Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

bugsbunny04 · Feb 29, 2004, 01:56 am

Okay, these are the facts: At the end of the 1980's, Saddam Hussein had someserious chemical weapons. He wanted to test them. One day, he decided "here's a thought, I'll test it on those little Kurdish f*cks that live in the north, I'll even get to see how devastating it is against targets such as elementary schools and nursuries, WOO-HOO." A town of unarmed Kurds was massacred with nerve gas. This is only isolated in as much that Chemwar was employed. Saddam pretty much always treated the kurds about like Hitler treated the jews. The only reason they are not more or less exstinct is because our Air Force kept Saddams Air Force from providing air support to a massive army with armor and artillary that was to chicken sh*t to mount an offensive against a group of desperate folks with AK's, RPK's, RPD's, and a RPG here and there, plus a few of the Middle East Ubiquitous Toyota pickup trucks. They are, at present, only not being wiped out by the shite(head)s because they know that the United States Army will take pleasure in sending every single one of the little bed sheet wearing mother f*ckers on a magic carpet ride to hell.

Here is the Question: Should we try to spoon feed these natural enemies into coexisting, or should we just let the Kurds have there own d*mn country, which is basically the only option they really want to consider. I mean, think about it, we have done nothing but f*ck these people over. We will intervene in civil war that is none of our business to achieve no strategic or (usually) moral goal whatsoever (Vietnam, Somalia, Panama ect.), and we will intervene in someone elses business knowing d*mn well they have enough money to hire and equip enough Mercs (which really aught to be legal by the way) to take care of it themselves, just to save a nickle on a gallon of 87 octane, But if all that is going on is some good old fashioned ethnic cleansing (WWII before 12/7/41, This situation here), We are just gonna sit on our ass until it starts effecting us in some economic way? How noble of us.

Impenitent · Feb 29, 2004, 02:38 am

noble? the country of "Town Killer" noble?

LOL

rmnunez · Mar 4, 2004, 05:44 am

The Kurds ought to enjoy limited self-government as an autonomous region within Iraq. No armed forces, foreign policy or coin, but regional police, some tax authority and their own budget to administer. They get to run their own Kurdish language educational system and develop a culturally-sensitive legal system. Beyond that the scope of their self-government depends on the resources available.

french_jew · Mar 4, 2004, 06:52 am

I think the kurd area should be incorporated to the new Iraqi State...because Kurds know much more about democracy than Shiite, or the other iraqis.
Kurds could help a lot to build the futur Iraqi State...

Nathan

Haik · Mar 4, 2004, 09:36 am

This is around the same time the U.S. begins giving Iraq 'weapons' of all kinds and training to take care of problems with Iran, who were developing some sort of nuclear plan..Donny wasn't going to have any of that now...A bit off the topic, but maybe this is where some of these weapons came from.

Write Winger · Mar 4, 2004, 10:34 pm

I don't believe in forcing multiculturalism on anyone. The Kurds should carve out their own country and hold on to it if they can. This notion that some artificial diversity will work when the dictator holding it all together is no longer there is wishful thinking....think Tito and the break up of Yugoslavia. Free people should have free association.

Our country is a good case in point. When we started saying that the cultures we bring to the table are more important than the similarities as a single nation...as multiculturalism rears its ugly head, then the idea of community takes a backseat to cultural conflict. I am of the opinion that the union here in the US has run its course and perhaps it is time people started voting with their feet and going their seperate ways.

Here I think the major divide will begin on a philosophical level as the earns finally tire of propping up the earns-nots and we break up along economic lines. Personally I am little tired of footing the bill for the parasite class.

whl626 · Mar 4, 2004, 10:51 pm

The Kurds will finally get their fair share by declaring independence since Iraq is a mess now ?

rmnunez · Mar 5, 2004, 05:28 am

Forcing multiculturalism sounds like a bad idea, particularly when the alternative is an atractive culturally-sensitive government of your own. But secession for ethnic reasons doesn't sound like such a good alternative. Yugoslavia went this way and broke into all those ethnic republics, doesn't this seem a bit racist? Seems at least ethnophobic or ethno-centered to me.

