posted
This has been bothering me. But this particular incident does not mean much. But let's hope it is the last of any such incidents.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there anyone other than the annonymous officials that can confirm this actually happened?
And would it be a good thing if more countries, especially in that region, are investing in the struggle with terrorist groups in the area, thereby allowing America to scale back it's investments? Or would it merely prolong the fighting and delay any chance of a resolution?
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by vonk: Is there anyone other than the annonymous officials that can confirm this actually happened?
And would it be a good thing if more countries, especially in that region, are investing in the struggle with terrorist groups in the area, thereby allowing America to scale back it's investments? Or would it merely prolong the fighting and delay any chance of a resolution?
Well the problem here is that this is likely another instance of Turkey trying to oppress the Kurds within its borders and punish Kurds from Iraq who go down to Turkey and commit acts of terrorism.
If America backs Turkey's actions then Kurdish support for the US in Iraq and an Iraqi government will plummet.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sounds convoluted. Turkey oppresses the Kurds in Turkey, which is bad, so America can't support Turkey, or it will lose Kurdish support in Iraq. But Kurdish terrorist are attacking Turkish territory and the military is retaliating, which doesn't seem like a bad thing. Unless the Kurdish terrorists have a really good reason to attack Turkey, like say if Turkey were oppressing Kurdish people. But that still doesn't excuse the murder of innocent Turkish people, which I assume is what "acts of terrosism" mean?
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by vonk: Sounds convoluted. Turkey oppresses the Kurds in Turkey, which is bad, so America can't support Turkey, or it will lose Kurdish support in Iraq. But Kurdish terrorist are attacking Turkish territory and the military is retaliating, which doesn't seem like a bad thing. Unless the Kurdish terrorists have a really good reason to attack Turkey, like say if Turkey were oppressing Kurdish people. But that still doesn't excuse the murder of innocent Turkish people, which I assume is what "acts of terrosism" mean?
Pretty much. And Turkey will not allow the Kurds to form their own country (Kurdistan) with a small chunk of Turkey and sizeable chunk of Iraq.
Its impossible for everybody to get what they want.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given what has happened to the Kurds, especially in Iraq and Turkey, I think they have every right to be pissed, and to be violent. They're killed via genocide in Iraq, they're oppressed in Turkey, and no one will just let them live their lives the way they want. Last I heard, it was illegal to even speak Kurdish in Turkey, and a Kurdish MP was arrested in their parliament building for speaking it during her first speech.
While I never really condone killing innocent civilians, the Kurds have a legitimate gripe, and NO ONE is helping them get what they want. We're forcing them to stay in a country with Iraq, we're supporting Turkey, who is forcing them to stay where they are as well. When no one has your back, and you've been spit on for decades, what do you do, sit down and shut up?
This development is no surprise at all. But it's troubling. How long before the troops that are building up on the boarder start making major incursions? And then how long before the Peshmerga launches all out attacks on them? And then how long before Al Qaeda and other terrorists find their way into North Iraq, where previously the Kurds kept them at bay? Turkey, if they keep acting unchecked, is going to destablize the only stable region of the country. The US has to do something to stop them, this is NOT a help to us. Regardless of the fact that we've largely turned a blind eye to the PKK, their issues aren't the same thing as the issues of other terrorists in Iraq. They don't hate Americans, they aren't on a religious war, they just want their country back, and they aren't willing to take no for an answer. The Kurds are potential allies, and would be a moderate Islamic ally if they were their own nation, but we're part of the problem keeping them down.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Turkey is also colluding with Sunni and Shia Iraqis to deprive Iraqi Kurds of oil revenues, which is the strongest factor in why the Iraqi Parliament can't agree on how to divvy up the proceeds.
Yet another case of "patriots" playing at nationalism when the real issue is which jerks get to loot the natural resources.
posted
You don't think it's a bit more complex than that in the case of the Kurds?
They've lived there for centuries, they want their own nation, they are the grand majority of the people there, and they are being denied the right to self determination.
This isn't like a random group of people wandered into Turkey a couple years ago and demanded they be allowed to have their own country. Kurds have been there for a long time, since before there was even a Turkey. The people who live in these areas are Kurds, and they're a conquered people. They're fighting for their independence.
Do you think the American demand for freedom and self determination was more just than the Kurd's? Britain wasn't required to give up their land, but the arguments of the Founding Fathers was that they deserved to govern themselves, and they fought for and won that right. The Kurds want the same thing, for better or for worse, and many are willing to fight for it. "Any country" for "any group" is grossly oversimplistic. We aren't talking about abstractions, we're talking about REAL PEOPLE with a history and serious, geniune complaints.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Who is making the claim that they should?
