Prospects of a Kurdish state and what it means for Armenia

[Artsakh]

Re: Prospects of a Kurdish state and what it means for Armenia

When you review history, you'll know that before the arrival of Turkic tribes to the region, we had some serious issues with the Greeks. And now, the only reason we are friendly with the Greeks is the Turkish threat!!! Are you proposing we not forget the "brave deeds" of the Greeks and consider the Greeks enemy as well, in addition to the Turks?

[KarotheGreat]

Re: Prospects of a Kurdish state and what it means for Armenia

It is so funny the way you post. It really is. Because the moment you know that you've got nothing to counter my points you turn to insults and juvenile remarks. Before I forget, reported.

When you go through puberty and start understaning the world around you and the changes taking place, then you will be able to answer the "why" to all your questions. Until then, observe from a distance and learn, and ask questions if you don't understand something. Don't make firm statements of fact out of your a$$ when you don't know Sheet.

Turkey is a member of NATO and also a major ally of the UK. The UK wants Turkey in the EU to counter the influence of France and Germany in the EU. So do you really think the US is going to xxxx over two of its major allies for the Kurds? The only way a Kurdish state can be is with Turkish cooperation and then it will be an vessel for Western interests aka against interest of Armenia and its allies.

What ever Turkey has done the fact remains that both are members of NATO and really close allies and will stay like as long as NATO exists.

IDIOT, IN THE FIRST PLACE, it is you who is talking about Kurds laying claims to Western Armenia (ie TUrkey). Therefore, you ask yourselves those questions, not me.

I said they have claims on Western Armenia you can ask the Kurds here if they do and you will see yourself.

Second, the founding of Kurdish state in northern iraq on Turkey's doorstep can serve as another enemy state to Turkey, as a base for future expansion (taking out chunks of Turkey), in which we can partake to settle our own issues.

Or it is more likely that it will be an puppet state of the West used against our allies and will be against our interests.

No, I don't think the Kurds will have the power to take the Turks, and neither does Armenia. That is why I support Kurdish statehood, because we need a united front against those bastard Turks.

We already have allies that we know that can be trusted and it is in their interest to have a weak Turkey and also aren't laying claims on our lands.

Stop acting "smart" with your stupid questions when u already read my posts regarding them.

Some people aren't acting

[Artsakh]

Re: Prospects of a Kurdish state and what it means for Armenia

Turkey is a member of NATO and also a major ally of the UK. The UK wants Turkey in the EU to counter the influence of France and Germany in the EU. So do you really think the US is going to xxxx over two of its major allies for the Kurds? The only way a Kurdish state can be is with Turkish cooperation and then it will be an vessel for Western interests aka against interest of Armenia and its allies.

It doesn't matter if Turkey is a member of NATO. Georgia was once part of Russia, and Iran was once pro west as well. Greece is also a member of NATO. In case you didn't know, Greece and Turkey's interests don't exactly coincide.

Greece and Cyprus are already members of the EU, and don't have Turkey's best interests at heart.

Turkey's trade with Iran is at an all-time high. The US is very angry about that. Turkey is increasingly proving itself as an unreliable ally.

I said they have claims on Western Armenia you can ask the Kurds here if they do and you will see yourself.

I didn't say they're not making claims on Western Armenia. You listed that as one reason why you are opposed to Kurdish statehood. And I told you not to get ahead of yourself. Even if the Kurds were able to get a state whose boundries included western armenia, such a Kurdish state would be much easier to deal with (in terms of hopes for getting the land back) than present-day Turkey.

Or it is more likely that it will be an puppet state of the West used against our allies and will be against our interests.

Turkey is the one who fears the creation of a Kurdish state. Turkey is the one who does everything in its powerful to prevent an independent Kurdish state in northern iraq. I've got news for you buddy: THE REASON IT DOES NOT WANT AN INDEPENDENT KURDISH STATE IS BECAUSE IT IS NOT IN IT'S BEST INTERESTS.

So, congratulations!!!!!!!! You and Turkey have joined forces in your aims!!!


