Should the Kurds get their own state?

[naomiglover]

There really isn't. You just see an illusury one, because you are so deeply invested in your agenda.

In any case, this thread is about the Kurds, we already have a good 50 threads or so about your favourite issue, most of them courtesy of yourself. Would you kindly contain discussion on that topic to any of the threads you started, and let this one remain on topic?

Thanks.

Really, Bonam. This is the funniest part of this thread:

There is nothing inherently moral or good about governments imposing themselves upon people who do not want them, who would rather be independent and form their own state. Maintaining rulership of populations and regions who do not want to be ruled by that power is imperialism, nothing else.

Way to stand up for morality.

[dre]

Israel, like it or not, has a claim via the military victory of 1967...cemented in their opinion, via their victory in the 1973 Yom Kippur war. You're free to gather an army and discuss the diplomatic situation with them by 'other means' as Clauswitz said in the day.

Only because it hits the nail on the head and you don't really have anything to counter with. You could always come up with a historical situation where the loser in a war of aggression (of their starting) got to keep the land they took by force. But, heck, that might require some real obscure digging. Maybe an island in Micronesia fits the bill...lol.

Israel, like it or not, has a claim via the military victory of 1967

No it flat out doesnt. Even ISRAEL does not make such a claim. Signatories of the Geneva convention cannot build permanent settlements in land they militarily occupy.

Only because it hits the nail on the head and you don't really have anything to counter with. You could always come up with a historical situation where the loser in a war of aggression (of their starting) got to keep the land they took by force.

No it doesnt hit the nail on the head at all. Israel has no more legal right to colonize the occupied territories than the US does to make Afghanistan a US state.

where the loser in a war of aggression (of their starting)

Of who's starting? Israel threw the first punch in the 67 war when it Bombed syria over Arabs using too much water from the river, more than a year before Egypt booted the UN off the Sinai and closed the straights. This claim people like you make over and over again, that Arab states just up and attacked poor Israel out of the blue is horse shit, thats not supported by the factual history of events.

The 67 war was culmination of years of violent clashes on the border, that were sparked by water diversion projects. Both sides had plenty a hand in starting that war.

[DogOnPorch]

Your version of the Six Day War is amusing. Poor old Nasser...he's just misunderstood. Innocent lamb, n' all.

I suppose that's why I don't take you very seriously.

Re: the "occupied territories". Israel has said it will trade land for meaningful peace. So far, only two takers.

[DogOnPorch]

The cause of the Six Day War was the Soviet Union supplying the Arabs with brand new modern weapons (for free) and then sitting back and watching the results...which didn't turn-out quite like they and Arabs expected.

[dre]

Your version of the Six Day War is amusing. Poor old Nasser...he's just misunderstood. Innocent lamb, n' all.

I suppose that's why I don't take you very seriously.

Re: the "occupied territories". Israel has said it will trade land for meaningful peace. So far, only two takers.

My version is historically accurate. The war didnt start when Nasser booted UNEF off the sinai. There had been constant violence already for more than 2 years, and Israel had already bombed Syria at that point.

I never said Nasser was a lamb or than ANYONE was innocent. Both sides were spoiling for war, and had been provoking each other for years.

I suppose that's why I don't take you very seriously.

You dont take me seriously simply because your unsubtantiated rhetoric is not compatible with the FACTS that I presented... not a single one of which you even tried to refute.

[DogOnPorch]

See previous post for the Six Day War's cause.

Edited July 30, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[dre]

The cause of the Six Day War was the Soviet Union supplying the Arabs with brand new modern weapons (for free) and then sitting back and watching the results...which didn't turn-out quite like they and Arabs expected.

No the cause of the war was Israel and the Arab states trying jockeying for control of the River Jordans headwaters.

Heres the chronology of events.

1. In 1964, Israel started taking water out of the River Jordan using its National Water Carrier. This reduced the flow of water to the Hashmites.

2. In 1965, Arab states began construction of the Headwater Diversion Plan, which, once completed, would divert the waters of the Banias Stream before the water entered Israel and the Sea of Galilee, to flow instead into a dam at Mukhaiba.

