Languish.org

Do the Kurds deserve their own nation state?

You can take or define deserve however you wish, but the scenario I'm outlining is the Kurdish areas of Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran declaring national independence, which could obvioulsy prove rather messy.

Deserving has nothing to do with anything.

I don't know if them having one would be good or not. They are an oppressed minority in four different shitty countries but if they had one would things necessarily be better for everybody?

The USA thought they should have one during the Treaty of Versailles but did not have the will to make it happen. A historical what if there I guess.

Yeah, it seems like a good idea now, but the situation is like Poland pre-WWI.  We could end up with the Kurdish lawyer posting all sorts of nonsense here. I'm not sure we want to take that chance.

Quote from: Razgovory on November 24, 2015, 02:35:00 PM
Yeah, it seems like a good idea now, but the situation is like Poland pre-WWI.  We could end up with the Kurdish lawyer posting all sorts of nonsense here. I'm not sure we want to take that chance.

:lol:

Raz, don't worry it would take 70 odd years, so only your grandchildren here would be bothered.

I think they're already a de-facto state in all but name. Prior to Iraq melting down and becoming a lot more cozy with Iran with increasing tension between Sunnis and Shias, then losing out to ISIS with mainly the Kurds being a viable force to fight back, they were already a functioning, quasi-independent province. Now with the way things are I would think there's a lot more impetus for them to be independent, especially as more calls come for Iraq to maybe split up in Sunni and Shia states. Turkey would be against a Kurdish state but I envision Kurdistan to occupy their current lands in northern Iraq, not to take or receive lands in Turkey.

I think they do. They have already proven that, at least when it comes to women rights, they are way ahead of most of the cultures in the region. And the states in the region seem like they are either failed (Iraq, Syria) or assholish (Turkey, Iran).

Plus, to elaborate on Raz's post, I'd fuck a gay Kurdish lawyer.

Absolutely.

"deserve" has nothing to do with anything.

Kurds should have the right of self-determination though - they should have the opportunity to form a nation state if they want one.

Quote from: mongers on November 24, 2015, 02:28:47 PM
Do the Kurds deserve their own nation state?

You can take or define deserve however you wish, but the scenario I'm outlining is the Kurdish areas of Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran declaring national independence, which could obvioulsy prove rather messy.

Yes they do deserve a State of their own. Carve it out of Syrian and Iraq, eventually the Kurds from Iran and Turkey will move there, so the question of oppressed ethnic minorities would settle itself in these countries.

Ideally, the gay Kurdish lawyer I'd fuck would be a Yezidi, by the way. Just saying.

Sure they do.
Unfortunately the Turks are authoritarian dicks.

Quote from: viper37 on November 24, 2015, 03:25:38 PM

Quote from: mongers on November 24, 2015, 02:28:47 PM
Do the Kurds deserve their own nation state?

You can take or define deserve however you wish, but the scenario I'm outlining is the Kurdish areas of Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran declaring national independence, which could obvioulsy prove rather messy.

Yes they do deserve a State of their own. Carve it out of Syrian and Iraq, eventually the Kurds from Iran and Turkey will move there, so the question of oppressed ethnic minorities would settle itself in these countries.

I could see that happening, but there's 7-8 million Kurds in Turkey, there isn't the land, certainly agricultural land to accommodate many of them, so a future Kurdish state eventually has to take a chunk out of Turkey, like how Attaturk did with French Syria in the 20s40s?

IIRC the Kurds in Iran are concentrated in just a few towns and small areas along the mountainous border, it would be relatively easy for a nation state to agree to minor border revisions or more likely allow those Iranian Kurds who wished to, to emigrate to the new entity. 

Before or after?.. nuking them from orbit.

Quote from: lustindarkness on November 24, 2015, 04:09:26 PM
Before or after?.. nuking them from orbit.

You want to nuke the Kurds? :unsure:


edit:

Or did you mean, the Kurds declare UDI, all the nasty forces in the region converge on them to snuff out the nascent nation state and then the US tatically nukes the descending hordes?

Quote from: mongers on November 24, 2015, 04:10:54 PM

Quote from: lustindarkness on November 24, 2015, 04:09:26 PM
Before or after?.. nuking them from orbit.

You want to nuke the Kurds? :unsure:


edit:

Or did you mean, the Kurds declare UDI, all the nasty forces in the region converge on them to snuff out the nascent nation state and then the US tatically nukes the descending hordes?

Not just the Kurds.

Yes

Quote from: Barrister on November 24, 2015, 03:25:36 PM
"deserve" has nothing to do with anything.

