I've been wondering why it's such a bad idea for the Kurds to have a homeland?
I mean... I know the basic issues. The Turks would have a shit fit and most likely oppose it militarily - they'd likely lose a big chunk of territority sooner or later and they wouldn't just sit back and let that happen. The Iranians I'm sure would do the same.
But is there something wrong with the Kurds that they're not allowed to have their own nation?
Much of the '90s was spent with the bizarre nation-making of the post World War I era finally collapsing. Much of what happened was in places created out of the remnants of the Ottoman Empire - Czechoslovakia splitting into the Czech Republic and Slovakia, Yugoslavia splitting along various ethnic lines, former Soviet Republics gaining independence, etc - and it seems to me that allowing the Kurds to do the same would be a completion of that process.
Anyone who knows the History of Iraq understands it was a nation made up by the British as a reward to someone who helped them in the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. Its borders were arbitrarily drawn and include 3 groups of people who really don't want to be a nation together.
There are no Iraqi people. The Kurds, Sunni Moslems and Shia Moslems who make up the people of Iraq are lumped under that term solely on the basis of being part of an artificially created nation.
To me it would make more sense to allow this nation to dissolve and allow the 3 states that should exist to come into being.
Obviously it should be up to the people who occupy that land to decide. But I think given the History, the Kurds and Shia would be all for it.
I almost expect the Kurds, unless bullied into doing otherwise, to make an attempt at some point of declaring independence...
Should this be opposed?
I mean... I know the basic issues. The Turks would have a shit fit and most likely oppose it militarily - they'd likely lose a big chunk of territority sooner or later and they wouldn't just sit back and let that happen. The Iranians I'm sure would do the same.
But is there something wrong with the Kurds that they're not allowed to have their own nation?
Much of the '90s was spent with the bizarre nation-making of the post World War I era finally collapsing. Much of what happened was in places created out of the remnants of the Ottoman Empire - Czechoslovakia splitting into the Czech Republic and Slovakia, Yugoslavia splitting along various ethnic lines, former Soviet Republics gaining independence, etc - and it seems to me that allowing the Kurds to do the same would be a completion of that process.
Anyone who knows the History of Iraq understands it was a nation made up by the British as a reward to someone who helped them in the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. Its borders were arbitrarily drawn and include 3 groups of people who really don't want to be a nation together.
There are no Iraqi people. The Kurds, Sunni Moslems and Shia Moslems who make up the people of Iraq are lumped under that term solely on the basis of being part of an artificially created nation.
To me it would make more sense to allow this nation to dissolve and allow the 3 states that should exist to come into being.
Obviously it should be up to the people who occupy that land to decide. But I think given the History, the Kurds and Shia would be all for it.
I almost expect the Kurds, unless bullied into doing otherwise, to make an attempt at some point of declaring independence...
Should this be opposed?
