palestine? Did it work in India/Pakistan? Both of those were created by massive ethnic cleansing through British influence, and as we know now, both have been beacons of peace since their foudning.

Has anyone noticed that we suck? Meaning we, the US population, are sucking because our comrades elected this worthless administration. Whether or not we voted for it individually, we are responsible as a nation for it. (Arguably, if we sucked less, even our comrades who disagree with us would nominate more competent candidates.) As a result of what we did/are, we are causing other populations, in other parts of our planet, to suck, too. How are we to put a stop to this seastorm of suckfulness??

Then we wouldn't have to worry about this pesky ethnic group.

Well, that's a first for you, Fred.

Come on, Hektor, with the exception of Cyprus (and we'll skip over the assasination of Cypriot president Makarios by the Greeks, which started the whole thing) none of the issues you mentioned have anything to do with invasions or annexations of other countries.

We cannot allow curds to have their whey.

Did it work in Israel/Palestine?

Sure did. Gas chambers, global persecution, and genocide versus a thriving, prosperous country and billions of dollars annually in aid? Hmm, choices, choices. Sure, it sucks for the Palis, and it'll no doubt suck for the folks in Colorado who will have to git to make room, but it'll be just dandy for the Kurds.

Hector,

The acqisition of the Kurds into Turkey is regretable and certainly was never conducted with their approval. At that time, it was gross imperialism in an age of imperialsm. No argument. The Turks have no history of benvolence, as the Armenian example above shows.

But that was then, now is now. Turkey has no interest in ceding their Kurdish territory, nor do they want intensified rebellion supported across the border. It's the old Pancho Villa getting back to Mexico gambit. Turkey will use a Black Jack Pershing if the feel they must. That will not help the region.

So, you can say it is a problem of their own making and I would not disagree. But the ramifications of their previous actions influence the here and now, which need to be addressed rather than blaming them for the problem.
We

BP,

You do realize that the Kurds are far more likely to end up as the Palestinians in that scenario? And you still haven't addressed India/Pakistan. I suspect it is because you know nothing about the situation in those countries or the history of the region.

I think occupying a country for a significant amount of time up to the present day after ethnically cleansing it is highly relevant. It is also relevant because significant members of the Turkish government believe that Cyprus is worth not joining the EU over.

Right now, the head of the Turkish military is suggesting invading another country merely because he is upset about its internal organization. Do you think Russia should be able to invade Estonia if it merges two internal provinces of Estonia together? Do you think the US should be able to invade Mexico if it creates an autonomous province of northern Mexico?

Mudge,

Well, I can see several solutions to the problem. We could throw them out of NATO and EU accession talks if they invade Iraq. We could blockade northern Cyprus if they invade Iraq. We could recognize Armenian claims to eastern Turkey or an independent Kurdistan in southeastern Turkey if they invade Iraq.

All of these are extreme, but I think the consequences of a Turkish invasion of Iraq would also be extreme, and two can play at hardball politics.

The point is not that we should necessarily do these things, but if hotheaded Turkish generals can make stupid statements, it seems to me that hotheaded American senators can make similar statements.

Hektor Bim

You do realize that there is a UN recognized right to self-determination?

Nonsense.

It's been a while since I read the UN charter, but I know it priortizes the territorial integrity of existing states over any sentimentality about 'self-determination'. That is to be expected of an organization composed of the governments of those very states.

You do realize that much of World War I and II were justified by this right?

You mean Hitler invading Poland because the Poles were denying self-determination to ethnic Germans?

I'd encourage you to read some non-American history.

I suggest taking your own advice.

David,

World War I was largely sold as protecting small peoples from large predatory empires, i.e. Holland and Belgium. There was also a lot of talk about liberating people from the Austro-Hungarian, Turkish, and German empires. That's why the Austro-Hungarian empire was broken up and all of these small states were created. That's also why the Soviet Union had four seats in the UN. Remember Wilson and self-determination?

David, read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination

You do realize that the Kurds are far more likely to end up as the Palestinians in that scenario?

Well, listen Hektor, either the Kurds are going to suffer or the Kurds are going to be happy, albeit at someone else's expense, and so far all you are proposing is that someone else i.e. the Turks, pay the price. Well the Turks aren't going to oblige us, and there's not much we can do about that, so if the Kurds' well-being is that important to us you (or more accurately, the folks in Colorado) might as well make the sacrifice.

