Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Kerimoglu
Consul
Joined: 05-Oct-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 313
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Should the Kurds be given independence? Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 05:21 |
I like this discussion. The points from both sides are very good and arguments are logical. But what I believe, in the world where not all the nations are free, then Turkey kind of can say I do not let kurds free either. Look to Russia - it is a great example.
|
History is a farm. Nations are farmers. What they planted before will show what is going to grow tomorrow!
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 05:53 |
Originally posted by Spartakus
The 'colonial situation' I was talking about had the Turks sitting on top.
(And I'm not criticising the Ottoman Empire. Various people did live together peaceably within it. I'm just pointing out that was because the Turks were keeping the peace.)
This is under discussionIf you talk about the Sultan yes.If you talk about Turks as a whole,no.Ottoman means "Servant of the House of Osman",which has not only to do with Turks.Many of slavic or Hellenic or Arabic etc origin were also Ottomans.Most Turks in the Ottoman Empire were ,in fact, reayas ,or ,in other words, in the lowest point of the Ottoman society ,together with the subject nations.
|
I spoke carelessly, that's true. However I opened by saying I was referring to the Ottoman Empire - I then used 'the Turks' as shorthand to refer to that empire, just as people say 'the British' when they mean the government of Britain.
But I agree that is wrong.
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 05:57 |
Originally posted by Spartakus
The discussion is really on the wrong basis here,and we supposed to like history.The first problem ,when we talk about the creation of a new State in the Middle East,is the borders.Why?Because the current borders were created by the Great Powers without taking any consideration of the local people.That's why Iraq has so many different people in it's territory.
The second problem is ,that although Kurds are millions ,they cannot have a State because the neighbouring countries do not want to.A Kurdish State would destabilize the region.
|
You mean it's stable now?
Serbia didn't want an independent Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Macedonia.
the question here was not 'Do the Kurds have a chance of getting independence?' or 'Will the existing powers accept an independent Kurdistan?' but 'Should the Kurds be given independence?' Different matter entirely.
Edited by gcle2003 - 09-Feb-2007 at 06:00
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 06:11 |
Originally posted by gcle2003
Serbia didn't want an independent Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Macedonia.
|
And look how well that all worked out. Genocide, poverty, war.... Also, Cent, may I ask who is the turkish hyper-nationalist? No-one from Turkey had even posted on page 3.
|
|
Spartakus
Tsar
terörist
Joined: 22-Nov-2004
Location: Greece/Hellas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4489
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 06:36 |
Originally posted by gcle2003
You mean it's stable now?
Serbia didn't want an independent Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Macedonia.
the question here was not 'Do the Kurds have a chance of getting independence?' or 'Will the existing powers accept an independent Kurdistan?' but 'Should the Kurds be given independence?' Different matter entirely.
|
No,it is not stable,but it is more stable than it would be if there was a Kurdish State.Everybody would try to control it.And i mean everybody:Turks,Iranians,Syrians,Iraqis,Americans,Russians.That would create internal tensions and who knows what else. I am being realistic.A Kurdish State,regardless Kurdish will, cannot be created without a consensus of the local powers,sth impossible.The only way is from US and NATO support,similar to the Kosovo.If the US could provide the proper safety and military equipment to the Kurds,then a State would have great chances of being born.But,even if a Kurdish State gets created ,all it's neighbours will try to destroy it by creating destabilization or control it,thus making it a puppet-State.
|
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)
|
|
Cent
Chieftain
Joined: 20-Jun-2005
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1013
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 06:56 |
"Also, Cent, may I ask who is the turkish hyper-nationalist? No-one from Turkey had even posted on page 3. "
Bulldog maybe?
|
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
|
|
Cent
Chieftain
Joined: 20-Jun-2005
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1013
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 06:59 |
"I am being realistic.A Kurdish State,regardless Kurdish will, cannot be created without a consensus of the local powers,sth impossible.The only way is from US and NATO support,similar to the Kosovo.If the US could provide the proper safety and military equipment to the Kurds,then a State would have great chances of being born.But,even if a Kurdish State gets created ,all it's neighbours will try to destroy it by creating destabilization or control it,thus making it a puppet-State."
We are talking about SHOULD Kurds govern themselves. Not about the consequences.
I agree. Turkey will smash us like ants, if they get the chance. But I do not think Syria has the power nor Iraq. Iran wouldn't attack a Kurdish state, they seem to be having a good relationship with KRG.
|
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
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 07:56 |
The Kurds CANNOT govern themselves. It's a simple fact.
|
|
perikles
Consul
Joined: 28-Jul-2006
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 373
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 08:12 |
And The fyromians orthe kossovars can govern themselves ?
And how you come up to that conclusion?
