International borders are never completely just. But the degree of injustice they inflict upon those whom frontiers force together or separate makes an enormous difference — often the difference between freedom and oppression, tolerance and atrocity, the rule of law and terrorism, or even peace and war.

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/06/1833899

I think that changes of border in the middle east will be a good idea to end these long-term wars.
what the rrticle is saying is good idea, but i don't think that middle east shoul be devided according to religious causes, becuase the feeling of nationhood will be lost, and that will affect the kurds, since we have many religous sections. so i see to redraw the middle east according to national rights is much better than religious.
Concerning the map, the map of kurdistan here is wrong, since it show that kurdistan streches from diyarbekir to tabriz. kurdistan streches from meletî, mara$, Sêwa, erzurum, erzincan, to lake urmiye, then south to kirmanshan and loristan. so kurdistan is not like it is shown in the map here. and even tabriz is not a kurdish city, it's completly azeri. another thing is that kurdistan has no border with the black see. but it has with the medditerain see, at the border of iskenderun city.
As a conclusion, i don't see the map and the article as a real study, becuase it's out of scientific and logoc. it's just words to tickle the feeling of suffering peole in the middle east.

The idea all feels right. Local population would love to; western hearts are with it... What else are we waiting for? When do we get brave and courageous enough to break this taboo? Not to forget that all those dictators ruling the Middle East are created and supported by westerners; and they fall as soon as this support is lost. So who should we blame it on; or should I say: who must start the wave?

<b> TurcoPundit </b>-

Peters fell in love with his own imagination and on the way lost his sense of proportion and sense of the practical, if he ever had them in the beginning.

These countries are not legos which you can cut and paste, whatever the artificiality of the foundation of some them. In the last 80 years (three-four generations) they have gained a legitimacy of some kind. This legitimacy does not extend to most of the regimes of course but still you cannot deconstruct them without rivers of blood. And even if you manage to redraw the borders as Peters like, how can he assure us that they will be stable?

<b> TurcoPundit </b>-

Kudos to the author for tackling the bull by the horn.

Some more comments about Pakistan. Since her formation, Pakistan has been dominated by the Punjabis who pretty much run the country. There are several Pakistanis who have written about this. Any restructuring of Pakistan has to take care of the following:

1. Independent Sindh (Sindhudesh): Sindhis have little in common and want an independent nation. The Jiye Sindh (Jiye = Let Live) movement was one of the more visible movements. Here is an excellent article by a Pakistani born academic, Prof. Gul Agha who is a well-respected professors at one of the top graduate programs in Computer Science in the US (birthplace of Netscape).

Should Pakistan be broken up

2. There are parts of the ertswhile kingdom of Jammu&Kashmir which are not part of Kashmir but are called Centrally Administered Northern Areas, North of Pakistani Occupied Kashmir; Gilgit and Baltistan are two major regions. The people here are Shia and have been rebelling against the Sunni dominated Punjabis for half a century. While suppressing a Shia rebellion in these Northern Areas in 1988 the then SSG Officer Musharraf first worked with Osama bin Laden.

Gen. Parvez Musharraf: His past and present


These areas do not have much in common with the Afghan and should be independent.
Balawaristan National Front

So the map of Pakistan should have:
Balochistan, Sindudesh, Independent Northern Areas (Balwaristan) & Panjab. NWFP will become a part of Afghanistan, making the Durand line redundant.

I am completely stunned by the views of the author. Dividing countries just because they can be controllable in an easier way is one of the least humanistic approaches I have ever seen. Considering the amount of bloodsheds that it might cause in the future, I am sorry to say this, but, it can even be compared to reduce at the level of terrorists (angel-faced terrorists, to be honest).

When the population of Latin American citizens in the southern states will exceed the population of White Americans, and when those states wish to join with Mexico or become independent countries, are you really going to wave your hands in a peaceful way? Or if other countries start sending forces to help those states in their decisions, are you going to swallow that decision with good will? I really don't think so.

If United States had "helped" those countries develop rather than keeping (or forcing) them under the dictate of people like Saddam (just because they were supporting US), none of those problems would have happened in the first place. You want to solve problems by creating more problems. It will not solve problems, it will only increase the amount of problems. Is this really that difficult to see or you prefer not to see at all?

And a note to the author, since he is completely "unaware" of the conditions in Turkey: there is no suppression in Turkey on Kurds that is bigger than what the Spanish people have on Catalans. Just a simple reminder, we have never had any kind of (race based) discrimination in Turkey that is similar to what US had in its history. Any Kurdish person who doesn't use his race to obtain privileges has never been considered as a foreigner. I'd like to remind you only two names who are of Kurdish origin and become the two most important leaders in Turkey after Ataturk, Ismet Inonu and Turgut Ozal. To your knowledge again, the majority of the Kurdish people in Turkey, which you claim to live under the suppression of Turkish army forces, supports obtaining priviliges that will lead to freedom with less than 30%. The results of the democratic elections in Turkey (which is proved to be so by the European observers, again to your knowledge) showed that. The majority of the Kurdish population in Turkey consider themselves as Turkish people (or in a way you like Kurdish-origined Turks). Both races are highly intertwinded with each other, that throughout the history, the Kurds that moved to the western regions of Turkey had started to consider themselves as of Turkish-origined, whereas the middle-asian origined Turks who lived in the eastern regions had started to consider themselves as of Kurdish -origined. You can find highly reliable sources that can prove that.

<!--
What a bullshit article, the author uses either cocaine or heroine giving him delirious dreams hahahahaha
-->

Instead of his map I see the forming of the Otoman empire II more realistic

this is the real map .. we are the best nationalist country in the world ..

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~gov46/ottoman-empire-1580.gif



have a question ?

Haydi bakalım ne planmış bu görelim.
sizin atalarınız da buna benzer bi planla gelmişlerdi, sonları malum.

Tarih tekerrürden ibaretmiş

uyan Türk evladı uyan, 30 kupona alınmadı bu vatan.

YOU WİLL NEVER CHANGE THIS WORLD İS OURS WE ARE TURKS