300 Turkish soldiers invaded Iraq last night, and I didn't notice a thread about it, so I thought I would post. Are they joining the "coalition of the willing"? Are they competing for "Invaders of Iraq Award, 2008"? Faster than you can say "Armenians", these guys amassed 100,000 troops on the border, started airstrikes across the border two nights ago, and now have sent a small skirmishing force across. So what IS the role of the original occupying force, the US? Are we there to protect Iraq the country, including its sovereign borders? Are we there to protect the Iraqi people, in which case we have to pick and choose where our forces can be deployed to do the most good? Are we there to urge, goad, observe and kibbitz as Iraq tries to protect itself? Are we just there to continue living off the fatted calf of military contracts as long as possible? How does the US deal with this fine kettle of (not-unexpected) fish?
As long as the TURKS don't touch United States oil........."OOoooPS"......... I mean Iraq oil, it will be fine.
Turkey should have committed troops and use of their airstrips at the beginning of the war then they could have taken care of this problem with the blessings of the US. I say we just let Turkey move in and we can move our troops out of Iraq. While we are at it, I hope we move our troops out of SA as well. No need to keep our people protecting a country that houses the most terrorists that try to attack us. It would be interesting to see what would happen if the US pulled all our troops from the region, well except for Afghanistan where we have a legit fight, and let iran and the arab states figure out who the top dogs are.
1.iraqi government is shia and they are loyal to iran 2.syria is a ally of iran 3.afghanistan is a ally of iran when US leaves then the middle east is for iran.