I also think there are good reasons for the Kurds to consider something short of independence. The Kurds are about 16% of the Iraqis and there are oil fields in their region (but fewer). The Shia majority which controls most of the oil field region is only 60% of the population and there are other groups with neither oil fields nor demographics. The Americans certainly don't want to break up Iraq because this would enhance the legitimacy of claims by Kurds in friendly Turkey and would destabilize Syria and Iran. Chances are if the region went off like Yugoslavia we´d end up with about half a dozen new countries going either pro or anti-US. Kurds alone could do worse than as part of Iraq because they have been deprived for so long so they'd need to spend a lot to catch up. Additionally, the region is quite barren and rather inaccesible so communications infrastructure will be costly. Then there's the foreseable problem with regional migration as Kurds from neighboring countries would be drawn in.

It is natural for the Kurds in Iraq to seek independence since they've enjoyed a wide measure of self-government thanks to the American no-flys. Their cultural leaders, jurists and historians should be allowed to restore the record of their past accomplishments. Schools and colleges teaching in their own language would be a good idea too. Give them some proportional representation in the national legislature and carve out jurisdictions for autonomous government but forget about a Kurdish militia or diplomatic corps.

bugsbunny04 · Mar 6, 2004, 11:13 pm

[quote=rmnunez,]

...Yugoslavia went this way and broke into all those ethnic republics, doesn't this seem a bit racist? Seems at least ethnophobic or ethno-centered to me...

QUOTE]

Ponder: Do we call the Israeli'i racist for wanting to be independent from the "Kill all Kikes" crowd? Were blacks who ran up the underground railroad to Canada (yeah, I said all the way to canada, slavery was still in effect in the north, I don't give a f*ck what you learned in "revised 10th grade history") racist for wanting to get away from the "Know your place, nigger" crowd? How about the founders of the college out there in Tuskeegee, I suppose they are too.

Singular examples that are not universal analogies should be backed up by seperate examples. Just a thought.

Just because you are succeding for ethnic reasons does not make you the racist. You might be the victim of the racism.

By the way, you may agree with this, it just did not seem as such from the way you worded the statement. Just thought you would like to know.

rmnunez · Mar 7, 2004, 12:26 am

bugs, I guess you could see it that way, but I disagree. I experienced Spain's gradual movement towards autonomous regional governments which seems so much more intelligent than dividing the country into 17 tiny mini-states (even though some basque secesionists don't agree). I think we need to remember the differences at issue are at most merely ethnic rather than racial and often just linguistic or religious. A Navarran is visually indistinguishable from a Leonés, but they are different ethnicities, they have different histories tied to different enclaves. In Spain most of the ethnicities share Spanish language, Catholic faith and some history, so they could reach some sort of accomodation more easily. But its also true that nations are somehow more than the sum of their parts. If you take each ethnic enclave within a country separately they may not make it, but associated into something larger they might make a viable state. Self-determination is an aswer when an ethnicity is deprived of adequate representation, but there is another solution; greater participation in the national government.

Mia · Mar 7, 2004, 02:57 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (rmnunez,)
The Kurds ought to enjoy limited self-government as an autonomous region within Iraq. No armed forces, foreign policy or coin, but regional police, some tax authority and their own budget to administer. They get to run their own Kurdish language educational system and develop a culturally-sensitive legal system. Beyond that the scope of their self-government depends on the resources available.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

That's the problem - they have oil. Think the rest of Iraqi's are going to let them keep it?

Mia · Mar 7, 2004, 03:06 am

Didn't we royally screw all of these people when we carved up the middle east without enough regard for the religion, language, and ethninticity of the inhabitants? I think the Kurds are owed something.

bugsbunny04 · Mar 7, 2004, 03:14 am

[quote=rmnunez,]...most merely ethnic rather than racial and often just linguistic or religious...different ethnicities, they have different histories tied to different enclaves. In Spain most of the ethnicities share Spanish language, Catholic faith and some history... But its also true that nations are somehow more than the sum of their parts... associated into something larger they might make a viable state.QUOTE]

First:That makes it even more rediculous for the Shiites to be shooting at the Kurds.

