Should the Kurds be given independence?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Current Affairs
Forum Discription: Debates on topical, current World politics
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=17646
Printed Date: 25-Apr-2024 at 14:58
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Should the Kurds be given independence?
Posted By: Mithras
Subject: Should the Kurds be given independence?
Date Posted: 06-Feb-2007 at 14:45
|
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. |
Replies:
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 06-Feb-2007 at 15:04
|
I am an Iranian Kurd and no one's oppressed me nor my ancestors in living history in any ethnically motivated way, so I suggest you qualify your assertions rather than just parroting what you've read from Kurdish e-nationalists.
Pezhak is an armed Kurdish rebel wing of the PKK who have declared war on Iran, I read an article from an ABC correspondant from within their camp the other day - it is very telling that their ranks consist of Syrian and Turkish Kurds who have the Marxist Abdullah Ocalan's face painted on a hillside - very telling - anyone who thinks people like this will free Kurds, are soundly mistaken, I am afraid. http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2845522&page=4%20 - http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2845522&page=4 Iranian Kurds as with all other Iranians have problems with their government, but I assure you the majority would rather have a free Iran than have a divorce and tere is no special discrimination for anyone in Iran, all are oppressed equally and Iranian Kurds know this. These Kurds from my hometown of Kermanshah are so oppressed that they are allowed to sing and dance and make commercial music videos in Iran. Only Kurds are officially allowed to dance in Iran, did you know this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBAesuQgQXI - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBAesuQgQXI And further to that, the Iranian governemnt has decided to deprive the Kurds so much that they have invested in an unprecedented development programme in the ostan of Kordestan... ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 06-Feb-2007 at 15:10
|
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.
------------- |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 06-Feb-2007 at 15:19
|
Key point: if they want it.
Referendum! ------------- |
Posted By: Antioxos
Date Posted: 06-Feb-2007 at 15:21
| 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. |
Posted By: Cent
Date Posted: 06-Feb-2007 at 15:50
|
"Key point: if they want it. Referendum!" Let's have a referendum in Iran, Syria and Turkey, only Kurds can vote.
1. Stay
2. Split and form an independent Kuridstan
Let's see what they vote for.
We've already done that in Iraq. Guess how it went?
IF, Kurds would choose, majority would choose separation.
Iranians, Turks and Arabs now this, that's why they'll never have a referendum.
------------- 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 |
Posted By: Cent
Date Posted: 06-Feb-2007 at 15:52
|
"all are oppressed equally and Iranian Kurds know this." Zagros, both you and I know that Sunnis are more oppressed than others.------------- 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 |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 06-Feb-2007 at 16:27
|
Sunnis cannot be president and cannot have sensitive military positions. We know one Sanandaji (Kurd) who was an airforce pilot during the shah's time but was demoted and couldn't fly after the revolution because he was a Sunni.