Deserve has quite a bit to do with it for me.  Part of the calculus is predicting how much like grown ups they will act once they have independence.

Quote from: lustindarkness on November 24, 2015, 04:13:24 PM

Quote from: mongers on November 24, 2015, 04:10:54 PM

Quote from: lustindarkness on November 24, 2015, 04:09:26 PM
Before or after?.. nuking them from orbit.

You want to nuke the Kurds? :unsure:


edit:

Or did you mean, the Kurds declare UDI, all the nasty forces in the region converge on them to snuff out the nascent nation state and then the US tatically nukes the descending hordes?

Not just the Kurds.

That seems a little ... indiscriminate.

My plan would see all the eschatological fundamentalists being turned into ashes, pretty close by to places that they foresee as being where Armageddon would be fought.  :cool:

Every country where they are a sizable minority seems hellbent on trying to kill them off. So it seems it's even a matter of necessity.

Quote from: Razgovory on November 24, 2015, 02:35:00 PM
Yeah, it seems like a good idea now, but the situation is like Poland pre-WWI.  We could end up with the Kurdish lawyer posting all sorts of nonsense here. I'm not sure we want to take that chance.

Dang.  Wish I had read this before I voted Yes.

Only if they win a war of independence against every one of their overlords first.  Otherwise, they don't deserve their own state.

Too bad for Kurds that these poll results are not binding.  :(

I struggle with this. I don't necessarily believe in the right of self-determination--if that were the case we have to argue the Confederate States should've been allowed to break away from the union. Ethnic nationalism has lead to much of the worst troubles of the late 19th and first half of the 20th century. I think the model where multiple ethnic groups can exist in the same country without exploding is a superior one to one in which it's expected any self-identified ethnic group deserves its own state.

For the Kurds in particular, Iran will never give up their land for a Kurdish State, and Turkey won't either. To be honest, Turkey is a NATO ally and when push comes to shove I can't get behind pressuring them to give up their land. Namely because you could make the same argument about several NATO allies and land they hold (e.g. Spain, United Kingdom etc.) We should pressure Turkey to end discrimination and hostility against peaceful Kurds (but continue to condemn the Kurds who engage in terrorism.)

I'd be okay with the United States trying to work to link up the Kurdish regions of Syria and Iraq and move it towards full statehood, though.

I don't like the use of the word deserve in this context. So I voted no. But I do think a state for the Kurds might be a good idea.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 24, 2015, 05:42:30 PM
I struggle with this. I don't necessarily believe in the right of self-determination--if that were the case we have to argue the Confederate States should've been allowed to break away from the union.

Since southerners weren't distinct group separate from northerners, we don't have this problem.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 24, 2015, 05:42:30 PM
I struggle with this. I don't necessarily believe in the right of self-determination--if that were the case we have to argue the Confederate States should've been allowed to break away from the union.

They probably should have been allowed to break away.

Quote from: 11B4V on November 24, 2015, 04:22:08 PM
Yes

No whey.

Yes. Though the ones I have in mind will insist that it's not a nation-state. Or a state.  :punk:

Quote from: mongers on November 24, 2015, 04:07:05 PM

Quote from: viper37 on November 24, 2015, 03:25:38 PM

Quote from: mongers on November 24, 2015, 02:28:47 PM
Do the Kurds deserve their own nation state?

You can take or define deserve however you wish, but the scenario I'm outlining is the Kurdish areas of Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran declaring national independence, which could obvioulsy prove rather messy.

Yes they do deserve a State of their own. Carve it out of Syrian and Iraq, eventually the Kurds from Iran and Turkey will move there, so the question of oppressed ethnic minorities would settle itself in these countries.

I could see that happening, but there's 7-8 million Kurds in Turkey, there isn't the land, certainly agricultural land to accommodate many of them, so a future Kurdish state eventually has to take a chunk out of Turkey, like how Attaturk did with French Syria in the 20s40s?

IIRC the Kurds in Iran are concentrated in just a few towns and small areas along the mountainous border, it would be relatively easy for a nation state to agree to minor border revisions or more likely allow those Iranian Kurds who wished to, to emigrate to the new entity. 

Carving a Kurdish state out of Iran and Turkey is not gonna happen.  Iran is not going to let any border, even small one, being redrawn.  Iraq and Syrie will protest, but they will be in no shape to do anything about it.  Turkey would never agree to a viable Kurdish state on its border and it will do its best to make life a living hell for any Kurdish state and for Kurds in their territory, sorta like how muslim countries treated Jews after Israel was created.  So, Turkey would never agree to a partition of its territory, and they certainly are in a position to create problems.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 24, 2015, 05:42:30 PM
Ethnic nationalism has lead to much of the worst troubles of the late 19th and first half of the 20th century.

