What is Digg?123 Comments
- skoles, on 10/12/2007, -9/+52Because this has worked so well in the past. Brilliant!
- lane.montgomery, on 10/12/2007, -3/+44I've commented on this idea before so I will reference a point I have already brought up (just in case some of you may recognize it).
It is quite true that the perfect outcome would be for all Iraqi's to live in peace in a false state that was arbitrarily outlined by Great Britain after WWII and only held together by a ruthless dictator until we gave them the power to rule themselves, but this will never happen.
Germany was unified (finally) because it had a common culture and there were enough people that wanted it to be. Yugoslavia had little to no common culture, and in fact the people were polar opposites on many issues. As is the same with Iraq. When WWII ended, did we try to unify the southeast asian countries? Did we try and force Japan and China into one government? No. Why is that? Because they don't share a common culture and language.
A mature democracy can handle diversity to a certain point (being tested right now in the US and several western european countries) but an infantile democracy cannot. Quarrelling over culture and language in a young democracy leads to a natural split into groups that can agree and get along and argue about more important issues such as federalism, etc.
It won't just solve all our problems. Splitting Iraq into 3 parts will create new problems, but they are problems we know how to deal with. I would rather see a cold war between 3 new iraqi republics than the utter bloodshed that is taking place on the streets today. I say, break them up and put UN peacekeepers on the ground to protect buffer zones and prevent conflict in the formative years of the republics. Then let them go after ten years or so. We can't hold everyone's hands forever.
Besides, if the intent is to spread democracy throughout the region, wouldn't we rather have three stable smaller republics instead of one large instable one? - soogy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20Oh, you're looking for "Israel invades Lebanon." That's room 602, this is room 902.
- nimski, on 10/12/2007, -6/+22This is devastating with regard to overall tolerance and acceptance in the ME.
I wonder who gets the blame for this one. The few that broke up the country or the many that refused to come together under Democratic rule? - transfire, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18It's about time. Freedom means not being _forced_ to live together!
- Charlotte_Web, on 10/12/2007, -13/+27Iraq was a fractured nation before we invaded... ever read up on how Saddam gassed his own Iraqi people because they belonged to the Kurdish tribe?
We didn't cause this, it's just another piece of the puzzle. - dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20It's pretty clear that either the governments, their people, or both are incapable of the maturity it takes to move past their fundamental differences, and work together for a democracy.
Through each country's in-fighting, archaic dependence on religion and lack of control over the type of power they actually weild, the Middle East is much like a child playing with a handgun. - zweben, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18How about both?
- tacroy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14religion != God.
religion = mans pathetic attempt to understand something far superior to themselves. - NoahVail, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16If you rent the movie "The Palm Beach Story," by Preston Sturgis (1943), you will hear a character named John D. Hackensacker, III talk about going to "Falujahstan" to sign an oil deal. It was not Iraq then, and it will not be Iraq in the future. "Iraq" was invented by British diplomats.
One of the scariest things I have seen is a group of Saudi children singing "God Bless America" at the Saudi-American Friendship Society Meeting. I really hope they (the Saudis) are good to us when they are forced to abandon Saudi Arabia and move their kingdom here. Maybe we could change the words back to "God Save the Queen." - Canthros, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13That's going to really upset the Turks. They really do not want a Kurdish state.
- mglukhovsky, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15I'm sorry, maybe I'm blind. But I didn't see Israel mentioned ANYWHERES in the article from The Independent, and certianly nothing indicating that Israel wants every Middle Eastern country broken up into bantustans. Intriguing that it's the Israelis you pick on, but not the Canadians, Sinhalese, or Senator Akaka. Where are you getting such ideas from?
I'm guessing irrational blind ideology. - ScornForSega, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11This has been coming for some time. The Turks are just going to have to eat it. Yeah, they're afraid that if Iraqi Kurdistan is declared an independent state that Turkish Kurdistan will do the same. Problem is that the president of Iraqi Kurdistan has been recognized as the head of a soverign nation by at least a hundred countries for some years now. The peshmerga have their border locked down so tight that, at this point, it would take more effort for them to integrate into an Iraqi government than to just break off completely. There's a reason why you don't hear of bombs blowing up in Kurdistan... they don't mess around.
Anyway, chock it up to another history lesson: British nation building sucks. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12"It's about time. Freedom means not being _forced_ to live together!"
Actually, I can point out many times in US history, especially recent history, when "freedom" meant the government forcing people to live together that had nothing in common and didn't WANT to live together. - lane.montgomery, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I don't see how not. By making the different cultures into their own nations, you don't have ethnic cleansing happening within the borders of a country. It goes across a border. Which, generally speaking, causes more international involvement quicker because one sovereign nation is attacking another sovereign nation instead of it just being warring tribes within a region of a country.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9The real question will be how they will divide up the oil, if this takes place.
