Kurdistan?

[Kagemusha]

What your opinion is,would be a good idea to form a new state of Kurdistan to middle east?Kurds are the minority in several states of the area including Turkey,Iran,Iraq and Syria.And there are separatist Kurdish movements in all of these states.Would creating a National state for the Kurds create more stability or chaos in the area?Here is a map of the regions that are inhabitated by Kurds.

https://img505.imageshack.us/img505/7162/733pxkurdishlands92cropped5mn.jpg

[Duke Malcolm]

It would create more tension, there would be ill-feelings between Iran/Iraq/Syria/Turkey and Kurdistan if such a thing happened, terrorism, perhaps such as is seen in Palestine and Israel...

[Kagemusha]

It would create more tension, there would be ill-feelings between Iran/Iraq/Syria/Turkey and Kurdistan if such a thing happened, terrorism, perhaps such as is seen in Palestine and Israel...

But isnt that the case already?The armed Kurdish separatist organisations are creating havoc like PKK in Turkey.Wouldnt a national state give a reason for these separatist to put down their weapons?

[Duke Malcolm]

But it would mean the nation-state giving up chunks of itself, which is something it and its people would not like to do, and the people may well take violent protest...

[scotchedpommes]

The Turks wouldn't stand for it - I think that was made clear around the time of
the Iraq invasion, when they were conducting manoeuvres and readying the
troops, at least for show.

[Avicenna]

Supporting the creation of a state for the Kurds would just worsen the UN's and supporting countries' ties with the countries that would have to give up territory for this Kurd nation to be realised. I also seriously doubt that the Kurdish radicals will just put down arms when 'Kurdistan' is created, they would have no problem finding another excuse to fight.

[Kagemusha]

Supporting the creation of a state for the Kurds would just worsen the UN's and supporting countries' ties with the countries that would have to give up territory for this Kurd nation to be realised. I also seriously doubt that the Kurdish radicals will just put down arms when 'Kurdistan' is created, they would have no problem finding another excuse to fight.

Well when you look at the Iraq.The most peacefull area is the Kurdish controlled Northern parts.There are over 20 million kurds in middle east and i dont understand why they cant have a state of their own?What makes the difference between Kurdish and for example Palestinians that majority of people think should have country of their own and also believe that is the only way to stop the violence between Israel and Palestinian separatist and terrorist organisations?

[Duke Malcolm]

Because we know it won't. Israelis don't like it. Palestinians don't like that Israel doesn't like it. Some Palestinians even think Israel shouldn't exist.

Those Middle-East countries certainly won't be happy if they lose chunks of their country to Separatists, they will want it back. It won't just be Kurds in those areas...

[Major Robert Dump]

Send Tom Delay, he knows how to re-district

The Kurdish h area ismore peaceful because it is largely lacking the power vacuum that exists in other regions of Iraq, and it is my understanding that the area is not as developed or fertile as the rest of the country

Taking chunks of other nations would not be possible unless all the nations being chopped up were under occupation and under the will of the body doing the "redistricting." This isn't Post-war Germany, and while the idea of a Kurdish state could certainly work without these other mitigating factors, its not going to happen because Syria and Turkey would not allow it to.

[LeftEyeNine]

Till the last drop of my blood, not a single stone that is the part of Turkey..Never and ever and in any means..

No sane Turk will ever allow and agree on a Kurdish state composing parts from Turkey. Those cuddly teddy bears resting and crying in arms of EU have made enough ugly steps forward under the guidance of countries calling out " The Rightful Case of Freedom Fighters", and no (Remember "Your Terrorist, My Freedom Fighter" thread?)..The day they flag up somewhere belonging to me/us, I'll be there to devastate/die even if I'm the last one standing to do something.

Emotions aside, creating minor ethnic/religious fractions is laying tasty butter on so-called Liberator World Polices' breads. It will never happen for the sake and the independence of my country and the surrounding region.

No offence meant at individuals nor thread opener dear Kage, however as you're likely to be familiar with it, that's my nerve.

[Strike For The South]

Till the last drop of my blood, not a single stone that is the part of Turkey..Never and ever and in any means..

No sane Turk will ever allow and agree on a Kurdish state composing parts from Turkey. Those cuddly teddy bears resting and crying in arms of EU have made enough ugly steps forward under the guidance of countries calling out " The Rightful Case of Freedom Fighters", and no (Remember "Your Terrorist, My Freedom Fighter" thread?)..The day they flag up somewhere belonging to me/us, I'll be there to devastate/die even if I'm the last one standing to do something.

Emotions aside, creating minor ethnic/religious fractions is laying tasty butter on so-called Liberator World Polices' breads. It will never happen for the sake and the independence of my country and the surrounding region.

No offence meant at individuals nor thread opener dear Kage, however as you're likely to be familiar with it, that's my nerve.

there is your reason Kage. Now imagine 30 million of those with rifles

[Kagemusha]

Till the last drop of my blood, not a single stone that is the part of Turkey..Never and ever and in any means..

No sane Turk will ever allow and agree on a Kurdish state composing parts from Turkey. Those cuddly teddy bears resting and crying in arms of EU have made enough ugly steps forward under the guidance of countries calling out " The Rightful Case of Freedom Fighters", and no (Remember "Your Terrorist, My Freedom Fighter" thread?)..The day they flag up somewhere belonging to me/us, I'll be there to devastate/die even if I'm the last one standing to do something.

Emotions aside, creating minor ethnic/religious fractions is laying tasty butter on so-called Liberator World Polices' breads. It will never happen for the sake and the independence of my country and the surrounding region.

No offence meant at individuals nor thread opener dear Kage, however as you're likely to be familiar with it, that's my nerve.

You know me LEN.~:) My intention with this thread was not hurt anybodys feelings,just to hear opinions about the issue.I completely understand your wiews on the issue and im sorry if i upset you anyway.:bow:

[LeftEyeNine]

No not at all indeed, I know who Kage is :bow: That 's the place where discussion gains meaning. By my last words above, I just wanted to explain why I used such "to-the-death" expressions in my post.

And it's thoroughly interesting that whoever visits Turkey in the name of humanity, democracy, blah-blah visits Kurdish-intense areas. Why don't you come visit here and ask people's opinion on whom you think "oppressed". You'll be amazed to hear. "You can't dare to hear" puts it better.

A repetead note, Turgut Özal (once prime minister and president of Turkey who allowed around a million Kurdish refugees from N. Iraq in), Abdülkadir Aksu (present and former minister of internal affairs of whom period is full of assassinations over journalists, professors and juries -there are 9-10 of them), Ibrahim Tatlıses (a super rich singer that is called Emperor who owns a mafia as well), Yılmaz Erdoğan (comedian, poet, acter), Mahzun Kırmızıgül (another singer), Ahmet Kaya (another legendary (!) singer pretended to have died) and so many other figures I can not remember right now are all Kurdish. From the top to the bottom, from the singer to the merchant they are in charge somehow (thank God none can progress in the Turkish Armed Forces as well as the fanatic Islamists).

Still singing for independency ? No way, this is Turkey, named by Ataturk, given his heroic efforts with his comrades and his beloved nation named after the Turk identity.

Poverty ? I'm not the one living in the cities and reproducing in numbers as if it is mytosis. Thievery, raping, mafiatic organizations, beating, harrassing, murdering, disturbing? There it is..Western Turkey was peaceful once..

Sorry I gotta stop here, I got pretty furious again. I have to stop before I sound "worse"..Sorry indeed..:shame:

[Spetulhu]

Poverty ? I'm not the one living in the cities and reproducing in numbers as if it is mytosis. Thievery, raping, mafiatic organizations, beating, harrassing, murdering, disturbing? There it is..Western Turkey was peaceful once..

The Turkish army had a very effective way of dealing with uprisings in the East. Any village suspected of aiding forbidden Kurdish organisations was simply emptied of people. Being that Turkey is a civilized nation (and NATO member) it wasn't possible to just execute all the villagers. They were sent into the cities of the West instead. Several hundred thousand wishing to return are still unable to do so as their villages need extensive reconstruction after being deserted for a decade. Make the government pay up or keep them in the cities.

[LeftEyeNine]

The Turkish army had a very effective way of dealing with uprisings in the East. Any village suspected of aiding forbidden Kurdish organisations was simply emptied of people. Being that Turkey is a civilized nation (and NATO member) it wasn't possible to just execute all the villagers. They were sent into the cities of the West instead. Several hundred thousand wishing to return are still unable to do so as their villages need extensive reconstruction after being deserted for a decade. Make the government pay up or keep them in the cities.

"Uprising of Kurds" is not an aged story. I simply don't like the stories I heard of happening in the background.

And the evacuation was simply not a good idea -I heard that as being the words of a commando friend who is currently serving in the south eastern Turkey. "Wishing to return" does not seem flawless, it's definitely a better life in the west. The problem is that the eastern Turkey is perceived as home of only the Kurds. There was a one-to-one population mix in most of the locations. However because of Kurds' imstoppable growing population, the other local citizens either left or were outnumbered hence demonstrating the place as an area inhabited by Kurds.

[Tribesman]

Kageshuma , where did you get that map ? why does it omit the ful kurdish claimsI>E> ovrr double the treritoty that that map shows ?
Well when you look at the Iraq.The most peacefull area is the Kurdish controlled Northern parts.:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
OMG did you really write that ?
In the narrow topic of attacks on coilition forces it is the most peacefull area , in terms of ethnic cleansing ,cross border fighting , statesponored terrorism , political assasination, foriegn(non-coiliton) military strikes it ispretty much the most voltile region in the former state of Iraq , and that is without considering the inter-factional fighting amonst the Kurds .:no:

Edit to add , sorry about the over double territoroalclaims , they over treble what is shown in the map

[Louis VI the Fat]

LEN, here's a hypothetical question for you: if all the Kurds would pack their bags and leave for Kurdistan, in exchange for their independence, would you be in favour of that?

[Reverend Joe]

Forget Kurdistan. I think we should reform the Achamenid empire. Or Arche Seleukia.

But I don't really think anyone will be up for that.

[ShadesWolf]

Interesting thread, thankyou for starting in.

You could look at this idea all around the world. My only worry about the Kurd situation was the fall of Sadam has set this in motion. North Iraq is almost a free Kurd state, if this ever becomes reality, ie by a civil war in Iraq and they declare independance then the whole area might become very dangerous. All the countrys that border this area and im thinking mainly of Iran and turkey will get drawn into the situation. The Times on Friday had an interesting article about this, and a TV show was on Channel 4 on Friday night.

In summary (Militant Kurds)

- Founded by Abdullah Ocalan in 1974
- Took the name Kurdistan Workers Part (PKK) in 1978
- Began fighting for a seperate homland in ethnic kurdish areas straddling Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria
- Kurds account for 20 % of turkeys population
- The EU and US class the PKK as a terrorist group, its armed struggle has cost 35,000 lives
- In 1999 Ocalan was captured and a ceasfire was announced
- Ceasefire ended in June 2004
- turkey claim the PPK earn $40 million annually from drug trafficking and receives a similar amount from kurdish expats.
- It has about 5,000 troops, with 3,500 in northern Iraq.

But as was also stated earlier one mans terrorist is also another man freedom fighter, so its hard to draw a line under it.

[LeftEyeNine]

LEN, here's a hypothetical question for you: if all the Kurds would pack their bags and leave for Kurdistan, in exchange for their independence, would you be in favour of that?

Man, that's my dream if I ever get a senior rank in political hierarchy of a Turkish government. I don't care what they would be doing in Northern Iraq with their independency.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Whilst I do not defend the tactics of the PKK or any other terrorist organisation that insists on furthering its aims by indiscriminate killing of civilians, we should all be aware that Turkey, Syria, and Caucasian Russia are hardly Kingdoms of Peace and Love.

Turkey and human rights (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/18/turkey12220.htm)


Most of the 378,335 Kurdish villagers forcibly displaced by security forces during the conflict of the 1980s and 1990s are still unable to return to their homes in the southeast. The government’s Return to Village and Rehabilitation Project has failed to provide even the most basic infrastructure, and villagers are unwilling to return to settlements that do not have electricity, telephone service, or a school. Implementation of a 2004 law to compensate the displaced has been uneven, with some villagers receiving appropriate sums while others’ claims were unfairly dismissed.

The threat of violence from village guards—paramilitaries armed and paid by the government to fight the PKK—remains an important obstacle to return. Some returning villagers were attacked by village guards during the year. In March 2005, a village guard shot and killed thirteen-year-old Selahattin Günbay, near Nusaybin in Mardin province, because he was allegedly grazing animals on the guard’s pasture.


The European Court of Human Rights issued scores of judgments against Turkey concerning torture, unfair trial, arbitrary detention, and extrajudicial execution. In July 2005, the court found the Turkish government responsible for violations of the right to life concerning twenty-two people shot dead by police during disturbances in Istanbul in 1995 (?im?ek and others v. Turkey).

To be entirely fair, there are increasing movements in Turkey to redress the problems, and they are making some headway. The PKK would do well to stop any terrorist actions and engage with the process positively, because all they do is harden the hardliners. After all, they have the big battalions of the EU on the side of their aspirations, if not their methods. Sadly, like the IRA, they are largely composed of thugs, not freedom fighters.

Syria, as if anyone needed a link (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/18/syria12231.htm)


Kurds are the largest non-Arab ethnic minority in Syria, comprising about 10 percent of the population of 18.5 million. Activists have long called for an end to systematic discrimination, including the arbitrary denial of citizenship to an estimated 120,000 Syria-born Kurds.

Since the March 2004 clashes between Kurdish demonstrators and security forces in Qamishli that left more than thirty dead and four hundred injured, tensions in that city and surrounding areas have remained high. A prominent Kurdish cleric, Muhammad Ma`shuq al-Khaznawi, disappeared during a visit to Damascus in May 2005; the Interior Ministry denied having al-Khaznawi in its custody, and authorities found his body in eastern Syria three weeks after his disappearance. His sons and Kurdish activists blamed state security for the abduction and murder, stating that there were signs of torture on his body. After the announcement of al-Khaznawi’s death, more than five thousand protesters gathered in Qamishli to condemn the killing. The protest escalated when looters, allegedly local Arabs, pillaged more than eighty Kurdish shops.

In September 2005, police beat a Syrian Kurdish woman to death when she attempted to stop the demolition of illegally built homes outside Damascus. According to defense lawyer and human rights activist Anwar Bunni, residents were primarily poor Kurdish workers.

On November 2, Syrian authorities freed seven Kurds, including three women, who had been arrested earlier in the year for belonging to a “secret organization aiming to annex part of Syrian territory to a foreign country.”

Turkey is being held to a much higher standard because of its aspirations to join the EU - which despite the hype, is never going to happen while the military continue the repression of free speech.

Kurds are not even allowed to speak or publish in their own language. Is it any wonder they aspire to their own liberty?

I don't believe, personally, that any territories should be taken from the nation of Turkey, but that an autonomous province in the south east, set within a Turkey that has embraced and been included in the European Union (and all its standards for human rights) would be the best outcome for all.

Unfortunately, the probable outcome is that when the US coalition leaves Iraq, the north of that country will inevitably declare independence and the whole region will explode.

[Idaho]

Another fiasco created by Lloyd George and his cronies at the end of WW1.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Making a Kurdistan out of the Curdic part of Iraq on the promise of the curds to not demand land from for instance Turkey or any other country would IMO have been possible without stirring up tensions at the time of the beginning of the Iraq war. It was possible mainly because Saddam had killed curds with chemical weapons and carried out a few other forms of oppression. But now I think the window for such a suggestion is probably gone, as there's ATM no direct oppression targetting Curds AFAIK. Because first of all there's AFAIK no oppression specifically targetting Curds. That means two things - 1. it's difficult to convince the country that loses a part of it's land that the new state is a necessity, 2. it's difficult to convince the Curds that if they get an own state it should only contain land from one of the countries in the region even though there are curds in all of the surrounding countries.

The situation is different than for instance Montenegro breaking off from Serbia, because of these factors. There's no fear of Montenegro going to require land from other neighboring countries as a result of the independence, and Montenegro was almost independent already before the vote. In the end I think the predictions of how it would affect stability in the region and the severity of previous oppression of the group is what determines whether the idea of independence for a group or province gains support.

[LeftEyeNine]

Turkey is being held to a much higher standard because of its aspirations to join the EU - which despite the hype, is never going to happen while the military continue the repression of free speech.

Update your diary please. The steps towards EU and Islamic-based government's actions have already softened the degree of pressure military has over free speech.


Kurds are not even allowed to speak or publish in their own language. Is it any wonder they aspire to their own liberty?

Another update required here as well.


I don't believe, personally, that any territories should be taken from the nation of Turkey, but that an autonomous province in the south east, set within a Turkey that has embraced and been included in the European Union (and all its standards for human rights) would be the best outcome for all.

I share the history of Ottoman Empire and am wise enough not to fall in such traps again. The collapse years are full of such stories managed by "authorities" from abroad.

[naut]

:laugh4: No offence Duke Malcolm, but I found one of your previous posts rather amusing and ironic:


Previously Posted By Duke Malcolm
Some Palestinians even think Israel shouldn't exist.


"Some Palestinians", I think you should rephrase that to the vast majority of Palestinians think Israel shouldn't exist.

As to a Kurdistan, it would probably create more problems. Especially with Iran and Syria. And judging by LEN's post, the Turks would not accept the idea what so ever.

[Tribesman]

Another update required here as well.

Then again LEN the treaty which broke up the Empire is very specific when it comes minority rights , culture and languages .
So is it a case of an update that was nearly 80 years late ?

[LeftEyeNine]

The relevant update refers to their freedom to speak their language.

[Tribesman]

The relevant update refers to their freedom to speak their language.

Yep , and the freedom to speak the language is in the treaties that Turkey signed 80 years ago .
Hence......So is it a case of an update that was nearly 80 years late ?

Edit to add , just as a thought . How much of the Kurdish homeland territorial claims are also claimed by the Assyrian homeland movement , or the Aramaeic homeland movement , can they have their own country as well ?

[LeftEyeNine]

Yep , and the freedom to speak the language is in the treaties that Turkey signed 80 years ago .
Hence......So is it a case of an update that was nearly 80 years late ?

"Speaking your own language" may be a cornerstone of a democratic republic, however I'd like to know if you mean that Lausanne agreement included such terms.

[rory_20_uk]

Areas that wish to be part of a kurdistan should be allowed to do so. After all, we're in the region to promote freedom, right? The autonomous regioj of Iraq would be the main part, and bordering areas would then be able to join.

Sure it's idealistic, but so was going into Iraq in the way we did, so why not?

~:smoking:

[Kralizec]

Len: why do you even want to keep a (potentially) rebellious area within your boundaries? Why, if the vast majority of locals don't want to be part of your state, what other right do you have to govern them then right of conquest?

Forgive me if I seem a little rude, but I like questions to be straight-forward :bow:

[Tribesman]

Yes LEN , it is in article 39 of the treaty .

[LeftEyeNine]

Len: why do you even want to keep a (potentially) rebellious area within your boundaries? Why, if the vast majority of locals don't want to be part of your state, what other right do you have to govern them then right of conquest?

You'd be even more amazed to hear that many are comfortable with their lives. This is what a Kurdish guy told me once. He had talked to a lot of them when he was in Istanbul once.

Oh and more, there has not been a rebellious area demanding independence yet. And what is "the right of conquest" ? If you dare something, you pay for the consequences, keeping the prize in mind. This has been a historical and natural occurence, hasn't it ?

Kurdish Issue, Armenian Issue and Cyprus Issue are all favorite toys abroad. ~:) Kurdish rebellion is no more than 150 years old -thanks to imperialists' "humanist" plans.

Edit: Yes, Tribesman, I just checked, there it stands, you're right, it's been a late update.

[Mikeus Caesar]

*an idiot enters the room*

Hurhur, replace the K in Kurdistan with a T...

[Reverend Joe]

Making a Kurdistan out of the Curdic part of Iraq on the promise of the curds to not demand land from for instance Turkey or any other country would IMO have been possible without stirring up tensions at the time of the beginning of the Iraq war. It was possible mainly because Saddam had killed curds with chemical weapons and carried out a few other forms of oppression. But now I think the window for such a suggestion is probably gone, as there's ATM no direct oppression targetting Curds AFAIK. Because first of all there's AFAIK no oppression specifically targetting Curds. That means two things - 1. it's difficult to convince the country that loses a part of it's land that the new state is a necessity, 2. it's difficult to convince the Curds that if they get an own state it should only contain land from one of the countries in the region even though there are curds in all of the surrounding countries.

The situation is different than for instance Montenegro breaking off from Serbia, because of these factors. There's no fear of Montenegro going to require land from other neighboring countries as a result of the independence, and Montenegro was almost independent already before the vote. In the end I think the predictions of how it would affect stability in the region and the severity of previous oppression of the group is what determines whether the idea of independence for a group or province gains support.

Uh... Legio, no offense, but it's Kurds, not Curds. I don't think there's much of a furor over milk curds fighting for independance. :laugh4:

FREE CURDISTAN FROM THE WHEY!! :laugh4:

(Again, no offense meant. It just looks funny.)

[Banquo's Ghost]

FREE CURDISTAN FROM THE WHEY!! :laugh4:


Is that the Right Whey or the Third Whey? ~;)

[Rodion Romanovich]

Uh... Legio, no offense, but it's Kurds, not Curds. I don't think there's much of a furor over milk curds fighting for independance. :laugh4:

FREE CURDISTAN FROM THE WHEY!! :laugh4:

(Again, no offense meant. It just looks funny.)

:embarassed: Thank you for pointing it out :wall:

that was a pretty funny misspelling actually :laugh4:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Man, that's my dream if I ever get a senior rank in political hierarchy of a Turkish government. I don't care what they would be doing in Northern Iraq with their independency.I did mean a Kurdistan that includes the part in Turkey. Would you still be in favour?

[LeftEyeNine]

This is a soft intro, Louis.


The problem is that the eastern Turkey is perceived as home of only the Kurds. There was a one-to-one population mix in most of the locations. However because of Kurds' imstoppable growing population, the other local citizens either left or were outnumbered hence demonstrating the place as an area inhabited by Kurds.

This is the hard way I feel about it :


Till the last drop of my blood, not a single stone that is the part of Turkey..Never and ever and in any means..

No sane Turk will ever allow and agree on a Kurdish state composing parts from Turkey. Those cuddly teddy bears resting and crying in arms of EU have made enough ugly steps forward under the guidance of countries calling out " The Rightful Case of Freedom Fighters", and no (Remember "Your Terrorist, My Freedom Fighter" thread?)..The day they flag up somewhere belonging to me/us, I'll be there to devastate/die even if I'm the last one standing to do something.

[Louis VI the Fat]

But you'd finally be rid of this:

'Poverty ? I'm not the one living in the cities and reproducing in numbers as if it is mytosis. Thievery, raping, mafiatic organizations, beating, harrassing, murdering, disturbing? There it is..Western Turkey was peaceful once..'

[LeftEyeNine]

Louis, no one believes in the riddle that Kurds will pack and leave for a Kurdistan established -including the horrible assumpiton that the land can include some parts from Turkey. Yeah I know that's why it is an assumption but we have a saying : "No village in sight needs a guide"

[Byzantine Prince]

No sane Turk will ever allow and agree on a Kurdish state composing parts from Turkey.
Too bad, because it would solve a lot of your problems.


The day they flag up somewhere belonging to me/us, I'll be there to devastate/die even if I'm the last one standing to do something.
This is why it's scary. Turkey is a big country, you don't need a bunch of mountains int he middle of nowhere. It would cost you more money to modernize that place and it is still going to have huge problems. If the majority is Kurds, than there is no reason for Turkey to hold that land.

[LeftEyeNine]

Too bad, because it would solve a lot of your problems.


This is why it's scary. Turkey is a big country, you don't need a bunch of mountains int he middle of nowhere. It would cost you more money to modernize that place and it is still going to have huge problems. If the majority is Kurds, than there is no reason for Turkey to hold that land.

Your views on what "land" is quite different from us then, BP. We could have abandoned them from the start. However every stone, sand, mountain river or whatever corner of my country is heaven watered with heroes' bloods.

This is how we survived the imperialists and other "minor" invaders' intrusion during War Of Independence and how it will last forever. Anyone dares, field is open.

That's as much rational as it is emotional. I had told that we were not European (edit: "culturally distinct" will be better) if you still disagree with this point of view.

[Tribesman]

If the majority is Kurds, than there is no reason for Turkey to hold that land.
So if Latinos form a majority in an area of the US should the US give up the land ? what about Corsicans , should France give up the territory , Canada/Quebec ? Spain/Basque/Catalan ? Sri Lanka/Tamil ? Pakistan/Baluchi/Pashtun ?
The problem with partition is what happens to those who find themselves on the wrong side of the line .
Rather than looking at the "Kurdish majority" map from Wiki that is the start of this topic , look at the ones on the KDP website , they have maps for Iraq and maps for individual towns showing the ethnic make up , they are such a mix of different colour blocks and dots that it makes your eyes hurt .

[Byzantine Prince]

If a population holds the majority and wishes to split off with their own government, then that should be their right. I don't care how many ethnic minorities live in Kurdistan, if the majority wishes to split off they should be able to. This comes with the principle of democracy alone.


However every stone, sand, mountain river or whatever corner of my country is heaven watered with heroes' bloods.
This statement oozes heavy-handed propaganda.


The problem with partition is what happens to those who find themselves on the wrong side of the line .
Traditionaly they have been forced/willing to move to their own country. I don't understand how making them live in a place that opresses/kills them is going to be better. This stubborn blood-drenched geo-nationalism helps no one.

[LeftEyeNine]

Updated numbers may mean something towards the illusion of Kurds inhabit all over Eastern Anatolia, however once more I need to indicate that the population mix was head-to-head and that gives credibility to the actual owners of the land.


This statement oozes heavy-handed propaganda.

This is how we survived, not an invention -facts do hurt. I talk my words -not any other ones, please keep on posting if you have matters related to the discussion, avoiding any overrepeated subliminal Greek-Turk conflicts -I'll be glad to drag this nice topic further.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Your views on what "land" is quite different from us then, BP. We could have abandoned them from the start. However every stone, sand, mountain river or whatever corner of my country is heaven watered with heroes' bloods.

This is how we survived the imperialists and other "minor" invaders' intrusion during War Of Independence and how it will last forever. Anyone dares, field is open.

That's as much rational as it is emotional. I had told that we were not European (edit: "culturally distinct" will be better) if you still disagree with this point of view.Oh, but it's European alright. We've gone through all that Blut und Boden crap too.

Didn't like it very much. :no:


Edit: Oh, and my previous questions were hypothetical indeed.

[Tribesman]

Traditionaly they have been forced/willing to move to their own country. I don't understand how making them live in a place that opresses/kills them is going to be better.
So you support ethnic cleansing as a "democratic" solution ?

[Leet Eriksson]

Its just too volatile now for a seperate kurdish state. Northern iraq is known as a kurdish stronghold, the problem is, there is also a large turcoman minority, so if a kurdish state is established where will the turcomanis go?

You'll also have to deal with babylonians, chaldeans, assyrians..etc etc etc etc etc.

Its just too much of a problem see, a state based on an ethnic group just plainly won't work right now.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If a population holds the majority and wishes to split off with their own government, then that should be their right. I don't care how many ethnic minorities live in Kurdistan, if the majority wishes to split off they should be able to. This comes with the principle of democracy alone.

If given the status of a "right," this would very possibly result in a complete balkanization of every country -- and probably then of each of the resultant mini-states as well. Heaven knows that when I was growing up in Atlantic City, NJ we were all convinced that almost everything North and East of Brunswick, NJ was inhabited by aliens. This balkanization, if history is a good yardstick, would likely be followed by low-to-medium intensity conflict everywhere for a very long time, until particularly successful, and probably brutal, conquerors established dictatorships among the ruins.

You seem to think (implication, not statement) that a quasi-anarchical collection of city states would live in comparative peace, but very little of human history would suggest this to be the case. Do you really want a world that is nothing but an endless repetition of the Peloponesian War or the Cattle Raid of Cooley style sparring of the Celts with longer-ranged weaponry and effective suicide/homicide bombings?

[Rodion Romanovich]

@Seamus: While smaller states can make for more wars, fewer people are hurt by the wars than if they were between larger states. So it's not generally true that larger states gives more peace for the citizens. For example when the roman empire had a maniac such as Nero or Domitian in power, it struck all of Europe. But when there was a maniac in one city state in Greece, it didn't matter nearly as much to the average citizen in Europe. Counting the number of wars would imply that Domitian and Nero were smaller problems for an average citizen (in what is today called Europe) than the maniacs in the city states were, while in practise it's likely the other way around. However I don't support fragementation without good reason, as the actual fragmentation procedure can be a cause of instability. But the fact that smaller states make for wars that damage fewer is a good argument against too firm and too large unions.

[Samurai Waki]

I actually think I agree with LENs point of view. The Creation of a Kurdish State in Northern Iraq would only further inflame the region. When the Kurds have a state in Northern Iraq, I think that they'll also say, we want our lands in Turkey, and Iran, and Syria. The Problem is, is that the Kurds have the potential means to do it. Turkey would have to directly intervene militarily in Northern Iraq and within it's own borders, if Turkey gets drawn into the Conflict, Iran will also have similar ambitions, and then...

[Pannonian]

@Seamus: While smaller states can make for more wars, fewer people are hurt by the wars than if they were between larger states. So it's not generally true that larger states gives more peace for the citizens. For example when the roman empire had a maniac such as Nero or Domitian in power, it struck all of Europe. But when there was a maniac in one city state in Greece, it didn't matter nearly as much to the average citizen in Europe. Counting the number of wars would imply that Domitian and Nero were smaller problems for an average citizen (in what is today called Europe) than the maniacs in the city states were, while in practise it's likely the other way around. However I don't support fragementation without good reason, as the actual fragmentation procedure can be a cause of instability. But the fact that smaller states make for wars that damage fewer is a good argument against too firm and too large unions.
Chinese history is split into periods when the country was unified and periods when it was split. Until the 20th century and Mao Zedong, no matter how despotic the ruler a unified China usually meant greater peace for the ordinary people. The Three Kingdoms period has been romanticised by novelists, but it was also an unbelievably bloody period of great suffering. A census held at the end of the Han dynasty, just before its dissolution, numbered the Chinese population at 50 million+. A census held just after reunification numbered the population at 18 million. That's a drop of 60%, a trend also seen in other periods of civil war.

Amalgamated states tend to hold their populations in check and prevent constant conflict - that's why they exist. When they do get involved in conflict, the scale tends to be bigger, but they also have mechanisms for bringing conflict to an end - see Iraq for an example of what happens when the state disappears. Hence the adage that the primary purpose of a state is to monopolise the use of legimate violence.

Besides, Turkey is a formal member of NATO. If there are hints of an independent Kurdistan being proposed, the Turks can claim that their borders have been attacked by Iraqi Kurds and invoke Article 5.

[Kagemusha]

Im not for or against the Kurdish state,but i dont understand this Imperialist wiew that Nations forged with force are somehow more peacefull.I think it is the opposite.There have been many examples used in this thread for that like "Balkanization".Well the Balkanization is just the opposite.Yugoslavia was created by force by uniting many different nations under one government by Tito.Look what happened when the central government couldnt force the Nations to be in the Federal state anymore.Also the Majority of problems in Africa like Ruanda or currently Sudan comes from the fact that during Imperialism the European Monarchies draw imaginatory state lines that cutted the ethnical populations to many different states and that made the states very unstable,becouse the continuos conflict between different ethnic groups. I understand that in novadays Globalized world small countries are very vulnerable becouse their economies are small and becouse of that economical unions are a great option,like the EU is.But when we look at the middle east and Africa,they are still in the samekind of situation like Europe was at the start of 20th century where the National states are more like minority then majority. I cant understand the attitude that these people doesnt deserve their own states. Do you guys think that if Europe would be still made of Empires it would be more peacefull then it is?I think many underestimate the will to remain independent in European Nations and i belive that last years EU constitutional vote just shoved that.
Democracy is a good form of government,put it needs to work that the people feel united and they share same values. How can you achieve that in States that have 50-50% of two different nationalities,that doesnt want to have anything to do with eachother.Remember this is all my general wiew of point in the Nation states.:bow:

[LeftEyeNine]

How can you achieve that in States that have 50-50% of two different nationalities,that doesnt want to have anything to do with eachother.Remember this is all my general wiew of point in the Nation states.

I guess this point of yours does not include an example on Turkey's population mix, does it Kage?

[Kagemusha]

I guess this point of yours does not include an example on Turkey's population mix, does it Kage?

Well far as i know Turkey isnt 50-50%.I think those cases are mainly in Africa and there are lots of them.~;)

[Rodion Romanovich]

Chinese history is split into periods when the country was unified and periods when it was split. Until the 20th century and Mao Zedong, no matter how despotic the ruler a unified China usually meant greater peace for the ordinary people. The Three Kingdoms period has been romanticised by novelists, but it was also an unbelievably bloody period of great suffering. A census held at the end of the Han dynasty, just before its dissolution, numbered the Chinese population at 50 million+. A census held just after reunification numbered the population at 18 million. That's a drop of 60%, a trend also seen in other periods of civil war.

