Kurds and Kurdistan

[Michaelangelica]

I must admit I know little of the Kurds.

Just that Saddam Hussein tried to exterminate them.

Why does everyone hate the Kurds?

First Saddam Hussein now Turkey supported by the USA wants to kill them.

The USA is supping the Turks with "intelligence"

So they want their own country so?

Why not? There is still about 20 million left.

 

I just saw hundreds of Turkish tanks and F111s attacking these people on the ABC news

The new invasion of Iraq

 

Up to 10,000 Turkish troops launch an incursion which threatens to destabilise the country's only peaceful region

 

By Patrick Cockburn

Saturday, 23 February 2008

 

A new crisis has exploded in Iraq after (10,000) Turkish troops, supported by (F111) attack planes and Cobra helicopters, yesterday launched a major ground offensive into Iraqi Kurdistan.

. . .

The Iraqi Kurds are America's closest allies in Iraq and the only Iraqi community to support fully the US occupation. The president of the autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government, Massoud Barzani, said recently he felt let down by the failure of the Iraqi government in Baghdad to stop Turkish bombing raids on Iraqi territory.

The new invasion of Iraq - Middle East, World - Independent.co.uk

With 'friends' like the USA: who needs enemies.

 

Why?

I am searching the net for answers now.

Kurdish Media

Turkey authorizes invasion of Iraq to hunt for Kurd rebels - The Boston Globe

President Bush’s Support and Endorsement of the Turkish Military Invasion of Iraq

Kurdish Aspect

ART

 

[nutronjon]

I do think this is an important subject for us to understand. The problems in the mid east, are the result of England and France thinking they could do as they please with the mid east, and today's demand for oil and water have turned this region into an area of violent conflict. If the region were nothing but inhostible mountains, it and the people living there, would be ignored. The fight isn't so much for land, but water (Turkish area) and control of oil (Iraq area). This brings unwanted people into the Kurds territory, and this becomes a violent conflict, because the Kurds never signed an agreement that their territory belongs to Iraq and Turkey. The British and French just divided the region up as they pleased without the consent of those living in the regions. It is the same problem we see in Israel, only the Jews have enjoyed greater support from Britian and US than Kurds have.

 

I hope everyone understands, the world does not recognized the Kurdistan shown in the map, because the English and French didn't recognize these people with their own country. Also, the US is a late comer. It befriended the Kurds to enhance its own control of the region. It had befriended Iranians too, not because the US is such a friendly and idealistic nation, but it befriends people when it wants something they have. Such as using the CIA to get the Kurds to rebel against Sadam, and then doing nothing when Sadam slaughtered them, because its CIA operations are secret and the US doesn't want to expose its interest and actions in such areas.

 

It occurs in the aftermath of of World War I, when the modern map of the Mideast was created.

 

Heading into WWI, the Ottoman Turks were the dominant regional power. Most Kurds lived under Ottoman rule. The Ottomans lost the war; the victorious powers (mostly Britain and France) disassembled the empire and redrew the map of the Mideast, creating several new countries from former Ottoman provinces.

 

This was the supposedly great Wilsonian moment, when previously subjugated people would enjoy the right of national self-determination, although this principle — especially as it affected small nations — was often trampled by the interests of bigger powers.

 

In the Treaty of Sevres (1920) the defeated Turkish Sultan Mehmed VI agreed to boundaries for the post-imperial Turkish nation that basically included only the territory on which ethnic Turks lived. It did not include the Kurdish region. The Treaty of Sevres provided autonomy for the Kurds, with a prospect of an independent Kurdish state.

 

Meanwhile, the British had control of the the three former Ottoman provinces of Mosul (mostly Kurdish), Baghdad (mostly Sunni Arab) and Basra (mostly Shia Arab). In “A Peace to End All Peace,” David Fromkin’s highly-regarded book length treatment of the post-Ottoman shenanigans, Fromkin wrote that the British were torn between those who wanted to create an independent Kurdish state out of the Mosul province, and those who wanted to make it part of the new British project that would become the nation of Iraq.

 

The Magic Moment

 

Imagining counter-history is always risky, but it seems quite possible, even likely, that if the Kurds of southeastern Turkey and the Kurds of Northern Iraq had been granted the autonomy and self-determination rights that was almost within their grasp at this magic moment, they would have combined, formed a Kurdish state that would have and been and might still be home to the great majority of the world’s Kurds.

