SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Dayuhan who wrote (17652)11/25/2003 5:36:01 AM
From: Jacob Snyder  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793688
 
re: Kurdish State:

The current solution is much like the Taiwan solution: de facto sovereignty, backed up by a powerful foreign patron, without a formal Declaration Of Independence. This situation can continue indefinitely.

The Kurds already have a government, an army (two, actually), a territory they control. They have the backing of, and can maintain alliances with, all those who don't want the Arab Sunnis to regain control of Iraq: the U.S., the Iranians, and the Shia Iraqis.

This is the first step in Iraq going the way of Yugoslavia, and for the same reasons. State borders that don't match language/race/religion/culture borders, are inherently unstable.



To: Dayuhan who wrote (17652)11/25/2003 7:04:33 AM
From: greenspirit  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793688
 
Thanks Steven, yes I've heard a similar version before. What I don't understand is why would Turkey automatically invade Kurdistine if the people there voted for independence and a separate statehood?

What authority does Turkey have in the affairs of their Kurdish brothers to the south? Or better put, what authority do they *perceive* they have?

Seems to me Turkey should be happy a democratic Kurdistine is taking shape next door.