The worst part is that the leader of Kordestan friday payers is Shi'e, this is an unnecessary provocation. Hey I can assure you, there is no majority in Iranian Kurdistan (Ilam, Kermanshah, Kordestan, Western Azarbaijan) that favour a divorce from Iran. Even my dad who is a hardcore Kurdish nationalist wants federalism so that Kurds can look after their own cultural affairs. Kurds are not only in Kurdistan, they are in other parts of Iran and there are other Iranians in Kurdistan, not to mention intermarriage... So this divorce would require a lot of ethnic cleansing and Iranians have never been partial to this barbarity. You have never been a part of the society in Iran, hardly anyone there is a nationalist, do you honestly think people walk around thinking to themselves oh I wish we could be a different country? Look at Iranian artists, singers from Turkish, Persian and Kurdish backgrounds all participate in each others' culture. Persian singers sing in Kurdish, Kurdish bands and singers do traditional Persian etc. I think you should go to Iran's Kurdistan first then you will be in a better position to make a judgement. ------------- |
Posted By: Cent
Date Posted: 06-Feb-2007 at 16:54
|
"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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_people - Kurdish tribes and the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safavid_Empire - Safavid Empire . After a long and bloody siege led by the Safavid grand vizier Hatem Beg, which lasted from November http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1609 - 1609 to the summer of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1610 - 1610 , the Kurdish stronghold of Dimdim was captured. Shah Abbas ordered a general massacre in Beradost and Mukriyan( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahabad - Mahabad ) (Reported by Eskandar Beg Monshi, Safavid Historian (1557-1642) in the Book "Alam Ara Abbasi") and resettled the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_peoples - Turkish Afshar tribe in the region while deporting many http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_people - Kurdish tribes to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khorasan - Khorasan
I call this ethnic cleansing. ------------- 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 |
Posted By: Cent
Date Posted: 06-Feb-2007 at 16:57
|
... http://regimechangeiniran.com/2006/12/the-facts-about-the-sham-elect/ - ------------- 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 |
Posted By: Cent
Date Posted: 06-Feb-2007 at 16:57
|
He's my brother. ------------- 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 |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 06-Feb-2007 at 17:11
|
Depends. I wouldn't have an American colony in N. Iraq. ------------- |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 06-Feb-2007 at 18:19
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 06-Feb-2007 at 18:29
Is he OK? Unfortunately, this is nothing unusual, anyone who engages in political activity outside the scope of the Islamic Republic is reprimanded. A pollster was jailed and had his newspaper shut down a year and a half ago in Tehran because he comprised a poll that said the majority of Iranians prefer good realtions with America. He was not Kurdish. My dad is wanted for having affiliations to the Fedayan e Khalq. (NOT MKO) Ten years ago they lured one of his old colleagues to Azerbaijan republic on a fake business deal and kidnapped him took him to Evin and tortured him. They released him, a broken man, some years later and took away his passport. ------------- |
Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 06-Feb-2007 at 21:01
Second that. ------------- |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 06-Feb-2007 at 21:06
|
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 06-Feb-2007 at 21:29
Indeed.
"Nationalism is an infantile sickness. It is the measles of the human race."
- Albert Einstein ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi"> 
Join us. |
Posted By: Dan Carkner
Date Posted: 06-Feb-2007 at 22:29
|
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.. |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 06-Feb-2007 at 22:42
Very true. Remember what happened to Yugoslavia? ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Feb-2007 at 00:40
|
Personally, I say no. Plain and simple. There are several reason why it wouldn't work, and shouldn't happen. Firstly, drawing national borders along ethnic lines, especially in the middle east, is a very foolish idea. Israel is a great example of how this only leads to further bloodshed and persecution. Secondly, you would be carving territory out of nations that already exist, and would probably object to the idea. Again Israel demonstrates a problem with this. Other examples include Kuwait, which was meant to be part of Iraq, but Britain excluded it for its own interests. Cutting countries into smaller and smaller groups is a way of keeping the Middle East in check, helping developed nations get a better deal on oil. As much as it sounds cynical and paranoid, it happens. The less united the Middle East is, the better of America will be. While there's nothing inherently wrong with this, it also reduces the wealth of the developing middle eastern nations. Finally, the nation can only exist in two states. It could either exist as a protectorate and puppet state of a powerful western nation, most likely America, or it could be annexed by another nation, such as Turkey or possibly Iran in the future. This is especially a problem because the region officially proposed for a "Kurdish Nation" in Iraqi lands is the most oil rich. American agenda anyone? ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Feb-2007 at 02:41
WHY!?!? It makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever!!! For one thing, what if Iran, Turkey and Iraq don't like losing their oil-rich and valuable territory? Secondly, a referendum can't be for a specific cultural group, that's not a referendum. Thirdly, see above. ------------- |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 07-Feb-2007 at 03:43
The way they gain it is very important, if its imposed on turkey iran or syria then it just makes for future trouble and a less (if not non-) viable nation. While other details like Turkmen, Assyrian, yazidi and other (religious and ethnic) minorities have to be taken care of. Its not as simple as drawing a map; its writing constitutions, treaties and political maturity of all involved. |
Posted By: Cent
Date Posted: 07-Feb-2007 at 05:46
Please Zagros, if that would of happened today, it would of been called ethnic cleansing. ------------- 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 |
Posted By: Cent
Date Posted: 07-Feb-2007 at 05:48
Yes, he's OK. They set him free after a week or so. That's the second time they've taken him. ------------- 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 |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 07-Feb-2007 at 07:29
'Meant' by whom? God?
