Should iraq be split up?
 

i was thinking about the civil war in iraq and how they are killing people of other parts of islam (shia vs. sunni vs. kurd). and i know that the best way to keep ethnic peoples from fighting is breaking up their country into 'purer' partitions. so if us the US would split the country three way between kurds, shia, and sunni.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Iraq_demography.jpg
split it where the ethnic lines are.
what do you guys think?

Re: Should iraq be split up?
 

it sounds like a smart idea but to actually do it is going to be extremely hard i think and there probably would still be problems

Re: Should iraq be split up?
 

This solves nothing...It ends a civil war, and creates new wars. It only validates they are different, and feeds their hate for eachother. They will fight over what they think should be their country. One will take over, and another repressive regime will be put into place...

Re: Should iraq be split up?
 

Yup. Agreed. :beer:

Re: Should iraq be split up?
 

Either way, there will be fighting. One of the sects will get greedy and want more land, creating another "Isreal-Palestine" type situation...

Re: Should iraq be split up?
 

they are fighting over political power of iraq. so if you split them up then they will each control their government.

Re: Should iraq be split up?
 

They're fighting over equality in government mostly. The Kurds seemed to be let out of a lot of things while the Shias and Sunnis get most of the power, but I think they might of fixed that by now. I havn't really been keeping up with the Iraqi War news lately.

Re: Should iraq be split up?
 

Who gets Mosul? Who gets Kirkuk? And most importantly who gets Baghdad?

Re: Should iraq be split up?
 

It's a possibility that I've thought about too, and brought up here several times already. Iraq was formed in the 20s from 3 provinces, which still roughly reflect ethno-religious divisions in Iraq. At least with 3 nations, you can put in UN buffer zones between them, unlike the mucky federal state now.

Re: Should iraq be split up?
 

Mosul would be shi'ite.
Baghdad would be sunni.
Kirkuk would be kurdish.

That is, if you go by what is in Kurdistan, the Sunni triangle, and what is everywhere else. The problem is Kurdistan also extends into Turkey, an important regional ally. If we were to creat a Kurdistan in Iraq, violence in Turkish Kurdistan might ensue, as they make their bid for independence as well.

What the country needs is something to be able to band together about. As odd as it may seem, the best hope we have for creating a stable Iraq is if Iran invades.

Re: Should iraq be split up?
 

I don't know about that. =\ Iran is predominantly Sunni. Your plan might backfire and the Iraqi Sunnis might ally with the Iranian Sunnis.

Re: Should iraq be split up?
 

Majority of Muslims in Iran is shia.

Re: Should iraq be split up?
 

Yeah I think h meant Shi'ite in both. But I know that this plan of seperation will not work. Splitting up countries never works, and alot of Iraqies, although yes there is fighting, would rather remain united to be strong. Look at lebanon, it works perfectly fine with 3 different sects, of them 2 different religions. There just needs to be equal rights and equality in the government, no need for separation.

Re: Should iraq be split up?
 

Perhaps it would be a good idea to separate Iraq into three different countries. Still, I don't think it will going to happen and not just because of the Iraqis but also because of Bush administration: Iraq has been and still is a very significant issue and separating Iraq into three would be a political defeat for the administration, showing how the situation is not in its control.

Re: Should iraq be split up?
 

I basically agree with you, although having said that, the way the government thinks won't change the hatred if the people and the discontent between sects.

Re: Should iraq be split up?
 

I think split it up would solve nothing. It would lead 3 communities to fight about 3 different territories. Which community deserves which part of the country? There would be always a community which would want a part that it didn't have.

Just look at the Palestine and Israel... :uhm:

Re: Should iraq be split up?
 

Gee, splitting a nation up by ethnicity/religious groups has always worked in the past! I mean, look at how peaceful Southeast Europe has been! And the Indian Subcontinent! No conflicts there!

I think it is a bad idea to divide separate ethnicities/groups into sovereign nations, if you hadn't guessed by now.

Re: Should iraq be split up?
 

if you split them up you would be able to better keep them from fighting. such as a person from onepart of the country cant go into another part as freely and thus causing them to not be able to fight as easily.
spliting up countrys does work as shown in yugoslavia. its was split up and currently pretty peaceful. croatia is enjoying its independence. there were some wars before but once the force trying to keep yugoslavia together was defeated the rest went pretty smoothly.
also kurds would finally have thier own country (big allies of the US). so kurds from turkey could move to iraq kurdistan.

