Reply With Quote
Hasn't anyone told them we already won?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...202297_pf.html
3 Planeloads of Munitions Worry Officials in Baghdad
By Ernesto Londoño
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, November 23, 2008; A01
BAGHDAD -- Kurdish officials this fall took delivery of three planeloads of small arms and ammunition imported from Bulgaria, three U.S. military officials said, an acquisition that occurred outside the weapons procurement procedures of Iraq's central government.
The large quan y of weapons and the timing of the shipment alarmed U.S. officials, who have grown concerned about the prospect of an armed confrontation between Iraqi Kurds and the government at a time when the Kurds are attempting to expand their control over parts of northern Iraq.
The weapons arrived in the northern city of Sulaymaniyah in September on three C-130 cargo planes, according to the three officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information.
Kurdish officials declined to answer questions about the shipments but released the following statement: "The Kurdistan Regional Government continues to be on the forefront of the war on terrorism in Iraq. With that continued threat, nothing in the cons ution prevents the KRG from obtaining defense materials for its regional defense."
Iraq's ethnic Kurds maintain an autonomous region that comprises three of the country's 18 provinces. In recent months, the Shiite-led central government in Baghdad, which includes some Kurds in prominent positions, has accused Kurdish leaders of attempting to expand their territory by deploying their militia, known as pesh merga, to areas south of the autonomous region. Among other things, the Kurds and Iraq's government are at odds over control of the oil-rich city of Kirkuk, which lies outside the autonomous region, and over how Iraq's oil revenue ought to be distributed.
The Kurds of northern Iraq have run their affairs with increasing autonomy since 1991, when U.S. and British forces began enforcing a no-fly zone in northern Iraq to protect the region from President Saddam Hussein's military. The U.S.-led invasion in 2003 sparked concern that Iraqi Kurds would seek independence, but the Kurds have insisted that they wish to remain part of a federal Iraq.
Neighboring countries with large Kurdish minorities, including Turkey and Iran, have said they would oppose the emergence of an independent Kurdistan, as the autonomous region is known.
Iraq's interior minister, Jawad al-Bolani, said in an interview that central government officials did not authorize the purchase of weapons from Bulgaria. He said such an acquisition would cons ute a "violation" of Iraqi law because only the Ministries of Interior and Defense are authorized to import weapons.
Experts on Iraq's cons ution said the do ent does not clearly say whether provincial officials have the authority to import weapons. However, Iraqi and U.S. officials said the Ministries of Interior and Defense are the only en ies authorized to import weapons. The Defense Ministry provides weapons to the Iraqi army, and the Interior Ministry procures arms for the country's police forces.
The Iraqi government has acquired the vast majority of its weapons through the Foreign Military Sales program, a U.S.-run procurement system, Brig. Gen. Charles D. Luckey, who assists the Iraqi government with weapons purchases, said Saturday. He said he knew of no instances in which provincial authorities had independently purchased weapons from abroad.
With thousands of American military officials involved in the training of Iraq's security forces, there is little the U.S. government does not know about weapons that are legally imported to Iraq. The shipments from Bulgaria in September caught the American military off guard, the three officials said. They first learned of the shipments from a source in Bulgaria, the officials said.
The three said they did not know whether U.S. officials had confronted Kurdish leaders about the shipments or alerted Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government.
"Yes, the Kurds have this autonomous region and they're authorized to keep the pesh," one of the officials said, referring to the militia. "But arming themselves and bringing in weapons stealthily like that -- if I were the Iraqi government, I'd be pretty concerned."
While violence in Iraq has decreased markedly in recent months, political tension is rising as Iraqi leaders gear up for provincial and national elections scheduled to take place next year, and as they prepare for an era in which the U.S. military will have a smaller presence there.
Of the primary fault lines -- which include tension between Sunnis and Shiites and rivalry among Shiite political parties -- the rift between Kurds and the Arab-dominated Iraqi government has become a top concern in recent months. Senior government officials have engaged in a war of words, and Iraqi army and pesh merga units have come close to clashing.
"You could easily have a huge eruption of violence in the north," said Kenneth B. Katzman, a Middle East specialist at the Congressional Research Service in Washington. "Nothing having to do with the Kurds is resolved."
Because Arab Sunnis largely boycotted the 2005 election, Kurds obtained disproportionate political power in key provinces such as Tamim, which includes Kirkuk, and Nineveh. Both abut the Kurdish autonomous region. Kurds also control 75 of the 275 seats in parliament.
This year, violence broke out in Kirkuk amid political squabbling over an Arab proposal that seats on the Tamim provincial council should be divided evenly among ethnic Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. In the end, Iraqi lawmakers had to shelve plans to hold provincial elections in Tamim because the sides were unable to reach a deal.