Imperialism caused the wars.  For WW1, the desire for Empires to maintain their territorial integrity above all else.  For WWII, the desire of former empires to regain their past "glory" of oppressing minorities.

Quote from: Barrister on November 24, 2015, 06:00:28 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 24, 2015, 05:42:30 PM
I struggle with this. I don't necessarily believe in the right of self-determination--if that were the case we have to argue the Confederate States should've been allowed to break away from the union.

They probably should have been allowed to break away.

it would have been less bloody.  The North could have engaged in rapid certification of the new territories, surround the independant South, and the Indians would have tried to play both powers for a little longer.

 :lol:

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 24, 2015, 05:42:30 PM
I struggle with this. I don't necessarily believe in the right of self-determination--if that were the case we have to argue the Confederate States should've been allowed to break away from the union

That logic doesn't follow at all.
The CSA should have been allowed to break away....except for the fact one of their central tenements was a grave human rights abuse. They got off easy.
Equally one could say if you don't support self determination then you support the soviets in Hungary.
There is no connection . This kind of thing has to be taken on a case by case basis and consider more than  just the basic "they want self determination"

Tenet...tenet....tenet.... :mad:

Though people usually use "tenant" when they get it wrong, so 10/10 for originality.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 25, 2015, 04:09:26 AM
Tenet...tenet....tenet.... :mad:

Though people usually use "tenant" when they get it wrong, so 10/10 for originality.

This.

Quote from: Barrister on November 24, 2015, 06:00:28 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 24, 2015, 05:42:30 PM
I struggle with this. I don't necessarily believe in the right of self-determination--if that were the case we have to argue the Confederate States should've been allowed to break away from the union.

They probably should have been allowed to break away.

And allow the slave power to destroy our country? Why?

Quoteit would have been less bloody.  The North could have engaged in rapid certification of the new territories, surround the independant South, and the Indians would have tried to play both powers for a little longer.

Yeah ok the South had big plans. They were not going to sit around and be surrounded.

Quote from: viper37 on November 24, 2015, 11:07:25 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 24, 2015, 05:42:30 PM
Ethnic nationalism has lead to much of the worst troubles of the late 19th and first half of the 20th century.

Imperialism caused the wars.  For WW1, the desire for Empires to maintain their territorial integrity above all else.  For WWII, the desire of former empires to regain their past "glory" of oppressing minorities.

Um ethnic nationalism was a driving force in the creation and sustaining those empires. Serbia wanted their own little empire where they would be the dominant southern slav power.

Quote from: viper37 on November 24, 2015, 11:07:25 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 24, 2015, 05:42:30 PM
Ethnic nationalism has lead to much of the worst troubles of the late 19th and first half of the 20th century.

Imperialism caused the wars.  For WW1, the desire for Empires to maintain their territorial integrity above all else.  For WWII, the desire of former empires to regain their past "glory" of oppressing minorities.

'Your evil imperialism got in the way of the natural expansion of our righteous ethnic nationalism'  ;)

Quote from: Malthus on November 25, 2015, 10:53:44 AM
'Your evil imperialism got in the way of the natural expansion of our righteous ethnic nationalism'  ;)

:yes:

Quote from: Tyr on November 25, 2015, 04:02:14 AMThat logic doesn't follow at all.
The CSA should have been allowed to break away....except for the fact one of their central tenements was a grave human rights abuse. They got off easy.
Equally one could say if you don't support self determination then you support the soviets in Hungary.
There is no connection . This kind of thing has to be taken on a case by case basis and consider more than  just the basic "they want self determination"

That really has nothing to do with it, part and parcel of the concept of independent states is that some states have domestic policies we would consider evil. It's really got nothing to do with whether the concept of self-determination is valid. I don't believe that countries should buy into the concept of self-determination in cases of national secession movements. For one, in almost every such scenario the regions that want to break away have a pretty sizable population of people who aren't members of the majority ethnic group in that region and who do not wish to break away.

You could argue "but, majority rules", and yes, you can make that argument--but that argument is always subject to checks on it, and I think "breaking up the country" is a good check on the concept of democracy in a small-area of the country.

I'd be much more inclined to accept secession movements that are the result of mutual consent--where both a majority of the breakaway province and a majority of the country as a whole agree to the secession.

Quote from: Valmy on November 25, 2015, 10:30:21 AM
Yeah ok the South had big plans. They were not going to sit around and be surrounded.