You speak about "our allies", but you forget that the only reason "iran" and "russia" are "allies" (or should i say we're so dependent on them)is to counter the Turkish threat. Secondly, don't forget that iran and russia are not cooperating with Armenia because they care so deeply about Armenia, but for their own self-interests.

In case you didn't know, trade between Turkey and our "ally" Iran is at an all time high.

With a reduction of the Turkish threat(ie a fragmented, weakened, smaller Turkey), Armenia would not be so reliant on Russia.

We already have allies that we know that can be trusted and it is in their interest to have a weak Turkey and also aren't laying claims on our lands.

Who would that be, Russia, who recently forbid putting up a statute in honor of general andranik so as not to offend the Turks?

Or Iran, whose trade with Turkey is at an all-time high?

Some people aren't acting

I know you're not acting, you're just plain stupid. BOOOTIK, as they say in Armenian!

[KarotheGreat]

Re: Prospects of a Kurdish state and what it means for Armenia

When you review history, you'll know that before the arrival of Turkic tribes to the region, we had some serious issues with the Greeks. And now, the only reason we are friendly with the Greeks is the Turkish threat!!! Are you proposing we not forget the "brave deeds" of the Greeks and consider the Greeks enemy as well, in addition to the Turks?

Almost 1000 year has passed since Greeks and Armenians were 'enemies' and back then because of the absence of nationalism you had two states that were enemies, in the Eastern-Roman part you had as many Armenians and on the Armenian side you had Roman nobility that was fighting under the command of the Armenian kings. So it was very different than what you are trying to present.

It doesn't matter if Turkey is a member of NATO. Georgia was once part of Russia, and Iran was once pro west as well. Greece is also a member of NATO. In case you didn't know, Greece and Turkey's interests don't exactly coincide.

So you are comparing two states that are members of an organization because it is in their interest to be a member of the organization to a state that was conquered by an other state? Are you kidding me or trying to insult the intelligence of the people that are posting here?

Turkey has no reason to leave NATO and the US has zero reason to xxxx over its ally and the second biggest military in the NATO.

Greece and Cyprus are already members of the EU, and don't have Turkey's best interests at heart.

Turkey is not a member of the EU don't see why this is relevant to what I posted about NATO? How are Greece and Cyprus important in the example I gave of the UK and trying to combat the influence of Germany and France?

Turkey's trade with Iran is at an all-time high. The US is very angry about that. Turkey is increasingly proving itself as an unreliable ally.

You really think that Turkey will leave NATO because of that?

I didn't say they're not making claims on Western Armenia. You listed that as one reason why you are opposed to Kurdish statehood. And I told you not to get ahead of yourself. Even if the Kurds were able to get a state whose boundries included western armenia, such a Kurdish state would be much easier to deal with (in terms of hopes for getting the land back) than present-day Turkey.

So lets trade an enemy we know for one we don't know? So that is your brilliant idea?

Turkey is the one who fears the creation of a Kurdish state. Turkey is the one who does everything in its powerful to prevent an independent Kurdish state in northern iraq. I've got news for you buddy: THE REASON IT DOES NOT WANT AN INDEPENDENT KURDISH STATE IS BECAUSE IT IS NOT IN IT'S BEST INTERESTS.

Putting a statement in bold capital letters doesn't give it more weight just makes you look very very foolish.
It would in Western interests and so against our interest. That is more than reason to be against it.

So, congratulations!!!!!!!! You and Turkey have joined forces in your aims!!!

You speak about "our allies", but you forget that the only reason "iran" and "russia" are "allies" (or should i say we're so dependent on them)is to counter the Turkish threat. Secondly, don't forget that iran and russia are not cooperating with Armenia because they care so deeply about Armenia, but for their own self-interests.

You know that those countries are our allies because it is also in our interest to have them as allies? It's not because we really like them? Or is it the first time you are realizing this fact that countries form an alliance because it is in their own interests.

In case you didn't know, trade between Turkey and our "ally" Iran is at an all time high.

Armenia would be doing the same if the borders were not closed, they are still doing that even with closed borders. So why wouldn't Iran do that?

