Kurdistan independence related articles & photos

[alan131210]

I think those parts of Diyala won't become part of Kurdistan. Its better than having a war where all the cities of Iraq and kurdistan are destroyed and hundreds of thousands killed!

why do you say that ? bcoz they are Feyli kurds ? ok why not let them decide and respect their decisions , i know bcoz its closer to the Shia region that is why you say that .

Kirkuk is already under Peshmarga rule. so Iraq won't trigger a war over it.

yes no chance of letting iraqi army in as it will be the start of a long and unwanted war.

Like you said, its better for Kurdistan to declare independence BEFORE Iraq's military becomes too powerful.

i agree and i think its been scheduled to have a referendum in sept , lets wait and see.

As for article 140, that simply won't happen IMHO. .

but why not ? what is seriously wrong with this article ? letting the people decide which side they want to go or you will have problems in the future and little groups will be formed and hence insurgencies like PJAK ,

The line of control will be accepted as the de-facto border and neither side will make a move either way

how does that work ?

[sheytanElKebir]

why do you say that ? bcoz they are Feyli kurds ? ok why not let them decide and respect their decisions ,

I personally would not even hold a referendum and simply attach them to Kurdistan. Everyone knows which areas are Kurdish majority, no need for the whole charade!

i know bcoz its closer to the Shia region that is why you say that .

Its not closer to the Shia region. Us southerners really are not bothered by Kurdistan's territory at all. But the Baghdad government wants to appear "Iraqi Patriotic" and try to appeal to Iraqi nationalists. No one wants to be the person who "gave up Iraqi land".

but why not ? what is seriously wrong with this article ? letting the people decide which side they want to go or you will have problems in the future and little groups will be formed and hence insurgencies like PJAK ,

I personally have no problem with it. I am talking about Iraq.

how does that work ?

Day 1. Kurdistan declares independence.
Day 2. The lines where Iraqi army and Peshmarga are in control become the border.

[hevalo27]

Its not closer to the Shia region. Us southerners really are not bothered by Kurdistan's territory at all. But the Baghdad government wants to appear "Iraqi Patriotic" and try to appeal to Iraqi nationalists. No one wants to be the person who "gave up Iraqi land".

no. that is not the reason. in the sliced off areas is more than 15 billion barrel oil. the governement dont want to give up this money and because if kurdistan have it, then the kurds would declare independence in a time, who iraq is helpless and cant do anything against that, they play on time.
so i hope KRG is clever and will soon declare independence. the time window for that closes and the time is ripe.
when KRG dont use this chance, it will only be harder to do and iraq try to prevent it with the non-implementention of articel 140.

with the sliced off areas from articel 140, kurdistan could decide the perfect time for independence, without its problematic, but time running away

[alan131210]

yeah indeed iraq is only buying time for till those f16s arrive .

[sheytanElKebir]

Kirkuk oil fields would be the only one area for which there is actually economic benefit in Iraq. Although the amount of recoverable oil there is less than 9Bn and its the oldest series of fields in Iraq. Even economically speaking it would be cheaper for Iraq to give 100% of kirkuk oil fields to Kurdistan and cut-off the funding for KRG.

I don't see the logic of the authorities in baghdad to be honest.

Also with regards to the disputed areas, you will find that adding all those areas will more than double Kurdistan's border length with Iraq (as well as Iran). Never a good idea, unless you enjoy spunking cash on the military. Therefore I don't see the logic of trying to add every small town with a Kurdish majority to Kurdistan somehow!

[alan131210]

Kirkuk oil fields would be the only one area for which there is actually economic benefit in Iraq. Although the amount of recoverable oil there is less than 9Bn and its the oldest series of fields in Iraq. Even economically speaking it would be cheaper for Iraq to give 100% of kirkuk oil fields to Kurdistan and cut-off the funding for KRG.

I don't see the logic of the authorities in baghdad to be honest.

Also with regards to the disputed areas, you will find that adding all those areas will more than double Kurdistan's border length with Iraq (as well as Iran). Never a good idea, unless you enjoy spunking cash on the military. Therefore I don't see the logic of trying to add every small town with a Kurdish majority to Kurdistan somehow!

put it this way shaytan , kurds in KRG and diaspora want 100% kurdish lands to be included in a kurdish state as we dont abandon each other like that , not to mention who would give land away !? so every village will be added as long as it was kurdish and has been kurdish before 1991 .

[jjmuneer]

What about the Kurdish encalves in Khorasan and central Anatolia?

[sheytanElKebir]

kak alan

look at the map you will create. is that a defensible country? Its all about being REALISTIC. Fine so some Kurdish towns remain OUTSIDE Kurdish control. It doesn't mean the sky will fall! The alternative is to be in conflict with your neighbours and have an extremely long border which is statistically VERY DIFFICULT (if not impossible) to defend.

