Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Should the Kurds be given independence?
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 12>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Cent View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 20-Jun-2005
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1013 		  Quote Cent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Should the Kurds be given independence?
    Posted: 16-Feb-2007 at 04:27
Originally posted by TheDiplomat

Originally posted by Cent

I asked a honest question, I didn't put words in your mouth...
 
How do YOU want to deal with the Kurdish question in Turkey?
 
Should they get federalism? Or maybe a state of their own?
 
What is your opinion?
 
Just want to honest answers.
 
Cent, actually I do not see a Kurdish Question in Turkey..Because I do not like using the word question while refering to a people... Such use of language do not improve reltions, but increase the gap between the people.
 
I do not think that there is a need for federalism in sout-eastern part of Turkey...Because this region is not rich, and geographically not a very good place to trade or invest either. Therefore this region would not be able to meet its expenses on its own. So federalism would be shooting their own feet for the people in this region. I have already expressed my opinion very well for their own state, in my opinion.
 
These are again my honest answers. I really want every people to be happy:)
 
Thank you TheDiplomat.
 
But if there isn't a Kurdish question, how come over 30 000 people have died in the last 30 years? :S
 
How come Turkey has several HUNDRED THOUSAND TROOPS IN KURDISTAN?
 
How come PKK even exists?
 
How come your Prime Minister has acknowledged the Kurdish question, but you haven't?
 
There is a Kurdish question, and if you haven't noticed it yet, it is because you've neglected it.
 
 
They don't speak enough about the Kurds, because we have never taken hostages, never hijacked a plane. But I am proud of this.
Abdul Rahman Qassemlou
Back to Top
Cent View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 20-Jun-2005
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1013 		  Quote Cent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Feb-2007 at 04:23
Bulldog, so you're honestly believing that there are 3 million Turkmen in Iraq? You're ignorant if so.
 
"Don't you realise, you sound exactly like a Turk speaking about Turkey."
 
Do Kurds learn Kurdish in schools? Because Assyrians do learn Assyrian in KRG.
 
"Assyrians are complaining about violations made against them by the Kurdish authorities, would you like to see their reports"
 
Please, do not speak about stuff you don't even know of. Those reports are of Christian fundamentalists in the diaspora, they hate Kurdistan and they're jealous of that we are getting our own nation. If you go to KRG you'll see how grateful they are.
 
They can speak their own language, the are EDUCATED IN ASSYRIAN, and they can do what ever they can. No one is stopping them.
 
But if you go to Turkey, and one wants to learn Kurdish in schools, it is impossible and you know that.
They don't speak enough about the Kurds, because we have never taken hostages, never hijacked a plane. But I am proud of this.
Abdul Rahman Qassemlou
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800 		  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Feb-2007 at 17:14
Cent
The difference is mister Bulldog, that minorities have rights in KRG.
 
Assyrians learn Assyrian, Turkmen learn Turkish and so on. In their schools.
 
Don't you realise, you sound exactly like a Turk speaking about Turkey.
 
Assyrians are complaining about violations made against them by the Kurdish authorities, would you like to see their reports, even Yezidi are. Do they have a point? are they making it up? are they just trying to use the situation? do they just want to present the situation as bad as possible to cause revolt so they can try to get their own state? there are so many scenarios, it depends from which window your looking out from.
 
Cent
Bulldog, that website claim that 13% of Iraq is Turkmen, why even bother get information from that website?
 
Unpo is an independant site, a Turkmen or Kurdish site would naturally include bias.
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
TheDiplomat View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1988 		  Quote TheDiplomat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Feb-2007 at 16:57
Originally posted by Cent

I asked a honest question, I didn't put words in your mouth...
 
How do YOU want to deal with the Kurdish question in Turkey?
 
Should they get federalism? Or maybe a state of their own?
 
What is your opinion?
 
Just want to honest answers.
 
Cent, actually I do not see a Kurdish Question in Turkey..Because I do not like using the word question while refering to a people... Such use of language do not improve reltions, but increase the gap between the people.
 
I do not think that there is a need for federalism in sout-eastern part of Turkey...Because this region is not rich, and geographically not a very good place to trade or invest either. Therefore this region would not be able to meet its expenses on its own. So federalism would be shooting their own feet for the people in this region. I have already expressed my opinion very well for their own state, in my opinion.
 
These are again my honest answers. I really want every people to be happy:)
ARDA:The best Turkish diplomat ever!

Back to Top
Cent View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 20-Jun-2005
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1013 		  Quote Cent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Feb-2007 at 13:46
http://www.unpo.org/member_profile.php?id=27
 
Bulldog, that website claim that 13% of Iraq is Turkmen, why even bother get information from that website?
 