Second: That sounds excessively like a backwood fewd between a bunch of hot headed rednecks. Como se dice "Alabama", pronounce owl-uh-BAM-uh?

Third: Not if they f*ckin kill each other first. There won't be anybody to populate the sumbitch no matter how viable it is, if they use the gas.

rmnunez · Mar 9, 2004, 01:06 am

bugs, the right to self-determination enshrined in the Charter of the UN was the basis for the drive to decolonize Africa. In that case the argument was simple; a bunch of black people existed without any imput into how they were governed by a bunch of white people. This obviously was not self-government.

Now the concept is being applied to people who enjoy more participation in government, are less different from their purported governors and have been in this sort of relationship for eons.

While it was obvious Bantus or Masai were governed by foreign white guys, its not so readily apparent Scots, Catalans or Montenegrins are. As self-determination is claimed now by ethnic groups reclaiming their ancient history, in a rush to recognize the universal right, we overlook both the level of local ethnic participation a given government allows and the relatively minor differences in cultural outlooks of the contending groups.

For Basques (for example) their cultural differences with Navarrans next door are trascendental, but in fact both Navarrans and Basques share the same faith, the majority speak the same language, they share most of the same history and are not physically different (same colour eyes, hair, complexion...) The differences between Kurds and other Iraqis are not so obvious. There is a Kurdish language and there must have been some historical differences but they have the same religion, many probably speak the same language, they do have some history together and how fair is it to say they lack representation enough to deny them self-government?

Additionally there is the matter of capacity. Not all ethnic enclaves are capable of attaining self-government. Sure there have been some historical accidents producing micro-states, but places like Andorra, San Marino or Monaco aren't really self-governing, at least not at an international level -Monaco does not formulate foreign policy. Genuine self-determination is difficult if the entity claiming it is landlocked and entirely reliant on some outside entity to survive. The oil fields in the Iraqi Kurdish region would help assure them the capacity to rule themselves, but the fact that absent Iraqi cooperation that oil wouldn't go anywhere means they'd exist in subordination to another state if independent.

castille · Mar 9, 2004, 07:21 am

What about the Kurds in Turkey?

rmnunez · Mar 9, 2004, 12:10 pm

That's part of the problem, the Kurds are an ethnicity established in Syria, Iran and Turkey too. Granting them independence would certainly add legitimacy to secesionist Kurds outside Iraq. But I'm pretty sure there are important differences in levels of self-government for Kurds in the different countries. I'd assume the US does not want to destabilize all countries with Kurds, it seems safe to figure they don't want to do this with Turkey because stability in a NATO ally would be preferable.

If you have a country of 24 million (Iraq) and about 15% of them (regardless of ethnicity) want to secede, should the country stay whole as 85% wants or split apart as we expect the majority of the minority does?

Does ethnic identity trump democratic principles? Only people of the same ethnicity should govern us? So what about Dinkins in New York or Brown in San Franciso, how can these black men be representative of cities with ethnicities different from theirs? Is it fair to say only people of our own ethnicity can represent us? isn't it racist (or at least ethnophobic) to think this way?

bugsbunny04 · Mar 10, 2004, 12:57 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (rmnunez,)
bugs, the right to self-determination enshrined in the Charter of the UN was the basis for the drive to decolonize Africa. In that case the argument was simple; a bunch of black people existed without any imput into how they were governed by a bunch of white people. This obviously was not self-government.

Now the concept is being applied to people who enjoy more participation in government, are less different from their purported governors and have been in this sort of relationship for eons.

While it was obvious Bantus or Masai were governed by foreign white guys, its not so readily apparent Scots, Catalans or Montenegrins are. As self-determination is claimed now by ethnic groups reclaiming their ancient history, in a rush to recognize the universal right, we overlook both the level of local ethnic participation a given government allows and the relatively minor differences in cultural outlooks of the contending groups.