With a reduction of the Turkish threat(ie a fragmented, weakened, smaller Turkey), Armenia would not be so reliant on Russia.

The Kurds don't have the power to do that neither will anyone allow them to do that. Let us assume Kurdistan is formed and it attacks Turkey a member of NATO. You realize what that means right? That every major military will declare war on Kurdistan withing the 48 hours and come to the defense of their ally.

A Kurdistan will also give an excuse to Turkey to put a bigger army near Armenia and strengthen their military even more.

Who would that be, Russia, who recently forbid putting up a statute in honor of general andranik so as not to offend the Turks?

Still Russia has its soldiers positioned at the Armenian border and will have its soldiers die first if an attacks occurs. Still Russia keeps giving Armenia weapons for a cheap price and sometimes even free. Very bad allies.

Or Iran, whose trade with Turkey is at an all-time high?

Armenia would do the same thing if it could. Iran has proven to be a reliable ally during the Artsakh war by supplying food to Armenia while the rest was doing nothing plus all the projects that are going on in the region between the two states.

I know you're not acting, you're just plain stupid. BOOOTIK, as they say in Armenian!

You are so funny, can't even discuss politics as a grown up. Maybe you should go discuss with a child they have the same style of discussing things, they also like to call names.

[kurdman]

Re: Prospects of a Kurdish state and what it means for Armenia

The only reason Britain is friendly with the Turks is because British economy is run by 'services'' that they provide, one of that is their massive oil/gas production companies that they want to get to Europe, and that route is unfortunately via Turkey.

We all saw the comments their so called 'NATO' allies made during their invasion of Kurdistan.

Australia – Foreign Affairs Minister Stephen Smith called on Turkey to respect Iraq's sovereignty and withdraw as soon as possible.[7]

Germany – The Foreign Office urged Turkey not to escalate regional tensions.[26]

Iraq – The Iraqi government protested to the Turkish chargé d'affaires in Baghdad. An Iraqi government spokesman said, "Our position is Turkey should respect the sovereignty of Iraq and avoid any military action which would threaten security and stability."[27] On February 26 Iraq increased its criticism, saying the "unilateral military action was unacceptable and it threatened the good relations between the two neighbouring countries."[52]

Russia - The Russian Foreign Ministry expressed the hope that a political solution respecting Iraqi sovereignty and regional security could be found, though it also acknowledged the importance of not allowing "the territory of any state to be used as a staging ground for terrorist activities against their neighbours."[26]

United Kingdom – The Foreign Office stated, "We would urge Turkey to withdraw from Iraqi territory as early as possible and take the greatest possible care to avoid causing harm to the civilian population."[53] On February 23 Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan called British Foreign Minister David Miliband to update him on the operation's progress and exchange views.[54]

United States – In the months leading up to the incursion the US had repeatedly expressed concerns that large-scale military action in Northern Iraq had the potential to destabilize the region, although it supported Turkey's right to defend itself against insurgents.[55][56] It was seen as a "bitter defeat for American diplomacy" when Turkey launched the operation in defiance of this lobbying effort,[57] and although the US publicly expressed its belief that Turkey had the right to defend itself against insurgents[58] they maintained consistent pressure on Turkey to limit the length and scale of the operation throughout.[37][59] On February 24, for example, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said "I would hope that it would be short, that it would be precise and avoid the loss of innocent life and that they leave as quickly as they can accomplish the mission."[54]

Not to mention Irans Iraqi puppet al sader that was going mental and threatening Turkey with his militia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Turkish_incursion_into_northern_Iraq

[KarotheGreat]

Re: Prospects of a Kurdish state and what it means for Armenia

The only reason Britain is friendly with the Turks is because British economy is run by 'services'' that they provide, one of that is their massive oil/gas production companies that they want to get to Europe, and that route is unfortunately via Turkey.

We all saw the comments their so called 'NATO' allies made during their invasion of Kurdistan.