 
They don't speak enough about the Kurds, because we have never taken hostages, never hijacked a plane. But I am proud of this.
Abdul Rahman Qassemlou
Back to Top
Cent View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 20-Jun-2005
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1013 		  Quote Cent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Feb-2007 at 13:44

"If a Kurdish state is founded in Northern Iraq it won't be very different from Turkey, this time, Kurds will be a majority and Turks a the minority. "

The difference is mister Bulldog, that minorities have rights in KRG.
 
Assyrians learn Assyrian, Turkmen learn Turkish and so on. In their schools.
 
WHY CAN'T KURDS LEARN KURDISH IN TURKEY?!
They don't speak enough about the Kurds, because we have never taken hostages, never hijacked a plane. But I am proud of this.
Abdul Rahman Qassemlou
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800 		  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Feb-2007 at 12:13
Gcle
The suggested Kurdish state is the former Ottoman province of Mosul, whichwas not settled by Turks, not in significant numbers anyway.
 
Actually it was settled by Turks, infact there are areas of the province where Turkmen's are a majority like parts of Kerkuk, Tel Afar, Tuzhurmatu.
 
 
If a Kurdish state is founded in Northern Iraq it won't be very different from Turkey, this time, Kurds will be a majority and Turks a the minority.
 
In my opinion it doesn't matter if there is a Kurdish state and Turkey, there cannot be a homogeneus Turkish or Kurdish state. For example you can have a Kurdish area next to a Turkish one then another Kurdish then a large Turkish area followed by a smaller Kurdish followed by smaller Turkish followed by larger Kurdish. It's so mixed that whatever you do there will be Kurds in a Turkish state and Turks in a Kurdish state. As I said it's not black and white and comparing it to Ireland as I previously said show's that you don't understand the region because its very different.
 
If Turkey gives full rights to Kurds and a Kurdish state gives full rights to Turks then it wouldn't matter which state you lived in as both would treat you well.
 
This would be an ideal situation but will be tough to actually achieve.
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
Cent View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 20-Jun-2005
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1013 		  Quote Cent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Feb-2007 at 10:20
I asked a honest question, I didn't put words in your mouth...
 
How do YOU want to deal with the Kurdish question in Turkey?
 
Should they get federalism? Or maybe a state of their own?
 
What is your opinion?
 
Just want to honest answers.


Edited by Cent - 15-Feb-2007 at 10:21
They don't speak enough about the Kurds, because we have never taken hostages, never hijacked a plane. But I am proud of this.
Abdul Rahman Qassemlou
Back to Top
TheDiplomat View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1988 		  Quote TheDiplomat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Feb-2007 at 09:05
Please Do not put words in my mouth, Cent!
 
I never meant to say such .. Kurdish people speak their language freely everywhere...Do not cause misleadings...I personally have Kurdish friends for sure, and I never asked them to change their ethinicity..Noone can accomplish such a thing. Noone is on such a misison, believe me.
 
My suggestion is that  a Kudish state at the expense of Iraq,Syria,Iran and Turkey should not be established in the Middle East...For one state,we should not lead 4 other states and 1 newly established one into constant dislike of each other 
ARDA:The best Turkish diplomat ever!

Back to Top
Cent View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 20-Jun-2005
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1013 		  Quote Cent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Feb-2007 at 07:26
What is your suggestion then TheDiplomat? Should Kurds forget thier language in Turkey? Forget that they're Kurds and become Turks?
 
 
 
They don't speak enough about the Kurds, because we have never taken hostages, never hijacked a plane. But I am proud of this.
Abdul Rahman Qassemlou
Back to Top
TheDiplomat View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1988 		  Quote TheDiplomat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Feb-2007 at 06:17
Originally posted by gcle2003

Originally posted by Bulldog

Gcle
If Turks had settled the area and lived there for centuries it might have made a difference. But neither Japan nor Turkey had settled the areas involved - merely ruled over them. Look how long England had ruled over Ireland - did that mean they had the right to rule over the Irish for ever? 
 
Not a very good comparison.
 
Kurds and Turks entered Anatolia together, it's not like Kurds were there living happily in their own states untill one day the Turks popped along and ruined the Kurds rule.
 
The area's claimed by Kurds in Turkey have been inhabitted by Turks for just as long.
 
The problem that Iran, Turkey and Syria has is not a Kurdish state but Pan-Kurdism.
 
The problem that the Turkish commentators seem to have is that they are only concerned with Turkey.
 
The suggested Kurdish state is the former Ottoman province of Mosul, whichwas not settled by Turks, not in significant numbers anyway.
 
 
But what about the future of this suggested Kurdish state?
 
Will it say ''Ah, I got my independence, I am done with now, I will stay in peace for ever'' and bring stability into region, or will its existance  encourage, if not directly push, its ''blood-brothers'' all around the region for unification of these so-called lands, expansion, greater autonomy...etc and hence cause more fights and eventually more misery?
 
