Op-Ed: Historic Justice: A Kurdish State Now

[Coyote]

I've long been interested in the Kurds....maybe longer than you Sally. We've let them down so many times.

I don't know why you harp on Pakistan. It has nothing to do with the Kurds...

Why do you think it would be so easy to as you say "carve a sliver" of land out?

I know some of the issues in Iraq, related to making the Kurdish region autonomous was one of resources - the Kurdish area was resource rich for example. A lot of conflicts that might superficially be religious or ethnic are often about resources.

And then, ther's the other aspect pointed out in this 2nd grade article - the Kurds aren't exactly a united group.

How would you convince Iran and Turkey (and Syria and Iraq) to give up a portion of their nations to the Kurds? How would access to resources be divied up?

Yes, we all have become scholars via the Internet, haven't we, Coyote? I bring up Pakistan because that was a country carved out of another country. If these four countries have been having trouble with the Kurds because the Kurds don't have their own country, maybe it would be in their best interests to give up some land for the Kurds so they wouldn't be bothered by the Kurds any more.

Many many countries have been carved out of other countries by collonial powers. We can thank that legacy for the artificial boundaries that led to some of the chaos we see today in the Middle East and Africa. I just wonder why you continuously make an example of India and Pakistan.

Unlike that example - which really involved only one country intitially (India) and split into not 2 but eventually 3 countries (Bangladesh being the third) because the powers that drew up the partition assumed that religion would be the only point of commonality (wrong).

Why do you think that those countries would give up land for an automous Kurdistan? In practical terms - what is in it for them?

How would you divy up resources and address security?

Is this not similar to Israel giving up the West Bank to the Palestinians then?

It's not really simple I'm thinking.

In Europe, many boundaries of countries have changed, and somehow the individual countries don't seem to be the worse for it. I seem to be for the countries involved to give up a little land for the Kurds, and you appear to disagree with it. We don't have to go on and on with this. We each can have our individual thoughts about this matter without dragging it out here. All we can do is wait to see what the future will bring the Kurds.

Depends on what you mean "the worse for it"...
the "dividing up" has often been the result of years, decades even centuries of war and grudge holding. Ireland being a good recent example.

You misunderstand me. I don't disagree. I just wonder how you will get them to agree, particularly if it involves resources.

I think it would be easier to get it from Syria and Iraq than Turkey and Iran.

I think I'll just let the countries involved figure that out, not that they would actually be willing to help the Kurds. I suggest we just wait and see what the future brings.

Maybe so...

but I think we ought to quit letting the Kurds down. They keep fighting the dirty for us and then we duck out.

 

[Sally]

Yes, we all have become scholars via the Internet, haven't we, Coyote? I bring up Pakistan because that was a country carved out of another country. If these four countries have been having trouble with the Kurds because the Kurds don't have their own country, maybe it would be in their best interests to give up some land for the Kurds so they wouldn't be bothered by the Kurds any more.

Many many countries have been carved out of other countries by collonial powers. We can thank that legacy for the artificial boundaries that led to some of the chaos we see today in the Middle East and Africa. I just wonder why you continuously make an example of India and Pakistan.

Unlike that example - which really involved only one country intitially (India) and split into not 2 but eventually 3 countries (Bangladesh being the third) because the powers that drew up the partition assumed that religion would be the only point of commonality (wrong).

Why do you think that those countries would give up land for an automous Kurdistan? In practical terms - what is in it for them?

How would you divy up resources and address security?

Is this not similar to Israel giving up the West Bank to the Palestinians then?

It's not really simple I'm thinking.

In Europe, many boundaries of countries have changed, and somehow the individual countries don't seem to be the worse for it. I seem to be for the countries involved to give up a little land for the Kurds, and you appear to disagree with it. We don't have to go on and on with this. We each can have our individual thoughts about this matter without dragging it out here. All we can do is wait to see what the future will bring the Kurds.

Depends on what you mean "the worse for it"...
the "dividing up" has often been the result of years, decades even centuries of war and grudge holding. Ireland being a good recent example.

You misunderstand me. I don't disagree. I just wonder how you will get them to agree, particularly if it involves resources.

I think it would be easier to get it from Syria and Iraq than Turkey and Iran.

I think I'll just let the countries involved figure that out, not that they would actually be willing to help the Kurds. I suggest we just wait and see what the future brings.

Maybe so...

but I think we ought to quit letting the Kurds down. They keep fighting the dirty for us and then we duck out.

