When one makes a deal, there is usually something one gives up in order to receive something from the other side. I agree with you in regards to policy, especially when it comes to "America Only" paying for things the whole world uses, The Paris Accord being an example. What other "America Only" policies are you aware of? ETA: Did you find the secret message I left for Democrats in that post?
For how many decades--even centuries--have the Kurds been denied their own homeland? Almost immediately after WWII, the Jews received their own homeland (Israel). Why should the Kurds be fundamentally different?
I agree with you as regarding some of the above points, but not all. My guess, however, is that you are either a liberal or a Rand Paul-style "conservative" who views America as the cause of most of the trouble in the world today (and especially in the Middle East). Is this a fair assessment?
For starters, I admit to my own ignorance here: I always considered "ETA" to mean estimated time of arrival. Obviously, however, it must mean something different in this context. I am just not sure what that is. And why should the Kurds "give up" something, in order to reach a "deal" that is far worse than the status quo ante? Note: I am really not aware of "other" America Only policies. But one is more than enough.
ETA - Edited To Add. So there was only one "America Only" policy, and it has been discarded. #Winning!
Because two wrongs do not make a right. As much as I support our allies in Israel, the Allies were wrong to carve out a country for them and disregard the wants of the people already living there. What is done is done and we have to live with that. But that does not mean we should do the wrong thing again.
The Kurds are not asking for land that they originally lived on. They want to hold on to land that they never lived on because it contains Syria's oil and gas resources. So what about the actual inhabitants that they are kicking out of their homes? Do you really think that the Kurds will ever have peace if they settle there? I don't nor does the US. What Washington wants is to deprive the Syrian people of their oil and gas revenue so they won't be able to rebuild their nation after we destroyed it with the help of ISIS and Al Nusra. I guess they feel the ones who behead Christians and others, are better than a secular and tolerant president who refuses to bow to our 'virtuous' (and I say that sarcastically), liberal standards .
The Yazidis are also Kurds. Kurds are Medes and Hurrians as well. They have always been in areas on the map above.
Kurd | History, Culture, & Language | Britannica.com https://www.britannica.com/topic/Kurd Kurd, member of an ethnic group concentrated in a contiguous area including southeastern Turkey, northeastern Syria, northern Iraq, and northwestern Iran. Though the Kurds have long been one of the largest ethnic groups in the region and command some level of autonomy, they have never had a nation-state of their own.
America was great when she led the world in the cause of freedom, democracy, & human rights. Trump has abandoned all three. And, he lies to the American public constantly. Trump tells his base that America pays too much & Europe pays too little, protecting other nations. But the truth is, Europe has paid over three times what America has paid in protecting Ukraine alone. Trump lies. Trump values everything based on some monetary standard, but most of life's most precious things can't be measured that way. This is another of many personal limitations of Trump. As President, Trump is unfortunately imposing those personal limitation upon the nation & its citizens. Trump is suggesting to Americans that international friendship should be measured by how much our "friends" pay us in money for our friendship. He judges NATO based on that premise, whereas the real value of NATO has been & is, how effective they've been in keeping peace in Europe for the longest time in history. But Trump is ready to throw away friendship with anyone based on his evaluation of how much they pay us. That's a deadly way to run foreign policy. Instead of "Making America Great Again," it effectively abandons American leadership in the world altogether & consigns America to the scrapheap of nations so self-absorbed & self-promoting, that they are useless as partners or friends, & they stand for nothing beyond absolute selfishness. I am constantly shocked by Trump's base being so totally incapable of seeing these truths. They seem so blinded by their mindless loyalty to him, they never consider the damage his twisted personality can do to the nation overall. I'm shocked by their numbers. I never imagined so many Americans were so incapable of independent thinking, or so morally depraved. It is a source of deep sadness for me.
Anyone who doesn't view America as the biggest problem in the world today is living in a bubble. It wasn't always this way though, we were once looked on as a beacon of light.
I know that Lawrence of Arabia wanted the Arabs to have the oil in Iraq, so he was against giving it to the Kurds. In the Treaty of Sevres that the allies were working on, the Kurdish areas in Turkey were going to be under Britain and France. Eventually they would have gone to the Kurds. The allies though were taking so long because of the infighting, that it was never implemented. Attaturk came into power and began retaking Anatolia. Here's a map:
Prove it.. Iraq was already under British control and the British controlled Iraq's oil..Kurds went to work in the oil fields as employees all around Kirkuk.. Where do you come up with such BS?
History of Oil in Iraq Lord Curzon, the British Foreign Secretary, denied that oil interests influenced policy in Iraq, but the archives show that the British government rushed troops to Mosul in 1918 to gain control of the northern oil fields. Britain and France clashed over Iraq's oil during the Versailles Conference and after, but Britain eventually took the lion's share by turning its military victories into colonial rule. The powerful Iraq Petroleum Company, in which US and French firms held minority positions, acted always in the cartel interests of the Anglo-American companies. To the fury of the Iraqis and the French, it held down production to maximize profits elswhere. The company kept a monopoly of Iraq's oil sector until nationalization in 1972. https://www.globalpolicy.org/iraq-conflict-the-historical-background-/history-of-oil-in-iraq.html
Boy you have a comprehension problem. Prove what, that Britain, France and Italy won the war, and that Germany's ally Turkey lost the war? It was only a matter of time before Britain and France gave the Kurds in Turkey their freedom the same as they did the Iraqis and Syrians. The map of Anatolia shows how it was going to be divided in the Treaty of Sevres. It was never implemented though and later superseded by the Treaty of Lausanne. Well now Erdogan is discarding the Treaty of Lausanne, and has his fleet at loggerheads with the French fleet over the mineral rights in the Cypriot waters. And that Margot is today's history lesson, as well as current events.
