Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why not 3 Iraqs?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why not 3 Iraqs?

    Question for the forum: Why not split Iraq into three seperate countries? Instead of trying to make the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites get along, give each their own slice of the country and send them on their merry way. Or would the oil end up in one country and not the others? Thereby causing resentment and more civil war? Any thoughts on this? Could this work?
    Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.

  • #2
    Originally posted by revans View Post
    Question for the forum: Why not split Iraq into three seperate countries? Instead of trying to make the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites get along, give each their own slice of the country and send them on their merry way. Or would the oil end up in one country and not the others? Thereby causing resentment and more civil war? Any thoughts on this? Could this work?
    It'll probably happen eventually. HOwever, when you create 3 Iraqs, you in effect create:
    1) Iran Jr.
    2) Kurdistan
    2b) A pissed off Turkey that will pretty much beat the daylights out of Kurdistan
    3) A Syria Jr.
    4-10000000000: Every little village will be open to overtures by Saudi, Jordan, Kuwait.

    Oh: not to mention ruined credibilty for the US. And while a lot of posters on this board will disagree, America does need allies occasionally.

    Comment


    • #3
      Pretty good . . .

      Right now #2 and 2b are deal breakers. If you get Stratfor they've been discussing the multiple spoilers that the US is trying to stuggle to align right now.
      Any metaphor will tear if stretched over too much reality.

      Questions about our site? See the FAQ.

      Comment


      • #4
        Because it won't solve the problem and it's not up to the rest of the world to decide.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by revans View Post
          Question for the forum: Why not split Iraq into three seperate countries? Instead of trying to make the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites get along, give each their own slice of the country and send them on their merry way. Or would the oil end up in one country and not the others? Thereby causing resentment and more civil war? Any thoughts on this? Could this work?
          It wouldn't surprise me to see something like this to eventually occur whether it is put in the Iraqi constitution or not. Then the biggest problems will be foreign invasion. Keeping Turkey out of the Kurd area and keeping Iran from invading Iraq. Oh yeah, the USA is going to wipe Iran out, I forgot about that, sorry.
          "If you are right, then you are right even if everyone says you are wrong. If you are wrong then you are wrong even if everyone says you are right." William Penn.

          Comment


          • #6
            Desert King pretty much defined the aftermath of such a solution. It won't end the conflict, death and sufferring, just greatly increase it and only redraw lines and open the melee up to others who currently can't align so openly.

            This would be about as effective an "end of the war" as our withdrawal from Vietnam ended that conflict. It didn't! Only got America out of the shooting and left SE Asia an unsettled mess even today. I happen to work with several SE Asian refugees from that workers paradise, many spent several years in re-education camps before they could leave, and lament that their homelands lag behind where they would have been had we pursued a more aggressive policy from the start rather than the "one hand tied behind our back" approach we fumbled along with before bailing out.

            However, if one wants to set the stage for a global Armegeddon, then this would be the near perfect formula.
            TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
            “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
            Present Current Events are the Future's History

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
              Desert King pretty much defined the aftermath of such a solution. It won't end the conflict, death and sufferring, just greatly increase it and only redraw lines and open the melee up to others who currently can't align so openly.

              This would be about as effective an "end of the war" as our withdrawal from Vietnam ended that conflict. It didn't! Only got America out of the shooting and left SE Asia an unsettled mess even today. I happen to work with several SE Asian refugees from that workers paradise, many spent several years in re-education camps before they could leave, and lament that their homelands lag behind where they would have been had we pursued a more aggressive policy from the start rather than the "one hand tied behind our back" approach we fumbled along with before bailing out.

              However, if one wants to set the stage for a global Armegeddon, then this would be the near perfect formula.
              I'm glad you raised the issue of SE Asia.

              I know it's off on a tangent from this thread, but this is a sore point with us in Southeast Asia. When the Americans left Vietnam, the war ended for them, but things got very dangerous for us here. First, one country after another went red in Indochina. Then the Khmer Rouge went nuts in Cambodia. Then Vietnam demonstrated an expansionist streak by invading Cambodia. Then the Soviets built a giant naval base at Cam Ramn Bay.

              Oh, and on top of that, hundred of thousands of Boat People fled Indochina due to ethnic and political persecution, flooding us with a refugee problem.

              The end of the war in Vietnam was not the end of the problem for us. It was only the beginning.

              Comment


              • #8
                I almost hated to broach the SE Asia comparrision, it usually being misapplied. However, one adage is that one should not compound the error of an 'expediate' entry into a war with a similar 'expediate' exit. As Collin Powell said, 'You break it, you fix it."

                Thing is, Iraq, like South Vietnam, was not a situation that originated or could be contained with the borders drawn on maps. North Vietnam did not make the AK-47s, PT-76s, SAMS/AAA, and Mig-17s it fought us with, or their munitions, spares, and logistics. Half-ass measures against North Vietnam and it's supplyline displayed the folly of conceptions and planning the USA used in entering that conflict. Should have been full force and pedal to the metal, or don't start at all. Likewise, we should have played up NV's violation of neighboring neutral territory at it's earliest with a policy of going after them there as well.

