Free and independent Kurdistan is coming soon.

Iraq is an internationally recognized state. As such living Iraq is not easy unless you are supported by other countries. We are not saying Kurdistan does not deserve independence. The problem is the minute you proclaim your state you have to be recognized by major word countries. There is not such a movement right now. The major power who can guarantee it is USA. Then the border becomes an issue. There will be fight over the border. I don't see any push for Kurdish independence. Turkey has a big say since it is a Nato member.
Myself I am a supporter of Kurdish state.

For Gods sake Iraq is dead. It has failed to protect it's citizens in most neaded time and Kurdistan had to do it for Iraq. If Kurdistan decided tommorow to declare independence what could Iraq do? send their Iraqi Army?

We already have the support of most important countries. They told the PM IF we decide to decide independence no one will put stones in our way but of course they say they would prefer a "unified Iraq". EVEN Turkey has changed it's tone.
 
For Gods sake Iraq is dead. It has failed to protect it's citizens in most neaded time and Kurdistan had to do it for Iraq. If Kurdistan decided tommorow to declare independence what could Iraq do? send their Iraqi Army?

We already have the support of most important countries. They told the PM IF we decide to decide independence no one will put stones in our way but of course they say they would prefer a "unified Iraq". EVEN Turkey has changed it's tone.

He who controls Mossoul, can be powerfull,
in the begining do not wait much, an autonomous area with supervisors,
bargains on oil prices, and military bases, that is for start, and you know it,
but according the behavior in time, that might chance and bring the reality of the dream, the new era,
patience and good political desicions is the key,
 
So was USSR and Deutsche Demokratische Republik. Things change.
I am not suggesting its impossible. There has to be international support for such movements. I see a rush to arm Kurds from European powers at the moment, but I am not sure if that is a sign of independence coming. Kurds can get independence if they do the right movements with their oil fields.
 
I am not suggesting its impossible. There has to be international support for such movements. I see a rush to arm Kurds from European powers at the moment, but I am not sure if that is a sign of independence coming. Kurds can get independence if they do the right movements with their oil fields.
Oil fields will definitely help and allow them to buy their own weapons when they have their own state.
 
Kurdish Commander Says Baghdad Blocking Foreign Arms to Peshmerga


On the frontlines, Peshmerga commanders say their men are still fighting with outdated equipment. AP file photo.

KHAZIR, Iraq – Peshmerga commanders on the frontlines of the war with the Islamic State armies say their men have received none of the weapons delivered by foreign governments, blaming interference by Baghdad.


“We have not had the delivery of weapons from our international partners,” said Rowsch Shaways, Iraq’s outgoing deputy prime minister, who is a Kurd and serves as a commander of Kurdish forces leading an offensive toward Mosul.


“Right now Baghdad is the reason why this hasn’t happened,” Shaways told Rudaw from a command center southeast of Mosul, only a kilometer from enemy lines.


At another base near Gwar, General Sirwan Barzani also lamented that his division has “seen nothing of the new weapons.”


The United States, France, Albania, Italy, Germany and Britain have expressed their willingness to provide military aid to the autonomous Kurds in the fight against the Islamic State (IS/formerly ISIS).


Yet, each has sought to coordinate the process through Baghdad, whose relations with the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) remain severely strained. Much of the tension has been blamed on Nouri al-Maliki, who was recently forced down from seeking a third term as prime minister.


Since the IS began a rout of the Iraqi army in June, the Peshmerga have emerged as the only local force standing up to the militants.


Over the past several weeks, Kurdish military officials have said their forces had new, heavy weapons, without revealing their origins or other details. But the comments by commanders did not confirm that.


On the frontlines, several officers explained they were making progress in the fight against IS, but Shaways remained adamant that they need American and European weapons.


Kurdish leaders acknowledge an arms upgrade will be necessary to face the well-armed and disciplined insurgent force without suffering heavy casualties, since a series of difficult challenges, such as the recapture of Mosul, still lie ahead.


Asked if he believed the delivery would happen soon, Shaways struggled to contain his concern: “If (Baghdad) wants to defeat ISIS ---- our common enemy -- then they will make sure we get the weapons as soon as possible,” he said.


Although Iraqi security forces and the Peshmerga cooperated in the recapture of the strategic Mosul Dam this week, Baghdad has been reluctant to take any measures that would further strengthen the Kurdish military, a formidable force despite its outdated equipment.


