What does this mean for me? You will always be able to play your favorite games on Kongregate. However, certain site features may suddenly stop working and leave you with a severely degraded experience.
What should I do? We strongly urge all our users to upgrade to modern browsers for a better experience and improved security.
We suggest you install the latest version of one of these browsers:
Kongregate is a community-driven browser games portal with an open platform for all web games.
Get your games in front of thousands of users while monetizing through ads and virtual goods.
Learn more »
yea, i know that scotland wasnt conquered by the english. but the situation in the united kingdom is a lot more different than the one in turkey. most kurds dont want their own country, only a few want it. and those few arent trying to get a country in a peaceful way, instead they are killing innocent people so turkey will be scared of them and give like 30% of turkey to those terrorists. but this will probably never work.
> *Originally posted by **[Rolby](/forums/9/topics/302311?page=1#posts-6423826):***
> maybe u dont know, but netherlands ( the country i live in) gives almost no money to the army anymore, cuz were in a crisis. thats probably the reason y were not in it.
> + turkey has given the kurds a lot of things already. turkey has a tv-channel which provides 24 hours long kurdish programs. kurdish is even going to be taught at schools.
> [http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail\_getNewsById.action?newsId=283287](http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?newsId=283287) if some people from scotland would want secession, would england give it to them? no. the same counts to the kurds. the kurds want way too much soil. the turks will never give them secession.
still more than Qatar. still more than Belgium (less than 11 million), which is also in there. still more than Denmark (less than 6 million) which is also in there.
and if Scotland…god damnit, can’t you use a better example? i don’t think anyone understands the situation of the UK/GB/England, Scotland, Whales and Northern Ireland.
but at any rate, if they want secession and aren’t getting it, that would be wrong. oppression of entire populations is always wrong.
> I don’t think Russia is stopping elections in Syria, quite the opposite in fact. They understand that an election of some kind is probably the only way to begin bringing the situation under control. But they are concerned about who is going to succeed Assad’s regime. Syria is Russia’s only ally in the region, and they are understandably anxious to hang on to that alliance. Assad has no real interest in talking to the west, but he does listen to the Russians, who have been Syria’s ally since the fifties. For the moment at least, Russia wants Assad to stay put, because for them there is no alternative candidate on the horizon
how could you not notice the insane contradiction in what you’re saying. you’ve said Assad wants to have elections, and then inevitably step down. you are saying Russia is preventing this. then you say that Russia DOES want elections, and your explanation is reasons for Russia to not want elections.
are you talking absolute rubbish for a reason? or are you merely entertaining yourself?
> In a perfect world, any potential successor needs to satisfy the Russians
yes. so clearly, Russia does not want to have democratic elections. that is what you are saying. you are saying that Russia wants to declare Assads successor, which means they do NOT want demoractic elections. you do know what Democracy means, don’t you?
… it appears you idea of democracy is a dictatrship putting forward a candidate and forcing people to vote for that person. obviously that is not democracy. where are you from?
> As for the Kurds, they are spread all over the region, in Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Syria, the Caucasus, Lebanon and Afghanistan, to name a few. There are substantial populations all over Europe, notably in Germany. It reminds me somewhat of the jewish diaspora, and giving them their own country didn’t work out too well. If a new Kurdistan is to be established, it will mean other countries giving up territory to allow it to happen. Do you really see that as an easy solution?
well, if i’m not mistaking, Kurds in Turkey live in a definable region of Turkey, and are fighting the Turkish government there for secession rights. THAT is solvable. as for Kurds living in other nations…i’d say if they live in their own regions you have the same situation as seperate issues existing in those countries as well; but if they lived dispersed it’s a different situation.
like the Jews, that lived in all other countries all over the world basically. plus, that is a completely unique issue, because they refuse to define what being a Jew is. is it based on religion, or is it an ethno-cultural group? if you mix the two up, you get a messy situation. unstraightforwardness.
> I didn’t check the figures for accuracy, but did assume that they would represent something approximating the truth. Nevertheless, Turkey’s armed forces are very substantial.
If Turkey motions to invade, 2 things could happen:
1. NATO tells Turkey to stop; Turkey obviously does not invade, and the civil war continues without intervention
2. NATO supports Turkey and a full intervention begins
In either situation, I don’t see how the result will be ideal. If the rebels solely win, the government will become more radically islamic, plus we have set ourselves up for more terrorist attacks by openly training guerrilla insurgents…again. If an intervention happens, either the same thing will happen or a puppet state will erect itself again and a revolution will happen a few decades later. Honestly, I think the best situation would have been for Al-Assad to be cautious with fighting the rebels, as now he has riled up the insurgents and strained his governments relations; he has set himself up for takeover by being too aggressive. The reason why I wanted Al-Assad was because at least his government was not at first incredibly abusive and was actually secular. When they turned more authoritarian they lost my support, but the rebels are no better, and anything NATO will put in place unfortunately won’t be either. An intervention on either side is just not necessary.
