Iraqi's have had considerable difficulties drafting their new constitution. I am not going to go in on it, you all read the news, but here is my question:
Do you think a possiblity may be to split up Iraq? Do you think that the Sunni's, shiites, and kurds would better get along if they had their own seperate states? Yes, I understand this would be hard to do....
Or how about this(boy some people are gonna be angry with this): What if the country was not split up, but the laws were split up. What if there was a national government, that seperated religion from state, and also creedic governments, where the sunnis, shiites, and kurds could insert there own laws how they saw fit?
I probably shouldn't respond to this since it is soooooo moronic, but here you go. Dividing a country up has worked so well in the past, I can see why you are all for it now. I guess that you aren't really a student of history. And you know what they say about those that don't learn from history. Kind of like when the British invaded Iraq and declared that Iraq would from then on be a well behaved British territory.
And different laws for different religions is really the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Can you convert to a different sect for a few days, do a crime, not get prosecuted because of your new religion and then convert back to your former one.
And what if you aren't religious at all? Do you have a set of atheist laws.
It could be a bit confusing for the police, but since they are learning the shoot first ask question later method of law enforcement it shouldn't be that big a deal.
I haven't agreed with much that you post, but this really is the dumbest thing that you have typed. At least that I have read.
Originally posted by zeeblebotOkay, you think is a good idea to invade a country and then divide it up? A kurdish state, a sunni state, a shiite state, a christian state (yes there are christians in Iraq).
Turkey doesn't want the Kurds to have a separate state. that's one obstacle.
i think you're idea is good, tho. thought of it too but doubt it will happen.
I'm pretty sure that the Iraqis would feel that you are making them less of a nation by dividing them up. Four small nations is not quite the player on the world scene that one large nation is. And what do you do with the oil fields? Give them to the sect that you like the most?
This really is the dumbest idea that I have heard to date regarding Iraq. Please think it through before posting this crap.
Originally posted by CliffLandinwhich Iraqis? and who said impose? can't they decide for themselves?
Okay, you think is a good idea to invade a country and then divide it up? A kurdish state, a sunni state, a shiite state, a christian state (yes there are christians in Iraq).
I'm pretty sure that the Iraqis would feel that you are making them less of a nation by dividing them up. Four small nations is not quite the player on the world scene that one ...[text shortened]... idea that I have heard to date regarding Iraq. Please think it through before posting this crap.
do you think there are enough Christians conglomerated in any area to constitute a state? if not, why bring it up?
oil is the other obstacle. the Kurds are sitting on a lot of it, and even tho separatist feeling is higher there, doubt the other sects would like them just walking off with that.
Originally posted by zeeblebotSo what is the cut off? Do you have to have a certain percentage of the populace to get your own state? If so, what happens to all the people that don't fit nicely into your fantasy state?
which Iraqis? and who said impose? can't they decide for themselves?
do you think there are enough Christians conglomerated in any area to constitute a state? if not, why bring it up?
oil is the other obstacle. the Kurds are sitting on a lot of it, and even tho separatist feeling is higher there, doubt the other sects would like them just walking off with that.
Did the oil thing just occur to you? Did you think that say the Sunnis would just say "We really hate you curds, but you can have all the oil, we'll take this uselss patch of dirt."
As for dividing the country themselves, you can't be serious. Do you really think they want to make themselves even less important in the scheme of the middle east.
This time before you post, go ask your Civics teacher to give you more homework, because you really are ignorant of world government.
Originally posted by CliffLandinwe're not saying what is, we're saying what's right. most government leaders would favor conglomeration over partition, just as most managers would (or are assumed to favor). that doesn't reflect what the populace would want.
So what is the cut off? Do you have to have a certain percentage of the populace to get your own state? If so, what happens to all the people that don't fit nicely into your fantasy state?
Did the oil thing just occur to you? Did you think that say the Sunnis would just say "We really hate you curds, but you can have all the oil, we'll take this u ...[text shortened]... r Civics teacher to give you more homework, because you really are ignorant of world government.
that patch of Sunni dirt is hardly useless, considering they've been on the receiving end of the brunt of years of oil proceeds. it's got to be worth a lot. palaces and whatnot.
let's see what iamroot says, he's been there.
Originally posted by zeeblebotRight for who? Right in your mind maybe. Right for two right wing rednecks in the US. By your logic we would be best served by dividing up the blue states and red states. We don't agree so we should form two serperate nations. Right?
we're not saying what is, we're saying what's right. most government leaders would favor conglomeration over partition, just as most managers would (or are assumed to favor). that doesn't reflect what the populace would want.
that patch of Sunni dirt is hardly useless, considering they've been on the receiving end of the brunt of years of oil pro ...[text shortened]... got to be worth a lot. palaces and whatnot.
let's see what iamroot says, he's been there.