Britain created Iraq. That was a big mistake. The original three Ottoman provinces shouldn't have been combined in the first place.
Are you suggesting the central Asian republics shouldn't be independent? Or were they just 'meant to be'?
How about Peru, or Chile, or Argentina? East Timor? Croatia?
------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 07-Feb-2007 at 07:35
It's working out fine now it's split up. What was a disaster was not allowing the ethnic groups to be independent of each other.
------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 07-Feb-2007 at 07:38
Turkish and Iranian Kurdish territories are oil-rich?
And any referendum is for a specific group, unless you're suggesting the whole 6 billion of us should be polled on everything.
Of course a referendum of a specific cultural group is a refendum.
Moreover the Kurds aren't a 'cultural' group. They are easily the largest ethnic group in the world not to have their own nation-state.
Not for the first time you need to do a little fact-checking.
(And who defines 'their' territory, and who is 'they'? The whole point at issue is whether the territory should revert to Kurdish ownership or not.
------------- |
Posted By: TheDiplomat
Date Posted: 07-Feb-2007 at 08:01
Second that!  ------------- ARDA:The best Turkish diplomat ever! |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Feb-2007 at 08:05
Actually gcle, perhaps you fail to grasp democracy here. A referendum would have to apply to the whole voting body of the nations. The kurds are not the whole nation, and therefore should not get special voting rights over others. What ethnic groups have their own state? Last I checked I could get British citizenship if I moved ther. I could probably get Indian citizenship. In fact I'm pretty sure that most nations have more than one ethnic group in them. So really, stop thinking like a racist. Or, while we're at it, we can establish the Caliphate and ethnically cleanse Europe.  EDIT: @ TheDiplomat -  ------------- |
Posted By: Cent
Date Posted: 07-Feb-2007 at 08:14
|
"Actually gcle, perhaps you fail to grasp democracy here. A referendum would have to apply to the whole voting body of the nations. The kurds are not the whole nation, and therefore should not get special voting rights over others."
What? A referendum should be to those it concerns.
When Kurds in Iraq made a referendum it was ONLY people living in Northern Iraq who got to vote. Not people in Basra or Baghdad. ------------- 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 |
Posted By: Cent
Date Posted: 07-Feb-2007 at 08:16
|
"What ethnic groups have their own state?"
Many ethnic groups. Swedes have their own, Russians also... Germans have their own too if I remember correctly.
Turks have many states...
------------- 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 |
Posted By: Suren
Date Posted: 07-Feb-2007 at 08:58
|
look at china and you can find alot of ethnics that don't have their own country and some of the even more than kurds or look in India. You can find some ethnics that are more than kurds in number but still live with other ethnics within thier country. ------------- Anfører |
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 07-Feb-2007 at 08:59
As a Turk I think the Kurds deserve a own stae a realy do. But the tpoic starter said give nobody is "given" anything it needs to be earned. I know alot of people(esspecialy Turkish guys) are going to have coments on this. The Kurds where teh only non-Turks who fought beside the Ottomans untill the end(Loyalty should be rewarderd not ignored). But the Kurdish regions were allso populated with ethnic Turks some time ago. My great great grandfather comes from Bitlis(Van) He went to The "dogu cepesi" eastern front to gight with the russians(and he stayed there). My question is towards teh Kurds in the forum. How are the relations with the other Kurds. Kurds from Turkey, syria, Iran & Iraq are not totaly the same. It might seem that they will get along wich eachother. Now they do becuse they have a common goal a independant Kurdistan. But what after that goal is accomplised what next? I am for an independant Kurdistan but the terms need to be realistic. So does the outcome regards xi tujue ------------- I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 07-Feb-2007 at 09:31
|
Cent
Let's have a referendum in Iran, Syria and Turkey, only Kurds can vote.
