Printable View
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:
Yes LEN , it is in article 39 of the treaty .
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.Quote:
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?
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.
*an idiot enters the room*
Hurhur, replace the K in Kurdistan with a T...
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
FREE CURDISTAN FROM THE WHEY!! :laugh4:
(Again, no offense meant. It just looks funny.)
Is that the Right Whey or the Third Whey? ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorba
:embarassed: Thank you for pointing it out :wall:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorba
that was a pretty funny misspelling actually :laugh4:
I did mean a Kurdistan that includes the part in Turkey. Would you still be in favour?Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
This is a soft intro, Louis.
This is the hard way I feel about it :Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
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..'
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"
Too bad, because it would solve a lot of your problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
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.
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 .
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.
This statement oozes heavy-handed propaganda.Quote:
Originally Posted by LEN
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
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 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.Quote:
This statement oozes heavy-handed propaganda.
Oh, but it's European alright. We've gone through all that Blut und Boden crap too.Quote:
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.
Didn't like it very much. :no:
Edit: Oh, and my previous questions were hypothetical indeed.
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 ?
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
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?
@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.
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...
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
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.
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:
I guess this point of yours does not include an example on Turkey's population mix, does it Kage?Quote:
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.
Well far as i know Turkey isnt 50-50%.I think those cases are mainly in Africa and there are lots of them.~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
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.Quote:
Amalgamated states tend to hold their populations in check and prevent constant conflict - that's why they exist.
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.
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.Quote:
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.
Mmmmmm Curds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorba
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.
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 .
Interestingly enough, there is no room for curds in Turkey.