For Basques (for example) their cultural differences with Navarrans next door are trascendental, but in fact both Navarrans and Basques share the same faith, the majority speak the same language, they share most of the same history and are not physically different (same colour eyes, hair, complexion...) The differences between Kurds and other Iraqis are not so obvious. There is a Kurdish language and there must have been some historical differences but they have the same religion, many probably speak the same language, they do have some history together and how fair is it to say they lack representation enough to deny them self-government?

Additionally there is the matter of capacity. Not all ethnic enclaves are capable of attaining self-government. Sure there have been some historical accidents producing micro-states, but places like Andorra, San Marino or Monaco aren't really self-governing, at least not at an international level -Monaco does not formulate foreign policy. Genuine self-determination is difficult if the entity claiming it is landlocked and entirely reliant on some outside entity to survive. The oil fields in the Iraqi Kurdish region would help assure them the capacity to rule themselves, but the fact that absent Iraqi cooperation that oil wouldn't go anywhere means they'd exist in subordination to another state if independent.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

First: Okay, now, instead, they have either no government (see Samolia, and others) or are under the control of viscious dictators that make the Taliban look like f*ckin fuzzy bunnies (Rhodesia, aka Zimbabwe, Sierra Leon, ect.)! Did I mention that AIDS is normal? So is rape. So is slavery. Yeah, Whitey was really doing them wrong, huh, doc? Hell, they did not even bother to run around cutting people to peices with machettes, shame on them.

Second: If they have oil, they will find a way to sell it to somebody, without talking to the Iraqis.

eamad mazouri · Mar 12, 2004, 04:01 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (rmnunez,)
The Kurds ought to enjoy limited self-government as an autonomous region within Iraq. No armed forces, foreign policy or coin, but regional police, some tax authority and their own budget to administer. They get to run their own Kurdish language educational system and develop a culturally-sensitive legal system. Beyond that the scope of their self-government depends on the resources available.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
That is exactly what the Kurdish leadership in Iraqi Kurdistan is seeking.They have not sought an independent state although they deserve it like any other nation. They are realistic and are seeking what is achievable.The problem is the Shiites who were deprived and oppressed all these years along with the Kurds now are trying to turn into oppressors by denying Kurds these very rights.

eamad mazouri · Mar 12, 2004, 04:04 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (french_jew,)
I think the kurd area should be incorporated to the new Iraqi State...because Kurds know much more about democracy than Shiite, or the other iraqis.
Kurds could help a lot to build the futur Iraqi State...

Nathan<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Although that is not a good enough reson to impose certain solution on Kurds, it is true Kurds have over 12 years of experience in building democratic government and electing a parliament.Iraqi Kurdistan could be a role model for the whole country.

eamad mazouri · Mar 12, 2004, 04:07 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Haik,)
This is around the same time the U.S. begins giving Iraq 'weapons' of all kinds and training to take care of problems with Iran, who were developing some sort of nuclear plan..Donny wasn't going to have any of that now...A bit off the topic, but maybe this is where some of these weapons came from.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Did you read my post about Iranian Kurds who demonstrated in solidarity with Iraqi Kurds. Hundreds were arrested by Iranian authorities. There are over 7 million Kurds in Iran, they could be used as a spingboard to make changes in Iran. This might be just the beginning.

Feb 29, 2004, 01:56 am	#1 (permalink) (top)
bugsbunny04 Untrained Fodder Location: Alabama Posts: 1,354	Okay, these are the facts: At the end of the 1980's, Saddam Hussein had someserious chemical weapons. He wanted to test them. One day, he decided "here's a thought, I'll test it on those little Kurdish fcks that live in the north, I'll even get to see how devastating it is against targets such as elementary schools and nursuries, WOO-HOO." A town of unarmed Kurds was massacred with nerve gas. This is only isolated in as much that Chemwar was employed. Saddam pretty much always treated the kurds about like Hitler treated the jews. The only reason they are not more or less exstinct is because our Air Force kept Saddams Air Force from providing air support to a massive army with armor and artillary that was to chicken sht to mount an offensive against a group of desperate folks with AK's, RPK's, RPD's, and a RPG here and there, plus a few of the Middle East Ubiquitous Toyota pickup trucks. They are, at present, only not being wiped out by the shite(head)s because they know that the United States Army will take pleasure in sending every single one of the little bed sheet wearing mother fckers on a magic carpet ride to hell. Here is the Question: Should we try to spoon feed these natural enemies into coexisting, or should we just let the Kurds have there own dmn country, which is basically the only option they really want to consider. I mean, think about it, we have done nothing but fck these people over. We will intervene in civil war that is none of our business to achieve no strategic or (usually) moral goal whatsoever (Vietnam, Somalia, Panama ect.), and we will intervene in someone elses business knowing dmn well they have enough money to hire and equip enough Mercs (which really aught to be legal by the way) to take care of it themselves, just to save a nickle on a gallon of 87 octane, But if all that is going on is some good old fashioned ethnic cleansing (WWII before 12/7/41, This situation here), We are just gonna sit on our ass until it starts effecting us in some economic way? How noble of us. Clean toe caps and a filthy mouth! Low morals and high morale!