1. Stay
2. Split and form an independent Kuridstan
I'm sorry but did you ever stop and care to think about this because its totally un-realistic.
How can only Kurds vote on a referrandum which concerns entire countries?
Secondly how do we determine who is a Kurd? in Iran and Turkey and Syria they are citizens of those countries. I mean anybody could turn up and claim to be a Kurd, how can you guarantee only Kurds vote.
Your incouraging a racist program where only one ethnic has rights and other's don't.
In addition a large proportion of Kurds for example in Turkey don't even live in the South East. There are more Kurds in Istanbul than any other city. Also there is a historic Kurdish population in Istanbul from Ottoman times. What makes you think Kurds want to give up the areas they've been living in now for generations and simply move to the South East.
And to top it off the South East isn't a mono-ethnic region, infact most of the South East doesn't have a Kurdish population outisde Diyarbakir, Batman, Hakkari. There are majority Turkish regions, Arab regions, Christian Arab/Assyrian regions and mixed areas.
It's just as complicated in Syria or Iran. Zagros earlier stated that there are also Kurds in other parts of Iran, I'm assuming that there are also prosperous, influential and powerfull Kurds.
If Iran was just to "hand over" land, well it's then its a slippery slope, if other ethnic groups start "wanting" land are they just going to give it. Then what happens when there are these little states? the ethnics in these little states will start demands thus more little states and we'll end up with tiny principallity states destined to become nothing but pawns.
Gcle
'Meant' by whom? God?
Britain created Iraq. That was a big mistake. The original three Ottoman provinces shouldn't have been combined in the first place.
Why should Iran, Turkey and Syria have to pay for this mistake then.
It's not like Iraq is the only mistake, half the middle east is and I'd refrain from using "mistake" this was intential, a great policy to divide and conquer.
Gcle
It's working out fine now it's split up. What was a disaster was not allowing the ethnic groups to be independent of each other.
Is it working fine? the current borders are just a brewing pot for more conflicts in the future.
If UN forces wern't in Kosovo I wouldn't be suprised if another war began there.
Gcle
And any referendum is for a specific group
And how would that work.
Sirus
look at china and you can find alot of ethnics that don't have their own country and some of the even more than kurds or look in India. You can find some ethnics that are more than kurds in number but still live with other ethnics within thier country.
Good point.
------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 07-Feb-2007 at 09:47
Who defines the 'nation'? Certainly the Kurds see themselves as a nation. Whereas on the other hand the 'Iraqis' don't seem to.
Anyway, my objection was to your saying "Secondly, a referendum can't be for a specific cultural group, that's not a referendum. " In 1945 there was a referendum as to whether the inhabitants wanted to be part of Germany or of France. (They voted for Germany.) A similar referendum was held in the parts of France annexed by Italy (around Nice) about whether the territory should be returned to France.
Lots of referenda have been held similarly. As I keep telling you, check your facts before coming up with plonking universal statements.
(And how about that 'oil-rich' comment?)
Pretty well all of them. Many of them with much smaller populations than Kurdistan.
Possibly. But the point is that you get it automatically if you're English or Scottish or Welsh or Irish. I assume an independent Kurdistan could allow foreigners to immigrate. Israel allows foreigners to have citizenship. But Israel is still a nation state for Jews.
I could probably get Indian citizenship. In fact I'm pretty sure that most nations have more than one ethnic group in them. So really, stop thinking like a racist.
[/QUOTE]
I'm not thinking like a racist, I'm recognising that there is a group of people here that - apparently - want their own country. If that's true (and I accept Zagros' point that it may not be) then they should have it, and not be forced to live under foreign domination.
Same is true of, e.g., Northern Ireland. If the majority there wants to be part of the UK, then they should be. If they want to be part of Ireland then they should be. If they want to be independent then they should be. There seems to be a glimmer of hope that all sides are beginning to accept that, luckily. But it's been a long time coming.
That's silly.