Kurdish parties are working with Prime Minister-designate Haider al-Abadi to form a government, but there is no guarantee that the new administration will be able to reverse the disastrous course set by Maliki and prevent the further disintegration of Iraq.


Cooperation on pressing matters of national security, such as the fight against IS, remains the most basic stress-test of Erbil’s current relationship with Baghdad, lending the arms delivery a heightened importance.

That happens if Western states still insist on "permission" from Baghdad, which failed to secure it's citizens for weapon delivery. As if any of those countries insisted on Gaddafi permission to arm the "rebels". Baghdad doesn't care about civilian lives. Iraqis are like this better get killed by IS than give Kurds any power. They are not able to defend themselves and block the only people ready to do it.


Now you guys understand why we don't want anything to do with Iraqi cowards and why this state is a complete fail?

Sunni Arabs are wahabi, Shia Arabs are the slaves of Iran.

http://rudaw.net/english/middleeast/iraq/22082014
 
That happens if Western states still insist on "permission" from Baghdad, which failed to secure it's citizens for weapon delivery. As if any of those countries insisted on Gaddafi permission to arm the "rebels". Baghdad doesn't care about civilian lives. Iraqis are like this better get killed by IS than give Kurds any power. They are not able to defend themselves and block the only people ready to do it.


Now you guys understand why we don't want anything to do with Iraqi cowards and why this state is a complete fail?

Sunni Arabs are wahabi, Shia Arabs are the slaves of Iran.

http://rudaw.net/english/middleeast/iraq/22082014

What beats me is why US government is so slow to admit that Shia controlled Iraq is already in Iranian influence sphere, probably bordering on being Iranian satellite ally. One explanation that comes to mind is that admitting it would show to the world that rebuilding post Saddam Iraq was a complete fiasco, a failure on US record.
Is it a sign of hopes of US government still can't give up, to have a strong ally so close to Iran? Is it a sign of bureaucracy, always slow to adopt to quick geopolitical changes? At this point pouring any resources into sustaining Iraq in it's old form is a waste of good money and precious time.

If it comes to foreign US politics, it fails miserable in understanding where real friends are, or missing importance in finding true friends. US picks friends based on strategic location or anyone with same foe as US. Well, it makes sense and it works on many occasions. However picking friends and caring for them based on ordinary people sentiments might get you a true friend, friend one can count on. Cherishing and building on existing sentiments can get you a friend for ever.
For me, there is much more sense to help Kurds, shelter them and help them grow economically, than pay billions to Shia to be a friend. With Kurds you will get a friend because they want to be your friend in first place, with Shia you just help the future enemy to grow strong, because they don't want to be your friend to start with.

The good example of big screwups was to try making a friend out of Pakistan, where for 10 billion military aid a year US got constant supply of Taliban fighters into Afghanistan and hiding Osama Bin Laden. Another one even bigger, was not finishing Saddam in first war, the Desert Storm. I haven't seen soldiers surrounding so fast as Saddam Hussein's army. Iraqis wanted to be liberated, hated Saddam, and trusted US and the West and they felt being liberated. Ordinary Iraqis sentiments were pro American back then. But instead of embracing the friendship of ordinary Iraqis, they were given back to Saddam to enjoy 10 more years of "beloved" leader. This was the treachery of worst kind, giving rise of mistrust and hatred towards the West, pro Al Qaeda sentiments. Not mentioning "brilliance" of younger Bush in all of this. It is a great example of how to alienate a friend.

I hope that similar scenario won't repeat itself with Kurdistan this time. We are dealing with pro Western and very tolerant population, and it is a rarity in this region. Not helping them in the name of some geopolitical strategy would be a regrettable crime.

Let's embrace friends in need.
 
Last edited:
@Yetos
Do you remember our conversation how difficult is to define who is enemy and who is an ally sometimes?
We have one of these extraordinary situation happening right now. Coalition against Islamic State (IS) will include Turkey, Kurds, Iran, US, Shia Iraqi, all fighting on same side against IS. Many former and present enemies in the group. Can one be a friend and enemy at the same time?
 
@Yetos
Do you remember our conversation how difficult is to define who is enemy and who is an ally sometimes?
We have one of these extraordinary situation happening right now. Coalition against Islamic State (IS) will include Turkey, Kurds, Iran, US, Shia Iraqi, all fighting on same side against IS. Many former and present enemies in the group. Can one be a friend and enemy at the same time?

