100,000 Turkish Troops on Iraq Border

[blankall]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, the Kurdish people have been living under the Ottoman/Turkish and Iranian/Safanid empires for around 600 years, and even before that, existed only as a group of loosely allied emirates, as opposed to any sort of unified state. This isn't about returning the political boundaries to some historical configuration; it's about creating a nation that has never existed previously on any sort of political level.

By that logic there should be no arab states either. They didn't exist until the 1940s. Prior to that they too were loosely allied emirates. I think the world is full of examples of nations that were founded from the breakup of larger ones. Creating a states that have never existed happens constantly throughout history. To give legitimacy to Iraq because it has been around since the 40s (and never before that), but deny Kurds a state seems fairly ridiculous.

For the record Kurdish states have existed in the past. The land that Kurds are now claiming has been indeed part of the Ottoman and Persian empires for quite some time. But like I said before, none of the countries in the Ottoman empire existed before the 1940, so I see the lack of existence prior to now as a pretty weak argument.

[604flames]

This has been brewing for a LONG time..

When I was in Turkey in 2004 it was a relatively peaceful time in the conflict that, as others have mentioned as well, has been an ongoing one. In fact, the PM (whose first name the article tidbit conveniently omitted), and his gov't passed regulations allowing Kurdish radio and (I think?) TV stations to finally be broadcast. However, everyone I spoke to said it would be ridiculous to try to travel in the southeast (specifically Hakkari and environs), just in case something happened.

I empathise with the Kurds in their desire to have an international voice (as in a true homeland), but on the other hand, the PKK's (alleged) bombings of tourist sites in the West in recent years (the worst arguably being the 1993 incident in Fethiye) is utterly inexcusable.

That said, Turkish diplomacy is pretty rigid to say the least (see N. Cyprus and Armenian examples in addition to this one). Pretty ironic coming from a country whose founder stressed "peace at home, peace in the world."

[blankall]

Originally Posted by 604flames

This has been brewing for a LONG time..

When I was in Turkey in 2004 it was a relatively peaceful time in the conflict that, as others have mentioned as well, has been an ongoing one. In fact, the PM (whose first name the article tidbit conveniently omitted), and his gov't passed regulations allowing Kurdish radio and (I think?) TV stations to finally be broadcast. However, everyone I spoke to said it would be ridiculous to try to travel in the southeast (specifically Hakkari and environs), just in case something happened.

I empathise with the Kurds in their desire to have an international voice (as in a true homeland), but on the other hand, the PKK's (alleged) bombings of tourist sites in the West in recent years (the worst arguably being the 1993 incident in Fethiye) is utterly inexcusable.

That said, Turkish diplomacy is pretty rigid to say the least (see N. Cyprus and Armenian examples in addition to this one). Pretty ironic coming from a country whose founder stressed "peace at home, peace in the world."

I had a friend in turkey in '97 and he describe the exact same situation. It always amazes me that groups that could be gaining international sympathy shoot themselves in the foot by attacking civilians.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by blankall

By that logic there should be no arab states either. They didn't exist until the 1940s. Prior to that they too were loosely allied emirates. I think the world is full of examples of nations that were founded from the breakup of larger ones. Creating a states that have never existed happens constantly throughout history. To give legitimacy to Iraq because it has been around since the 40s (and never before that), but deny Kurds a state seems fairly ridiculous.

For the record Kurdish states have existed in the past. The land that Kurds are now claiming has been indeed part of the Ottoman and Persian empires for quite some time. But like I said before, none of the countries in the Ottoman empire existed before the 1940, so I see the lack of existence prior to now as a pretty weak argument.

Not exactly true in regards to the Arab kingdoms in the region. Jordan was a semi-autonomous hashemite kingdom under the Ottomans, and the Hashemites existed as a dynasty long before that. Iraq, too, was semi-autonomous under the Ottoman state. Certainly the Saudis have had political claim over at least part of the region that they occupy going back to the 1700s. Syria has an ancient history, but was completely subjective to Ottoman rule, so are on a similar level to the Kurds. You are right, however, that there is a large arbitrary element to the borders in the region, and the Kurds were amongst the groups campaigning for their own country in the post-ottoman divisions, but were largely ignored by the british and french. The Kurds have more of a legitimate claim than some groups, and less than others. I'm not against the formation of a kurdish state, I just think we need a better reason to risk further escalations of war and conflict in an already volatile region than 'all these people are of the same ethnic background and they want to have their own country.'

[blankall]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Not exactly true in regards to the Arab kingdoms in the region. Jordan was a semi-autonomous hashemite kingdom under the Ottomans, and the Hashemites existed as a dynasty long before that. Iraq, too, was semi-autonomous under the Ottoman state. Certainly the Saudis have had political claim over at least part of the region that they occupy going back to the 1700s. Syria has an ancient history, but was completely subjective to Ottoman rule, so are on a similar level to the Kurds. You are right, however, that there is a large arbitrary element to the borders in the region, and the Kurds were amongst the groups campaigning for their own country in the post-ottoman divisions, but were largely ignored by the british and french. The Kurds have more of a legitimate claim than some groups, and less than others. I'm not against the formation of a kurdish state, I just think we need a better reason to risk further escalations of war and conflict in an already volatile region than 'all these people are of the same ethnic background and they want to have their own country.'

Well I disagree w/ you about the details of that. Especially the thing about the Hashemites. They were semi-autonomous, but not in control of anything outside Saudi Arabia. Basically to avoid a massive power struggle, they were arbitrarily given control of Jordan, Syria and Iraq despite the fact their lineage clearly came from Saudi Arabia and many of those areas were home to other ethnic groups besides sunni Arabs (hence the current trouble in Iraq).

Anyway, that's not really the point. Yeah I agree the lines for countries in the middle east were drawn very arbitrarily. I would, however, stress much more importance on the need for sovereignty. Especially for a group that has been through as much as the Kurds have in the last century or so. I do, however, think that if their is any intention to create a "Kurdistan" of some sort it needs to be done very cautiously. More specifically it needs to be done w/ the cooperation of Turkey and Iran.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by blankall

Well I disagree w/ you about the details of that. Especially the thing about the Hashemites. They were semi-autonomous, but not in control of anything outside Saudi Arabia. Basically to avoid a massive power struggle, they were arbitrarily given control of Jordan, Syria and Iraq despite the fact their lineage clearly came from Saudi Arabia and many of those areas were home to other ethnic groups besides sunni Arabs (hence the current trouble in Iraq).

Anyway, that's not really the point. Yeah I agree the lines for countries in the middle east were drawn very arbitrarily. I would, however, stress much more importance on the need for sovereignty. Especially for a group that has been through as much as the Kurds have in the last century or so. I do, however, think that if their is any intention to create a "Kurdistan" of some sort it needs to be done very cautiously. More specifically it needs to be done w/ the cooperation of Turkey and Iran.

Ah, I actually didn't know that about the Hashemites; I was just going by what I could remember of the history of the various states. It would be really great if there was an opportunity to redo that post-Ottoman border-making all over again. A lot of things could have been done better (particularly in regards to kurdistan and palestine/israel).

[blankall]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Ah, I actually didn't know that about the Hashemites; I was just going by what I could remember of the history of the various states. It would be really great if there was an opportunity to redo that post-Ottoman border-making all over again. A lot of things could have been done better (particularly in regards to kurdistan and palestine/israel).

hindsight is 20/20. But I think people would still find a reason to fight