Feb 29, 2004, 02:38 am	#2 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	noble? the country of "Town Killer" noble? LOL "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Mar 4, 2004, 05:44 am	#3 (permalink) (top)
rmnunez Volcanic Erupter Location: Mexico City Posts: 4,772	The Kurds ought to enjoy limited self-government as an autonomous region within Iraq. No armed forces, foreign policy or coin, but regional police, some tax authority and their own budget to administer. They get to run their own Kurdish language educational system and develop a culturally-sensitive legal system. Beyond that the scope of their self-government depends on the resources available. Et semel emissum volat irrevocabile verbum. Raúl M. Núñez Sheriff

Mar 4, 2004, 10:34 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
Write Winger Molten Ash Location: Texas Posts: 96	I don't believe in forcing multiculturalism on anyone. The Kurds should carve out their own country and hold on to it if they can. This notion that some artificial diversity will work when the dictator holding it all together is no longer there is wishful thinking....think Tito and the break up of Yugoslavia. Free people should have free association. Our country is a good case in point. When we started saying that the cultures we bring to the table are more important than the similarities as a single nation...as multiculturalism rears its ugly head, then the idea of community takes a backseat to cultural conflict. I am of the opinion that the union here in the US has run its course and perhaps it is time people started voting with their feet and going their seperate ways. Here I think the major divide will begin on a philosophical level as the earns finally tire of propping up the earns-nots and we break up along economic lines. Personally I am little tired of footing the bill for the parasite class. My book... Write Winger: Solutions for the Politically Oblique available from Booklocker.com

Mar 4, 2004, 10:51 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
whl626 Sedimentary Rock Posts: 11	The Kurds will finally get their fair share by declaring independence since Iraq is a mess now ? Learn English every day http://englishdaily626.com http://foreseefuture.com - Foresee your future

Mar 4, 2004, 06:52 am	#4 (permalink) (top)
french_jew Molten Ash Posts: 43	I think the kurd area should be incorporated to the new Iraqi State...because Kurds know much more about democracy than Shiite, or the other iraqis. Kurds could help a lot to build the futur Iraqi State... Nathan

Mar 4, 2004, 09:36 am	#5 (permalink) (top)
Haik Molten Ash Posts: 64	This is around the same time the U.S. begins giving Iraq 'weapons' of all kinds and training to take care of problems with Iran, who were developing some sort of nuclear plan..Donny wasn't going to have any of that now...A bit off the topic, but maybe this is where some of these weapons came from.

