NationStates Jolt Archive

Kurds have been owed an independent nation for a long time. In 1920, the Treaty of Sèvres stated that an autonomous Kurdistan should be created. However, it never was, and the Kurdish problem has not yet been resolved. There is still a high separatist feeling in SE Turkey which culminated in the recent bombings. Should Kurds be given a separate nation? If so, which nations should give up part of their land to form a new Kurdistan (poll coming)?

Give them a big boat and some dirt and let them make an island somewhere.

I think all people should have the right to self-determination, if it's what the majority truly wants. But Turkey would never give up territory for it, and Kurds in Iraq becoming independent would be a PR disaster.

The Iraqi Kurds are already almost a nation-within a nation, and they've decreased violence almost to nothing. They deserve the area they've conquered, and it would make things easier for the US to not have to deal with it.

Kurdistan (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2d/Kurdish_lands_92_cropped.jpg)

It isn't possible to form the Kurdish nation in present politics especially since it would tear the middle east apart however the Kurdish people do have a point IMHO since these are large groups of people who want self rule (so long as the majority in the lands they take over want it my Britishness must add) but they won’t get anywhere with terrorism

What terrorism?

The Iraqi Kurdistan is practically independent already – they have their own government, army, even their own flag. They want their own homeland, and I say let them have it.

The problem is that an independent Kurdistan would exacerbate the ethnic violence in Turkey and Iran. These countries are violently oppressing their Kurdish populations, but western nations have looked the other way. The possibility of seceding to become part of Kurdistan would inspire Turkish and Iranian separatist groups to fight even harder for independence.

One of the many difficulties is that Turkey is part of NATO and therefore if Kurdistan were to become independent (with the inevitable war between Kurdistan and Turkey) the US and most of Europe would be obliged to attack Kurdistan. Obviously nobody wants that.

I am on the side of peoples who desire political self-determination and wish independence from a government who violently suppresses their culture and bans the speaking of their language, but that’s just me.

Israel, anyone?

Well, Israel without the Nazi money.

So a poor desperate nation... mixed wiht religious intolerance... where have I heard that before?*cough, lets say Nazi Germany*

Meh, call it Israel 2: Bigger, Longer, Uncut

So a poor desperate nation... mixed wiht religious intolerance... where have I heard that before?*cough, lets say Nazi Germany*

and you can also say every poor area on the planet its just that many aren’t nations

And who are you referring to exactly? Not all Kurds are poor and Turkey is a modern nation of tolerance (hell its pretty much European with an Arab twist)

and you can also say every poor area on the planet its just that many aren’t nations

And who are you referring to exactly? Not all Kurds are poor and Turkey is a modern nation of tolerance (hell its pretty much European with an Arab twist)

Don't worry. I have no idea what I have been talking about either. I really need sleep sorry.

What terrorism?

There are Kurdish Terrorist groups that regularly make attacks on Turkey and Iran. Recently a Tourist city in Turkey was attacked by bombings, Kurdish Seperatists claimed Responsiblity.

There is no need for a Kurdish state. Their xenophobia should not be rewarded. The world already made that mistake with the Zionists

There is no need for a Kurdish state. Their xenophobia should not be rewarded. The world already made that mistake with the Zionists

The difference is the Kurds have always been there and it has always been Kurdish land. The Jews however, stole rightfully Arab land to make their "state" big difference between the kurds who threaten no one and the zionists who threaten everyone.

There is no need for a Kurdish state. Their xenophobia should not be rewarded. The world already made that mistake with the Zionists


So a people should not be allowed self-determination, because they attack a force that won't let them go?

The difference is the Kurds have always been there and it has always been Kurdish land. The Jews however, stole rightfully Arab land to make their "state" big difference between the kurds who threaten no one and the zionists who threaten everyone.
I am opposed to any group that defines themselves by their heritage.
So a people should not be allowed self-determination, because they attack a force that won't let them go?
Self-determination is a divisive concept by definition. I hold it in contempt.