If the Turks, Iranians, etc. really don't want to see an independent Kurdistan, then they should get off the pot and start playing a constructive role in stabilizing Iraq. The Kurds have already agreed to remain part of a federal, democratic Iraq which would allow them to maintain their regional autonomy. If Iraq's neighbors are happy to see this Plan A fall apart, then they better like Plan B, which will be an independent Kurdistan. Those are the only two options; the Kurds aren't going to go back to being an oppressed minority in an Arab-run autocracy, whether those Arabs happen to be Sunnis or Shiites.

Now, you can claim that America upset the apple cart here, and that is true, but it is by no means obvious to me that our relationship with Turkey is sacrosant, sealed by God, and should therefore lead us to support them in any and all measures they might wish to take, up to and including mass ethnic cleansing and democide.

Of course not. But the loss of one of our few Middle Eastern allies is another example of how the consequences of our Iraqi adventure are turning out disastrous for the U.S. We were told that our invasion would gain us allies, not lose us all of our allies, when they should have known that was bollocks.

BP,

No, it is not a zero-sum solution. It is possible for the Kurds to have cultural autonomy and some aspect of self-government in Turkey and Iraq, and for this to lead to a more prosperous and stable Turkey and a more prosperous and stable Iraq. This would be a win-win for the Turks, Kurds, and non-Kurdish Iraqis. The Kurdish autonomous government in Iraq has shelved the question of independence for now and the PKK has mostly called off the war in favor of talks with the Turkish state on autonomy. For some reason, the military and much of the political elites in Turkey refuse to accept this situation and favor mass repression of Kurds in Turkey and the invasion and occupation of northern Iraq. The problem is the Turks, and the solution is to encourage them not to do something really stupid.

Wilfred,

Can you remind us again why it's so important to continually kiss Turkey's ass? It's seems like the rationale is usually that this will strengthen democratic elements in Turkey and weaken Islamist elements (same argument, by the way, for Turkey's inclusion into the EU). Maybe it's time to re-think this.

Democracy has struggled against Islamism in Turkey for a century, and its success is still in doubt. Meanwhile, the Kurds are more secular and Democratic than the Turks.

Instead of placating the Turks in the hopes that they will someday be a secular, stable, reliable ally, why not back the Kurds, who already are?

For some reason, the military and much of the political elites in Turkey refuse to accept this situation and favor mass repression of Kurds in Turkey and the invasion and occupation of northern Iraq.

Well, yeah. That's because the PKK engages in terrorism, and the last thing they want is for them to get their own state and enough oil revenue to buy stuff more effective than trucks full of ammonium nitride.

Obviously there was trouble between Turkey (and Iraq and Iran) and the Kurds before, but then it was *someone else's problem*. Now, because we are occupying Iraq, it is *our problem*. We will eventually be forced to side with either the Kurds or the Turks. As we become more imperialistic, we are increasingly turning other peoples problems into our problems. This is expensive, stupid, and generally makes the problems worse, because we tend to be incompetent in foreign lands. This is obviously the kind of thing that Matt was getting at.

Also, could we have our old Al back? He was so much wittier and more creative in peddling the administration line. It was really fun to see what he would come up with in his endless attempts to defend the indefensible. I'm really starting to believe the claim that there is a rotating cast of different Al characters sent from the RNC, because it's either that or the old Al got some kind of brain disease. Or maybe he ran out of sophistries, I don't know.

Can you remind us again why it's so important to continually kiss Turkey's ass? It's seems like the rationale is usually that this will strengthen democratic elements in Turkey

Hmm. Islamic country with a big ass army and a bigger military budget than Israel. Bordering the Middle East. Friend? Or Foe? Choices, choices.

I'm really starting to believe the claim that there is a rotating cast of different Al characters sent from the RNC, because it's either that or the old Al got some kind of brain disease.

He's certainly gone downhill, but he's always been the same individual Hacky McHack. Rather than brain disease, it's more likely that defending the indefensible has simply started to take a toll on him. I've compared him many times before to one of Stalin's hacks, whom he certainly equals in devotion to The Party. They too generally lost a certain je ne sais quoi as time went on and their sad life of hackery got to them.

Obviously there was trouble between Turkey (and Iraq and Iran) and the Kurds before, but then it was *someone else's problem*. Now, because we are occupying Iraq, it is *our problem*.