Do you mean the Caliphate or the Sultanate? Restoring the Sultanate[1] would of course be exactly the opposite of what I am saying, since it was broken up in order to give ethnic groups independence. That the lines of demarcation were in places badly drawn doesn't affect the principle: Kurdish independence would merely correct a mistake made post-1918, just like the merging of Czechoslovakia, which has now been corrected.
The question of restoring the Caliphate I'll leave in the safe hands of Omar and other Muslims here.
[1] That is, the Ottoman Sultanate - the dominions of the 'Sultan of Sultans'. ------------- |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 07-Feb-2007 at 10:06
|
Gcle
A similar referendum was held in the parts of France annexed by Italy (around Nice) about whether the territory should be returned to France.
That's totally different, what is being proposed is a racist referrandum. If it was to be applied in the above example only ethnic French people of Nice would be able to vote and everybody else wouldn't have a say in it.
If there is a referrandum everybody who it concerns must have a say or it isn't a referendum.
Gcle
Lots of referenda have been held similarly.
I really havn't heard of any referendum in which people wern't allowed to participate just because of their ethnicity even though they live in the area which could be effected.
Gcle
Pretty well all of them.
I can assure you that isn't the case, do you know how many minorities/ethnics there are in India and China some with populations of over 65 million like the Tamils.
Gcle
Kurdish independence would merely correct a mistake made post-1918
It was not a "mistake", it was intentional and primarilly done to cause chaos making it easier to divide and rule. ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Aydin
Date Posted: 07-Feb-2007 at 11:09
|
Zagros...whats the deal with UNPO?
h t t p : / / e n . w i k i p e d i a . o r g / w i k i / U N P O
I hear things such as south azerbaijan becoming a member and other non-persian ethnicities? ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Feb-2007 at 11:31
|
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.
------------- |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 07-Feb-2007 at 13:15
|
Cent: It wasnt ethnic cleansing because he didn't kill them for being Kurds - it isn't that hard to comprehend.
And if that is the best example you can find, 1609, then pfft. I think a referendum should be had anyway - if ethnic groups want to split, then let them go since they are otherwise a liability. And I say this with confidence because I know Kermanshah and Ilam wouldn't, and between them they constitute over half of the Kurdish population in Iran. Why would we want to join people who we don't really understand all that well? It would be like being a part of another Iran, except worse since it would be imposing its brand of Kurdishness on others. Just look at what's happening to Hawremani, it is disappearing and being replaced with Sorani... Seems it did pretty well for itself in the last 1600 years and recently it is diminishing. There are more Kurdish separatists in Sweden than there are in Iran! Like I said, referendum all the way, same for Azeris. ------------- |
Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 07-Feb-2007 at 14:51
Also tell me why should someone in basra, bagdat or any other non-kurdish living place should vote for kurdish independence? Dont fly to high I say, you can dream but face the facts also. also as I earlyer stated "if" that country will exist, it wouldnt survive hours. Just look at the video's below, you can see what kind of "guns" Turkey has on his hands (economical). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fTT3gje6ws "those who doesnt wants referendum are our enemy's" the head of Kerkük police corps (he's kurdish himself) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ex6S8jhPqlc a sirious Turkish tv program with Israeli president Ehud Olmert, debating about Israeli presence in northern Iraq, wich he (olmert) refuses and calls it as "Bullsh*t". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3b52-uX-dzU Cent, I know the grass looks more greener when if you look from Sweden, but from here I see not any grass but a big desert. ------------- Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg - |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 06:34
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.
------------- |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 07:09
|
I agree with gcle. ------------- |
Posted By: Cent
Date 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 |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 08:28
|
--->posting error<--- ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 08:28
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.
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.
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.
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date 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. ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Zagros
Date 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. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date 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.
------------- |
Posted By: Zagros
Date 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%. ------------- |
Posted By: Xshayathiya
Date 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 |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 14:59
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Hah! What planet are you living on?
How is anyone here suggesting they steal territory from other nations? We're talking about the territory they occupy anyway.
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.
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.
Hah! again.
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?
