Interesting scenario

[Don Corleone]

Well, no matter how I answer this, Tribesman has some 'stick up your bottom' retort coming my way, including a call of 'chicken' if I don't answer. So, if I'm going to be damned no matter what I say, I may as well say something I'd be proud to be damned over...

Besides, this topic is in grave danger of being diverted into an oft traveled direction (though Banquo, remind me to answer your charge, in another thread, that even a unilateral withdrawal can be seen as an act of agression, so long as it was Israel... is there ANYTHING they can do right in your book?)

IF Turkey has proof that Kurdish seperatists indeed launched a raid on Turkey, out of Iraq into Turkey, then retreated across the border, then they have the right to go into Iraq after them. If the US, acting as the extra govermental authority maintaing the border in Northern Iraq (and I actually don't think we are) refuses to refute the evidence or turn the suspects over, then Turkey would have the right to come into Iraq, even if it means American casualties. Likewise, if Iran can provide irrefutable evidence and the US refuses to act on it (rebut or cooperate) they would have a right to take action. However, prior to acting, Turkey and Iran would be right to present their evidence to UN Security council, and it would certainly help if they had a UN resolution calling for the disarmament of the PKKK to help justify their actions. Oh wait, those pesky UN resolutions aren't supposed to be enforced, sorry... forgot about that part.

Your protests to the contrary aside, this is not the perfect analogy to the Israel/Lebanon situation you seem to think it is. As far as I know, the Kurds aren't being armed by the US for these cross border raids, and I DO KNOW that they haven't been going on for 20 years. What's more, the PKKK and PEJAC's goal is an autonomous state of Kurdistan, comprised of parts of Northern Iraq, Turkey and Iran. As far as I know, the Kurds have not called for the anhiliation of every last Turk and Persian on the planet nor have they declared that the establishment of Kurdistan would be the first step towards their ulitimate goal of imposing their will across the globe. Hamas/Hezbollah have stated both, and no, I'm not going to post my links all over again. You've ignored them three times already, Tribey.

[Andres]

Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Israel...

Just look at the case as written by Tribes. He's just being hypothetical and he asksk our opinions about a possible case, not a "real" one.

You're making it too easy for him...

[Banquo's Ghost]

Besides, this topic is in grave danger of being diverted into an oft traveled direction (though Banquo, remind me to answer your charge, in another thread, that even a unilateral withdrawal can be seen as an act of agression, so long as it was Israel... is there ANYTHING they can do right in your book?)

You're right, the thread was drifting - apologies, Tribesman.

I look forward to our discussion, Don. I'm not sure how you concluded that I charged that unilateral policy by Israel was an act of agression. I noted it was one of arrogance, ie acting as if they are the only players whose actions matter. I understand the frustrations wherein that policy arose, and their ultimate source in Arafat's rejection of a flawed, but marginally acceptable starting point. Nonetheless, peace needs all the parties to be satisfied.

You seem to believe that I am somehow anti-Israel because I criticise their current actions. I am in fact, very pro-Israel, and because of that I want to see them achieve peace and recognition with their neighbours. I have visited there many times, have friends there, and helped a partner with a business development project in Haifa. When that town is rocketed, I see the faces of people I have worked with.

It is my opinion though, that successive administrations since Rabin was assassinated have made huge mistakes in trying to achieve peace through war. It hasn't worked, and won't work. Time to try something else?

I believe in telling friends when they are wrong. Sue me.

[Tribesman]

Just look at the case as written by Tribes. He's just being hypothetical and he asksk our opinions about a possible case, not a "real" one.

No its a real case from last wednesday and thursday , the main point being is it OK to shell civilian areas because there are terrorists there .
I initially omitted the groups involved and the countries to see if people would make a judgement on the actions alone without their predjudices over factions involved coming into play .

I DO KNOW that they haven't been going on for 20 years.
But they have Don , the Pejac ones not the PKK ones , they started soon after the revolutionary groups split and the Shia gained the ascendancy , same as the Mujahadeen al khalk have been operating from Iraq in the same time frame .
The PKK cross border activity only really started to any extent with the creation of the terrorists safe havens 15 years ago .

[Don Corleone]

I DO KNOW that they haven't been going on for 20 years.
But they have Don , the Pejac ones not the PKK ones , they started soon after the revolutionary groups split and the Shia gained the ascendancy , same as the Mujahadeen al khalk have been operating from Iraq in the same time frame .
The PKK cross border activity only really started to any extent with the creation of the terrorists safe havens 15 years ago .

I always know I've done a good job tapdancing on the landmine that is discussing current events with Tribesman when he focuses on a minor detail and not the major tenets of my argument. Whew!!!

[Tribesman]

I always know I've done a good job tapdancing on the landmine that is discussing current events with Tribesman when he focuses on a minor detail and not the major tenets of my argument. Whew!!!
That is because you have put forward a good post Don , one minor historical flaw , plus the failure to tackle the thorny issue of shelling civilian areas .
Thanks for you effort and thoughts on the issue .

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I always know I've done a good job tapdancing on the landmine that is discussing current events with Tribesman when he focuses on a minor detail and not the major tenets of my argument. Whew!!!
That is because you have put forward a good post Don , one minor historical flaw , plus the failure to tackle the thorny issue of shelling civilian areas .
Thanks for you effort and thoughts on the issue .

Counter question, Tribes'.

In your opinion, is it ever acceptable for non-involved individuals to become casualties from an act of violence?

[Tribesman]

No Seamus , it is never acceptable to kill or maim innocent people .