Partition Iraq=Problem Solved

TheIndependent · by **TheIndependent** on 01/18/08, 12:11 am

We are still trying to force people who never wanted to live together as a single nation to do just that. The Kurds are our best friends and they have lots of oil they will gladly sell to us. The Sunnis and the Shia's are totally incompatible, just look at their history. The British are responsible for the mess in the middle east, they carved up the ME to try to force different groups of people to live together that have centuries old battles with each other. That is why they need dictators, to force people to live together who really hate each other. The whole middle east is unstable so I don't see how this can make it much worse.

Taylor · by **Taylor** on 01/18/08, 1:35 am

TheIndependent wrote:We are still trying to force people who never wanted to live together as a single nation to do just that. The Kurds are our best friends and they have lots of oil they will gladly sell to us. The Sunnis and the Shia's are totally incompatible, just look at their history. The British are responsible for the mess in the middle east, they carved up the ME to try to force different groups of people to live together that have centuries old battles with each other. That is why they need dictators, to force people to live together who really hate each other. The whole middle east is unstable so I don't see how this can make it much worse.

Don't blame this on the brits its about all of our faults almost, but in a way not but please the British government/people aren't to be blamed don't start crap with other countries like that its not cool.

Eyas · by **Eyas** on 01/18/08, 5:32 am

TheIndependent wrote:We are still trying to force people who never wanted to live together as a single nation to do just that. The Kurds are our best friends and they have lots of oil they will gladly sell to us. The Sunnis and the Shia's are totally incompatible, just look at their history. The British are responsible for the mess in the middle east, they carved up the ME to try to force different groups of people to live together that have centuries old battles with each other. That is why they need dictators, to force people to live together who really hate each other. The whole middle east is unstable so I don't see how this can make it much worse.

I think it depends on our goals, the likelihood of the success of democracy in the middle east, and the potential of creating more/greater enemies than we already have.

Partition would result in 3 independent nations:
1. The Sunni Nation - subordinate to the will of the Wahabbist Saudis
2. The Shiite Nation - subordinate to the will of Iran
3. The Kurdish Nation - by no means are they necessarily the "good guys"; but any Kurdish state would not be long-lived.  It would likely be annihilated in massive genocide either by the Turks, Sunnis resentful of Kurdish assistance to Iran during the Iran/Iraq war, or maybe even by Iranian backed Shiites (who really understands all of the hatreds inherent in the Middle East).

This really comes down to a question that Pres. Bush addressed years ago (before I ever heard anyone raise the issue).  He said that some people (???) felt that Muslims/Middle-Easterners were incapable of maintaining a democracy.  Pres. Bush said that this was absolutely untrue (and that it was racist).  I don't know.  I hope he was right, but I have my doubts.

I have never supported partition because I believe that a Democratic State is possible, and I knew that a partitioned 3-state solution would only increase violence rather than subdue it.  Such violence & chaos might provide the U.S. with a temporary reprieve from dealing with Muslim Terrorism; but in the long run I think it would come back to bite us in the ass.

There is a goal, and a need, for the U.S. to have an ally in the region which can house our military in the way Post WWII Germany and Japan hosted our military installations. This would require a unified democratic State.

The question is, can we afford to basically abandon the region -- especially after the lives and effort we have sacrificed to eliminate a State sponsor of Terror?  If we simply bail out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the region in general, before we have done everything possible to try to establish friendly (democratic) nations -- then what the heck was the point of going in there in the first place?

No, a partitioned state would help no one, least of all the U.S.

Surely, partition and retreat would be easier in the short run; but with the nearly assured genocidal destruction of one state, and the joint goal of the other two states to establish a global Islamic Caliphate; I think that, in the long run, partition could be suicidal for the U.S. and Western civilization.

TheIndependent · by **TheIndependent** on 01/19/08, 2:38 pm

Eyas wrote:
TheIndependent wrote:We are still trying to force people who never wanted to live together as a single nation to do just that. The Kurds are our best friends and they have lots of oil they will gladly sell to us. The Sunnis and the Shia's are totally incompatible, just look at their history. The British are responsible for the mess in the middle east, they carved up the ME to try to force different groups of people to live together that have centuries old battles with each other. That is why they need dictators, to force people to live together who really hate each other. The whole middle east is unstable so I don't see how this can make it much worse.

I think it depends on our goals, the likelihood of the success of democracy in the middle east, and the potential of creating more/greater enemies than we already have.