------------- |
Posted By: Cent
Date 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 |
Posted By: AyKurt
Date 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 |
Posted By: bg_turk
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 15:27
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. ------------- http://www.journalof911studies.com - http://www.journalof911studies.com |
Posted By: Cent
Date 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 |
Posted By: Spartakus
Date 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) |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 15:32
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 15:37
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.
------------- |
Posted By: Cent
Date 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 |
Posted By: TheDiplomat
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 15:46
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?  ------------- ARDA:The best Turkish diplomat ever! |
Posted By: AyKurt
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 15:50
The thread starter was asking about Kurdish independence for Kurds in Turkey, Iran and Iraq not only the former province of Mosul.
Of course, the main focus of my post was Kurds within Turkey, as i dont feel its my place to talk about Iraqi and Iranian sovereignty issues.
The only concern i have as far as Northern Iraq is concerned is this. If a referendum was carried out throughout the former Mosul province, and it was a huge majority in favour of independence, then would it differentiate the areas within Northern Iraq that voted against? Or would it just take the final count and decide to seperate the whole region. I mean if the non-Kurdish parts of Kirkuk overwhelmingly vote against it will they not be included? If Tel afer voted against will they not be included? etc.
They still fall within Northern Iraq. ------------- 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 |
Posted By: bg_turk
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 15:53
You clearly fail to appreciate the complexities of the Middle East and the Balkans. Look at Yugoslavia, look at Iraq, look at Lebanon. Any attempts to redefine the boundaries of the republic will result in bloodshed from which neither ordinary kurds nor turks will emerge as winners. ------------- http://www.journalof911studies.com - http://www.journalof911studies.com |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 16:31
Why on earth would it do that? Do you mean the Turks, Syrians or Persians or the Sunni 'Iraqis' would move in to conquer the territory? I very much doubt it, and the blood would be on their hands if they did.
Did making Estonia or Latvia or Lithuania independent lead to a bloodbath? Did making the central Asian republics independent lead to a bloodbath? Yes, breaking up Yugoslavîa led to short-lived wars, mainly though because the Serbs fought so hard to stay in control.
The virtual de facto independence of the Kurdish areas at the moment has made them the only current region of Iraq with any semblance of peaceful well-organised government. I'm pretty sure they could maintain that, short of outside attempts to impose a new colonial regime upon them.
Much more than you would appear to be.
------------- |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 16:34
|
Zagros
I think a 60:40 for independence is required officially by the UN.
Well that's just another problem waiting to happen then, if an area breaks of due to 60%, areas where that 40% are a majoirty will try to break off etc etc
I think 80-90% would settle most problems.
Gcle
The Kurds are not slaves, they can vote.
Hah! What planet are you living on?
So you actually think Kurds arn't "allowed" to vote?
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.
Gcle
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.
Not at all, Turkey wasn't colonised and neither was Iran.
There are historic Arab, Turkic, Kurdish, Assyrian communities living together for over 1000 years especially in the South Eastern region in Turkey.
There is a historic Jewish community in Turkey and Iran.
Gcle
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.
You think that's all? there are around 17 seperatist movements in India. India has many minorities, it's not just a Hindu Indian mono-ethnic state. They are a part of India.
Gcle
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.
Where are their countries, states?
So your implying that's it's fine to defeat people to such a level where they can be given some land-handouts in the middle of the dessert.
How about Canada, or other American countries.
Gcle
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.
No it doesn't contradict anything.
Kurdistan? where is Kurdistan, define this area first, you think there is even a Kurdish minority in the Black Sea or Mediterrannean coast.
Ireland is an island, it's borders are easily defined, Ireland doesn't stretch into England or Scotland or into France. The borders of Ireland don't change depending on who draws the map;s.
Your trying to compare two totally different things and it's not working as there is nothing in common.
Gcle
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.
If they were the majority then ofcourse, if Ireland was a unified country everybody in Ireland should have the right to vote not just one "group", that's just discriminatory and racist.
Gcle
Of course they were. Sunni and Shia have been opposing each other for almost as long as Islam has existed.
