The situation in Northern Iraq:Turkey launches attacks on Kurdish area

Turkey launches attacks on Kurdish area By SELCAN HACAOGLU, Associated

Turkey's army chief said Thursday the military had launched several "large scale" offensives against rebels in the predominantly Kurdish southeast, and he asked the government for approval to launch an incursion into neighboring northern Iraq.

Washington repeatedly has cautioned Turkey against staging a cross-border offensive, fearing that it could destabilize the region and antagonize Iraqi Kurds, who are allied with the U.S.

But Iraq's government is barely able to control its own cities. U.S. commanders, who are battling the Iraqi insurgency in the middle of the country, are stretched too thin to take on Turkish Kurds hiding in remote mountains near the frontier.

On Monday, the Turkish government demanded again that U.S. and Iraqi officials crack down on guerrillas from the Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK.

"An operation into Iraq is necessary," said Gen. Yasar Buyukanit, the head of Turkey's powerful military. "The PKK has huge freedom of movement in Iraq ... It has spread its roots in Iraq."

Buyukanit said the military already was moving against separatists in the southeast.

"There are several large-scale operations under way in several areas," Buyukanit told a press conference. "Our aim is to prevent them from taking positions in the region with the coming of spring."

The offensives were launched to coincide with spring, when the rebels intensify attacks on Turkey using mountain passes opened by melting snow, Buyukanit said.

Recent clashes already have killed 10 soldiers and 29 Kurdish guerrillas, Buyukanit said. The separatist conflict has left more than 37,000 people dead since 1984.

Turkey launched operations into northern Iraq several times in the late 1990s, when it was out of President Saddam Hussein's control.

It has recently been accused of shelling Kurdish positions inside Iraq.

Turkey is especially concerned about a bid to incorporate the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk into the semiautonomous Iraqi Kurdish region, fearing that Iraqi Kurds will use revenues from the city's oil wealth to fund a bid for independence.

The Iraqi government recently decided to implement a constitutional requirement to determine the status of Kirkuk — which is disputed among several different ethnic groups — by the end of the year. The plan is expected to turn Kirkuk and its vast oil reserves over to Kurdish control, a step also rejected by many of Iraq's Arabs and ethnic Turks, who are strongly backed by the Turkish government.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070412/...a/turkey_kurds

*******************************************************

I know this is a side story to the surge and the bombing inside the green zone, still this bares watching especially given the implication of the last paragraph and the oil wealth of kirkuk.

Thoughts?

Turkey is one of the US most important military allies in the world, this is certainly bad news for the Americans.

Turkey certainly doesn't want anything resembling a Kurdish state and has proven they'll go to great lengths to prevent it. On the bright side, it doesn't look like they're moving in because of the oil.

Quote:

---

Thoughts?

---

(1) I'm surprised it took so long, and

(2) The Turks wouldn't have this fear of a kurdistan, if they stopped treating the kurds like dirt, and accepted that today its considered good to allow people to decide for themselves if they want to remain part of your country.

I'm with the Kurds. No doubt realpolitick dictates we will side with the Turks. Ho hum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

Turkey certainly doesn't want anything resembling a Turkish state and has proven they'll go to great lengths to prevent it. On the bright side, it doesn't look like they're moving in because of the oil.

---

You've got it wrong. It's the Iraqis who don't want anything resembling an Iraqi state, and will go to great lengths to prevent it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

You've got it wrong. It's the Iraqis who don't want anything resembling an Iraqi state, and will go to great lengths to prevent it.

---

I think we both have a point.

"President" Saddam Hussein huh? This was the AP?




Another reason why the US can't give Pakistan too much grief about their Afghan border.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

I think we both have a point.

---

Read your post again. I think you meant that Turkey doesn't want anything resembling a KURDish state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Read your post again. I think you meant that Turkey doesn't want anything resembling a KURDish state.

---

Errrr....edited.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

(1) I'm surprised it took so long, and

(2) The Turks wouldn't have this fear of a kurdistan, if they stopped treating the kurds like dirt, and accepted that today its considered good to allow people to decide for themselves if they want to remain part of your country.

I'm with the Kurds. No doubt realpolitick dictates we will side with the Turks. Ho hum.