The Kurds are. Many of the ones in Iraq are trying to form this new Iraqi government, as they see it as their best bet for self government.
The ones in Turkey however have been pushing for an independant Kurdistan for years. Obviously many Kurds in Iraq would prefer that to even an Iraqi government where they have some power.
It's a very tough issue.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think probably EVERY Kurd would rather be an independent country than be forced into an Iraqi government. They've already had de facto self rule for the last decade or so, ever since the US No-Fly zone kicked Saddam out of the area. The ones in North Iraq harbor the PKK and created the Peshmerga to patrol their lands.
And again, they aren't making that claim as an abstraction, use specifics.
You guys seem like you think oppressed peoples demanding independence is somehow new, and worse, that demanding freedom, and self rule in the face of oppression is WRONG. If you guys could clarify your position, I'd appreciate it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Uh, by "you guys" are you talking about me too? I said "Kurds" a couple posts up because I thought that the obvious correct answer to the question directly above it, not because I thought that they shouldn't be after what they're after.
I was thinking about this earlier, but don't really know how to frame it in words. Back in the 'olden days' (date to be determined by someone that knows more than me) countries and kingdoms were decided by who had the most force and cunning, and was willing to use it. Nobody had to ask for permission, or had bad world PR because they tried to stake a claim on land that others occupied.
But now, the Kurds have an honest bone to pick, they want their own country, by the same standards as the rest of the world, they deserve their own country, and they are willing to fight for it. Under 'foreign' rule they are being oppressed and are suffering. So, idealy I'm of the opinion that if they can get it, they should go for it. To the victor go the spoils.
But that is completely contrary to any and all compassionate, humanitarian views I have. Fighting is bad, they should negotiate with the powers that be, and if everyone is levelheaded and intelligent we can end up with a happier tomorrow.
Neither way seems like it's gonna work. Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyr, Of course they'd rather be independent, but using the classical interpretation of Kurdistans borders (and their own definition of what should belong to them), Kurdistan would cover most of Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Turkey. What makes this even more difficult to remedy is that there has not been a "Kurdistan" (an autonomous state/country) in 500 years. They've been under Turkish control for more than 200 and their official "province" was abolished by the Ottoman Empire more than 100 years ago.
All of this could have been remedied after WWI, but they got screwed again. So again, let me ask, with all this history, how do we decide which countries to carve Kurdistan out of? How do we enfore those borders? Should we set up another Israel scenario in the region?
....Edited for spelling...
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Saladin was a Kurd. He was one of the greatest Muslim warriors and ended up controlling most of the Middle East. Probably there is some racial memory there for the rest of the Arab world, IMO, that makes them fear an independent Kurdistan besides what it would do to Turkey.
We should have seen this coming. We need Turkey's support, it is the most secular of Muslim states, and we need the Kurds to keep Iraq together. They seem to be opposing goals. No matter what we do we are likely wrong.
Posts: 87 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget: Lyr, Of course they'd rather be independent, but using the classical interpretation of Kurdistans borders (and their own definition of what should belong to them), Kurdistan would cover most of Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Turkey. What makes this even more difficult to remedy is that there has not been a "Kurdistan" (an autonomous state/country) in 500 years. They've been under Turkish control for more than 200 and their official "province" was abolished by the Ottoman Empire more than 100 years ago.
All of this could have been remedied after WWI, but they got screwed again. So again, let me ask, with all this history, how do we decide which countries to carve Kurdistan out of? How do we enfore those borders? Should we set up another Israel scenario in the region?
....Edited for spelling...
You don't see a substantive difference between Israel and Kurdistan? If you don't, there's no point in even having this dicussion with you. Kurds are Muslims, not Jews. They are already living there, they aren't being bussed and flown in from around the world. And they aren't displacing an indigenous people. That makes the two situations rather incomparable.
You make the region out of where the majority of the Kurds reside. That does NOT include most of Iraq. It includes the rather autonomous region in the north, a tiny portion of Syria, a small piece of Iran, and a pretty decent chunk of Turkey.
And again, if you don't think they should have their own country, then the world has to live with the violence that comes as a result, and the whatever moral failure that comes from letting many of them live in oppression. You have to live with the fact that they'll keep fighting until they get what they want, and that the Turks will likely keep hunting them down for it. There will never be peace.