Mar 5, 2004, 05:28 am	#8 (permalink) (top)
rmnunez Volcanic Erupter Location: Mexico City Posts: 4,772	Forcing multiculturalism sounds like a bad idea, particularly when the alternative is an atractive culturally-sensitive government of your own. But secession for ethnic reasons doesn't sound like such a good alternative. Yugoslavia went this way and broke into all those ethnic republics, doesn't this seem a bit racist? Seems at least ethnophobic or ethno-centered to me. I also think there are good reasons for the Kurds to consider something short of independence. The Kurds are about 16% of the Iraqis and there are oil fields in their region (but fewer). The Shia majority which controls most of the oil field region is only 60% of the population and there are other groups with neither oil fields nor demographics. The Americans certainly don't want to break up Iraq because this would enhance the legitimacy of claims by Kurds in friendly Turkey and would destabilize Syria and Iran. Chances are if the region went off like Yugoslavia we´d end up with about half a dozen new countries going either pro or anti-US. Kurds alone could do worse than as part of Iraq because they have been deprived for so long so they'd need to spend a lot to catch up. Additionally, the region is quite barren and rather inaccesible so communications infrastructure will be costly. Then there's the foreseable problem with regional migration as Kurds from neighboring countries would be drawn in. It is natural for the Kurds in Iraq to seek independence since they've enjoyed a wide measure of self-government thanks to the American no-flys. Their cultural leaders, jurists and historians should be allowed to restore the record of their past accomplishments. Schools and colleges teaching in their own language would be a good idea too. Give them some proportional representation in the national legislature and carve out jurisdictions for autonomous government but forget about a Kurdish militia or diplomatic corps. Et semel emissum volat irrevocabile verbum. Raúl M. Núñez Sheriff

Mar 6, 2004, 11:13 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
bugsbunny04 Untrained Fodder Location: Alabama Posts: 1,354	[quote=rmnunez,] ...Yugoslavia went this way and broke into all those ethnic republics, doesn't this seem a bit racist? Seems at least ethnophobic or ethno-centered to me... QUOTE] Ponder: Do we call the Israeli'i racist for wanting to be independent from the "Kill all Kikes" crowd? Were blacks who ran up the underground railroad to Canada (yeah, I said all the way to canada, slavery was still in effect in the north, I don't give a fck what you learned in "revised 10th grade history"*) racist for wanting to get away from the "Know your place, nigger" crowd? How about the founders of the college out there in Tuskeegee, I suppose they are too. Singular examples that are not universal analogies should be backed up by seperate examples. Just a thought. Just because you are succeding for ethnic reasons does not make you the racist. You might be the victim of the racism. By the way, you may agree with this, it just did not seem as such from the way you worded the statement. Just thought you would like to know. Clean toe caps and a filthy mouth! Low morals and high morale!

Mar 7, 2004, 12:26 am	#10 (permalink) (top)
rmnunez Volcanic Erupter Location: Mexico City Posts: 4,772	bugs, I guess you could see it that way, but I disagree. I experienced Spain's gradual movement towards autonomous regional governments which seems so much more intelligent than dividing the country into 17 tiny mini-states (even though some basque secesionists don't agree). I think we need to remember the differences at issue are at most merely ethnic rather than racial and often just linguistic or religious. A Navarran is visually indistinguishable from a Leonés, but they are different ethnicities, they have different histories tied to different enclaves. In Spain most of the ethnicities share Spanish language, Catholic faith and some history, so they could reach some sort of accomodation more easily. But its also true that nations are somehow more than the sum of their parts. If you take each ethnic enclave within a country separately they may not make it, but associated into something larger they might make a viable state. Self-determination is an aswer when an ethnicity is deprived of adequate representation, but there is another solution; greater participation in the national government. Et semel emissum volat irrevocabile verbum. Raúl M. Núñez Sheriff

Mar 7, 2004, 02:57 am	#11 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (rmnunez,) The Kurds ought to enjoy limited self-government as an autonomous region within Iraq. No armed forces, foreign policy or coin, but regional police, some tax authority and their own budget to administer. They get to run their own Kurdish language educational system and develop a culturally-sensitive legal system. Beyond that the scope of their self-government depends on the resources available.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That's the problem - they have oil. Think the rest of Iraqi's are going to let them keep it? "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Mar 7, 2004, 03:06 am	#12 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	Didn't we royally screw all of these people when we carved up the middle east without enough regard for the religion, language, and ethninticity of the inhabitants? I think the Kurds are owed something. "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Mar 7, 2004, 03:14 am	#13 (permalink) (top)
bugsbunny04 Untrained Fodder Location: Alabama Posts: 1,354	[quote=rmnunez,]...most merely ethnic rather than racial and often just linguistic or religious...different ethnicities, they have different histories tied to different enclaves. In Spain most of the ethnicities share Spanish language, Catholic faith and some history... But its also true that nations are somehow more than the sum of their parts... associated into something larger they might make a viable state.QUOTE] First:That makes it even more rediculous for the Shiites to be shooting at the Kurds. Second: That sounds excessively like a backwood fewd between a bunch of hot headed rednecks. Como se dice "Alabama", pronounce owl-uh-BAM-uh? Third: Not if they f*ckin kill each other first. There won't be anybody to populate the sumbitch no matter how viable it is, if they use the gas. Clean toe caps and a filthy mouth! Low morals and high morale!