---

Perhaps we will side with the turks, but as someone pointed out in another thread (Hore Tore) there is this little business about Turkey wanting to join the EU in the worse way, and that might make it a slightly more muddied process.

I don't see the US stopping turkey here really. They don't have much of a carrot to wave, however, the EU certainly does. If turkey is given the choice of either letting go of kurdistan and join the EU or continuing and staying out of the EU, then I believe they will choose the EU. A membership has a lot more benefits to it than the kurdish area. However, there is a couple of nifty problems; the christian right in europe who doesn't want scary brown people to upset their club, and turkish nationalists who wants "glory for the state"...

Curbing those two powers isn't an easy task, but it is doable.

EDIT: Forgot a third power, the europeans who wants the EU dead...

Turkey doesn't even want to join the EU, they just want a piece of the cake (*cough*money*cough*)

Barzani and the Iraqi Kurds are feeling confident, any significant Turkish incursion will provoke a reaction.

Quote:

---

Barzani and the Iraqi Kurds are feeling confident,

---

Barzani is an idiot who should have kept his mouth shut , when Turkey stepped back and changed the threat from a military one to an economic one he threatened a military response .
Does the muppet think he still has Saddam to help him out ?
There is no way the US , Nato or europe would intervene with the KDP against Turkey if the KDP aligns itself with an organisation that is on both the American and Euroean "nasty terrorist" list .
The economic threat should have been enough to make the fool distance himself from the PKK , especially given the effort they have made to cleanse Kirkuk to ensure they get the referendum resultthey want , it ain't gonna be no good getting control of the oil if you go to war with the people who have the pipeline , oil terminal and port .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

Turkey doesn't even want to join the EU, they just want a piece of the cake (*cough*money*cough*)

---

That's.....well, why everyone wants to join, isn't it? Any other reason for joining at all?

How about the "attack on one is an attack on all" theory of the NATO charter (Article 5, I think?), used to involve NATO in Afghanistan? If Turkey puts up evidence of Iraq-based military action into its territory, aren't the rest of NATO obliged to render aid?

Another fine mess for Condi & Co to disentangle.

Is the PKK entirely out of control, a loose cannon? "I want my Kurdistan, and I want it NOW!" ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

.

Is the PKK entirely out of control, a loose cannon? "I want my Kurdistan, and I want it NOW!" ?

---

Shouldnt that be I want my Kukristan and I want it NOW! :laugh4:

sorry couldnt resist :shame:

Tribesman, such anger, and such incomplete understanding. Sadaam was never there to help out Kurdistan.

In addition, while Kurdistan's plans for Kirkouk are not necessarily favored by the Arabs, neither have they been met with universal disgust. While there have been reports of intimidation at the hands of Kurdish militias, there has not been the same systematic, bloody cycle of cleansing and reprisal which has ocurred in many other parts of the country. The Iraqi government plans a program in which Arabs in Kirkuk who wished to return to their home towns would be granted monetary compensation and a plot of land. This plan has garnered support from many politicians, for the following reasons: first, many see it as an opportunity to, for once in Iraq, peacefully defuse an ethnic conflict which hasn't yet exploded; second, even many Arabs see it as "only fair", seeing as Sadaam forcibly Arabized the city during his rule; third, because while an independent, sovereign Kurdistan would face serious difficulties, it is still in the interest of unity to grant them some concessions. Kurdistan is one of the few regions of Iraq which, with the exception of Barzani's recent hiccup, has not been generating constant national headaches.

Especially from a Shia Arab perspective, I'm sure you can imagine the calculation-- "well, we've got ours, so if they want theirs...". As far as a Turkish incursion, Iraqis have limited ability to retaliate, but it would still behoove Turkey to tread carefully.

Quote:

---

Tribesman, such anger, and such incomplete understanding. Sadaam was never there to help out Kurdistan.

---

No he was there to help the terrorist who foolishly is now threatening to launch a terrorism campaign against Turkey it it does anything against some other terrorists .

Quote:

---

While there have been reports of intimidation at the hands of Kurdish militias, there has not been the same systematic, bloody cycle of cleansing and reprisal which has ocurred in many other parts of the country.

---

Whay you mean there is that news reports you read have not reported it much .

