Kurdistan?

“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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

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.

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke Malcolm

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

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.

“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…

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 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:

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

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

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.

“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...207534,00.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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…

---

Efficiency = Wealth?

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

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 !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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/...cropped5mn.jpg

---

I'm pro independent Kurdistan

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

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

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.

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?

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?

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

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...