Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

Today is the day of the referendum where Iraqi Kurdistan votes whether or not they want to stay with Iraq or if they want to become an independent Kurdistan. In the past, I supported the idea of Kurdistan becoming an independent state and their fight against ISIS/Daesh seemed to prove that they were capable to work on their own. But when news dropped that they were actually going to have a referendum, I decided to look more into it.

Now I see it as a double-edged sword for the Kurds. Independence might be something they deserve, but it would further destabilize the region more than it already is. I've even seen a comment saying that this is just another Kosovo in the works. But seeing how Israel has managed to hold out over all these years, it makes me think that somehow this could work out.

But it's clear that if they do vote for independence, the Kurds are going to have a rough future ahead of them. All of Kurdistan's neighbors don't agree with this referendum, Turkey and Iran especially, with the latter closing its border with and halting all flights with Iraqi Kurdistan. And 4chan's /POL/ going as far to believe that there might be another major conflict in the region. (New thread incase the old one gets 404d)

I still wish for an independent Kurdistan. But if they do decide to stay with Iraq (which they most likely won't, because let's be honest, this referendum is really one-sided), then whatever. It's a shame, but maybe another day. Ultimately, I wish for the best to the Kurds regardless of what they choose. But what about your guys? What are your thoughts on all of this?

Surely you can't just unilaterally declare independence. It didn't work in Serbia with Kosovo, it didn't work in Ukraine with Donbass, it didn't work in Russia with Chechnya, etc. No one will accept their decision and it will not end well.

Honestly, whether they declare independence or not doesn't really change much. The only real reason Rojava is able to exist is because they have the backing of the US, who doesn't want ISIS to take over the region. The second they become a nuisance to the US, or if they stop being useful to it, they'll smash whatever insurrection is still alive.

Something that interests me about this is what anarchists will say, though. Anarchists like to uphold Rojava as some sort of "Actually existing anarchism" (Even though it really isn't), so it'd definitely interest me to see if they'll still sing the same tune once they declare independence and pretty much confirm that they are a state (I mean, how are you going to defend your borders without one, for starters?)

I made this mistake too at first, but this isn't Rojava. Kurdistan consists of a few regions, one of which is Rojava and is in Syria. But it's the part of Kurdistan in Iraq that's holding the referendum.

As for your questions about anarchists and Rojava, I think most anarchists realize that Rojava is a state, but it's very reduced compared to anything else that currently exists, and it incorporates elements of Murray Bookchin's communalism.

Honestly I think it's more than likely that they'll become a country.

The reason being as much as people bitch about the USA, attacking a peaceful group of people who aren't attacking and just want their own country would be a damn hard sell to american voters.

"And that's why we're bombing them"
"Wait so you attacked a group of people who weren't terrorists?"
"Yup"
"They didn't attack the Iraqi government"
"Yup"
"They didn't do suicide attacks on civilians"
"Yup"
"They didn't go around throwing people off buildings"
"Yup"
"They didn't use chemical weaponry against civilians"
"Correct again"
"And the only reason why you attacked them was cause they wanted to hold a referendum to establish independence?"
"Correct"
"Are you fucking insane?!"
"They wanted to make a economically stable country that is peaceful towards it's neighbors. That's reason enough"
"Again, are you fucking insane?!"

"But the USA is a warlord country that attacks everyone and it's people are bloodthirsty monsters who eat children"
Keep in mind it took years for the USA congress to fake enough evidence to get congress to go into Iraq in the first place. Granted Saddam was a dictator, but the point still stands that even though their leader was a dictator cause he wasn't causing shit internationally it was a very unpopular war. 30% of americans supported the Iraq war in the end. A war against the Kurds would probably have something like a 5% support.

Well it was a landslide victory, with over 92% of voters choosing independence, the turnout was fairly high as well. I'm seeing numbers ranging from 72% to 78%. Assuming 72% turnout and that every single person who didn't vote would have voted no, that still leaves a minimum of 66% of the total population as supporting independence. The actual number is obviously much higher.

I'm interested to see what happens next.

…..Crap here we go.

People are starting to claim that Kurds are planning on taking over Iraq, Syria and Turkey.

$50 on a another Kurd genocide in the next five years. Once ISIS falls then Assad will probably attack the Kurds, I wouldn't be surprised if Turkey and Iran soon join; those three countries really love killing Kurds. How many times has there been a kurd genocide again?