Partition would result in 3 independent nations:
1. The Sunni Nation - subordinate to the will of the Wahabbist Saudis
2. The Shiite Nation - subordinate to the will of Iran
3. The Kurdish Nation - by no means are they necessarily the "good guys"; but any Kurdish state would not be long-lived.  It would likely be annihilated in massive genocide either by the Turks, Sunnis resentful of Kurdish assistance to Iran during the Iran/Iraq war, or maybe even by Iranian backed Shiites (who really understands all of the hatreds inherent in the Middle East).

This really comes down to a question that Pres. Bush addressed years ago (before I ever heard anyone raise the issue).  He said that some people (???) felt that Muslims/Middle-Easterners were incapable of maintaining a democracy.  Pres. Bush said that this was absolutely untrue (and that it was racist).  I don't know.  I hope he was right, but I have my doubts.

I have never supported partition because I believe that a Democratic State is possible, and I knew that a partitioned 3-state solution would only increase violence rather than subdue it.  Such violence & chaos might provide the U.S. with a temporary reprieve from dealing with Muslim Terrorism; but in the long run I think it would come back to bite us in the ass.

There is a goal, and a need, for the U.S. to have an ally in the region which can house our military in the way Post WWII Germany and Japan hosted our military installations. This would require a unified democratic State.

The question is, can we afford to basically abandon the region -- especially after the lives and effort we have sacrificed to eliminate a State sponsor of Terror?  If we simply bail out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the region in general, before we have done everything possible to try to establish friendly (democratic) nations -- then what the heck was the point of going in there in the first place?

No, a partitioned state would help no one, least of all the U.S.

Surely, partition and retreat would be easier in the short run; but with the nearly assured genocidal destruction of one state, and the joint goal of the other two states to establish a global Islamic Caliphate; I think that, in the long run, partition could be suicidal for the U.S. and Western civilization.

If not for the world oil supply it would be the perfect payback to the regions leaders who I believe are all supporting the Jihad against the West. Bush got sand kicked in his face on his ME trip that he just concluded. They would be so pre occupied fighting each other that it would take away resources in their fight against us.

paleocon · by **paleocon** on 01/19/08, 4:35 pm

TheIndependent wrote:We are still trying to force people who never wanted to live together as a single nation to do just that. The Kurds are our best friends and they have lots of oil they will gladly sell to us. The Sunnis and the Shia's are totally incompatible, just look at their history. The British are responsible for the mess in the middle east, they carved up the ME to try to force different groups of people to live together that have centuries old battles with each other. That is why they need dictators, to force people to live together who really hate each other. The whole middle east is unstable so I don't see how this can make it much worse.

Well, I see your short-lived semi-coherent period is now over.  Do you have any systematic way of approaching the world or do you just choose your posts by tossing darts at a dart board?

How might partitioning Iraq make things much worse?  If you thought about it for 5 seconds you might come up with a short list like this:

1.  Iran emerges as the dominant force in the Middle East since partition would effectively remove the only potential counter-balance.
2.  Iran would almost certainly dominate the internal affairs of the Shiite portion of the former Iraq and might easily become their ally in an expanded global jihad against the rest of the world.
3.  Kurdistan would be continuously besieged by Turkey and Iran and probably by their former Iraqi neighbors to the south.  The oil resources of Kurdistan would be destroyed or damaged so badly as to supply only a trickle of oil.
4.  More instability in the region as smaller players engage in constant warfare and terror attacks against one another.  Less oil would be supplied and it would cost more.
5.  Al Qaeda might well infiltrate one or more states gain another base of terror to use as a haven for their jihad against the west.
6.  Tens, if not hundreds of thousands, of refugees flee the area causing a huge humanitarian problem.
7.  Radical elements take control of these rump states and use them as a base against Israel raising the specter of another middle east war.

TheIndependent wrote:If not for the world oil supply it would be the perfect payback to the regions leaders who I believe are all supporting the Jihad against the West. Bush got sand kicked in his face on his ME trip that he just concluded. They would be so pre occupied fighting each other that it would take away resources in their fight against us.

Yes, a partition would almost certainly occupy these people with fighting each other for decades. And that would effectively prevent them from attacking us for a while. But a decade-long war in this region would devastate the oil production of most of the largest producers in the world and send the price of oil up even further while limiting production and most probably wrecking the economy of the world. Yes, it would hurt them but it might very well begin a new depression in the rest of the world and condemn our kids to poverty like my parents and grandparents faced in the 30s. Well thought out plan. Once again you demonstrate your brilliance. Bravo!

Partition Iraq=Problem Solved

Partition Iraq=Problem Solved

Re: Partition Iraq=Problem Solved

Re: Partition Iraq=Problem Solved

Re: Partition Iraq=Problem Solved

Re: Partition Iraq=Problem Solved

Conservative Videos

Rush Limbaugh Graphics

Right Resources

Sites We Like