It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should Iraq Be Divided?

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Some Democrats are proposing a division of Iraq into three separate ethnic regions as a means to combat sectarian violence in the country. Prince Turki al-Faisal a Saudi Envoy has said that the separation of the three warring factions would fuel even more violence between the Kurdish, Shi'ite and Sunni populations.
 



www.voanews.com
Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States says the partition of Iraq would lead to ethnic cleansing and sectarian killing on a massive scale. Prince Turki al-Faisal made the remarks during a speech in Washington.


Prince Turki told a conference on Washington's relations with the Arab world that dividing Iraq into three regions, reflecting its Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurdish populations, would be a disaster. "To envision that you can divide Iraq into three parts is to envision ethnic cleansing on a massive scale, sectarian killing on a massive scale and uprooting of families and even the divorce rate in Iraq will shoot up 300 percent," he said.

Prince Turki's remarks came the week before U.S. Congressional elections. Public opinion polls say the Iraq war is a top priority among voters.

Some leading Democrats, including Senator Joseph Biden, are supporting a plan to divide Iraq into three separate regions - Kurdish, Shi'ite and Sunni - with a central government in Baghdad. The White House has called the proposal a plan for partition, and has rejected it, saying it is an idea the Iraqi people do not support.






Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I have had the privilege of talking first hand to some of the soldiers who have returned from Iraq and most of them would agree with splitting the country up, in fact this idea seems to be the only logical solution to those who have seen the battle first hand, the sad solution for a country whose people are so use to being kept in line by a brutal dictator.

[edit on 30-10-2006 by the_sentinal]




posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 09:03 PM
link   
What did I said before, is all an agenda and has been an agenda from the begining.

Now people can see with their own eyes that it doesn't matter who is in power, Democrats or Republicans they all serve the same master.

Republicans started Iraq and when Democrats get in power they will finish.

They all been bought, pay and manipulated by private interest that wants the division of Iraq, Iraq will be divided becasue that was the plan from the begining.

And boths parties are in it.!!!!!!!!!! becasue both parties are in the same agenda.

Shame, shame and more shame.



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 09:04 PM
link   
I definitely think splitting the country up in three is a good idea. Each side can have their own army, and the central government can be made up of an elected Kurd, Shiite, and Sunni.



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Each group will invaded each other for control of the areas with the most oil reserves.

People don't get it, the division was planned so US oil companies could be able to get a chance of having at least two parts of Iraq to get oil.

But guess what they will fight each other and they will invaded over and over each others for control.

This is going to end up in a bigger mess that having one Iraq will do because they will never recognized the borders and they will never agree with territorial divisions.



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 09:19 PM
link   
I agree marg, there will be ongoing war there. But it will be better than another anti-American government in there, black mailing us for oil after we spent so much money and so many people died. Though that isn't a very humanitarian thing to say, it is unfortunately logical in the world of geopolitics and economics.

Either that or bring back a dictator and arm him to attack Iran. Or do something. I mean, this cannot go on, it is just plain ridiculous.



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 09:29 PM
link   
The Iraqi people will have to agree with the division and they will never agree.

They wll fight and fight until the biggest decimation of people in that region will be in the hands of our nation.

Iraq has a democratically elected government and that government right now is trying to get its powers heard.

I am sorry to say that the problems in Iraq will only get worst because is going to be a power struggle of wills againts US and coalition coming from the new prime ministerof Iraq.

Our greedy government and its private interest do not deserve to have the oil of the nation that has made into a death mess with all the blood that has been spilled by the people of that nation.

The oil belong to the Iraqi people and whoever is their government.

The only reason US private interest is not drilling in Iraq is because the Iraqi government is refusing to give their oil rights to privatization.

Because privatization comes with the guarantee that the majority of profits will be in the hands of US private interest and the people in Iraq will be begging for oil, their oil.

Is more than meet the eye and that we do not get to heard or see in the media about Te plans for Iraq oil.



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 09:49 PM
link   
umm, you guys do realize that before the brits starting their meddling iraq was three distinct entities. the brits are the idiots who decided to take three factions who have been warring for hundreds of years and make a single country out of them. all splitting iraq up would do is put things back the way they were before the west started putting their nose where it didnt belong.

i guess none of you have noticed a lack of news from the kurdish area? they have claimed their own area with their own government and live in peace.

after the breakup of the former yugoslavia, you know what stopped all of the warring factions? i mean after nato came in and put troops on the ground to start the peace process......splitting the countries up along ethnic and religious lines. same thing happened in india after the british left....hence the formation of pakistan.

it is the most reasonable solution for everyone, and i'm absolutely amazed that so many people in the states think that it would be a failure to do it. how is it a failure to return the area back to it's roots? hell, the only thing that's kept them from killing each other off sooner is the fact that saddam kept them in line by killing anyone who started trouble.


apc

posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 09:51 PM
link   
I don't have any reference due to lack of motivation, but if I recall correctly was not the division of Iraq the original, publicly known Plan B if the occupation failed?

