« APSA alert | Main | Gause: Maliki's bid to be the strong man »

September 01, 2008

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c391553ef00e554f577718834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Hilterman: Kurds See the Future and Don't Like It:

Comments

NDHF Net

Not so shocking surprise, however, since the Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq (AMSI) reported this already 3 weeks ago:
http://newsdeskhelsinkifinland.net/news/707/tensions_between_iraqi_forces_and_peshmerga/

Read NDHF Net and you'll know far faster ;)

NDHF Net
27.U.N.J.B.
United Nations (Finland)
http://newsdeskhelsinkifinland.net

motown67

Does anyone know what exact areas in Iraq are considered "disputed territories" and how they were designated that? Did it come from parliament, another body, etc.? I know Kirkuk, for example is mentioned by name in the TAL and Iraqi constitution as a disputed area.

Fria

Claiming that the Kurds are threatening to "annex" Kirkuk is an implication that the Kurds are taking something that is not theirs. You don't need to know this because thankfully Iraqi lawmakers know it, but the historical injustice done to the Kurds of Kirkuk is constitutionally addressed through article 140 and all parties involved realize that it is only a matter of time before Kirkuk becomes part of the KRG.

Ara Alan

Mr. Lynch, you have once again misread the Iraqi scene by posting something with which you seem to agree. al-Maliki knows better not to mess with his most powerful allies outside of the United Iraqi Alliance. The events of Khanaqin happen to further demonstrate the desperate need for the implementation of article 140. No Iraqi side needs to "annex" as you so boldly claim any area of Iraq. We have a political process in place that solves these problems.

The comments to this entry are closed.

google analytics


Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Blog powered by Typepad