Freedom for the Kurds

The United States has promised to prevent Kurds from imposing a federation-style government in postwar Iraq that would ensure their continued autonomy and agreed to allow Turkish troops to enter northern Iraq and observe the disarmament of Kurdish militias once fighting has stopped.

I see that Bush is delivering his democracy to the Kurds.

[Jonas]

Do you have a source? Or a question.... This is more a quick hit topic with no depth.

[Malachy]

At 6/10/03 10:50 PM, el_foka wrote: Do you have a source? Or a question.... This is more a quick hit topic with no depth.

i dont think so, its open to come up with your own opinion without having to discount somebody elses...or maybe the complete opposite

i think the kurds need to get their own state, they have a huge population, but because of where they are now, they end up being the minority of what ever country boundry they find themselves in, but it probably wont come anytime soon because bush is too busy trying to get palistine it's own country from isreal.

BTW, el foka, this kid, wordlife03 has resorted to spamming in the slacker's crew topic in the clubs and crews forum, i dont see you in there much, but this kid is known for being a spammer and hes spamming in my crew topic just to annoy me. if you look at his posts on the most recent page of the topic, you can see why he's known for spamming, i hope you see this man

[TheShrike]

I think the kurds having their own sovreign government would be a bad idea. It's probably end with war between them and Turkey or neo-Iraq.

[mysecondstar]

a Kurd nation with have the same effect as Isreal in the post WWII era.

[Alejandro1]

At 6/11/03 12:01 AM, mysecondstar wrote: a Kurd nation with have the same effect as Isreal in the post WWII era.

Damn straight; placing a state between Iraq and Turkey for the Kurds would inevitably lead to war. I suppose the best thing we could do is to keep Iraq's borders the same; the government would be set up to give the Kurds decent representation.

[Commander-K25]

At 6/11/03 12:18 AM, alejandro1 wrote: Damn straight; placing a state between Iraq and Turkey for the Kurds would inevitably lead to war.

This is probably true, considering there are also Kurds living in SE Turkey, and other neighboring countries and that the Kurdish nationalists generally want to incorporate land from all these countries into a Kurdish state.

[mysecondstar]

At 6/11/03 12:18 AM, alejandro1 wrote: I suppose the best thing we could do is to keep Iraq's borders the same; the government would be set up to give the Kurds decent representation.

the problem with giving the Kurds more representation will cause alienation and dissention amongst the Muslim populace. fair representation with a more even form similar to the US Congress would most likely be the step taken if the US were to form the Iraqi government. the problem with this is that the world will first view Iraq as a US puppet and also the people in Iraq will feel as if they had done nothing to manifest their own future.

[misterx2000]

Reconstruction is truly a headache, aye? So many implications...I wish politics were simpler and everyone just stated their intentions in plain simple English.
"We want oil."
"We actually hate the enviroment in which we live in, but our people like it, so we must pretend."
"We must be radical Muslims so I can live in my palace with my servant girls fanning me and feeding me grapes."

[wdfcverfgtghm]

An Iraqi democracy is not a ethnicity controlled government. Why would anyone want to form Iraq into a kurdish Israel?

Sources

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8113-2003Feb26.html

Well they could at least consider the opinion of the Iraqi people and the Kurds instead of making decisions behind closed doors.

[wdfcverfgtghm]

At 6/11/03 01:35 PM, nailbomb wrote: Sources

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8113-2003Feb26.html

Well they could at least consider the opinion of the Iraqi people and the Kurds instead of making decisions behind closed doors.

They should have considered the Iraqi people by giving one ethnic race control of the government, which will exclude non-kurdish muslims?

No, not giving it, how about "voting" on it?

[SpEeDFiReSrFr]

At 6/11/03 02:28 PM, nailbomb wrote: No, not giving it, how about "voting" on it?

No, the Kurds are a minority and would not win the vote. I do not support an indepent Kurdish state because Shi'ites would hate Kurds.

By the way nailbomb, stop making 50,000 topics about Iraq, one will work.

[Jimsween]

Hold on a sec, nailbomb your seeming a little contradictory here. In another thread you are complaining that US is unfairly imposing thier own regime in Iraq when they should have let them vote for it. But in this one you are complaining that the kurds deserve thier own country? Am I the only one sense a bit of hipocriticaslness in that?

At 6/11/03 06:35 PM, jimsween wrote: Hold on a sec, nailbomb your seeming a little contradictory here. In another thread you are complaining that US is unfairly imposing thier own regime in Iraq when they should have let them vote for it. But in this one you are complaining that the kurds deserve thier own country? Am I the only one sense a bit of hipocriticaslness in that?

Jim, go read a thesaurus, the word you're trying to spaz out on the keyboard is hypocrisy.

Besides, how is not allowing the Kurds to vote on an independent state democratic?

[Jimsween]

At 6/11/03 07:28 PM, nailbomb wrote:

At 6/11/03 06:35 PM, jimsween wrote: Hold on a sec, nailbomb your seeming a little contradictory here. In another thread you are complaining that US is unfairly imposing thier own regime in Iraq when they should have let them vote for it. But in this one you are complaining that the kurds deserve thier own country? Am I the only one sense a bit of hypocriticalness in that?

Jim, go read a thesaurus, the word you're trying to spaz out on the keyboard is hypocrisy.

