This is obviously derrived from the current Iraq situation, but I'd like to extend it to all similar ones. Once Sadaam is completely gone, and Iraq starts thinking about its new government, exactly why should it be defined as a single country? You've got different ethnic groups, different religious beliefs, all manner of people living in the geographic region now defined as Iraq, so once the one guy with the tanks is removed from the picture... what would keep Iraq as a single country? Would the individual groups consider unity to be in their best interest? Should they? And extended to the rest of the world, what makes a country a country, anyhow?
Posted by Dr. Jonas Bashir (Member # 481) on :
I recommend you to go to the local library. The subject has been debated almost 'ad nauseam'. There are those who believe in ethnic unity, others believe in religious homogeinization, while some others theorize about the foundation of nation-states based in a prefabricated, artificial 'national ideal', like the Italian and French republics. I recommend you look for Giuseppe Garibaldi, the most important Italian figure in the 18th Century, as a good explanation of romantic-era ideals and nation building.
Again, there are thousands of volumes about this. I think you should cut your question a little shorter and apply it to the 'possible' future context of the Iraqi state, which is different of the Iraqi nation, which may not exist at all (provided there are three major ethnicities in there).
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
Cut it up into three states. Kurdistan Palistine Bushistan (where all the oil is located)(Bush Gardens maybe?)
It is a big question, and who should decide how it is settled. By all rights, the Arabs should have all say in how it's setteled, but then, how would that be any different then what they have now. The Saud family has ties to Al-Qada, and they are supposed to be allies, or at least not enemies. Maybe we could send them Jerry Lewis. Might make the French happy.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
If the US allows the formation of Kurdistan, the Turks will have a fit. That's the reason they were (are?) revoking their offer to let the US fly over Turkey: they want to send troops into northern Iraq to keep the Kurds down, but the US won't let them. They're afraid the independence of Iraqi Kurdistan will prompt a Kurdish uprising in Turkish Kurdistan.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
And now that I've posted that, they mention on CNN that Turkey has allowed the US to use its airspace unconditionally, but that Turkish troops have, in fact, moved into northern Iraq.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Likewise, allowing Turkish troops to create their "buffer zone" will seriously piss off the Iraqi Kurds -- the very same people we're hoping will form the core (or at least initial leaders) of a new Iraqi government and are currently relying on for some intelligence and contact with potential defectors.
What a wonderful world we live in.
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
Err, didn't Turkey promise that they wouldn't send troops into Iraq a few days ago? I thought there was an agreement with the EU.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Spike: Err, didn't Turkey promise that they wouldn't send troops into Iraq a few days ago? I thought there was an agreement with the EU.
Today CNN reported that the Turks are indeed (and disturbingly so) beginning to enter Northern Iraq.
This could get very ugly. Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Of course, given that the US dropped bombs on Iraq's capital, against the wishes of most of the world, in the interest of "protecting" itself, it hardly seems like they're in a position to complain when Turkey performs a peaceful (so they say) troop redeployment into the same country for the same reason.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Fuck it, we're there, annex the damn place....
If Turkey were to try to get all the Kurds there from Turkey and let them make their own country it would, you think, make their problems less. Of course, trying to talk them in to giving up their ancestoral lands to move to their 'new' country may piss off the Kurds, and the same for Turkey, aww, come on, just give up a few hundred square miles....
Some kind of common unity, such as the desire to control ones group own destiny, the common dislike of the current circumstance of leadership, no taxation without representation, things of this nature. Dividing along ethnic/religious lines is happening as groups become more and more separated in their ideologies and what not.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I'm sure the Kurds will just be asked nicely to leave. There are no worrying historical precedents in the region, at least.
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: Of course, given that the US dropped bombs on Iraq's capital, against the wishes of most of the world, in the interest of "protecting" itself, it hardly seems like they're in a position to complain when Turkey performs a peaceful (so they say) troop redeployment into the same country for the same reason.
Having so much of our shit tied up in Iraq would make it a good time for the small fry to make some moves of their own.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)