Edited by perikles - 09-Feb-2007 at 08:13
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 08:16 |
I'm glad you asked. I am ignoring my moral objection to dividing countries on ethnic lines, and will concentrate on practical reasons why it's impossible. The Kurdish state cannot spontaneously come into existence. It either has to get permission from the states who's land it will be taking, or it needs outside assistance. The states are not going to give them permission, therefore it needs outside help. If it gets outside help it will come from America, and it will operate as an American protectorate relying solely on American support for its existence.
|
|
Bulldog
Caliph
Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 10:44 |
Originally posted by Cent
"Cent
gcle2003, don't bother spending time on Turkish hyper-nationalists.
The only hyper-nationalist here is you, a Kurdish hypernationalist, you do realise that Zaitsev is Australlian right."
I ment you...
But Zaitsev maybe is Turkish. I do not know, he maybe is like you... A Turk in undercover?
|
AyKurt
lol. Mate a universal characteristic of hypernationalists is paranoia
"Also, Cent, may I ask who is the turkish hyper-nationalist? No-one from Turkey had even posted on page 3. "
Cent
Bulldog maybe? |
Cent maybe you should look in the mirror, paranoia as AyKurt said is
a universal characteristic of hypernationalists is paranoia
|
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 10:47 |
Originally posted by Zaitsev
Originally posted by gcle2003
Serbia didn't want an independent Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Macedonia.
|
And look how well that all worked out. Genocide, poverty, war....
|
What caused the problem was not the breakup but the Serbs trying to STOP the breakup. Now they've lost the whole area is settling down reasonably well, even if Kosovo remains undecided.
Certainly the majority of the people of former Yugoslavia are much happier now than before. Slovenia is integrated into the EU, and I doubt it will be much longer before Croatia and the others are too.
Much the same is true of the breakup of the Soviet Union, which I assume you are also opposed to. Apart from the minor flare-up over Nagorno-Karabakh, where's the bloodshed there? In Chechnya certainly, but that's because it DIDN'T get independence.
How you can justify a minority preserving its dominance over a whole mishmash of other peoples is beyond me. As I've pointed out now many times, most of the countries of the world are the result of breaking up imperial domination, and returning their independence to formerly subject peoples.
Most of us, I would suggest, think that is a happy outcome, whatever those like you who yearn for the return of the dinosaurs may believe.
Edited by gcle2003 - 09-Feb-2007 at 10:51
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 10:55 |
Originally posted by Spartakus
Originally posted by gcle2003
You mean it's stable now?
Serbia didn't want an independent Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Macedonia.
the question here was not 'Do the Kurds have a chance of getting independence?' or 'Will the existing powers accept an independent Kurdistan?' but 'Should the Kurds be given independence?' Different matter entirely.
|
No,it is not stable,but it is more stable than it would be if there was a Kurdish State.Everybody would try to control it.And i mean everybody:Turks,Iranians,Syrians,Iraqis,Americans,Russians.That would create internal tensions and who knows what else.
I am being realistic.A Kurdish State,regardless Kurdish will, cannot be created without a consensus of the local powers,sth impossible.The only way is from US and NATO support,similar to the Kosovo.If the US could provide the proper safety and military equipment to the Kurds,then a State would have great chances of being born.But,even if a Kurdish State gets created ,all it's neighbours will try to destroy it by creating destabilization or control it,thus making it a puppet-State.
|
And whose fault would that be?
Your (and Zaitsev and others) seem to be advocating a morality equivalent to the thief who shoots his victim and says "It was all his fault, he should have handed over all his money."
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 11:15 |
Originally posted by Zaitsev
I'm glad you asked. I am ignoring my moral objection to dividing countries on ethnic lines, and will concentrate on practical reasons why it's impossible. The Kurdish state cannot spontaneously come into existence. It either has to get permission from the states who's land it will be taking, or it needs outside assistance.
|
If the Mosul province becomes independent of Iraq, whose land are theyx taking? And whose land is all of this anyway? We're talking about borders (apart from Iran) that were arbitrarily imposed on the area less than a century ago. Why should they be sacrosanct?
The British, with League of Nations agreement, created Iraq as a reward for the Hashemites. The Hashemites ruled until the fifties when it was taken over by a series of dictators. Not a shred of either legitimacy or even tradition, just the OK of the League of Nations.
Before 1918 there was no Syria, no Iraq, no Lebanon, no Saudi Arabia, no Palestine, no Israel - they were just names, not countries. There was in fact no Turkey as a nation-state. At best the Gulf States were semi-independent.
Even when you're not writing idiocies like the Kurds can't govern themselves (they're making a better fist of it right now than the Lebanese or the Palestinians or the rest of the 'Iraqis'), you write as though the whole situation was somehow God-given, and everyone just has to accept things the way they are.
