"terror" huh? Ask the Europeans after WWII if our liberation is "terror" - then compare the answers with those Europeans who experienced Russian "liberation" - that was the real terror.
Kurds in Iraq are very happy to be liberated - Saddam Hussein was the real "terror" for them.
@MattyJames25 I am from the region, I am a Kurd myself. Now try any website or book on the history of Iraqi Kurdistan and you'll see it was 1991, October 1991 to be precised when their independence was established and it was 1992 when they held their first elections. Google it, wikipedia it, you'll see. This is an undisputed fact, only it's not very commonly known among people from outside the region (like yourself).
@kermanshahi213 And who was providing air cover for Northern Iraq for twelve years protecting the Kurds from further Hussein attacks? And what political power did the Kurds have prior to 2003? None. How many Kurds were apart of Hussein's cabinet? You are a dumbshit.
@MattyJames25 The US was not providing air power because they love the Kurds so much, they were doing it to bomb Iraq. The US was also providing airpower in the South, but than that remained under Saddam-occupation. Why? Because it was the Kurds on the ground which managed to free themselfes.
@kermanshahi213 So the US was enforcing the no fly zones in Northern Iraq so it could "bomb Iraq"? So, you are saying the US bombed the Kurds in Northern Iraq since 1991? Nonsense.
And again, if the Kurds freed themselves in 1991, what part of the political apparatus in Iraq did they own? Answer: nothing. Now? They have the Iraqi Presidency and political autonomy in their own region: that is freedom.
@MattyJames25 They didn't use it to bomb the Kurds, but the bomb the Iraqi Army, the no-fly zone and the Kurdish controlled area did not completely coincide, the no-fly zone included Saddam controlled area while half of Kurdistan was South of the no-fly zone.
And Kurds don't want part of the Iraqi apparatus, they don't want to be part of Iraq at all, the only reason they take part in the government is to ensure their de-facto independent control over the North.
@kermanshahi213 Well now, you have just disproved yourself - obviously a people were not free if they were still under the political rule of a dictator who hated them. Thankfully, Saddam was actively restrained from inflicting further aerial attacks, by the US before the invasion actually liberated the Iraqi Kurds from Hussein. Iraqi Kurdistan now has actual independent control of its territory including the rights to its oil holdings and electoral choices - only after 2003.
@MattyJames25 Kurds had all rights they have now, since 1991, only it wasn't officially recognised by Iraqi law, but Iraq had no control at all in the North so who cares, the only difference is some paperwork. That might mean something in the West, but it's worthless in Kurdistan.
@kermanshahi213 I repeat: Kurds now, and only now, have political control of their territory including control over their natural resources, and the right to vote for their representatives - these were NOT rights available prior to 2003. Nothing you wish were true will change those facts.
@kermanshahi213 How much revenue did the Kurds reap, on an annual basis, from the sale of Iraqi resources prior to 2003. In dollars or dinar if you will.
"terror" huh? Ask the Europeans after WWII if our liberation is "terror" - then compare the answers with those Europeans who experienced Russian "liberation" - that was the real terror.
Kurds in Iraq are very happy to be liberated - Saddam Hussein was the real "terror" for them.
MattyJames25 2 years ago
@MattyJames25 Kurds were not liberated by Americans in 2003, but liberated themselfes in 1991.
kermanshahi213 1 year ago
@kermanshahi213 So, according to your personal version of history, the Kurds have been free since 1991? You obviously know nothing about the region.
MattyJames25 1 year ago
@MattyJames25 I am from the region, I am a Kurd myself. Now try any website or book on the history of Iraqi Kurdistan and you'll see it was 1991, October 1991 to be precised when their independence was established and it was 1992 when they held their first elections. Google it, wikipedia it, you'll see. This is an undisputed fact, only it's not very commonly known among people from outside the region (like yourself).
kermanshahi213 1 year ago
@kermanshahi213 And who was providing air cover for Northern Iraq for twelve years protecting the Kurds from further Hussein attacks? And what political power did the Kurds have prior to 2003? None. How many Kurds were apart of Hussein's cabinet? You are a dumbshit.
MattyJames25 1 year ago
@MattyJames25 The US was not providing air power because they love the Kurds so much, they were doing it to bomb Iraq. The US was also providing airpower in the South, but than that remained under Saddam-occupation. Why? Because it was the Kurds on the ground which managed to free themselfes.
kermanshahi213 1 year ago
@kermanshahi213 So the US was enforcing the no fly zones in Northern Iraq so it could "bomb Iraq"? So, you are saying the US bombed the Kurds in Northern Iraq since 1991? Nonsense.
And again, if the Kurds freed themselves in 1991, what part of the political apparatus in Iraq did they own? Answer: nothing. Now? They have the Iraqi Presidency and political autonomy in their own region: that is freedom.
You are bullshit.
MattyJames25 1 year ago
@MattyJames25 They didn't use it to bomb the Kurds, but the bomb the Iraqi Army, the no-fly zone and the Kurdish controlled area did not completely coincide, the no-fly zone included Saddam controlled area while half of Kurdistan was South of the no-fly zone.
And Kurds don't want part of the Iraqi apparatus, they don't want to be part of Iraq at all, the only reason they take part in the government is to ensure their de-facto independent control over the North.
kermanshahi213 1 year ago
@kermanshahi213 Well now, you have just disproved yourself - obviously a people were not free if they were still under the political rule of a dictator who hated them. Thankfully, Saddam was actively restrained from inflicting further aerial attacks, by the US before the invasion actually liberated the Iraqi Kurds from Hussein. Iraqi Kurdistan now has actual independent control of its territory including the rights to its oil holdings and electoral choices - only after 2003.
Good result.
MattyJames25 1 year ago
@MattyJames25 Kurds had all rights they have now, since 1991, only it wasn't officially recognised by Iraqi law, but Iraq had no control at all in the North so who cares, the only difference is some paperwork. That might mean something in the West, but it's worthless in Kurdistan.
kermanshahi213 1 year ago
@kermanshahi213 I repeat: Kurds now, and only now, have political control of their territory including control over their natural resources, and the right to vote for their representatives - these were NOT rights available prior to 2003. Nothing you wish were true will change those facts.
MattyJames25 1 year ago
@MattyJames25 They had these before 2003 as well only it wasn't written on a peace of paper (Iraqi constitution).
kermanshahi213 1 year ago
@kermanshahi213 How much revenue did the Kurds reap, on an annual basis, from the sale of Iraqi resources prior to 2003. In dollars or dinar if you will.
MattyJames25 1 year ago
Isn't American "liberation" great !!!
American "liberation" is terror !!!
America should be ashamed of itself and should get OUT of Iraq and the entire region.
oceanbound222 3 years ago 2