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  <12345 12>
Author
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 Topic: Should the Kurds be given independence?
    Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 06:34
 
Originally posted by Zaitsev

GCLE I think Bulldog has addressed most of your misconceptions, however I will also point out that, as far as I am aware at this time, Israel is the only "ethnic state". It's possible there are a few others around, but generally they do not exist. There is no "you're a German you can live here otherwise shove off to France" state. There is no state in which only Norwegian people can reside. The fact that the majority of a nation's population is of one "ethnicity" does not make it an "ethnic state". It's tragic to see that some people can't get past the us vs them mentality when considering ethnic groups and nations.
 
You're making stuff up just to knock it down, and ignoring what I tried to say. 
 
I'm not suggesting a state in which only Kurds can live and nothing I wrote gives you any reason to suppose I am. I'm suggesting a state in which the majority gets to rule.
 
What you are in fact advancing is an argument for maintaining the old imperial structure. There would be no argument for the old colonies becoming independent without racial/ethnic/religious considerations. Why in your view should Malawi, for instance, be independent? Why should Zambia and Zimbabwe be separate? Why shouldn't Britain countinue to rule the Empire? Or the Ottomans, the French, the Russians...?
 
By your sort of logic, the campaign to free the slaves in the US was a racist campaign, because the slaves were black.
 
In answer to a couple of other points, mainly from Bulldog, I think. That there are large numbers of Kurds living in Istanbul (or any other particular location) has nothing to do with anything. Around 1918 there were vast numbers of Irish living in New York and London - that was no conceivable argument for saying Ireland should not have independence.
 
That the Kurds are the largest ethnic group without their own state may be a mistake on my part, I accept. I was quoting from elsewhere. They are certainly a very large group.
 
When I said the British creation of Iraq was a mistake, I didn't mean anything about their motives. I do think it was based on a mistaken understanding of the realities of the situation, and in particular on relying too much on the views of their Sunni allies against the Ottomans.
 
And finally, I wouldn't be suggesting a referendum only of Kurds, but of the people living in the former Ottoman province of Mosul. Just as it should be the population of Northern Ireland that decides what happens to it.
 
The SNP in Britain has proposed that, if they get a majority in the next Scottish parliament, they will hold a referendum on independence for Scotland. They will, quite obviously, hold it in Scotland which means of course that most of the people voting will be Scots. Just as most of the people voting in the Saarland were German.
 
When the population of a territory is predominantly of one ethnic group it is pointless to quibble about whether a referendum held there is 'racist' or not.
 


Edited by gcle2003 - 08-Feb-2007 at 06:51
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 07:09
I agree with gcle.
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: 08-Feb-2007 at 07:51
Me too. Well said!
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
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 08:28
--->posting error<---


Edited by Zaitsev - 08-Feb-2007 at 08:31
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 08:28
Originally posted by gcle2003

I'm not suggesting a state in which only Kurds can live and nothing I wrote gives you any reason to suppose I am. I'm suggesting a state in which the majority gets to rule.


Perhaps then, we should be handing out massive amounts of land to the few thousand Aboriginal people in Australia, so they can start their own country. That is exactly the kind of idiocy you are proposing. Just because an ethnic group is a minority in one country, doesn't mean it should have the right to, against the will of those in charge, create its own state so it can be a majority. It just doesn't make sense, and only leads to further racial hatred.
 
Originally posted by gcle2003

What you are in fact advancing is an argument for maintaining the old imperial structure. There would be no argument for the old colonies becoming independent without racial/ethnic/religious considerations. Why in your view should Malawi, for instance, be independent? Why should Zambia and Zimbabwe be separate? Why shouldn't Britain countinue to rule the Empire? Or the Ottomans, the French, the Russians...?


Australia became independent, yet I can't quite work out where the racial, ethnic or religious motivation is... Last I checked Australia was a majority caucasian, Christian country rather like England. This was even more true last century. People do not split up empire for ethnic reasons, they do so for political ones. If England felt it could hold on to its entire empire, and that doing so would bring it advantage, then it would have done so. However, it was quite apparent that it could not.
 
Originally posted by gcle2003

By your sort of logic, the campaign to free the slaves in the US was a racist campaign, because the slaves were black.


No, if the "Black" people had said "we want our own separate country in which we can reverse the situation, THAT would be a racist movement. The Kurds are not slaves, they can vote. Just because their numbers, and hence influence, in the democratic process is less does not mean they should be able to steal territory from other nations. That is simply how democracy works.
 
