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.
Minority Sunni Arab leaders, as well as a spokesman for the Shi'ite-led coalition government, rejected the idea and it was unclear whether the split would hold up delivery of a draft text that Washington hopes can help quell the Sunni insurgency.
At an impassioned mass rally in Najaf, heartland of Shi'ite Islam, the leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution Abdul Aziz al-Hakim turned up the pressure on his opponents from ethnic and religious minorities as the head of his party's military wing derided central government in Baghdad.
"Regarding federalism, we think that it is necessary to form one entire region in the south," said Hakim, leader of SCIRI, and a powerful force in the coalition that came to power in January's election, secured by U.S. military occupation.
"Federalism has to be in all of Iraq. They are trying to prevent the Shi'ites from enjoying their own federalism," said Hadi al-Amery, head of the Badr movement, a militia organization formed by SCIRI when it was fighting Saddam from Iranian exile.
"We have to persist in forming one region in the south or else we will regret it. What have we got from the central government except death?," Amery said, recalling the decades of oppression many southern Shi'ites have suffered at the hands of successive colonial and post-colonial rules in Baghdad.
Originally posted by XphilesPhan
I agree with Maximus, split the country up and problem solved.
There is a sort of unspoken feeling, underlying the entire debate on the war, that if you favored it or favor it, you stress the good news, and if you opposed or oppose it you stress the bad. I do not find myself on either side of this false dichotomy. I think that those who supported regime change should confront the idea of defeat, and what it would mean for Iraq and America and the world, every day. It is a combat defined very much by the nature of the enemy, which one might think was so obviously and palpably evil that the very thought of its victory would make any decent person shudder. It is, moreover, a critical front in a much wider struggle against a vicious and totalitarian ideology.
It never seemed to me that there was any alternative to confronting the reality of Iraq, which was already on the verge of implosion and might, if left to rot and crash, have become to the region what the Congo is to Central Africa: a vortex of chaos and misery that would draw in opportunistic interventions from Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Bad as Iraq may look now, it is nothing to what it would have become without the steadying influence of coalition forces. None of the many blunders in postwar planning make any essential difference to that conclusion. Indeed, by drawing attention to the ruined condition of the Iraqi society and its infrastructure, they serve to reinforce the point.
How can so many people watch this as if they were spectators, handicapping and rating the successes and failures from some imagined position of neutrality? Do they suppose that a defeat in Iraq would be a defeat only for the Bush administration? The United States is awash in human rights groups, feminist organizations, ecological foundations, and committees for the rights of minorities. How come there is not a huge voluntary effort to help and to publicize the efforts to find the hundreds of thousands of "missing" Iraqis, to support Iraqi women's battle against fundamentalists, to assist in the recuperation of the marsh Arab wetlands, and to underwrite the struggle of the Kurds, the largest stateless people in the Middle East? Is Abu Ghraib really the only subject that interests our humanitarians?
Originally posted by XphilesPhan
I agree with Maximus, split the country up and problem solved.
Sounds like the plan the British implemented after WW1 but it didn't work then and I don't think that's the answer now.
Originally posted by Uncle Joe
Split the country up and you guarantee a series of nasty wars almost instantly. The Shia and Sunni nations would immidiately object to any border that was drawn and start fighting while Turkey would sweep into the Kurdish regions the minute the US left.
Lookat the former Yugoslavia for why this is a bad plan.
Originally posted by skippytjc
A handfull of Saudis, Iranians, Syrians, etc have caused this whole mess.
Originally posted by Souljah
And if you want to see REAL Trouble, wait for the Kurdish people to start and realize their Dreams of Kurdistan....
Iraq's three major Sunni organizations appeared to have taken a united stand both for voting and against demands for federalism after they boycotted the Jan. 30 parliamentary elections.
"We reject it wherever it is, whether in the north or in the south, but we accept the Kurdish region as it was before the war," said Kamal Hamdoun, a Sunni member of the committee drafting the constitution
"The aim of federalism is to divide Iraq into ethnic and sectarian areas. We will cling to our stance of rejecting this," Hamdoun said.
The Kurds also have demanded federalism to maintain control over three northern provinces and want authority over Kirkuk, from which thousands of Kurds were expelled by Saddam.