Of course not.  But they had much less people than the northerners, still plenty of lands and a diminishing number of slaves.  It would have been easy for the North to act like the British and fight against the Atlantic slave trade.
Meanwhile, arm the indians, form militia and assist them in repelling the Southerners encroaching on their lands instead of fighting against the Indians to protect the colonists

Quote from: Malthus on November 25, 2015, 10:53:44 AM

Quote from: viper37 on November 24, 2015, 11:07:25 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 24, 2015, 05:42:30 PM
Ethnic nationalism has lead to much of the worst troubles of the late 19th and first half of the 20th century.

Imperialism caused the wars.  For WW1, the desire for Empires to maintain their territorial integrity above all else.  For WWII, the desire of former empires to regain their past "glory" of oppressing minorities.

'Your evil imperialism got in the way of the natural expansion of our righteous ethnic nationalism'  ;)

Sometimes, you invade a country, you conquer them, you massacre them, and without reason any, they rebel against your rule. ;)


So, the creation of Israel, should it be seen as the triump of righteous ethnic nationalism when they carved themselves a Jewish State out of the British colony (sorry, "mandate")?  Should Israelis today declare Yom Ha'atzma'ut to be a shameful day, the triumph of ethnic nationalism over tolerant imperialism? :)

Let's be honest for two seconds: real multicultiralism, were a variety of cultures each work together for the same goals, each being entirely equal to one another rarely exists.  The natural way is for one ethnicity to take control, usually the majority one, but sometimes the minority one can achieve the same goals with violence.  Anglo saxon culture is dominant in the US and Canada.  In the past, whenever a cultural group could pose a threat, the legislator made sure it would not happen, and it is still going on today with the latest CSC decisions regarding bilinguism.  We just can't have a French revival in part of the country, that would be shameful.

In the US, as fear of the Mexican, and now Arab "invasion" grows, you see near fascist candidates going on the rise in voters intentions.  People talk or fences, registers, deportation, anchor babies and they are cheered on by a growing proportion of the electors.  20 years ago, someone suggesting that in the US would have been shunned by all medias and electors.  Today, they are treated as saying the truths no one dares speaking of.  That's the dominant cultural group fighting back against what they perceive as an erosion of their power: if things keep going, they fear they will no longer be able to shape the country to their image, it will transform into something else.

By comparison, a portion of a country, usually conquered by military might or annexed by a royal marriage, threatening to hold a democratic process on secession is not really scary to me.  I'd much prefer a country to be partionned than wait for a Syrian like civil war to happen because some groups simply can't stand themselves anymore, at all, and 5 centuries old grievances resurface.

I remember the the Yugoslavian civil wars, and it was nasty.  Serbs, Croats and Kosovars each accusing the other of war crimes committed in the distant middle ages and being deadly serious about it...  Should we have let them slaughter each another or did we do the right thing by officially dismantling the countries in seperate entities?  Was nationalism the greatest of evil?

Quote from: viper37 on November 25, 2015, 02:11:15 PM

Quote from: Valmy on November 25, 2015, 10:30:21 AM
Yeah ok the South had big plans. They were not going to sit around and be surrounded.

Of course not.  But they had much less people than the northerners, still plenty of lands and a diminishing number of slaves.  It would have been easy for the North to act like the British and fight against the Atlantic slave trade.
Meanwhile, arm the indians, form militia and assist them in repelling the Southerners encroaching on their lands instead of fighting against the Indians to protect the colonists

Quote from: Malthus on November 25, 2015, 10:53:44 AM

Quote from: viper37 on November 24, 2015, 11:07:25 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 24, 2015, 05:42:30 PM
Ethnic nationalism has lead to much of the worst troubles of the late 19th and first half of the 20th century.

Imperialism caused the wars.  For WW1, the desire for Empires to maintain their territorial integrity above all else.  For WWII, the desire of former empires to regain their past "glory" of oppressing minorities.

'Your evil imperialism got in the way of the natural expansion of our righteous ethnic nationalism'  ;)

Sometimes, you invade a country, you conquer them, you massacre them, and without reason any, they rebel against your rule. ;)


So, the creation of Israel, should it be seen as the triump of righteous ethnic nationalism when they carved themselves a Jewish State out of the British colony (sorry, "mandate")?  Should Israelis today declare Yom Ha'atzma'ut to be a shameful day, the triumph of ethnic nationalism over tolerant imperialism? :) 

Undoubtedly the creation of Israel was the consequence of the triumph of an ethno-nationalist movement ("Zionism"). Is there anyone who doubts it?  :huh:

QuoteLet's be honest for two seconds: real multicultiralism, were a variety of cultures each work together for the same goals, each being entirely equal to one another rarely exists.  The natural way is for one ethnicity to take control, usually the majority one, but sometimes the minority one can achieve the same goals with violence.  Anglo saxon culture is dominant in the US and Canada.

