Skip to comments.
Why not split countries with ethnic conflict (Iraq, others)?
Self
| 09/14/2002
| David H Dennis
Posted on 09/14/2002 2:33:49 PM PDT by daviddennis
Many countries are now suffering from ethnic strife and divisions. We could name Iraq, Bosnia, Yugoslavia and many, many others.
Why is there so much opposition in the diplomatic world to the obvious solution: Splitting the countries up so that there is a separately governed Iraq and Kurd Iraq?
This becomes timely, of course, in view of our coming Iraqi invasion. Should we not push to separate Iraq into two countries instead of trying to find some kind of unified solution to keep it together?,P.
The answer seems obvious to me, and I'm wondering what other Freepers think.
D
TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: division; hussein; iraq; kurds; sadamm; usoutofnyc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-35 next last
To: daviddennis
My apologies for the embarassing grammar and HTML lapses here; I hit the post button instead of preview by accident :-(. This is a little rougher than I wanted it to be, but I think the general idea is clear enough.
D
To: daviddennis
Splitting the countries up so that there is a separately governed Iraq and Kurd Iraq? One additional plus to an independent Kurdistan is that it would tweak the Iranians.
But, that being said, there is an overwhelming reason not to have a Kurdish state--Turkey. The Turks have been staunch US allies and are a model of Islamic separation of mosque and state. The Turks have a major problem with rebellion by their Kurdish population and we should not do anything to make that problem worse.
Jack
3
posted on
09/14/2002 2:39:17 PM PDT
by
JackOfVA
To: daviddennis
Well its an idea worth thinking about.Iraq really has three ethnic areas.There are the Kurds to the north. The Iraq people in the middle.And there is a group, can not recall thier name but they live in swampy areas along the Tigress-Euprhates.Course there are splits in Muslim world between Shia and Sunni's...But I think the world rationalizes it that to break it down like that would make it easier for Turkey or Iran to go after that Kurdish area.But he split it up..easier to handle.why not?
Comment #5 Removed by Moderator
To: daviddennis
Why is there so much opposition in the diplomatic world to the obvious solution: Splitting the countries up so that there is a separately governed Iraq and Kurd Iraq? Because it is a recipe for chaos. Once national borders become a fiction the hell will break loose. Imagine what would happen if the borders between individual states in USA were erased and border with Canada and Mexico were erased too.
Or see how nicely Bosnia and Kosovo functions now. Do you want this to be happening on the world scale?
6
posted on
09/14/2002 2:45:23 PM PDT
by
A. Pole
To: daviddennis; 2sheep; Jeremiah Jr; dighton; Simcha7
Comment #8 Removed by Moderator
To: daviddennis
Since we are splitting countries I'll take Texas.
To: daviddennis
Frankly, I think it would set a bad precedent. Think of all the African "nations" at war. All their artificial borders were set by the colonial powers (England, France, Italy). The African nations would eventually split into 207 dysfunctional mini-states. Similar things would happen in parts of Eurasia.
To: MissAmericanPie
" ... I'll take Texas."
Texas is so big that it should be split into 4 countries. Which part would you then take?
To: AngrySpud
The African nations would eventually split into 207 dysfunctional mini-states. How would we notice the difference?
12
posted on
09/14/2002 3:02:16 PM PDT
by
Procyon
To: AngrySpud
Texas is so big that it should be split into 4 countries. Which part would you then take? The part with the Alamo. Which is every Texan's response, which is why Texas is indivisible.
13
posted on
09/14/2002 3:03:25 PM PDT
by
Procyon
To: daviddennis
On top of everything else, such a split can never be so clean as to satisfy everyone involved. There will always be ethnic minoroties left on the wrong side of the new border, and that will foement dissent in the exact same manner that such a split was designed to alleviate in the first place.
14
posted on
09/14/2002 3:07:35 PM PDT
by
Slainte
To: AngrySpud
I'm not good about sharing, I want it all, jus for me. Besides I have alot of stuff I need a place to put. Failing that, I'll take something with a Gulf view.=o)
To: daviddennis
Pakistan and India are doing swell since they split up.
To: AngrySpud
That might not necessarily be a bad thing if it would stop the fighting and allow them to actually build some semblance of a modern civilization.
17
posted on
09/14/2002 3:19:32 PM PDT
by
VOR78
To: JackOfVA
The Turks have been staunch US allies and are a model of Islamic separation of mosque and state. The Turks have a major problem with rebellion by their Kurdish population and we should not do anything to make that problem worse. Very astute observation. You have been keeping up.
To: daviddennis
Aztlan?
19
posted on
09/14/2002 3:25:13 PM PDT
by
Gritty
To: daviddennis
HAVE LONG BEEN OF THAT MIND.
Am glad we've not fractured the U.S. more. But it seems like the Kurds are overdue for nationhood. Give Turkey compensating portions of Iraq and the Kurds in both countries their own country.
Of course China would not be pleased with such a tendency.
20
posted on
09/14/2002 3:38:45 PM PDT
by
Quix
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-35 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson