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.

 

Proposal to divide Iraq into regions for Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds getting Congress' attention

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Proposal to divide Iraq into regions for Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds getting Congress' attention


sfgate.com

Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, who is a Democratic presidential candidate and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has sought for months to attract support for a partition plan he formulated with Leslie Gelb, former head of the private Council on Foreign Relations. It would establish a federal system of government in Iraq.

The idea has gained some attention in Congress but has not been embraced by the Bush administration.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Well we really seem to have a hard time learning from history and recent history at that. Anybody recall that cozy country cobbled together and run by a dictator aka Tito called Yugoslavia? How did that work out when he died and the countries went after each other? What to prevent that EXACT scenario from happening here? The UN?


We need to look at all options at this point and if this gets us out of there It may be worth turfing the problem to some later date to deal with.

sfgate.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 05:37 PM
link   
I think whatever shape Iraq is to take in the future should be up to the Iraqis and not us.



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Stupid Idea if you ask me. The first thing they will do is start fighting over who gets the OIL which will not help a thing.:shk:



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Stupid Idea if you ask me. The first thing they will do is start fighting over who gets the OIL which will not help a thing.:shk:


How do you divide the oil? Per capital? By territory?

The other problem is you may as well name the #e section "Iranistan"



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 05:52 PM
link   
I'm not sure if it is such a bad idea. Seperate them into states, let them have organized meetings and voting. Its complicated, but should be looked into.



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 05:59 PM
link   
We have long since passed the point when partition may have been possible. Now that he Iraqis are hip-deep their own civil war, any partition would only play tothe advantage of the Kurds and the Shiites. There would be no 'peace' as Mr. Bush would like to think of it. We've proven that we can't keep these parties from fighting. It's time for us to go. When Al Qaeda and others show up in America, it'll be our job to deal with that problem as it arises.



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite8
I'm not sure if it is such a bad idea. Seperate them into states, let them have organized meetings and voting. Its complicated, but should be looked into.


They tried that in the former Yugoslavia. Was not to log before we saw such terms a genocide and "ethnic clensing"

As Justin points Sunnis would be wiped out first then the Kurds and Shiites would go at it.



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 06:46 PM
link   
it seems that 40% of the /US public, including myself, thought that
partitioning the former Iraq into 3 'independent states was the logical solution...everyone gets a homeland.

But our current administration (Regimes') policy makers instead created a puppet, but 'freely elected' democratic nightmare...whose only purpose was to survive long enough to enter into oil lease agreements (with private Multi-National mega-oil Corps.), and sign oil field development contracts that are considered 'Legal' in the UN & World Banks eyes!!
The Iraqi pie has been cut up and parceled out to big multi-national (NGO-&-fascist) businesses.
And rumor has it that Israel is the recipient of 250,000 bbls of Iraqi crude a year, piped to the newly constructed Israeli port
(i don't recall the name offhand)

don't ya'll get that glazed eyes look, this has been bounced around ATS before now,
There is one catch however, which a civil-war may rectify...
the popular vote installed, yet still a puppet government of Iraq,

should have the 'deciders' voice over the US Senators proposal about any geo-political restructuring of the elected government of Iraq.



what about several 'Dominion States' or in other words a 'commonwealth' of indpendent states?...the neocons list of boondoggles just keeps growing...

rest my case





[edit on 5-7-2007 by St Udio]



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
How do you divide the oil? Per capital? By territory?



You can't Fred there in lies the problem. The only way to control the oil is to have full control under one roof /sect be it sunnis Kurds or sunni.



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Even if you could get the three major factions in Iraq to agree there is a bigger problem with such a move. Turkey. They have maintained since before the start of the war that they do not want an independent Kurdish state. The squirmishes between the PKK and the Turkish military would just escalate into full out war.



B.



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
You can't Fred there in lies the problem. The only way to control the oil is to have full control under one roof /sect be it sunnis Kurds or sunni.


Exactly, any division is going to create problems. The only solution to the oil and GOD help me is have the UN set up a comission that pumps the oil and then distributes the revenue based on population or some other agreed upon formula. The fields otherwise would cover multiple / separate states and what to stop one from pumping as much as they can etc.

But I agree no one will be happy no matter what.

Leave it to the oil companies and they will simply cut all factions out of it totally



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bleys
Even if you could get the three major factions in Iraq to agree there is a bigger problem with such a move. Turkey. B.


Im not sure Iran would be happy about it either. The Kurds have played this whole scenario well and may yet end up with thier own state anyway



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

The only solution to the oil and GOD help me is have the UN set up a comission that pumps the oil and then distributes the revenue based on population or some other agreed upon formula.


Now Now Fred!; I think I know you better then that. You and I tend to think alike or I think we do and we both know that would NEVER EVER WORK. Food for Oil comes to mind here and we know how much UN officials made of that don't we? Nope UN in control is just as impossible as all sects in control. It will never happen.



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
We have long since passed the point when partition may have been possible. Now that he Iraqis are hip-deep their own civil war, any partition would only play tothe advantage of the Kurds and the Shiites. There would be no 'peace' as Mr. Bush would like to think of it. We've proven that we can't keep these parties from fighting. It's time for us to go. When Al Qaeda and others show up in America, it'll be our job to deal with that problem as it arises.


I agree,

If we divide them up, the first thing that will happen is attacks will become more ruthelss.. I mean, if your a shiite aiming to kill some sunni's... you need not worry about killnig shiites accidently now... just drive that bomb into the sunni section and 'click'

Plus, where would you place them?

You cant put the Shiite region in the east, because it will be annexed and become an extension of Iran, likewise you cant put the sunni's in the east, because they will become the meat , between a shiite Iran on the right, and a shiite baghdad on the left...

If we cant manage Iraq now, how the hell are we going to uproot all these people, force them to build somewhere else?

Are we going to just order all the inter-connected families to split up into the enclaves?

Dividing Iraq up has as much chance to work as the occupation itself.



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 07:59 PM
link   
The most common sense thing to do in thiscase is to step back and hope that one daythe iraqis will come to their senses. You know how it is. Some things you just have to do for yourself. If there is going to be a split, the Iraqis will have to figure it out for themselves. If they're going to learn how to get along, they'll still have to figure THAT out for themselves.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, please let me point out one thing. Bush41 promised the people of Iraq that we would liberate them. Like it or not, he pledged our national word to that endeavor. He failed to honor that promise at the end of the first gulf war. We were 12 years late, but we have at long last honored that pledge. Bush43 got a chance to clean up his daddy's mess, and we as a nation made good on a President's pledge. In this respect, and for these reasons, we "won."

Having given them the gift of their freedom from Saddam Hussein, it is now our duty to let them solve their internal problems as they see fit.



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Well I have supported partitioning Iraq for quiet a while now I admit that the idea isnt perfect but it is better then the alternatives that are on offer. Iraq was never really an country to begin instead it was an creation of British and French backstabbing after WW1.

I noticed that the people who oppose partitioning Iraq haven't put there solution to the Iraq problem forward so I invite you to do so.

IMO the other options on the table are unacceptable .
Remember that after the troop surge ends all its benefits will be lost and that the US military doesn't have enough manpower to replicate the surge in other urban areas of Iraq.

If the coalition withdraws Iraq will becoming an greater threat to global security then the country was under Saddam.



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Justin,
Fair enough... but is sticking to your word the right thing to do when such chaos rains?
Bush41 knew the tragedy should he continue to baghdad, and felt it much wiser to leave a iron fisted ruler in charge, so long as he isnt allowed to repeat his acts.
Sanctions and so forth worked, saddam didnt build up his weapons, he didnt build up his army, and the citizens of Iraq prospered. Education, Medical services, a happy life was enjoyed so long as you didnt step over the line.... compared to now? Saddam's days were much better.