I just think it's odd that Americans are saying another country fighting to be free, to have the right to self determination, are basically saying "why should anyone have to let people be free?" Where the hell is our moral high ground? Our national roots?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget: Lyr, Of course they'd rather be independent, but using the classical interpretation of Kurdistans borders (and their own definition of what should belong to them), Kurdistan would cover most of Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Turkey. What makes this even more difficult to remedy is that there has not been a "Kurdistan" (an autonomous state/country) in 500 years. They've been under Turkish control for more than 200 and their official "province" was abolished by the Ottoman Empire more than 100 years ago.
All of this could have been remedied after WWI, but they got screwed again. So again, let me ask, with all this history, how do we decide which countries to carve Kurdistan out of? How do we enfore those borders? Should we set up another Israel scenario in the region?
....Edited for spelling...
You don't see a substantive difference between Israel and Kurdistan? If you don't, there's no point in even having this dicussion with you. Kurds are Muslims, not Jews. They are already living there, they aren't being bussed and flown in from around the world. And they aren't displacing an indigenous people. That makes the two situations rather incomparable.
You make the region out of where the majority of the Kurds reside. That does NOT include most of Iraq. It includes the rather autonomous region in the north, a tiny portion of Syria, a small piece of Iran, and a pretty decent chunk of Turkey.
And again, if you don't think they should have their own country, then the world has to live with the violence that comes as a result, and the whatever moral failure that comes from letting many of them live in oppression. You have to live with the fact that they'll keep fighting until they get what they want, and that the Turks will likely keep hunting them down for it. There will never be peace.
I just think it's odd that Americans are saying another country fighting to be free, to have the right to self determination, are basically saying "why should anyone have to let people be free?" Where the hell is our moral high ground? Our national roots?
The argument for a state of Israel is also that the jewish people have been there for years, that god gave them the land and it was taken from them, that they were opressed and shipped all over the world.
The moral high ground and our national roots tend to dissapear when either choice leaves you with enemies. Especially when people use your position as a leader in the world to find extra faults in you. Do you think the world would praise America for creating a Kurdistan? A secular, western country dividing muslim land? If that happened should we have a seperate country for each and every ethnic background that ever walked this earth? There are hundreds of nomadic tribes in the middle east still. Do they deserve a piece of land? What about Eastern Europe and all its ethnic strife?
Nations and states are not supposed to be based on race. It needs to be a group of people who will make descisions and do things that benefit themselves and their neighbors. Racial/tribal boundaries only promotes racism and the selfishness and oppression that we see in such areas of the world.
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It needs to be a group of people who will make descisions and do things that benefit themselves and their neighbors.
Disagree on the neighbor part, but I agree on the rest. But if you define the first part as your rationale for statehood, then a group of people, who identify themselves as a people apart, who want their own nation, speak their own language, have their own religion, see each other as a distinct people and nationality, then they should have the right to self determination.
If the nation that is oppressing them disagrees, well, they have the power, and they can do whatever they want. If they want to oppress people, they can. If they want to commit genocide, they can. If no one is going to stop them, then the status quo will live on, and the world will keep on turning.
I'm talking about what is RIGHT. What we SHOULD do. About what a just people, a people who began their nation the same way should behave and should promote freedom around the world, like we say in all our bullcrap speeches.
Edit to add: Israel is still fundamentally different. This wouldn't be carving out a nation, then flooding it with a few million people who seemed to come out of nowhere. This would be redrawing lines to give people who already live in those areas control of where they live. It's completely different.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: They are already living there, they aren't being bussed and flown in from around the world. And they aren't displacing an indigenous people.
Jews didn't displace an indigenous people; when the war was declared, Arab leaders told their own people to leave to aid the ensuing slaughter. One Jewish mayor begged Arabs to stay; a great deal fled at that time, however.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The SternGang, the Irgun, and various other heavily armed Zionist groups were engaging in bombings, mass executions, and other ethnic cleansing operations against Muslims. It's a bit much to expect unarmed civilians to trust the word of politicians who did nothing to stop those attacks.
Since the state of Israel has not prosecuted those terrorists for crimes against humanity, the best that can be said is that the Israeli government has given tacit approval after the fact. At least one future PrimeMinister was a member of such a terrorist organization. Menachem Begin was the head of Irgun.
quote:The SternGang, the Irgun, and various other heavily armed Zionist groups were engaging in bombings, mass executions, and other ethnic cleansing operations against Muslims.