In August, U.S. officials narrowly averted an armed confrontation between an Iraqi army unit and pesh merga fighters in the town of Khanaqin, in Diyala province.
In recent weeks, Maliki and Kurdish leaders have exchanged sharp words over Maliki's creation of so-called support councils. Maliki has said the councils, which are made up of pro-government tribal leaders, are the central government's eyes and ears in provinces. But Kurdistan Regional Government President Massoud Barzani and other Iraqi leaders have accused the prime minister of using the councils to bolster Maliki's influence in areas where he has little political support. In a recent news conference, Barzani said Maliki was "playing with fire."
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, who is a Kurd, recently sent Maliki a letter saying the money being spent on councils should go to the country's armed forces.
The pesh merga, which began as a militia controlled by powerful Kurdish families, fought Iraqi troops when Hussein was in power. Since the 2003 invasion, its primary role has been to patrol predominantly Kurdish areas in the north. However, pesh merga units were deployed to the northern city of Mosul in 2004 to help quell an insurgent uprising, and others were dispatched to Baghdad as part of the 2007 buildup of U.S. troops.
Recently, the Iraqi government has refrained from using pesh merga forces outside of the Kurdish region and has taken steps to replace predominantly Kurdish forces with Sunni and Shiite soldiers in Nineveh, one of the most violent areas in Iraq.
Central government officials recently bristled at Barzani's offer to allow U.S. troops to establish bases in the Kurdish autonomous region, saying the regional government had no authority to make such an overture, especially as Iraqi officials are calling for a gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops.
"There is a lot of tension," Kurdish parliament member Mahmoud Othman said. "Maliki and his administration are accusing the Kurdish authorities of violating the cons ution. And the Kurds are accusing Maliki of violating the cons ution."
Hasn't anyone told them we already won?
Maybe somebody forgot they're already autonomous. They sure didn't. They'd like to be independent, and to gobble up Kirkuk.
you mean there has been something bubbling just beneath the surface?
Not sure what you mean, clambake. You could throw a dart at a map of Iraq and the answer would probably be yes.
The Kurds have been a people without a nation for a very long time. 10 years under the US no-fly blanket changed that.
The pot's been simmering for centuries, but it could boil over quickly if the Kurds get too big for their britches.
i was referring to the real surge by putting sunni and shia on the payroll so they wouldn't kill us.
wait till you get a load of what happens when we turn off the spigot.
That is hard to say. If the process of getting the sunnis involved in the political goings-on continues and they can really, finally, be integrated into the nations military and police forces, it won't matter as much.
An all out civil war was barely averted, and the low-intensity fighting that took place did enough damage to be sure, but I think there is a fair possibility of truly bringing the country back from the brink.
If the country does not really integrate in the next decade or so, I do see the country essentially splitting up. It would not surprise me much at all to see the Shia areas join Iran, the Sunni area join Syria, and the Kurds to fully become a nation, much to Turkey's dismay.
Mission Accomplished! Whew-- glad that's over with!
They know that. They also know terrorism is real. Do you have a problem with them wanting to be able to defend themselves?
Please tell us all about the terra-ist threat to Kurdistan that is so dangerous to its existence that it made them break the legal Iraqi procedure for procuring firearms.
Be specific for the benefit of all of us on the board.
I'm not worried about supporting how much the treat is or isn't. The Kurds have had autonomy since 1991. I am not aware of any laws that have removed that status yet. Are you? Now maybe the new Iraqi laws do somehow infringe on that autonomy. I really don't know. We all know however, most governments have grandfather clauses in laws.
Please tell us all about the terra-ist threat to Kurdistan that is so dangerous to its existence that it made them break the legal Iraqi procedure for procuring firearms.
Be specific for the benefit of all of us on the board.
I don't have the proper answer to your question.
Back to you though. Just because the article says it violates Iraqi law, can you support that?
Tell me you don't believe every thing you read. Please.
You never do. You just make up stuff and hope you can get away with it.
Please show me a report saying the US and Iraqi officials declare these purchases to be completely appropriate and legal according to Iraqi law.Back to you though. Just because the article says it violates Iraqi law, can you support that?
I read your bull all the time. I believe none of it.Tell me you don't believe every thing you read. Please.
Iraqi and U.S. officials said the Ministries of Interior and Defense are the only en ies authorized to import weapons.Originally Posted by The article you are trying to dispute "because you said so"
Iraqi and U.S. officials said the Ministries of Interior and Defense are the only en ies authorized to import weapons. The Defense Ministry provides weapons to the Iraqi army, and the Interior Ministry procures arms for the country's police forces.