When you say "before", do you mean *before 1991*, which was when we first began protecting the Kurds through the No-Fly Zone? Because it's been "our problem" since at least then.

BP,

The leadership of the Kurdish autonomous area in Iraq is not and never has been the same as the PKK. They aren't even friends. The quickest way the Turks could get them to join forces, however, whould be to go in there and kill a lot of Kurds indiscriminately.

The leadership of the Kurdish autonomous area in Iraq is not and never has been the same as the PKK. They aren't even friends. The quickest way the Turks could get them to join forces, however, whould be to go in there and kill a lot of Kurds indiscriminately.

All the more reason then, to get the Kurds a safe homeland in Colorado before the Turks go all Armenian on their asses.

Listen, Hector. Turkey may suck on this issue, but we can't get into a conflict with them on behalf of the Kurds. This isn't pro-Turkish bias. It's being constrained by this thing called "reality."

If Turkey gets destabilized, do you really think anyone's going to leave that situation in better shape than when they went in? Including the Kurds?

I see, BP. You would rather resettle 10-25 million people in Colorado than undertake some diplomacy to prevent the Turkish military from invading Iraq. That's completely ridiculous.

JP,

Why do you think Turkey would be destabilized by not invading Iraq? All the Turks have to do is consolidate their democracy and restrain their military from invading other countries. That's not such a tall order in my book and doesn't involve destabilizing Turkey. In fact, it involves stabilizing Turkey. Why do so many people on this board who (I assume) oppose the American occupation of Iraq support the Turkish occupation of Iraq? Do you think a Turkish invasion of Iraq would be cost-free in terms of lives, resources, or international standing?

Why do so many people on this board who (I assume) oppose the American occupation of Iraq support the Turkish occupation of Iraq?

Because a Turkish invasion of Iraq would tend to confirm their view of the Iraq war. Which is obviously the most important thing going on here.

Hector, I am not in a position of authority in the Turkish government. Being constrained by reality means that you can't just assume Turkey will do what you think they ought to do. Rather, you have to assume Turkey will do what you think it's going to do.

Also, Hector, don't accuse me of "supporting a Turkish invasion of Iraq." For now I'll assume you misread my earlier comment in your zeal, but do it again and I'll assume you're a lying shit.

I'm sure there is more than one Al, and at least some of them are parodies.

Al lives in his own autonomous region called 'Turdistan'. Thank you, I'll be here all week.

I don't see Al and Hektor campaigning to restore the Ottoman Empire, though.

If the premise indeed is "Trouble, in short, is brewing. And yet, shockingly, all throughout the years of denial about Iraq, respectable mainstream opinion was weirdly loathe to note this gobsmackingly obvious flaw in the elite vision of Iraq."

A simple google search on kurdistan trouble shows that this is simply not the case. So, your point is?

Hector, if diplomacy is what you want - and I am for you there - then the Kurdish government should break up the PKK camps and clamp down on smuggling. It should also pledge not to help groups that use violence in Turkey, period.

To draw a parallel: the U.S. wouldn't tolerate a terrorist camp on its border that made forays in support of oppressed hispanics for a second. In fact, during the Mexican revolution, when the Rio Grande valley - which suffered under white oppression, both economic and social - was targetted by a few Mexican revolutionaries for liberation, the response of the Texas rangers was two years of death squad policy that killed, according to Robert Uttley's recent history of the Rangers, up to five thousand deaths. Scenes in which travelers would come upon Mexican Americans in groups hanging from trees - mass lynchings were common - explain why the valley never went back to Mexican rule, although the majority of the population could be argued to want it to - using the same argument that is used about the Kurds in Turkey. Nobody ever mentions that the Turks, in the eighties, elected Ozal, who was partly Kurdish, president. Turkish nationalism is being enforced in the same way that the British and the French enforced their own brand of national unity in the 19th century, no more, no less.

ps - sorry. Hektor.

And the war changed nothing as regards the Kurd-Turkey problems.

nothing? not a teenzie weensie bit even? - god, that's the stupidest comment I've read in a long while

Everything Ignatius writes about has been the case for a long time.

Saddam was planning a referendum on the status of Kirkuk?

Can you remind us again why it's so important to continually kiss Turkey's ass?

Fred or al or somethin'

Hey, why don't you ask Denny Hastert about that. I'm sure he'll know.

