General News Thread

[I3uster]

They don't really have a whole lot of alternatives. Kurds do not fight for a partial compromise of having a tiny piece of Iraq, they want the whole thing, and the regime can not afford to lose a province.

- - - Updated - - -

imagine being a hawkish american politician right now and having this card house scenario in front of you that you cant do anything about because you dont want your fingerprints on anything but syrian kurds

blueballing of the century

[2Bad]

They don't really have a whole lot of alternatives. Kurds do not fight for a partial compromise of having a tiny piece of Iraq, they want the whole thing, and the regime can not afford to lose a province.

I mean they do have an alternative: don't get involved until you are forced to. At present, East Kurdistan isn't set to move, the West and South are preoccupied with the Forever Civil Wars they are involved in, and the North is relatively firmly under Ankaran boot. But a great way to ENSURE the East erupts is to invade their Southern brothers, in a move that you cannot possibly hope for success in. Hell, even if they moved in tandem with Turkey (and Baghdad but lol), what are they going to do, eradicate all Kurds? It's an option, albeit a completely insane one, but it's also a great way to actually give those Western hawks an excuse to intervene. And if you're Iran, then even if the other side is a breakaway chunk of a Western client state (well... sort of), you can be damn sure those hawks are not going to be taking YOUR side.

- - - Updated - - -

Like I'm not saying that Southern Kurdistan isn't a powderkeg, I'm saying that shoving your hand in and lighting it yourself is a really bad idea.

[I3uster]

How are they not forced to do it? Any kind of establishment of a halfway stable autonomous region that presumably will allow the Kurds an unprecedented degree of coordination and logistics will mean years of border skirmishes and since the population in those regions is not exactly regime-friendly all that means is civil war which will depose the regime in the blink of an eye.

They aren't exactly staunchly opposed to the idea of landgrabbing Iraqi territory either, and if the west gives any shit about not pissing off literally everyone in the region they will have to let the Kurdish situation play out hands-off. And not exactly opposed to disgustingly violent repression of them either, every time something upsets the Iranian Kurds and causes minor riots we don't even get reliable death tolls because the whole area goes under a total blackout and then emerges a bit later with a lot of people missing.

[2Bad]

They aren't forced to do it because there is nothing that forces you to join a fight you aren't part of. As I've said, I understand why the regime would be concerned about it. I am however also saying that the problems they will inevitably create for themselves by an invasion are liable to be far worse than simply waiting to see how this plays out. Spending blood and treasure (that Iran doesn't have to spare) fighting a nightmarish guerilla war doesn't do well for your internal stability. Nor is grabbing land from your co-religionist neighbor a great long-term move for that relationship. What land would they even take? South Kurdistan itself? That'd be essentially giving up on Baghdad ever being a friendly relation of any sort, and it's effectively creating the unified South-East front you're afraid of in the first place. Hell, some in Rojava might seek turn their eye East, and of course you always have Northerners jumping the border to join the fights in Rojava and the South.

It's essentially starting the war now because you're afraid it might start later. Preemptive action has its place, true, but this just seems like a bad gamble.

e: as for the west, well, I don't know if you've noticed, but the West DOESN'T care about pissing off everyone in the region. Just Turkey (which hey, would certainly be mad but acts up all the time anyway) and the Gulf states really (who would be absolutely thrilled to see Iran and the Baghdad government kicked around... and act up all the time anyway).

[asterism42]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-41385735

something something persona 5 joke

[I3uster]

They aren't forced to do it because there is nothing that forces you to join a fight you aren't part of. As I've said, I understand why the regime would be concerned about it. I am however also saying that the problems they will inevitably create for themselves by an invasion are liable to be far worse than simply waiting to see how this plays out. Spending blood and treasure (that Iran doesn't have to spare) fighting a nightmarish guerilla war doesn't do well for your internal stability. Nor is grabbing land from your co-religionist neighbor a great long-term move for that relationship. What land would they even take? South Kurdistan itself? That'd be essentially giving up on Baghdad ever being a friendly relation of any sort, and it's effectively creating the unified South-East front you're afraid of in the first place. Hell, some in Rojava might seek turn their eye East, and of course you always have Northerners jumping the border to join the fights in Rojava and the South.

It's essentially starting the war now because you're afraid it might start later. Preemptive action has its place, true, but this just seems like a bad gamble.

e: as for the west, well, I don't know if you've noticed, but the West DOESN'T care about pissing off everyone in the region. Just Turkey (which hey, would certainly be mad but acts up all the time anyway) and the Gulf states really (who would be absolutely thrilled to see Iran and the Baghdad government kicked around... and act up all the time anyway).

They just presumably assess it as a way higher risk than you do. I don't really think they are scared of a unified Kurdistan under their flag because under their jurisdiction the VEVAK can just clean that place out like they love to do their own, though the idea that they just snatch it is kind of...excessive I have to admit. If anything they probably just want a good buffer zone or something.

And tbh I don't even know if the regime has any kind of ambitions for amicable relationships with Baghdad in the first place since they flip between being a Sunni godstate and a Western puppet. They did pretty fine just being incredibly mad at each other for decades now.

Regarding the west: establishment of Kurdistan is basically a second Israel as far as regional stability is concerned. I really doubt you can sell a population on going into that, and the killing of Kurds has never really been particularly persecuted by military intervention on our part in the first place. And as you say we love Turkey who would basically lose their shit completely if the west moved towards the establishment of a Turkish Kurdistan.

[asterism42]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-41391978

it's almost fascinating to watch, really

[I3uster]

Speaking of Iran:

[2Bad]

i cant

[Rafflesiac]

"It's"

[2Bad]

Yes that's the part I'm galled by


Meanwhile, Strong And Stable's time on this Earth is ticking away
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a7965776.html

[asterism42]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41394477

I mean, this is just funny. This is marvellous comedy.

[Five_X]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-41408195

Saudi Arabia may still be an absurdly misogynistic state, but women there can now legally drive and that's at least a step forward.

[Polly]

Yes, nothing says progress and women's liberation like a decree from a king

[2Bad]

The Country That Crucifies Protesters, Designates Atheism As Terrorism, And Enslaves Foreign Workers is woke now

[Polly]

Don't forget the beheading of blasphemers

[LegalLoliLover]

The Country That Crucifies Protesters

Wait, what, recently?

[Five_X]

Yes, nothing says progress and women's liberation like a decree from a king

democracy is optional

[Polly]

Democracy in a neoliberal world is sham

[asterism42]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-41399134

wtf is wrong with people