As much as we have seen them doing with regard to ISIS, I don't think it matters much to the countries who should be willing to give them a piece of land. If the U.N. were more effective, perhaps they are the one who should suggest this to the countries involved.

 

[irosie91]

I've long been interested in the Kurds....maybe longer than you Sally. We've let them down so many times.

I don't know why you harp on Pakistan. It has nothing to do with the Kurds...

Why do you think it would be so easy to as you say "carve a sliver" of land out?

I know some of the issues in Iraq, related to making the Kurdish region autonomous was one of resources - the Kurdish area was resource rich for example. A lot of conflicts that might superficially be religious or ethnic are often about resources.

And then, ther's the other aspect pointed out in this 2nd grade article - the Kurds aren't exactly a united group.

How would you convince Iran and Turkey (and Syria and Iraq) to give up a portion of their nations to the Kurds? How would access to resources be divied up?

Yes, we all have become scholars via the Internet, haven't we, Coyote? I bring up Pakistan because that was a country carved out of another country. If these four countries have been having trouble with the Kurds because the Kurds don't have their own country, maybe it would be in their best interests to give up some land for the Kurds so they wouldn't be bothered by the Kurds any more.

Many many countries have been carved out of other countries by collonial powers. We can thank that legacy for the artificial boundaries that led to some of the chaos we see today in the Middle East and Africa. I just wonder why you continuously make an example of India and Pakistan.

Unlike that example - which really involved only one country intitially (India) and split into not 2 but eventually 3 countries (Bangladesh being the third) because the powers that drew up the partition assumed that religion would be the only point of commonality (wrong).

Why do you think that those countries would give up land for an automous Kurdistan? In practical terms - what is in it for them?

How would you divy up resources and address security?

Is this not similar to Israel giving up the West Bank to the Palestinians then?

It's not really simple I'm thinking.

you are right-----compromises are not really simple-----land disputes even when settled in local municipal courts are not
SIMPLE--------long ago when I was a child (and cute) there were little spats over "wells"------a water shortage led to a kind of restriction of water use-------people could not water their tomato plants or wash their cars with their garden hoses-------so they DUG WELLS IN THE BACK YARD----even that led to some dispute as to WHO OWNS THE WELL WATER-----and WHAT IS THAT BASTARD NEIGHBOR DOING TO MY --LITTLE WATER TABLE?

 

[Coyote]

Many many countries have been carved out of other countries by collonial powers. We can thank that legacy for the artificial boundaries that led to some of the chaos we see today in the Middle East and Africa. I just wonder why you continuously make an example of India and Pakistan.

Unlike that example - which really involved only one country intitially (India) and split into not 2 but eventually 3 countries (Bangladesh being the third) because the powers that drew up the partition assumed that religion would be the only point of commonality (wrong).

Why do you think that those countries would give up land for an automous Kurdistan? In practical terms - what is in it for them?

How would you divy up resources and address security?

Is this not similar to Israel giving up the West Bank to the Palestinians then?

It's not really simple I'm thinking.

In Europe, many boundaries of countries have changed, and somehow the individual countries don't seem to be the worse for it. I seem to be for the countries involved to give up a little land for the Kurds, and you appear to disagree with it. We don't have to go on and on with this. We each can have our individual thoughts about this matter without dragging it out here. All we can do is wait to see what the future will bring the Kurds.

Depends on what you mean "the worse for it"...
the "dividing up" has often been the result of years, decades even centuries of war and grudge holding. Ireland being a good recent example.

You misunderstand me. I don't disagree. I just wonder how you will get them to agree, particularly if it involves resources.

I think it would be easier to get it from Syria and Iraq than Turkey and Iran.

I think I'll just let the countries involved figure that out, not that they would actually be willing to help the Kurds. I suggest we just wait and see what the future brings.

Maybe so...

but I think we ought to quit letting the Kurds down. They keep fighting the dirty for us and then we duck out.

As much as we have seen them doing with regard to ISIS, I don't think it matters much to the countries who should be willing to give them a piece of land. If the U.N. were more effective, perhaps they are the one who should suggest this to the countries involved.

Wasn't the UN at least partially responsible for the carving up that eventually led to the mess we're have now? Turkey has been dealing with Kurdish terrorists for some time...I can understand their reticence...and I guess it's more complicated than it seems on the surface.

Just carve out Syria and Iraq - they're failed states and the Kurds are already semi-automous in Iraq and likely to gain more autonomy at the end of this...if ISIS doesn't win.