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.

Splitting it up, as it happened in the Balkans with Yugoslavia, would only serve the interest of the Great Powers who wish to have a say in the oil business and the general geopolitical makeup.

Small time nationalism is what keeps countries at bay, obedient to the suggestions of the "mighty protectors" and "liberators". Don't fall for that, my friend. Assyrian in Iraq aren't even that many to claim their own territory - the Kurds are many, but Turkey would jump to the sound of the word "Kurdistan"

UNITY is what might give the small-time nations a saying in the great, globalized world. Fragmentation and "let's have each one his own tiny-little-country" is only watering the mill of the Powerful Imperialists. Why do you think Europe is getting togher? In a decade all the countries that split up from Yugoslavia, shall join together again under the EU umbrella.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Can you at least provide some sources? I thirst for information and not one liners.
Btw, don't consider me an information source about this. All I know is that the Osmans still constitute a central unifying force and dumping them in 1 country with centralized rule seems odd for the Britsh. What is this country? How did it all break up again?

From what I have been taught I know 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.

No

not logical

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

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?

Yes all Iraqis, If Iraqi means Assyrian Muslim, of course it is obvious that we can't say that all people of Iraq are Iraqis (Assyrian Muslims) because there are Christian Assyrians too, it became complex!  I mean if the majority of Iraqis are muslims, it can't be a reason to call them Arab!

language is not the only thing to determin nationality

for an example Arabic speaking countries are 21 country with more than three religions

so it is not only language  

add to that religion even with the same language

so it is language , religion , culture and more important these days Money

for example the rich parts dont want to share with poor once

Arabs are not Assyrian muslims, Arabs are Arabs and Assyrians are Assyrians

Arabs speak arabic as their first language

puls the Assyrians are less than 5% of the Iraq population

as per Wikipedia, Iraq Ethnic Groups as follows:

Ethnic groups: Arab 75%-80%, Kurdish 15%-20%, Turkoman, Assyrian or other 5%

Religions: Muslim 97% (Shi'a 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37%), Christian or other 3%

Languages: Arabic, Kurdish (official in Kurdish regions), Assyrian, Armenian

as per Encarta Encyclopedia

About 77 per cent of the population of Iraq are Arabs. Kurds, dwelling in the highlands of northern Iraq, constitute about 19 per cent of the population. The other significant minority, the Turkomans, tend to dominate retail trading in the cities of Mosul and Kirkûk.

so  Iraq is not just Assyrian Muslims or Assyrian christans

they are not even a majority in Iraq.

another point is that Arabic is for people who are arabs not who are muslims

since arabic speaking muslims are only 15% of all muslim popution in the world.

there is people who call them selfs ( Arab faris) Persian Arabs who live in the iranian coast of the Gulf.

they are part of Iraq  and there voice must be heared

but they still like less than 10%

wont make sense to call all Iraq ( Assyrian Muslim )

It also doesn't make sense to call assyrians "christian arabs" or " christian kurds" 

 i agree

they are all Iraqis under one nation which consist of ethnic groups like everywhere.

IMO(In My Opinion) Assyrians groups are  Assyrians  who have different types of religions, just call them assyrian unless they want to be called by each religion.

A fully federal structure with complete autonomy for regions would be good. But that would require leaders to behave as statesmen. It may otherwise lead to administrative paralysis, as the regions fight each other while a weak center looks on.

what about India?

how many different communites does it has?

wont (( Float and Sink )) rule apply to it?