3. Israel bombs the diversion project in Syria on March, May, and August 1965.

4. The bombing starts an extended chain of skirmishes along the border that eventually lead to Egypt closing the straights of Tiran, and booting UNEF forces off the Sinai.

Youre trying to say that Egypt started the war in 67 with its actions on the Sinai but the fighting had already been going on for two years, and Israel had already bombed Syria over a year before that

The reality is both sides were belligerent, provocative, and hostile, and both sides were willing to fight to expand their share of the water.

[DogOnPorch]

I disagree. Without the free Soviet military givaways, Nasser and crew wouldn't have been anywhere near as war-like without the means. But the Soviets were like James Bond villians when it came to the Middle East and the Arab states were defacto Warsaw Pact nations poking at defacto NATO's apparent soft underbelly.

Haven't heard that in a while, eh? Warsaw Pact...well...unlike Palestinians in 1967, they were real. But sure...it was all about who got to piss upstream of who on the Jordan River...which in Canada we call a mud puddle.

[nicky10013]

They were subject to genocide precisely because they were stateless, under the power of a regime that had little liking for them. If they had their own state, their own military, they could defend themselves from ever facing that situation again.

They were subject to genocide because they were rebelling against Saddam so they could gain sovereignty; the most important factor being the former. Diasporas have existed in countries both democratic and authoritarian and have been protected from another racial group or the state itself. Being stateless is really meaningless.

In the end, the right of self determination should belong to everyone but that's just not realistic. Pragmatically speakingm, the plight of the kurds would only be worse if they decided to go the route. If they REALLY wanted to, I'm sure they would've done it by now. I'm sure they're aware of the potential costs; which is why they haven't.

[DogOnPorch]

The statement by Azad in this video, one of the top Kurds in the region at the time of filming, seems to agree with you.

...people will fight for their own goals...

Edited July 30, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[wyly]

Yeah thats normally how it works. If we carved up states for every bunch of people that feels oppressed there would be about 5000 countries in the world. Turkey and Iraq should keep their borders intact and secure, and make sure that Kurds and other ethnic minorities are treated as equals... thats about it.

so who makes this decision on which peoples get to be a nation which do not?...as it is now it's decided by whoever had/has the military power...the Spanish conquered the Basques and the Catalonians so the Spanish have the right but not the Basques and Catalonians?...what does it matter to you if the Kurds want their own homeland? what does it matter if there are 500, or 5,000 countries?...to deny people the right to autonomy is a denial of a basic human right to freedom and democracy, imperial countries can have the freedom but do not extend that same freedom to those they conquered?

in todays Globe and Mail-

"The debate reached its peak this month, just as the Spanish constitutional court handed down a long-awaited ruling that denied Catalonia the right to declare itself a “nation.” On July 10, more than a million people, some of whom carried banners stating “We are a nation, we decide ourselves,” marched in Barcelona in protest."

Edited July 30, 2010 by wyly

[bush_cheney2004]

to deny people the right to autonomy is a denial of a basic human right to freedom and democracy, imperial countries can have the freedom but do not extend that same freedom to those they conquered?

There is no "basic human right" to freedom and democracy, but you do have the right to die trying to get both.

[dre]

so who makes this decision on which peoples get to be a nation which do not?...as it is now it's decided by whoever had/has the military power...the Spanish conquered the Basques and the Catalonians so the Spanish have the right but not the Basques and Catalonians?...what does it matter to you if the Kurds want their own homeland? what does it matter if there are 500, or 5,000 countries?...to deny people the right to autonomy is a denial of a basic human right to freedom and democracy, imperial countries can have the freedom but do not extend that same freedom to those they conquered?

in todays Globe and Mail-

"The debate reached its peak this month, just as the Spanish constitutional court handed down a long-awaited ruling that denied Catalonia the right to declare itself a “nation.” On July 10, more than a million people, some of whom carried banners stating “We are a nation, we decide ourselves,” marched in Barcelona in protest."

what does it matter to you if the Kurds want their own homeland?