Pretty sure I remember reading that somewhere official-like. So... what's the big deal?



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Odd that VOA is saying this is a democratic plan, when its really a plan made up by the ultra-conservatives.

Ignoring that, its nuts to divide iraq. If you break it up into, say, Sunni, Shia, and Kurd, states, then the Shia and Sunni states are going to invade one another, and Iran will invade to aid the Shia state. While thats going on, the Kurd state and Turkey will go to war.

There are no benefits to dividing Iraq into three seperate states.

There is some sense in having three autonomous regions subsumed within iraq, but leaving the military and oil revenue with a central government.
But, really, thats up to the Iraqis.



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Exactly Nydgan The Iraqi,

People think that Iraq is a colony of the US to do as the US say.

But over and over our president keeps telling us that is not so, and that Iraq has its own Democratic elected government.

The Iraqis are a nation and they will have to agree with a division.

That will never happen.

Because the oil interest that Iraqis hold in their lands,and rightly so.



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Iraq is only a country because England created it.

Iraq History

The Ottoman Empire took control in the 16th century and ruled until the British occupied the country during World War I (1914–18). The British created the kingdom of Iraq in 1921 and occupied Iraq again during World War II (1939–45). The monarchy was restored following the war, but a revolution caused its downfall in 1958. Following a series of military coups, the socialist Ba'th Party, eventually led by Saddam Hussein, took control and established totalitarian rule in 1968.


It wasn't created by people who necessarily wanted to build a nation together.

The only reason I believe there wasn't as much violence when Saddam was in control was because all/most of the violence was dealt out by him away from prying eyes and the fear of Saddams retaliation.

It is their country. So if they want to divide it up into three regions, so be it, they obviously don't get along very well. Nothing is going to change that, violence as separate regions (maybe?), or violence as a united country (like now), it should be up to them to decide their future.



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 11:52 PM
link   
No. The country should be the same way as it was before we went there. Countries are not supposed to be split up that were once whole countries especially based upon religion. If this is our idea of bringing the Iraqi's freedom its bogus. Splitting up their country? Thats total BS.



posted on Nov, 1 2006 @ 12:13 AM
link   
It's a lose lose situation.

The country remains whole, sectarian factions will remain at war after the U.S. leaves. Ethnic cleansing will eventually occur.

The country divides, those sectarian factions become legitimate and form even more powerful armies, funded with the money their new state will bring. Ethnic cleansing will eventually occur within their states but most likely on a smaller scale than if the country was whole.

Iraq is doomed. It seems God is absent in the land where they believe in him the most.

Bush and his administration have the blood of hundreds of thousands of people on their hands.



posted on Nov, 1 2006 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
No. The country should be the same way as it was before we went there. Countries are not supposed to be split up that were once whole countries especially based upon religion. If this is our idea of bringing the Iraqi's freedom its bogus. Splitting up their country? Thats total BS.


The Iraq's government are the ones talking about this, like they have been for a while, the US isn't telling them they need to break Iraq up into seperate regions, Iraqi leaders are contemplating this.

It's up to them, it's their country. I personally do believe though that in the long run, these three regions would have Armies fighting each other instead of militia's.

I started a thread about this a month or so ago.

Iraq to Consider Self Ruling Regions

Here is a quote from the article I used at that time.

"Iraqis to Consider Self-Ruling Regions" - Comcast

Sun Sep 24, 9:48 PM

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq's feuding ethnic and sectarian groups agreed Sunday to consider amending the constitution and begin debating legislation to create a federated nation, while the Shiite prime minister appealed for an end to violence during Ramadan.

Shiite, Sunni Arab and Kurdish political leaders broke a two-week deadlock and agreed on a compromise that will allow parliament to take up Shiite-proposed draft legislation to permit creation of partly self-ruling regions.

Sunni Arabs have fought the federalism bill, fearing it will splinter the country and deny them a share of Iraq's oil, which is found in the predominantly Kurdish north and the heavily Shiite south.

But they agreed to a legislative debate after all parties accepted a Sunni demand that a parliamentary committee be set up to study amending the constitution. The committee will be named Monday and the federalism bill will be read to 275-member parliament a day later.




[edit on 1/11/06 by Keyhole]



posted on Nov, 1 2006 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Keyhole
The Iraq's government are the ones talking about this, like they have been for a while, the US isn't telling them they need to break Iraq up into seperate regions, Iraqi leaders are contemplating this.


