AstroProdigy Posted August 23, 2006 Report Posted August 23, 2006 I don't know about you, but I think the different controlled parts of Kurdistan controlled by Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria should be phased into a sovereign nation.
Yoink Posted August 23, 2006 Report Posted August 23, 2006 Here's my take - the Kurds will fight for their own land until they get it, and when they do, they'll fight with their neighbors (whether proactively or passively). This !@#$%^&*umption is based on the nature of nations, particularly new ones, in the Middle East. Give 'em what they want.
AstroProdigy Posted August 23, 2006 Author Report Posted August 23, 2006 If Iraqi Kurdistan declares itself a sovereign nation Turkey plans on invading them to prevent their Kurds from stepping up their call for independence. Iran doesn't wanna see an independent Kurdistan either and neither does Syria. If we leave the Kurds to their fate then we are betraying our biggest ally in Iraq. However, the situation in Turkey looks like a free Kurdistand will end with the renewed call for freedom among Kurds and all other opressed groups in Turkey which can lead to a fragmantation of the country. I think this might lead to a bigger war than the Sunni-Shiite split in Iraq. I'm surprised there's practically no media coverage in the United States about the attrocities our strong ally Turkey commits, which just goes to show the influence the government has on the media.
LearJett+ Posted August 24, 2006 Report Posted August 24, 2006 oh yea, all the anti-war bull!@#$%^&* being spewed on 3/4 news channels really shows the influence that the government has on the media. let's just give any group of people whatever they want.
AstroProdigy Posted August 24, 2006 Author Report Posted August 24, 2006 Well it is like 30 million people of a different ethnic and linguistic group that have all the characteristics of a country except they're split up in pieces *cough* Poland 100 years ago *cough*. By the way, when Bush needed the media to get his way with Iraq and the 2004 election he got it. Now that public support would be apposed to Bush anyway and would hate the media if they still supported him what do you expect? They still manage to keep certain things low key. There's a very big and complicated issue in the Middle East bigger than the Sunni-Shiite problems and we bairly hear about it.
Trip' Posted August 25, 2006 Report Posted August 25, 2006 Really, I dont understand why they fight over desert. I know it's all religiously significant land because it's where all these religions sprang up a thousand or 2 thousand or 3 thousand years ago. But honestly, its desert.....it's not exactly a great place to live. If I were them I'd pack my bags and walk to some other place with a more hospitable climate. And don't give me that, they dont have any money to get transportation crap. It's called legs, use em, walk!! If our ancestors thousands of years ago could do it to walk across Africa, Europe, and Asia to get to areas with better climate, we can too. It's all bull!@#$%^&*, just nothing but a childish squabble over crappy land. And it's on all sides, Isreal, Syria, US, Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey.... And most of the oil in the middle east isn't even in these areas. It's all mainly in Iran and along the Persian Gulf Coast....So also don't give me they dont want to leave because of the oil money.... Thats just my 2 cents....
AstroProdigy Posted August 25, 2006 Author Report Posted August 25, 2006 Kurdish areas have lots of oil and it's mountainous not desert. Also, it's not religious land, it's just for the sake of power that Turkey, Syria, Iran, and formerly Iraq would oppress the Kurds. It's just like the Polish situation 100 years ago. If anything Islamist extremists should call for freeing 30 million people from oppression and sporadic genocide, but that doesn't fit with their master plan of destroy Israel and the West. Seriously, this just shows the true colors of all the organizations that call for the desctruction of Israel so less than 5 million people are freed from repression and completely ignore a much bigger case of repression right there in the middle of everything. Shame on Muslims worldwide who don't call for their freedom from the true foreign powers.
LearJett+ Posted August 28, 2006 Report Posted August 28, 2006 poor africa. no one cares about genocide there.
AstroProdigy Posted August 28, 2006 Author Report Posted August 28, 2006 People care, it's just leaders don't because they only want to help when they have something to gain. They really don't give a flying !@#$%^&* about the genocide of millions if it will hurt their political career. This is obvious with most American politicians. I mean look at the death of a few thousand in Lebanon. It sparks public outrage and is called a genocide and compared to the Holocaust by countries who have alterior motives while the eventual genocide of millions in Darfur goes relatively ignored because there's no gain to the Arab world which wants to strengthen Arab influence in the world and Europe and the United States don't see a gain to them either. That's why, even though military action should obviously have been provided it wasn't really even used as a threat. The European Union should set a military up to be available to prevent genocides when the United States military is tied up in political blunders like the Iraq War.