I am not syaing this because I am Turk, but anyone with an intermediate level of geopolitics and history will argue that the latter is more likely to occur.
ARDA:The best Turkish diplomat ever!

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Feb-2007 at 05:27
Originally posted by Bulldog

Gcle
If Turks had settled the area and lived there for centuries it might have made a difference. But neither Japan nor Turkey had settled the areas involved - merely ruled over them. Look how long England had ruled over Ireland - did that mean they had the right to rule over the Irish for ever? 
 
Not a very good comparison.
 
Kurds and Turks entered Anatolia together, it's not like Kurds were there living happily in their own states untill one day the Turks popped along and ruined the Kurds rule.
 
The area's claimed by Kurds in Turkey have been inhabitted by Turks for just as long.
 
The problem that Iran, Turkey and Syria has is not a Kurdish state but Pan-Kurdism.
 
The problem that the Turkish commentators seem to have is that they are only concerned with Turkey.
 
The suggested Kurdish state is the former Ottoman province of Mosul, whichwas not settled by Turks, not in significant numbers anyway.
 
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800 		  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 18:58
Ofcourse its related, as I said, Iran, Turkey and Syria have more a problem with Pan-Kurdism than a Kurdish state.
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613 		  Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 18:27
Right or wrong your posts are completly irrelvent bulldog; diplomat and GCLE are talking about north Iraq not anadolia, so lets not try to swing this debate into confusion
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800 		  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 18:14
No it's not ignorant at all Cent. Kurds lived in the Zagros area for thousands of years with relative independance or semi-independance your correct.
 
However, they were not in Anatolia and did not have freedom to openly migrate untill the Turks came, defeated the Byzantines at Malazgirit hence Turkish and Kurdish tribes flooded into the area. Kurds preferred the mountainess area while Turks preferred flatter lands. Although this wasn't always the case, some Kurds preferred flatter lands some Turks mountainess lands.
 
The point is, the claim that Kurds lived in what is today Turkey for 7000 years while Turks just showed up 1000 years ago and stole the Kurds land is historically inaccurate and a total fallacy.
 
I'd like to point out untill 80 years ago there was no closer two groups than Turks and Kurds Wink
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
Cent View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 20-Jun-2005
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1013 		  Quote Cent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 16:13
Dude, we aren't claiming Anatolia. Kurds have been living in the mountain areas in south east for thousands of years. Long before Turks came.
 
And I'm not talking about Anatolia. I do not care about Anatolia. But do claim that Turks have lived in those mountains (south east) before Kurds is ignorant. 
 
 


Edited by Cent - 14-Feb-2007 at 16:14
They don't speak enough about the Kurds, because we have never taken hostages, never hijacked a plane. But I am proud of this.
Abdul Rahman Qassemlou
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800 		  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 15:35
Gcle
If Turks had settled the area and lived there for centuries it might have made a difference. But neither Japan nor Turkey had settled the areas involved - merely ruled over them. Look how long England had ruled over Ireland - did that mean they had the right to rule over the Irish for ever? 
 
Not a very good comparison.
 
Kurds and Turks entered Anatolia together, it's not like Kurds were there living happily in their own states untill one day the Turks popped along and ruined the Kurds rule.
 
The area's claimed by Kurds in Turkey have been inhabitted by Turks for just as long.
 
The problem that Iran, Turkey and Syria has is not a Kurdish state but Pan-Kurdism.
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 10:49
 
Originally posted by TheDiplomat

Originally posted by gcle2003

 
 
The similarity is that Japan in 1945 and Turkey had no choice. The British mandate over Mesopotamia (and other places) was granted by the League of Nations after the defeat and breakup of the Ottoman Empire. The boundaries of Turkey itself were determined by the League of Nations, as one of the residual pieces .
 
The idea that Turkey could have done anything to stop the inclusion of Mosul in Iraq is a pipe dream.
 
Well, Turkey became a member of The League of Nations in the 30s, so how did she accept the autroity of this international foundation in 1926  that she is not a party, is a question that you should keep your mind busy.
Turkey is not the Ottoman Empire. The Empire was split up because it was defeated in war. (see more below).
 
The case of Mosul was not brought to a settlement at Lusanne Peace Conference. Many people cried for the war. The English influence in The League of Nations was very higly visible. But even tough we let The League decide the case. Because again it was about to given to ONE SINGLE, UNIFIED IRAQ not to Kurdistan or Arabistan...etc
The Treaty provided:
"The frontier between Turkey and Iraq shall be laid down in friendly arrangement to be concluded between Turkey and Great Britain within nine months.

