The nonbinding Senate resolution adopted last week calls for Iraq to be divided into

.... The nonbinding Senate resolution adopted last week calls for Iraq to be divided into federal regions under control of Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis in a power-sharing agreement similar to the one that ended the 1990s war in Bosnia. Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., was a prime sponsor of the measure.....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070930/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq


IDIOTS,

That's what they know. Divide, control and plunder.


Who is America to divide other countries? Yugoslavia before, now Iraq. Sponsoring Kosovo's independence now as well ...

 

I don't think it is anyone's business to divide up a country. Not the British, not the French and not Americans.

 

Forgot to mention Taiwan.

 

Honestly, for all my hatred of the administration's actions, this might be the only thing they got right. The ongoing infighting between the different ethnic groups has been something that's occurred for so many years, and the only way Saddam "solved" it was by being a dictator over all of them. I don't foresee democracy working between the 3 groups, so this might be the best step to get us the hell out of there.

At the same point, I agree with sentiments that it is not our business to divide and conquer countries, but at this point in the game, it might be the best solution to get us out of there quicker.

 

When they cant live together under one roof peacefully, Its better for them to be separated. it works for smaller units such as family and it works for countries.

Besides the country isn't getting divided here into separate countries...

 

The point they WANT TO MISS is that they have to leave others alone.

 

What you NEED to ask yourself that which is a better option -

Leave the country alone that is in unmanageable mess?
OR
Make a practically possible solution to make peace in that region?

 

Leave them alone.
US has become the world's most hated dictator. US now now dictates what is right and what not.

There is no UN. US is doing whatever it wants. But there is a price to be paid for everything. What makes me sad is my tax dollars are spent by IDIOTS.

 

Who decides who makes solutions and peace?

We're all armchair QBing the future of the Iraqi people. They have a right to decide, every partition comes with incredible violence, you know this from the India/Pakistan separation.

 

Us decides, since US has invaded the Iraq. You just cant leave the country in a bloody mess.
US is the great power, and to quote old Spiderman comics - 'Great power comes with great responsibilities'. Since US has invaded the Iraq its US's resposibility to sort out things in the least bloodiest way.

You, me as well as Iraqi people know they cant live together in peace. Kurds, Shias and sunnis are blood thirsty for each other. leaving them alone right now mean more bloodbath in the Iraq, in which ultimately innocent people will get killed.
Besides its not the partition of the country, its the division of the region controlling power.
There is only two ways to stop the bloody struggle in Iraq. Either give them another dictator like Saddam or give them power to control their specific region.

 

The sad thing is that it wouldn't surprise a lot of people to know that the executive branch is running this war with direction from Spiderman.

My issue is that everything the US has done so far in Iraq has backfired. From disbanding the Iraqi army, to managing security, to siding with warlords that are responsible for ethnic cleansing, to underestimating the level of sectarian violence, to the lack of tangible coalition support.

At what point do we go, we made a big f**king mess, and we are responsible, but we don't have the means (or the domestic support) to fix it?

I agree, they can't live in peace. Until they find peace. The dispute must resolve itself. The American civil war had to resolve itself.

It's not as simple as drawing lines on a map. Different areas have different resources. These people were integrated, and now they will be asked to move, and relocate from where they have lived for generations. Do you remember (assuming you are around my age) the level of violence during the partition of India? The Sikh/Muslim ethnic cleansing and bloodbaths?

Then of course, we're working to the understanding that all 3 groups will be happy in their regions, not coveting the resources of another region, and the equitable distribution of oil. We're also assuming that at the first opportunity, one or more of these 3 regions won't decide to attack another, or be too small to support itself, opening the door for Turkey, Syria or Iran to take advantage, or to claim an alliance that upsets the balance?

It's not so simple as sending 3 children to separate corners of the room to end the fighting. This argument is many centuries old. It may be time for them to have it out and find a solution. These interventionist ideas are only prolonging the inevitable. We all know that. We might not like it, but we know it. There is a reason why America supported Saddam for so long. He was a piece of crap, but he maintained stability in the region until he got greedy and invaded Kuwait.

 

The only thing that the 28% of Americans understand very well is that Iraq is a big success.

I would suggest them strongly, pack up and go to fight wherever you want, BUT WITH YOUR MONEY AND YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS.

 

Iraq never existed until Britian created it in 1932

 

if the Kurds want their own little plot in the sand they can call Kurdistan - why not? Same for Shiteistan and Sunnistan. We need more Stans, Stammit.

 

Kurdistan is a good thing

 

They have a chance. Kirkuk has lots of OIL.

 

You show too much ignorance.

 

yes bogart kurdistan is a good thing. and the only way out of this unholy mess is to divide iraq into federal regions, for there is no way any of the present ethnic groups are going to just settle down and get along peacefully once the coalition forces have withdrawn. the shi'ites have for a long time distanced themselves from the sunni population living in the middle of iraq so to seperate them would be no big problem, and the kurds are completely different then again for though most of them are sunni muslims their loyalty is with the coalition forces, their peshmerga soldiers having fought alongside the coalition and policed kurdish and iraqi areas. however, if the kurds are given the northern part of iraq it figures that they will want the main oil producing city of kirkuk, which they have so far been refused for turkey has a claim on kirkuk dating back to ottoman times which means that turkey will invade northern iraq to secure the oil wells in kirkuk if the kurds get the whole of northern iraq under their belts. turkey will also be disturbed by the possibility of their kurdish population becoming unstable and demanding autonomy, as they have been doing for a hundred years or more, when they see their neighbours enjoying a newfound freedom. iran also has a kurdish population and so will fear the same.
i believe that the kurdish people should be given autonomy, alongside the shi'ites, and sunnis in iraq, but other nations will make sure that this doesn't happen.

 

The Kurds are becoming an important American ally in the region

 

yes, if america ever does attack iran, though i doubt it, the kurds in iran will be precious allies. it would be in the west's interest to ensure autonomy for this ethnic group but would mean taking on not only iran but turkey and syria (there is a kurdish area inside syria). tall order!