Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 12-29-2005, 03:50 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Should we partition Iraq?

[ 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.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-29-2005, 08:06 PM
ACPlayer ACPlayer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Foxwoods, Atlantic City, NY, Boston
Posts: 1,089
Default We????

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.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-29-2005, 08:56 PM
Arnfinn Madsen Arnfinn Madsen is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 449
Default Re: Should we partition Iraq?

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.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-30-2005, 04:02 AM
Cyrus Cyrus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Tundra
Posts: 1,720
Default How about \"not at all\" ?

[ QUOTE ]
Before the Zionists got control of Palestine ... the British ... gave land grants to the Yemenese so they would go and live there. Before that, hardly anyone lived in Palestine.

[/ QUOTE ] Wow. What a howler.

Let's just say you made a bad joke and it crashed. And move on.

[ QUOTE ]
The more I study this, the more I think it was poorly thought out from the beginning.

[/ QUOTE ] I guess you are referring to the whole Iraq snafu. Well, better late than never, for ya.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-30-2005, 04:31 AM
Cyrus Cyrus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Tundra
Posts: 1,720
Default Proceed with caution

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.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-30-2005, 09:33 AM
Exsubmariner Exsubmariner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Now Declassified
Posts: 71
Default Re: How about \"not at all\" ?

Well Cyrus, seems I heard that in a blurb somewhere during a documentary about the period of the British Mandate. But, alas, I can't find any documentation. The closest I could come was this page with a link to this one .

I agree, though. The information I put out is flawed in some way and I'll be happy to say it was a failed bad joke and go on.

Thanks for challenging it. It was interesting reading this morning trying to look it up.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-30-2005, 06:24 PM
CORed CORed is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 273
Default Re: Proceed with caution

[ 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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.