Do you think that Iraq should be divided into two different states?

Question

Since the Sunnis and Shia can't seem to get along, why don't we just divide Iraq into two different states? Would this be a good idea? why or why not?

also would this achieve the goal of peace?

Answer 1

no i dont agree

Answer 2

I say divide it into 3. A Kurd state in the north. For the shia they should resurrect the country of Sumer, i.e. the land between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers from just north of Babylon to the sea and throw in the mountains ( zagros? ) . This country was the birthplace of writing and civilization. They have already started rebuilding Babylon. They could let the Sunnis have the rest of Iraq.
This wont stop the fighting though.

Answer 3

Three states. Sunnis and Shia and Kurds. They are not going to be able to live together after the Bush intrusion and civil war. It is their land and we have created a hell on earth for those people. All of the middle and upper class have left the country and everyone else is crowded into refugee camps to avoid the violence. I don't think we have a right to carve up their land, but it may be the best solution for some of the population.

Answer 4

OK L i don't usually get all political but sense i have spoken with many people who have served duty over there I am thinking this wouldn't be a bad idea. But let me just say that I also believe that the people of IRAQ not America should do this. I believe that they are capable of deciding their own future (whatever that might be). So I say let them build their own States, policies or laws that they chose. Personally I wouldn't want anyone to tell me (as an America) how to live so i don't think we should do it for them

Answer 5

No, because the oil is in the areas where Kurds and Shia dominate, so the Sunni's won't want to give up that land and money.

Answer 6

the different posters are spectacular that redrawing maps and telling people they now stay in a us of a or state named, "X"...has by no ability rather worked. Africa, India, and the middle East are all shinning examples of a thank you to no longer do it!! possibly this concept has benefit...yet, on condition that we are able to earnings from previous blunders and do a extra clever interest. If we contain the people who will actual might desire to stay in those new "states" in drawing the strains...and we help each and every state to develop some uncomplicated institutions and infrastructure...it might desire to artwork. it won't artwork to "only go away it as much as them to come to a decision". We created the present map....they did no longer. Then we destroyed the institutions and infrastructure that they had. The Iraqi people must be deeply in contact...inspite of the incontrovertible fact that it rather is ridicules to point that they on my own ought to have the accountability of changing the matters we created.

Answer 7

It wouldn't stop the fighting. Besides, one sect would feel short changed depending on how the territory was cut up, as the resources are not even spread through the country. Secretarian violence will always exist there until they realize it's not what Allah wants, but their hatred blinds them.

Answer 8

They Would Still Fight Just Like North/South Korea~

Answer 9

I think WE should [should have minded] mind our own business. Bush used the people of the United States to satisfy a grudge he had with Sadam about his daddy. [which by the way, Clinton had already dealt with]

Answer 10

You cannot discount the kurds,It is also their home too,possibly split it into 3 self governing states.

Answer 11

I think that the USA should just nuke both Iraq and Iran.They have always fought and they will continue to do so.I bet that if it wasn't for the oil,Bush would have done it already.