> *Originally posted by **[beauval](/forums/9/topics/302311?page=1#posts-6423878):***
> Personally, I would be a lot happier about it if Scotland offered to give us our money back, together with three hundred years worth interest. FYI, England never conquered Scotland, we bought it after [a disastrous Scottish attempt at empire building](http://uk.ask.com/wiki/Darien_scheme).
Scotland doesn’t have that sort of money. We’ll be skint as a country after the separation. Can’t bully the English so easily, either. Still, can’t argue that its what so many of the locals want. Ancedotal I know, but there were a _lot_ of blue faces in the march.
It’s Berwick-upon-Tweed that I’ll feel sorry for when that happens. They don’t wish to be a part of England or Scotland, and have been trying to set themselves up as a separate country for quite some time. They’re some forty-odd miles south of me.
Sometimes Omega, I think you are deliberately hard of understanding. I am assured that Assad wants to get out of a job he clearly cannot do, and back into his comfort zone in medical practice. He sees an election as a way of doing that without leaving a power vacuum, The Russians and Iranians understand that an election is probably the only way forward, but neither wants to see it happen until a confirmed Russia and/or Iran friendly candidate is available and in a strong position. In the time honoured way, they want to ensure that their preferred nominee is going to win. As far as the Syrian people are concerned, an election is the only conceivable option, anything elso would be seen as a continuation of dictatatorship.
I never said that the election needs to be free, fair or democratic, just sufficiently so to make the Syrian voters feel that they have had their say. I’m not a fan of rigged elections, but right now what Syria needs most is an end to the fighting. They can worry about the niceties afterwards. There will be plenty of time for a re-run, moderated by the UN if necessary, and plenty of time for any interested nation to make diplomatic overtures to the new Syrian government. Sometimes even democrats need to put principles to one side in favour of pragmatism.
> well, if i’m not mistaking, Kurds in Turkey live in a definable region of Turkey, and are fighting the Turkish government there for secession rights. THAT is solvable.
Well, don’t stop there, this is just getting interesting. What arguments would you put to the Turkish government in order to convince them to give up a chunk of land larger than your country to create what could turn out to be the neighbour from hell?
> *Originally posted by **[OmegaDoom](/forums/9/topics/302311?page=1#posts-6424293):***
> you are bullshitting us with a patently false definition of democracy. cut it the fuck out. Russia and Iran, according to you, want the opposite of democracy; they want a new dictatorship. that is what you are saying. just because they want to hold faux elections, which you clearly are saying that they want, doesn’t mean they want democracy at all, obviously.
Beauval never said democracy was on the table. Just a way of face-saving for all concerned. Please re-read his post. Also please stop swearing at him and trying to belittle him; you’re becoming worse than MyTie at the personal insult business.
Because face-saving by the other countries (as well as ensuring they get someone they like) is the only way to get faux-progress in the country. Faux being better than the current situation as it will calm the people down. A person is intelligent, a large mass of people are dumb, and the Syrians en-masse are no smarter than Americans. Even the illusion of democratic elections will calm things down. That’s what Beauval was saying.
It won’t be democratic in reality, because there’s no way the country and it’s allies are in a state to allow full democratic elections. But giving the illusion of such, helps build momentum towards being able to do such at a far-off future date.
We will need to get both Russia and Iran either on-board or in a position where they hold no power in the region, before Syria has any chance of real democratic elections.
ok well, i said that beauval accused Russia of preventing Syria from having democratic elections. you are also saying that Russia block Syria from having democratic elections.
then beauval denied having said that and claimed that Russia DOES want them to have elections, but only after they’ve arranged for the elections to be rigged and the candidate of their choice guaranteed a victory.
that is not contradictory to what i said. i said that Russia was blocking them from having democratic elections, which both beauval and you maintain that Russia is doing, until they can rig it.
so then why does beauval deny that i said he said Russia is blocking democratic elections? i…this is simply evading my point of Russia doing something contemptable. why do that?
and you, vika, are on board with beauval in wanting the Syrian people to stop protesting. which is something i just have to oppose. you prefere them to suffer a corrupt, evil regime, which is just a preposterous position. i can’t understand why you would take that position. finally they’re doing something about an evil, oppressive regime, and you take the side of the evil, oppressive regime. this is ridiculous.
i, like any sensible person would be, am in awe of the courage of the Syrian people. you…i don’t understand you. mob-mentality is bad, but clearly it’s better than submissive sheep-mentality.
i’m shocked you would take that position. shocked.
Omega, firstly I said that Assad would like to get back into medicine, not that he would necessarily be allowed to.