Dav Posted August 28, 2006 Report Posted August 28, 2006 it should happen in my opinion in an ideal world but as illustrated here the current political climate simply wont allow it.
Greased_Lightning Posted August 29, 2006 Report Posted August 29, 2006 Let africa kill itself, they've been doing such a good job of it for so many years that they must enjoy it. Me? I'll stick to football. and subspace.
AstroProdigy Posted August 29, 2006 Author Report Posted August 29, 2006 Africa is a much bigger area (of many many countries) and is nothing near as simple as the Kurdistan question. I agree we should aid African much more and prevent genocides. However much of the problems are religious ones sparked mostly by Islamic extremism. Arabs in the Middle East and Africa compare the problem with Palestine as a monumental problem and then push all the horrible attrocities they commit under the rug. I think Europe and a lot of people in the United States should take their heads out of the sand about what extremist (lots of them are extreme) Muslim countries do.
LearJett+ Posted August 30, 2006 Report Posted August 30, 2006 actually, i was just kidding. although no topics have ever been put on here about the problems in africa, the united states/un actually gives plenty of money to african countries. president bush personally called the leader of Darfur and catalyzed peace talks. the un also has sent peacekeeping troops, and right now it is a relative calm. i didn't mean that the united states doesn't care about africa, i meant the people on this forum dont... as there are no topics about it.
AstroProdigy Posted August 30, 2006 Author Report Posted August 30, 2006 United States doesn't see all the people in camps surrounded by the Janjaweed ready to massacre them as soon as they get the ok from the government of Sudan. If there is a genocide occuring I'd say an invasion would be the only solution. Then again that's just me other people might not care about genocide. That should have been the top priority of United States military after Afghanistan, but then again Americans are dumb!@#$%^&*holes and they don't give a flying !@#$%^&* about anyone else unless they have something to gain.
SeVeR Posted August 31, 2006 Report Posted August 31, 2006 I say leave Africa alone, no matter what goes on there. We (The West) had the benefit of being the first society to make all the mistakes that are being made in Africa. Ever heard someone say "Learn from your mistakes"? It's really important to do that without someone just telling you what right and wrong are. If a more powerful society had stepped in and tried to influence our devlopment we would have fought them, rejected them and never learnt our lessons. You can't give democracy, you can't enforce democracy, they have to want it enough to fight for it. However much of the problems are religious ones sparked mostly by Islamic extremism. "Mostly" at least means you're open to the possibility that Christianity may also be a major factor in African wars.
AstroProdigy Posted August 31, 2006 Author Report Posted August 31, 2006 I don't think the west can stay out of Africa in the global age. The west caused much of the problems in Africa today so why not correct the most heinous crimes against humanity that we are originally responsible for?
SeVeR Posted August 31, 2006 Report Posted August 31, 2006 What crimes in Africa do you speak of and how can we correct them? I don't know alot about Africa politically and racially other than that both Islam and Christianity are attempting to conquer it. My limited knowledge tells me that problems in Africa are a result of Western interference. Would further interference be wise, is it possible for us to make a change there?
AstroProdigy Posted September 1, 2006 Author Report Posted September 1, 2006 Well for one thing we introduced Christianity to much of Africa and now there's numerous conflicts between Christianity and Islam in Africa. We also basically drew the lines of countries which are pretty arbitrary and cut right through various ethnic groups and put groups together that really shouldn't be together in one country. I don't think we should impose ourselves much in Africa (except for economically which is still perfectly in our right and power), but when serious crimes against humanity occur why not act? We knew the genocide in Rwanda was occuring and likewise we know about the genocide in Darfur so why not act on this? We do act sometimes with UN support (like in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. However it seems like Europe is participating in the really important and obvious places while we get stuck with the really hard areas like Iraq and Afghanistan and end up looking like the bad guys (although some of our actions warrant it). When serious violations of the Geneva Convention occur the United States should act like we tried to under the Clinton administration. We could leave it alone and let it go it's natural course. That's what happened in Europe and now they're just basically done with all thei conflicts because almost all of the borders have been fough for so long that they fit more to ethnic groups now and even small minorities are respected in their modern democratic societies. They're even starting to realize that all the ethnic stuff is really a bunch of crap and are joining together now. However, look how long it took them and how many people died and were oppressed before they were able to get there. Then again I'm just hopeful of what we can do in the US. I know the mostly lack educated American public are way too short and closed minded to act in the world in a smart and just way with all the power of the world's sole superpower. :-(