Well, that's funny, because long before the Iraqis started talking about this, the US were talking about this. And it seems to go back to initial discussions with Chalabi, the guy who was originally trying to be the US puppet in the country.


It's up to them, it's their country.


Not any more, it's not. The US broke it, they should pay the cost.



I started a thread about this a month or so ago.


Funnily enough, so did I - a few weeks earlier - but I traced the idea back to its US source:

Divide and Conquer

There was an article back in May by Senator Joe Biden and ex-President of the Council on Foreign Relations, Leslie H. Gelb, that I referenced in that thread -

In an op-ed essay in Monday’s edition of The New York Times, Sen. Joseph Biden. D-Del., wrote that the idea “is to maintain a united Iraq by decentralizing it, giving each ethno-religious group ... room to run its own affairs, while leaving the central government in charge of common interests.”

Biden and Gelb also wrote that President Bush “must direct the military to design a plan for withdrawing and redeploying our troops from Iraq by 2008 (while providing for a small but effective residual force to combat terrorists and keep the neighbors honest).”

Source

I just love that bit about "keeping the neighbours honest". What a bunch of hypocritical self-serving BS.

At any rate, it's NOT a home-grown idea to partition the country.

And I made the point in my thread that sectarian violence has been carefully cultivated by black-ops people working in Iraq. Back in 2003, Sunnis and Shias were uniting against a common enemy, as you might expect. After a series of black ops planting bombs in the various sectarian mosques, and the establishment of sectarian death squads, Sunni and Shia were set against each other and old wounds inflamed to the point that they began to fight each other rather than the invaders.

This is standard colonial practice and nothing to be surprised or incredulous about.



posted on Nov, 1 2006 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
Well, that's funny, because long before the Iraqis started talking about this, the US were talking about this. And it seems to go back to initial discussions with Chalabi, the guy who was originally trying to be the US puppet in the country.



Whatever happened to Chalabi? I wonder how much cash that guy absconded with after his disinfo job was done with.



posted on Nov, 1 2006 @ 07:03 AM
link   
Well...until the British mandate of the 20's and 30's it was and had been for at least a thousand years, three seperate provinces....the Sunni one centered around Baghdad....Kurdistan in the north and the in the suoth and East the Shiia...old habits die hard in that part of the world....a better question would be will Iraq ever become a real country? After all since the British mandate it has only been held together by a heavy hand.



posted on Nov, 1 2006 @ 08:11 AM
link   


Prince Turki told a conference on Washington's relations with the Arab world that dividing Iraq into three regions, reflecting its Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurdish populations, would be a disaster. "To envision that you can divide Iraq into three parts is to envision ethnic cleansing on a massive scale, sectarian killing on a massive scale and uprooting of families and even the divorce rate in Iraq will shoot up 300 percent," he said



Right, what is Prince Turkey doing right now? .. because that all seems to be happening right now.....

Why does no one pay any attention to the Kurds? .. If anyone where to be a modle of peace in the region and a REAL sucess story.. it is the Kurds, they are divided from the rest of the country and only "permit Iraq to keep them in a union" because USA asked them nicely. They already have signs on the roads (protected and armed with their own troops) that say "Welcome to Kurdistan" ... so Prince Turkey.. divorce rates might go up, but mariage seperations are already up .. because their spouses die! ..

Of course with Kurds it is one thing, they have segregated themselves for a while, Sunis and Shiites will go to war immediatly to fight for cities, such as who will keep the capital and key trading cities and industrial cities. Then a massive population flux as sunis move to sunistan and shiites to shiitstan



posted on Nov, 1 2006 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Sodom

Irag IS divided.


Sodom



posted on Nov, 1 2006 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck

Of course with Kurds it is one thing, they have segregated themselves for a while, Sunis and Shiites will go to war immediatly to fight for cities, such as who will keep the capital and key trading cities and industrial cities. Then a massive population flux as sunis move to sunistan and shiites to shiitstan


The Kurds has gained land through forcing others from the area. When the problems started and the People that were forced out started to complain to the US and Coalition they turned their head the other way and ignore what was going on.

It has been some fights in the northern area as they extend their borders.

So that tells you how the territories will expand by force if necessary.

They are securing the vast rich oil reserves in that area.

Some thing that Turkey is also keeping an eye on because they claim that part of the border is theirs and also oil is part of it

You see things are brewing every where in Iraq and onces divisions happen every groups will try to fight of the lands with more oil reserves.

I guess the one that be the most friendly to the US and allow to turn their oil to private US companies will be rewarded with a good supplier of weapons to protect their borders thanks to American generosity.

Who knows even nuclear weapons also.


Got to protect that oil any means necessary. After all is for the good of the world.




top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join