Kurdistan

NousDefionsDoc · 03-01-2004, 11:24

Should the Kurds have their own state? Why or why not?

**Roguish Lawyer** · 03-01-2004, 11:34

I am no expert and may change my mind after reading what others have to say, but I will get this thread going.

I never really followed the situation in the former Yugoslavia, so I am not apprised of the general difficulties associated with attempts to draw political borders based on ethnic lines. That being said, my instinct is "yes." It seems to me that they have a de facto state now anyway, and in the long term there may be less upheaval in the area if the Kurds can govern themselves. Plus they're our friends, or they seem to be anyway.

That being said, I don't know how practical it would be given where the oil is, among other things. I'm looking forward to what others have to say, particularly Airborne Lawyer and those who have spent time in or focused on Iraq.

DunbarFC · 03-01-2004, 11:40

Are we talking with full support of Turkey, the Kurds delcaring a unilateral independence ?

To me without Turkish support you'll never see a Kurdistan

NousDefionsDoc · 03-01-2004, 11:48

We're talking about improving the situation in Iraq and sticking it to Iran and Syria at the same time. We're talking about Israel not being the only "pro-US" country in the region anymore (extent is debatable). We're talking about having a watchdog next door to Iraq/Iran in whose best interest it would be to advise us of pending disaster before it happens. We're talking about making good on old promises. We're talking about KURDISTAN! LOL. If we put US troops there, do you really think the Turks will attack?

Did/do the Turks support independence in Greece? Cyrpus?

I haven't been, so my ideas mean nothing, but I'm not sure Iraq is governable without a dictator as is.

Smokin Joe · 03-01-2004, 11:48

I in the same spot as RL I don't know a whole hell of a lot about the Kurds but I do know that they have been oppressed for many years. I also think we/ they need to look at Isreal for considerations on what to do and what not to do.

I wasn't around when Isreal was created so I don't know what they did to stabilze the area, if you can call it a stable place. However they should consider the trials and tribulations that Isreal has seen in order to avoid the same problems.

Otherwise there is a huge potential for another Checnyan war it would just be across borders instead of within the same country.

Sacamuelas · 03-01-2004, 11:55

I vote No...

FWIW, Turkey would not allow this to occur. It would create an unstable situation in the border region for Turkey.

Within Iraq, there would be fighting over the oil fields and production facilities. It would also be an international failure since we have stated as policy to the surrounding countries that this will not fragment Iraq.

IRAQ should stay united as one country for now. Let them constitutionally divide the country into three separate "regions or states" within a united Iraq. Each with representation in the national legislature. That way, the regional and local leaders could help shape the individual areas as long tolerance of others and freedoms for all were guaranteed on a national level.

NDD- What do you think?
BTW- a "smiling" skull in your avatar? I won't say it... LOL

Guy · 03-01-2004, 12:13

You can best believe that they will hold on to the territory they now control.
The region they do control, have the most stability as compared to the Shiites and Sunnis held regions.

Alex F · 03-01-2004, 13:22

I have a feeling that the northern area of Iraq is going to become a de factor Kurdistan, even more than it is now, once the US leaves the area en masse.

That's just MHO of course.

D9 (RIP) · 03-01-2004, 13:58

IMHO, we have to start asking these questions with an eye towards the long-term. Would an independent Kurdistan cause kicking and screaming in Turkey, Iran, Syria, and every other ME country; would it earn us UN condemnation, and tick off Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites? Yes, unquestionably it would. But, in the long term, is there any viable way to keep these groups from going at one another's throats? I don't think there is outside of dictatorship, and that is a worse alternative.

As NDD alluded, there is nothing practically that anyone could do if we decided to make Kurdistan independent. Furthermore, to the extent that they might run a more liberal, free, and non-menacing country than we will have otherwise in Iraq our self-interest demands that we permit them to become independent.

The latest information out of Iraq about the "compromise arrangement" in the constitution, IMO, bodes poorly for the long-term stability of the region. It is my impression that al-Sistani and his Shia majority have been given official assurances in the law itself that while individual liberties will be protected, no laws will be allowed which are contrary to Islam. This is an enormous contradiction, and I am afraid it will not be long before these two, antithetical and competing bases at the root of the law come to loggerheads. I'm afraid that this constitution is a political timebomb, designed more to make the deadline while appeasing as many parties involved than to provide a basis for stable, enduring governance and rule of law.

A better solution, I think, would be to permit - even force - the country to fragment. While it would provoke an international outrage in the short run, it may at least provide a basis for stability and would go a lot further towards creating a state in that region that is reasonably free and liberal (Kurdistan). If the country spirals again into civil war or dictatorship, we're going to face the wrath of the international community anyway. The bottom line is, most of the international community is so eager to criticize the US that we are going to draw fire for just about anything we do short of becoming the workhorse behind whatever plans the UN contrives.

This is to say nothing of the justice of giving the Kurds a state after what they've carved out of the rubble with their fingernails.

It's time we started looking past what will make it easier for us next year, and start looking at what is going to work over the long haul.

So, yes, I think the idea is a good one.

NousDefionsDoc · 03-01-2004, 14:31

Good post D9, whether one agrees or not.

In addition to what you stated, I find the issue of examples, both good and bad, interesting. Imagine how Sharia law will look next to a democratic Kurdistan (getting economic help from the US). If the others want Sharia in their part, we just won't deal with them. Imagine if a 1960s Cuba was next door to Haiti instead of the Dom Rep. I think this idea of examples is the problem Turkey has with a Kurdistan and most Muslim countries have with our management of Iraq. They don't want an example next door that makes them look bad and they're not stupid enough to think it doesn't matter. I also believe this is one of the many reasons Israel is so hated.