Aileron Posted September 1, 2006 Report Posted September 1, 2006 Its arrogant to think like that. You and I are not massively smarter than the 250 other million people in the country. The US is a superpower, but not God. The government can't, for instance, make Carribean states immune to hurricanes. We also can't do a 20 year society changing occupation in 4 years. The US is smart and educated enough to do what we have to, the problem is only that reality is that you can't always get what you want. As for Africa, nobody cares about Africa because that continent is contained. Also, there is no problem with imposing ones values of right and wrong on somebody else - provided your !@#$%^&*essment on the issue is correct (in the absolute sense, not just in your opinion). The cost of waiting this our is enormous - unless they are miraculously smarter than Europe it will take centuries and millions of lives for them to advance on their own. The costs of imposition on the other hand only take decades and thousands of lives. The African Union should be given an opportunity to solve this problem themselves. If they can't, the world powers should intervene as soon as forces are available. For now, Iran is much more important. Well, the fighting between the Sunnis and Shiite isn't really enough for a civil war - maybe its enough to form a terroristic underground but it isn't really popular enough to take over the halls of the government. What the Kurds are really fighting for is first class citizenship though, and many think that a purely Kurdish territory is necessary for that. The only problem with a Kurdistan is that essentially means making a second Israel which the neighbors are going to attack, the Europeans turn their back on, leaving the US supporting the fledgling nation and getting blamed for any conflict that arises.
AstroProdigy Posted September 1, 2006 Author Report Posted September 1, 2006 The education system in the United States is terrible. It's made to support the rich and put down the poor. Higher income neighborhoods are given the quality education while poorer neighborhoods get !@#$%^&*. Not only that, but we think closed mindedly about the world. Why do you think Bush had to trick people into war with Iraq? Terrorism was the only thing people understood after 9/11. The word genocide bairly gets a response from Americans but the word terrorism makes them cringe. The African Union can't solve their problems on their own. They know this and we know this. Preventing genocide should be one of our biggest concerns in the world if not the biggest. Much more death and destruction occurs in Africa than the Middle East. Thousands of lives or millions of lives? I know which one sounds better to me. Kurdistan can't be turned into another Israel. There's no basis for this. The Kurds have been there for a long time and have been oppressed for a long time there. The official policy of countries around a new Kurdistan might be harsh, but there would be no people's movement against a Kurdistan like there is in Israel. Think about it do you want to start an organization devoted to the oppression of a Muslim group? It's counterintuative. Not only that, but a Kurdish state would almost certainly be our friend and Kurds in general are more moderate than their neighbors (with the exception of maybe Turkey). Do you want an Islamic movement against Turkey blaming the US for the oppression of the Kurds and create terrorist Kurds? It's just an extra problem in a long list. On the other hand we could be hailed as the bringers of freedom for 30 million Muslims and eventually other Muslims will see that our actions can do good for the people in the Middle East not just bad. This could be the start of a split amongst the stiff resistance to the west and in this situation everyone wins in the long run.
SeVeR Posted September 3, 2006 Report Posted September 3, 2006 but when serious crimes against humanity occur why not act?Because its not our business to act. To make a country better the people have to rise up against this kind of action by themselves. Like what should have happened in Iraq for democracy to take hold. What great speakers of peace and democracy are there in Africa that command armies of people who are against genocide and suffering? None, there are only politicians who have been put in place by the West. The reason there isn't alot done is because the West goes in there and does the job for them but then pulls out and leaves again, the people don't learn anything, they don't fight for anything, they wait for the next genocide. We could leave it alone and let it go it's natural course. That's what happened in Europe and now they're just basically done with all thei conflicts because almost all of the borders have been fough for so long that they fit more to ethnic groups now and even small minorities are respected in their modern democratic societies. They're even starting to realize that all the ethnic stuff is really a bunch of crap and are joining together now. However, look how long it took them and how many people died and were oppressed before they were able to get there. But look at how we turned out in the end. You can't just change the formula for success. We fought for our rights, independence and democracy and now they really mean something to us. Aileon: Also, there is no problem with imposing ones values of right and wrong on somebody else - provided your !@#$%^&*essment on the issue is correct (in the absolute sense, not just in your opinion).How can you know that you are correct in the absolute sense? unless they are miraculously smarter than Europe it will take centuries and millions of lives for them to advance on their own. As much as i hate to say it, lives are insignificant, trillions of people have lived, died, and gone back to the Earth. Its not your job to fight for someone else's life if they won't fight for it themselves. If they are fighting for it then a victory should be their's alone. They could just as well be fighting for something else that they deem right, like Islam. I've noticed our reluctance to help then. We are taking away from the victories that really mean something to us by doing the fighting for them.
