Do you think Iraq should be cut up ethnicly? - History Forum ~ All Empires

I voted no because I feel that I have to support the minority voice.

If Iraq is cut up ethnically, we'll have new breed of hatred between the races, new debts to settle, new people to kill. And plus, its harder for the US to make deals with multiple ethnicities in their Oil grubbing ambitions.

"Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them"
"Not what goes into the mouth that defiles the Man, but what comes out of the mouth" Matthew 7:12, 15:11

A federation would be the best idea I think. If that's not possible it should be split up.

They already are slipt up. It was a British political invention that these groups are together. Of course, the oil would make a separation difficult.

There were 3 seperate provinces under ottoman rule, with their own degree of automny. The Brits dumped them in one country with centralised rule, and from there the problems started.

Arrrgh!!"

Originally posted by sephodwyrm

that the Osman Empire was carved up into mandates and even Turkey have to fight for their own existence.

Ottoman empire was comprised of many different people. It started being "carved up" when these people started demanding liberty and separation from the Ottoman empire that was condemning them to stagnation (economical, social, scientific etc). French revolution has played it's part since it inspired many revolution leaders same as industrial revolution. The upper classes wanted to follow the examples of Europe in economical development.

Anyway this is a subject by itself, the bottom-line is that the Ottoman Empire (or what was left of it) was divided to pieces according to the majority of the populations, by the victors of WW1. The country that emerged (Turkey) managed to salvage some pieces back (Smyrna region and East Thrace from the Greeks, Armenia from Armenians, Kurdistan from the Kurds...)and create a more or less homogenous population basis for the new state.

The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics

Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin

thats just as much the French and the Belgians as the British, indeed we have seen some of that intelligent policy in Rwanda. If peopel want to be bigots give them seperate states, if people are intelligent enough to work together despite the fact that group X has a bigger nose than group Y have one state, a case b case basis if you will.

"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton

i voted no but it really does not matter... it is already on the brink of civil war, the only thing standing in its way is america... splitting it is the opposite of what we want.

any comments!

"Blessed be my people, Egypt, and the work of my hands, Assyria, and my special possession, Israel!"
(Isaiah 19:23-25)

Originally posted by azimuth

if that is the correct thing to do then you will find 10000 countries in this world

6000 to be correct (if language determin nationality)

If you you say Iraq should be splitted up that doesn't say other countries should be splitted up as well. It's a bit lame if you can prevent or end a war by splitting Iraq up, but don't do it "because otherwise thousands of other countries will declare independence".

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

Why shouldn't we call Iraqis as Assyrian Muslims? In Sassanid period (and even early Islamic), western province of the empire was called Asuristan which means land of Assyrians, we can't say that most of Assyrian were disappeared when Arabs conquered their land but there can be a simple possibility that majority of them converted to Islam like Persian Zoroastrians.

when you said call Iraqis as Assyrian Muslims , you meant all Iraqis??!! since not all of them are Assyrians well i dont know the % but it is small.

and what will the name changing do or help what is happinig?