I thought that kind of extremist conservatism was stone-dead.
The states are not going to give them permission, therefore it needs outside help.
|
All it needs is settlement of the current Iraqi situation. That's already in a civil war, which can do nothing except get worse until it finally burns out. What we are talking about is how that civil war will or may or should turn out. We're not talking about fresh bloodshed - the bloodshed is already going on. Agreement on the future of the country only requires - at best - agreement of the other Iraqi factions, and I would have thought there was at least a fair chance of the Shia parties acquiescing.
There is no justification at all for any other outside country to interfere in the resolution of the Iraqi conflict unless invited. And since the drawn-out death of the empires, such a resolution has never been successfully achieved except on the basis of recognising the independence of those groups - however defined - that want it determinedly enough.
Edited by gcle2003 - 09-Feb-2007 at 11:16
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 11:27 |
Originally posted by gcle2003
There is no justification at all for any other outside country to interfere in the resolution of the Iraqi conflict unless invited. |
The fact that the whole situation is the fault of the coalition couldn't possibly mean they have some sort of moral obligation? "You guys really should clean up your country, it's a mess." Your whole approach to this situation is ludicrous. While we're at it let's hand over the the Eastern Unites States, Southern Canada and Northern Mexico to the native Americans and evict everyone else so they can be a majority. Perhaps we should make New South Wales Aboriginal land. While we're at it we can just find infinite variations in the ethnic spectrum and dice the world into tiny chunks so everyone can run around in their ethnically pure little worlds.
|
|
AyKurt
Shogun
Joined: 24-Mar-2005
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 236
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 11:34 |
Originally posted by gcle2003
Your (and Zaitsev and others) seem to be advocating a morality equivalent to the thief who shoots his victim and says "It was all his fault, he should have handed over all his money." |
I dont get what you mean by that. If your saying that every ethnic group in the world should have right to a national state simply for just being, then thats never been the case in the history of mankind.
National borders are drawn geographically not ethnically. The land proposed for this Kurdistan state is already marked. For it to exist then the states which govern this land have to agree to give it up. Thats not going to happen.
Look gcle, im sure your heart is in the right place but its not a god given right to have a country based on your ethnicity. Instead of proposing the creation of yet another ethnic country on multi ethnic lands wouldn't it be better to advocate better cultural rights for all ethnic groups within the administrative states where they live? That way the Kurdish identity is protected wether they are a minority or a majority in a particular area and it will remove the ethnic conflicts that may potentially exist since there would be no reason to fight unless the Kurds are opposed to the existence of other ethnic groups living as their neighbours.
I find most of your posts on this board agreeable however on this one you are so wrong. you are seriously failing to grasp the realities involved.
|
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha
|
|
Lmprs
Arch Duke
Joined: 30-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1869
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 11:34 |
Originally posted by Zaitsev
The Kurds CANNOT govern themselves. It's a simple fact. |
And why is that?
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 12:34 |
Originally posted by Feanor
Originally posted by Zaitsev
The Kurds CANNOT govern themselves. It's a simple fact. |
And why is that?
|
I suggest you read what has been said since.
|
|
TheDiplomat
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1988
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 12:37 |
Originally posted by gcle2003
Originally posted by Zaitsev
Originally posted by gcle2003
Serbia didn't want an independent Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Macedonia.
|
And look how well that all worked out. Genocide, poverty, war....
|
What caused the problem was not the breakup but the Serbs trying to STOP the breakup. Now they've lost the whole area is settling down reasonably well, even if Kosovo remains undecided.
Certainly the majority of the people of former Yugoslavia are much happier now than before. Slovenia is integrated into the EU, and I doubt it will be much longer before Croatia and the others are too.
Much the same is true of the breakup of the Soviet Union, which I assume you are also opposed to. Apart from the minor flare-up over Nagorno-Karabakh, where's the bloodshed there? In Chechnya certainly, but that's because it DIDN'T get independence.
|
Gclc2003, the main point which you fail to comprehend is that these borders of nationalities in the Soviet Union were already very well-established before the independence of these ex-communist republics... Everyone knew where the borders of his republic ended.. Therefore you did not see bloodshe except for Karabakh. The same is true for Cezches and Slovaks.
But you can not draw clear borders of Kurds in Iraq, niether in Turkey, nor in Syria. Therefore territorial claims will always overlapp and blood will be inevitable
|
ARDA:The best Turkish diplomat ever!
|
|
Cent
Chieftain
Joined: 20-Jun-2005
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1013
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 13:30 |
"The Kurds CANNOT govern themselves. It's a simple fact."
Ah, the nationalist Turk has revealed himself!
Not a sane person would say something like that. Stop embarrasing yourself.
Just look at KRG, it is doing very well.
|
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
|
|