Originally posted by gcle2003

The SNP in Britain has proposed that, if they get a majority in the next Scottish parliament, they will hold a referendum on independence for Scotland. They will, quite obviously, hold it in Scotland which means of course that most of the people voting will be Scots. Just as most of the people voting in the Saarland were German.


However this is completely different to what you are proposing. In this case the "majority" government has already approved the notion of a province leaving. This is where the people, aware of the governments intentions, have given their approval for this province to be given the opportunity to leave. In a way, the vote has already been taken among the general population. If the governments of Iraq, Turkey and Iran APPROVE of the Kurds leaving to form their own state, then I would see that as a positive gesture which would likely lead to a successful existence. However, imposing the minority's will upon the majority, as you have suggested, seems to me to be quite tyrannical in nature.
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: 08-Feb-2007 at 09:02
Gcle
I'm not suggesting a state in which only Kurds can live and nothing I wrote gives you any reason to suppose I am. I'm suggesting a state in which the majority gets to rule.
 
And what constitutes a "majority"? 40-50-60.....90%.
 
Gcle
What you are in fact advancing is an argument for maintaining the old imperial structure. There would be no argument for the old colonies becoming independent without racial/ethnic/religious considerations.
 
Not at all, Arabs, Kurds, Persians, Turks living together is hardly a new phenonema it's the way its been for over a thousand years so it's not some new coloniast invention.
 
If this is the case, why should India and China remain India or China they have large minorities, why shouldn't the Native people's in the America's be given states etc etc
 
 
Gcle
In answer to a couple of other points, mainly from Bulldog, I think. That there are large numbers of Kurds living in Istanbul (or any other particular location) has nothing to do with anything. Around 1918 there were vast numbers of Irish living in New York and London - that was no conceivable argument for saying Ireland should not have independence.
 
 
- Making a simple comparison with Ireland as if it evenly remotely similar is wrong. In Ireland especially the modern day republic area there was hardly any English populations, Irish are the vast majority.
 
In the area's claimed from Turkey, Turks aswell as Arabs have lived in the same region for just as long as the Kurds have. Secondly in most of the area's Kurds don't constitute a majority population, thirdly there are many mixed area's, then there are religous area's were people only care about being muslim.
 
It's not a simple black and white situation at all.
 
 
Gcle
When I said the British creation of Iraq was a mistake, I didn't mean anything about their motives. I do think it was based on a mistaken understanding of the realities of the situation, and in particular on relying too much on the views of their Sunni allies against the Ottomans.
 
I have to disagree, these "allies" didn't control us, we controlled them, they were too stupid to realise what a catostrophe they were walking into and made our job pretty easy. I wouldn't call them "Sunni allies" but instead Arab nationalist allies who wern't too overtly religous at the time.
 
 
Gcle
And finally, I wouldn't be suggesting a referendum only of Kurds, but of the people living in the former Ottoman province of Mosul. Just as it should be the population of Northern Ireland that decides what happens to it.
 
That could work as the whole province is taken into account. However, how can it function in Syria, Iran, Turkey. Iraq today isn't exactly a "nation" state and the Iraqi leader can't step out the green zone, there isn't exactly alot they could do if one of their provinces had this referandum. Then what if the Assyrians wanted a referredum, or the Turkmen, or the Yezid, or the area;s where Arabs are majority are they all allowed one aswell.


Edited by Bulldog - 08-Feb-2007 at 09:04
      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
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 09:18
I think a 60:40 for independence is required officially by the UN.

And if Kurds aren't the majority in those areas then it will be reflected in the referendum result, simple as that. That is also not to say that all Kurds want independence just because they are Kurds, that is a lie. I have met Turkish Kurds who supported the Turkish football team and saw themselves as Kurdish Turkish citizens (not Turks) and I have also met PKK supporting Turkish Kurds. So the only way to know for sure is a referendum. I don't know about Turkey but in Iran I am almost certain that a majority of Kurds do not want a divorce - obviously different areas will vary depending on their history and exposure, but overall - certainly not.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 10:00
Wait, so we can simply define an area for that 60:40 ratio to apply? That seems dubious at best.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 10:09
That is what it was for Montenegro, I believe.

The area would be defined as what is known as Kurdistan by Iranians, and includes the ostans of Kordestan, Kermanshah, Ilam and western West Azarbaijan.

Simple yes/no referendums are flawed as per the Islamic republic referendum post revolution which omitted democratic republic, federal republic etc.