I think they should, simply because Kurdistan would be very receptive to the US and happens to contain huge amounts of proven and unproven reserves of oil. It is beneficial to our economy and our interests to have a stable, open oil producer that we can use as leverage against other oil-rich states and further project our power in the region.

Also, Kurdistan is much more receptive to democratic and civil freedoms and would be helpful in any attempt to remake the Middle East and weaken the grip of radical Islam in the area. The state could become a secure site for pipeline and refining projects in the Middle East and could even develop in to a secure alternative to the Persian Gulf.

I am opposed to any group that defines themselves by their heritage.

Self-determination is a divisive concept by definition. I hold it in contempt.



Self determination help gave you that nice little country you live in right now ;)

I think they should, simply because Kurdistan would be very receptive to the US and happens to contain huge amounts of proven and unproven reserves of oil. It is beneficial to our economy and our interests to have a stable, open oil producer that we can use as leverage against other oil-rich states and further project our power in the region.

Also, Kurdistan is much more receptive to democratic and civil freedoms and would be helpful in any attempt to remake the Middle East and weaken the grip of radical Islam in the area. The state could become a secure site for pipeline and refining projects in the Middle East and could even develop in to a secure alternative to the Persian Gulf.

I think you should have made the second paragraph, first priority.

I think you should have made the second paragraph, first priority.

I write them as they come to mind, so things might end up being totally out of order. Actually, the order of them usually has nothing to do with their importance...

Self determination help gave you that nice little country you live in right now ;)

And?

The Kurds need a 'homeland' like the Texans need a 'homeland'. One more ethnic divide will drive the Middle East towards mayhem and warfare.

I am opposed to any group that defines themselves by their heritage.

Self-determination is a divisive concept by definition. I hold it in contempt.

The reality is that groups like the Kurds and the Palestinians aren't going to be respected by the majority groups in their respective occupied lands. It's unfortunate, and I would be the first to say that heritage and race shouldn't matter, but it's the reality.

The Kurds need a 'homeland' like the Texans need a 'homeland'. One more ethnic divide will drive the Middle East towards mayhem and warfare.

That's what I'm talking about. People need to get past their arbitrary racial and ethnic divisions, not embrace them.

That's what I'm talking about. People need to get past their arbitrary racial and ethnic divisions, not embrace them.

I hope for that. Just look at Lebanon: one country on the map, but in reality seventeen or eighteen countries based on religious divides. The recent war with Israel has probably just widened the divide.

What terrorism?

Stuff like this (http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/pkk.cfm).

I think they should, simply because Kurdistan would be very receptive to the US and happens to contain huge amounts of proven and unproven reserves of oil. It is beneficial to our economy and our interests to have a stable, open oil producer that we can use as leverage against other oil-rich states and further project our power in the region.

Also, Kurdistan is much more receptive to democratic and civil freedoms and would be helpful in any attempt to remake the Middle East and weaken the grip of radical Islam in the area. The state could become a secure site for pipeline and refining projects in the Middle East and could even develop in to a secure alternative to the Persian Gulf.

Because look what its done for you taking advantage of countries in the Middle East so far.... :rolleyes:

That's what I'm talking about. People need to get past their arbitrary racial and ethnic divisions, not embrace them.The fact is that different cultures have a different way of doing things, a different way of thinking, a different way of living. Lets compare my country, Britain, with the country closest to me, France. France and Britain are completely different in terms of political philosophy, because we are completely different culturally. This is not something we can 'get past'. This is a fact of life. The only way to 'get past' it would be to irradicate one, or both cultures. Frankly I like the fact that we're different. I like visiting France and eating different foods, and watching people go about life in a different way. While I appreciate this, we're still different. France is more wary of capitalism than Britain, it is one of the few countries in the world which has elected communists in its parliament, and even its Conservatives aren't too keen on market forces. Britain is the opposite. Free trade is embraced by all sides of the political spectrum pretty much these days, in reference to outsourcing there are no protectionist voices I have heard of.