Hypocriticalness is a word, unless you disagree with spellcheck. You might want to think a second before you try to act smart.

Besides, how is not allowing the Kurds to vote on an independent state democratic?

Because you dont give the shiites or sunni's a say in what happens to thier country. And if it was a country wide vote the kurds would surely lose seeing as how they are the minority.

[mysecondstar]

an independent Kurdish state is dangerous. quite frankly they are surrounded by people that hate them. and the US will back the Kurds without question. as much as i'd love to see a Kurdish state, it is inherently dangerous to do so. only one thing can solve this problem: tolerence. and i'd doubt that Kurds, the Turks, or the Muslims will do it.

[wdfcverfgtghm]

At 6/11/03 02:28 PM, nailbomb wrote: No, not giving it, how about "voting" on it?

Well there's no chance that a minority in Iraq like the kurds would ever have been voted into a non-democratic federation style government in a nation that fears and even hates Kurds, but a kurdish nation would completly distabilize the middle east. Creating a peaceful middle east doesn't mean that we should give all power to one group. If the middle east was a direct democracy, then the Kurds, and Jews would either be sent out, completly deposed of power, or killed. The majority isn't always right.

[TheShrike]

At 6/11/03 12:01 AM, mysecondstar wrote: a Kurd nation with have the same effect as Isreal in the post WWII era.

^ What he said!

Seriously. It wouldn't serve anyone's agenda except the Kurds, and I have no doubt that Iraq would try to re-take the land, and Turkey would probably also make a move in on it, too.

[wdfcverfgtghm]

At 6/12/03 06:48 AM, TheShrike wrote:

At 6/11/03 12:01 AM, mysecondstar wrote: a Kurd nation with have the same effect as Isreal in the post WWII era.

^ What he said!

It wouldn't even be that good. The hate that is extended by many muslims towards Jews is less than that towards Kurds. Kurds don't have a stable base of support anywhere else in the world, and have no bridging theological leaders. A government built on ethnic hemogomy would destablize the situation further and make peace worldwide a very difficult situation.

It would be equivilent to creating a Mung Vietnam.

[wdfcverfgtghm]

At 6/11/03 07:28 PM, nailbomb wrote:
Besides, how is not allowing the Kurds to vote on an independent state democratic?

I'm not sure where you got disallowing Kurds to vote from. Kurds are a very important part of Iraq, but creating a one race government such as discussed in that article would severly limit personal freedom of a majority.

There's a diffrence between disenfranchisement and disallowing a racist government.

This isn't about creating an independent Kurd, I couldn't give one anal expulsion if they did get their Kurd state or not. It's about America taking away their to vote on that manner, regardless of the outcome of that vote.

[Jlop985]

The question of Kurdish autonomy is a dilemma. The Kurds must have some kind of representation in any government they have, whether they're part of another country or an independent state. While I favor a Kurdish state, almost everyone in the middle east does not. The best way to handle Iraqi Kurdish representation barring independence is to have Iraq be divided into three states within a federal union of Iraq. The states should be Kurdish, Sunni, and Shiite.

I have a question though. What on earth links Kurds? they are not united on religion or language or nationality; they just seem to kind of exist for the sake of existing.

At 6/12/03 04:15 PM, Jlop985 wrote:
I have a question though. What on earth links Kurds? they are not united on religion or language or nationality; they just seem to kind of exist for the sake of existing.

That's like saying "What links Native Americans?"

[SpEeDFiReSrFr]

At 6/12/03 12:39 PM, nailbomb wrote: This isn't about creating an independent Kurd, I couldn't give one anal expulsion if they did get their Kurd state or not. It's about America taking away their to vote on that manner, regardless of the outcome of that vote.

The Kurds, like I said, would NOT win the vote.

At 6/14/03 08:20 AM, SpEeDFiReSrFr wrote:

The Kurds, like I said, would NOT win the vote.

So?

[Jimsween]

At 6/14/03 06:01 PM, nailbomb wrote:

At 6/14/03 08:20 AM, SpEeDFiReSrFr wrote:

The Kurds, like I said, would NOT win the vote.

So?

You give them false hope which almost always leads to riots and such.

[cavscout]

At 6/10/03 11:44 PM, TheShrike wrote: I think the kurds having their own sovreign government would be a bad idea. It's probably end with war between them and Turkey or neo-Iraq.

Very true indeed. The Turks despise the Kurds with a passion. They have no rights and are routinly "rounded-up" for security reasons by the Turkish regulars. A Kurdish state would severely de-stablize a region that is unstable anyway. Turkey, Iran, and Syria have all made it clear that a seperate Kurdish state would be the catalyst to an all out regional war for control.

[mikehrt]

At 6/11/03 01:35 PM, nailbomb wrote: Sources

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8113-2003Feb26.html

Well they could at least consider the opinion of the Iraqi people and the Kurds instead of making decisions behind closed doors.

God talk about old news. Could you find a source that is still relevant. That is an article about trying to get access to bases that we didn't get access to before the war started. Completely irrelevant. The kurds don't need their own country anymore than the Suuni or Shiites do. They should be separated regionally though, and given an identity and a voice in the new Iraqi Government.
Does anyone have information about what we are actually doing to rebuild the political structure in Iraq? It seems like the US just declared "WE WIN" and started ignoring the people there like we always do.