Let's hear it for a the world (and the Kurds)needs;

a Greater Kurdistan'

JP,

Then what is this about "destabilizing" Turkey? PKK raids are down significantly from their previous heights. The PKK leadership wants to negotiate with Turkey. The Turkish security services were caught redhanded bombing a bookstore to blame it on the PKK. It looks to me like elements of the Turkish state are interested in destabilizing Turkey by staging bombings inside the country and agitating to invade foreign countries. If you are interested in "stabilizing" Turkey, then you are interested in them _not_ invading Iraq, and in not giving the military a free hand. Since the policy in Turkey has not been decided, what precisely do you suggest happen? Just give Turkey a nod and a wink and watch the only peaceful part of Iraq go to hell in a handbasket and probably draw Turkey proper into the same hell?

Great post, but I must nitpick. The word you were searching for is "loath" not "loathe"...e.g., "He was loath to admit that he loathed the Bush Administration." Sorry, it's the E.B. White in me...carry on.

roger,

You aren't seriously considering that selecting Ozal makes the Turks ok on their treatment of the Kurds?

You'll notice that a lot of things that were acceptable in the 19th century are no longer acceptable now, like slavery, imperialism, etc.

By the way, wasn't it Yglesias who argued that allowing Hezbollah to operate on Israel's borders was far less expensive than fighting a war to drive them out? What makes you think that the same calculus wouldn't operate in Northern Iraq? Turkey has no legal claim to northern Iraq and can only prevent Kurdish bases from operating there through permanent occupation. What they need is a political solution, just like Iraq needs a political solution.

By the way, pseudonymous in nc, I don't even think I agree with Al on this issue really, though he seems to think he agrees with me.

Hektor Bim

Why do so many people on this board who (I assume) oppose the American occupation of Iraq support the Turkish occupation of Iraq?

Would you name these people?

I've re-read the whole thread and didn't find one such comment.

David Tomlin,

Did you read the wikipedia page?

Just FYI. Joe Klein has accused you of being wrong here... http://time-blog.com/swampland/2007/04/kurdish_ways.html

Matt Yglesias usually has a lot of smart things to say about foreign policy, but his takedown of David Ignatius's column on the Kurds isn't as acute as usual. It isn't even accurate. Matt claims that Ignatius doesn't mention the looming crisis in Kirkuk, but he does:

then quote the part of Ignesias' column where he mentions the December elections.

Here's my response (so that you can use your beautiful mind for other things)

This really seems like a modus operandi --- Joe assumes that someone smarter than him said something stupid, and merely displays his own ignorance.

Its cluetime Joe. Matt wrote "Ignatius doesn't even mention that the Kurds are trying to take over Kirkuk" and if you had a freaking clue, you'd know that "are trying to" refers to the ONGOING ETHNIC CLEANSING OF ARABS AND TURKMEN BY THE KURDS IN KIRKUK.

(google, "kirkuk, ethnic cleansing")

That is what Ignatius doesn't mention --- and its why the Kurds are so "confident" about the election. They are throwing out (or killing) the opposition.

SHEESH

(apologies for the caps, Time Inc doesn't allow code)

Hector, I read your 4:22 comment two or three times, and I honestly can't understand what you're trying to say. Rewrite, please.

JP,

What do you think is "destabilizing" Turkey right now?

Hector, I think my exact words were "If Turkey gets destabilized," so your question is off point.

I seem to recall Operation Anfal was an ethnic cleansing of Kurds from parts of Kirkuk and Mosul. Now that Kurds removed then want to return to their original dwellings and homesteads, Lukasiak and co. want to call that "ethnic cleansing?"

It's called the Second Foul in the NBA.

By the way, pseudonymous in nc, I don't even think I agree with Al on this issue really, though he seems to think he agrees with me.

No reason that Hektor Bim should agree with me. The fact that we both disagree with Matthew doesn't mean that we agree with each other. I'm not sure why pseudonoymous in nc seems to think so (in fact I don't understand pseudonoymous in nc's comment "I don't see Al and Hektor campaigning to restore the Ottoman Empire" at all).

My belief is that there is hardly anything new with respect to Iraqi Kurdistan since the war that concerns Turkey. To the extent we see Turkey ratcheting up the rhetoric, it is a result of Turkish politicians posuting for Turkey's elections, not because of anything resulting from the war.