I'll say it again, please think before posting.
Originally posted by CliffLandin[red states vs. blue states] != [Shiites/Kurds vs. Sunnis]
Right for who? Right in your mind maybe. Right for two right wing rednecks in the US. By your logic we would be best served by dividing up the blue states and red states. We don't agree so we should form two serperate nations. Right?
I'll say it again, please think before posting.
[separate] != "serperate"
RHP guidelines are no users under 13, whose account did you hijack?
Originally posted by CliffLandinYou really need to think, and read before posting cliffladin. First of all, the idea is not to split up the country, it is to have a national government, that will deal with broad issues, that effect the entire nation. The national government could overrule anything the creedic governments had put in place, if they thought it was neccessary.
Right for who? Right in your mind maybe. Right for two right wing rednecks in the US. By your logic we would be best served by dividing up the blue states and red states. We don't agree so we should form two serperate nations. Right?
I'll say it again, please think before posting.
The creedic states would then insert their own laws into the government, dealing only with their creed. This way everyone gets a little bit of what they want.
And, since you keep refering to history, here is a history lesson for you. Early New England was formed by creedic states, that grew together through trade and commerce. UNLESS YOU FORGOT, colonials came to america because of RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION.
And, my logic does not suggest dividing up the "red states" and "blue states" because, DUH THEY ARE ALREADY DIVIDED. Not into 2 seperate nations like you seem to want to think(and completely blow out of proportion.) If you have not noticed, the USA IS DIVIDED INTO NATIONAL, STATE, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. EACH STATE CAN ACCEPT OR REJECT A NATIONAL LAW, JUST AS THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT CAN OVERTURN A STATES DECISION. WHAT I AM PROPOSING IS GIVING THE IRAQIS THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE DIFFERENT, BUT EQUAL, NOT SEPERATE BUT EQUAL, LIKE YOU SEEM TO THINK. THE REASON I MENTIONED THAT I MAY BE FLAMED FOR THIS, IS BECAUSE IT MAY BE SEEN AS TRYING TO "AMERICANIZE" IRAQ.
On another note, DO NOT use personal attacks in my threads. STATE YOUR CASE, and MOVE ON. DO NOT SAY "YOU A MORONIC". STATE YOUR SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT, AND LET THE ONLOOKERS DETERMINE WHO IS MORONIC THEMSELVES. FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THIS IN MY THREADS, AND YOU WILL SEE A WHOLE DIFFERENT SIDE OF ME.
Originally posted by iamrootOkay, well said.
You really need to think, and read before posting cliffladin. First of all, the idea is not to split up the country, it is to have a national government, that will deal with broad issues, that effect the entire nation. The national government could overrule anything the creedic governments had put in place, if they thought it was neccessary.
The creedic ...[text shortened]... MSELVES. FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THIS IN MY THREADS, AND YOU WILL SEE A WHOLE DIFFERENT SIDE OF ME.
On the other hand, I would like to see the other side of you.
I admit I reacted to your post because of previous posts of yours that I had read and did not completely read your idea an misunderstood what I had read. I am sorry to have stepped on your thread.
Of course you are correct that the US is divided in the same manner that you have pointed out. And while not all colonials were fleeing religious persecution, most were.
My biggest issue is nation building. I know that you are just creating debate with your idea and not nation building, but it is the constant assertion that we know better than everyone else how they should form their own government. It seems now the our great crusade to free the women of Iraq has now backfired. What next. You can't make people free and democratic. They must cast off the chains themselves.
Once again, I apologize for ruining your thread.
Tom (CliffLandin)
Originally posted by CliffLandinWe don't agree so we should form two serperate nations. Right?
Right for who? Right in your mind maybe. Right for two right wing rednecks in the US. By your logic we would be best served by dividing up the blue states and red states. We don't agree so we should form two serperate nations. Right?
I'll say it again, please think before posting.
I would advocate that wholeheartedly. It is clear that the fundamentalist and secular halves of this country detest each other. There is no common ground between them, a gain for one side is a defeat for the other. The situation is very similar to the bitter acrimony that existed between the free states and the slave states prior to the US Civil War. I don't think it's so far fetched to say that the nation is inching toward another calamitous civil war. Rather than blow each other up again, we should just agree to part ways.
a civil war would be improbable in the US. Although the states have their own laws and national guard troops, you must remember, that the US Army belongs to Washington. They make it clear to all servicemen that Washington DC and President Bush "owns" us. Who would fight us? Citizens? In military terms, they would not stand a chance.