Bombings, Ill give you, armed attacks Ill give you, revenge killings Ill give you, senseless acts of retaliation I'll give you.
But ethnic cleansings and mass executions is simply NOT true.
Not to mention that the Irgun stopped functioning in 1948. You might as well argue that the United States should not have been trusted to assist South Africa's apartheid disassembly when we had senators like Barry Goldwater and active KKK groups in the country.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gimmee a break. The ReaganAdministration and the "religious"right actively supported Apartheid. Reagan actively supported American apartheid: both through his public pronouncements and via nasty little jerks like WilliamFrenchSmith, EdwinMeese, and ClarenceThomas.
posted
Everyone knows the Turks want the Kurds' oil wells. The "ideal" solution [sarcasm alert!] drawn from American history would be to relocate the Kurds on reservations out in the useless, waterless, oilless desert. Then no one would covet their land. The governments of Iraq and surrounding nations could pay each Kurd a modest stipend, so they could afford to import water and food. Since their religion forbids alcohol, maybe they could be allowed something else addictive and mind-blowing, to keep them sedated and non-troublesome. We could have Afghan farmers supply them with opium.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Gimmee a break. The ReaganAdministration and the "religious"right actively supported Apartheid. Reagan actively supported American apartheid: both through his public pronouncements and via nasty little jerks like WillianFrenchSmith, EdwinMeese, and ClarenceThomas.
Here is your break *crack!*
Oh yes, the religious right favored apartheid governments in South Africa, now give me a freakin break. The only Republicans that favored apartheid were those who were living in the Cold War and believed South Africa was a good bastion against communism.
Not to mention that with apartheid gone the ANC would have to take control of the country and that group was a mass of anarchists, communists, many terrorists, and Nelson Mandella. It did not seem to be a good horse to bet on. But hey to quote Gandhi, "...There is no people on Earth who would not prefer their own bad government to the good government of an alien power."
The US did eventually vote for sanctions against South Africa. The US government itself also voted for economic sanctions against South Africa independant of the UN. This also happened during Reagan's watch. The Soviet Union collapsed and there was absolutely no rational for not opossing apartheid governments.
But what this is really about is your claim that Israeli paramilitary groups commited attrocities against Arabs, including activities that involved mass killins and ethnic cleansing. This justified Arab resistance to the formation of an independant Jewish state and therefor Kurdistan is not the same thing as Israel. Your point is wrong, thus your conclusion is wrong.
quote:You don't see a substantive difference between Israel and Kurdistan?
No, I don't see a substantive difference between the two groups. There are obvious parallels, and the fact that I disagree with you should in no way negate the need to continue the discussion.
Your statement,
quote:If you don't, there's no point in even having this dicussion with you.
is devisive and serves no purpose or framework within which an intelligent conversation can occur.
quote:Kurds are Muslims, not Jews.
Well your statment seems obvious at first, but it's not entirely true. The Kurdish label is more akin to Caucasian. It's true that a large majority of Kurds are Sunni Muslims, but there are Shia Muslims, Catholics, and yes <gasp> Jewish Kurds. In fact, their origins are tied to Yazdanism, which had it's roots in early Jewish beliefs.
quote:They are already living there, they aren't being bussed and flown in from around the world. And they aren't displacing an indigenous people. That makes the two situations rather incomparable.
Yes, they are already living in primarily Kurdish areas, but what about the non-Kurds who are nationals of that country. Should they be forced to leave when that part of Turkey becomes Kurdistan?
quote:You make the region out of where the majority of the Kurds reside. That does NOT include most of Iraq. It includes the rather autonomous region in the north, a tiny portion of Syria, a small piece of Iran, and a pretty decent chunk of Turkey.
Okay, assume that you've convinced me that it's a great idea. Now...sell it to Iraq, Iran, and Turkey. Aside from force, how would we convince them to give up portions of their countries (some of which contain extremely valuable natural resources).
quote:And again, if you don't think they should have their own country, then the world has to live with the violence that comes as a result, and the whatever moral failure that comes from letting many of them live in oppression.
There will not be a Kurdistan without the use of force. It's just not going to happen, and most of the Kurds that I know have said that they don't want to fall into the same trap that the Palestinians have with Hezbollah. They don't want people to hear 'Kurdish' and think 'terrorist'. Most Kurds I know think that the PKK are terrorists. They would prefer a semi-autonomous Kuridish region in Iraq that they could slowly separate.
quote:You have to live with the fact that they'll keep fighting until they get what they want, and that the Turks will likely keep hunting them down for it. There will never be peace.