So in such a referendum there should be certain choices such as:

Independence, Autonomy, Semi Autonomous, No Change

With the two leading choices going to a final round with independence requiring 60%.
Back to Top
Xshayathiya View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 03-Nov-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 188
  Quote Xshayathiya Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 10:13
The problem (as stated before) with something like this is where you draw the line. If the Kurds are given their own country, then why not th Iranian Azaris? If the Azaris, why not the Iranian and Turkish Armenians? If the Armenians, why not the Assyrians? If the Assyrians why not the Balochis? And next thing you know Iran is reduced down to Persia.
 
Having said that I agree with Zagros, I've never met an Iranian Kurd who's been in favor of separating from Iran. If they wanted it though, I don't see why they shouldn't be given it.
"I like rice. Rice is great if you are hungry and want 2000 of something." - Mitch Hedberg
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: 08-Feb-2007 at 14:59
 
Originally posted by Zaitsev

Originally posted by gcle2003

I'm not suggesting a state in which only Kurds can live and nothing I wrote gives you any reason to suppose I am. I'm suggesting a state in which the majority gets to rule.


Perhaps then, we should be handing out massive amounts of land to the few thousand Aboriginal people in Australia, so they can start their own country.
What do you mean 'start' their own country? It is their own country.
 
And why do you have to say things like 'massive' and 'few thousand'? No-one's suggesting extremism of that kind. You may consider it some kind of clever debating trick, but it doesn't work.
That is exactly the kind of idiocy you are proposing.
No, it isn't. Allowing the population of former Mosul to rule themselves is not 'handing out massive amounts of land to a few thousand Aborigines. Incidentally even the US recognises some territory as stll belonging to the aboriginal tribes, and allows them a degree of self-government.
 Just because an ethnic group is a minority in one country, doesn't mean it should have the right to, against the will of those in charge,
Those in charge? Boy, you're an authoritative one. A few posts ago you said it shouldn't happen because it wasn't 'meant to be'. I asked you 'meant to be' by whom, but you ducked the question.
 
Who do you think should be running things then?
 
 create its own state so it can be a majority. It just doesn't make sense, and only leads to further racial hatred.
 
Originally posted by gcle2003

What you are in fact advancing is an argument for maintaining the old imperial structure. There would be no argument for the old colonies becoming independent without racial/ethnic/religious considerations. Why in your view should Malawi, for instance, be independent? Why should Zambia and Zimbabwe be separate? Why shouldn't Britain countinue to rule the Empire? Or the Ottomans, the French, the Russians...?


Australia became independent, yet I can't quite work out where the racial, ethnic or religious motivation is... Last I checked Australia was a majority caucasian, Christian country rather like England. This was even more true last century. People do not split up empire for ethnic reasons, they do so for political ones.
You're totally ignoring the examples I gave. Pretty well all the new countries that were carved out of the old empires, starting in 1918 and carrying on until 1991, are ethnically based: where they weren't, or were insufficiently so, as in Yugoslavia, then they failed.
 
You don't think Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, the Czech republic, Slovakia, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia... were carved out of the old empires for ethnic reasons? What other reason was there to divide them up that way? And what's wrong with the result?
 
Australia is different because there is no Australian ethnic group (though one may be in the process of formation), and also because the Australians are recent immigrants, like the Europeans in America.
 
If England felt it could hold on to its entire empire, and that doing so would bring it advantage, then it would have done so. However, it was quite apparent that it could not.
What's that got to do with anything? We're talking about what the process of break-up was based on, not why it took place. The German empire, the Russia (Tsarist and Soviet), the Austrian, the Ottoman, the French, the Spanish, the Portuguese...all broke up for different reasons, but they all did so by giving independence to the major previously subject ethnic groupings.
Originally posted by gcle2003

By your sort of logic, the campaign to free the slaves in the US was a racist campaign, because the slaves were black.


No, if the "Black" people had said "we want our own separate country in which we can reverse the situation, THAT would be a racist movement.
A 'racist' movement, if it means anything, means one based on race, not on what the demands it makes are. In the derogatory, more usual, sense 'racist' implies oppressing or discriminating againt or derogating other races or another race.
 
If one's mission is to improve the lot of a race, then if you want you can call it 'racist' but in that case the word has no derogatory meaning at all. To you Ho Chi Minh was a racist: but he was an honourable man. To you Gandhi was a racist, but he was an honourable man. To you Paderewski was a racist, but he was an honorable man.
 
