question: Why don;t we just split up iraq?

gotsmack

Diamond Member
Mar 4, 2001
5,768
0
71
Wouldn't it make sense to split up iraq up into two parts so the 2 main muslem groups wouldn't fight each other every day?

That would stop the power grab. and you could build up 2 stable countries rather than one that is a mess.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
First you are forgetting the Kurds---so why not a three way split?---and big problem---the majorite Shites have oil---where the Sunni are dominant---not a drop.

And Turkey is going to be very upset if the Kurds get their own country.

But maybe it will just take a civil war to sort things out---as neighboring countries manuver to pick up the pieces.

But in the case of Bush---its fools rush in where angels fear to tread.---leaving the one unifying factor for Iraq---everyone hates Georgie.

Premiering here in election booths nationwide in November.
 

sonoma1993

Diamond Member
May 31, 2004
3,410
19
81
Originally posted by: gotsmack
Wouldn't it make sense to split up iraq up into two parts so the 2 main muslem groups wouldn't fight each other every day?

That would stop the power grab. and you could build up 2 stable countries rather than one that is a mess.


I've been wondering the same thing. Split them up, and let them form their own goverment.
 

gotsmack

Diamond Member
Mar 4, 2001
5,768
0
71
Originally posted by: Lemon law
First you are forgetting the Kurds---so why not a three way split?---and big problem---the majorite Shites have oil---where the Sunni are dominant---not a drop.

And Turkey is going to be very upset if the Kurds get their own country.

But maybe it will just take a civil war to sort things out---as neighboring countries manuver to pick up the pieces.

But in the case of Bush---its fools rush in where angels fear to tread.---leaving the one unifying factor for Iraq---everyone hates Georgie.

Premiering here in election booths nationwide in November.



Turkey isn't going to do crap. They want to get into the EU so they'll just make a big stink. Besides I think the Kurds should have their own little piece of land, they seem to have been kicked out of every where else.


and is it really important which group has oil or not? I say, let the chips fall where they may.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
There are strong arguments on all sides. There would certainly be economic disparity in any reasonable split, and that would lead to future problems. Turkey would definitely have kittens over a Kurdish nation. Then again, Iraq really didn't exist before it was created by the west anyway, and arbitrarily at that. I would say the greatest problem with splitting is that it would mean failure in showing how different people could come together to form a democratic society...which is the only possible good thing left to come from Iraq. Even if it were to split though, it's not going to do much to stem anti-US sentiment...that runs far deeper.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
There is no civil war.

True no war is civil...

We could end the uncivil war by using Mountbatten's India plan... and pump all the oil to a central area and divide the spoils 3 ways...

Turkey might frown on a Kurdestan partition and the Iranians if their buddies in Iraq got short changed by being near Kuwait/Saudi border... I think..



 

Polish3d

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
5,500
0
0
Interesting how the talk is shifting to what to do now that the original aim has failed



There's still some chance perhaps for something close to the original hope for a cooperative democracy, but it doesn't look good at all
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
the essential problem with a split is the oil.

you'll wind up with 1 super rich country and 2 mega poor countries.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Frackal
Interesting how the talk is shifting to what to do now that the original aim has failed



There's still some chance perhaps for something close to the original hope for a cooperative democracy, but it doesn't look good at all


I guess there just were no WMD to find.
Regarding hope and all ... Me thinks the culture of the three main factions in Iraq is such that there can be no hope for cooperative anything. They essentially have nothing in common to build upon other than perhaps dislike for a nation a bit west of them..
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,746
6,501
126
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
There is no civil war.

True no war is civil...

We could end the uncivil war by using Mountbatten's India plan... and pump all the oil to a central area and divide the spoils 3 ways...

Turkey might frown on a Kurdestan partition and the Iranians if their buddies in Iraq got short changed by being near Kuwait/Saudi border... I think..

That would be like dividing California sunshine between Blacks and Whtes and Mexicans.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
There is no hope for peace of any kind when we have 130,000 armed thugs roaming their streets.

Let's face the reality that we half-assed our invasion, and our committment of troops and resources is not going to be enough to change the status quo. Regardless of whether we stay there another month or another two years, they are going to have to figure out many things on their own. If that means civil war or peaceful diplomacy, I can't say. But we're not fixing the leak in the dam, just plugging it with our finger.

Do we really need a lengthy occupation to come to our senses?
 

IrateLeaf

Member
Jul 27, 2006
183
0
0
last time I checked it was not ours to split up.
Now i could be wrong.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Thank You!
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
There is no civil war.

True no war is civil...

We could end the uncivil war by using Mountbatten's India plan... and pump all the oil to a central area and divide the spoils 3 ways...

Turkey might frown on a Kurdestan partition and the Iranians if their buddies in Iraq got short changed by being near Kuwait/Saudi border... I think..

That would be like dividing California sunshine between Blacks and Whtes and Mexicans.

Well.... historically it was part of Mexico and became US via the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848...
But, we've been trying to separate the North from the South in California for some time.
I think a better analogy might be Ireland where the six counties of the north remain part of that Island nation to its east. Or even more close could be Yugoslavia what is now all sorts of places. India and Pakistan and Bangladesh.... also comes to mind..
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: IrateLeaf
last time I checked it was not ours to split up.
Now i could be wrong.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Thank You!