If Assad just walked out of his job, he would create a power vacuum that would see the country in meltdown. It’s getting close to that already. An election would give him an exit, knowing that there was still a government of sorts to take his place. It doesn’t have to be a full-on totally free, absolutely no cheating western style election, just an election of some description which would give a voice to all the major players in this fiasco, and which would give the people of the country the feeling that they had taken a step forward. The most important thing right now is to stop the fighting, because nothing constructive is going to happen until that’s done. I don’t know where you are getting all this nonsense about false definitions of democracy. Democracy can wait. In fact it probably should wait.
You would have been a little boy when Ceaușescu was overthrown in Romania, but I remember it well. Their brave new democracy was nearly stillborn when [this regretable incident](http://uk.ask.com/wiki/June_1990_Mineriad?qsrc=3044) took place, hot on the heels of democratic elections. People who have lived their lives under repressive regimes don’t necessarily understand democracy in the way that we do, they just don’t get how it’s supposed to work.
The formation of something akin to the Libyan National Transition Council might be a good next step, a talking shop which could carry out the basic functions of government while working out what to do next. There are several different idealogical groups fighting in Syria, and they need time to form their own alliances and sort out their pecking order. Once that’s done, they will be in a much better position to present themselves to the electorate and organise a proper election.
I did not say that Russia and Iran want a new dictatorship, simply that they are anxious to keep existing arrangements. Influencing an election is a convenient way of ensuring that, but it’s not the only way. For obvious reasons, they both want whatever government is formed in Syria to remain friendly. My personal feeling is that it’s likely to happen, certainly with the Russians anyway – they are, after all, just about the only friends that Syria has. Getting into bed with Russia or Iran is no worse than getting into bed with America. They all want power and influence, but are in a position to hand out favours as well. We Europeans laugh at Americans all the time, but most of us are still happy to have them as our most important ally.
> first of all, assuming it would be a neighbour from hell is entirely speculative and prejudiced. secondly, neighbours from hell are easier to deal with than civilians from hell. rather than policing them, you’d wage war on them. thirdly, i think really fucking hate you.
You still haven’t told us how you would convince Turkey to give up its land for the Kurds. While “neighbour from hell” may indeed be speculative, I think it’s actually a pretty good bet. And giving land to the Kurds and then waging war on them does seem to be a little counter productive. Put out the fires at one end of Turkey and light a fresh conflagration at the other? You’re sounding like some inbred redneck from Alabama now. Let’s go to war with them, that’s bound to sort the problem out. And you’ve got the balls to call me evil!
> If Assad just walked out of his job, he would create a power vacuum that would see the country in meltdown. It’s getting close to that already. An election would give him an exit, knowing that there was still a government of sorts to take his place. It doesn’t have to be a full-on totally free, absolutely no cheating western style election, just an election of some description which would give a voice to all the major players in this fiasco, and which would give the people of the country the feeling that they had taken a step forward. The most important thing right now is to stop the fighting, because nothing constructive is going to happen until that’s done. I don’t know where you are getting all this nonsense about false definitions of democracy. Democracy can wait. In fact it probably should wait.
would you have said the same thing about Lybia? it seems to me the people of Syria want the same thing to happen as happened in Lybia. you think nothing has been achived in Lybia, and instead of a violent uprising, people should just have continued to take it up the ass?
in fact, Assad seems to be worse than Gaddafi.
> You would have been a little boy when Ceaușescu was overthrown in Romania, but I remember it well. Their brave new democracy was nearly stillborn when this regretable incident took place, hot on the heels of democratic elections. People who have lived their lives under repressive regimes don’t necessarily understand democracy in the way that we do, they just don’t get how it’s supposed to work.
the link says seven fatalities. isn’t that roughly equivalent to the hourly death-rate by the regime of Assad?
and i think they can suffer a backlash better than idle continuation.
> The formation of something akin to the Libyan National Transition Council might be a good next step, a talking shop which could carry out the basic functions of government while working out what to do next
which was formed after they had already defeated Gaddafi’s forces in most of Lybia.
> There are several different idealogical groups fighting in Syria, and they need time to form their own alliances and sort out their pecking order. Once that’s done, they will be in a much better position to present themselves to the electorate and organise a proper election.
that’s a catch 22.
> I did not say that Russia and Iran want a new dictatorship, simply that they are anxious to keep existing arrangements. Influencing an election is a convenient way of ensuring that, but it’s not the only way.
right. that’s what i said. that’s a very serious allegation, and if true means that Russia and Iran are very evil indeed. don’t you agree?
> We Europeans laugh at Americans all the time, but most of us are still happy to have them as our most important ally
what a strange thing to say. Europe consists of a myriad of small to medium-sized countries, which are eachothers most important allies. most of us would consider the USA as an uneasy ally on the side. and most of us are not poor in our allies.
if you consider the USA as your most important ally, then you must be a traditional old Brit, and you should speak for yourself.