The Kurds are not slaves, they can vote.
Hah! What planet are you living on?
 Just because their numbers, and hence influence, in the democratic process is less does not mean they should be able to steal territory from other nations. That is simply how democracy works.
How is anyone here suggesting they steal territory from other nations? We're talking about the territory they occupy anyway.
 
Originally posted by gcle2003

The SNP in Britain has proposed that, if they get a majority in the next Scottish parliament, they will hold a referendum on independence for Scotland. They will, quite obviously, hold it in Scotland which means of course that most of the people voting will be Scots. Just as most of the people voting in the Saarland were German.


However this is completely different to what you are proposing. In this case the "majority" government has already approved the notion of a province leaving.
Not Scotland it hasn't. But that isn't the point. YOU claimed that it was NOT a referendum if it was restricted to mainly people of one ethnic group. One that count you are simply decisively and blatantla and absolutely WRONG.
 
You misused the word 'referendum'. That was a simple error there is no point in trying to wriggle out of.
This is where the people, aware of the governments intentions, have given their approval for this province to be given the opportunity to leave. In a way, the vote has already been taken among the general population.
No it hasn't. You're just making stuff up again. Nobody's asked the English people how they feel about it (or the Welsh or Northern Irish for that matter). Nobody intends to. You really would do a lot better in argument if you checked your facts.
 
If the governments of Iraq,
Hah! again.
Turkey and Iran APPROVE of the Kurds leaving to form their own state, then I would see that as a positive gesture which would likely lead to a successful existence. However, imposing the minority's will upon the majority, as you have suggested, seems to me to be quite tyrannical in nature.
So you think that the Sultan should have approved the break-up of the Ottoman Empire? Germany, Austria, and Russia should have approved the independence of Poland?
Where would Korea be now if they had needed the approval of the Japanese Government to be independent?
Are you in touch with reality at all?
 
 


Edited by gcle2003 - 08-Feb-2007 at 15:00
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: 08-Feb-2007 at 15:11
gcle2003, don't bother spending time on Turkish hyper-nationalists. They hate the idea of a Kurdish state more than anything.
 
 
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
AyKurt View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 24-Mar-2005
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 236
  Quote AyKurt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 15:17
I think in modern times we should move on from creating more "ethnic homelands".  Its very rare for one ethnic group to constitute a totality of the population in a given region.  Therefore ethnic strife is a certainty if we continue.
 
Ive seen maps of this so-called Turkish Kurdistan than reaches to the black sea.  Recent events in Trabzon show that the good folk there most certainly will not take this imaginary nation in a peaceful manner.  And why should they?  Its their land and its their home.
Bulldog has also stated how the Kurds in the majority of this "Turkish Kurdistan" are far from being ethnically homogenous and many places are mixed with other ethnic groups too such as Arabs, so that although in some places the Kurds may be the largest ethnic group they are still short of forming a majority.
 
I think Cent said that only the Kurds should be allowed to vote in a referendum.  NO NO NO.  This is blatant discrimination as all residents in the area affected by this referndum should have a say.
 
gcle, you seem to like to make bad comparisons with other parts of the world.  You also mention scotland.  well im a proud card carrying SNP member, however the comparison can not be made.  Scotland IS a nation state within a Union.  The UNITED Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.  So the borders are well defined and all folk within Scotland are Scots, even if genetically and culturally there is no difference with the folk from adjacent areas of England.  So an Independent Scotland would not be a homeland for ethnic Scots since theres no such thing as an ethnic Scot.  Its an administratrive region whos borders were determined by the Scottish Kingdom prior to its inclusion in a United Kingdom with the Kingdom of England.
 
Im not against the idea that maybe an area within Turkey, say Diyarbakir, Batman, Siirt, be made into an autonomous region or even be made independent from Ankara.  However I also believe this will be a failed state.  Sorry but this is also a tribal and a very backward region, and the creation of a state here will be a very dark place.  And for that reason i doubt that most Kurds here will support such a state.  However it would be their choice if there is a referendum.  Anyway the uncertainties would be enormous. 
 
Kurds are well represented in politics in Turkey.  If there was the will to make changes within Turkey then it can be made.  The dynamics in Turkish politics are well known to ethnic Kurdish politicians. 
Better the devil you know.
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
Back to Top
bg_turk View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 28-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2347
  Quote bg_turk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 15:27
Originally posted by gcle2003

 
I'm not suggesting a state in which only Kurds can live and nothing I wrote gives you any reason to suppose I am. I'm suggesting a state in which the majority gets to rule.



