You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Europe
Turkey asks U.S. ambassador to clarify remarks by Garner
2003-04-26
Turkey's foreign ministry summoned the U.S. ambassador Friday to explain a reported reference by the U.S. official in charge of rebuilding Iraq to a northern Iraqi city as Kurdish. Turkish media reported that retired Lt. Gen. Jay Garner had characterized Kirkuk as a "Kurdish city" during talks in northern Iraq earlier this week. Ambassador Robert Pearson told reporters he discussed the issue with officials at the Foreign Ministry on Friday. Pearson said he did not know if Garner had made such a statement, but reiterated U.S. assurances that the city, that sits in one of the world's richest oil regions, would not fall into the hands of any one ethnic group. "All the cities of Iraq and all the resources of Iraq are for the people of Iraq," Pearson said. Turkey has ties with the ethnic Turkmen in Iraq. They also call Kirkuk home. Turkey also fears that Iraqi Kurdish groups could try to seize control of the oil rich area and use the resources to fund an independent Kurdish state. Turkey fears a Kurdish resurgence in northern Iraq could encourage Kurdish rebels in southeastern Turkey to revive a 15-year war for regional autonomy.
If it's that important to them, which it shouldn't be but probably is, Turkey should be working hard to prevent the accession to power of the Iranian stooges who're pushing for a theocracy in the south. If they were to succeed, which they probably won't, the stage would be set for Iraq's breakup into Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish areas, with the Turkmen as a minority in Kurdistan. The stage is already set for an autonomous Kurdistan — they've been running it with a fair degree of success for the past ten years, thanks to Gen. Garner. It's Garner's experience in setting up Kurdistan that hold out hope he'll be able to do the same thing for Iraq as a whole, so the Turks should love him nearly as much as the Kurds seem to.
Posted by:Fred Pruitt

#6  I disagree Brian about ALL of them being a colossal waste of money: Sure, you'll have a few abusers. However, I think the danger of the Faith Based Initiative is that we'll get MORE abusers, in addition to the questionable constitutionality.

to spare Fred his bandwidth, I've posted my opinions on my website.. Secularlists may not "relate" to it, but I think it's a good reference to e-mail to someone you feel is a sincere believer who supports the initiative, but hasn't weighed the downsides.
Posted by: Ptah   2003-04-26 21:38:15  

#5  Let's level, the Faith Based Initatives are both unconstitutional (they don't pass Lemon and they aren't under Article I or II) and they're a colossal waste of money.

To draw an equivalence, however, between the AKP and the Republican Party is the highpoint of stupidity, troll.
Posted by: Brian   2003-04-26 15:36:58  

#4  First, we don't have a faith based govn't! We have a separation between church and state for a reason; that is to protect minoreties. So, what ever position you are pushing the USA is not a country expressly for any single religion. That is the way it is. George Bush may be christian but, it doesn't mean the gov't is. The US gov't has no religion; period! That is the way the Supreme court rules it, thus that is the way it is. Therefore it is secular! I hate to burst your bubble.
Posted by: George   2003-04-26 13:47:37  

#3  Anonon - yeah, isn't it terrible how our faith-based gov't forces have been harrassing atheists, muslims, hindus, buddhists, jews....herding them into concentration camps and re-education programs?
Idiot. You don't have to have (any) religion to have a human-values based society, but it sure helps. The antidote to theocracy states like Iran and Pakistan and Soddy is an educated populace (i.e.: not in madrassas) and separation of church and state. That doesn't mean faith-based programs and charities are bad, just that you can't make any one religion the "official" religion. Why do you think Soddy et al prohibit or suppress all other religions? Because of the inherent weakness of Islam in the face of educated choices
Posted by: Frank G   2003-04-26 11:56:41  

#2  The problem in America is that "Secularism" has become a de-facto "religion" among some of it's followers -- and their behavior and attitutes are as intolerant as the worst of the "religious religions".

Those followers are trying to make secularism into a "state religion" and marginalize the "religious" religions to the fringes of society.

Communism was often called "a religion without a god".

This is similar -- and no more desirable.

Posted by: Glenn   2003-04-26 10:33:25  

#1  I am still waiting for Bush-Powell to use the magic words for Iraq: SECULAR CONSTITUTION. Then again, those "faith based" bozos aren't too happy with secularism in America.
Posted by: Anonon   2003-04-26 10:01:16  

00:00