                We tend to enter these frays as if we can have a clean fight, Marquis de Queensbury Rules, when the other side is already doing dirty Streetfighter. Incomplete foreign policy assesments lead to ill-concieved policys that carry over to mis-directed military objectives, hence we've often lost before we've even started. We telegraphed our punches to Saddam so much before going in that it was easy for him to clean house. We also underestimated the audicity of Iran to intervene and have done nothing about it even though we've known and had evidence for over three years. Likewise neglect in addressing Syria's role as sole surviving Ba'athist nation and refuge of former Iraqi Ba'athists along with entry channel for Jihadis. (BTW, seperate solutions for dealing with each of these two.)

                The situation spilled outside of Iraq the day after Saddam fell. While the outside interests/influences have to be dealt with and factored in, the lasting long-term solution is an Iraq that is an ecumentical model for Islam.
                Last edited by G David Bock; 15 Aug 07, 00:51. Reason: typo
                TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
                Present Current Events are the Future's History

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Ogukuo72 View Post
                  I'm glad you raised the issue of SE Asia.

                  I know it's off on a tangent from this thread, but this is a sore point with us in Southeast Asia. When the Americans left Vietnam, the war ended for them, but things got very dangerous for us here. First, one country after another went red in Indochina. Then the Khmer Rouge went nuts in Cambodia. Then Vietnam demonstrated an expansionist streak by invading Cambodia. Then the Soviets built a giant naval base at Cam Ramn Bay.

                  Oh, and on top of that, hundred of thousands of Boat People fled Indochina due to ethnic and political persecution, flooding us with a refugee problem.

                  The end of the war in Vietnam was not the end of the problem for us. It was only the beginning.
                  yeah, but come on, the Khmer Rouge only came to power because of the US bombings in Cambodia and CIA coup to oust the king. it was not anything like a spill-over.

                  as for Iraq, how can it be worse than now. the country is already split.

                  the real issue is the control of oil resources. 3 puppets will be harder to control than one.

                  the US shoudl have and should better stay at home isntead of doing something it does very bad :; world policeman. let the iraquis sort their stuff themselves. and if that causes death, at least it death from their own hands, not from foreigh invasion.
                  "Freedom cannot exist without discipline, self-discipline, and rights cannot exist without duties. Those who do not observe their duties do not deserve their rights."--Oriana Fallaci

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The main stumbling block on that as far as i am aware is the oil issue where the wells are practically only in the south. I know people have talked about sharing the revenue but I can see greed and factionalism tearing that apart.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by copenhagen View Post
                      The main stumbling block on that as far as i am aware is the oil issue where the wells are practically only in the south. I know people have talked about sharing the revenue but I can see greed and factionalism tearing that apart.
                      Dividing the oil revenue is the major sticking point that the present Iraqi government has now. If they can't agree when they are 'united' They sure won't be able to agree when separated. That the south well fall under Iran influence if not outright domination should have been clear before we went into Iraq.

                      HP
                      "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                      Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                      you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by piero1971 View Post
                        yeah, but come on, the Khmer Rouge only came to power because of the US bombings in Cambodia and CIA coup to oust the king. it was not anything like a spill-over.
                        Again, if you don't know what you are talking about it is better to be silent and thougt stupid than open your mouth and prove it.

                        Lon Nol replaced the Prince in Cambodia BECAUSE the Khmer Rogure were overrunning the place. This was done by the Cambodians and was a complete surprise to the USA government. The USA bombings in Cambodia were targeted at the Russian backed North Vietnamese Army. Guess what, the Khmer Rogue were back by the ChiComs. The Khmer Rogue came to power because they were more militarily powerful than the legitimate Cambodian government and practised terrorism on a massive scale. Gee, I wonder who was responsible for the infamous "killing fields", the CIA again?
                        "If you are right, then you are right even if everyone says you are wrong. If you are wrong then you are wrong even if everyone says you are right." William Penn.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by revans View Post
                          Question for the forum: Why not split Iraq into three seperate countries? Instead of trying to make the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites get along, give each their own slice of the country and send them on their merry way. Or would the oil end up in one country and not the others? Thereby causing resentment and more civil war? Any thoughts on this? Could this work?
                          We don't need to create three states, the Iraqi's will eventually get their on there own.....

                          I believe that the best we can hope for is a loose confederation of three states that share oil revenue on a per capita basis amongst themselves and depend on US for security from outside countries. Worse case is a British Empire--India type withdraw where mass movements of people between the future 3 state boundaries is accompanied by mass violence on a massive scale.

                          The shia state would be dominated by Iran.

                          The Kurdish state in a constant low grade insurgency with Turkey, and the inevitable incursions or even out right invasions by Turkey....

                          Sunni area would just be a basket case.....

                          “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                          “To talk of many things:
                          Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                          Of cabbages—and kings—
                          And why the sea is boiling hot—
                          And whether pigs have wings.”
                          ― Lewis Carroll

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The majority of Iraqis want one Iraq.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by The Cooler King View Post
                              The majority of Iraqis want one Iraq.
                              A majority of British citizens that lived in the thirteen colonies didn't want a armed revolution either..... Most Iraqi's want an end to the violence and will accept almost anything that accomplishes it....
                              “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                              “To talk of many things:
                              Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                              Of cabbages—and kings—
                              And why the sea is boiling hot—
                              And whether pigs have wings.”
                              ― Lewis Carroll

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X