Id rather not have a whole new thing for people to fight about over there. You think Iran, or Turkey are going to just give away substanctial territory? Not likely. Kurdish independance means a bloody war, that they will probably lose.

what does it matter if there are 500, or 5,000 countries?...to deny people the right to autonomy is a denial of a basic human right to freedom and democracy

I dont think ethnic balkanization solves anything, and I think it leads to more regional conflicts. I prefer the North American model where you have huge countries with many different ethnic groups living in them. Yeah... we could carve the place up into about 20 states I guess... one for the French, 6 for the Indians, one for the Chinese, and Japanese, the Irish, and so on, but we'd end up with conflict and war like they have in Europe and the middle east before long.

[Remiel]

I kind of think that the Kurds should get their own state. They make up a disadvantaged or oppressed minority in at least three states, yet the lands they live in, to my knowledge, are basically contiguous. I think that minorities that like predominantly in one state, unlike the Kurds, at least are not split from other members of their group, so there are fewer structural barriers to carrying on as a people. However, if having a Kurdish state is such an important prize to them, I think it would be unwise to try and take more from the current countries than can be reasonably justified, such as the oil, because that would only jeopardize the chances of success.

[Bonam]

I kind of think that the Kurds should get their own state. They make up a disadvantaged or oppressed minority in at least three states, yet the lands they live in, to my knowledge, are basically contiguous. I think that minorities that like predominantly in one state, unlike the Kurds, at least are not split from other members of their group, so there are fewer structural barriers to carrying on as a people. However, if having a Kurdish state is such an important prize to them, I think it would be unwise to try and take more from the current countries than can be reasonably justified, such as the oil, because that would only jeopardize the chances of success.

Definitely. When new states are created, they rarely get all that they want, they have to accept perhaps disappointing compromises. They'd have to skip the oil for sure to have any chance of success. Nevertheless, once you have achieved independence, it is possible to attain prosperity even if you aren't sitting on all the land and resources you hoped for, just gotta be willing to work for it. That usually isn't a problem, however, peoples that after long struggle at last attain independence are usually full of vigor and energy to build something for themselves.

The Kurdish territory, as you rightly point out, has been arbitrarily carved up into the borders of multiple states, sundering them from one another for generations. This is only one of the injustices that they have suffered.

I'm glad to see some discussion on this topic despite several poster's attempts to derail into other issues.

[nicky10013]

Id rather not have a whole new thing for people to fight about over there. You think Iran, or Turkey are going to just give away substanctial territory? Not likely. Kurdish independance means a bloody war, that they will probably lose.

Yup. I wonder where Kurdish public opinion is on this. Certainly the PKK doesn't speak for all Kurds.

I dont think ethnic balkanization solves anything, and I think it leads to more regional conflicts. I prefer the North American model where you have huge countries with many different ethnic groups living in them. Yeah... we could carve the place up into about 20 states I guess... one for the French, 6 for the Indians, one for the Chinese, and Japanese, the Irish, and so on, but we'd end up with conflict and war like they have in Europe and the middle east before long.

Well, Balkanization came about as the result of war. After Tito died, relations between the states within Yugoslavia soured to the point of civil war. Yugoslavia didn't cease to exist until 1999. Never-the-less, the arbitrary declaration of independence by the Kurds would certainly lead to a civil war of sorts. Certainly between Iraqi Kurds and Shia and Sunni Muslims, as well as with Turkey to the north.

Furthermore, to call them oppressed is kind of a stretch. In Iraq, everyone is opressed. In Turkey, a few are being hunted because a lot Kurds in Turkey are marxist seperatist guerillas. You can't really be "opressed" if your being hunted due to the breaking of laws.

[nicky10013]

The Kurdish territory, as you rightly point out, has been arbitrarily carved up into the borders of multiple states, sundering them from one another for generations. This is only one of the injustices that they have suffered.

As has pretty much every other country in the world.

[wyly]

double post

Edited July 30, 2010 by wyly

[wyly]

Id rather not have a whole new thing for people to fight about over there. You think Iran, or Turkey are going to just give away substanctial territory? Not likely. Kurdish independance means a bloody war, that they will probably lose.

but what concern is it of yours?...if the Kurds want to fight for autonomy that's their concern the Turks, Iranians and Iraqi's need to be persuaded they are wrong in denying it, the Kurds will make the decision not you how they approach it...interferring in the natural process is how todays middle east problems came to be, other countries sticking their noses in where they don't belong...