There has been a trend since world war 2. That is more and more smaller countries, emerging from bigger ones. This is something I support. I believe the best government is the most local one. Humanity is diverse, it is impossible to represent all of it in a consensus view. Take my example of Britain and France, half the time we bicker over small issues in the EU- France supports the CAP, we are against it, we support letting everyone and their mum in the EU France wants to keep it more constrained, and so on and so on. Now lets say both of us have the same government. Would that government get anywhere? It would be paralysed because of the fact that half of its population views politics in different terms to the other half.

While that trend has continued, there has been another trend. More and more powerful international institutions. Again, I feel this is a good thing, while I disagree with the way several institutions are run, seeing them as biased towards a select few powerful countries it is good that where a consensus DOES exist it should be institutionalised.

The Kurds are a different culture, always have been, always will be. Different cultures deserve to have their own states, so they can live in places where their views truly are represented. Sometimes, as in Lebanon, too many differences exist for this to be easy, but when a different culture exists forcing it to live by the values, norms and thinking of an entirely different one will only cause trouble for both.

Look at Turkey. There the Turkish government and army have always taken the view that Turkey is a singular country with a singular culture. This has led to a thorough repression of the significant Kurdish minority (55% of all Kurds live in Turkey) and to the PKK, a lovely Maoist rebel group. In all fairness Kurdistan should be created out of Turkey, but in reality it is likely the North of Iraq will splinter off sooner or later and become its own state. Good for it. As long as it remains democratic, as it is right now, I hope the Kurdish get their homeland, because then it is a truly a state FOR Kurds, rather than a state OF Kurds, which is the problem with dictatorships.

Give them a big boat and some dirt and let them make an island somewhere.

Nice try, but we're not going to enlarge Ireland, even to resettle the Kurds. :p

The difference is the Kurds have always been there and it has always been Kurdish land. The Jews however, stole rightfully Arab land to make their "state" big difference between the kurds who threaten no one and the zionists who threaten everyone.

Actually, the UN "stole" it.

And, btw, who is everyone? You mean the great War of Israeli Agression in 1977 when they tried to invade Canada and Holland? :rolleyes:

Antarctica is free. :)

Antarctica is free. :)

Can't we leave one place on Earth not f*cked up?

Can't we leave one place on Earth not f*cked up?

History says 'no'. :(

Can't we leave one place on Earth not f*cked up?

No. Duh! :rolleyes:

A lot of the people living in Mosul are Sunnis, Shiites, and Christians. Many were implanted by Saddam precisely to prevent Kurdish independance, and the Kurds themselves are scattered about in an area the size of France, often mixed with other groups of people. Giving them independence would get a lot of people killed- in Turkey, in Iran, and in Northern Iraq. Only an actual genocide in Iraq would warrent a partitioning of the country along ethno-regional lines ala former Yugoslavia. The kind of segregation that would be necessary is already starting to occur, but we're paying billions of tax dollars to supposedly prevent that process from occurring by enforcing democracy via a kind of surreal hybrid martial order. I know because I spent last year over there in Mosul doing it. I think the British should burn in hell for partitioning Asian and African nations the way they did, but the damage has been done. That said, it would be better if Kurdistan already existed in the areas where Kurds predominate.

The Iraqi Kurdistan is practically independent already – they have their own government, army, even their own flag. They want their own homeland, and I say let them have it.

The problem is that an independent Kurdistan would exacerbate the ethnic violence in Turkey and Iran. These countries are violently oppressing their Kurdish populations, but western nations have looked the other way. The possibility of seceding to become part of Kurdistan would inspire Turkish and Iranian separatist groups to fight even harder for independence.

One of the many difficulties is that Turkey is part of NATO and therefore if Kurdistan were to become independent (with the inevitable war between Kurdistan and Turkey) the US and most of Europe would be obliged to attack Kurdistan. Obviously nobody wants that.

I am on the side of peoples who desire political self-determination and wish independence from a government who violently suppresses their culture and bans the speaking of their language, but that’s just me.

And me. Maith an Fear.