-
Quote:
Originally posted here by nihil
I think the underlying question is "does Iraq really exist?"
I would suggest that it is merely a "creation" of superpowers/colonialists.
Look at:
1. Yugoslavia
2. Belgian Congo
3. Nigeria
4. Pakistan/Bangladesh
5. Northern Ireland
And so on.................................. :rolleyes:
These "creations" frequently end up in bloodbaths?
Perhaps some sort of partitioning and a "federation" as opposed to a single state is the answer?
Hey, the "United Kingdom" now has a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly. Devolution seems to be the in thing?.............power to the people?
I know that the USA doesn't like it because of their Civil War thinking?
This has nothing to do with Islam...........how many of those people doing this stuff have ever heard of the 12 Immams? and the rest..................
I certainly think that "Kurdistan" should be an entity in its own right....................the World's largest social grouping without its own state?
Exactly. Kurds in the north, Sunni in the center, and Shia in the south--all respectively owned. Confederation is the way to go. Those crazy Europeans and their ancient maps were no good when re-drawing the globe after "The Great War". Africa is an absolute mess.
-
rcgreen: its the history of christianity as well...hell its still going on in christianity as well or dose northern irland not count?
Evil Moo: unfortuniatly a division like that has some issues. the sunni are the most likly to not be a fundimentalist thocracy, and they would be left with no oil. Southern Shia iraq would basicly be an extention of iran giving the iatola access to a lot more oil and money. In the north you would have to convince Turkey that an indipendent and wealthy kurdish state was something not worht going to war over....try doing that while thekurdish speratists in turky go into full swing.
-
Quote:
Originally posted here by bballad
Evil Moo: unfortuniatly a division like that has some issues. the sunni are the most likly to not be a fundimentalist thocracy, and they would be left with no oil. Southern Shia iraq would basicly be an extention of iran giving the iatola access to a lot more oil and money. In the north you would have to convince Turkey that an indipendent and wealthy kurdish state was something not worht going to war over....try doing that while thekurdish speratists in turky go into full swing.
You make some good points. I thought about the later two, but not too indepth about the southern Shias. However, I think it's still think a Confederation is a better opition. All of the Kurds can go live in the North and frolic merrily in homogenous splendor while oil feeds them. Sure, Turkey might not like it a great deal. However, the Isralies have their own government, and EVERYONE seems to hate them. Hamas is now in power, and pretty much all non-Middle Easterners don't like them. I think it's time the Kurds got theirs regardless.
The Sunnis, while not having any oil have all of the education and infrustructure. Something positive might actually come out of the Middle East for once if they actually had to be creative and compitent rather than falling back on oil singularly. They've got the major cities and infrustructure to be the "intellectual capital", coupled with service industries, financial institutions, etc; Not an unworthy goal.
Southern Iraq is alittle more difficult I think. While I honestly don't have any well formulated ideas on how to prevent an Iranian compulsion....I think the pros of a Confederate Iraq, if not wholy independant, still outweight the pros of the current situation.
-
Evil Moo: turkey is a member of nato. the current kurdish terrorists/freedomfighters/revolutionaries/whatever have bases in northern iraq...they whant the "traditional" orders of kurdistan back...unfortunatly half of that is in sourthern turky. So what do we do when the kurds who are our allies in iraq (some of the few troops worth a damm there) are traced to an attack on turkish soil (the turks have also been known to pull of false flage attacks very effectivly).
our treaties with natio would force us to help turky, our treaties with the lurds wudl force us to help them. Then to add to this rosie picture how do ou think iran/saudi arabi/ the rest of the middle east would feel/respond to a turkish invasion of iraq...remember these nations sided with the british in WWI to throw of the yoke of ottomen(turkish) oppreshion. most still fear a turkish drive to reclaim lost taritories.
The safest thing for the world would be some sort of federal/conferderacy type govemnet with three semiautonomus states...but how would you keep the kurdish rebels in line...sadamm did it wit hoverwhelming manpower, post goulf war I when he could no onger patrol up there the kurds started attack turkey again. Right now they are behaveing themselves but for how long.
-
Even though Turkey is a member of NATO, this hasn't stopped them from exercising their supposed authority, (see Cyprus) on other areas.
Yes we are allied with the Kurds, and we were also, when they were being gassed by Saddam and George Sr stood by and allowed this to happen, so right now I would say that alliance is one of convenience for both sides, and at the drop of a hat, the Kurds will do as they please, the prize is to great top pass up (oil rich areas).
A seperation or dividing up of the area may be the way to go, sort of 3 provinces, run by a federal government (sounds like Canada) nah may not work....too many opportunities for separatists....also any sort of 3 way partition would be doomed from the get go, too much Iranian influence in the South, this will scare the crap out of the Kuwaiti's. And as was mentioned the Kurds would try to influence their brethren in Southern Turkey to fight for autonomy, so you know the Turks will not allow that to happen, just as China will never let Taiwan become independant.
As for our treaties with Turkey because of NATO, I think the Turks are more concerned with joining the EU then what NATO thinks.Besides it's not NATO that is in Iraq, it's the US/UK, even the UN is not there.
At some point they are going to have to realise that they may end up with a demarkation along the lines of the old Golan Heights and the current Cypriot line, peacekeepers (without US/UK troops) keeping each faction seperated and 3 little countries will have to decide if they want to be friends..
Too many deep seated rivalries exist in this region, the hatred for each other goes way back, even before Saddam Hussein, it's just that now without a tyrant to keep everyone on their toes, they have free reign thanks to the intervention of the US/UK, it's like being at the gates of Hefner's mansion for 20yrs and not being able to get in, and then one day, you push on the gate and it opens, holy sh*t, where do I start....the sauna, the pool, the kitchen, where are those pesky wabbits....
:p
-
Hey I'd argue that Yugoslavia was a strong and united country under Tito. It wasn't until after his death and the resurfacing the Serbian nationalism did things get *censored* up. Out of all the communist leaders there a handful which I like and or have some respect for and Tito is one of them. Che, Tito and Ho Che Mign (sp).
Tito really stood up to Stalin and that took balls, also forming the non-aligned alliance with India really put prospective to the cold war conflic and for a long time the NAM was just as impressive as the Warsaw Pact and NATO. Though China helped kill the NAM by invading India.... I can't stand moaists.