Re: Should iraq be split up?
 

you DO know thaqt the spliting up of kurdistan by britain is what actually caused them NOT to have a country right? Theres another negative from splitting up right there.

Re: Should iraq be split up?
 

Actually, if we talk about near past, the wars in the Balkans at early 1990's took place because there weren't separation of different ethnic & religious groups into different nations: Yugoslavia tried to keep its federation together, even if it would meant using the force of arms.

Re: Should iraq be split up?
 

my thoughts exactly. former yugoslavia countrys are now pretty peaceful. croatia, slovenia are pretty modern country with a lot of tourism.

Re: Should iraq be split up?
 

It's a dilemma for sure, over in Iraq. It would seem to me that some sort of partitioning would probably bring at least a little more stability to the region. There might be some quaffeling about the sects in other local countries, but things would certainly be better than they are now. Of course, George Bush would have to head such an initiative, and such a venture would destroy the very thing he's trying to create. That is $$$. Remember that George Bush doesn't actually care about "peace in the Middle East."

Re: Should iraq be split up?
 

haliberton could do the honors and somehow make a ton of money off of it. ;)

Re: Should iraq be split up?
 

Two things.

First, for those who keep saying that Bush is only there for money, prove it. Undeniable proof, not what you think.

Second, splitting the country up could work, but it will take alot of negotiations to decide the borders and wahtnot, and you will likely end up with a whole crapload of border disputes between the three groups, much like Isreal and Palastine. Before the partioning itself happens you have to have everything figured out and agreed to.

Re: Should iraq be split up?
 

Splitting up iraq is not going to stop the feelings of groups toward eachother,it will just divide them by borders and lead to future conflicts

Re: Should iraq be split up?
 

Oh brother... First of all, quit acting like the burden of proof lies with the critics of the war. That's not how it works. Bush dragged us into this war on the false pretext that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD. Guess what, those WMD never existed! The burden of proof now automatically falls on Bush, for he's the one that made the accusations in the first place. Bush is the one that left holes in his explanations, fabricated and distorted evidence, and made excuses after the fact. It's our responsibility, as citizens and patriots, to be skeptical.

You should not be asking for proof from us, that's completely ridiculous. Why not ask Bush for proof? Proof of WMD, proof of terrorist connections (though those did exist, to an extent), etc, etc. He's the one who has yet to provide satisfactory evidence for any of the claims he made in his case for war. Yeah, we found a few old canisters we knew were there, we found out that Saddam had a conversation with bin Laden over the telephone in 1992 or something. These things do not constitute sound evidence however. They are not "proof of WMD" in anyway. So, where's his "proof"? He started a war, for little to no real reason, that has led to the deaths of tens of thousands - and will inevitably lead to the deaths of tens of thousands of more - innocent civilians and you are complaining because we're questioning his honesty and motives!?

Have you ever heard of the Future of Iraq Project? "Starting in October 2001 (!), about a year and a half before the US and its allies invaded Iraq, the State Department spearheaded an effort called the Future of Iraq Project. Dozens of Iraqi exiles and international experts were brought together to figure out how to create a new Iraq should Saddam Hussein somehow be taken out of power." (Source)

http://www.hmtechnologies.net/CHL/re...vasionplan.png

Interesting, no? Take a look at the first item on the agenda. It turns out that the US State Department started planning a post-Saddam Iraq not a week after September 11th, 2001. (The document in it's entirety can be found in link above) It's especially interesting considering that Bush was busy making a case for war all through 2002. He couldn't possibly have been trying to hoodwink us, could he have been?

