NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2006/08/08/GR2006080800394.gif

It makes sense to me -- after all, much of the violence there is sectarian in nature, with endless attacks and reprisals between the various ethnic and religious groups. A unitary Iraq doesn't make sense anyway... it was created by Winston Churchill solely to secure the regions oil reserves, and is quite arbitrary with regard to the demography of the area. Only Saddam's iron fist managed to hold the region together, and with him gone the nation is falling into civil war.

I know this will probably not happen, at least not for now, sense Bush has called the strategy a "non-starter". I don't see why not... Hell, Kurdistan is practically an independent nation already. Doing so for the rest of Iraq would likely help stabilize the area and end the violence.

What do you think?

Oh, dear Science, no. That'd cause all sorts of hell.

Oh, Science help us. :p

who's we? i think that sort of thing is entirely up to the iraqis.

Wouldn't the Turks be rather unhappy about the Kurds getting essentially their own country? I know they've fussed about that more than a few times.

The last thing we need is more countries.

You'd just end up with Sunnis in Shia land fighting to be part of Sunnistan and vice versa.

See also: Partition of Ireland.

That would make the collapse of Yugoslavia look like the Miss America Pagent

:gundge:

Worked like a charm for the Brits way back when, eh what? The Sykes-Picot Agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes-Picot_Agreement) is a classic example of how external meddlers can screw stuff up with the best of intentions.

We got into this because we thought we knew what the hell we were doing. Remember "they'll welcome us as liberators," anyone? The US (and other 'colonial-esque' powers) havn't got a great track record of deciding things for people they don't understand. This is one of those instances.

No.

Wouldn't the Turks be rather unhappy about the Kurds getting essentially their own country? I know they've fussed about that more than a few times.

that they would as it would increase support for Kurdish terrorists/campaigners but not just the Turks Iran will also see a problem with this and would no doubt just swallow it up

It'll be the ugliest RTS in the world's history, that's for certain. (Fill in Blank)istan going against (Fill in Blank)istan going against (Fill in Blank)istan, etc. etc.

I say yes.

Case in point: India and Pakistan.

When the brits gave the colonies there independence, they divided it between muslim regions (Pakistan) and Hindu Regions (India)

Sure, the border's tense, but that's better than a civil war.

If the Iraqis want to divide their country then fine, it is their country to do what they want with. Supposively its their country anyway.

No you see Kurdistan isn't even a problem with the Kurds (which is why the folks up there are keeping quiet)

You see their oil fields are disputed between Kurds, Arabs (*moved in by Saddam), and Turkmen (ethnic turks moved out by Saddam and the Kurds respectively)

Syria, Iran (to a lesser extent) and Turky will pick an ethnic faction and fight to keep the kurds down and keep the oil in the hands of their proxy

I say yes.

Case in point: India and Pakistan.

When the brits gave the colonies there independence, they divided it between muslim regions (Pakistan) and Hindu Regions (India)

Sure, the border's tense, but that's better than a civil war.

You do realize that India and Pakistan went to war with each other multiple times, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India-Pakistan_wars

Yes because we all know Multiple wars and Multiple Millions of Refugees is a good idea

I would think that the last thing that an occupied country wants, is to be partitioned. It would look like a an attempt to better control the area. I suppose that would be the idea- but I dont know when they stopped being a people and a country.

I haven't heard any better ideas. It's always either "FUCK THEM; WITHDRAW THIS VERY SECOND!" or "stay the course; freedom is on the march."

I haven't heard any better ideas. It's always either "FUCK THEM; WITHDRAW THIS VERY SECOND!" or "stay the course; freedom is on the march."

it basically boils down to whether you think people of non-european origin deserve self-determination or need puppet masters to tell them what to do.

The whole middle east needs some realignment. I say the US gets a sensible man in office and meets with all the Middle Eastern rulers in Cuba (neutral terrotory and we need to deal with the eternal Castro) and smoke some cigs while having civilized talk.

Ideas:

1) Palestine and Israel: seperated but equal
2) Internationalize Jerusalem (and Mecca?)
3) movement of borders to shut everyone up

The main objective here would be to split the four main Middle Eastern groups (Sunnia, Shi'a, Kurd, and Jew) so that they could have less ground to fight over and maybe a sort of respect for each other... of course, now I'm dreaming, but one can always hope.

and how about we settle NK and them others here too? Make a big conference in Cuba. :)

The whole middle east needs some realignment.
That's what I was going after -- post-colonialization, the imperial powers pretty much drew the borders of the third world arbitrarily, leading to ethnic violence. Africa, the Middle East, etc.

it basically boils down to whether you think people of non-european origin deserve self-determination or need puppet masters to tell them what to do.