I do not know, but cooperation against foundamendal stupidity is quite a thing,
overpass older hostilities, against modern terror is something.
IS as turned and evolute after Syrria, is something inhuman.
 
What beats me is why US government is so slow to admit that Shia controlled Iraq is already in Iranian influence sphere, probably bordering on being Iranian satellite ally. One explanation that comes to mind is that admitting it would show to the world that rebuilding post Saddam Iraq was a complete fiasco, a failure on US record. an

Iraq since it's first establishment was a complete failure. The Iraqi war has changed nothing about this. Before the war hundreds of thousand peoples died and after the war hundreds of thousands die. Trying to push this mess on the Iraqi war is simplitistc and just an attempt to not accept that Iraq as one centralized state can't exist. The only thing which could "save" Iraq is a lose confederation for now
 
Last edited:
Iraq since it's first establishment was a complete failure. The Iraqi war has changed nothing about this. Before the war hundreds of thousand peoples died and after the war hundreds of thousands die. Trying to push this mess on the Iraqi war is simplitistc and just an attempt to not accept that Iraq as one centralized state can't exist. The only thing which could "save" Iraq is a lose confederation
Yes, we can blame British and French empires and the way they created rather artificial states when they left area. I'm not familiar with pre colonial history of the region so I can't comment any further. I think they belonged to Otoman Empire for few hundred years before that.
Perhaps British had romantic dream to recreate Babilonia, excited by their excavations in the region?
 
Yes, we can blame British and French empires and the way they created rather artificial states when they left area. I'm not familiar with pre colonial history of the region so I can't comment any further. I think they belonged to Otoman Empire for few hundred years before that.
Perhaps British had romantic dream to recreate Babilonia, excited by their excavations in the region?

I remember maps of pre colonial Iraq. Even on them Kurdistan never belonged to this region. It was simply attached to it because of it's oil. The Ottoman Empire included many regions and as any Empire on this world it had to come to an end one day. The problem does not lie here, contrary. The Problem lies on the wrongly drawn borders and states. States should be drawn according to Ethn-linguistic identity and political loyalities. putting Shia and Sunni Arabs who historically oppose each other and have different loyalities and Kurds who not only have different views but additionally belong to a different ethnicity, was so false as it could be. Tensions are preinstalled and just a matter of time.
 
I remember maps of pre colonial Iraq. Even on them Kurdistan never belonged to this region. It was simply attached to it because of it's oil. The Ottoman Empire included many regions and as any Empire on this world it had to come to an end one day. The problem does not lie here, contrary. The Problem lies on the wrongly drawn borders and states. States should be drawn according to Ethn-linguistic identity and political loyalities. putting Shia and Sunni Arabs who historically oppose each other and have different loyalities and Kurds who not only have different views but additionally belong to a different ethnicity, was so false as it could be. Tensions are preinstalled and just a matter of time.

When the Americans first invaded Iraq, a friend of mine (a former oil company employee) predicted that the Americans would win the war but lose the peace, and would eventually have to withdraw, resulting in a three way battle between Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis (with the Sunnis being supported by Saudi Arabia), and religious minorities would be caught in the middle and exterminated. Unfortunately, he was right, except for Kurds apparently being a little more accommodating to minorities than the other two groups. One of the predictions my friend made was that Saudi Arabia would eventually annex the Sunni Triangle of Iraq. Time will tell whether that prediction will come true.
 
When the Americans first invaded Iraq, a friend of mine (a former oil company employee) predicted that the Americans would win the war but lose the peace, and would eventually have to withdraw, resulting in a three way battle between Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis (with the Sunnis being supported by Saudi Arabia), and religious minorities would be caught in the middle and exterminated. Unfortunately, he was right, except for Kurds apparently being a little more accommodating to minorities than the other two groups.
I advocated splitting Iraq into 3 independent countries right after the war too, along existing and dominating religious and ethnic divisions. I couldn't see Sunni and Shia living in peace under one roof, without strong dictatorial oppressive regime.