Quote:

---

The Iraqi government plans a program in which Arabs in Kirkuk who wished to return to their home towns would be granted monetary compensation and a plot of land. This plan has garnered support from many politicians, for the following reasons: first, many see it as an opportunity to, for once in Iraq, peacefully defuse an ethnic conflict which hasn't yet exploded; second, even many Arabs see it as "only fair", seeing as Sadaam forcibly Arabized the city during his rule

---

I see you havn't really looked at the plan , and also only view some of the Arab/Kurd views .
BTW regarding the plan , what year did Saddam start his arabification plan ? Nah that can't be relevnt , what year was saddam born ? nah can't be that either ....oK what year are they talking about as setting to determine if people lived there or not and therefore are entitled to live there ? what would be the other significant claim attatched to that year ?
Such incomplete understanding Del :yes: Yep I don't have complete understanding . But it appears from what you have writen that you are only skimming the surface when it comes to understanding the issue .:shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Whay you mean there is that news reports you read have not reported it much .

---

It has not been reported much in the US, International, Arab or Iraqi press because it has not been happening much. There has certainly been violence and intimidation, but nothing which could even be compared to the situation in Baghdad or Diyala.

Quote:

---

If turkey is given the choice of either letting go of kurdistan and join the EU or continuing and staying out of the EU, then I believe they will choose the EU. A membership has a lot more benefits to it than the kurdish area. However, there is a couple of nifty problems; the christian right in europe who doesn't want scary brown people to upset their club, and turkish nationalists who wants "glory for the state"...

---

That would be the rational choice, but I am not confident that is the way it works. Keeping the Kurds in could easily be seen as a test of Turkish virility.

There is also a limit to what the EU can say on the subject. I dare say there will be backchat about ETA and the IRA.

There ARE reasons for not wanting Turkey in the EU that have nothing to do with being scary and (slightly) brown. 70 million more people with a GDP per capita of $8,900 (France $30,000, UK $31,400) plus a "challenging" record on human rights isn't as easy assimilation. The scariness and brownness of the Turks have nothing to do with that.

It could and probably should be done in time, but can we digest Eastern Europe first please? There's a limit to how many poor economies you can bring on and how fast you can do it. Just ask Germany. On past record (Iberia, Greece) I'd suggest we could think about starting to talk about accession in around a decade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

That's.....well, why everyone wants to join, isn't it? Any other reason for joining at all?

---

Well, the Uk joined for the open market (BIG plus), France and Germany started it all to avoid another war and to help their own economies, belgium the netherlands and a bunch of other countries joined because we realise that being a tiny country in a globalised world is not a good thing. Former USSR states have joined (or want to join) because it's their ticket into NATO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

It could and probably should be done in time, but can we digest Eastern Europe first please? There's a limit to how many poor economies you can bring on and how fast you can do it. Just ask Germany. On past record (Iberia, Greece) I'd suggest we could think about starting to talk about accession in around a decade.

---

While I agree with you, truth be told a lot of companies want more 'poor' countries in the EU because they can get decent workers there, easily. Right now big companies are importing massive quantities of Croations and Serbs already (they make the best welders I've been told). So while them joining us might be bad for our taxes, it might also be good for the economy in general.

Or people here should suddenly want to work with their hands again instead of going for the desk jobs...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

While I agree with you, truth be told a lot of companies want more 'poor' countries in the EU because they can get decent workers there, easily. Right now big companies are importing massive quantities of Croations and Serbs already (they make the best welders I've been told). So while them joining us might be bad for our taxes, it might also be good for the economy in general.

Or people here should suddenly want to work with their hands again instead of going for the desk jobs...

---

Fair enough, Turks can join when we run out of Croatians.

One good thing will be the food. Right now the shops round my way are full of "Polska [food]" and boy oh boy, those Poles must LOVE their cabbage, pork and beetroots. (See, there WAS a country in Europe with worse food than Britain after all.) Turkish food would be a big step forward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

Well, the Uk joined for the open market (BIG plus), France and Germany started it all to avoid another war and to help their own economies, belgium the netherlands and a bunch of other countries joined because we realise that being a tiny country in a globalised world is not a good thing. Former USSR states have joined (or want to join) because it's their ticket into NATO.

