Should there be a Kurdish State?

[germanos]

Oh, and Shi,

are you allready regretting the US has started to liberate the majority of the Iraqi people? Why have you been so supportive of this war then ?

[Japher]

It is such a shame that you put down the rights of the kurds for self-governance, be it a state or other form of self-governance by saying they will start a fight with their neighbours for a port.

And in fact the oil from northern Iraq has been finding its way to the worlds markets for the past 12 years via land-routes in Turkey and Syria, so I don't see why it could not continue. And there are pipelines as well, but now blocked through the UN sanctions.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said one way or another if they should have their own country. I was just pointing out a dilema. If anything I was trying to give them more land, a coast at least.

Also, I did not say that it would be the kurds starting the war. I just said that one would arise.

And, if you think that Turkey will let Kurdish oil be trasported through their land you are surely jesting.

[germanos]

Originally posted by Japher
One problem: If the Kurds take N. Iraq, and plan on sqwatting there with all that oil, how will the get it out? I amm sure they have the ability to draw the oil, but they have no sea lanes to transport the oil! This would surely lead them to another fight over a coastal are from which to conduct trade.

Well, apparently I misinterpreted your words. I fail to see however how they will be drawn in a battle over a coastal area if they would not actively persue such a goal. You don't expect Turkey or Syria to lure them into a battle right of the Mediteranian are you?

And the Turks can choose as they will. If not them, then the Syrians or Iranians will step in. The Oil is just to good (it is a very good crude) that no third party will be willing to get a piece of the revenue by transporting it over their territory.

And don't be fooled: Iraqi/Kurdish oil has been pooring into Turkey for the last 12 years. They need it as hard as the kurds do.

Politics or morals usually don't mean very much when it comes to profit...

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by paiktis22
That doesn't make any sense.

Sure it does. Our goal is to prevent a shia fundamentalist state from arising in Iraq. This will be done with a coalition of secular shias and non-shias. It will be easier to do this if we keep the non-shia kurds in Iraq.

[GePap]

Again, this admin, has continually stated that Iraq will remain as one: which mean, no Kurdish independence. The most they can expect to gain without war is autonomy. If the Kurds make any attempts at independence then "operation Iraqi freedom" will go down the tubes right quick.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi


Sure it does. Our goal is to prevent a shia fundamentalist state from arising in Iraq. This will be done with a coalition of secular shias and non-shias. It will be easier to do this if we keep the non-shia kurds in Iraq.

No it doesn't. The more minorities the more problems. To say nothing about what will happen if the Kurds don;t get self - governance.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Ultimately, if the Shia majority decide that they want a fundamentalist state, it is undemocratic to try and stop them (one of the pitfalls of democracy). Better to let them have it, and try to protect the rights of minorities who don't want to join it.

Iran is an example of a fundamentalist state that is moving towards a true democracy after initial post-revolutionary zeal, despite the ham-fisted "diplomacy" of the Bush administration ("Axis of Evil" did NOT help the cause of the reform movement in Iran).

[Az]

Actually, I don't think that the Shia will hook with Iran. (!). They're not persians, they're arabs. Sure, it won't be as cold as the Saddam-Ayatollah relationship, but still.