One of the predictions my friend made was that Saudi Arabia would eventually annex the Sunni Triangle of Iraq. Time will tell whether that prediction will come true.
I don't think that leaders of IS would want to give up power to Saudis. Saudis are hereditary royals and aristocrats in some sort of feudal settings. IS are anti establishment rebels grown from religious extremist movement. They might have similar ideological goal of Sunni Islam ruling the region, but they will be strongly at odds with each other who runs the show. At the end of a day Saudi royals will be very afraid of IS rebels bringing their revolution to Saudi Arabia to dispose monarchy. Establishing some sort of Iranian type theocracy there, with ruling clerics over civil government.
Saudis might be happy that their form of religion is gaining power and control over territory, but this might be it. They will be happy when IS stays in its borders, being friendly ally.
 
I do not know about Saudis,
I don't even believe a Saudi is fighting for IS,

I believe that the one who should be afraid is Europe, USA Australia etc etc.

over 120 000 soldiers count IS and is equiped with fine modern guns US leave behind,
from them a good number are not even lovals,
in IS a good number of Europeans Asians Americans etc are fighting.
if they win, and don't die there, imagine them returning to Europe etc.
 
I do not know about Saudis,
I don't even believe a Saudi is fighting for IS,

I believe that the one who should be afraid is Europe, USA Australia etc etc.

over 120 000 soldiers count IS and is equiped with fine modern guns US leave behind,
from them a good number are not even lovals,
in IS a good number of Europeans Asians Americans etc are fighting.
if they win, and don't die there, imagine them returning to Europe etc.

Interesting angle. Our european islamic extremists are fighting there. Hmmm, we have to make sure they fight there to death. ;)
 
I do not know about Saudis,
I don't even believe a Saudi is fighting for IS,

I believe that the one who should be afraid is Europe, USA Australia etc etc.

over 120 000 soldiers count IS and is equiped with fine modern guns US leave behind,
from them a good number are not even lovals,
in IS a good number of Europeans Asians Americans etc are fighting.
if they win, and don't die there, imagine them returning to Europe etc.
It is believed that there are 12 000 foreign fighters in Iraq-Syria. From the Balkans alone could be about 500. They do pose a terrorism risk for the countries they come from. But most of them are identified and upon their return will be arrested. I know my country has infiltrated the group and identified the members,
Since they are very low IQ people they don't pose any existential risk.
Foreign fighters in Ukraine also are a great risk for host countries. I heard lately that a large group of Serbs have joined Russians and recruiting is going on in Greek churches to fight in the Russian side.
They equally pose a deadly threat for the countries of their origin.
 
There are some reports that former officers of Saddam Hussein army work for ISIS now.
 
It is believed that there are 12 000 foreign fighters in Iraq-Syria. From the Balkans alone could be about 500. They do pose a terrorism risk for the countries they come from. But most of them are identified and upon their return will be arrested. I know my country has infiltrated the group and identified the members,
Since they are very low IQ people they don't pose any existential risk.
Foreign fighters in Ukraine also are a great risk for host countries. I heard lately that a large group of Serbs have joined Russians and recruiting is going on in Greek churches to fight in the Russian side.
They equally pose a deadly threat for the countries of their origin.

you like to post whatever,
LINK? ANY LINK?
or just rumors, and you seen it in TV?
 
There are some reports that former officers of Saddam Hussein army work for ISIS now.

LeBrock ISIS in iraq = ex Baathist with support of sunni Arabs. Abu Bakir Baghdadi and Al Duri are both Baathists and leaders among IS in Iraq and Al Duri is a former commander of Saddam. This is not a war between IS vs Iraq government and Kurds. This is a war between Sunni Iraqis with support of IS vs Shia government and the Kurds.
 
Britain is on fast track with new passport legislation, to make sure their border guards have ability to stop "wannabe" terrorists from going to join terrorists of IS. It is estimated that around 500 british citizens is fighting for IS.
CNN) -- British Prime Minister David Cameron called Monday for a new law to give police the temporary power to seize a passport in case a British citizen is suspected of trying to travel to support ISIS.
Cameron told lawmakers meeting in the House of Commons on Monday there were two gaps in Britain's fight against the threat of terror at home.
The first pertains to suspects traveling abroad, he said.
"Passports are not an automatic right," he said. "We will introduce specific and targeted legislation to fill this gap by providing the police with a temporary power to seize a passport at the border, during which time they will be able to investigate the individual concerned.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/01/world/europe/isis-uk-threat-level/
 

This thread has been viewed 637658 times.

Back
Top