And how is your suggestion different from what we have now? You are merely proposing that the roles be exchanged where Turks are turned from a majority to a minority in the Kurdish state that you are proposing.

Turkey is the shared homeland of all of its people. No one has the right to claim a part of it for themselves alone, and exclude the others. Kurds are an inseperable integral part of the Republic with all the rights and responsibilities that this entails.

A Kurdish state has never existed, and it never will. We do not want another Balkan type Western inspired nationalistic segregation and Yugoslav style fragmentation of Turkey, especially after the bloodbath that Iraq has become after this sectarian non-sense. Turkey is one and indivisible and it belongs to all of its people, Turkish, Kurdish, Laz, Armenian or whatever.


Edited by bg_turk - 08-Feb-2007 at 15:30
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: 08-Feb-2007 at 15:31
"A Kurdish state has never existed, and it never will."
 
I hope you're so wrong. And hopefully proven wrong in a few years.
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
Spartakus View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
terörist

Joined: 22-Nov-2004
Location: Greece/Hellas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4489
  Quote Spartakus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 15:31
Turkey started to belong to all  it's people only in the last decade.And the "Balkan type Western inspired nationalistic segregation" was more an outcome of Ottoman incompetence to administrate properly and to offer safety and prosperity to it's Balkanian subjects,from the late 17th century up to the early 19th century.
"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)
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: 08-Feb-2007 at 15:32
 
Originally posted by Bulldog

 
Not at all, Arabs, Kurds, Persians, Turks living together is hardly a new phenonema it's the way its been for over a thousand years so it's not some new coloniast invention.
Of course not. That was the old colonialist situation. The result of decolonisation has been the present situation where on the whole Arabs and Turks of various ethnicities and Iranians, Georgians and Armenians live (or at least have the chance to) separately (and don't forget the Jews). The ones that got left out were the Kurds.
 
If this is the case, why should India and China remain India or China they have large minorities, why shouldn't the Native people's in the America's be given states etc etc.
India did not remain India. The British-ruled Indian Empire was split into Pakistan, India, Shri Lanka, Bangla Desh and Burma, on a mixture of ethnic and religious lines. It wasn't of course perfect: Pakistan had to split into east and west after 25 years or so, and there's still the separatist movement in Sri Lanka.
 
And the native peoples in the US have in fact been given territories (not states) in which they are technically sovereign and make their own rules. Try visiting Cherokee in the Appalachians and trying to buy a beer.
 
Or do you agree with Zaitsev that it's OK for the big people to take the little ones' lands, but the other way around it's stealing?
 
 
Gcle
In answer to a couple of other points, mainly from Bulldog, I think. That there are large numbers of Kurds living in Istanbul (or any other particular location) has nothing to do with anything. Around 1918 there were vast numbers of Irish living in New York and London - that was no conceivable argument for saying Ireland should not have independence.
 
 
- Making a simple comparison with Ireland as if it evenly remotely similar is wrong. In Ireland especially the modern day republic area there was hardly any English populations, Irish are the vast majority.
That contradicts your first point. That makes it the SAME as Kurdistan. The majority of the people in Ireland were Irish, the majority of the people of Kurdistan are Kurds. There were and are lots and lots of Kurds living in other places: there were and are lots and lots of Irish living in other places.
 
The analogy is totally irrelevant. That large numbers of Kurds live in Istanbul or anywhere else outside their home territory is nothing to do with anything, just a feeble straw for you to clutch at.
 
In the area's claimed from Turkey, Turks aswell as Arabs have lived in the same region for just as long as the Kurds have. Secondly in most of the area's Kurds don't constitute a majority population, thirdly there are many mixed area's, then there are religous area's were people only care about being muslim.
 
It's not a simple black and white situation at all.
What have those areas got to do with anything? That's like saying Ireland shouldn't be independent because lots of people in Northern Ireland don't want it to be.
 
Of course it's not a black and white situation as Zagros has sensibly pointed out. But the principle involved is simple enough: people should be as free as possible to decide their own destiny, not have it imposed on them by foreign rulers. 
 
Gcle
When I said the British creation of Iraq was a mistake, I didn't mean anything about their motives. I do think it was based on a mistaken understanding of the realities of the situation, and in particular on relying too much on the views of their Sunni allies against the Ottomans.
 
