I think I'm rewording a recently asked question.
Current political lines in the middle east are carved by the after math of both WWII and the fall of the Soviet Union. The lines were drawn without regard to social/religious demographics.
Why not simply carve a new set of nations based on religious and other ideological lines? Of course oil revenues from the shafted new countries would be a cause of concern, but they could always make like Shang Hi (sp?) and have some sort of political agreement for the next 50 years.
2007-01-02 08:29:13 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I actually don't think that's a good idea at this point, as no country is going to like losing land and such. however, Splitting Iraq in 3 is about the only viable solution the country has at this point if we don't want another dictator. However, we should not try to redo the entire mideast, that's just folly. It was a bad idea after WWI, and 2 wrongs don't' make a right. At this point it would do more damage. Iraq, however, we screwed up, and we need to fix it. You break it, you buy it.
Either the country will split or a dictator will take power once we leave, and if we stay it won't make any difference. Thomas Friedman wrote a very good column on this a few weeks ago. Basically, civil wars only go one of three ways: Low key and continuing with an occupying force as now, They can split along cultral lines, or they can stay united and calm under the rule of a dictator.
What'll it be?
2007-01-02 08:39:02 · answer #1 · answered by The Big Box 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually most of the carving up that exists today is due to british withdrawal during the fall of their colonial empire. Kuwait, for instance, which was a part of Iraq, was partitioned out because the Emir of Kuwait had good friends in high places, and got his own country! Saddam was right that Kuwait should have been part of Iraq, but he went about getting it back the wrong way of course.
The whole area is so factional and tribal, no one would ever be satisfied even if it was redivided. Maybe in 100 years or so humans will evolve past their tribal traditions and the arabic lands will enter the 20th century--they'll still be 200 years behind but better than where they are now!
2007-01-02 17:01:38 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Redrawing borders will not stop the Middle-East violence. It will only create new international disputes. As long as the Islamic religion remains loosely organized without a central authority, there will be civil strife in the region. And, until Muslims see other non-Muslims as human beings with the right to exist, Islam will be a threat to the rest of the world.
2007-01-02 16:42:38 · answer #3 · answered by Overt Operative 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A) It is not ours to recarve.
B) Carving up land and telling people where their borders should be is what caused a lot of these problems in the first place. Just ask Africa.
2007-01-02 16:42:32 · answer #4 · answered by Ryan 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Let me put that into perspective.
That's like saying, why not divide up the US into blue and red superstate, and creating two separate countries?
People are supposed to look beyond social groups. If they can't, then their violence is their own doing. Not- I'm not talking about genocide here.
2007-01-02 16:33:19 · answer #5 · answered by Tofu Jesus 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
President Bush said he would defend Iraqs integrity.
2007-01-02 16:32:13 · answer #6 · answered by Timothy M 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Thats a good idea, but why is it US's job to do that? Don't you think we have caused enough problems over there? It is their land and their people so let them take care of it. They don't want our help and we have too many things to take care of over here.
2007-01-02 16:34:18 · answer #7 · answered by Rairia 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
NOTHING WILL WORK IN THE MIDDLE EAST . I SAY ARM THEM ALL AND LET THEM FIGHT IT OUT UNTIL ONE IS LEFT. THEN WE CAN DEAL WITH THE ONE THAT'S LEFT.
2007-01-02 16:32:44 · answer #8 · answered by strike_eagle29 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