> You still haven’t told us how you would convince Turkey to give up its land for the Kurds
who says i would? i think it’s right. i’m pretty sure Turkey won’t, and i’m much more certain that i won’t be able to make them. what’s your point?
> And giving land to the Kurds and then waging war on them does seem to be a little counter productive.
why? i’d say it’s totally productive. if they’re a seperate country, you can enforce border patrols, and you can not give them full access to travel, among other things.
> You’re sounding like some inbred redneck from Alabama now. Let’s go to war with them, that’s bound to sort the problem out. And you’ve got the balls to call me evil!
that’s not what i said at all. but _you_ are the one saying that the Kurds as a whole are terrorists, and if they’re a seperate country, state terrorism would be an act of war. if they are really as bad as you say, making them a seperate country would be advantagous.
but aar, it’s all rubbish anyway. if they are a seperate nation, why would they still commit acts of terrorism? that’s just complete rubbish. you’re catagorising an ethnic group as genetic terrorists, which is a very Hitlerian thing to do.
> you’re catagorising an ethnic group as genetic terrorists, which is a very Hitlerian thing to do.
As a Canadian I’d certainly oppose making secession part of the universal human rights. It’d be just the thing to wake up the Quebecois terrorists from their 40 year slumber. The ETA also comes to mind. By all means minorities should be accomodated, and it sounds like the Turks are doing a pretty good job on this (better than say, their hatchet job with the Armenians). As it’s been pointed out already, Kurdistan would also take chunks from neighboring countries, including Iraq and Iran.
well, i dont know what ur last two comments were. but i want to say something about how omegadoom said making kurds a seperate country would be advantageous.
i dont think this would be advantegous:
after this all other minorites in turkey will think: ’omg! if kurds get own country i want my own country too! then for example the laz might want their own country too and be like the kurdish terrrorists. but this doenst count for only the minorites in turkey, the minorities in all other countries will see that terrorism is a good way of secession. that will lead many deaths and other bad stuff.
i’m not saying that people who commit acts of terrorism should be granted their own country. i’m just saying that orcing an ethno-cultural group to be split up into other countries and not have a sovereignty of their own is oppression. and that oppression naturally leads to violence, and the primary cause for it is this oppression. and that this can be solved by not barring the right to secession from people as it did in former Yougoslavia.
adn all i did is explain why Godwin is a stupid non-argument.
for anyone who still thinks the war will be very easy for turkey, heres a story:
good, europe and america have given sanctions to iran so iran cant trade with them. turkey is not one of the countries which arent allowed to trade with iran. so turkey is very important for iran and they will not stop trading with them when turkey invades syria. but…. iraq is one of turkeys biggest trade partners. and iraq is, unlike iran, not dependent of turkey. so iran can ask their shia friend iraq to stop trading with turkey when turkey invades syria. this will ruin the economic growth of turkey which they had the past few years.
> *Originally posted by **[OmegaDoom](/forums/9/topics/302311?page=2#posts-6430783):***
> Iran and Iraq are friends now? when did they stop being mortal enemies?
well, they are both shia and stuff. [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/14/iraq-iran-ties\_n\_1664728.html](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/14/iraq-iran-ties_n_1664728.html)
There’s really no question of Turkey instigating a war with Syria. Neither country wants that. Even the Turkish prime minister, who is believed by many Turks to be on the Americans’ payroll, has publicly stated that Turkey has no intention of starting a war.
The loose canon in this standoff is America. There are big American bases in Turkey, just as the Russians have a big military presence in Syria, including a naval base. I am told that both the Chinese and the Iranians have men stationed in Syria too. Syria has untapped oil reserves, and if the Americans decide that they need “protecting”, that’s when the balloon will go up. A confrontation between America, Russia and China would be very dangerous for everyone. All NATO members could potentially get sucked into a war, and any number of islamic governments or guerilla groups could decide that they need to be involved as well. They are anti-American almost to a man. And if that’s not enough, Israel could see the chance to settle some old scores. It is possible that you are about to see world war III unfolding before your eyes.
My Turkish friends don’t think it will come to that, but nonetheless they are worried about it. There have been some mixed messages coming out of Washington, and I, for one, would feel much happier about this if we heard a full and comprehensive statement regarding America’s intentions in the region. I’m not holding my breath.
Right now I don’t think oil prices are high enough to make that a primary factor between the US and Syria. We’re probably more likely to get into hostilities with Iran (who is helping Syria right now anyway) if they blockade the Persian Gulf. The US, France, and UK all stated that if Syria uses its chemical arsenal we will step in on the side of the Free Syrian Army. If that happens, war with Iran is almost guaranteed, and war with Russia wouldn’t be that unlikely. China would be annoyed, but given the current state of the world I think they’d let it slide.