Zardeenah
(156 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-05-03 07:25 PM
Original message |
Why preserve a unified Iraq? |
|
Every time I hear about the three major geographic and ethnic groups in Iraq, I wonder...since Iraq as we know it today was an artificial construct imposed upon the area by a conquering army in the early 20th century, why not allow Iraqis to divide the area into a federation of states (somewhere between the US and the EU in nature)...
Has there been any talk along these lines in the media or policy circles that anyone knows of? Of course, this all depends on whether Iraqis will be allowed to run their country any time in the near future....but...If they are, they should be able to start from absolute scratch, if you ask me.
Of course, I also think, that modern, civilized nations should be able to let go provinces or states or areas that vote for freedom...the nation state should be very fluid with issues handled more like Quebec than Kashmir....I just want to line up world leaders and yell at them to be grown-ups about it! But that's sorta off topic.
Susan
|
pinkpops
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-05-03 07:42 PM
Response to Original message |
1. I've wondered the same thing |
|
The country seems to be somewhat separated ethnically anyway. I probably shouldn't be talking about it though - my ignorance would be apparent soon enough. Isn't this a common situation in countries created by imperial powers? Inda/Pakistan comes to mind. Yugoslavia, even the soviet union. Bloodshed is common. But, hey, it's their country.
|
madrchsod
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-05-03 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
|
it`s our oil!!!! if they don`t like that they can leave...
|
Minstrel Boy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-05-03 08:00 PM
Response to Original message |
3. But Bush is a uniter, not a divider! |
|
Edited on Wed Nov-05-03 08:01 PM by Minstrel Boy
Splitting Iraq into three, some neocons believe, would pacify it, making it more governable/exploitable. I'm not buying into that imperialist talking point.
I'm a believer in multinational states, and in setting conquered peoples free to decide these things for themselves.
|
Lefty48197
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-05-03 08:04 PM
Response to Original message |
4. That's known as 'Balkanization' |
|
When you split a nation up into separate nations based on their ethnic demographics. Usually, it seems to create two, or three nations that will surely end up going to war down the road. Even Yugoslavia was better off under Tito, than during the 1990's. I think it's just a human nature thing. If you have two different ethnic groups trying to form one country, then they may just put up with one another, for the common good, but once the two nations are divided, then they develop an attitude where they want to conquer one another.
|
J B
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-05-03 09:00 PM
Response to Original message |
5. Well, it's because of the Kurd and Shiite issues |
|
If the Kurds have their own state, that state will be at war with Turkey before long. If the Shiites have their own state, it'll create a threat to Saudi Arabia (the world's leading foreign arms buyer for most of the last decade, on a year by year basis). And keep in mind that Jordan's royal family used to run Saudi Arabia. An Arab Iraqi state could become an ally of Jordan's against Saudi Arabia.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 18th 2024, 02:02 AM
Response to Original message |