Yeah I figured that was the case but I’ve officially lost the will to pretend NFBW argues anything honestly or point out his obfuscation.
Are they fighting ISIS on Iraq’s soil or aren’t they?
What is being argued dishonestly?
Kirkuk is 15 miles outside the official borders. I hope no one thinks the Kurds are defending it in order to give it back to a Shiite contriled Iraq.
So you agree the initial defense of Kirkuk helped keep the Shiite government from falling into the hands of the Sunni extremists that invaded from Syria? Whether they hand it back to the Shiite controlled government is a different matter.
Come to think if it, there are all kinds of way the Kurds helped the Shiite dominated government of Iraq. For instance, they did NOT give ISIL $1,000,000,000. Surely that helped the government of Iraq!!
Well most recently, the very same conversation we’re have. You quote and cite something as though it proves kurds are fighting beyond their borders. But we both know full well your cites relate to the kurds defending their own new borders, not in any way a defense of “Iraq”. Dishonest. And I think I will stop humoring your silly arguments. Good day, sir.
The only way that is not a 'defense of “Iraq” ’ is if that soil being fought upon is not Iraq. There is no one you can find who will tell you that soil is not part of Iraq. That means I am right and you are wrong. Its not that humerous when you are so blatantly wrong and then you call others dishonest despite yourself being wrong.
It really does make a difference if the Kurds are planning to change that, which is what this thread is about.
I don’t see how he can read English and not know that already. He says “You have produced nothing that shows the Kurds would not help save Baghdad/Iraq from the ISIS attack.”, you know except for the bazillion quotes from Kurdish leaders saying they are not going to the aid of the Iraqi government.
On the one hand, we have what the Kurdish Prime Minister says. On the other hand, we have what some anonymous poster on a message board says. Are you telling us you are going to believe the Prime Minister instead of the anonymous poster? You can’t be serious!! 
This thread is about something that has not happened yet and there is no certainty that it will happen. At the time the Peshmerga fought against ISIS they were defending themselves and they were defending Iraq.
Can you provide the quote where the Kurdish Prime Minister says that the Peshmerga are fighting ISIS on soil that is not inside the internationally recognized territory of Iraq?
If not you will have to revise your comment.
The Kurdush leaders have acted to save Baghdad/Iraq by stopping ISIS on the outskirts of their settled boundaries. Now since ISIS has been stopped on the quest for Baghdad there is no need for Peshmerga to aid the Iraqi government. The Kurds are still part of Iraq’s government. It is absurd to say if the threat to overthrow it were cheat that the Kurds would not defend the government in which the preside. To this day they participate and are represented in the government in Baghdad.
That may change but again it may not.
It’s not absurd at all. They want to be independent. They don’t want to be part of the Iraq’s government. They defended that land from ISIS to keep it for themselves. I really don’t get why you refuse to accept this glaring fact. You’re an enigma wrapped in a riddle, for sure.
As late as June 25 2014 the Peshmerga and ISF were still fighting side by side:
And the Governor of Kirkuk, Najmiddin Karim had this to say about the Iraqi military and Kurdush forces needing cooperation and each other in order to ‘win’:
Rrports like this are not sensational and newsy but they do exist if you have an objective desire to get the full story.
The Kurd defence of areas under their influence may well have assisted Baghdad, but I think we can be reasonably sure this is a side benefit as far as the Kurds are concerned.
They have intervened in their own interest, gained territory, but most of all they have gained influence for their own cause. So for them its worked out well enough, for now.
Funny stuff. You think you’re more objective than me.
Yes, there is cooperation happening to some degree. The “Iraqi” oil police protecting Kirkuk oil facilities are largely Kurdish, with a Kurdish commander IIRC. None of this cooperation indicates the Kurds have any desire to sustain the existence of Iraq. I think anyone thinking objectively has a good guess where the Kurds are going with all this.
Where the Kurds end up going with this does not eliminate the fact that from the start around June 10 they have been defending “Iraq” from the ISIS terrorist hoard. Now that the terrorist hoard has been stopped - the Kurds can focus on what’s in their self-interest. The Kurds moved into the security vacumn that emerged when ISF fled from the fight. If the Kurds choose to hang on to the areas gained and have a localized area vote/referendum to decide then more power to them. But none of that has happened as of now, and its premature to already be calling these areas something other than part of Iraq.
Posted earlier by me:
The Kurds would never be at peace with the ISIS dream of an extremist Islamist caliphate being established along their south and western borders. And that would be true whether or not that caliphate extended into Baghdad.
A future independent Kurdish state would necessarily be defending itself from suicude attack and rocket assaults until order in the Anbar and Tikrit Sunni areas were back under the tribal moderate (smokers and drinkers and uncovered women) control as they were in 2012 when US troops were fully removed.
Kurds know the moderate tribes needed to prevail over the extremist invaders and would be willing to assist in that fight when able and called upon to do.
In my view one of the most critical physical landmarks needing defending at the outset of the ISIS assault on Baghdad was the Mosque and other Shiite shrines north of Baghdad at Samarra.
Had ISIS taken Samara there is little doubt that full scale sectarian war would have escalated to a point of no return. And I believe inciting a full scale Shiite/miderate Sunni sectarian blood-letting was part of ISIS objective.
That thankfully did not occur and the US and others were gradually seen to lend some support.
That hold at Sammara and at the refinery at Baijii made it possible for the a kurds to direct almost all their attention on holding into the territories they entered when ISF abandoned them,
This is a more objective and supportable view than the one being pushed around here.