I think the KPP will keep fighting until they're wiped out, either by a foreign government or by a rival Kurdish faction.
quote:I just think it's odd that Americans are saying another country fighting to be free, to have the right to self determination, are basically saying "why should anyone have to let people be free?"
Your first mistake here is thinking that Kurdistan exists as a country. It doesn't exist, it has no globally recognized government, it has no formal military. There are many military Kurdish groups (KPP, KDP, PKK) but none of them represent the non-existent country of Kurdistan.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The SovietUnion existed until 1January1992 Reagan was President from 20January1981 to 20January1989 Reagan('s representative to the UN) vetoed the imposition of sanctions upon SouthAfrica on 8March1988
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
I disagree, on pretty much everything. I think you are grossly oversimplifying the situation to make the comparison between Israel and Kurdistan stick.
For the people already living there, they could choose to become citizens of the new country or they could leave for whatever country their land used to be in the control of. I'm not going to mandate a forced exodus, it's not about ethnic separatism.
We forced Iraq to more or less give up their piece of what would be Kurdistan through the No-Fly zone. We gave them semi-autonomous control, and since the invasion, they've been separate in almost everything but name. But North Iraq is the only place that had that kind of autonomy, as opposed to the oppression in Turkey.
quote:They would prefer a semi-autonomous Kuridish region in Iraq that they could slowly separate.
Other than Iraq (which by the way, that situation was created through US military invervention), where in the world do they have that kind of status?
And I don't believe I made the mistake of believing they already exist as a country. Though I think you're talking about a much more formal view of what makes a country. They have a language, a common feeling of nationality, they have the Peshmerga, a military organization charged with the defense of their territories, and they WANT to be free to self govern. They're a people without a country, I think they should have a country.
You apparently think they should sit down and shut up, which I find despicable. You don't apparently agree with using force to create a nation for them, and don't think they'll ever get one without it, so that leaves them with nothing but the status quo.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Despicable? Please...save your sanctimonious nonsense for someone else.
My involvement with Kurds and their issues goes well beyond the current media fascination with their plight. One of my close friends family fled Iraq shortly before their house was blown up. I've helped with the Kurdish relief fund, volunteered to help with their voting efforts, and heard stories of atrocities that would give you nightmares for weeks.
I know, first hand, the opinions of Kurds at the highest levels of Iraqi/Kurdish governemnt, and they all seem to agree on three things:
1. They do not have a country. 2. They have not had a country in hundreds of years. 3.The only way they can have a country is if it taken from someone else.
Whether you or I think that they should have a country is largely immaterial. We (the U.S.) should not be in the business of nation-making.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It needs to be a group of people who will make descisions and do things that benefit themselves and their neighbors.
Disagree on the neighbor part, but I agree on the rest. But if you define the first part as your rationale for statehood, then a group of people, who identify themselves as a people apart, who want their own nation, speak their own language, have their own religion, see each other as a distinct people and nationality, then they should have the right to self determination.
If the nation that is oppressing them disagrees, well, they have the power, and they can do whatever they want. If they want to oppress people, they can. If they want to commit genocide, they can. If no one is going to stop them, then the status quo will live on, and the world will keep on turning.
I'm talking about what is RIGHT. What we SHOULD do. About what a just people, a people who began their nation the same way should behave and should promote freedom around the world, like we say in all our bullcrap speeches.
Edit to add: Israel is still fundamentally different. This wouldn't be carving out a nation, then flooding it with a few million people who seemed to come out of nowhere. This would be redrawing lines to give people who already live in those areas control of where they live. It's completely different.
The lines were not drawn by the tribes or peoples in those areas anyway. It was the British/French union after the turks were pushed out of the area. To say that making Kurdistan is any different from recognising Israel as a nation is a poor statement. It will be the same thing and Iraqi's and Turks will see it that way.
You keep using terms of "right" and "should" but to every right there is a wrong. Would it be viewed by the world as a whole as a right thing to do? Then you have to worry about the muslim community. Anything that we would do would look like an act of control by a non-islamic power in islamic lands. That would go over just about as well as a led zeppelin would. What about the already established borders of the countries that this new state would have to be made from? If we hand them a stte why cant we start making states for every slavic nation in eastern europe or russia?
Sometimes the right thing to do, and the thing you should do is to let countries deal with their own problems.
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