Canada makes an odd example of triumphant Anglo Saxon culture lording it over everyone.   :lmfao:

But then, you actually believe that to be true, so I shouldn't mock.

Did we just go from an American Civil War hijack to a Quebec Sovereignty / le Québec libre hijack?  :unsure:

The future looks dim for the Kurds.   :(

Quote from: Malthus on November 25, 2015, 02:18:01 PM
Canada makes an odd example of triumphant Anglo Saxon culture lording it over everyone.   :lmfao:
But then, you actually believe that to be true, so I shouldn't mock.

Really?  What is the most spoken language in the country and by what margin?  Who is the head of State?  How many unilingual english provinces in the country?  Where do your civil laws come from?

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 25, 2015, 11:16:31 AM
That really has nothing to do with it, part and parcel of the concept of independent states is that some states have domestic policies we would consider evil. It's really got nothing to do with whether the concept of self-determination is valid. I don't believe that countries should buy into the concept of self-determination in cases of national secession movements. For one, in almost every such scenario the regions that want to break away have a pretty sizable population of people who aren't members of the majority ethnic group in that region and who do not wish to break away.

You could argue "but, majority rules", and yes, you can make that argument--but that argument is always subject to checks on it, and I think "breaking up the country" is a good check on the concept of democracy in a small-area of the country.

I'd be much more inclined to accept secession movements that are the result of mutual consent--where both a majority of the breakaway province and a majority of the country as a whole agree to the secession.

This wasn't the US invading an established country that was a bit of a dick though. It was part of the US deciding to break free specifically so it could be really fucking evil.
To stand by and let that happen would be immoral.

In a more neutral situation where self determination is the only issue in play then nations deserve self-determination.
There should of course be rules around this- they have to continue to respect minorities, maintain a lot of integration and free movement with the country they're leaving for the next few decades at least, etc.... but to be against self-determination as an absolute is just wrong.

Quote from: viper37 on November 25, 2015, 03:17:42 PM

Quote from: Malthus on November 25, 2015, 02:18:01 PM
Canada makes an odd example of triumphant Anglo Saxon culture lording it over everyone.   :lmfao:
But then, you actually believe that to be true, so I shouldn't mock.

Really?  What is the most spoken language in the country and by what margin?  Who is the head of State?  How many unilingual english provinces in the country?  Where do your civil laws come from?

Heh, depends on where you are. If you happen to be in Quebec, the majority language is French, the unilingual language is French, and the civil code was inspired by the Napoleonic code. Our current Prime Minister represents the riding of Papineau in Quebec, and is fluently bilingual. The theoretic head of state is the Queen of England, but all her duties are assumed by her representative, the Governor General, who presently is  David Johnston (from Ontario); however, he succeeded a Francophone from Haiti originally - Michaëlle Jean - who is currently the Secretary-General of the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie. 

Seems a very odd set of questions, if intended to prove Canada is dominated by Anglos.  :lol:

Christ, Viper doesn't know shit about the US.  His statements are so wrong headed I don't know where to start.

Quote from: Razgovory on November 25, 2015, 03:52:31 PM
Christ, Viper doesn't know shit about the US.  His statements are so wrong headed I don't know where to start.

Hey, he doesn't know about his own country, so why should he know about yours?  :P

Quote from: Malthus on November 25, 2015, 03:55:12 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on November 25, 2015, 03:52:31 PM
Christ, Viper doesn't know shit about the US.  His statements are so wrong headed I don't know where to start.

Hey, he doesn't know about his own country, so why should he know about yours?  :P

I mean look at this. 

QuoteOf course not.  But they had much less people than the northerners, still plenty of lands and a diminishing number of slaves.  It would have been easy for the North to act like the British and fight against the Atlantic slave trade.
Meanwhile, arm the indians, form militia and assist them in repelling the Southerners encroaching on their lands instead of fighting against the Indians to protect the colonists

The South didn't have a diminishing number of slaves, the US enforced the ban on the Trans-Atlantic slave trade prior to the Civil war and had for a long time.  The Indians were not one people, they were already armed but largely inconsequential.  There were not many of them living in Confederate territory anyway, and the area with the most Indians (the Indian Territory now known as Oklahoma) had strong Confederate support.