Who was it that said "if you break it .. you bought it" Colin Powell, I think.. But of course we'd produce draft resolution to the UNSC etc..
The notion is; what would we support in an attempt to end the violence and extricate ourselves from the mess.
 

marvdmartian

Diamond Member
Apr 12, 2002
5,439
23
81
Originally posted by: Lemon law
everyone hates Georgie.

Pretty bold of you, speaking for the entire world, isn't it? ;)


Originally posted by: jpeyton
There is no hope for peace of any kind when we have 130,000 armed thugs roaming their streets.

Yeah, it's people with attitudes like this that spit on guys coming back from Vietnam. Thanks for taking us back in time 30+ years! :roll:


Originally posted by: tommywishbone
I'm pretty sure "we" don't own Iraq. "We" don't know fukc about Iraq. "We" need to leave.

Oh goody! Someone else representing a large group! Perhaps "we" should run for political office if "we" have such strong views? Or is it just easier to whine in a forum and do nothing else?? :disgust:


Originally posted by: LunarRay

We could end the uncivil war by using Mountbatten's India plan... and pump all the oil to a central area and divide the spoils 3 ways...

Possibly the only sensible idea I've seen in this thread. Unfortunately, human nature would likely not make this work, as sooner or later one group would think that they deserved to be "more equal" than the other two, or one group would claim that the other two were getting more than their fair share.

It's pretty obvious that having these three groups living together as one is working out just about as well as it did in Yugoslavia. Remember how shocked people were when things fell apart there? Yet they forgot that the only reason Yugoslavia didn't implode earlier than it did was the 40+ years of Soviet dominance there, that forced the people to get along with each other, much the same that 20 years of Saddam Hussein's rule in Iraq did the same.

These people will likely learn to live together, though I'm sure there will be some serious birthing pains before the "new Iraq" will be a success. I'm willing to bet that once the Iraqi's take over a stronger role, and we back off, that things will straighten out. It's very likely that it will take a strong ruler, much like Saddam (though without the murderous tendancies), to make it happen.

But that's just my opinion! ;)
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
29,569
42,309
136
You know, it's curious the Turks aren't a little more interested in the idea of a Kurdish nation. Think about it, they've been fighting against Kurdish independance groups for awhile now, and are likely tired of it. Were an autonomous Kurdish state created outside of Turkish lands, wouldn't we see a kind of Kurdish exodus to it like we did when Israel was created? A start up state like that would probably never be able threaten a country like Turkey, and might even provide a beneficial buffer zone to all the crap blossoming just down the road.
I realize that might not work for Kurds who think they are entitled to lands within Turkey, I guess I'm just thinking out loud... ;)
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,746
6,501
126
Originally posted by: marvdmartian
Originally posted by: Lemon law
everyone hates Georgie.

Pretty bold of you, speaking for the entire world, isn't it? ;)


Originally posted by: jpeyton
There is no hope for peace of any kind when we have 130,000 armed thugs roaming their streets.

Yeah, it's people with attitudes like this that spit on guys coming back from Vietnam. Thanks for taking us back in time 30+ years! :roll:


Originally posted by: tommywishbone
I'm pretty sure "we" don't own Iraq. "We" don't know fukc about Iraq. "We" need to leave.

Oh goody! Someone else representing a large group! Perhaps "we" should run for political office if "we" have such strong views? Or is it just easier to whine in a forum and do nothing else?? :disgust:


Originally posted by: LunarRay

We could end the uncivil war by using Mountbatten's India plan... and pump all the oil to a central area and divide the spoils 3 ways...

Possibly the only sensible idea I've seen in this thread. Unfortunately, human nature would likely not make this work, as sooner or later one group would think that they deserved to be "more equal" than the other two, or one group would claim that the other two were getting more than their fair share.

It's pretty obvious that having these three groups living together as one is working out just about as well as it did in Yugoslavia. Remember how shocked people were when things fell apart there? Yet they forgot that the only reason Yugoslavia didn't implode earlier than it did was the 40+ years of Soviet dominance there, that forced the people to get along with each other, much the same that 20 years of Saddam Hussein's rule in Iraq did the same.

These people will likely learn to live together, though I'm sure there will be some serious birthing pains before the "new Iraq" will be a success. I'm willing to bet that once the Iraqi's take over a stronger role, and we back off, that things will straighten out. It's very likely that it will take a strong ruler, much like Saddam (though without the murderous tendancies), to make it happen.

