it is my understanding that the only reason why iraq is currently composed of three geographic sections that hate eachother (kurds in the north, shiites in the south, and a little sunni area in the middle?) is because the british government put the three of them together that way under one power controlled by the sunnis, who make up the smallest portion of the three.
they did this in order to create unrest and instability, which allowed for the military to control the area and various freedoms to be destroyed in the name of maintaining “order” (order which the majority of the population didnt want) and coincidentally profits, some of which the minority sunnis were willing to give up in exchange for being unfairly propped up into power.
basically the current combination of three different types of iraqis is unnatural and was never wanted by anybody except for colonial monsters who only wanted to hurt the iraqi people. it seems amazingly retarded to want to keep them together at all, but especially in light of the fact that we are currently having a big problem keeping them from killing eachother right about now.
and yet people think its crazy to split them up. the only possible explanation i can think for this is that one or more of the three thinks that they are entitled to control of the other two areas. well what the heck makes them think that and why cant we just show them some evidence that will suggest that they ought to stfu? are they all just trying to get their hands on the part that has the most oil? again, cant we just show the innocent citizens who dont like violence the fact that there is no reason other than selfish evil?
what exactly will happen if we split it up into the way it was before england? the sunni middle section will be pissed and say it deserves to have control of the shiite south? thats retarded i cant imagine that will last long after we educate people about the way it was before england divided up purposely to create turmoil.
is that what actually happened with england dividing it up long ago only to purposely cause instability or is my left-istory not accurate? was it divided up badly like that by powers other than england? before the discovery of oil? how about they all share oil profits completely per capita equally, but they are forced to live on the other side of tightly controlled borders?
The problem with dividing Iraq up into three individual states … is that Iraq is not rightly ours to divide up.
Iraq belongs to Iraqis.
The right thing for the U.S. to do is to simply leave, and if Iraqis so request, allow the U.N. to come in to guide Iraq’s restoration.
Better might be to leave and simply re-arm the Sunnis and restore Saddam, because that was the way we found our “play thing” before we “broke it”.
Again, America invaded Iraq only to steal Iraq’s oil distribution rights so as to prevent Saddam from diverting our direly needed supply of Iraqi crude to China (as he was promising to do) as soon as the sanctions ended, and they were about to end … when we “suddenly” invaded.
We need to leave, and turn Iraq over to a stablizing force who will return Iraq to where Iraqis now want to be.
Then they can divide themselves up if they so see fit, hopefully distributing the oil wealth fairly.
Regardless, it’s not for America to decide.
The right thing for America to decide is the tactics and mechanics of their quick and complete withdrawal as soon as possible.
Impenitent: nothing. we need to seperate the red states from the blue states too.
make the kerry/edwards of dream of two americas come true.
K: the class war began with the GOP and its 30 year war on
the middle and working class. The two Americans are the
wealthy, upper class, the ones who got 90% of the last
3 tax cuts by bush and the the rest of us, who are struggling
to just make it. The democrat vision is to reunite america
into one country instead of the super-wealthy and then
the rest of us. a vote for the GOP is a vote to give Paris
Hilton tax cuts and nothing for the rest of us.
but the first world empire already decided that the minority sunnis get to have all the money and guns and control of everyone else, because they are the ones who whored themselves out to us.
who is going to decide to stop the minority sunnis from having majority power they dont deserve? or to stop the shiites from dominating the kurdish north and sunni areas? not the shiites. who? its our mess, we shouldnt leave it like that or expect it to clean itself up when the only part of it capable of cleaning it up is very interested in leaving it messy.
well im not killing you and your family yet to steal your stuff so its not a big enough deal for this.
The main reason why splitting Iraq into three states is a terrible idea is because of Turkey. There is a large section of modern Turkey that has a very high Kurdish population and if Kurdistan were ever to be created (as splitting Iraq into three states would) then Turkey would have a major problem on its hands.