Hektor, requiring Turkish to be used in schools and discouraging Kurdish is far from slavery. I'm, as a matter of fact, opposed to the Turks doing that - just as I'm opposed to English only laws in the U.S.

As for the Turkish military - the dirty war they fought against the PKK was riddled with homicide, agents provacateurs, human rights violations of all kinds. That's why I don't like to see the conditions set up for that kind of thing again. Turkey negotiating with the PKK avoids the question, why is the Kurdish government allowing Kurdish guerrillas to operate on its territory? If they do that, they leave themselves open for a military strike by the Turks, it is that simple. If Northern Iraq wants Turkey to get used to the idea of an autonomous Kurdish state - and I think that is inevitably where Northern Iraq is headed - then they should not be encouraging irredentism, but reassuring Turkey that they have no plans on being a hostile state.

You seem to want to have it both ways. You want Northern Iraq protected against Turkish invasion and you want the Kurds given carte blanche to do whatever they feel like with regard to Turkey. That is the height of foolishness, and repeats an old pattern of overreaching that has always brought down the Kurdish state before.

There is no greater Kurdistan.

Hektor Bim:

World War I was largely sold as protecting small peoples from large predatory empires, i.e. Holland and Belgium.

The Netherlands remained neutral throughout World War I. Again I suggest you take your own advice and read some history.

There was also a lot of talk about liberating people from the Austro-Hungarian, Turkish, and German empires. That's why the Austro-Hungarian empire was broken up and all of these small states were created.

The Versailles Treaty was notorious for trampling on self-determination. Where independent states were created it was to further the interests of the victorious powers, not to comply with any abstract principle or right.

That's also why the Soviet Union had four seats in the UN.

This is bizarre. Those extra three seats did nothing to further the self-determination of the people nominally represented.

Remember Wilson and self-determination?

This one calls for a longer answer. I'll give it a comment to itself.

why is the Kurdish government allowing Kurdish guerrillas to operate on its territory

BTW, where is the evidence that the Kurdish government is "allowing" Kurdish guerrillas to operate on its territory? The Kurdish government has always opposed the PKK (in fact, as outlined in the HRW I linked to on the other thread, the PUK and the PKK have a history of fighting each other); it's just that the Kurdish government has got more important priorities that doing the Turks bidding. Moreover, it just is not true that the US has not been doind anything about the PKK. As this guy from CFR says, what the US has been doing is actually somewhat of a bright spot.

Hektor Bim:

Remember Wilson and self-determination?

Here is the text of Wilson's Fourteen Points.

http://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/1918/14points.html

Note first that the phrase 'self determination', with or without hyphen, appears nowhere in the text. Points 10 and 12 call for the 'peoples of Austria-Hungary' and the 'other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule' to have the 'opportunity of [or 'to'] autonomous development'. But these are special cases. The general principle is set forth in Point 5:

'A free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the government whose title is to be determined.'

Note that there is no mention of anything like the wishes or preferences of 'the populations concerned'. It seems that the Great Powers are to determine what are the 'interests of the populations concerned', and then give those interests equal (no more than equal) weight with the 'claims' of the colonial government that will usually be one of themselves. This is a long way from a 'right to self-determination'.

JP,

Fine, then, what would destabilize Turkey then? What in the future do you think could happen that would destabilize Turkey? Basically, what were you talking about in that statement?

roger,

It was a lot more than discouraging Kurdish in schools. The existence of Kurds was denied - they were called "mountain Turks". Any expression of Kurdish identity could be punished by long imprisonment and gruesome torture. Which meant of course that the state was repressive and authoritarian in general, for _all_ Turks.

We agree that the dirty war was terrible. Good. The military and hard-core nationalists want to restart the dirty war and recover some of the power they have lost. Part of their strategy for that is invading Iraq and whipping up nationalist fervor. It seems to me that we should be pressing for a negotiated resolution of the problem in Turkey. This isn't "sidestepping" the problem, this is the problem. Turkey needs to find a way to accomodate Kurdish cultural expression in Turkey. That would encourage democratic tendencies in Turkey as a whole as the deep state recedes. The problem of Kurds in Turkey requires a political solution. What happens in northern Iraq obviously affects what happens, but it doesn't control it. When Saddam Hussein was running things in northern Iraq, Turkey still had its "Kurdish" problem, which is really a "Turkish" problem. What is your evidence that the autonomous region of Kurdistan is encouraging irredentism?