 

A medium-sized nation (a lot bigger than Kuwait, which gained independence as part of this overall story) would have had oil resources (from the Iraqi portion) and water resources (from the Turkish portion). If it could have lasted, it would almost certainly be less troublesome than those two Kurdish portions are now. As best I can tell, it would likely be a pro-American enclave (certainly the Iraqi Kurds have been the most pro-American group in Iraq and perhaps in the whole Mideast) and likely have an above-average chance, at least for that region, of becoming a prosperous, stable democracy.

 

Eric Black Ink » Blog Archive » Kurdish history 101

[Michaelangelica]

The British loved drawing lines on maps.

Lines that had nothing to do with history or ethnic issues/regions/history.

Very sad.

[nutronjon]

The British loved drawing lines on maps.

Lines that had nothing to do with history or ethnic issues/regions/history.

Very sad.

 

And very problematic today. They gave the Jews land for Israel, because they barrowed money from Rothschild to supply the Arabs with weapons, so the Arabs could throw off Turkish rule. The Arabs thought they would get control of all the territory considered to be Arab territory, when they engaged in war with the Turks.

 

Britian and France kind of divided things up as they liked, and following WWII the US began lusting for control this part of the world. I really hate it when people give the UN decisions that authority of a God, because those in power are not the people of the land.

[Michaelangelica]

At one stage it was suggested that Israel be located in Western Australia.

I wonder how different the world would have been if that had happened?

[nutronjon]

At one stage it was suggested that Israel be located in Western Australia.

I wonder how different the world would have been if that had happened?

 

I don't think many Jews could have become passionate about a homeland other than Israel, and there would be no fundamentalist Christian Zionist if the homeland of Jews were not Israel. The religious influence on present wars would not be what it is.

 

The other day I came across some interesting information about the languages the UN uses. Arabic wasn't recognized as a language in the UN unitl 1973. I think that indicates who much the Arabs were respected when the UN decided to recognize Israel. The Persian language is not recognized by the UN and Iran is Persian not Arab. The Kurdish language is not recognized, so how much chance do they have in arguing their case?

 

I think we have an international problem that needs addressing, differently than the way Bush and Cheney are going about it.

 

Wikipedia quote:

 

The six official languages of the United Nations, used in intergovernmental meetings and documents, are Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish.[9][10] The Secretariat uses two working languages, British English and French.

 

Five of the official languages were chosen when the UN was founded (the languages of the permanent members of the Security Council, plus Spanish, which was the official language of the largest number of nations at the time). Arabic was added in 1973; the number of Arabic-speaking member states had increased substantially since 1945, and the 1973 oil crisis provided the catalyst for the addition. A "documentary language" status was granted for use of the German language in 1974, allowing for translation of important documents (funded, however, by the German-speaking member countries).[11]

 

The UN standard for English language documents (United Nations Editorial Manual) follows British usage and Oxford spelling (en-gb-oed). The UN standard for Chinese (Standard Mandarin) changed when the Republic of China (Taiwan) was succeeded by the People's Republic of China in 1971. From 1945 until 1971 traditional characters were used, and since 1972 simplified characters have been used.

[Michaelangelica]

Good point nutronjon

Something I did not know. I saw all those head sets and assumed translation was available for everyone.

Makes a bit of a farce of the "international forum" idea dosn't it?

You are voiceless in more ways than one.

[nutronjon]

Yes, and the Kurds are voiceless. I didn't realize this, until your thread and googling stimulated by your thread. Thank you

 

Notice what gave the Arabs a voice, oil and figuring out they can control the price of it. This is why Reagan slashed domestic budgets and poured money into military spending, granting arms to mid east countries and destablizing it. The UN does not give voice to those who can not seriously hurt those in control of the UN.

 

I hate it when people say the UN acknowledged Israel therefore it is agreed it has a right to exist. Right, the UN did not recognize Arabic as a language when those in power decided to give a chunk of Arab land to the Jews.

 

Right now the US is owing to the Kurds, because the Kurds have been used by the CIA to rebellion against Sadam and give the US a power base in the mid east. See how this works? Find the weakest people and aline with them, because they want your strength, and you want them to increase your power in their region. Problem is, the US is on good terms with Turkey and the Turks are claiming land that was part of Kurdistan, so the Kurds are attacking the Turks. Now what does the US do, considering it wants to be on good terms with people on both sides of this conflict? The US's power hold in Iraq, depends heavily on a good relationship with Kurds, and the Turks have strong capitalistic, democratic institutions which we want spread through the mid east. As long as humans settle their difference with war, that is what they will get, and that makes the UN less than ideal.