This actually ties into debates about why Turkey shouldn’t join the EU, since Turkey actually has it written into its constitution that if Kurdistan were ever to be formed, they would immediately declare war on it. Since EU states that it is a pacifist organization, you cannot have a war clause along those lines in your constitution and join the EU (or so it is argued).
On top of that, you’ll have the shi’a state allying themselves with Iran almost immediately. That goes against the goals that America has in the region. Strengthening one’s enemies is rarely considered a positive outcome of a war.
Future Man, don’t you see? It’s not that simple!! I’m not sure why but it can’t be, because obviously if it was our government would have already done it… right?
I might. You’re beyond saving anyway. Might as well knock you off.
well dubya does claim to be chosen by god to do gods bidding and so therefore is exactly as credible as every religious authority in history, which, hooboy sure is credible. i still say put him in jail.
xunzian,
if the shiite people want to join iran, which im sure they wouldnt really mind, who are we to stop it? if they want to trust a religious jerk to not rape them, which he probably will, who are we to stop it? ok, how about an election, to join iran or not, and if the shiite areas vote for iran, let them!
what is turkeys problem? isnt it the same? they just want to absorb kurds? arent all the kurdish villages in turkey being evacuated into slums near the cities because of terrorism? couldnt they just boot all those kurds into kurdistan and then… wait why does turkey want to go to war with kurdistan? same as iran and shiitistan?
if strenghtneing ones “enemies” means strengthening what the majority of the population of a third world country wants, then yes that does go against standard US foreign policy. and thats why people blow us up. i say we do stuff that will make people not want to blow us up. i know that sounds weird, but im a weird guy. let the majority decide, even if it conflicts with what america wants, and even if it conflicts with what we know they “ought” to want. because they trust ahmadenijad more. we should have thought of this before we raped a bunch of other countries the past few decades. too late now.
Granted, I’m with you that it is generally a good idea to persue policy that results in getting blown up less and in stabilizing the area.
However, you need to keep the international perspective in mind. Turkey has been our allies for a long time. Especially through the cold war. If we stab Turkey in the back, America will have lost a great deal of face, not merely in Turkey but internationally. Remember what happened when America renigged on its promises to Afghanistan after it stopped serving its immediate needs? Also, the very last thing the middle east needs right now is another war. On top of that, remember that the moderate stance of (wrt Islam) the Turkish government is largely because of the strong secular tradition of the military dating back to the founding of the country. But an open war with Kurdistan? That’ll destabilize the hell out of Turkey and the region.
Next, how do you suppose President Bush (or any President) could sell strengthening Iran to the American people? Geee, sorry people of the US, uhhhhh, I totally botched this one up and our enemies got a whole bunch of territory because of it. Sorry about, uhhhh, asking all those soldiers to die. Again, the loss of face on both a national and international level would be extreme. As for who are we to stop this from happening – why, an occupying power.
It’s a dirty, terrible mess right now. But splitting up Iraq is a piss-poor solution if America wants to maintain any credibility on the international scene.
Let them burn both those states down to basalt plate. At least that way we could start over and do something useful with those particular pieces of geography.
As if anything that any governmental agency does would stop them from doing it again …
This is the problem with America, people actual believe the bullshit their agendas spring from …
Democrat
Republican
Liberal
Conservative
America … the country that never grew up from high school cliques.
The Kurds of Iraq, Iran and Turkey would create their own state and almost definitely claim chunks of Iran and Turkey in the process. The Shiia would link up with Iran (although one is Arab and the other Persian) and the side-lined Sunnis would need to be protected by Saudi Arabia (Sunnis)
The other problem NOT MENTIONED is that all the oil is in the north (Kurdish area) and the south (Shiite areas)
The Kurds would become very wealthy and threaten Turkey over disputed land and historical wrongs and the massive Shiia wealth would almost double Iran’s already vast oil supplies. This would give Iran even more control over the economy of the west. not just in supply/demand pricing but by moving even more oil from the USDollar to the Euro (as they plan to do). This would then spark others to sell off US$ and the effect on the U.S economy and around the world would be huge,
