Should We Use a Soft Partition in Iraq?
By 
Introduction
A soft partition splits up the thre ethnic groups in Iraq.
Let me hear what you think.
The prresident passed the idea of a SP
It would cause violence between the etnic groups.
It would cause violence because right now the Kurds have all the oil and they are not going to want to share. Also if we split them up each group is going to want what they don't have.
It would cause a safe Haven for Terrorism.
If we implement a soft partition and group the Sunni's together it will allow for a more determined and more vicious Al-Queda attack on the U.S. and the many states within Iraq.
The Iraqi's don't want it.
Even though it may be in their constitution they had to vote on it as a whole not it's individual provisions. Also half of them dint even know what they were voting on.
It would cause the stoppage of sectarian violence.
Sectarian violence is practically the holocaust. It is two nations trying to kill out the other one.
Gerrymandering
Gerrymanderin is the ability to allow the three nations to carve out there own borders. So practically this is allowing them to have a hand in who things are going to be.
There are no Superior alternatives.
Right now the sitch in Iraq s dire and without a soft partition we will just be feeding the war our soldiers and our money.
Also we could bring our boys home.
Also we could bring our boys home.
Soft partitioning is just the governments way of trying to control the human herd. It's also called ethnic segregation, which is wrong. People of different cultures will always fight, religion will see to that. The different ethnic groups have to learn to live with one another, which may or may not happen. It will never happen if they are segregated together.
Think of how it would evolve if, say, Los Angeles segregated all of it's different ethnic groups. Everybody gets a sector to live in. Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Mexicans, Japanese and so on would become more jaded and jealous of what they perceive the other groups to have... thus feeding the hatred more and more. Soon, violence would rise farther than it currently is. Then come the "turf" wars, groups trying to expand their territory.
Gerrymandering doesn't work. They would need rational government for that. They do not have a rational government of any kind at the moment. For example, just look at Israel and Palestine. While not Gerrymandering, would it make a difference if it was? Israel and Palestine are fighting over land they believe is theirs, and no one can stop it. They could share the Holyland, but their religious beliefs forbid it. There is no sacred Holyland in Iraq, just oil, but the same principle applies.
I have said it before and I will say it again... religion and politics DO NOT MIX!!
Good topic :)
Think of how it would evolve if, say, Los Angeles segregated all of it's different ethnic groups. Everybody gets a sector to live in. Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Mexicans, Japanese and so on would become more jaded and jealous of what they perceive the other groups to have... thus feeding the hatred more and more. Soon, violence would rise farther than it currently is. Then come the "turf" wars, groups trying to expand their territory.
Gerrymandering doesn't work. They would need rational government for that. They do not have a rational government of any kind at the moment. For example, just look at Israel and Palestine. While not Gerrymandering, would it make a difference if it was? Israel and Palestine are fighting over land they believe is theirs, and no one can stop it. They could share the Holyland, but their religious beliefs forbid it. There is no sacred Holyland in Iraq, just oil, but the same principle applies.
I have said it before and I will say it again... religion and politics DO NOT MIX!!
Good topic :)
Raant - great answer. I second your opinion.
The people have to decide to live and work together as a nation; that their national identity is more important than their regional / religious differences. Abraham Lincoln knew that and fought for it almost 150 years ago.
The people have to decide to live and work together as a nation; that their national identity is more important than their regional / religious differences. Abraham Lincoln knew that and fought for it almost 150 years ago.
This discussion is moot. The Kurds have, in the last two months, cut deals with several U.S. oil companies, notably Hunt Oil (another Bush cronie). Since they are never going to cut the other regions in on their bonanza, there is absolutely no chance that there will ever be a united Iraq.
There is actually more oil in the Sunni mid section than there is in any other region.
If we learned nothing else from the violence in the former Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, it is that you can't force people into an artificially contrived "country." They now comprise eight countries.
Similarly, the people of "Iraq" will never "decide to live and work together as a nation, or "that their national identity is more important than their regional/religious differences."
The country is irreparably broken, just as the neocons planned. We'll be there forever, and as long as we are over there stirring up trouble, no one will dare attack Israel.
Finally, and most importantly, IT IS NOT OUR DECISION TO MAKE!
There is actually more oil in the Sunni mid section than there is in any other region.
If we learned nothing else from the violence in the former Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, it is that you can't force people into an artificially contrived "country." They now comprise eight countries.
Similarly, the people of "Iraq" will never "decide to live and work together as a nation, or "that their national identity is more important than their regional/religious differences."
The country is irreparably broken, just as the neocons planned. We'll be there forever, and as long as we are over there stirring up trouble, no one will dare attack Israel.
Finally, and most importantly, IT IS NOT OUR DECISION TO MAKE!
By 
By 
By 
By 
By 
By 
By 
By
4 Comments