---

1. UK. Open markets = money
2. For france and Germany you are entirely correct, the idea being that they make so much money off each other that war isn't viable. Brilliant.
3. Belgium etc. One reason for joining, yes, but the access to bigger markets are still one of the top reasons.
4. As for the eastern bloc, the top reasons are access to trade as well as political inclusion. However, NATO and such things are something only the politicians think about, your common pleb cares about whether he has a job or not.

There are quite a few reason why someone wants to join the EU, however, the economic reason is ALWAYS present, and usually the top reason.

EU urges peaceful solution to Turkey-Iraq problems By Paul Taylor
2 hours, 1 minute ago



The European Commission urged EU candidate Turkey and Iraq on Friday to settle differences peacefully after Turkey's top general called for a military operation to quash Turkish Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq.

Diplomats said pro-Turkish European governments had made clear privately to Ankara that armed action in northern Iraq would give its critics in the European Union ammunition to try to block or further slow its accession process.

"Our hope and the interest of all involved is that possible differences are dealt with in a peaceful and constructive manner," the EU executive's spokeswoman on enlargement, Krisztina Nagy, told a news briefing.

She declined to comment directly on a statement by armed forces chief of staff General Yasar Buyukanit at a rare news conference on Thursday that "from the military point of view, a (military) operation in northern Iraq must be made."

Buyukanit added that the military had not asked Turkey's parliament to authorize a cross-border operation.

Nagy said Brussels was following the situation closely.

"The stability of Iraq is in our common interest and the EU recognizes the constructive role Turkey plays in the area, and in this context it is important that Turkey continues to play such a constructive role," she said.

The EU requires candidate countries to resolve disputes with their neighbors peacefully, and to maintain civilian control over the military.

Another EU official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said of Buyukanit's comments: "This is not the type of statement that goes in line with the candidacy process."

U.S. WORRIED TOO

EU diplomats acknowledge Turkey has a genuine problem with fighters of the outlawed separatist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), believed to operate from rear bases in the mountainous Kurdish region of northern Iraq.

The PKK has attacked tourist targets and security forces in Turkey since ending a truce last year.

But an EU official said: "The position of the EU has always been to preserve the territorial integrity of Iraq."

The EU reaction was similar to that of the United States. In a sign of concern, the State Department said U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Dan Fried telephoned the Turkish ambassador in Washington on Thursday to urge Turkey to work with Iraq to resolve the matter amicably.

EU diplomats ascribed Buyukanit's comments partly to domestic tensions over a looming presidential election. But they said Turkey was not the only country with an election.

French presidential frontrunner Nicolas Sarkozy has spelled out his opposition to Turkish membership. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has advocated a "privileged partnership" instead, although her government has kept the accession talks going during its current EU presidency.

Senior Turkish officials acknowledge that the strategic objective of joining the Union is a factor in the government's policy-making on the northern Iraq problem.

Asked whether military action in northern Iraq could harm Ankara's EU candidacy, chief Turkish negotiator Ali Babacan said in Brussels in February: "What you ask is not an easy question to say 'yes' or 'no'. EU member states know our sensitivities."

But after the EU suspended talks on eight policy areas last December to sanction Turkey for failing to open its ports and airports to traffic from Cyprus, its hold over Turkish policy may be weaker.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070413/...q_turkey_eu_dc
*******************************************************

So looks like this has evolved into the membership issue afterall. I have enjoyed reading the responses from the Euro boys so far as I think thier opinion on this aspect of the issue is very relevant to the discussion.

The U.S. dosent have this type of pressure to apply, and its very intresting for me at least to watch the EU policy makers respond to this issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

1. UK. Open markets = money
2. For france and Germany you are entirely correct, the idea being that they make so much money off each other that war isn't viable. Brilliant.
3. Belgium etc. One reason for joining, yes, but the access to bigger markets are still one of the top reasons.
4. As for the eastern bloc, the top reasons are access to trade as well as political inclusion. However, NATO and such things are something only the politicians think about, your common pleb cares about whether he has a job or not.

There are quite a few reason why someone wants to join the EU, however, the economic reason is ALWAYS present, and usually the top reason.

---

Well, the bottom line is always money :laugh4:

There is a difference between wanting to join for the subsidies (agricultural and others) or because you want to join the 'free' market. IMO most of the newer states just want the hand-outs.

That's not really true. The handouts are a minor help. The market access is a VERY significant boost to the economy, several times larger than the handouts.