Australia – Foreign Affairs Minister Stephen Smith called on Turkey to respect Iraq's sovereignty and withdraw as soon as possible.[7]

Germany – The Foreign Office urged Turkey not to escalate regional tensions.[26]

Iraq – The Iraqi government protested to the Turkish chargé d'affaires in Baghdad. An Iraqi government spokesman said, "Our position is Turkey should respect the sovereignty of Iraq and avoid any military action which would threaten security and stability."[27] On February 26 Iraq increased its criticism, saying the "unilateral military action was unacceptable and it threatened the good relations between the two neighbouring countries."[52]

Russia - The Russian Foreign Ministry expressed the hope that a political solution respecting Iraqi sovereignty and regional security could be found, though it also acknowledged the importance of not allowing "the territory of any state to be used as a staging ground for terrorist activities against their neighbours."[26]

United Kingdom – The Foreign Office stated, "We would urge Turkey to withdraw from Iraqi territory as early as possible and take the greatest possible care to avoid causing harm to the civilian population."[53] On February 23 Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan called British Foreign Minister David Miliband to update him on the operation's progress and exchange views.[54]

United States – In the months leading up to the incursion the US had repeatedly expressed concerns that large-scale military action in Northern Iraq had the potential to destabilize the region, although it supported Turkey's right to defend itself against insurgents.[55][56] It was seen as a "bitter defeat for American diplomacy" when Turkey launched the operation in defiance of this lobbying effort,[57] and although the US publicly expressed its belief that Turkey had the right to defend itself against insurgents[58] they maintained consistent pressure on Turkey to limit the length and scale of the operation throughout.[37][59] On February 24, for example, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said "I would hope that it would be short, that it would be precise and avoid the loss of innocent life and that they leave as quickly as they can accomplish the mission."[54]

Not to mention Irans Iraqi puppet al sader that was going mental and threatening Turkey with his militia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Tu..._northern_Iraq

Quoting Wiki the high point of a debate

Still doesn't change the fact that they are allies and will rush to come to the help of one of their own or see the alliance fall apart.

Russia is not in NATO or an ally of Turkey.

[kurdman]

Re: Prospects of a Kurdish state and what it means for Armenia

Quoting Wiki the high point of a debate

Still doesn't change the fact that they are allies and will rush to come to the help of one of their own or see the alliance fall apart.

Russia is not in NATO or an ally of Turkey.

If you bothered to check the wiki page all the sections have sources, and I'm not going to spoon feed you, you can easily click and check them all. their so called 'allies' of the joke that is NATO refused to help them in the Iraq war, so what makes you think they will help Turkey? Turkey is trieng to take more of an independent approach rather then being the puppets that they were until now and the west is not happy.

[KarotheGreat]

Re: Prospects of a Kurdish state and what it means for Armenia

If you bothered to check the wiki page all the sections have sources, and I'm not going to spoon feed you, you can easily click and check them all. their so called 'allies' of the joke that is NATO refused to help them in the Iraq war, so what makes you think they will help Turkey? Turkey is trieng to take more of an independent approach rather then being the puppets that they were until now and the west is not happy.

You know what NATO is right? It is a defensive alliance created to counter the SU. "NATO is committed to the principle that an attack against one or more of its member is an attack against all." Article 5.

The first time it was used was after 9/11 and every NATO member is committed in Afghanistan or are you going to deny that.
Iraq is not a NATO mission.

[kurdman]

Re: Prospects of a Kurdish state and what it means for Armenia

You know what NATO is right? It is a defensive alliance created to counter the SU. "NATO is committed to the principle that an attack against one or more of its member is an attack against all." Article 5.

The first time it was used was after 9/11 and every NATO member is committed in Afghanistan or are you going to deny that.
Iraq is not a NATO mission.

Do you honestly believe that NATO and the west will help Turkey in a war? which would effectively make Turkey more powerful? if you do then I feel sorry for you.