That's a good example of why the opposite of why Seamus said isn't generally true either. I don't think the size of states is proportional to the amount of peace, in fact there have been unruly large empires and chaotic collections of city states, as well as peaceful empires and peaceful city states. The size of the state isn't strongly correlated to the peacefulness of an area.



Amalgamated states tend to hold their populations in check and prevent constant conflict - that's why they exist.

I think the reason why big states exist is rather because in periods of war, a big state (if loyalty is high in most parts of it) tends to be more successful than a smaller state, with the result that smaller states are overrun. The big state can usually provide more men as soldiers, and more money and materials for making weapons. The only case size of the state doesn't necessarily give extra military strength is when it's an empire where as small group of "owners" exploit peripheral provinces against the will of the provincial population - when the loyalty and unity is coming more of free will the unity is more successful at achieving this.

For example when France stopped being a feudally ruled area, they were in the 16th century easily able to conquer the Italian city states which had previously been almost impossible for anyone to deal with (as a side note it turned out though that they were still difficult to hold against revolts though). Often revolts among conquered small states or tribes manage to regain independence, but there are always a few of them who either don't manage to regain independence, or united peacefully in the first place, or lost the incentive to fight for independence due to merciful treatment from the conqueror or because they had so similar political thoughts. It was this knowledge that lied behind the uniting of Italy and Germany in the 19th century too, otherwise we would perhaps still today have had Italian city states and German duchies. So it's not internal disorder that is a problem for a small state, but the lack of strength to cope with an opponent with a larger state. As Kagemusha pointed out - Yugoslavia was probably unsuccessful because it was a number of small but in their own view too distinctly different entities bunched together against the will of most of them.



When they do get involved in conflict, the scale tends to be bigger, but they also have mechanisms for bringing conflict to an end - see Iraq for an example of what happens when the state disappears. Hence the adage that the primary purpose of a state is to monopolise the use of legimate violence.

Smaller states also have police and law. And larger states can often also fight wars for a long time without being able to stop quickly, as Napoleonic wars, ww1 and ww2 have shown. I don't think a larger state means better police forces and laws. The state works best when there's a balance between the government fearing to lose power next election if they don't act in the interests of the people, and the people knowing it's illegal to overthrow the government with anything except voting for someone else next election, unless the government commits crimes by breaking the constitutional law by removing democratic rights and similar actions.

[yesdachi]

FREE CURDISTAN FROM THE WHEY!! :laugh4:
Mmmmmm Curds (http://www.awrestaurants.com/res/images/news_curdcrazy.jpg).

As to the topic, I think a separate state is an interesting idea, but, what do millions of displaced people do for a living in this new country? Receive aid from the US to live? No thanks, fix the problems, don’t shuffle them off to a made-up place and expect them to never trouble you again.

[Tribesman]

I think a separate state is an interesting idea, but, what do millions of displaced people do for a living in this new country?
Well in this case its OK as there is the oil revenue to support the populace .
But then again there is a slight problem there , the areas with the oil do not have a Kurdish majority , but steps are being taken to cleanse that sticking point .
Another problem is where to ship the oil to get the revenue , that would involve shipping it through territory held by people that are ever so slightly voilently opposed towards the new States existance .

[GoreBag]

Interestingly enough, there is no room for curds in Turkey.

[Brenus]

“Yugoslavia was created by force by uniting many different nations under one government by Tito” No, Yugoslavia was created after the 1st World War after the dismantling of the Austro-Hungarians Empire. It was the Kingdom of the Croats Serbs and Slovene and was a creation of mostly intellectuals who thought that populations speaking the same language could share the same State. It was created around the only independent State before WW1 Serbia (which took it from the Ottoman Empire) and the King, Peter Karadjordevic 1st of Serbia. It became the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (Jugo Slavija, meaning the Slavs of the South) under Alexander, his son and heir. Tito just took power after WW2 and created a Federation of Yugoslavia which is not ending to die.

“Look what happened when the central government couldnt force the Nations to be in the Federal state anymore. Also the Majority of problems in Africa like Ruanda or currently Sudan comes from the fact that during Imperialism the European Monarchies draw imaginatory state lines that cutted the ethnical populations to many different states and that made the states very unstable,becouse the continuos conflict between different ethnic groups”:
Sorry but wrong again. The states composing the U.S.A also have strait borders and that isn’t a problem. Same observation can be made with the international border between U.S.A and Canada.
Which Ethnical populations: They are nomads, and to draw a straight line in a desert isn’t by itself a bad idea.
The problem came because the populations moved and well, ignore the borders…

This could have renegotiated before the Independence or after, but all the new states accepted the Colonial inherited borders. Only Morocco and Algeria negotiate their borders, and never succeeded to really resolve the problem of the Polisario, for example, and that without intervention of the bad Imperialists.

[GoreBag]

“Look what happened when the central government couldnt force the Nations to be in the Federal state anymore. Also the Majority of problems in Africa like Ruanda or currently Sudan comes from the fact that during Imperialism the European Monarchies draw imaginatory state lines that cutted the ethnical populations to many different states and that made the states very unstable,becouse the continuos conflict between different ethnic groups”:
Sorry but wrong again. The states composing the U.S.A also have strait borders and that isn’t a problem. Same observation can be made with the international border between U.S.A and Canada.
Which Ethnical populations: They are nomads, and to draw a straight line in a desert isn’t by itself a bad idea.
The problem came because the populations moved and well, ignore the borders…


Actually, native Americans of certain tribes (or all, I'm not sure) are allowed to move in their ancestral territory, ignoring the borders entirely.

[Kagemusha]

“Yugoslavia was created by force by uniting many different nations under one government by Tito” No, Yugoslavia was created after the 1st World War after the dismantling of the Austro-Hungarians Empire. It was the Kingdom of the Croats Serbs and Slovene and was a creation of mostly intellectuals who thought that populations speaking the same language could share the same State. It was created around the only independent State before WW1 Serbia (which took it from the Ottoman Empire) and the King, Peter Karadjordevic 1st of Serbia. It became the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (Jugo Slavija, meaning the Slavs of the South) under Alexander, his son and heir. Tito just took power after WW2 and created a Federation of Yugoslavia which is not ending to die.

Im sorry for not being specific enough,but i was talking about Federation of Yugoslavia.


“Look what happened when the central government couldnt force the Nations to be in the Federal state anymore. Also the Majority of problems in Africa like Ruanda or currently Sudan comes from the fact that during Imperialism the European Monarchies draw imaginatory state lines that cutted the ethnical populations to many different states and that made the states very unstable,becouse the continuos conflict between different ethnic groups”:
Sorry but wrong again. The states composing the U.S.A also have strait borders and that isn’t a problem. Same observation can be made with the international border between U.S.A and Canada.
Which Ethnical populations: They are nomads, and to draw a straight line in a desert isn’t by itself a bad idea.
The problem came because the populations moved and well, ignore the borders…

Well can you give me some proof also that ethnics doesnt have anything to do.With Civil wars in Africa in 20th century? Also you mentioned Canada and US ,but am i completely wrong but these two have had one conflict called War of 1812?