I don't want it both ways, I want the fighting and killing to end. That's why I want negotiated solutions to things. Do you think the Turkish government is justified in invading Iraq?

There is a discrepancy in your post by the way. If all the people in Turkey and northern Iraq and Iran and Syria are "Kurds", then there most definitely is a greater Kurdistan in the cultural sense at least. You can't have it both ways.

David Tomlin,

You still haven't read the wikipedia page, have you?

As this guy from CFR says, what the US has been doing is actually somewhat of a bright spot.

Except that the 'bright spot' isn't 'what the U.S. has been doing'. It's who has been talking to whom.

Mr. Cook actually says neither the U.S. nor the Iraqi Kurdish leaders have been willing to do anything.

'From the Iraqi Kurdish leadership perspective, if they were to take on the PKK or the United States were to take on the PKK, it would destabilize northern Iraq. And this is a problem that they don’t want to have. From the U.S. perspective, we have enough people shooting at us, we don’t need a new group of people shooting at us.'

Hektor Bim:

You still haven't read the wikipedia page, have you?

The page makes vague claims about the Fourteen Points without citing any of the text. Why do you consider that superior to a discussion of the actual text?

I didn't bother reading the rest of it. I would call your attention to this:

'Although there is a consensus that international law recognizes the principle of self-determination . . . [i]t's [sic] application in international law creates a tension between this principle and the principles of territorial integrity and non-intervention in internal affairs.'

It is also stated that the principle is 'often seen as a moral and legal right', not that it is generally recognized as a legal right.

So I don't understand your problem then, David Tomlin. There is always a tension between rights in law. The wikipedia page is quite clear that "there is a consensus that international law recognizes the principle of self-determination", which squares with my understanding. The rest of the page, which you didn't bother to read for some reason, spells this out in greater detail.

Dear Bim,

While 'did you read X?' is one of those tedious tropes of online discourse, 'did you read the Wikipedia page?' is a variation that is more likely to have people laughing at you than feeling intimidated by your citational power. Just a tip there.

Now offer some actually proposals for how Turkey is going to be transformed-- and the status quo, in spite of its nasty nationalistc and military-influenced bits, is rather liked by the US, not to mention Israel. Otherwise you're just spouting.

Actual proposals. My typist has been fired.

Hektor, let's start with the bottom first:

"There is a discrepancy in your post by the way. If all the people in Turkey and northern Iraq and Iran and Syria are "Kurds", then there most definitely is a greater Kurdistan in the cultural sense at least. You can't have it both ways."

That, to me, is just the kind of statement that rightly makes Turks suspicious. I could say the Breton, the Irish, and the highland scots are all Celts, so - in a cultural sense - they form a greater Celtia. But they don't form any political unity, and if Celtic separatists in Wales started blowing up oppressive British police stations for calling them "British" or Mountain Brits instead of Celts, well, I can't imagine the government of the UK would go - oh, maybe we just have to let up some. Let's democratize!

Nobody wants the dirty war days back, but it is an internal matter in Turkey; recognizing that is the preliminary to any retreat of the deep government. The human rights record of Turkey has gotten a whole lot better. And this isn't because of PKK pressure.

To go up to the rest of your comment: As simply a punitive measure to punish Kurds, I'd certainly be against a Turkish incursion. As a measure to destroy camps of armed guerillas going into Turkey to commit acts of violence, I would... well, I would hope that the Northern Iraqi government would be smart enough not to let that happen. It is very simple. Break up the camps - according to Ali M. Koknar, in this 2004 paper, there are nine PKK camps in Northern Iraq. These may have multiplied since. http://www.terrorism.com/modules.php?op=modload&name
=News&file=article&sid=38299&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0.

You still haven't said that you think the government should operate to fold up these camps on its territory. Why should Turkey not incurse if Northern Iraq is knowingly harboring guerrillas to attack Turkish territory?

You seem strangely unwilling to say, yeah, Northern Iraq should do that. Instead, the onus is all on what 'we' want the Turks to do. I think that is, a, impractical - Northern Iraq is in a much weaker position than Turkey, and frankly, the idea that the U.S. would intervene on the side of the Kurds here, while it might dance like sugarplumbs in the heads of rightwing bloggers still eager to glassify Iran, is in reality pretty improbable. The U.S. would have zero interest in doing this. Do the Kurds really need another lesson in where U.S. interest lies? and b., if human rights progress in Turkey, it will be through non-violent and indigenous action. You forget that the Kurds there can vote.

