Should Iraq be partitioned into 3 countries ?

The Kurds in the north, the Shiites in the south, and Baghdad and the Sunnis in the center? The US could secure one of the areas and the UN could secure the Kurdish area. Arab nations could secure the "restless" central area around Baghdad? Pakistan, the Saudis, Jordan, and Syria could work together, or not work together, to get some order established around Baghdad. The point would be to get our troops out of the hellhole part of the conflict.

Would this be a feasible plan that might work and would give the US control over a large amount of the oil and also the port to transport it? Would this plan be acceptable to the Arab nations? Or would they insist that the US pull out of Iraq completely?

Such a better name. I think the old names are almost always wayyy better than the new names for countries.

persia also covered most of iran so to name any of the area persia would be nice but historically inaccurate.

peace
david
:hippie:

Yeah like Prussia..that rocks on Germany

but what do I know, I am a mick like you heh well I am also part German and Kleeb is a german last name. I think my family was Bavarian I dont know, we're Catholic and said to be Swiss-German so I dont doubt that we were from the South. Anyways on the emerald isle, I know that we share, my family is from Galway. Yea those old names are cool, I thought Iran could become Persia fine and normal, because the Shah not the one the Aytalloah overthrew his father or something like that liked the nazis, and iran means aryan or something. Now if you excuse me I am off to Siam ;)

They are as different from one another as Koreans are from Japanese, or the English are from the Irish.

they'll change the name to Persia.

Ok, of course I don't hope we attack Iran. Hey! Maybe they should change their name to Persia right NOW and then dumbya and team won't be able to find them!

Who knows if the populations would go for it. It could result in bitter combat, or maybe peace. Its hard to say.

One thing is for sure: No one in the Bush camp cares at all.

It's called democracy. Worth a try.

I mean we (North Americans) are discussing this as if we have a right to make the decision, hopefully the Iraqis can decide.

Actually, it was more the British. It was a mistake. Maybe it's time to do it over?

I'll say we must turn warmongering America into the "pastoral" country that Henry Mongenthau urged Roosevelt to turn Germany once it was defeated.

The only good empire is a dead empire!

We are presently in a dilemma...."We" meaning the US. Just offering an idea of what we might do to prevent further bloodshed and to offer a compromise to the parties involved. After all, a bird in the hand is worth two in the "Bush". The Arabs might figure they could run the US out of a smaller area. They might go for it??

Let the Bible Belt form its own Taliban theocracy, let California become a republic, and let those states that want to join Canada do so.

BTW, the Iraqi people don't want to be partitioned. But then, they are lower class of humans, with their brown skin and all. Gawd Bless Amerika!

You know, one union and all that, united we stand, divided we fall...

Let it fall!

Ask your average Kurd whether he'd like to see himself as a citizen of the Republic of Kurdistan, situated in what today are notrhern Iraq and southeastern Turkey. He'll say, "Hell yeah!"

can fit three more stars on the flag.:eyes:

Of course, they would be less interested about which group of people, if any, they would like to protect. It is far more important to declare any area with oil reserves a separate protectorate of the US.

...and let the Iraqi people decide.

I don't think Diebold has a Middle East branch....yet.

three OIL companies ...

:)

I think so.

First of all Turkey wouldn't support having a Kurdish state in Iraq and a war between the two would be a serious worry. Secondly Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis in Iraq all think of themselves as Iraqi. Finally, no Arab state has even called for the division of Iraq into 3 states. I can guarantee Arab states aren't going to be too happy with giving Iraqi Kurds and Iraqi Shiites a seperate state, they'll feel very threatened by this. Keeping Iraq as one state will create a balance of power between the 3 nations of people.

...after all, Iraq is simply an artificial nation created by British and French imperialism. Unfortuantely, it'll take a revolution or another empire to change the borders to reflect the ethnic situation, and even more unfortunately, the former will involved a considerable amount of bloodshed.

Conclusion: yes, the USA should at least get the Kurds an independent nation, and probably also separate the Sunnis from the Shiites.

Without reading the other responses, here is my intuitive reply.

The Shi'ite component, if it does not go to Iran, would be strongly allied with Iran. Having a superpower Iran in the region is greatly against our interests.

Secondly, the Sunni government would be composed of old Hussein diehards and would be strongly anti-American. This country would have a lot of potential drawbacks and not many things going for it.

And lastly, while the Kurds should have their own state, given what they have been through, it poses great conflict with Turkey. Turkey hates Kurdish terrorism in their country to the point of cleansing the Kurds, and I can see violence on that front in the future.

Some sort of rule-of-law multi-ethnic society appears to be the best option, at the moment, anyway.

1. The Iraqi Shiites are far more moderate than their Persian counterparts. Currently the extremist faction is stronegr than the moderate one, but it's mostly because of resentment toward the USA, which will be gone if the USA acts more benevolently toward Iraq.

2. Most Persians are pretty pro-American; in a poll done slightly less than a year ago, around half agreed with the USA's branding of their country as part of the axis of evil. The problem is that Bush wouldn't let Iran reform itself but would rather do everything his own way, so the backlash has reversed a lot of the progress in Iran over the last 10 years.

3. The Sunnis are barely more pro-Saddam than the other Iraqi ethnic groups.

4. As for the Kurds, the USA can and should continue to protect them. This protection will actually have the advantage of letting the USA dictate their affairs to some degree; given what Kurdistan will become if left alone, it'd be better if someone, preferably the international community but failing that the US, ensures that Kurdistan is and remains democratic.

Run by two groups which are viewed as outsiders.

...but then again, they don't support a Palestinian state, either, except in order to weaken an even greater enemy, Israel - but that doesn't mean that the Palestinians should be left to Israel or Jordan or Egypt to deal with.

Who says other Arab states don't want a Palestinian state? Of course they do.

Israel is the only state/people that Arabs hate more than Palestine.

Of course it's not acceptable to the Arab nations! Who do you think could organize your plan? Most Iraqis were happy when SH lost but they don't like being occupied by foreigners. How would you like your country to be occupied by foreigners?

Don't you watch TV or doesn't your media allow you to see Iraqi demonstrators demanding that the coalition troops leave? And they will do anything with the help of their fellow Muslim extremists who are flowing into Iraq to make it happen. The US has the most advanced WMD in the world but it doesn't have suicide bombers.

Do you realize how arrogant your post is? What gives the US the right to partition another country? Colonialism is over!
If Iraq breaks up it should be because they themselves want it, but then the Shiites will soon have the upper hand, being 60% of the population. Besides, who gets the oilfields?