Turkish troops enter Iraq

And why should the  Kurdish people not live in a free Kurdistan? Would a prosperous and independent Kurdistan be a natural barrier between neighboring countries and end all hostilities in the area? Allow them the same rights as everyone else is my thoughts on the matter. And then they would not need to fight for their freedom.

Russia says No. Iraq says No. Turkey says No. I say let them have their own state and leave them alone to rule themselves like any-other race.

One need ask why those three desire to hold on to territory which is made up of Kurds? What gives them the right to do so? What are they so afraid of? Freedom to Kurdistan they are not my enemy why should they not share the same freedoms that everyone else takes for granted? The troubles will never end till the Kurds have their own country.

Ianharrywebb:

Let's be clear here. What you are advocating is the break-up of 4 internationally recognized states (Turkey, Syria, Iran, and Iraq) to create another. One of these states, is Turkey, a western ally and Nato member. What you are advocating will never happen.

You ask why these should countries desire to hold to territory that is populated by Kurds? The simple answers are: 1) that the land in question belongs to those countries, 2) that they can, and they will.

Perhaps we should let the Hispanics in the US form their own entity. Maybe the East Indians should be provided with autonomy in the Northern cities of England and after that, we should advocate the break-up of India and Pakistan into hundreds of culturally determined fiefdoms.

The progressive solution for the Kurds resides on promoting their cultural and political rights in a safe environment that may include autonomy or federalism, and perhaps even independence for the limited Kurdish Regional Administration of Northern Iraq area (but not all Kurdish territories).

To recklessly advocate the partition of nations is not the answer. A more ideal scenario would be advocating on the Kurds behalf to ensure that the countries in which Kurds live can provide an environment for their full participation in their host countries, and according the Kurds better control of their daily affairs and prosperity. Although this is unlikely in the forseeable future, uniting a greater Kurdistan remains at best, and will continue to be an untenable pipe dream.

DoctorOk, let me play devil's advocate. The borders of the modernnMiddle East were drawn up arbitrarily by European powers following the first war, just 87 years ago. Some ethnicities lucked out, some definitly didn't. Are you suggesting that the borders that were drawn up by foreigners during a blip in history need to be enforced with semi-religious zeal? Why? Just because the Kurds didn't have enough power to negotiate a seperate state when the map was drawn a few decades ago, they're never allowed to have one, ever?

Point acknowledged Dave.

I see your point, but I dont fully concur.

A successful resolution to the Kurdish problem resides in better respect for rights. Turkey can serve as the budding genesis for this. Although Turkey has a long way to go in further improving the lot and rights of its Kurds, Kurds have risen to the posts of of Prime Minister and President and reportedly form over a third of current parliamentarians (disproportionately high considering they form 15 to 20% of the population). Recent reforms (and I hope more will come) have allowed Kurds to teach, and broadcast in their own language while further increasing cultural protections. Iran, Syria and others should take note.

Incidentally, most (more than 60%) of the estimated 15 to 20 million Kurds in Turkey do not even live in the area deemed Kurdistan. The western cities, Istanbul, Izmir, Antalya, and Ankara the capital, are often reported to be the biggest Kurdish cities in the world with Istanbul (over 2,000 miles away from Kurdistan) alone having a Kurdish population greater than the entire Kurdish statelet in North Iraq. How would a partition of Turkey occur when most Turkish Kurds dont even live in Kurdistan?

BTW, most (not all) of the borders were drawn up by foreign powers, namely France and Britain. Turkey's borders (including the mainly Kurdish populated areas) were determined by itslef, during its war of independence, during which France and England were kicked out.

As for invoking the unfortunate historical precendent in which the Kurds got an unsavoury deal, this unfortunately, is a consequence of history. The natives in Canada and the US were subject to it. The Aboriginals in Australia were subject to it. All of Africa was subject to it. To undo it would advocate world anarchy. It wont happen.

These points are not to suggest that perceived historical injustices should remain an albatross around the necks of Kurds and others, and that past historical transgressions should provide a context for continuing repression. Not at all. The situation of the Kurds and other stateless people are better served with the respect and promotion of rights within host states. As global citizens, we should play constructive roles to encourage our governments to influence this progress. Giving up on the route to support and promote of cultural rights, regardless of where ethnicities live would invite gobal pandemonium with far reaching and tragic consequences.

Good points, DoctorOK, particularly regarding Turkey drawing its own borders. Although it can be argued whether Turkey at the time could have been considered a European imperial power itself...