Greater Kurdistan, like Greater Celtia, is a pipedream. But the autonomy of Northern Iraq is not. Simple steps can lead either to a stable autonomy, or endless strife. It is up to the Northern Iraqi government.

Not your usual aware-of-the-facts substance here, Matt. You're right that it's heading toward disaster, and maybe that's the only point you were trying to make. But it is worth pointing out that

1) Kurds, Turks, and Arab Iraqis are about as close ethnically and culturally as Lithuanians, French, and, oh, say, Icelanders. It's not too surprising, or unjustified, that Kurds might want their own nation.

2) Their lands were split up among the three countries (Iran, Turkey, Iraq) because when the colonial powers were busy drawing lines on maps, the Kurds were pretty much considered the backward hill tribes of the region and nobody was very interested in what they thought.

3) Kirkuk was mainly Kurdish, with sizable Turkmen and Arab minorities, until Saddam Hussein decided to settle as many Arabs there as he could. He was a horrible dictator, but he wasn't stupid. He could see where the oil was and how important it was to make sure that revenue flowed to him. Many of those resettled Arabs have now been living there over a generation, and it's not fair to them to say, "Oh, changed our minds. Out you go." But that doesn't change the fact that Kirkuk was historically Kurdish and, again, one can see why the Kurds might feel a genuine, as well as oil-based, interest in the place.

An independent Kurdistan carved out of Northern Iraq, and fully including Kirkuk, and Kurdish Mosul, would be a positive development. There should be some attempt at making a deal with the Iraqi Kurds, with respect to their ambitions at forming a Greater Kurdistan. The Kurds ought to be allowed to take whatever Kurdish dominated lands that they are able to wrest from Arab Syria and Persian Iran. However, they are to scrupulously avoid seeking irredentist solutions for the Kurdish areas of Turkey (or for that matter, in Armenia).

The Turkish army is not as formidiable as people claim. It would be very difficult for them to operate effectively in the mountain areas, or to sustain operations in Kirkuk or the other cities. Moreover, it would be easy for the US to make life even more difficult for the Turkish forces, even while officially taking a hands off stance. Finally, if the Turkish incursion seriously threatened the independence of Iraqi Kurdistan, the US could impose an end to the hostilities.

Ultimately, while the US may be keen to placate Turkey, it is the Turkish government that will need to heed the decisions of the US. Turkey has much to lose, if they thumb their nose at the US. Turkish Cyprus would be handed over to Greek control, and the pressures to acknowledge the history of the Armenian genocide could be easily ramped up, effectively isolating Turkey diplomatically.

A Kurdistan state would weaken the positions of both the Arabs and the Persians, and maybe even result in the upending of the geo-political chessboard in the Middle East, with the region lighting up like a Roman candle. However, a bit of turmoil is better than the stifling order of despotism

To belatedly answer MY's question, the reason many war supporters didn't anticipate a problem with the Kurds is that they were clinging to an narrative in which the problem in Iraq was Saddam Hussein. With Saddam gone Iraq would become a secular democracy in which the Arabs and Kurds would all be a big, happy family. This is a part of the larger neo-con narrative in which the world's big problem is lack of democracy, and democracy is lacking only because no one has bothered to send an army to kick out the tyrants.

roger,

So, just to be clear, if the status quo doesn't change, you favor a Turkish invasion of northern Iraq. I just wanted to be clear on that point.

The problem here is that the dirty war is an internal matter that the Turkish military is trying to export to a foreign country, that is Iraq.

The Turkish military and the nationalists have fought the improvement of human rights in Turkey tooth and nail. They want to be able to continue to disappear people, torture people, and create refugees out of Turkish citizens when they see fit. The reason human rights have improved is because of the European Union and the desire of some in the Turkish political elite to have a real democracy in the European sense.

An invasion of northern Iraq would inevitably cause a lot of deaths, and would cause a resurgence of nationalist feeling. There would be more assassinations of Christians, like Hrant Dink and the most recent bible publishers, and there would be a resumption of torture and police measures against the Kurds in Turkey. It would inevitably become either a quick failure or the Turkish army would be bogged down in Iraq and suffer increasing casualties. These are all bad things for Iraq and Turkey. So I don't understand why you favor that course of action.

