2006-10-22 08:04:35 · 14 answers · asked by anthony e 2 in Social Science ➔ Sociology
Not the only answer. I think the answer is to go back to what was working under the Clinton administration. Protect the Kurds. Get the hell out of Baghdad. Re-establish a no fly zone on the North and South. Secure th border with Syria and Iran. If the Sunnis and the Shiite want a civil war; let them go at it!
2006-10-23 11:00:51 · answer #1 · answered by Paul K 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I believe partition to be the a wise solution but of difficult
implantation, since it would determine borders and division of
rich oil fields, apart from other aspects concerning habits, rules
and other views of governing in their own styles of every day life.
Education would also become another problem as would currency
division, and all other minor habits which would require a referee
overlooking both sides impartially. I suppose a common government
could be implanted, however I doubt this would bring any lasting peace.
2006-10-23 02:31:15 · answer #2 · answered by Ricky 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it didn't work in Palastine / Israel, and it isn't going to work now.
A couple of years ago at the start of this war I would have they could admit they mucked up and put Saddam Hussain back into power. As he was the only person ruthless enough to keep the country together. However, he is proving himself to be a joke at the moment.
Iraq is screwed at the moment the only thing the "Allies" can do is pull out and let the fight amongst themselves to see which ruthless dicatator will rise from it's ashes.
If anyone has any illusions that the "Allies" can put a lasting democracy in place then more fool them.
2006-10-22 15:16:05 · answer #3 · answered by Andy C 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Iraq is already partitioned (Kuwait!!!!!) which didn't exactly work. Same with Ireland, Cyprus, Palestine and many regions of Africa - In fact much of the global mess which was the British Empire now consists of artificially eastablished and virtually ungovernable statelets created by Englishmen drawing lines on maps.
2006-10-25 10:01:50 · answer #4 · answered by des c 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Dont know. It may make problem worse creating more majorities versus minorities. It did not work in Northern Ireland, Israel/Palestine, Germany and Eastern Europe.
So it is not a solution. I think the only way West can achieve its goals in Iraq is to simply crush all opposition. But this is impossible for them to do. So they should get the hell out.
2006-10-22 15:13:29 · answer #5 · answered by K 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I thought there was already a shiite partition, called Iran.
2006-10-22 15:18:37 · answer #6 · answered by johnlb 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no partition is not the the answer,i say pull all the troops out and drop a moab's on them basterds.thats the answer.
2006-10-22 15:13:55 · answer #7 · answered by bub5804 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Whats the point of keeping a made up country (by the british) together when they don't want to be. Of course its right.
2006-10-22 15:12:09 · answer #8 · answered by markpoo 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It all depends on the file system you choose.
History has shown that FAT and FAT32 are insecure.
Opting for NTFS will, in my opinion, provide for greater security at the very least ;-)
2006-10-22 19:46:28 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The only solution is for those who started it all to get out. The U.S. should not only get out, but must also pay compensations for the damage done and more than 600,000 deaths.
2006-10-22 15:35:31 · answer #10 · answered by nino 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