They should do it now. Kirkuk, which was the main issue at least with regard to borders, is abandoned by Iraq and pretty much everybody agrees that ISIS are a bunch of twats that the Kurds are quite right to do everything in their means to oppose. They should do it now while the power vacuum exists.
Time to end yet another one of your ridiculous, semantic tap dancing hijacks. You can think the Kurds are defending Iraq all you want. No one cares. The rest of us think the Kurds are defending what they consider their territory. The cases have been made and we shall agree to disagree.
The question here is whether they intend to secede or not. So far, I think it’s unclear exactly when that will happen. There can be no doubt that their eventual goal is an independent homeland. Whether the recent events give them that opportunity remains to be seen. The fighting is no where near over (despite a certain claim that “the terrorists have been stopped”). My guess is that the Kurds will proceed cautiously, and if the Sunni and Shiite Arabs are unable to successfully form a functioning government that can secure the sovereignty of the country, the Kurds will appeal to countries like the US and Turkey to support an independence movement.
One of Mace’s best arguments against something that cannot be refuted is to call it a hijack or senantics. That just happened again. And if the Kurds are defending their recognized territories, and territories under duspute, and have moved to split off from Iraq, they are defending Iraq. That is not semantics; that is a fact.
NFBW you know, technically on paper, your argument may be correct. It’s just that off paper in the real world nobody would say you’re characterizing the situation properly. From Brainglutton’s link:
The trouble with ‘effectively partitioned’ is that Kurds have lawmakers in Baghdad continuing to try to form a new central government. Sunnis are there too. The ‘effective partition’ is (a) not full independence nor (b) Kurdish withdrawal from their obligations and rights as participants within Iraq’s central government in Baghdad.
An effectively partitioned Iraq with all three parties represented in the central government is still Iraq. And you cannot deny that based upon something that may change that several months into the future.
I have seen no outcries of opposition here to the thought that the Kurds will hold a referendum on possible independence in a few months or so.
Perhaps a new look at Crimea and Eastern Ukraine are in order?
Can we drop this hijack already?
So. And I’ve read it was not all of them. Not enough to form a quorum. And that has happened often. Does the walk out by some mean Kurds and Sunnis are now living in independent states"
And the Sunni and Kurd regions have been '‘effectively partitioned’ by a terrorist invasion. Is that right?
I’d rather be technically correct than not correct at all. Since Iraq is now indeed ‘effectively partitioned’, I say people dealing with the real world and having respect for international law and civilized order in the world, would recognize what has ‘effectively partitioned’ Iraq. The real world I live in allows me to see that Iraq has been ‘effectively partitioned’ by a military style extremist attack on Iraq by Terrorists, murderers, extortionists, assassins, thieves and plunderers. Partitioning Iraq on terms dictated by terrorists and the violence they brought to Iraq should not be conveniently acceptable in the real world that I live in.
I’m for whatever it takes to exterminate the ISIS killers wherever they try to hide. Then I believe the Kurds have a legitimate right to separate peacefully and democratically from Baghdad if that is what they choose. The same goes for the Sunnis that did not side with ISIS and the terror they bring and brought into Iraq.
congrats. You’re both.
That makes no sense at all.
If you believe Kurds are no longer a part of Iraq why wouid this be going on?
http://www.aawsat.net/2014/07/article55333847
What do they care if Maliki serves a third term if they don’t care if Iraq is over-run by the newly declared ‘Islamic State’ (IS)?
Do you think the Sunni’s that walked out are sympathetic with the (TIS) Terrorist Islamic State and are representing them?
What Tagos cited contradicts the reality that Kurds are aligned with Sunnis in baghdad to form a salvation unity government without Maliki.
No response I see.
It was the seizure of Kirkuk, not its ‘defence’. As you well know.
That’s because we apparently speak different languages.
The only thing going on here is the Kurds are using the crisis to create an independent Kurdish state containing all the oil rich bits (Kirkuk prominently) they see as part of ‘greater’ Kurdistan but which the other factions would not concede.
There is nothing else happening other than turning a srisis into an opportunity. Any other interpretation is delusional.
No. It contradicts your ‘reality’. Not the same thing.
Iraq is done.
Are you saying there was no ‘defense’ taking place when Kurds fill the security vacuum left behind by the ISF? That is an extraordinarily incomplete version of what happened.
Do you agree or deny that the initial defense of Kirkuk helped keep the Shiite government from falling into the hands of the Sunni extremists that invaded from Syria?