Why not split Iraq into three countries?
484518
Not many times will you find me agreeing with you over something like this. \nBut some thing like this seems to have been put out before. Only thing i can see wrong with it. \nIs that you will always find that one side will never agree. \nno matter how good any solution is. \nMy idea would be to get all the coalition forces out of there. \nArm all sides Equally let them sort it out once and for all with NO outside help from ANY other country. \nLast group standing gets the Country. \nAnd the rest of the world accepts them no matter who has won.
798340
Not that I'm against the idea of a Federation of sorts, per se, but here's some of the problems with it.\n\n#1 - Any partitioning would have to include an agreement on how to split oil revenues.  This would obviously be problematic to get them to agree.\n\n#2 - While regions are predominantly one group or another, there's significant mixing of groups, overall, particularly in cities.  To not be the downtrodden minority, many would have to pack up and leave their homes, jobs, belongings and move to an uncertain future with no guarantees.  If someone is willing to stay and be the voiceless minority, they'd probably get "ethnically cleansed" out - I think my assumption here is also that if someone has something worth staying for, someone else will want to take it and will take advantage of the situation to do so.\n\nIt would be ugly and nasty.  Moreso than the road being travelled now?  I don't know.  That's part of the frustration with the mess we're in.  We're in so deep there are no "good" choices.
68852
Maybe it has to do something with the fact that Iraq is located in one of the most strategically valuable areas in the world, and the fact that it also happens to be one of the most unstable areas of the world. Just like after WWII we build bases in Germany, to be close to Russia and central to Europe.  \n\nNow we are central to all of Africa, Asia, Middle East and Europe.  Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and so on are all a short flight.  Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
273188
When the Middle East was originally divided into its present form, it was done so unfairly.  Because of that, we saw Saddam Hussein go into Kuwait.  He actually cited that as one of his reasons (he had many others...of course some were much more irrational).  Iraq barely touches the Persian Gulf at all.  This makes trading and developing a Navy next to impossible for the current Iraq.\n\nIf Iraq was divided into three countries, who would get the border with the Persian Gulf?  Who would get the oil reserves?  Also, Iraq has many different ethnic groups besides just Sunni, Shi'ite, and Kurds.  What about the rest of them?  What message would we be sending if this happened?  I could see people going as far to say that the US should divide in that same way.\n\nIt's a nice thought, but I hope you understand why it just cannot work.
677081
The problems in the entire Middle east stem from the fact that these countries were held as possessions of the global empires for many years only to be cut loose when occupation was no longer profitable. We, the US, and our allies have exacerbated the situation with our invasion under false pretenses. The Iraqi people need to realize that the other Iraqis are not the enemies, big oil is.
781028
Interesting question... both are awful choices. I'm not sure what the point of the question is (nobody would seriously propose either), but I'll play along.\n\nEither outcome would lead to mass regional destabilization, though the Israeli option would probably be better since they would turn it back over within five years. The splitting option would push Turkey and Saudi Arabia into civil wars, and an Iranian chokehold on that much oil would be bad for the world economy.\n\nThe best completely unrealistic option, though, is to turn over Iraq to the Finns. If they won't take it, I'm sure the Russians or the Chinese will.
336116
My answers is a serious one:  All nationalities are responsible for their own country, so Iraqis are responsible for their own country.  I think it was a huge mistake starting this insane war, and whatever reason was given by the President of the US, was wrong and would have to be amended.  Way to amend? GET OUT OF IRAQ!
583369
Exactly what we're doing.  We weren't there to create governments based on democratic principles.  But, since it was essential to remove Hussein in order for change to occur in the region, the only right resolution after removal was to create the opportunity for everyone in Iraq to participate in electing the government they want.  The other crap you hear is partisan bull that is distorting the real process going on.
503565
i would prefer Iraq as it is an Arabic country and my mother language is Arabic. so, it will be easier for me.