In the event of no agreement being reached between the two Governments within the time mentioned, the dispute shall be referred to the Council of the League of Nations."

 
Iraq had ALREADY been set up as a British mandate BEFORE the Lausanne treaty. As the quotation makes clear, all that was under debate here were the details of where exactly the boundaries should lie (this is even more obvious taken in the context of the surrounding articles, which are all about details of boundaries.)
 
But the province as a whole had been taken out of Turkish or Ottoman control long before.
 
 
The very another  difference of Japans case is that Japan had UNCONDITIONALLY SURRENDERED in the Second World War, whereas Turkey was the victorious side in the national war of independence. Of course Turkey had another choices..
Seriously like what? Yes Turkey had beaten the Greeks, but it was in no position to take on any of the great powers.
I am not expert on Taiwan history..But i know that Japan ruled there for 50 years.. Based on this information, I still firmly believe that comparing 50 years of Japanese Taiwan and centuries of Ottoman Mosul is ridiculous. Time has always made difference in the course of events. It is time that moved history in this sense
If Turks had settled the area and lived there for centuries it might have made a difference. But neither Japan nor Turkey had settled the areas involved - merely ruled over them. Look how long England had ruled over Ireland - did that mean they had the right to rule over the Irish for ever? 
 
The Ottoman Empire has gone. What happens to its former provinces is no business of Turkey's, any more than it is Austria's business what happens in Croatia or Britain's what happens in Ireland.


Edited by gcle2003 - 14-Feb-2007 at 10:52
Back to Top
TheDiplomat View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1988 		  Quote TheDiplomat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 10:09
Originally posted by gcle2003

 
 
The similarity is that Japan in 1945 and Turkey had no choice. The British mandate over Mesopotamia (and other places) was granted by the League of Nations after the defeat and breakup of the Ottoman Empire. The boundaries of Turkey itself were determined by the League of Nations, as one of the residual pieces .
 
The idea that Turkey could have done anything to stop the inclusion of Mosul in Iraq is a pipe dream.
 
 
Well, Turkey became a member of The League of Nations in the 30s, so how did she accept the autroity of this international foundation in 1926  that she is not a party, is a question that you should keep your mind busy.
 
The case of Mosul was not brought to a settlement at Lusanne Peace Conference. Many people cried for the war. The English influence in The League of Nations was very higly visible. But even tough we let The League decide the case. Because again it was about to given to ONE SINGLE, UNIFIED IRAQ not to Kurdistan or Arabistan...etc
 
The very another  difference of Japans case is that Japan had UNCONDITIONALLY SURRENDERED in the Second World War, whereas Turkey was the victorious side in the national war of independence. Ofcourse Turkey had another choices..
 
I am not expert on Taiwan history..But i know that Japan ruled there for 50 years.. Based on this information, I still firmly believe that comparing 50 years of Japanese Taiwan and centuries of Ottoman Mosul is ridiculous. Time has always made difference in the course of events. It is time that moved history in this sense
 
 
 
ARDA:The best Turkish diplomat ever!

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 09:48
 
Originally posted by TheDiplomat

Originally posted by gcle2003

Originally posted by TheDiplomat

Gclc2003, one historical point you should bear in mind with regards to this question, the newly established Turkish Republic  agreed to give up her rights on  Mosul province to a one single Iraq in 1926 not to a  divided Mesopotamia.
 
What choice did it have?
 
Japan 'agreed' to give up Taiwan (Formosa) to the Republic of China. What has that to do with whether Taiwan now should or should not be independent of the People's Republic of China?

Common mistake,sir. Comparing apples to oranges...Mosul was an Ottoman province for centuries whereas Japanese rule in Taiwan lasted between 1895 and 1945...just 50 years... Not even one lifespan! I wonder how you came to the conlusion that you could compare both.

I'm aware of the difference in length of tenure. I don't see how that makes any difference.
 
 
Added to this fact are the facts of different circumstances.

Mosul province was accepted within national borders already at the beginning of 20s.. It was casus belli between The newly established republic and England. The army was ready for the war. But after the creation of Iraq, and Ataturk's belief that it would  serve better for Turkey's future, we decided to give up Mosul and let one single, united Iraq to have it. 

The similarity is that Japan in 1945 and Turkey had no choice. The British mandate over Mesopotamia (and other places) was granted by the League of Nations after the defeat and breakup of the Ottoman Empire. The boundaries of Turkey itself were determined by the League of Nations, as one of the residual pieces .
 
The idea that Turkey could have done anything to stop the inclusion of Mosul in Iraq is a pipe dream.
 
In my opinion, noone can not say'' oh let everyone has a free independent state of his own''  by ignoring international law, historical accumulation,geopolitics.. 
That would be a silly thing to say anyway.
 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.079 seconds.