AstroProdigy Posted September 3, 2006 Author Report Posted September 3, 2006 Lives are significant and no one needs to go down the same road that Europe did, nor do they want to. Europe created the many of the problems in Africa so it's not just that it's going a natural course. It's NOT going a natural course. I'm sure if we left Africa alone then there would be justification that it's not our problem, but when we created the problem then it is our problem. The natural course was destroyed with Imperialism. That's why we need to help with the problems we created. We hardly do all the fighting for freedom and such. They do it and we should aide the side that fights for democracy and human rights. Yes I know there's no "absolute" of what is right, but doing nothing because of that will end up creating an "absolute" that an obliterated Earth is not positive for humanity's development. When Islam is used as a weapon against non Muslims (and non Arabs) it's not something deemed right.
SeVeR Posted September 5, 2006 Report Posted September 5, 2006 Lives are significant and no one needs to go down the same road that Europe did, nor do they want to.Europe is a success story. In my opinion its because of what we went through. We fought for so long and at the end of it peace, democracy, freedoms and rights meant (and still mean) so much to us, as they do to Americans who fought their own wars after separating from the Europeans. If you just give a people democracy and peace and expect them to understand its importance then you're doomed to fail. Europe created the many of the problems in Africa so it's not just that it's going a natural course. True the natural course has been altered but in terms of the development of democracy and peace we haven't really had much effect. They just have better weapons to kill eachother with now and different religions to justify doing it. In such, they are still untouched in terms of social development and withdrawing completely from their conflicts is still something that can be done without feelings of obligation to put things right. To put things right in the same interfering ways we put things wrong is not the answer. We do not understand how societies develop enough to interfere like that. All we do know is that societies develop at their own slow pace, interfering in any particular way hasn't been shown to help thus far. do it and we should aide the side that fights for democracy and human rights. If the side of democracy and peace cannot win by itself then the people are not ready for democracy since they don't believe in it enough to fight for it.
AstroProdigy Posted September 6, 2006 Author Report Posted September 6, 2006 People want peace and democracy naturally. You don't just need to fight for it. Democracies are developing in Africa, it's not just one big anarchy and tyranny continent. The people want democracy, they're just controlled by people who don't. We can wait for all the horrible things to happen and then have some sort of peace and demcracy after centuries of millions upon millions of deaths and ethnic cleansing or we can do something about it. We've interfered and brought success stories. Look at Japan and South Korea. Look at many Latin American countries. We interfered with Eastern Europe and now they're developing democracies and advocating peace.
Yoink Posted September 7, 2006 Report Posted September 7, 2006 People want peace and democracy naturally. You don't just need to fight for it. Democracies are developing in Africa, it's not just one big anarchy and tyranny continent. The people want democracy, they're just controlled by people who don't. We can wait for all the horrible things to happen and then have some sort of peace and demcracy after centuries of millions upon millions of deaths and ethnic cleansing or we can do something about it. We've interfered and brought success stories. Look at Japan and South Korea. Look at many Latin American countries. We interfered with Eastern Europe and now they're developing democracies and advocating peace.Bull!@#$%^&*. I might want democracy, you might. But there are plenty of people who see other political systems as superior. Communism (not Stalinist Communism) offers equality, and many people see that as a very suitable choice for some countries. And saying that it was our interference that spurned democracy in eastern Europe is crap. The Soviet nation must have made living conditions horrible for those people. It's only natural that they ran as far away from that as possible. For example - when the US removed Saddam from power, many Iraqis rejoiced, because they were no longer to be oppressed (at least by that particular dictator); what happened later is just a poor course of action / !@#$%^&*ty turn of events. And I'd like to point out that it's not the US' responsibility "to bring democracy to the world." Doesn't that sound remarkably similar to a Jehova's Witness going door-to-door, trying to spread their message? !@#$%^&* imperialism - especially at this degree. -- Edit -- And where do you get off saying that it'll take people thousands of years to "realise democracy"? That's arrogance, IMO. That !@#$%^&*umes that all countries are heading towards democracy, which isn't always the case. For example - the US is heading away from democracy (go ahead, bite).
Recommended Posts