The Iraqi government has acquired the vast majority of its weapons through the Foreign Military Sales program, a U.S.-run procurement system, Brig. Gen. Charles D. Luckey, who assists the Iraqi government with weapons purchases, said Saturday. He said he knew of no instances in which provincial authorities had independently purchased weapons from abroad.
OK, that may be current law. It might not be. I'm sorry, I always have a hard time with "Unnamed" US officials.
Again. The Kurds have enjoyed autonomy since 1991. They could buy weapons before, why not now?
Besides. If it's not legal, why were they on C-130s? Until they sign the SOFA, not much they can do to stop us from supplying the Kurds.
Do you seriously not know what has changed in Iraq since 1991?
Get back to us when you figure it out.
I know what happened.
I'm still waiting for you to show me when the Kurd's autonomy was revoked.
Please. I just don't know.
When was the autonomy revoked?
Do you know what autonomy is?
You seem to be so knowledgeable on the subject, you should be able to answer that simple question.
Link please.
You want a link to the Iraqi Cons ution?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...on-draft_x.htm
So you think iit's an independent country completely free of the rule of a central Iraqi government.
Let me know when that happened. You seem to be so knowledgeable on the subject, you should be able to answer that simple question.
Link please.
OK, You still have no valid argument.
1) You link a DRAFT cons ution
2) It doesn't ban the purchase of weapons.
If I'm wrong, plesae show me. The closest thing I found was:
So, are you saying the weapons are for the formation military militias?(b) Forming military militias outside the framework of the armed forces is banned.
It's the military militias that are banned. Not the weapons.
I showed you a do ent that proves Iraqi Kurdistan is part of Iraq and subject to its laws.
Please show me the do ent that states that it is not.
Now, if you want to get into a de facto argument about what the Kurds can get away with and what the central government can do about it -- that's a completely different story.
What is going to happen is that the Kurds are going to keep the weapons and there is nothing the central government can do about it.
I'll give you some time to look up what de facto means.
It seems you are the one that doesn't care what the law says. At least you cannot support the article's contentions with any law.
When did the Kurds lose the right to bear arms? Besides. The Iraqi cons ution also has this:
It helps to have weapons to do so.1st — Public property is sacrosanct, and its protection is the duty of every citizen.
You say the shipment is illegal. I simple don't see how. I would like someone to explain that. Up to the challenge, or not.
Let's say for the purpose of argument that the Kurds no longer enjoy autonomy. That seems to be a sticking point for you. They had it for more than a decade and now have an armed citizenry. I see no place by Iraqi cons ution or law now forbidding them to have weapons.
Please show me.
The answer that an unnamed official, or even a named officials opinion says it's illegal doesn't cut it. What does the law say.
Why is that a problem? We keep weapons in the USA with little trouble over legal ownership. It’s those who resort to illegal activities and illegal ownership we have the most problems with. You can make all the gun laws you want, but you just end up disarming the law abiding citizens. The law breakers will still obtain and use them.
Has the government, or do you think they ever plan to remove the right to bear arms?
Wild Cobra couldn't get it right even after ChumpDumper spoon-fed him the answer.
The Kurds have had de facto autonomy since 1991 but their political autonomy as a matter of law (de jure) is subject to the Iraqi Cons ution.
The Kurds fly their own flag and have their own military force. The no-fly regime was an effective par ion of Iraq. Eventually we have to face this, and so do Turkey and Iran. The genie can't be put back in the bottle.
We were arguing over the legality of the Kurds buying weapons. I don't know what you are talking about, but you apparently misunderstand.
As for autonomy, the Kurds did give up full autonomy in the cons ution. There are still a few points that they have over other provinces because of:
This will, unless otherwise specifically restricted by law, allow them to still retain some autonomy.9th — Laws do not apply retroactively unless otherwise has been legislated, and this exception does not include laws of taxes and duties.
Another consideration:
Now where Chump said:Article (45): Restricting or limiting any of the freedoms and liberties stated in this cons ution may only happen by, or according to, law and as long as this restriction or limitation does not undermine the essence of the right or freedom.
I say so what. I'm sorry he has a fascist at ude of controlling people.What is going to happen is that the Kurds are going to keep the weapons and there is nothing the central government can do about it.
Why is he so worried about the Kurds? What evidence does he have to want to restrict their rights?
Your animus seems to have unbalanced you. Consider that it's just possible you misunderstood ChumpDumper. The conclusions you reach about him require unfriendly inferences that are not plain in what he has posted in the thread.
He points out the shipments are illegal. He describes the legal landscape, incorrectly in your view, but this isn't equivalent to "a fascist at ude of controlling people," or somehow that he wishes to deprive the Kurds of their rights.
Besides, whether the Kurds are legally justified in arming themselves misses the whole point. What is cause for concern is that the Kurds may provoke a a regional goat involving Turkey/Iran/Iraq.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