Also if the Turks are stupid enough to declare war on us, they will suffer greatly as it would unite us with Kurds in the North, that will be a nightmare situation for Turks as they will be the aggressive people that invaded another country, and also oppressing their own people, and a couple clever moves by the Kurds that will hold peaceful protests that will eventually be met with violence from the Turkish army and a clever propaganda campaign will give the Turks a bad image, and we all know how important public opinion is in the west, hence the western governments will be forced to act

[Mos]

Re: Prospects of a Kurdish state and what it means for Armenia

It doesn't matter whether they helped them or not. What matters is what our national intentions were, and the requirement for such intentions is that they are supported by the majority of the Kurds. These Hamidiye-irregulars did not belong to the Kurdish nationalist curriculum, and acted solely for the Turks. In this context, the term 'Kurd' should only be used to designate their ethnicity, and is should not be handled in a manner as if they represented the Kurdish nation. The fact that some Kurds gave them shelter supports this, so due to the heavy ideological fragmentation of the time, it is unjust to hold the present-day Kurds responsible for these atrocities. We owe you nothing.

I'm sorry but it wasn't just "kurdish bandits" but everyday Kurdish people betraying their Armenian neighbours. From covertly helping to Turks, to just leading the way for Turks to Armenian houses. It was pure betrayal and it just comes to show that Kurds cannot be trusted. As I said before, a few good apples doesn't justify all the bad apples. The only reason Kurds may seem to "reach out" to Armenians now is because they are against the Turks and want to use us.

It's our historic land too. If your nationalist perception of history is a reason to ridicule my nation, then you are a condemnable person.

Have Kurds created the amount of culture and history in that area like Armenians? Have they held magnificent cities like Ani? This area of Anatolia was with out doubt the cultural and ancestral homeland of Armenians, the only way that right now its your "homeland" is through ethnic cleansing and massacres of course supported by your once close friends Turks.

Facts? Let me get some 'facts' straight. You migrated to this region from the north-Caucasus around 700 BC, after which you assimilated the Urartians, who were living in Pontus and the southern Caucasus. As opposed to complete extinguishment of the Urartians by the Armenians, the Hurrians, who were living in most of what you refer to as 'western Armenia', gradually evolved into Kurds throughout Iranic interposition that occured around the same time. Considering that the Armenians posess an Urartian, and not Hurrian substratum, it is plausible that the Urartu kingdom(which you idolize so much) was established through violence and brutal extermination, because it annexed Hurrian lands. From a Kurdish perspective, this does not justify Armenian claim over eastern anatolia. The 'Armenian Highland' is just a designation of the region by pro-Armenian(western) entities.

It is possible? Well, we all know how today's Kurdish region was created - through massacre and genocide. Sure Kurds lived in the area before genocide, but you ignore the historical/cultural impact that was predominately, without question Armenian throughout the ages.

No, what you define as your 'ancestral land' was heavily fragmented prior to the genocide, and it's difficult to determine Armenia's boundairies. But surely overlapped ancient Kurdish land, and any self-proclaimed Kurdish nationalist will hasten to keep you out.

Leading up to the Genocide, more Kurds/Turks were populated in the area. There was intent in fragmenting the land.

Very funny. It's still sad that you arrogantly keep underestimating the importance that Northern Kurdistan has for us, and the level of intellectuality we'll enhance it with.

Honestly, I could care less. Both Turks and Kurds have been enemies to Armenians, one group planning it, the other group carrying it out. I really don't care when Kurds are suppressed in Turkey because in the same way Kurds were suppressing Armenians. What level of intellectuality are you going to enhance with it? What cultural contributions has the noble nation of Kurdistan brought to the area?

When you review history, you'll know that before the arrival of Turkic tribes to the region, we had some serious issues with the Greeks. And now, the only reason we are friendly with the Greeks is the Turkish threat!!! Are you proposing we not forget the "brave deeds" of the Greeks and consider the Greeks enemy as well, in addition to the Turks?

Okay, first off, Greeks like us were massacred by the Turks. The Kurds on the other hand massacred Armenians. The difference here is black and white, how can you trust Kurds? Just because we have common enemy right now, doesn't mean they should be trusted. Once they have their enemy taken care of, they will turn around and stab you in the back. Greeks are reliable friends because they haven't betrayed us like the Kurds, and are historically against Turks because of Genocide. Not to mention, they are also Christians.