- dragonopolis, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Remember thats how America Started. The original 13 colonies/states were largely split politically and religiously at the time. It took years of compromises and mistakes to get get to a unified nation and this is what will probably have to happen in Iraq.
I still feel that Iraq should remain Iraq and have a governing body. They just need to break it up into colonies/states. I was a soldier in Iraq and unfortunately they are a stubborn people so Confederation with a weak central government with more power to the states first. Each state would be responsible for providing militia for the government sort of like it was in the United States at first. The problem with Democracy is there has to be a certain level of trust and there is very little trust among the different Groups. Hopefully, they will work out a level of Compromise and remain a Nation. Its possible it might never happen. After all, in America, the South left the Union. We unfortunately had to have a Civil War to bring it back. Hopefully Iraqis can work out their differences much more peacefully than we did here in America.
Still they do share one major unity and that is the Country of Iraq. Whether it remains a loose Confederacy with a weak central government or full blown Republic like U.S. must be worked out by them.
I think sometimes America forgets the years of sacrifices and mistakes we have made to get to where we are at now and not expect quick results from other countries trying to do the same. Also, we need to let go at some point too. Sometimes a Parent just has to let the child make their mistakes - even the ones that hurt. We don't need to completely abandon them, just be there to clean up the cuts and bruises then apply the bandaid and send them on their way. Or prevent the fist fights that happen every now and then so they don't kill each other.
Here's hoping it all works out for the best. - bacomage1, on 10/12/2007, -9/+15@llbbl
Really? Our president is to blame for a centuries old conflict between religious sect and nationlistic differences? I never knew that before. My head is swirling with all of your wonderful knowledge and insight. - noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8They've actually threatened to invade if one is made. Hopefully they will have their balls busted for doing so.
- joel2600, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12this is exactly what the powers that be want to happen. they want to balkanize the nation and have endless sectarian violence so that there is never a need for us to leave there in order to "protect" the region *cough* oil *cough*...
nobody probably remembers the british military agents dressed as iraqis that killed a police officer and were then apprehended. they were found with a cache of guns and explosives in their car. once caught they were going to be held accountable for their crime... what do you think happened.
the military stormed the compound, broke down the walls and took them out by force.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20051017&articleId=1100
there are so many articles on this one and all are worth researching. - osbjmg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5What's wrong with three separate countries? I'm not just saying that, think about it. There is a reason we aren't the united countries of the world - people are different in different areas. Countries, States, Counties, Cities, Neighborhoods, etc... it is our nature.
- Canthros, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9On the upside: British nation building has been, by far, more successful than French nation building.
- furiouszebra, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8The Iranians don't want a Kurdish state either. Turkey, Iran, and Syria all have areas that would want to join Kurdistan. Turkey would invade immediately.
- misinformation, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7It's pretty much going to irritate most in the region. One of the conditions that nearly every nation in the Middle East that gave us basing or overflight rights had was that Iraq did not get broken up.
- NoahVail, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Allthewhile raises an interesting point. There are those (you know, "them") who think this little experiment with democracy has reached an end point. Cap Weinberger said he saw "nothing wrong" with a global economy controlled by 100 corporations, each one of which controlled 1% of the economy. I don't know about you, but I see a lot wrong with that.
- bugsy187, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11 "Really? Our president is to blame for a centuries old conflict between religious sect and nationalistic differences? I never knew that before. My head is swirling with all of your wonderful knowledge and insight."
@bacomage1
George Bush and the United States have played a direct role in the affairs of the middle east, often causing conflict. This should be obvious, though it's not always discussed. Much of the conflict in the modern middle east is rooted in the divide an rule strategy implemented by European countries after WWI, especially Britain. National lines are drawn in a way to divide majority groups and set a minority on top. The relationship of Sunni and Shia in Iraq is an example. It's classic colonialism. You control the minority and they control the majority. The United States picked up the imperial reigns after WW2 when Britain was weakened. The modern conflicts aren't as simple as a unending struggle rooted in biblical times. Many middle-easterners, even radicals, cite very real, contemporary grievances. It's typically American news sources that refuse to discuss the real source of these problems, probably because the public may play a greater role in forming foreign policy. Today we should be talking about how disproportional Israel's use of force is against Lebanon, not "Support Israel in any decision." That's fanaticism, and the opposite of democracy. - robbh66, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Speaking of nukes, who did you piss off, Beautyon? Why am I getting dug down- just because I supported your position?!"