This could have renegotiated before the Independence or after, but all the new states accepted the Colonial inherited borders. Only Morocco and Algeria negotiate their borders, and never succeeded to really resolve the problem of the Polisario, for example, and that without intervention of the bad Imperialists.

Well could there be something to do with the fact that many countries in Africa are de facto dictatorships?I would really like to hear your point of wiew what is causing these numerous conflicts in many ex-Colonies.Becouse you say that im wrong, maybe you would like to give me your wiews on the matter?

[Duke Malcolm]

Well can you give me some proof also that ethnics doesnt have anything to do.With Civil wars in Africa in 20th century? Also you mentioned Canada and US ,but am i completely wrong but these two have had one conflict called War of 1812?
To take the thread off-topic, the War of 1812 was between Britain and the USA, Canada as whole entity did not exist then, it was British North America. The US invaded the British territories there not because of "ethnic divisions from ruler-drawn borders".

The Civil Wars in Africa are different groups trying to take control. Admittedly, some will are ethnic divisions. Not all of them are, though. they are different factions vying for power.


Well could there be something to do with the fact that many countries in Africa are de facto dictatorships?I would really like to hear your point of wiew what is causing these numerous conflicts in many ex-Colonies.Becouse you say that im wrong, maybe you would like to give me your wiews on the matter?
The ex-colonies wanted independence and they wanted it damned quick, and there was pressure on the various governments to give independence quickly. This desire for haste prevented a proper system taking over from the colonial one, leaving power-voids and disputes.

I know you did not ask for my view, but I have heard this before and have become tired of the "blame the imperialists for everthing" line...

[Kagemusha]

To take the thread off-topic, the War of 1812 was between Britain and the USA, Canada as whole entity did not exist then, it was British North America. The US invaded the British territories there not because of "ethnic divisions from ruler-drawn borders".

The Civil Wars in Africa are different groups trying to take control. Admittedly, some will are ethnic divisions. Not all of them are, though. they are different factions vying for power.


The ex-colonies wanted independence and they wanted it damned quick, and there was pressure on the various governments to give independence quickly. This desire for haste prevented a proper system taking over from the colonial one, leaving power-voids and disputes.

I know you did not ask for my view, but I have heard this before and have become tired of the "blame the imperialists for everthing" line...

Your wiews are more then wellcomed.~:) But we are now going into extreme generalizations and it doesnt help at all. I never sayed all conflicts are based on on ethnics,but that many are and that is a fact that can be very hard to proof to be wrong. Also i it would be huge generalization to blame all on Imperialist powers. But to deny they werent a major contributor to todays problems in third world,would be also very hard to prove wrong.

[Duke Malcolm]

It would also be very hard to prove right.

And on the point of generalisations...
"Well can you give me some proof also that ethnics doesnt have anything to do.With Civil wars in Africa in 20th century?" is a generalisation.

[Kagemusha]

It would also be very hard to prove right.

And on the point of generalisations...
"Well can you give me some proof also that ethnics doesnt have anything to do.With Civil wars in Africa in 20th century?" is a generalisation.

How so? It was a question,not a statement.If i would have stated that ethnics are the only reason for Civil Wars in 20th century Africa,that would have been a major generalization.~;)

[Duke Malcolm]

How so? It was a question,not a statement.If i would have stated that ethnics are the only reason for Civil Wars in 20th century Africa,that would have been a major generalization.~;)

It is a generalisation because it implies you believe ethnics are a reason for the civil wars. That you require us to prove ethnics did not cause the civil wars (one might also argue that the may your question is structured would suggest you think it played a part in all Civil Wars, but as English is not your first language I would over-look that) suggests you are already convinced that ethnics did.
Innocent until proven guilty, comrade. It is similar to where you said: "But to deny they [Imperialist powers] werent a major contributor to todays problems in third world,would be also very hard to prove wrong" to which I heartily replied: "It would also be difficult to prove right."
I have already said that ethnics was a cause in some civil wars, sometimes a minor cause which hardly affected the war, but could be argued as a cause nonetheless.

[Brenus]

“two have had one conflict called War of 1812?”Yes, but not on ethnicity grounds, it was on political and borders issues. Both were mainly Anglo-Saxon culture.

“many countries in Africa are de facto dictatorships” Indeed they are, however, even if I don’t deny implication and intervention of Former Colonial Powers, the blame is on the local powers when they choose dictatorship. You can’t blame France for Algerian Dictatorship. Mobotu in Congo became head of State of Congo not only because he had help from different agents but also because he wasn’t a democrat…

It is a convergence of interest between people wanting power and big players (states, companies) which wish to keep or increase their influence/power.

Civil wars don’t occurred only based on ethnicity. Nationalism (Yugoslavia), religion (Ireland), oppression (Chile), politic (Russia) are just examples. Of course all these elements can combine: Yugoslavia, where Nationality is based on Religion. Serbs, Croats and Bosnian are from the same Ethnicity. They speak the same language, came from the same tribes etc. Ethnic cleansing was a good piece of journalism but a lie.

To reduce all the conflict during the post decolonisation to the Former Colonial Power is reducing your field of investigation.
You can’t blame the English for the Indian-Pakistanis wars; you can’t blame Turkey for the Yugoslav Wars, the Greek Civil War… I add these one because a lot of people seem to forget that the biggest Empire (and the longest) was the Ottoman Empire…

[Kagemusha]

Brenus i never sayed that the only reason was ethnics,or did i? Well if the Balkan states are basicly one people like you stated,why then these "fractures" of Nation want to have their own countries? But i am already seeing that this whole thread is becoming lost battle becouse im attacked from right and left.One last question,what is wrong in National States?

[Brenus]

“Brenus i never sayed that the only reason was ethnics,or did i?” No, you din’t but in not mentioning the other factors, it looked like…

“Well if the Balkan states are basicly one people like you stated,why then these "fractures" of Nation want to have their own countries” A little bit too long to explain in few words. It is a combination of rise of Nationalism, fall of communism, social and economical crisis and unemployment. You know, when people start to think that their neighbours got THEIR jobs.
The fall of communism opened the doors to a imaginary history, where myths became reality.

One last question,what is wrong in National States? You first have to define what is a National State? Right of the birth, place of birth, colour of the skin, culture, share of values, what will be your parameters?

And finally, you don’t loose a debate, you learn from. You learn to have back up about what you said, you check, and then you go for it.:2thumbsup:

[Keba]

Sorry to resurrect this thread, but, Times newspaper put forward a 'prediction' (gimme a break, I'm translating here) that by 2020 an entire crop of new countries will appear in Europe, one of the countries listed as likely to be created is Kurdistan.