I have to disagree, these "allies" didn't control us, we controlled them,
What are you disagreeing with? I didn't say they controlled us. I'm saying we listened to them. Read anything you like about the period, including Lawrence, and you'll find the British military and Foreign Office talked pretty well exclusively to Sunni Arabs.
 
they were too stupid to realise what a catostrophe they were walking into and made our job pretty easy. I wouldn't call them "Sunni allies" but instead Arab nationalist allies who wern't too overtly religous at the time.
Of course they were. Sunni and Shia have been opposing each other for almost as long as Islam has existed.
 
And they weren't 'Arab' nationalists. They were feudal supporters of the Hashemite dynasty which at the time was led by Hussein, the sharif of Mecca, and they managed to talk the British into creating kingdoms for the dynasty in Transjordan and Iraq.
 Gcle
And finally, I wouldn't be suggesting a referendum only of Kurds, but of the people living in the former Ottoman province of Mosul. Just as it should be the population of Northern Ireland that decides what happens to it.
 
That could work as the whole province is taken into account. However, how can it function in Syria, Iran, Turkey. Iraq today isn't exactly a "nation" state and the Iraqi leader can't step out the green zone, there isn't exactly alot they could do if one of their provinces had this referandum.
It doesn't have to function in Syria, Iran and Turkey. It's true the Iraqi leader can't step outside the Green zone, but the Kurds have no trouble controlling their part.
 
Given the breakdown of 'Iraq' anyway, which clears a lot of the problems out of the way, the opportunity for creatng an independent Kurdish state in former Mosul is obvious. How it got on with its neighbours is then up to it, but though it has oil it has no way of getting it to market without collaborating with someone.
 Then what if the Assyrians wanted a referredum, or the Turkmen, or the Yezid, or the area;s where Arabs are majority are they all allowed one aswell.
 
A major point is that the Kurds in Iraq have both the organisation and the economic resources to maintain their own state. I doubt this is true of the Assyrians and I very much doubt the Assyrians would want to try. Same goes for the other groups, unless you mean the Arabs of Baghdad and Basra provinces. I see no reason for not giving them referenda as well.
 
What I don't see any reason for is trying to keep such an artificial creation as 'Iraq' in one piece. The people involved have been fighting each other for at least 4,000 years or so (long before there were Sunnis and Shiites).
 


Edited by gcle2003 - 08-Feb-2007 at 15:41
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: 08-Feb-2007 at 15:37
 
Originally posted by AyKurt

gcle, you seem to like to make bad comparisons with other parts of the world.  You also mention scotland.  well im a proud card carrying SNP member, however the comparison can not be made.  Scotland IS a nation state within a Union.  The UNITED Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.  So the borders are well defined and all folk within Scotland are Scots, even if genetically and culturally there is no difference with the folk from adjacent areas of England.  So an Independent Scotland would not be a homeland for ethnic Scots since theres no such thing as an ethnic Scot.  Its an administratrive region whos borders were determined by the Scottish Kingdom prior to its inclusion in a United Kingdom with the Kingdom of England.
Hey, I only mentioned Scotland as an example of how to use the word 'referendum'. I'm pretty easy on Scottish independence, in fact i lean somewhat towarsd it as well as English regionalism.
 
On the rest of what you said, the central issue here is the former Ottoman province of Mosul, the borders of which were just as well defined by the Ottomans as those of Scotland are.
 
PS "whose borders were determined by the Scottish Kingdom". Hmm...seems to me that was more a two-way affair. Otherwise you wouldn't have to keep checking the date to see which side Berwick was on that year.
 


Edited by gcle2003 - 08-Feb-2007 at 15:44
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: 08-Feb-2007 at 15:40
I just have to say something. Ezedis are KURDS, they speak KURDISH. Only difference is the religion. They speak Kurmanji.
 
 
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: 08-Feb-2007 at 15:46
Originally posted by gcle2003

 
Originally posted by Zaitsev

Turkey and Iran APPROVE of the Kurds leaving to form their own state, then I would see that as a positive gesture which would likely lead to a successful existence. However, imposing the minority's will upon the majority, as you have suggested, seems to me to be quite tyrannical in nature.
So you think that the Sultan should have approved the break-up of the Ottoman Empire? Germany, Austria, and Russia should have approved the independence of Poland?
Where would Korea be now if they had needed the approval of the Japanese Government to be independent?
Are you in touch with reality at all?
 
 
 
What about you, gclc2003?
 
Given the very possibility that the attempt to establish such a state would cost the blood of hundereds of thousands of people from every side and lead eternal poverty in the region, you speak like it will promote the good? Humanity has suffered enough, gclc2003.
 
To what extend are you in touch at all?Ouch
ARDA:The best Turkish diplomat ever!

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 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 0.172 seconds.