Israel is big enough to solve their own problems.
Because you have zero grasp of foreign politics?
You somehow think that America is getting used by Israel for Lebanon. Lebanon was more stable now than its been in decades. The last thing Israel wants is the US going in there and turning it into another Iraq.
The US went to Vietnam because of France? Wow, you're way off on that one buddy! While France might have been a little singed by Dien Bien Phu, if they wanted it that desperately they wouldn't have left. Furthermore, I bet that it was probably something along the lines of the North aligning with red china and the Soviet Union which got the US in there buddy.
Iraq was because of Britain and Saudi Arabia? Oh please. Tony Blair drug the UK kicking and screaming into this conflict and as for Saudi Arabia- Yeah, they wanted all the chaos next door. In fact, it was this exact reason that US forces did not roll into Baghdad in 91.
As for your nukes pointed at Asia, Europe and America- Well...you're just an imbecile. There is more of a likelyhood they're pointed at mars to fend of little green men than being pointed at the US. - robbh66, on 10/12/2007, -13/+16"Isreal wants EVERY Middle East state to be broken up into managable Bantustans, each one not powerful enough to be a threat to it."
Wow, you're a retard. Two very specific reasons:
A) The article is on Iraq, not Isreal.
B) There isn't any country in the middle east that is a threat to Isreal anyways. - bash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@bugsy187: Excuse me? Israel's force is disproportinate to Lebanon?
The Middle East works on this sort of logic: you lay one finger on me and I will wipe out everyone you know.
The Hama Massacre, Saddam's gassing of the Kurds, and the Phalangists extermination of Palestinian refugees in Sabra and Shatila 20 years ago are examples of this. And Israel is playing by the same rules. - maiku00, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5someones gonna get screwed
- Gimli, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I know this is going to sound insentive, but I could careless how the Iraq government solves this problem. If they want to split up the country in thirds, then by all means do and end the violence so United State troops and it allies troops can come home.
- Lynxpro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3What?
The British North American colonies were not united prior to the American Revolutionary War. They were united only in terms of being colonies under the Crown. They had squabbles with each other. In fact, the British government tried unifying all of the colonies under a single colonial administration around the time the 7 Years War broke out but the leaders of the colonies failed to find agreement despite all the support that Benjamin Franklin gave to the cause.
The Revolutionary War was not the success that is portrayed in high school civics courses. Had it not been for the French (Navy) - who threw themselves into a Cousin's Civil War - the British would have ultimately prevailed. Washington was never a great general. In fact, that's the reason why he jumped at the chance to lead the rebellion's forces in the first place. He was denied his permanent commission as a general in the British Army because in the 7 Years War he proved himself to be incompetent. The colonial grievences were also quite a joke when you figure it out financially. Point is, there was no justification for breaking away from the British Empire at the time. But since that time, its become part of our national mythology. Unfortunately, unlike in the time of the Roman Empire when the educated classes could openly admit that the founding of Rome by Romulus and his brother was an outright myth, we still cling to our national myths instead of actually analyzing them and coming to terms with it. If you criticize the myth, you get labeled as a "Benedict Arnold"...as if being a traitor to a treasonous movement is something bad!
And no, King George III was not a tyrant or any of the other things that people like Jefferson claimed he was. Now there's a great one there. Thomas Jefferson, Mr. Puff Daddy of the 18th Century himself... plagarizing the Magna Carta, adding his own "uh uhs" to it, and then passing it off as something original in the Declaration of Independence... :) - joelito, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0400180-00
Kitchen cabinet is a term used to refer non official advisor's to the president. Oldest reference to the term that I know of is the link above - NoahVail, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Speaking of nukes, who did you piss off, Beautyon? Why am I getting dug down- just because I supported your position?!
Well, whatever- Israel's nukes are for deterence, but they don't need them to deter Syria, Egypt, Lebanon or Iran (well, Iran, maybe). Basically, they are to deter the other nuclear states. In any case, we should pursue a policy that is good for the US. Note: this point of view does not make you an anti-semite. - CatalystGhost, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3No, the one that wins is very likely to completely obliterate those who opposed them. They're not going to want to deal with the insurgents, and it would be very easy for them to imprison/massacre them while fighting the war.
- Canthros, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@adinb: I don't think there's any reasonable concern that this (currently-)hypothetical Kurdistan would itself take land from Turkey. It's more a question of Turkish Kurds taking bits of southern Turkey with them to Kurdistan. ISTR that they don't have quite the same rights as other Turks, but that may not be correct. There's certainly a great deal of pressure there, though. (The situation is complicated, and I neither remember the details nor would be qualified to expound upon them if I did.)
