My arguement is this: Almost all of these countries artificially created from the aftermath of WW I - from the Ottoman Empire -have so many ethnic and cultural divisions that they can't be viable with out an internal police force to keep things in check. Yugoslavia and Palistine are two examples. When the British created Iraq and gave it to King Fiesal in 1919 , ( not sure of the date), it was done with total disregard to ethnic, cultural and tribal territorial identities. I don't ever see this region being a nation on its own.
2006-10-22 00:00:42 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I don't think all this freedom and democracy we have brought them has worked out all that well but yes, we should and ought to let this decision be Iraqs. Not ours. When they go their own direction we need to not intrude.
2006-10-22 00:12:54 · update #1
I know the Sunni Kurds, in the north, wouldn't mind having their own country. They seem pretty peaceful, sompared to the Sunni Muslims & Shi'ite Muslims (spelling?). Let them form their own country, then all you have to do is focus on the rest of it. Less people, less land, less problems.
By the way, I also think the Iraqs should vote on whether or not we stay there, or we leave. Democracy in action.
2006-10-22 00:07:47 · answer #1 · answered by amg503 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well i am ashamed to say, its us Brits again that have to answer to a lot of the world's problems today. The middle east is thru us, giving Palestine to the jews in 1948. As u say Iraq too. Imperialism has so much to answer for and all i can see is that America is becoming the Imperialists now.
2006-10-22 00:06:31 · answer #2 · answered by english_rose10 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Why not allow the Iraqi people decide that. That is their freedom of choice to do so now. I don't see the Shia and Sunni agreeing on it . They both want control of all of it. The Kurds , on the other hand already control their section.
2006-10-22 00:07:21 · answer #3 · answered by meathead 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
that is not a rely of "allowing" something. the only ingredient that regulate into keeping that u . s . a . mutually exchange into Saddam Hussein and his brutal safeguard. The separate religious factions have been warring against one yet another for centurys. What we did exchange into loose the tiger. we can't do something now in that u . s . a .. they'll conflict against one yet another, kill one yet another, terrorize one yet another till yet another dictator is beneficial adequate to snatch means and, as quickly as returned, brutalize the country into submission. Iraq will do what they have continually carried out. by way of fact of this we'd desire to pass away; we are no longer likely to stop it, we will not ward off it, they do no longer choose us there. the only ingredient it incredibly is occurring now could be our infantrymen are being killed, different worldwide places at the instant are offering chemical and different weapons to the insurgents, and the slaughter is increasing. Bush might desire to be tried for crimes against humanity. It took Saddam 32 years to homicide 380,000 Iraqis.... It has in basic terms taken Bush 4 years to homicide a hundred,000 plus. I ask you, who's the terrorist.
2016-10-15 07:21:57 · answer #4 · answered by ? 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If ever the people unite, even in 1/3 of their country, they may decide they don't like western oil companies
2006-10-22 00:21:44 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are certainly the follower of the"Divide & Master". Make Muslim countries small and weak so Oily head of the states such as Bushy and Yahudi can play it again.
Division of Iraq?? In you dreams !
2006-10-22 00:21:52 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
god bless Iraq the land of the free,sit beside them not divide them. PUPPY
2006-10-22 00:06:02 · answer #7 · answered by CIVILIAN 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