1 for the Kurds, 1 for the Sunnies, and 1 for the Shias (sic?), would you support it or be against it? Why?
2007-02-11 07:29:54 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
"The spirit of Democracy cannot be imposed from without. It has to come from within." Ghandi
Unless the Iraqi's themselves decide what type of nation they want, Iraq will never see peace. We cannot do it for them. We cannot impose it on them. The violence will never end.
2007-02-11 07:41:49 · answer #1 · answered by Crystal Blue Persuasion 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
it wont work because there has to be some sort of oil rights distribution. the only reason the Kurds are a little content is they believe they are going to be able to keep Kirkuk. This ofcourse will cause problems from both turkey and iran. the biggest problem is how to divide it between the shi and sunni. this will create another situation as the temple mount in jerusalem. both sides will fight for the most precious. The only way is to some how make a smaller fourth state around the southern oil fields and distribute reserves but all you are going to do there is create a microcasm. it may be able to control there but if it spreads again you have regressed
2007-02-11 08:00:50 · answer #2 · answered by CaptainObvious 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Against. I'm thinking the President has said that also.
It's geography & geology: The Sunnis & to a great extent Kurds would be cut out of benefits of oil resources. They wouldn't stop killing one another fer shure. Some of those folks don't realize they need one another, Arab & Kurd.
Back to geography & stuff -- then you'd have shia Iraqis & shia Iranis for neighbors -- see where this is going?
2007-02-11 07:36:54 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I'd be for it but....
Bush is not in charge of Iraq, the Iraqi's are by an elected governement.
I think Turkey might have a problem with a Kurdish state as there have been clashes with Turkey and Kurds.
2007-02-11 08:21:49 · answer #4 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
the kurds have already voted, by a 99%-1% margin, to secede and have an independant country, it just doesn't fit into the "unified iraq" talking point that we have drilled into us by news/talk radio. we won't stand up to our "ally" , Turkey, who want the Kurds to be subjugated everywhere they live, lest they rile up the Turkish Kurds, who turks enjoy killing like they were armenians.
what will we do when Turkey INVADES Iraq, while we are still there is the real question (oh, we will be too busy fighting Iran to notice)
2007-02-11 07:40:59 · answer #5 · answered by Meymun Beg 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well since it really isn't up to "bush" or the american people I don't have a valid point to make an argument. If it was... then
I think that it would be both very good and could be very bad. There would be rioting and probably a civil war of the people who wanted to live in this area but this area wasn't their nationalities. It would have to be like what happened following World War I. Iraq would become three seperate countries. But then you could see issues with what is currently going on in Israel regarding the allocation of an area to a set group of people. If that is what they want, let them design the lines and that will lessen the hate towards the US and allow for better demographic areas. They know what areas are important to each sect better than the US would.
2007-02-11 07:41:41 · answer #6 · answered by Hawaiisweetie 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
i think Tony Blair he has accomplished lots by using recuperating our colleges and the huge-unfold of our education and making mom and pop lives greater straightforward and helping the housewife get a job and be a working mom extremely than keep at domicile and shield the youngsters. The Tories could were worse by making use of miles. the only reason the NHS is twisted up is cos the tories and their stupid "back To fundamentals" rubbish John significant what a hipocrite he became having an affair ffs hmmph...i think Tony Blair is going to clean issues up for us even however while he thinks perfect. I dont think of he's merely doing what Bush tells him to extremely. i think of he's being in value and you will't choose his strikes in a narrowminded standpoint. in no way choose a e-e book by using its cover as they say
2016-10-01 23:32:20 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would support it because it would solve every major problem that the US currently has in Iraq. The main one being getting the Iraqi Sunni their own representative govt., stopping the civil war, and leaving the Al Qaeda terrroirts with no place to go.
2007-02-11 07:35:34 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
What happened to the discredited old story of "letting Iraqis decide for themselve"?
Also, Bush and Cheney said years ago that they would not allow Iraq to be divided. So they would have to admit their little PNAC pipe dream was a collosal failure if that happens. Neither of them have the stones for that.
2007-02-11 07:40:13 · answer #9 · answered by chimpus_incompetus 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think it would cause bigger problems in the area.
Iran would dominate the Shite state.
Syria or Saudis would dominate the Sunni state.
Turkey wouldn't like a Kurdish state on it's border.
Then they would all be drawn into the natural conflicts that would arise.
2007-02-11 07:35:50 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