- MicrowavedH2o, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10yeah, I thought the whole point of History (studying it, taking it in school, etc.) was so that we could learn from it, and not repeat the same errors.
I vaguely remember a quote that goes something like, "A mistake isn't bad unless it happens again".... or something - adinb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I'm most afraid of what's going to happen to southern Turkey if Iraq gets split. Hopefully the Kurds of "Kurdistan" won't try to take "their" lands from Turkey...who is a part of NATO.
- campusten, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Well, just look at the tech articles then.
- zombo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The state of Ethniklashistan should be created in Iraq.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28369 - Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"I call "wishful thinking" on the part of the Telegraph."
What report did you read exactly, because the link goes to The Independent. - robbh66, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Because I didn't explain my "not a chance" comment-
Turkey would never attack an independent Kurdistan or whatnot. The US and EU want Iraq to go away, or at the very least be someone else's problem. If they divide it up into 3 states, and those states go all Indian/Pakistan on each other, that's their problem, not the US/EU's. However, if Turkey were to attack one of the states, that would make it the US/EU's problem again.
Turkey is a longtime US ally, prospective member of the EU, and member of NATO. They stand to lose their asses on this one if they mounted any invasion, economically, militarily, politically, etc. It's unfortunate, but it's life. - vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I suppose the only thing wrong with 3 separate countries is Iran.
- NoahVail, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2...trying to say, that is. For a real edjamacation about asymmetric warfare, please read (its a free download) the "two colonels book."
www.terrorism.com/documents/ TRC-Analysis/unrestricted.pdf - NoahVail, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Have a look at http://digg.com/political_opinion/Nuke_Iran_Blame_the_Jews instead of calling me an imbicile. Almost all of our problems overseas are because we are not pursuing policies that are: 1) Long term. 2) In the interest of the nation as a whole.
Lets take an example that is so obvious that it is overlooked. At the close of WWII we had a choice of befriending the guy who kicked the Japanese out of China and had some goofy ideas about reorganizing Chinese society, or a guy who dealt opium and had plenty of money to pay politicians. Guess which one we befriended? Chaing Kai Shek [correct] Mao Tse Tung [incorrect] Gee, only after we alienated their regime, tried to drive them into the arms of the Soviets, fought a war with them in Korea + 30 years of cold war did we finally realize that China was pursuing Chineses interests. Much more could be said about Ho Chi Mihn here.
robbh66- You should think a little more about what I am trying to, rather than making stupid accusations. - d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Thank you, joel2600, for finally mentioning the British SAS agents that were caught dressed as Shiite terrorists with a carload of explosives. It is a well established fact that much of the initial sectarian violence from 2004 - 2005 were actually black flag operations carried out by several outside players including the British and the Israelis. The Israelis have the stated goal of Balkanizing the region for easier control. It is well know among the American Intelligence community that Israeli agents have been training Kurdish commandos for many covert operations inside Iraq and Iran, including blag flag operations in which they attack targets while posing as memebers of an "opposing" sect. They have been caught many times and it has been reported, not widely, but it has been reported. Israel has had the stated goal to Balkanize the region since the 80's, for which one of the main reasons, is to launch operations into Iran and Syria from an independent Kurdish state. Regardless of whether you agree with this type of imperialism, meddling, or whatever you want to call it; it is so wrong from the perspective that We (the US) are caught in the middle of this drama and are paying a dear price.
An Israeli official was quoted in the July 26, 1982, issue of Newsweek: "Ideally, we'd like to see Iraq disintegrate into a Shi'ite, Kurdish and Sunni community, each making war on the other."
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/040628fa_fact - Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Either:
A) The Kurdish region, since they are the only guys who have been consistently friendly to the US.
or:
B) The region that gets all the oil. - Paroparo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1About time. Iraq is an artificial construct made by the British out of three separate Ottoman provinces and afterwards held together by the intimidating figure of Saddam Hussein.
- CriX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1wrong
religion = man's pathetic attempt to INVENT something far superior than themselves
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanist - dgolding, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The Kurds must have the right of self-determination. We seem to grant this to folks who have never before had a real country of their own (Palistinians, anyone?), but everyone is quick to try and but a damper on the Kurd's desire for a country where they won't get abused. They have been terribly oppressed by the Turks, and slaughtered by the Iraqis - who do you think Saddam was busy gassing? They are also a steadfast friend of the west, and are a true outpost of moderate islam. Ask anyone who has served in Iraq - you can trust the Kurds, but no one else.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 121 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is