Should the Kurds be given independence?

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.

Edited by gcle2003 - 09-Feb-2007 at 06:00

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.

"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 The fyromians orthe kossovars can govern themselves ?

Edited by perikles - 09-Feb-2007 at 08:13

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?

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.

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.

Originally posted by Zaitsev The Kurds CANNOT govern themselves. It's a simple fact.

And why is that?

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.