2007-07-20 06:44:36 · 14 answers · asked by gldnsilnc 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
worked great when Britian divided India into two zones -- one for the Hundus and one fo rthe Muslims -- didn't it??
Dang! Here we are almost 50 years later but India and Pakistan are almost always at each others' throats, aren't they?
Didn't Britian do the same thing with Palestine? yup -- divided it into Israel and Jordan. Worked great, didn't it?
***
Given that Mosul and Kirkuk are partly Kurdish and partly Sunni, that some Baghdad neighborhoods are Shi'ite and some Sunni [with the odd Christians thrown in] -- what do you think?
Does really partition sound workable in Iraq??
***
Here's an alternative that might make it work -- give the Shi'ite part to Iran, the Kurdish part to Turkey, and the Sunni part to KSA/Jordan (with Egyptian support).
Of course, the great drawback to this 'plan' is that it puts the armies of the three biggest Middle Eastern Muslim states right next to each other. I wonder how long it would take for a war to break out?
:-)
2007-07-20 06:54:14 · answer #1 · answered by Spock (rhp) 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think this is a very good idea. I think about that too.
NATO do that in the ex Yugoslavia. Now they are having Croatia, Bosnia and Serbian. And put the NATO Soldiers there look like it's working.
The same they can do it in Iraq, but there is some problem, most the oil is in the Kirkuk area, I think this is at the North, where the Kurdish people living, so big big problem I guess.
2007-07-20 06:59:14 · answer #2 · answered by cat 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Kurds want to be separate and they are mostly in a different part of Iraq anyway. I am not sure about diving the southern part it might create another Palestinian type problem, but the Kurds separate is completely plausible.
2007-07-20 06:56:54 · answer #3 · answered by inzaratha 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Turkey will have NO part in that
They will invade the Kurdish territory if that happens, and the Kurds have been our best supporters in Iraq.
the Turks have been a very good support for years too, allowing our planes free flight for all of our misadventures
2007-07-20 06:49:07 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is no different than a solution proposed by a monkey to two cats fighting over a loaf of bread. It's a century's old story.
The winner will always be the monkey proposing the solution and not the cats who will walk away with almost nothing.
2007-07-20 07:03:32 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
David Brooks, one of the more sensible commentators and columnists in America, does not agree and recently provided very compelling anaylsis of this subject on public TV and in the newspapers. Watch for him. You might find Brooks on the Internet as well.
2007-07-20 08:03:52 · answer #6 · answered by senior citizen 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It wouldn't be called Iraq anymore... It would become 3 different countries.
2007-07-20 06:48:08 · answer #7 · answered by Dan 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, and it's not our decision to make either. It's up the the citizens of the country of Iraq.
2007-07-20 06:48:42 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Iraq should be divided into 3 states, joined into a weak federation.
But it should NOT be divided religiously. It should be divided population and oil reserves, and imams should be banned from holding political office or judge-ships.
2007-07-20 06:47:56 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
The problem is, they will never agree on how to divide it.
They will all want the oil rich lands.
2007-07-20 06:49:17 · answer #10 · answered by Joe M 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