It seems you approach this all from a Turkish perspective, where the welfare and security of the Turkish state (though not all of its citizens) is your primary focus. I believe that invading Northern Iraq will be substantially worse for the Turkish state and people than the status quo. Why do you believe differently?

roger,

It's also interesting that you bring up the Celts in relation to Kurds. In fact, the British Empire did rule over the Irish for hundreds of years. They kept the Irish poor and used a variety of oppressive police measures against them, and eventually that backfired and the Irish got independence for much of their island. This happened again in Northern Ireland and eventually the British came around to a political solution there too. Do you think that was a good idea, or do you think military and oppressive measures are the best way to deal with this sort of problem?

The problem with the term "mountain Turks" is that it is a bald-faced lie. The Kurds as a cultural force predate the Turks, as did the Armenians, Greeks, Arabs, and others in what is now Turkey. The official ideology of Turkey couldn't handle the fact that the presence of Turks in the region is a relatively recent historical development, so they had to make up things to buttress their ideology. Lies of this nature have a tendency to come out, especially ridiculous lies like that one.

Hektor, you have a very odd method of reading. I specifically said I didn't support a Turkish invasion - although my support or not doesn't really matter. And in fact I support it so little that I want to see the excuse for it eliminated - the PKK camps. You blithely skip over 2/3rds of the comment, which makes me wonder why I bothered in the first place. So, if I said, no, the Turks shouldn't invade, they should just encourage a paramilitary force to go sneaking into Northern Iraq to blow up things and help the oppressed Turkomen in Kirkuk, this would be just fine with you?
You present your case as one of reasonableness - but as you make your case, it looks increasingly like you want to see Turkey dissolved. Not only is that not going to happen, but that attitude is just the kind of irredentism I am talking about. Do you want a secure Northern Iraq, or do you want a romantic revolution of the Kurds oppressed in their various nations? If it is the latter, then I'd say YOU support the conditions that would make a Turkish invasion inevitable. And, if I was as verbally meretricious as you were in your comment, I'd say, so why do you want Turkey to invade Northern Iraq, Hektor?

And - what an odd reading of Celtia! The point is, the Irish did not send guerrillas to Ulster, and in fact has jailed them. And it certainly didn't send guerrillas to Brittany.

roger,

Now you are the one not reading. I specifically said earlier that I think the majority of Kurds in Turkey wouldn't want independence if they got a modicum of cultural rights. The sort of cultural rights that are the norm in all European countries but France and Turkey, in fact. That's in fact the preferred solution in my mind, because it would lead to less bloodshed.

By the way, the Turks already arm and support the Turkomen in northern Iraq. They train them in a paramilitary force. Turkish special forces have repeatedly been seen in northern Iraq. I don't have proof that the Turkish military is involved in dirty tricks in nothern Iraq, but since they have no compulsion against indulging in dirty tricks in Turkey (see the bookstore bombing), it's likely they are up to it in Iraq already.

I don't want Turkey dissolved. I want Turkey to be a liberal democracy where the human rights of its citizens are respected. That includes all of its citizens, be they of Turkish, Kurdish, Armenian, or Greek origin. My feeling is that much, probably the majority, of Turkey feels the same way.

I don't think there is an easy way to "eliminate" the PKK camps without mass bloodshed. Since mass bloodshed is what we want to avoid, I think toleration of the situation is actually in everyone's best interests until a political solution can be reached.

roger,

I also think you are the romantic if you think it is so easy and clean to "eliminate" the PKK camps. How precisely do you think that they could be eliminated? After all, Turkey, with all of its modern hardware and huge army, can't fully eliminate PKK camps in Turkey. What makes you think the Kurdish autonomous region can easily do so?

Good comment.Thanks admin.

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar

thanks

hediyelikler

porno
sex
hikaye
sex
mirc
porno
sex
sex shop
seks shop
güzel sözler
mirc
mirc
porno
güzel sözler
hikaye
mirc
hikayeler
mirc
kelebek
seks shop
hikaye

thanksss

thanks ;)

asedd

thanks
http://www.sohbetf.net/

Thanks Best Regards
mirc
mırc
mırç
mircturk
mirctürk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mırc indir
mirç indir
mirc yükle
mırc yükle
mirc yukle
mırc yukle
mirch
mırch
turk mirc
mircada
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
türkçe mirc
turkce mirc
turkçe mırc
turkce mırc
oper mirc
irc forum
Mirc forum
irc forum