I dont agree with you that we 'won' simply because we did what a president, over a decade ago pledged.. he realised the error of that pledge, and didnt do it jsut to save face, seems to me we created a much larger mess instead.

But your right, Iraq has to sort itself out, and wether we 'the west' enjoy that outcome or not, its not ours to decide.
Honestly, Sadr will become the leader... unfortunately for us he's sided with a team we refuse to accept..
So does that mean we accept that team, or kept struggling hoping 'another' team more sympathetic to our oil gobbling ways emerge?.... which is highly unlikely.


Expert, theres only one option for solving this Iraq crisis, but it seems to many people are more worried about their patriotic image to the world instead.

My way to solve this crisis?

1. Accept the consequences of your countries actions.
2. Dismiss the Bush administration, try them for crimes against humanity, crimes against the nation of Iraq, and crimes against the American people. Show the middle east that Iraq isnt the quagmire America wanted, its the war of choice your corporate leaders created.
3. Devote your economy to re-building Iraqs infrastructure
4. Accept that terrorism will occur no matter where you are or what you do, destorying Iraq will not make America safer.
5. Accept whom ever comes to power in Iraq as Iraq's leader.
6. TALK TO MIDDLE EASTERN NATIONS I cannot emphasize this enough, talk is the key t solving the problems, bombs will just create more.
7. Instead of spending 600billion on destroying Iraq, how about you spend 600billion on the environment, and scientific research into a renewnable energy source?


Remember that old saying?

'' I didnt fail, I just found xxx amount of ways that dont work ''

Well, The Bush administration has found 1 way that doesnt work, and stuck to it...

There's your biggest problem.



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, please let me point out one thing. Bush41 promised the people of Iraq that we would liberate them. Like it or not, he pledged our national word to that endeavor. He failed to honor that promise at the end of the first gulf war. We were 12 years late, but we have at long last honored that pledge. Bush43 got a chance to clean up his daddy's mess, and we as a nation made good on a President's pledge. In this respect, and for these reasons, we "won."


I agree with what has been said above. I do remember the news footage from the first Gulf War of Bush senior telling the Kurds (correct me if I'm wrong about that one ) to rise. During or after the uprising I remember Bush senior saying something along the lines of that if we had helped the Iraqis we wouldn't of known who would have replaced Saddam.

The problem with letting the locals sort out there problems by themselves is that the extremists who blow themselves up in marketplaces aren't interested in the future stability of Iraq . The exact goals vary from killing innocent people to creating an Islamic state in Iraq.

I don't have to accept anything that the coalition does because the NZ government was smart enough to stay out of Iraq 2nd time around. Although I do accept what has happened now I want am fix to the mess in Iraq.
Iraq's economy cant be improved upon until the security situation improves.
When Islamic extremists take over Iraq (that is the most realistic outcome ) any aid they get will be funnelled into sponsoring terrorism . They will suppress and keep the people in an very poor living standards and they will of course use propaganda to blame the US for there own problems.
[edit on 5-7-2007 by xpert11]

[edit on 5-7-2007 by xpert11]

[edit on 5-7-2007 by xpert11]



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Lets look at this another way

America doesnt want to leave Iraq until its satisified a 'pro-western' government has emerged.
Iraqi's do not want the current government, because its been setup by the west, and is to pro iranian.
America doesnt want to leave Iraq, because its scared its citizens will be killed by Iraqi's on home soil.
America remains in Iraq allowing its citiziens to be killing on Iraqi soil.

Why doesnt America ,allow Iraq to setup its own government , while using its soliders to protect its citizens on home soil?

Surely you understand, terrosim comes from more countries than Iraq, and before you invaded Iraq, there was minimal terrorist in Iraq whom had hit you.

So the logical that if you leave Iraq, attacks are sure to occur is flawed, because history doesnt suggest this.

America should concentrate on protecting itself from its own country, instead of killing people in their own lands, believing its protecting its country.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join