You just can't build the economy on those handouts, but you can base your entire country's economy on the new markets.

But really, even if they want to join just because of the handouts, I don't think we are the ones to accuse them. One of the major reasons why our companies want those states in the EU, is because they can pay their workers a euro a day...

Quote:

---

It has not been reported much in the US, International, Arab or Iraqi press because it has not been happening much. There has certainly been violence and intimidation, but nothing which could even be compared to the situation in Baghdad or Diyala.

---

:dizzy2:
Could you tell me if Baghdad has gone from being 65% one ethnicity to 95% another ethnicity in a very short time ? yes you are right you cannot compare it to Baghdad .

And since it is reported very much in international , iraqi and especially arab press , it does happen much and it appears that you are demonstrating that you don't read about it much yourself ......what was it again......such incomplete understanding:thumbsdown:

BTW any chance of a response to the part of my post wondering if when you wrote ...This plan has garnered support from many politicians, for the following reasons: first, many see it as an opportunity to, for once in Iraq, peacefully defuse an ethnic conflict which hasn't yet exploded; second, even many Arabs see it as "only fair", seeing as Sadaam forcibly Arabized the city during his rule ........you had actually looked at either the plan , the debate in the Iraqi government about the plan or the views of the populace on the plan ?

Anyhow Del , in the interests of fighting against "incomplete understanding" of issues and events in "Kurdishystan" , how about some thoughts on the other parties involved and effected , those that are not Arab or Kurd but just happen to live there .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

That's not really true. The handouts are a minor help. The market access is a VERY significant boost to the economy, several times larger than the handouts.

---

We are already working on a free market around the med, you can become part of the free market without joing the EU these days.

E.G. Switzerland. The UK should take note and keep the free market aspect and ditch the masses of red tape and nepotism.

~:smoking:

Kurds were an ethnic group no larger than Turks around the time, around the Southeastern Anatolia when Ottoman Empire was collapsing. However this does not change the fact that Kürt Teali Cemiyeti had worked in favor of mainly the English, an equivalent of Armenians being armed and used by the French around the area. Breeding like rabbits and forcing Turks out of the area by any means is as much democratic as they are crying for, I guess.

Dirts ? :laugh4: Innocent puppy story again ? Ah yes, we had presidents, parliamenters, ministers, artists etc. who were Martian but not Kurdish.

Sometimes it needs more than reading through propaganda websites, articles or books; such as paying a visit, or taking the actual ideas from the counter party when it is about reaching a healthy judgement on sensitive issues..

Well, on topic itself. Kirkuk is ethnically being transformed to a Kurdish city. Turkmens are continuously forced out of the town to maintain the public image of Kirkuk being a Kurdish city in majority. "Dirt", anyone ?

Mesud Barzani, who was pathetic enough to kiss the boots of Turkish soldiers once he came across, is now like a fed and tamed angry kitty, trusting to the elders since that Turkey will not dare to take offence against him, due to Turkey being trapped between EU bull and "one drop of honey for everyone, I own the game" guy named USA. Ally ?! Bleugh !

We have a Turkish proverb for such pathetic little bullies :

"Dog thinks that it is his shade which is of the oxcart he's moving along"

Tribesman, as callous as it may seem, in Iraq, if people aren't getting blown up regularly, then frankly it doesn't matter. I read the Iraqi newspapers. Not that it is totally necessary, as when the Baghdadis have their twice or thrice weekly running gun battles, we usually hear them. In Basrah rival militias are fighting and dropping mortars on the Brits, and in Diyala all hell has broken loose. Does Kirkouk have problems? Sure. But as wrong as you think Barzani may be, it's easy to see why he gets away with it.

Quote:

---

Tribesman, as callous as it may seem, in Iraq, if people aren't getting blown up regularly, then frankly it doesn't matter.

---

Ah but it does matter , in fact the violence and events in the north are probably of more concern than those elsewhere in the country . Since if you look at the more complete picture they involve open and direct action by neighbouring States plus the very real threat of an escalation of those actions , one of those States just happens to be an ally of yours .
Much was made about the issue of Iran detaining British sailors in the Western media , big news- little problem- minor incident .
There wasn't much coverage of the Iranians shelling Kurdish villages in Northern Iraq was there .
Its something they try and avoid , like dealing with the US/KDP raid into PUK territory .
Its that prospect of a wider war combined with a return to the internal Kurdish factional war that is a real big threat .
The large scale ethnic cleansing in the north ( while not getting the spectacular boom bang nasty picture headline coverage as the rest of the country) and the pressures on the ceasefire agreement is building into a real major upcoming bloodbath .
And don't forget , the terrorist militias up there are large , very well financed , very well armed and are backed by some very serious opposing regional powers , it widens far beyong the shia/sunni arab problems that make the headlines , but also encompases all of them .