Mar 9, 2004, 01:06 am	#14 (permalink) (top)
rmnunez Volcanic Erupter Location: Mexico City Posts: 4,772	bugs, the right to self-determination enshrined in the Charter of the UN was the basis for the drive to decolonize Africa. In that case the argument was simple; a bunch of black people existed without any imput into how they were governed by a bunch of white people. This obviously was not self-government. Now the concept is being applied to people who enjoy more participation in government, are less different from their purported governors and have been in this sort of relationship for eons. While it was obvious Bantus or Masai were governed by foreign white guys, its not so readily apparent Scots, Catalans or Montenegrins are. As self-determination is claimed now by ethnic groups reclaiming their ancient history, in a rush to recognize the universal right, we overlook both the level of local ethnic participation a given government allows and the relatively minor differences in cultural outlooks of the contending groups. For Basques (for example) their cultural differences with Navarrans next door are trascendental, but in fact both Navarrans and Basques share the same faith, the majority speak the same language, they share most of the same history and are not physically different (same colour eyes, hair, complexion...) The differences between Kurds and other Iraqis are not so obvious. There is a Kurdish language and there must have been some historical differences but they have the same religion, many probably speak the same language, they do have some history together and how fair is it to say they lack representation enough to deny them self-government? Additionally there is the matter of capacity. Not all ethnic enclaves are capable of attaining self-government. Sure there have been some historical accidents producing micro-states, but places like Andorra, San Marino or Monaco aren't really self-governing, at least not at an international level -Monaco does not formulate foreign policy. Genuine self-determination is difficult if the entity claiming it is landlocked and entirely reliant on some outside entity to survive. The oil fields in the Iraqi Kurdish region would help assure them the capacity to rule themselves, but the fact that absent Iraqi cooperation that oil wouldn't go anywhere means they'd exist in subordination to another state if independent. Et semel emissum volat irrevocabile verbum. Raúl M. Núñez Sheriff

Mar 9, 2004, 07:21 am	#15 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	What about the Kurds in Turkey? Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Mar 9, 2004, 12:10 pm	#16 (permalink) (top)
rmnunez Volcanic Erupter Location: Mexico City Posts: 4,772	That's part of the problem, the Kurds are an ethnicity established in Syria, Iran and Turkey too. Granting them independence would certainly add legitimacy to secesionist Kurds outside Iraq. But I'm pretty sure there are important differences in levels of self-government for Kurds in the different countries. I'd assume the US does not want to destabilize all countries with Kurds, it seems safe to figure they don't want to do this with Turkey because stability in a NATO ally would be preferable. If you have a country of 24 million (Iraq) and about 15% of them (regardless of ethnicity) want to secede, should the country stay whole as 85% wants or split apart as we expect the majority of the minority does? Does ethnic identity trump democratic principles? Only people of the same ethnicity should govern us? So what about Dinkins in New York or Brown in San Franciso, how can these black men be representative of cities with ethnicities different from theirs? Is it fair to say only people of our own ethnicity can represent us? isn't it racist (or at least ethnophobic) to think this way? Et semel emissum volat irrevocabile verbum. Raúl M. Núñez Sheriff

