I have heard a very interesting viewpoint from a soldier who was there that you don' t here in the news. I was wondering if this is a correct assumption. Serious answers please. Answers from the folks that have been there would be nice.
Here's the viewpoint. The Iraqi's have came to a solution on their current state. They realize that they will never get over the differences between the factions. The came up with the idea of breaking the country up into three different sections. The Kurds in the north and the Sunnis and Shiites in their own perspective sections. They would run these like their own countries with their own military and infrastructure.
The soldiers viewpoint comes on to say that the reason the war continues there is that the powers in office in the US government still are clinging to the one Iraq concept and won't support the division.
The soldier has taken this view from the Iraqi's he has spoken with. This is viewpoint I'm not saying it is concrete.
2006-08-11 11:17:33 · 9 answers · asked by bobcat 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Great answers. I have learned alot.
I agree that it will be easier to take over a smaller section by terrorists. However, Wouldn't it also be easier to take control back from the terrorists given there is less ground to cover?
I see resources are in question. I have heard that they have a solution for that that will give equal resources to all. I can't remember what that solution was exactly though. Has anyone heard similiar?
2006-08-11 11:34:03 · update #1
I've been over there too and the problem with that is that some certain areas of Iraq are richer in resources than others and they all want the same areas such as the oil fields.
2006-08-11 11:25:14 · answer #1 · answered by Ray 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Sunnis are quite agaisnt that idea as well. It is known as "Federalism". The main point of contention is that the Sunnis, which are the ones that were in power with saddam and are majority of the insurgents, would be forced into a are that is devoid of natural wealth. The Kurds and Shiited, however would enjoy the wealth of the oil fields. The sunnis are also the minority in Iraq. The possibility of this was in the origional constitution draft that was put together and caused a great deal of problems. It led the Sunnis to boycotte the first election and they have less representation in the legislature as a result.
These rifts are what people fear will bring a civil war. Another point of fact that is interiesting is that most Arab counties are Sunni majority while Iraq, Iran, and Syria (not sure on Syria) are Shiite majorities.
Thats about what i know about the subject.
2006-08-11 18:25:45 · answer #2 · answered by coldfirene 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This was bantered about in the beginning. The problem is the Sunni's have no oil, the Shiites and the Kurds do. How were they going to divvy up the monies for all three states as it were. Keeping the country together gives it strength. That is why the government is fighting so hard.
2006-08-11 18:23:56 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have heard this viewpoint before. the first answerer describes well the potential pitfalls of this concept. Really what Iraq needs to do, if they really wish to have separate ideals, is what the US did centuries ago. One country multiple states. This way their defenses and necessary federalized issues stay under one roof. And then they can have their own separate states which can govern the individual ideals separately. All three states would have equal say over the one established federal government, and the people would all decide (based on electoral votes) who their federal leaders are, and separately who their state leaders are.
2006-08-11 18:27:29 · answer #4 · answered by asmul8ed 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. This has been bandied about for years now.
I believe it is a bad idea. It forms three small nations that would be vulnerable to destabilization. It would be relatively easy for a terrorist organization to take over a small nation and there would be no natural allies in the area.
2006-08-11 18:22:46 · answer #5 · answered by JAMES11A 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it is a brilliant idea and always have... but it wont be without problems because there will be sectarian fighting at first but it would eventually settle down.
2006-08-11 18:26:16 · answer #6 · answered by tom p 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sounds typical of the brainless. Do it our way or no way. LOL and we had to have that constitution ratified. I bet we told them we would leave once they did that too.
2006-08-11 18:25:18 · answer #7 · answered by Marcus R. 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i agree with james11a 110%
2006-08-11 18:27:04 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think this is true
2006-08-11 18:22:55 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