Apart from being an extremely compelling argument for investing in energy efficiency, bioplastics and renewable fuels (read: break all dependence on the area and leave it to its own devices) what is to be done?

In Europe we've fought our wars or race, religion and politics. Possibly more in the future, but none for 50 years.

I see no need in getting involved in futile multi-sided messes any further than we've already managed to to do.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

Kurds were an ethnic group no larger than Turks around the time, around the Southeastern Anatolia when Ottoman Empire was collapsing. However this does not change the fact that Kürt Teali Cemiyeti had worked in favor of mainly the English, an equivalent of Armenians being armed and used by the French around the area. Breeding like rabbits and forcing Turks out of the area by any means is as much democratic as they are crying for, I guess.

---

Newsflash: demographics are always changing, even if you ignore the instances where natives where forcibly expelled (wich, for the record, I abhor)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

Dirts ? Innocent puppy story again ? Ah yes, we had presidents, parliamenters, ministers, artists etc. who were Martian but not Kurdish.

---

That's not really relevant, is it? (especially the artists...)
There have been plenty of non-Russian state officials in the USSR (heck, Stalin was Georgian), that doesn't mean that the occupation of these countries was rightful, good for the populace or wanted by them.
Wasn't there a ban on educating kids in the Kurdish language well into the '90ties?

I was under the impression that the predominately Kurdish parts of Turkey were economically underdeveloped anyway, so I don't see the point in clinging on to them in the face of fierce seperatism.

Quote:

---

Newsflash: demographics are always changing, even if you ignore the instances where natives where forcibly expelled (wich, for the record, I abhor)

---

Newsflash: If you feel like becoming a majority or some kind of reasonable force somehwere, you come and get it.

Quote:

---

That's not really relevant, is it? (especially the artists...)
There have been plenty of non-Russian state officials in the USSR (heck, Stalin was Georgian), that doesn't mean that the occupation of these countries was rightful, good for the populace or wanted by them.

---

Why did you omit people from those I gave examples of, who were powerful enough to change things legally in favor of their origin ?

Quote:

---

Wasn't there a ban on educating kids in the Kurdish language well into the '90ties?

---

Newsflash 2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Constitution of the Republic of Turkey

PART ONE


GENERAL PRINCIPLES



I. Form of the State


ARTICLE 1. The Turkish state is a Republic.



II. Characteristics of the Republic


ARTICLE 2. The Republic of Turkey is a democratic, secular and social state governed by the rule of law; bearing in mind the concepts of public peace, national solidarity and justice; respecting human rights; loyal to the nationalism of Atatürk, and based on the fundamental tenets set forth in the Preamble.



III. Integrity of the State, Official Language, Flag, National Anthem, and Capital


ARTICLE 3. The Turkish state, with its territory and nation, is an indivisible entity. Its language is Turkish.



Its flag, the form of which is prescribed by the relevant law, is composed of a white crescent and star on a red background.



Its national anthem is the “Independence March”.



Its capital is Ankara.



IV. Irrevocable Provisions


ARTICLE 4. The provision of Article 1 of the Constitution establishing the form of the state as a Republic, the provisions in Article 2 on the characteristics of the Republic, and the provision of Article 3 shall not be amended, nor shall their amendment be proposed.

---

Quote:

---

I was under the impression that the predominately Kurdish parts of Turkey were economically underdeveloped anyway, so I don't see the point in clinging on to them in the face of fierce seperatism.

---

Since no parts were predominantly owned by the Kurds, -your only true statement- "economically underdeveloped" part was a place hard to live for Turks as much as it was to Kurds.

And the most important point buddy: No stone or a piece of dead wood of this land is dispensable. My ancestors spilled their blood for these lands without hesitation against giants, and it will take blood again for those who'd like to claim ownership on it. Period.