Should the Kurds be given independence?

Do you think the Kurds should gain independence?

Persoally, I think it makes sense. The Kurds have for long been oppressed by their Turkish, Arabian and Persian overlords. They have inhabited their land for an extremely long time. And, in my opinion, very positively, they appear to be much more democratic and secular-minded (not very religious) that the peoples who have ruled them. Kurdistan turning into an Islamic theocracy seems unlikely, especially since not all Kurds are Muslims. And I think an independent Kurdistan could be viable. After all, they have oil in their lands.

But in a sense, I could understand that Iran, Iraq and Turkey (and Syria and Armenia, though these two have very small Kurdish populations, and not large enough to part their territory up) don't want to give the Kurdish lands away. I wouldn't approve of if for instance the Sami people who live in northern Sweden, Norway and Finland were allowed to form their own state in the northern territories. And neither would I approve of if Scania separated. Though these peoples have not been as oppressed as the Kurds have been, and they are not oppressed a single bit today. Heck, the Sami people are even (errenously) referred to as "natives" of this country.

So what do you think? I think that if Iran keeps on staying in the Middle Ages in almost everything except military technology, and if the Sunnis and Shiites continue to wreck Iraq, and if Turkey keeps oppressing the Kurds, Kurdish independence is very justified. But if the mentioned countries join the 21th century and become secular democracies who accept human rights and don't try to destroy anything Kurdish, and if the Kurds are given some space to communicate with their fellow Kurds in the other countries and are allowed to keep their language and culture, then that's fine and there is no need for an independent Kurdish state to be formed.

I'm generally in favout of people being independent in their own country if they want to be. So yes I'd be in favour of an independent Kurdistan if the Kurds wanted it.

Well i think in the next years we gonna see many developments in this area and the reason is that Kurds are the best ally of US and if the oil of Iraqi kurdistan will not be shared  with the other Iraq , in a few years we ll have a very strong (rich from the oil) state of  Kurdistan (with the help of US of course).Usually new states grow irredentism and expansionism.

"all are oppressed equally and Iranian Kurds know this."

Zagros, both you and I know that Sunnis are more oppressed than others.

"So this divorce would require a lot of ethnic cleansing and Iranians have never been partial to this barbarity."

He's my brother.

Originally posted by Cent "So this divorce would require a lot of ethnic cleansing and Iranians have never been partial to this barbarity." � I've bolded where it says they slayed Kurdish sunnis and replaced them with shia turkmens. � In 1609-1610, a war broke out between [COLOR=#800080">Kurdish[/COLOR"> tribes and the [COLOR=#0000ff">Safavid Empire[/COLOR">. After a long and bloody siege led by the Safavid grand vizier Hatem Beg, which lasted from November [COLOR=#0000ff">1609[/COLOR"> to the summer of [COLOR=#0000ff">1610[/COLOR">, the Kurdish stronghold of Dimdim was captured. Shah Abbas ordered a general massacre in Beradost and Mukriyan([COLOR=#0000ff">Mahabad[/COLOR">) (Reported by Eskandar Beg Monshi, Safavid Historian (1557-1642) in the Book "Alam Ara Abbasi") and resettled the [COLOR=#0000ff">Turkish[/COLOR"> Afshar tribe in the region while deporting many [COLOR=#800080">Kurdish[/COLOR"> tribes to [COLOR=#0000ff">Khorasan[/COLOR"> � I call this ethnic cleansing.

My word! That is not ethnic cleansing, that is punishment and also strategic decision: he could have killed ALL of those Kurds, but he only punished the ones that took part in the revolt. He moved the others because had a history of siding with Ottomans and were too dangerous to have on the Western frontier. This was nothing unusual for the period. My own ancestors were Bakhtiari from Fars - Shah Abbas, after defeating my tribe moved us to Kermanshah because we did not accept his high taxes but were good warriors! Were we ethnically cleansed from Fars? No, there are still Bakhtiari there! Only my Larti tribe.

If he was to ethnically cleanse he would have killed or moved ALL Sunni Kurds, not just the ones who revolted. Don't distort history, you know how much that annoys me.

I like the date though: 1609.

Find out who commissioned the writing of the Sharaf Nameh of Kurdish history, it was no other than Shah Abbas.

Originally posted by gcle2003 I'm generally in favout of people being independent in their own country if they want to be. So yes I'd be in favour of an independent Kurdistan if the Kurds wanted it.   Like the recent break-up of Yugoslavia it would be repairing a mistake made post-1918 in breaking up the Ottoman Empire parallel to the mistake in setting up Yugoslavia in breaking up the Austrian and Ottoman Empires.   Whether they have been or are being oppressed at the moment is irrelevant.

Originally posted by Zagros Key point: if they want it. Referendum!

Originally posted by Dan Carkner Perhaps they should *have* independance, but they shouldn't be *Given* it.  I mean that "The West" or whoever shouldn't have the right to give or take away independance. You compare it to 1918-1919 redrawing of maps, well perhaps this is another map redrawn by the west that would cause endless problems down the road.  I'm not saying I am anti-Kurdish-independance, but like someone said, it's not independance either to be an American protectorate..