I know when the Ottoman Empire was partitioned. The British were gassing Kurds in Iraq in 1920. Iraq Mandate - British Empire britishempire.co.uk/maproom/iraq.htm Initial Contacts with the British. Iraq was an important outpost of the Ottoman empire. It was not known as Iraq at this time, it was the collection of three vilayets of the empire: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, sometimes referred to by the British as Mesopotamia.
@Jeannette Iraq oil history.. MOST oil field workers in Mosul and Kirkuk were Kurds from the beginning. During the 20th century the Ottoman Empire granted a concession allowing William Knox D'Arcy to explore oil fields in its territories which, after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, became the modern countries of Iran and Iraq. Eventually D'Arcy and other European partners founded the Turkish Petroleum Company (TPC) in 1912, which was renamed the Iraqi Petroleum Company in later years. Kirkuk district: an oil gusher spouting with a stream of oil in foreground. After the partition of the Ottoman Empire, the British gained control of Mosul in 1921. In 1925, TPC obtained a 75-year concession to explore for oil in exchange for a promise that the Iraqi government would receive a royalty for every ton of oil extracted. A well was located at Baba Gurgur just north of Kirkuk. Drilling started, and in the early hours of 14 October 1927 oil was struck. The oil field in Kirkuk proved extensive. Discovery of oil in Kirkuk hastened the negotiations over the composition of TPC, and on 31 July 1928 shareholders signed a formal partnership agreement to include the Near East Development Corporation (NEDC)—an American consortium of five large US oil companies that included Standard Oil of New Jersey, Standard Oil Company of New York (Socony), Gulf Oil, the Pan-American Petroleum and Transport Company, and Atlantic Richfield Co.. (By 1935, only Standard Oil of New Jersey and Standard Oil of New York were left). The agreement was called the Red Line Agreement for the "red line" drawn around the former boundaries of the Ottoman
Some historically ignorant and clueless person wrote that part of the Wikipedia entry! Just wrong on all counts. The "modern" nation of Iran, of course, did not arise from the collapse of the Ottoman empire since Iran was never a part of the Ottoman empire to begin with! Nor should the sometimes mistakenly narrated issue about the name of the country, Persia/Iran, confuse folks as much as it has! Iran was always called Iran even before Iran's government officially asked Western countries to refer to the country by its endogenous name Iran instead of Persia. The official name of Iran (in Persian) during the Qatar dynasty (1796-1925), which immediately preceded the Pahlavi dynasty (1925-1979) was the Dowlat-e Aliyye-ye Irân (which would properly translate to the Sublime State of Iran but following English usage was called Sublime State of Persia). This was the name of the country under all of its previous dynasties including the Safavid dynasty and going back to the Sassanian empire! The D'Arcy Concession was granted to D'Arcy by the Qajar dynasty in Iran in 1901 and covered Iran's petroleum resources. The concession was taken over by the British, became the Anglo-Persian (then renamed Anglo-Iranian) Oil Company and subsequently after the nationalization of the oil industry in Iran, became British Petroleum (BP). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'Arcy_Concession https://www.encyclopedia.com/humani...cs-transcripts-and-maps/darcy-concession-1901 D'Arcy Concession (1901) The D'Arcy Concession did not cover Mesopotamia/Iraq and wasn't the basis for discovery and exploitation of oil there. The Iraqi story is somewhat complicated and is covered below. https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/185/40548.html Oil in Iraq: The Byzantine Beginnings
Yes, but the Wikipedia entry you were quoting is wrong for the reason I have explained. The D'Arcy concession didn't involve the Ottoman empire or Iraq and the story is just different.
History of Oil in Iraq Lord Curzon, the British Foreign Secretary, denied that oil interests influenced policy in Iraq, but the archives show that the British government rushed troops to Mosul in 1918 to gain control of the northern oil fields. https://www.globalpolicy.org/compon...flict-over-iraqi-oil-the-world-war-i-era.html In October 1927, the British exploration team under D'Arcy hit a gusher, proving oil reserves in large quantities near Kirkuk in northern Iraq. In July 1928, the quarreling parties finally reached a famous accord, known as the "Red Line Agreement," which brought the US consortium into the picture with just under a quarter of the shares and an agreement to jointly develop fields in many other Middle East countries falling within the red line marked on the map by the negotiators.
Oil was struck in Iran under the D'Arcy Concession granted in 1901 by an Iranian monarch, which didn't involve the Ottoman empire/Iraq. The story about the underlying arrangements (rather complicated and Byzantine) relating to the exploration and discovery of oil in Iraq are presented in what I had quoted for you. They didn't involve the D'Arcy Concession, even if the "British team working under D'Arcy" struck oil in Iraq in 1927 (nearly 10 years after the collapse of the Ottoman empire). Let me put it this way: The D'Arcy Concession refers to a particular (and rather infamous) concession granted by an Iranian monarch during the Qajar dynasty to William D'Arcy, which became the basis for the exploration of oil in Iran some 20 years before discovery of oil in Iraq. D'Arcy himself sold his rights under the concession from Iran to the British government, the Anglo-Persian oil company (renamed later the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company) was formed and after the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry, the company became BP. The Iraqi story simply follows a different and much more complicated line of agreements involving more parties and even more intrigue. Read the article I posted for you, which is incidentally from the same site you have quoted now.
I spent a lot of time in Iran in the 1950s so I know about Darcy.. We are discussing the development of the Iraq oil business around Kirkuk and Mosul. Iran was never part of the Ottoman Empire.. Iraq was.