Actually this is a very black and white way of looking into the issue.
Since the 16 hundreds Sunni and Shia had no problems, the issue was solved between the Ottomans and Iranians.
This pandora's box has been re-opened.
Cent
I just have to say something. Ezedis are KURDS, they speak KURDISH. Only difference is the religion. They speak Kurmanji.
Well that's for Yezidi's to decide, not all agree.
There are minorities everywhere, no country is mono-ethnic. ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Cent
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 16:37
|
"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?
------------- 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 |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 16:39
Granted. I thought though I had steered it away from that to a much more practical situation.
Of course no-one would advocate that every single Kurd everywhere should be independent. That would be ridiculous. So somewhere there has to be compromise and reality has to intrude. Ireland became independent: not every single place where the Irish live. Luxembourg is independent, yet more Luxembourgers live in the US than in Luxembourg.
Moreover, the surrounding parts of Germany, Belgium and France include territory that was historically Luxembourgish and where the people speak Lëtzebuergesch. Nobody's fighting a war over it.
Too many people here, it seems to me, seem to think no-one in the Middle East can be trusted to behave in a responsible, civilised manner. They may of course be right: I don't believe they are.
Well, that's the kind of thing you have UN arbitrators for.
------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 16:44
I'm looking at Yugoslavia. It seems to be doing pretty well. I'm looking at the Baltic states. I'm looking at the central African republics. I'm looking at South-East Asia. In fact I'm looking at most of the world.
Of course empires try to maintain their hegemony, and of course subject peoples then fight to break free. But to say that that is inevitable is unnecessarily pessimistic, unless, as I posted earlier, you believe that people in the Middle East can't be trusted to behave peaceably. ------------- |
Posted By: AyKurt
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 16:55
True what you say, however Luxembourg is a prospersous and developed country, the folk feel secure. There may be an overspill of luxembourgers in adjecent parts of neighbouring states but there contentment will mean there is no will for expansionism.
Its exactly the opposite for Kurds. Their territorial ambitions are clearly stated and they include non Kurdish regions as well as areas were Kurds are a small minority. They also have the Peshmerga, PKK etc. operating in regions where this is the case. So Maybe your not advocating a Kurdistan to include every single Kurd, but its obvious the Kurdish factions and militias want more.
If only it were that simple  ------------- 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 |
Posted By: AyKurt
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 16:59
lol. Mate a universal characteristic of hypernationalists is paranoia  ------------- 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 |
Posted By: Cent
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 17:01
|
You see to have plenty of 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 |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 17:01
In what elections? I guess they voted under Saddam, and in the recent US-sponsored elections. But what good did that do anyone?
I never said Turkey was colonised. Like Britain, it did the colonising. 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.)
Why do you think I don't know that? I'm pointing out that pretty well the whole breakup of the old empires was done on ethnic lines.
Again, why do you think I don't know that? I was merely pointing out that you were wrong to say that India remained India. It didn't.
I just told you where one territory is, in the southern Appalachians around the town of Cherokee (which is controlled by the Cherokee tribe). And, as i hinted, they therefore ban drinking alcohol - though they allow casino gambling.
There are of course other homelands. It may well be that there situation is insufficient, it just has to be factually accurate that the American Indians technically have sovereignty in the lands that remain to them. They are of course not 'States' because they are technically not part of US territory.
I don't know the situation in other American countries.
It would be a lot easier if you hadn't snipped out the bit where you were wrong.
I defined what I mean by it originally. The former Ottoman province of Mosul. Look it up.
Ireland is not an island. Ireland is the official name of what used to be known as the Republic of Ireland, and before that as the Irish Free State. Nothern Ireland is not a part of it, and its borders have indeed depended heavily on who drew the maps.
I think it is obvious to anyone who has followed the entire discussion that the two situations have a lot in common.
Ireland is a unified country. Pop along to Dublin and ask the government there.
Duh! ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 17:05
It's not an 'overspill'. They're the descendants of the people who were living there when those parts of Belgium, Germany and France belonged to Luxembourg, before the partitions.