Mar 10, 2004, 12:57 am	#17 (permalink) (top)
bugsbunny04 Untrained Fodder Location: Alabama Posts: 1,354	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (rmnunez,) bugs, the right to self-determination enshrined in the Charter of the UN was the basis for the drive to decolonize Africa. In that case the argument was simple; a bunch of black people existed without any imput into how they were governed by a bunch of white people. This obviously was not self-government. Now the concept is being applied to people who enjoy more participation in government, are less different from their purported governors and have been in this sort of relationship for eons. While it was obvious Bantus or Masai were governed by foreign white guys, its not so readily apparent Scots, Catalans or Montenegrins are. As self-determination is claimed now by ethnic groups reclaiming their ancient history, in a rush to recognize the universal right, we overlook both the level of local ethnic participation a given government allows and the relatively minor differences in cultural outlooks of the contending groups. For Basques (for example) their cultural differences with Navarrans next door are trascendental, but in fact both Navarrans and Basques share the same faith, the majority speak the same language, they share most of the same history and are not physically different (same colour eyes, hair, complexion...) The differences between Kurds and other Iraqis are not so obvious. There is a Kurdish language and there must have been some historical differences but they have the same religion, many probably speak the same language, they do have some history together and how fair is it to say they lack representation enough to deny them self-government? Additionally there is the matter of capacity. Not all ethnic enclaves are capable of attaining self-government. Sure there have been some historical accidents producing micro-states, but places like Andorra, San Marino or Monaco aren't really self-governing, at least not at an international level -Monaco does not formulate foreign policy. Genuine self-determination is difficult if the entity claiming it is landlocked and entirely reliant on some outside entity to survive. The oil fields in the Iraqi Kurdish region would help assure them the capacity to rule themselves, but the fact that absent Iraqi cooperation that oil wouldn't go anywhere means they'd exist in subordination to another state if independent.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> First: Okay, now, instead, they have either no government (see Samolia, and others) or are under the control of viscious dictators that make the Taliban look like fckin fuzzy bunnies (Rhodesia, aka Zimbabwe, Sierra Leon, ect.)! Did I mention that AIDS is normal? So is rape. So is slavery. Yeah, Whitey was really doing them wrong, huh, doc? Hell, they did not even bother to run around cutting people to peices with machettes, shame on them. Second: If they have oil, they will* find a way to sell it to somebody, without talking to the Iraqis. Clean toe caps and a filthy mouth! Low morals and high morale!

Mar 12, 2004, 04:01 pm	#18 (permalink) (top)
eamad mazouri Molten Ash Posts: 64	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (rmnunez,) The Kurds ought to enjoy limited self-government as an autonomous region within Iraq. No armed forces, foreign policy or coin, but regional police, some tax authority and their own budget to administer. They get to run their own Kurdish language educational system and develop a culturally-sensitive legal system. Beyond that the scope of their self-government depends on the resources available.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That is exactly what the Kurdish leadership in Iraqi Kurdistan is seeking.They have not sought an independent state although they deserve it like any other nation. They are realistic and are seeking what is achievable.The problem is the Shiites who were deprived and oppressed all these years along with the Kurds now are trying to turn into oppressors by denying Kurds these very rights.

Mar 12, 2004, 04:04 pm	#19 (permalink) (top)
eamad mazouri Molten Ash Posts: 64	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (french_jew,) I think the kurd area should be incorporated to the new Iraqi State...because Kurds know much more about democracy than Shiite, or the other iraqis. Kurds could help a lot to build the futur Iraqi State... Nathan<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Although that is not a good enough reson to impose certain solution on Kurds, it is true Kurds have over 12 years of experience in building democratic government and electing a parliament.Iraqi Kurdistan could be a role model for the whole country.

Mar 12, 2004, 04:07 pm	#20 (permalink) (top)
eamad mazouri Molten Ash Posts: 64	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Haik,) This is around the same time the U.S. begins giving Iraq 'weapons' of all kinds and training to take care of problems with Iran, who were developing some sort of nuclear plan..Donny wasn't going to have any of that now...A bit off the topic, but maybe this is where some of these weapons came from.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Did you read my post about Iranian Kurds who demonstrated in solidarity with Iraqi Kurds. Hundreds were arrested by Iranian authorities. There are over 7 million Kurds in Iran, they could be used as a spingboard to make changes in Iran. This might be just the beginning.