761513
Dividing between the Sunni and Shia/Kurd will not work.  The majority of oil wealth is in the Shia and Kurd areas and the Sunni would not let themselves be cut out.  This has already been proposed (Federalist states for each of the three) and been rejected by the Sunni.\n\nI agree in general with your assessment of the situation and see no really workable solution since I do not believe that the Islamic religious leaders will ever allow any form of democracy to work.  I think we will eventually see another Islamic Theocracy in Iraq.
627255
HELL NO!  America is tending to interfere in other countrys matters far too much. They should realise by now that the second world war ended in 1945 with the unification of italy. The two super powers were usa and Russia. Russia got over it that times change but its just that usa is still stuck on the whole "super power of the world" thing. What happens in iraq and the middle east is their concern and they will sort it out their way usa has no right to interfere. usa has oil reserves that it can use but it wants to use the oil in the middle east that belongs to them but then kinda mysteriously got under iraq. hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
742737
If the coalition forces pulled out of Iraq:\n1. Civil wars would get a lot worse. Thousands more would die needlessly. Look at how many civilians are being killed now and that's with coalition forces there. Imagine if the death squads were completely unchecked.\n2. Iraq would divide into two or three smaller country's\n3. Those smaller countries would be weak and would be attacked by other countries in the area. Turkey has already stated that it will not have a Kurdish nation on its border. Iraq attacked and killed thousands of Iran's civilians and soldiers during the Iraq-Iran war. Iran could easily attack and win a war against a weak Iraqi state.\n4. Coalition forces or some forces would end up having to go back and stop the civil wars or stop some other countries aggression.
153115
15- I feel that the occupatoin of Iraq is to put some democratic nation in the Middle East. I feel that yes there are some things that should have been done differnt, but otherwise it is for the better good.
455332
in my eyes, we are in Iraq because of the terorists. everyday suicide bombers kill two or three people and wound 2 times as more. Also US is there to make Iraq a Democratic Government and make it an Allie , then in future wars Iraq is going to help USA.
69335
This is a difficult question. Even though President Bush is a bungling fool who started a war for profits, we are now part of the war. Although I believe we need to get our troops put, we can't yet. This is because of the fact that Iraq still does not have a stable government. If we left now, another dictator could take over, and do more damage than has already been done to Iraq.
872936
Because the US government believed that democracy can be imposed by force. Iraq was a country created by the Uk at the end of WWII in order to secure the ressources in separating the different communities: Chiites, Sunnites and Kurds were forced to live together under a dictator.\nNow that the dictator is gone, they have no reason to stay together.\nKurds wants to reunite with their people in turkey and kurdistan. Iran wants theirs and chaos has came.\nNo way out - Good luck !
444655
Active Army Enlisted, OIF II Veteran.  Despite what is commonly seen in the press and the news networks, the country is steadily improving.  To date, there have been multiple, successful elections, constant improved infrastructure (schools, hospitals, roadways, pipelines, etc.) and a better trained, better supplied military (to include APCs and transport aircraft).\n\nOf course, starting from nothing after the invasion, to it's expected goal, will obviously take a long time.  However, the US must accept the direction Iraq wishes to take with its newfound democracy.  This is a double edge sword that can result in not only a free and successful Iraq, but also a fundamentalist nation, not to far from similar states such as Iran or Palestine.\n\nOne thing that must be remembered that in order to prevent further instability, the US and UK must not force a stable democracy to fast in Iraq.  As it has been seen is many other nations such as Rwanda in the 1990s, when foreign governments intervene with the good intention to produce a stable nation before sed nation is ready to embrace a "mature democracy", the result is further instability and therefore, in the case of Iraq, the increased continued presence of US troops in Iraq.\n\nCase in point, the US was not considered a mature democracy, recognizable to the rest of the world as a first world, influential nation till about 1940 to 1960, around to 180 years after the nation was founded.  As stated before, Iraq needs time and the freedom to set its own government at its own pace.