Anyway, you want to know why Bush invaded Iraq? Well, first of all, there's the oil. Oil is the blood of any industrial nation. That's no secret. Those in the Bush administration have been eyeing the Middle East's oil reserves for decades now. Bush didn't invade Iraq so that we could instantly start shipping cheap oil back to the states; It was about giving US oil giants another foothold in the region. Here's why Iraq was ripe for the picking:

"Iraq alone has the third largest oil reserves on the planet – accounting for 10% of the world total. Iraq is also reckoned to have the world’s largest unexplored potential, primarily in the Western Desert. On top of its 115 billion barrels of proven reserves, Iraq is estimated to have between 100 and 200 billion barrels of further possible (as yet undiscovered) reserves. Furthermore, not only are Iraqi and Gulf reserves huge, they are mostly onshore, in favourable reservoir structures, and extractable at extremely low cost." (Source)

“By 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from? ... While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies... Even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow” - Dick Cheney, 1999. Dick Cheney is a long-time member of the Project for the New American Century, a well-known neoconservative think-tank. (http://www.newamericancentury.org/) Read about what he openly advocates:

"Established in the spring of 1997, the Project for the New American Century is a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership."

"We need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles."

Another interesting bit of information concerning oil in Iraq and the Future of Iraq Project: "The “Oil and Energy” working group met four times between December 2002 and April 2003. Although the full membership of the group has never been revealed, it is known that Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum, the current Iraqi Oil Minister, was a member. The 15-strong oil working group concluded that Iraq “should be opened to international oil companies as quickly as possible after the war” and that “the country should establish a conducive business environment to attract investment of oil and gas resources.”" (Source) So much for keeping Iraqi oil nationalized, eh? BTW: I implore you to follow that link. It provides an extremely comprehensive look at how the Bush administration ripped off - and is and will be ripping off - Iraq, its people, and it's oil reserves.

See what I'm getting at there?

There's also the matter of post-war reconstruction. Who do you suppose was landed with the "obligation" to rebuild the infrastructure we destroyed? Why, it would private American contractors! The Future of Iraq Project was really just a plan to hand over post-Saddam Iraq to US corporations.

http://www.parsonsiraq.com/english/draft_projects.asp

Parsons is listed on the US Army Corps of Engineers websites as an essential Iraqi contractor, as well as Betchel.

http://www.rebuilding-iraq.net/porta..._schema=PORTAL

http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/activities.html#contracts ...scroll down, to see who got the two big contracts right from the start!

According to USAID, Betchel got a contract to implement "successful design, rehabilitation, upgrading, reconstruction and construction to Iraq of one port, five airports, electric power systems, road networks and rail systems, municipal water and sanitation services, school and health facilities, select government building, and irrigation systems, as well as institutional capacity building for operation, maintenance and roadmaps for future longer term needs and investments in support of the Iraq infrastructure reconstruction program."

A USAID apologist admits: "On January 13, 2003, the USAID acting administrator exercised, inter alia, the authority ...to waive normal contracting procedures, including formaladvertising requirements, by making a written determination “that compliance with full and open competition procedures would impair foreign assistance objectives, and would be inconsistent with the fulfillment of the foreign assistance program.”5 "...multiple firms were placed on a “short list" and invited to bid on the contracts. USAID career employees decided which firms were on the short list based on past performance and an estimate of the capacity of the firms to perform. Six companies competed aggressively for the large infrastructure contract ultimately awarded to Bechtel..." http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/contracts/jmgarticle.pdf

2004 Contact record: http://www.export.gov/iraq/market_ops/contracts03.html
2005 Contact record: http://www.export.gov/iraq/market_ops/contracts04.html

The article's endnotes included this: "The $680 million contract awarded to Bechtel National, Inc., in April 2003 was the largest single direct contract awarded by USAID in its 42-year history and is thought to be the largest single nonmilitary foreign aid contract to be awarded since the Marshall Plan that rebuilt Europe after World War II."

So you see, it just so happens that the biggest USAID contract in history was given to a dominant, politically vocal american company, chosen from a "short list" of American companies. Now, do you think is it merely a coincidence that the invasion (and occupation) of Iraq was completely half-assed? Seems to me like American corporations are sitting on a nice big pile of cash watching Iraq go to hell. The American taxpayer exclusively supplied the $680 million contract mentioned above. Will US companies recoup the whole of US taxpayer outlays? No, but why would Betchel or Parsons care?

Re: Should iraq be split up?
 

The question implies that we could do that even if we wanted to.

The Turks would not allow the creation of a Kurdistan - then there's the question of how the oil would be divided.

I think a split will be formed - but it won't be done by us, it will be done by the winning faction(s) in the civil war. The strongest factions probably won't have the stomach for a massive war - so a compromise would be in order.

But who am I kidding? Its all guesswork right now.