Kurdish Crisis In Kurdistan

aid can be used to protect the United States from threats from other nations. Beyond humanitarian aid, there is a more complex interpretation of what U.S. foreign aid is and what it does both for the recipient country and America. For example, building democratic governments in other countries is one strategy for fighting terrorism. The United States has long had the reputation of using its military forces for good, such as during World War II when American soldiers helped to defeat Hitler’s Nazism. When dealing with a repressive regime which does not want to engage in democracy military force may be necessary. I am convinced that the United States can provide a healthy dose of overwhelming firepower if that is what it

Nevertheless, the Kurds believe that the threat of intolerant Shiite Arabs coming into power requires a formidable response to ensure their security (Source C). Even though the foreign affairs pose a threat to the Kurds,

In the past the United States has made many empty promises saying that we are going to be active in helping control the conflict that was occurring in Sudan. By sending in help the United States can regain credibility that they will follow through with their word. There are many people who are upset with the way that the United States has chosen to handle this situation. They have promised to send aid and resources but have followed with little efforts. The United States could gain respect from those around them and have a major role in a country with growing interest.

Have you ever wondered why there are so many terrorist attacks in the United States? Why did the United States spends so much money on the military? This all happens due to a reason that the United States keep interfering into others countries’ problems, but most of the time nothing come out of it. Sometimes, the United States even make the problem become even worse. Just like the war in Iraq. The decisions made by the Presidents cause the problem getting worse day by day. Helping people out is a good thing, however, we should think about if that person need help or not. Which out the intervene of the United States, Iraq will not be in a situation like today. The United States will be less in debt and more money to fund other programs. There are more negative effects than positive effects when the United States meddles into others countries’ problems, so the United States should just ignore and stop worrying about those countries.

There are four possible paths to take from this point. We could simply leave Iraq to its own devices, pull all of our troops out of Iraq, and never look towards it again. However, we bombed their country, and we have an obligation to fix it for the innocents who are suffering. This action is irresponsible and immoral. Or, we could stay in Iraq, denying the UN any say in this and paying for it ourselves. This will bring us to economic ruin, and we will lose our image in the UN. This course of action is arrogant and financially unsound. Another path would be to pull all troops out of Iraq, give control to the UN, but pay for all of the

It is not a wise decision to provide the Kurdish forces with weapons because history is being repeated. The United States provided the Iranians weapons during the Cold War in order to strengthen their relationship. This resulted in various terrorist attacks on the U.S. and it has also fueled a very long war. The same situation could occur in Iraq if the United States supplies weapons. Eventhough it would make sense to give these people weapons so that they can protect themselves, it may lead to an unfavorable result in the long term.

The conflict in Iraq is currently sectarian violence between Sunni religious rebels, represented by ISIL, and the Iraqi government lead by secular Shia parties

Moreover, the State Department has been using Secretary of State John Kerry’s hint that the administration might be open to negotiating with the Iranian aligned Syrian dictator, Bashar al-Assad (Patten). Even though the U.S. is capable of destroying ISIS and rolling back the Tehran regime at the same time, Washington needs to prepare a plan to sanction the foreign policies with a convergent approach to defeating ISIS but not through fighting a war. ISIS is a dangerous pro-state that engages in enslaving and forcing people to take them under their control. They seem powerful at the point, whereas U.S. administration should be ready and build an effective global wide political organization to help clarify the situation on the ground. The U.S. Air force is more advanced and capable of gaining an early winning through an advance attack, if needed.

As years pass, Americans are becoming increasingly critical of the American invasion of Iraq following the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. As a result, many Americans are apprehensive in supporting another American intervention in a Middle Eastern country during the middle of an uprising. For years, politicians have echoed the same sentiment: “I will not create another ‘Iraq’ in the Middle East,” however, when faced with the opportunity to do exactly that, it seems the decision is not so simple. On one hand, a direct intervention would be extremely costly and very might well be unsuccessful entirely. On the other hand, taking a hands-off approach and instead opting to employ diplomacy and encourage American allies to

In the months leading to March 2003 invasion of Iraq there was significant debate between actors, domestically and internationally, over if and how the US should overthrow Saddam Hussein and his oppressive regime. The two main camps on how to negotiate the issue were realist and liberal views on international policy making. For realists the view was held that decision making should be made in the interests of the nation with or without international consent. Contrary, for liberals the ideology was held that policy decisions should be made based on what will benefit the country while also working through and with international partners. The ideology of the two main groups, realists and liberals, focused on to what extent, if any, the US should seek international approval from the UN Security Council in its endeavors to invade Iraq.

If it is accepted then, that Washington should have taken stronger action earlier in the conflict, the question becomes whether there are any practical, more decisive approaches that could have been employed earlier in the war to greater success. This essay examines three alternative measures that could have been adopted by the US at the outset of the conflict, in light of existing commitments, foreign policy and attitudes. The most controversial option is direct military intervention. Current American-led airstrikes have exclusively focused on ISIS, however, the current Russian intervention can provide clues as to whether earlier American air strikes against Assad would have impacted the conflict. Russia intervened on the basis of creating “new realities” upon which to build a political settlement, but the true effect of these measures is to essentially keep the Assad regime from collapsing (ACRPS, 2015). This intervention has helped “turn the tides” of the conflict for the regime (Heistein, 2016). There are questions as to whether, at the outset of the conflict, The Administration could have realistically engaged in airstrikes. Even those who advocated a more “muscular” policy early in the war such as Hilary Clinton, Leon Panetta and David Patraeus, were not proposing any where near the kind of military involvement that would have been large enough to re-shape the conflict or even provide enough leverage to negotiate a settlement (Miller, 2016). However, it can be

Talisman should investigate about how independent Kurdistan is from the rest of Iraq, if there is any singe of conflict between Kurdistan and the government of Iraq, Talisman then should clear it out with the Iraqi government. It is as I mentioned an unstable region, so there is a great chance of conflicts.

So when Mustafa Kamal (Ataturk) began to form a Turkish nation state, it was not clear what constituted a Turk but soon, Kurds were considered as Turks and a policy aiming at the detribalization and assimilation of the Kurds was adopted… The Turkish government's pursuit of full assimilation has led to the proscription of publications of any book, newspaper, or other material in the Kurdish language. Moreover, there has also been an instance of arrests of entertainers for singing songs or performing in Kurdish.

Kurdistan is a region that has existed in turmoil and is the “never was” country. The Kurds are the fourth largest ethnic group of the Middle East, numbering between 20 and 25 million. Approximately 15 million live in the regions of Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria, an area they called Kurdistan, yet they do not have a country of their own. Formal attempts to establish such a state were crushed by the larger and more powerful countries in the region after both world wars. When the Ottoman Empire collapsed after World War I, the Kurds were promised their own independent nation under the Treaty of Sevres. In 1923 however, the treaty was broken allowing Turkey to maintain its status and not allowing the Kurdish people to have a nation to call

Persians are Iran 's biggest ethnic group, however almost twelve different ethnicities represent well over 33% of the seventy nine million population. The biggest ethnic groups, which are main considerations for Iranian governmental issues are Azeris, Turkish, Kurds, Arabs, Baluchis, Armenians, Lors, and Turkomen. Other smaller ethnic groups are Qashqai, Mazandarani, Talysh and Gilaki. They hold many of the seats in the current parliament. Ethnic minorities are a delicate political issue, which is one reason precise numbers in legislative issues and the military are not effortlessly