[alan131210]

heval shaytan

we cant do that , do you agree if we took some of your arabic shiite areas to include in a future kurdish state ? so why should we let that happen if the other side wont give away inches of their land ! its only fair that all kurdish region including disputed ones currently under iraq's rule like in parts of Khanaqin would be included in a kurdish state , otherwise all disputed territories are under kurdish control except the parts of Khanaqin close to the shiite border .

so it goes like this:

Sinjar , north ninevah plain , Shiekan , Khanaqin and Makhmour are all under full KRG's control and jurisdiction/ run by kurds / protected by Peshmerga.
Kirkuk is sort of autonomous but still under shaky baghdadi rule / run by kurds and KRG has the upper hand there / protected by Peshmerga.
Jalawla , Sadyea and Mandali are under baghdad's rule , run by arabs and protected by the iraqi army.
Duz Khurmatu under baghdad's rule / run by kurds / protected by kurdish police.

so literally baghdad is only in charge of kurdish towns in dispute part of south Khanaqin (only bcoz its close to Wassit and iran border).

and the rest will just become part of a future kurdish state .

this is the actual border area of what KRG controls , & the Khanaqin disputed parts are not included is it possible KRG has given up on them since Peshemrga is not even there!!!



while realistically KRG or a future kurdish state should fairly look like this

[sheytanElKebir]

Yes. I think it is doubtful if any of the green marked areas will be part of Kurdistan in future. They have Kurdish majority population there, fine, but no one's going to start a war over a couple of small towns. South Kurdistan is already in control of 97% of Kurdish majority population centres. Iraq will have some Kurdish population and Kurdistan will have some Arab population. This is nothing exceptional or hideous if you look at European countries!

Anyway, by avoiding a war, Iraq and Kurdistan can be a close economic-zone with free travel and commerce between them. Which would be best for everyone for the future (and its what Barham Salih envisages for the future of Kurdistan too).

[ideas]

We have to decide, do we want a full on war with the Arabs? one war that will probably not have a clear winner? or do we settle this in a peaceful manner, and keep the relative amount of peace between the two? Don't forget guys, as of this moment, the Arabs fill up 90% of tourism to Kurdistan, and this amounts to a lot of money that lands in directly to the peoples hand! which is different to the investments projects where the money usually ends up in private hands.

There are places that I'm not willing to compromise on, for example, Kirkuk city, khanaqin and places like sinjar, however if giving up some land means we can avoid a war, and keep Iraq on the good sides (therefore not relying on Turkey too much) then so be it.

[jjmuneer]

We have to decide, do we want a full on war with the Arabs? one war that will probably not have a clear winner? or do we settle this in a peaceful manner, and keep the relative amount of peace between the two? Don't forget guys, as of this moment, the Arabs fill up 90% of tourism to Kurdistan, and this amounts to a lot of money that lands in directly to the peoples hand! which is different to the investments projects where the money usually ends up in private hands.

There are places that I'm not willing to compromise on, for example, Kirkuk city, khanaqin and places like sinjar, however if giving up some land means we can avoid a war, and keep Iraq on the good sides (therefore not relying on Turkey too much) then so be it.

Let say if the Arabs wanted Khanaqin or Kirkuk, would you fight aswell heval Ideas?

[Kurdistano]

We have to decide, do we want a full on war with the Arabs? one war that will probably not have a clear winner? or do we settle this in a peaceful manner, and keep the relative amount of peace between the two? Don't forget guys, as of this moment, the Arabs fill up 90% of tourism to Kurdistan, and this amounts to a lot of money that lands in directly to the peoples hand! which is different to the investments projects where the money usually ends up in private hands.

There are places that I'm not willing to compromise on, for example, Kirkuk city, khanaqin and places like sinjar, however if giving up some land means we can avoid a war, and keep Iraq on the good sides (therefore not relying on Turkey too much) then so be it.

Let say if the Arabs wanted Khanaqin or Kirkuk, would you fight aswell heval Ideas?

We are already in control of this areas if they want it they have to attack us and as reaction we have to defend ourselves. but mandali and other regions are not under our control unfortunately.

[ideas]

We have to decide, do we want a full on war with the Arabs? one war that will probably not have a clear winner? or do we settle this in a peaceful manner, and keep the relative amount of peace between the two? Don't forget guys, as of this moment, the Arabs fill up 90% of tourism to Kurdistan, and this amounts to a lot of money that lands in directly to the peoples hand! which is different to the investments projects where the money usually ends up in private hands.

There are places that I'm not willing to compromise on, for example, Kirkuk city, khanaqin and places like sinjar, however if giving up some land means we can avoid a war, and keep Iraq on the good sides (therefore not relying on Turkey too much) then so be it.

Let say if the Arabs wanted Khanaqin or Kirkuk, would you fight aswell heval Ideas?

Off course. Especially for Khanaqin . But I don't have any military experience, maybe I'm better off getting a good education and using my pen

[jjmuneer]

Lol I just meant it in a general sense though, I'm not expecting people here to become commanders. But what people say and do are two different things, for myself personally I have nothing to lose if such was the case.Yeh but your right, it's highly unlikely any conflict occur over villages, but never say never. That is a mistake people make and regret. Frankly though I don't see how any military action would be beneficial to any side.