I would love to see the US form a "American Union". North, Central and South America. Partly to offset the EU, and partly to set the example. If nothing else, I would love to see the US and Canada focus on bringing Mexico closer to parity ( the strategic goal behind NAFTA). In my opinion, history is circular, not linear. Around the turn of the century, Mexico was a huge issue for the US. And to me, it is now again. In order to improve situations such as drugs, illegal immigration, infiltration of terrorists, loss of jobs, etc., we have to bring Mexico up, not build a fence.

I think one of the best ways to stabilize (and conversly destablize) a region is insert a new player into it. Look at what the establishment of Israel as a state has done to the ME in 60 years. Imagine what a democratic Iraq or Kurdistan will do.

Imagine North America with a strong Mexico and the three countries actually working together to resolve issues. Imagine the result of not doing it. Imagine a bio attack in LA, the consequences for Mexico would be catastrophic. Probably worse than for the US.

I would support aiding Mexico ten fold and never giving another dime to Egypt for example.

I support giving, giving parts of Colombia, Ecuador, Brazil and Venezuela to the FARC. Let them grow their coca, run their country their way. Hell they can name Marulanda king if they want. But the first time we find a boatload of coke in Miami, one JDAAM in the air conditioner. We would know where to find them and the collateral damage would be greatly reduced. Put all the rats in one place. No trade agreements, no relations of any kind. How long would it take for the average Joe to move across the street to the good side? I say better to have a bad neighbor next door than a bad house guest living with you.

Security communities is where it should be I think.

Sacamuelas · 03-01-2004, 14:37

You guys are right.

We will divide up the territory into a pro-us staging ground with 1/2 the oil reserves of the country in the NORTH (Kurdistan). Immediately start firing ultimatums at Iran and Syria to let them know we mean business. That way we could have a USA supported/OIL producing country that we trained, supplied, and defended after the Gulf war II with Iraq.

We can tell Turkey to kiss off. After all, they are the only NATO member in the area. They don't mean anything to us anymore after we get our new toy - Kurdistan.

All the rest of the world, well, they can get over it which includes most if not ALL of our allies in this war. Obviously, we will be proving the critics wrong because it will definitely not play out in the international media what our critics were saying all along. We didn't attack to get access to oil and create a puppet government that we could control to further spread American interests. Doing this won't look that way to every Muslim in the M.E. will it??

Then we leave the rest of the country economically weakened, unstable, and ripe to form NDD's favorite topic- little peasant revolutions that all seem to hate the US. That way we can have the really poor oppressed people working under a strict Islamic controlled new government that WILL hate and plot against the USA whether we initially support and created them or not. Can we stop them from forming an Islamic law based government... NO, because we lost our high ground when we let the Kurds start their own government system of their choosing.

In the glorious future we have to kiss Kurdistan's butt with aid, arms, and favors to keep them happy, and we still end up with an enemy country in the former lower 2/3's to deal with. Oh yeah, don't forget we have weakened our former allies position (turkey) and strengthened one of most threatening enemies (Iran) by allowing an Islamic fundamental regime to take over right next door. Let's don't even get into what that does for future coalitions after we â€œcrawfishâ€ on every single policy concerning the area.

Sounds like a good solution.

Since I am by myself, I will have to save some ammo for future posts. I think I will try counter-sniper tactics instead of an frontal assault...

So, How do things play out in the PRO-kurdistan corner? Let's hear how a Kurdistan makes things better- especially long term since that was brought up. I disagree specifically with the long-term effects for our country over this decision. The near term has a better argument for doing it than the long-term future IMO.

NousDefionsDoc · 03-01-2004, 14:52

Quote:

NO, because we lost our high ground when we let the Kurds start their own government system of their choosing.

DAMN! You're absolutely right! We're not all about letting oppressed people start their own government system of their choosing. Why didn't I think of that? We're about forcing them to live as second class citizens under a religious doctrine that they not only don't believe in, but further oppresses them because of some arbitrary lines on a map that were drawn up because Turkey, who has always oppressed them LOST A WAR AND NEEDED TO BE PUNISHED AND DEPRIVED OF OIL TO MAKE MORE WARS!

Giving the Kurds 1/2 the oil wouldn't be fair, better to let the majority, ruled by mullahs (who we have a great track record with BTW) decide what to do with the whole thing.

An Islamic fundamentalist regime will take over eventually. And they will deal with the Kurds eventually, probably with our "ally's" help. Thinking that a democracy ruled by a religious order is not going to become a fundalmentalist state as soon as they think they can get away with it is a dream. They already walked out over differences in such principles as marriage and divorce. Southern Iraq is fundalmentalist Islamic NOW.

How in the hell is Turkey our ally? We ask them for one thing after years of helping them and they extort us for money, then refuse.

The original policy, if I remember correctly, is that the Kurds would have their own state, what about crawfishing on that one?

If 9/11 and OIF taught me anything, its that we have no allies except those who's interest happen to coincide for the moment. And Tony Blair.

**Roguish Lawyer** · 03-01-2004, 14:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Sacamuelas
NO, because we lost our high ground when we let the Kurds start their own government system of their choosing.

Are you opposed to democratic self-government?

**Roguish Lawyer** · 03-01-2004, 14:54

Oh, and what NDD said too.

NousDefionsDoc · 03-01-2004, 14:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
Are you opposed to democratic self-government?

Obviously so if it pisses our "allies" off and means giving up 1/2 of the oil.

Put the gas mask down and step slowly away from the tank sacamuelas.