So? You don't give them nothing because they're asking for too much.
If only it were that simple [/QUOTE]
Think hard and ask yourself why it isn't.
------------- |
Posted By: AyKurt
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 17:05
lol again. grow up. ------------- 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 |
Posted By: TheDiplomat
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 17:07
These countries will not attempt to conquer anywhere, they will just do not permit some of their lands to be taken for the establishment of an artificial state in the first place! Thats the reason, these countries also object to your idea even in the territory of another state!
An artificial Kurdish state limited to Northern Iraq is also out of question, as it will be bordered on Turkey, Iran and Syria
 For an land-locked state to sruvive economically, it needs to orient its trade towards its neighbours. I think, you-being a Briton,considering the well-established culture of economics sould well appreciate that Right now , the administration in Northern Iraq seems to be well-organized, but things will dramatically change in the event of going too far!!!!
Much more than you would appear to be.
I live in this region. I have been to south Eastern Turkey as well. But if someone from Luxembourg would claim a more realistic view, I would just ------------- ARDA:The best Turkish diplomat ever! |
Posted By: AyKurt
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 17:14
OK sorry my mistake. But what ii was gettin at is that ethnic boundaries as opposed to national boundaries are never static and constantly changing so dont be offended. Wether overspill or not they are there and thats the reality.
Never said that, in fact i said im not opposed to creating an autonomous region or independent state within Turkey. But the point is the Kurds are not luxembourgers and even if they had a state they dont be so naive to think the PKK Peshmergas etc will disband since they view their "Greater Kurdistan" as extending far beyond Kurdish inhabited lands let alone homogenous Kurdish lands.
Because Northern Iraq wont become independent thus no need for UN arbitrators to divide the territory?
Now you think hard. If places like Telafer and Kirkuk are not part of indepent Kurdistan then how will The Kurds react? What about land continuiuty? Would they settle for it or fight? Blood will be spilt. ------------- 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 |
Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 18:19
|
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. ------------- "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) |
Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 18:29
|
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.There are almost 14.000.000 kurds in Turkey,and many in Iran and Syria too.So,imagine the consquenses of a possible destabilization. The third problem derives directly from the second:Turkey fears a possible Kurdish State,because up to now it denied their existence.When you mistreat someone to such a degree,it's natural to fear for the consquenses of your actions. ------------- "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) |
Posted By: Timotheus
Date Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 00:21
|
'Kurdistan' is the only part of Iraq that is currently stable...so Bush should set up an independent Kurdistan, make three dozen speeches there declaring victory, leave the rest of the Iraqis to each other's throats, stick his fingers in his ears when Turkey throws a fit, declare victory again, declare the war over, put his hands over his eyes so he doesn't see the Shia and the Sunni tearing each other's throats out, make everybody look at Kurdistan to show everybody that we succeeded in Iraq, bring all troops home, declare victory one last time in case somebody didn't get the point, and leave the rest to History...
------------- Opium is the religion of the masses. From each according to his need, to each according to his ability. |
Posted By: Cent
Date Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 04:16
|
Yeah, if a Kurdistan is being created it MUST be artifical. On what basis Thediplomat? ------------- 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 |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 04:56
|
Posted By: Kerimoglu
Date 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! |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 05:53
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.
------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 05:57
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.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 06:11
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.  ------------- |
Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 06:36
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) |
Posted By: Cent
Date 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 |
Posted By: Cent
Date 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 |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 07:56
|
The Kurds CANNOT govern themselves. It's a simple fact.
------------- |
Posted By: perikles
Date Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 08:12
|
And The fyromians orthe kossovars can govern themselves ? And how you come up to that conclusion?
|
Posted By: Guests
Date 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.
------------- |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 10:44
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 |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 10:47
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.
------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 10:55
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." ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 11:15
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.
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.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 11:27
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.  ------------- |
Posted By: AyKurt
Date Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 11:34
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 |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 11:34
And why is that? ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 12:34
I suggest you read what has been said since. ------------- |
Posted By: TheDiplomat
Date Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 12:37
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! |
Posted By: Cent
Date 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 |