But that's just my opinion! ;)

But there is no civil war or uncivil civilian war. There are insurgents trying to prevent Iraq from succeeding as a democracy. More troops are coming to stabilize the situation.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: kage69
You know, it's curious the Turks aren't a little more interested in the idea of a Kurdish nation. Think about it, they've been fighting against Kurdish independance groups for awhile now, and are likely tired of it. Were an autonomous Kurdish state created outside of Turkish lands, wouldn't we see a kind of Kurdish exodus to it like we did when Israel was created? A start up state like that would probably never be able threaten a country like Turkey, and might even provide a beneficial buffer zone to all the crap blossoming just down the road.
I realize that might not work for Kurds who think they are entitled to lands within Turkey, I guess I'm just thinking out loud... ;)

They don't want the Kurds out, they want them dead. During the Gulf Turkey took the opportunity to walk in and begin a program of genocide against the Kurds. Turkey agreed to allow the allies to use it's airspace and so on ONLY if it was agreed that no help would given to the Kurds - most especially no lands to form their own nation. I think predominately they worried about parts of Turkey being ceded to such a nation, but the bottom line is hatred.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: marvdmartian
Originally posted by: Lemon law
everyone hates Georgie.

Pretty bold of you, speaking for the entire world, isn't it? ;)


Originally posted by: jpeyton
There is no hope for peace of any kind when we have 130,000 armed thugs roaming their streets.

Yeah, it's people with attitudes like this that spit on guys coming back from Vietnam. Thanks for taking us back in time 30+ years! :roll:


Originally posted by: tommywishbone
I'm pretty sure "we" don't own Iraq. "We" don't know fukc about Iraq. "We" need to leave.

Oh goody! Someone else representing a large group! Perhaps "we" should run for political office if "we" have such strong views? Or is it just easier to whine in a forum and do nothing else?? :disgust:


Originally posted by: LunarRay

We could end the uncivil war by using Mountbatten's India plan... and pump all the oil to a central area and divide the spoils 3 ways...

Possibly the only sensible idea I've seen in this thread. Unfortunately, human nature would likely not make this work, as sooner or later one group would think that they deserved to be "more equal" than the other two, or one group would claim that the other two were getting more than their fair share.

It's pretty obvious that having these three groups living together as one is working out just about as well as it did in Yugoslavia. Remember how shocked people were when things fell apart there? Yet they forgot that the only reason Yugoslavia didn't implode earlier than it did was the 40+ years of Soviet dominance there, that forced the people to get along with each other, much the same that 20 years of Saddam Hussein's rule in Iraq did the same.

These people will likely learn to live together, though I'm sure there will be some serious birthing pains before the "new Iraq" will be a success. I'm willing to bet that once the Iraqi's take over a stronger role, and we back off, that things will straighten out. It's very likely that it will take a strong ruler, much like Saddam (though without the murderous tendancies), to make it happen.

But that's just my opinion! ;)

But there is no civil war or uncivil civilian war. There are insurgents trying to prevent Iraq from succeeding as a democracy. More troops are coming to stabilize the situation.

Well.......... folks is killing folks and it seems the killers and killees are of differing Iraqi religious factions. It appears the Kurds are not involved to a large degree with the two 'major' factions. There must be some folks from Iran and other interested Nations involved but it is the Iraqi for the most part fighting with the Iraqi. At least if we can believe what is being reported. So an internal domestic event is occurring and if 'Civil War' is too bitter to pronounce as the term for this .. then how about 'IDEO'... ;) I know.. you have no Ideo what to call it.. but the US are calling up the reserves to march into Baghdad to induce peace.

If we do that... send in more troops we send in more targets.. Iran would love to see that so perhaps is instrumental in the Iraqi termoil.... or the Iraqi Term Oil.... :D

 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
Originally posted by: Lemon law
First you are forgetting the Kurds---so why not a three way split?---and big problem---the majorite Shites have oil---where the Sunni are dominant---not a drop.

And Turkey is going to be very upset if the Kurds get their own country.

But maybe it will just take a civil war to sort things out---as neighboring countries manuver to pick up the pieces.

But in the case of Bush---its fools rush in where angels fear to tread.---leaving the one unifying factor for Iraq---everyone hates Georgie.

Premiering here in election booths nationwide in November.

heh turkey, yes turkey should stop the occupation and oppression of their kurdish population.;) u know most of pop whines about israels occupation...buncha hipocrits.

but yes, the borders are all bogus. probably the entire west should have united to clean the area up with force, but i guess theres no spine for that. u know after ww2 the leaders were worried about minorities distablizing europe? they moved millions of german minorities out of eastern european countries to prevent conflict. guess which country they were prevented from doing this? yes...yugoslavia:p so there is precedence for such a thing.
 

Polish3d

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
5,500
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Frackal
Interesting how the talk is shifting to what to do now that the original aim has failed

We didn't get the WMD??? :shocked:


Most people with any sense would gather that I was referring to the original aim with respect to setting up a representative coalition government. Were you not able to figure that out?
 

Polish3d

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
5,500
0
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
There is no hope for peace of any kind when we have 130,000 armed thugs roaming their streets.

Let's face the reality that we half-assed our invasion, and our committment of troops and resources is not going to be enough to change the status quo. Regardless of whether we stay there another month or another two years, they are going to have to figure out many things on their own. If that means civil war or peaceful diplomacy, I can't say. But we're not fixing the leak in the dam, just plugging it with our finger.

Do we really need a lengthy occupation to come to our senses?


Armed thugs? Yikes. Your hatred is leaking through. Hurts your credibility