Should we partition Iraq?

[ QUOTE ]
Iraq is very unlikely to be preserved as a united nation. Let's recognize this and begin negotiations to form separate countries relatively peacefully.

[/ QUOTE ] Form seperate countries relatively peacefuly? I think not. As you say, if the country is partitioned, there will be some serious disputes as to who gets what. The kurds will need kirkuk, but there is no way the sunnishia will cede it to them. also, if you propose three entities, how the craap do you split the rest of the country. the shia will push their newfound advantage, and the sunni will not get shortchanged and take it sitting down. I don't think the kurds are as adament about getting there own country as youmake them out to be. as long as they are givin relative autonomy within their region i think they will be appeased. their employment issues can be addressed by assuring them a large portion of the oil related jobs in the greater kirkuk area.

[jj_frap]

The British were assholes...

That selfish prick Winston Churchill stifled democracy in Iran because Iranians voted for politicians who wanted to let them control their own oil, essentially ensuring that extremism would flourish over democracy in predominantly Muslim nations.

[censored], Mossadegh was a social democrat, a nationalist, and a secularist. If we would have kept letting Muslims elect politicians like that, we'd have peace in the Middle East.

[ QUOTE ]
Mossadegh was a social democrat, a nationalist, and a secularist. If we would have kept letting Muslims elect politicians like that, we'd have peace in the Middle East.



[/ QUOTE ] True dat. we truly did create the current hostile political landscape in iran.

[ACPlayer]

Who the heck are WE to decide what should happen in Iraq?

Get out NOW and let them sort it out.

Incidentally, Kurdistan is a potentially dangerous solution for the middle east as the one pro forma western oriented country their (turkey) runs the risk of its own civil war if that were to happen.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

What is clear is that if you look upon it geographically the Sunnis directly and indirectly lived from the oil in the north and south (Sunnis made up the vast majority of the oilfunded bureaucracy). If you cut away the north and south the middle state does not have much chance of success and will probably be a constant source of dissatisfied Sunnis wanting to revenge/attack Kurds, Sjias, Americans and others.

Maybe 3 states but to guarantee the Sunnis a share of the oil revenues would be a good solution?

BTW, the turks will go berserk if the Kurds gets it own state. It is not unlikely that they will attack it for security reasons without asking the US for permission even if it looks like a senseless thing to do.

[Cyrus]

The frontiers of Kurdistan go into Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey. The latter country would go to war if any part of its soil was threatened, or someone tried to splinter it away. If the United States forces upon Turkey an autonomous Kurdistan region, Turkey would turn politically against the United States. link

Neither the United States nor Turkey want this to happen, so it will most probably not happen. (Already the American military is assisting Turkish troops and black bag operatives in South Eastern Turkey to hunt down and exterminate "extremists", i.e. Kursdish separatists such as ex-PKK men.)

On the other hand, the American interest coincides with the Iraqi Kurds' interests, who are currently the most loyal allies the U.S. ever had in the whole of Middle East, after the Israelis. The U.S. wants the northern region's oil to remain under the control of the Kurds, more than anyone else there.

Other considerations:

The oil in southern Iraq is mostly in areas where Shias are living. (Same goes too, naturally, for Iran..) Besides everything else, why would anyone in the U.S. would want to encourage a scenario whereby the most precious commodity in the world falls into the hands of the more anti-American and extreme kind of Islam?

But I would be very curious to see how someone like Tony "The Poodle" Blair would react if the prospect for partitioning Iraq is floated by Washington! The British imperialist tactic of creating totally artificial borders in colonised countries or ex-colonies is the cause behind most of the troubles in the Middle East. Partitioning a country along strictly ethnic/religious lines, i.e. in a rather "logical" manner, has always been abhorred by Whitehall.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
The British imperialist tactic of creating totally artificial borders in colonised countries or ex-colonies is the cause behind most of the troubles in the Middle East.

[/ QUOTE ]

Africa, too.