Assad might give Syria's Kurds the possibility of establishing their country. Reading further into the current situation about the Kurds in general what is most likely to happen is I think Assad realizes if he tries to crush the Kurds given how many bridges they control over the Euphrates it'd be kind of stupid for them to try and 100% win in Syria. The most likely outcome of the Syria was is that once ISIS is pushed out of Syria Assad metaphorically cashes out instead.

Obviously Assad hates the Kurds; it's just that now that ISIS is losing given how they're at a strategic disadvantage it'd be better to just go "fuck it" and focus on the rebels instead.

Two ways the Syria war could go:
Assad doing the strategically insane thing of trying to win completely which would take another six years to win and further economically destroy the country.
Assad cashing his chips on eastern Syria and letting the Kurds have it so they can focus on the rebels in the west.

It's possible that Assad will let the Kurds make their own country simply because there's no guarantee he would win in the long run if he continues to fight a multi-front war. Basically back when ISIS was winning his chances of winning the war was 1:4, now that ISIS is getting pushed out it's a 1:3, if he turns a blind eye to the Kurds and just lets them be his chances of winning become a 1:1.5

…
…
More than likely for the next six months the topic of the Kurds will continue to be a hot button issue without a clear answer. What Assad does once ISIS loses will dictate what happens in the long run.

If Assad is insane and wants total victory: well shit's going to probably hit the fan.
If Assad is willing to accept a partial victory more than likely the Kurds in Syria and the Kurds in Iraq will make one country.

Tldr; we're going to have to wait a couple months to see how this plays out.

Honestly there is one very very big reason why I hope in the long run the former scenario plays out. If the Kurds in Syria make their own country and the Kurds in Iraq merge together with that country to make one big country it'll lay out legal groundwork for secession in international law.

What I mean by this is that in modern day international law there is no legal groundwork for how a region would go about seceding from a country. It's a legal gray zone, there's no law against it and no law for it.

"Seceding from a larger country is bad m'kay"
The thing is though is that civil wars over this sort of thing are very common. Contrary to popular belief not ever civil war in the world is like the usa civil war. The most recent civil war int he world was because back in the day when Britain was still a empire they went "well these two religious groups fucking hate each other; let's make one country where they're bunched together. I don't see how this'll turn into a bad situation in the long run"

If Kurdistan becomes a actual country the long term ramification for this would be that internationally in the long run we'll see a lot of restructuring nation wise through legal process rather than resorting to violence.

Basically what I'm getting at is that the reason why I want to see Kurdistan become a real country is that over the course of the next hundred years we'd see a lot less wars in the world cause regions/ethnicities/religions who want to form their own countries would have the opportunity to do so without resorting to a war and to do so legally.

It would kind of be a good news bad news sort of thing: if there becomes a precedence in international law that allows a region to legally secede from a country chances are a lot less wars would happen; on the downside chances are a lot of countries in specifically africa and the middle east would get reformed into new countries. As much as people bitch about say the USA, ya'll british done fucked up when you had colonies.

The reason why I want Kurdistan to become a actual country is that how Africa and the Middle East probably will look like in a hundred years border wise will probably be along

Tldr; I hope it happens cause if there's anything we've learned from the past fifty years of wars is that groups that hate each other do not do well together if you just randomly shove them together and tell them to play nice.

Tldr of tldr; you know how many civil wars there's been cause of religious wars or race wars the past fifty years? Maybe we shouldn't continue this path?

Wow this thread is bursting with facts

But really, as an outsider looking into a foreign conflict (how american of me right?)
I can personally just hope justice is served. And I will always belive that every human being can experience simple human rights and maybe if everyone had their damn rights, shit like this wouldn't break out so often.

I honestly do care about people who are suffering. No biased

Looks like another civil war is coming. According to sources CNBC, Al Jazeera, BBC, and The New York Times, Iraqi forces have advanced into territory held by the Kurdish Peshmerga in attempt to reclaim Kirkuk, a city in an oil rich region that was taken by the Kurds after the Iraqi army fled due to the advancement of Daesh/ISIS back in 2014.

I knew this was eventually going to happen. I genuinely hope that it doesn't become a civil war, but the middle east just can't seem to solve things diplomatically.

Logic, "You do realize that intentionally trying to stir up shit would cost trillions of dollars and probably cause tens of thousands of lives lost at least for very little gain and be the definition of a Pyrrhic victory in that any other option would have resulted in less loss?"
Ego, "We can't just let people disagree with us politically. If we do that then it'll jeopardize our country's unity"
Logic, "You know with how trillions of dollars are spent on war we could have instead of used that money towards developing our country into a first world country right?"
Ego, "But our country needs to be unified"