While I disagree with the fact that we're over there, now that we are--it's our obligation to fix the nation we broke. Immediate withdrawal accomplishes nothing and keeping our soldiers there forever does results only in dead Americans and great expenses.

I don't know how to fix Iraq. I question anyone who says they do know how to fix it.

Frankly, I'm edging closer and closer to the idea of letting them just kill one another until someone emerges victorious. But that's a bit too gladitorial.

That would make the collapse of Yugoslavia look like the Miss America Pagent

:gundge:

add more gun smileys, and some spelling mistakes, and you have a stereotypical first post.

While I disagree with the fact that we're over there, now that we are--it's our obligation to fix the nation we broke. Immediate withdrawal accomplishes nothing and keeping our soldiers there forever does results only in dead Americans and great expenses.

I don't know how to fix Iraq. I question anyone who says they do know how to fix it.

Frankly, I'm edging closer and closer to the idea of letting them just kill one another until someone emerges victorious. But that's a bit too gladitorial.

The violence is most likely something only the Iraqis themselves can deal with. What we can do is provide temporary security while seriously increasing our efforts to rebuilding their infanstructure. There really isn't much else we can do. We certainly aren't going to "defeat the terrorists" in Iraq or anything of that sort.

Depends on what you mean by WE. If you mean the US, hell no as it is not our decision to make. If you mean the coalition, hell no as it is not their decision to make. If you mean the people of Iraq, then it is up to them. :eek:

I say yes.

Case in point: India and Pakistan.

When the brits gave the colonies there independence, they divided it between muslim regions (Pakistan) and Hindu Regions (India)

Sure, the border's tense, but that's better than a civil war.

And both sides have nuclear missile. :eek: So, let us divide Iraq into three parts and give each part nuclear missiles? :D

1) Palestine and Israel: seperated but equal

sounds interesting are you suggesting we have people living next door to each other but being under a different national jurisdiction sounds like some sort of new fangled utopia

2) Internationalize Jerusalem (and Mecca?)

I don't know if the Israelis would be willing to give up part of there promised land even if it does mean peace

3) movement of borders to shut everyone up

don't think many nations would agree to that (or even such a division being fair as far as oil goes) also an independent Kurdistan is out of the question

and how about we settle NK and them others here too? Make a big conference in Cuba. :)

I suggest forming some sort of loose confederacy between North and South then hopefully when Kim dies the dictatorship will go with it and China will never get the opportunity to gobble up North Korea

Unfortunately, I think people believe too much in nationalism and making boundaries for themselves. They'd eventually want some kind of self-governmenting.

snip

Iraq really doesn't make sense as a country, so partition is one possible solution, yes. Of course, there will be alot of bloodshed, but trying to keep the country together is going to cause alot of bloodshed as well. It might be short term pain for long term gain.

The reason it won't happen is that it would piss off al of the countries with Kurdish minorities, as they will also want independence.

The US is also afraid that the Shia state would fall under the domination of Iran.

YES! DO IT NOW!

People(like Bush) say it will make things worse (for them ;)), but three states are less likely to attack each other if they are separate than if they are one.

I say last resort. Let them make up their own mind.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2006/08/08/GR2006080800394.gif

It makes sense to me -- after all, much of the violence there is sectarian in nature, with endless attacks and reprisals between the various ethnic and religious groups. A unitary Iraq doesn't make sense anyway... it was created by Winston Churchill solely to secure the regions oil reserves, and is quite arbitrary with regard to the demography of the area. Only Saddam's iron fist managed to hold the region together, and with him gone the nation is falling into civil war.

I know this will probably not happen, at least not for now, sense Bush has called the strategy a "non-starter". I don't see why not... Hell, Kurdistan is practically an independent nation already. Doing so for the rest of Iraq would likely help stabilize the area and end the violence.

What do you think?
NO!

Iraq's partition fantasy (http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict-iraq/partition_3565.jsp)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2006/08/08/GR2006080800394.gif

It makes sense to me -- after all, much of the violence there is sectarian in nature, .... Doing so for the rest of Iraq would likely help stabilize the area and end the violence.

What do you think?

The problem is that most of the oil wealth is in Shia majority areas and Sunnis would be loath to let go of those areas. Plus you have the major cities like Baghdad having mixed areas of domination.

The sects do not have clearly marked boundaries with equal viabilities.

No sooner than this hypothetical formal partition happens, you will have the sunni nation backed by arab sunni states going to war with the shia nation backed by Iranians under some pretext or the other....

Then we will be calling this a "war" instead of a "civil war". Different name. Same shit.