I have a debate tournament coming up. The topic is should we, or should we not soft partition iraq.?

Answer 1

Iraq was a fusion of three separate kingdoms done by the British in the early 1920s. Those kingdoms were the Kingdom of Mosul, the Kingdom of Babylon and the Kingdom of Basra. Pieces of real estate reflecting the populations contained therein by ethnicity and religious affiliation. A soft partition of Iraq into those three entities would go a long way to reduce sectarian violence. New names could be used: Kurdistan, North Mesopotamia and South Mesopotamia. A weak central government would still exist in Baghdad to manage foreign relations, military and the like. Critical to the success of this partioning is the equitable distribution of oil revenues among all three of these entities. The model already exists in the Confederation of Canada and that of Switzerland.

Answer 2

I hope that you took the "should not" position, because you have very strong arguments that the US should not have invaded and should not occupy Iraq. It's not the US choice to make.

WMD was cooked intelligence. The US has no international law that supports interventiion and occupation. Many Internet sites show strong parallels between Nazi aggression and the current US insanity. Who made the US the judge, jury, and law makers for the world. The US is doing a very poor job of it. Look at the detention centers and torture.