I dont think ethnic balkanization solves anything, and I think it leads to more regional conflicts. I prefer the North American model where you have huge countries with many different ethnic groups living in them. Yeah... we could carve the place up into about 20 states I guess... one for the French, 6 for the Indians, one for the Chinese, and Japanese, the Irish, and so on, but we'd end up with conflict and war like they have in Europe and the middle east before long.

North america is nothing similar to regions that are populated by ethnic majorities...ethnic balkanization doesn't cause conflicts denying autonomy is what causes the conflicts perpetuating the dominance of one ethnic group over another gained by force is not a situation anyone wants to live under... Edited July 30, 2010 by wyly

[wyly]

I kind of think that the Kurds should get their own state. They make up a disadvantaged or oppressed minority in at least three states, yet the lands they live in, to my knowledge, are basically contiguous. I think that minorities that like predominantly in one state, unlike the Kurds, at least are not split from other members of their group, so there are fewer structural barriers to carrying on as a people. However, if having a Kurdish state is such an important prize to them, I think it would be unwise to try and take more from the current countries than can be reasonably justified, such as the oil, because that would only jeopardize the chances of success.

as the EU has demonstrated nationalism needn't be a division between ethnic groups, each ethnic can have it's own autonomous region and still operate as part of a larger union...the Czech republic and Slovakia separated into two ethnic nations peacefully and still cooperate in a larger economic union, Belgium may also follow this path...what has to end is the petty imperialism that some ethnic groups still have a leftover from past ages where military conquests of smaller groups was the rule...

[GostHacked]

There is no "basic human right" to freedom and democracy, but you do have the right to die trying to get both.

Quite a few Americans have died defending the basic human rights of life, love, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that includes freedom and democracy. Or we could all be speaking German under a fascist regime.

...

But Iraq does not seem to care about the Kurd, because Turkey has been bombing them for a few years now.

Should they get their own state? I don't know.

Will they get their own state? Not anytime soon.

[dre]

but what concern is it of yours?...if the Kurds want to fight for autonomy that's their concern the Turks, Iranians and Iraqi's need to be persuaded they are wrong in denying it, the Kurds will make the decision not you how they approach it...interferring in the natural process is how todays middle east problems came to be, other countries sticking their noses in where they don't belong...

North america is nothing similar to regions that are populated by ethnic majorities...ethnic balkanization doesn't cause conflicts denying autonomy is what causes the conflicts perpetuating the dominance of one ethnic group over another gained by force is not a situation anyone wants to live under...

but what concern is it of yours?...if the Kurds want to fight for autonomy that's their concern the Turks, Iranians and Iraqi's need to be persuaded they are wrong in denying it, the Kurds will make the decision not you how they approach it...interferring in the natural process is how todays middle east problems came to be, other countries sticking their noses in where they don't belong...

I dont even know what youre talking about here. I never advocated interfering with ANYTHING. Just posted my opinion that further dividing people along cultural, religious, or ethnic lines will make things worse not better.

but what concern is it of yours?

Well... Im posting on a political forum, and one of the things we do on political forums is express our opinion on the topics that are posted.

North america is nothing similar to regions that are populated by ethnic majorities...ethnic balkanization doesn't cause conflicts denying autonomy is what causes the conflicts perpetuating the dominance of one ethnic group over another gained by force is not a situation anyone wants to live under...

Yeah North America is different because instead of carving up the continent into 20 or 30 ethnic and religious states those different ethnic and religious groups have lived together in either the US or Canada. If we had bulkanized into 20 or 30 states there would have been a prolonged series of wars already.

Edited July 30, 2010 by dre

[DogOnPorch]

Can you avoid using the 'F' word?

[dre]

Can you avoid using the 'F' word?

Is that a question of my ability to stop using it? Or a request that I do?

Edited July 30, 2010 by dre

[DogOnPorch]

Is that a question of my ability to stop using it? Or a request that I do?

A request.