BTW, would Turkey mind if they lost Cappadocia, as the map seems to indicate?

Among the coutnries listed are also Scotland, Wales, Basque, Wallonia, Corsica, Cechnia and a bunch of others.

The link, unfortunately in Croatian, as I couldn't find an English one:
Article with map (http://www.jutarnji.hr/dogadjaji_dana/clanak/art-2006,6,2,herceg_bosna,29366.jl)

Could someon better informed please tell me this is a joke.

[GoreBag]

Nah, it makes perfect sense. Without strong, central leadership, such as is lacking in Europe at this time, people will turn to smaller, more fractured states in order to resolve their problems on a smaller and more efficient scale.

[Brenus]

“more fractured states in order to resolve their problems on a smaller and more efficient scale”
Do you thing Montenegro will be able to buy a scanner? Nope, too expensive…

“Could someon better informed please tell me this is a joke”: Unfortunately it is not.
Thank to Madeleine Albright and Javier Solana (EU, US, NATO politic), we go back to Middle Ages mini-States.
Instead to build a new Citizenship Concept, we go back in the Tribes Concept.

According this article this new map is due to the research of a diplomat Richard Beeston and a journalist Jeremy Page in the Times.

Here is the link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2207534,00.html

[Komutan]

If a population holds the majority and wishes to split off with their own government, then that should be their right. I don't care how many ethnic minorities live in Kurdistan, if the majority wishes to split off they should be able to. This comes with the principle of democracy alone.



I disagree. Splitting part of a country interests everybody who lives in that country. You can't simply do whatever the majority in some region wishes. Do you think any western country would give part of their country to a single ethnicity if they want to form a new state? Say, if the Blacks in USA wanted to form a new state or the Turks in Europe?

Democracy does not mean that the majority can get away with whatever it wants to; it means the state guarantees everyones freedom of speech. If any Kurds in Turkey wants a new Kurdish states which includes parts of Turkey, they should be allowed to say it freely. But the decision can't be left to them alone.

Oh and I really doubt the majority of Kurds in Turkey want to split off from Turkey. The Kurdish region is really poor compared to the rest of Turkey. In fact, the real cause for the troubles is the economical state of the region and not the lack of democracy.

[GoreBag]

“more fractured states in order to resolve their problems on a smaller and more efficient scale”
Do you thing Montenegro will be able to buy a scanner? Nope, too expensive…

Efficiency = Wealth?

[Brenus]

“Efficiency = Wealth?” In this case, yes. Hospitals are NOT cheap.

[Empire*Of*Media]

Ancient KURDs (Backs to more than 10.000 BC) were Truly Brave and Wealthy Cultured & Had the firsts of great Civilizations & Empires Like Hurrians-Sumerians-Elamyans-Medyans....!! But Unknown With no Own Government now, Because Of Caught In Racism & Dictatorship Of Its Turkey & Syria & Iraq & Iran & Imperialism!! Kurds for 400 years even now are giving Martyrs, only to be simply free & Independent & Speak his own languages & Have Customs & Costume in her own Cultures !! but The Benefits of West Letting Racism & Crueltey of its Neighbors dont want us to be free & Independent because They know our FreeDom Will Cost Much For Them !!
The World is always silent about massacres & Genocides and forcibly migrations of KURDs !!
We Were/Are Genocided!(More Than 7 Million Since 1920!!) We Were/Are Jailed! we Were/Are Baned to Speak with our 12000 years old own Languages and have our own Costumes & Customs! We Were/Are Forcibly Migrated Far From our Motherland !!We Were/Are Baned To Live As A KURD !!
Kurds are not that shows in Media and News!! They Call us Terrorist! while we fight for Freedom & Independence!! We Never had suicide bomber!! never terrored any civilian!!and all those specifications of Terrorism!!
The most Confusing & Strange thing is, i dont know why west or Imperialists aided Armenia & Bosnia&...., but they Directly Splited & Divided Kurdistan To Four Criminal Regimes that because of their race, they hate us!!(Turks&Arabs), only for Their Good & Benefits ??????!!!!
we never hated & hate USA & Britain & Europe !! why they hate us !!??
Despite Those Tyrannies & Injustice & oppressions that did to us, The Most Good thing is= KURDS NEVER RAPED & SLAUGHTERED & INVADED ANYONE IN HISTORY !! They Were & Are Peaceful !! Or We would be Like Other Muslim Countries that you see their terrorism.(Kurds were forcibly converted to Islam).

Hope Freedom & Independence For Kurdistan from Tyranny & Racists & Oppression & Suppression & Imperialists !!
!! Hope Freedom FoR KURDISTAN !!

[ICantSpellDawg]

What your opinion is,would be a good idea to form a new state of Kurdistan to middle east?Kurds are the minority in several states of the area including Turkey,Iran,Iraq and Syria.And there are separatist Kurdish movements in all of these states.Would creating a National state for the Kurds create more stability or chaos in the area?Here is a map of the regions that are inhabitated by Kurds.

https://img505.imageshack.us/img505/7162/733pxkurdishlands92cropped5mn.jpg

I'm pro independent Kurdistan

[HoreTore]

Yeah, it was such a roaring success the last time we created a new ethnic state in that region..........

[Sir Moody]

wow that was quite the feat of Necromancy...

while I am pro the idea of people determining their own fate and if the Kurds want their own state they should get one, the entire thing would merely inflate the chaos in what is already one of the most chaotic areas i nthe world and would probably be setting the stage for a war some where down the line...

the whole idea really first requires all the states which would be giving up territory to politically change to a point where they can talk about it without bringing ak 47's... and that goes for the Kurds too... the other alternative is going to end in blood and lots of it

[Greyblades]

I'm for the freedom for the individual kurds, for them to be treated as equal human beings in all things. For a nation of thier own I could not care less, human liberty is a given right, national liberty for it's own sake is a luxury, rightly earned or otherwise.

[Papewaio]

Freedom of people outranks freedom of nation states.

Before I'd commit my nations youth to a pseudo colonial establishment of an ethnic based state I'd want to know what that state would be like.

Would it treat all minorities as equals under the law. Allow all religions to practice and preach equally? Or would it be used to right old wrongs and persecute those not belonging to the majority?

Would it be a fair state or an unfair one? Would we just be trading one despot for another one with a different flag? Would the new set in charge murder, butcher, gas or maim its opponents? Or would we see a vibrant society that treats all justly?

[Rhyfelwyr]

How homogenous is Kurdistan?

There must be some sort of Turkish/Iranian/Azeri/Armenian/Iraqi/whatever populations within its borders - would they just become the new minority wanting independence in an independent Kurdistan?

[Papewaio]

Well Wheyistan would certainly seperate out if we want to make butter...

[Beskar]

https://i.imgur.com/y6DU7ua.jpg

This is what happens when you perform necromancy, luckily we have the power to lock the thread, this time...