Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Trotsky · Aug 11, 2005, 07:45 am

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/news..._0_UK-IRAQ.xml

Quote:

NAJAF, Iraq (Reuters) - Shi'ite Islamist leaders hammered home demands for an autonomous federal state for their people across oil-rich southern Iraq on Thursday, four days before a deadline for agreeing a new constitution.

Minority Sunni Arab leaders, as well as a spokesman for the Shi'ite-led coalition government, rejected the idea and it was unclear whether the split would hold up delivery of a draft text that Washington hopes can help quell the Sunni insurgency.

At an impassioned mass rally in Najaf, heartland of Shi'ite Islam, the leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution Abdul Aziz al-Hakim turned up the pressure on his opponents from ethnic and religious minorities as the head of his party's military wing derided central government in Baghdad.

"Regarding federalism, we think that it is necessary to form one entire region in the south," said Hakim, leader of SCIRI, and a powerful force in the coalition that came to power in January's election, secured by U.S. military occupation.

Shi'ites account for about 60 percent of Iraq's people and the issue of autonomy raises major concerns for the country's ability to hold together and for the division of its oil wealth.

Sunni Arabs, dominant under Saddam Hussein, other minorities and secular Shi'ites wary of religious rule have been opposing the idea of a constitution that would allow southern Shi'ites the kind of autonomy now enjoyed de facto by Kurds in the north.

Perhaps a federal approach is the only way to get some sort of democratic stability down there. Dunno if the Turks and the Syrians will be too happy due to their large Kurdish population, but apparently the only other solution is the three state approach which the Turks and the Syrians will not accept. You can guarantee some sort of uprising to unify the mythical Kurdistan which would just decend the whole region into chaos.

PatrickHenry · Aug 11, 2005, 03:05 pm

Why do the Kurdish people not deserve an independent state? Is self-determination an invalid concept for residents of the Middle East?

Trotsky · Aug 11, 2005, 05:09 pm

Self determination is fine, I'm all for it....just If say the once migratory Kurdish people establish a country called Kurdistan....will they guarantee the rights of say the local Turkmeni populations, the Arab populations or are they gonna pull an Israel on it and attempt to build a "pure" Kurdish nation? Also everytime I see a new map of Kurdistan is seems to get bigger and bigger and bigger. More and more of Syria, Iraq and Turkey seem to fall under its borders everytime

monty of ll · Aug 11, 2005, 06:29 pm

Patrick Henry- Don't you see the problem with self determination? Look at what happened in Kosovo when the ethnic Albanians decided to make it a part of greater Albania. Now the Serb population of a province that belongs to FRY is being ethnically cleansed of all Serbs. Canadians need look no further than Quebec to see the problems with self determination. If we give up Quebec to the separatists then will they let the English speaking people of Quebec live in the province, respecting all their rights that go along with their English heritage?

Once people start looking into the pitfalls of allowing the different ethnic factions to have their way, the problems with that approach become quite obvious. As Milosevic knew very well and I suggest, Saddam also knew very well.

It's not usually a huge problem that can't be overcome by peaceful means and then sometimes a country's leaders resorting to force when necessary in order to prevent bigger problems. But when an outside influence such as the U.S., in the case of Iraq, begins to capitalize on the divisions between religious and ethnic groups to encourage splits for their (U.S.) own selfish reasons, that's when the big problems begin.

Just ask yourself, if you want to break up a country in order to weaken that country then what better way to accomplish your goals? And I might just add, for what it's worth, what better way to hold a country together than to continuously wave the flag and convince the people that they have the best country in the world?

Aug 11, 2005, 03:05 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
PatrickHenry 9/11: Inside Job Location: Hawai'i, Big Island Posts: 10,446	Why do the Kurdish people not deserve an independent state? Is self-determination an invalid concept for residents of the Middle East? "Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." -- John Adams

Aug 11, 2005, 05:09 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
Trotsky Stront vir breins Location: Buckinghamshire, UK Posts: 542	Self determination is fine, I'm all for it....just If say the once migratory Kurdish people establish a country called Kurdistan....will they guarantee the rights of say the local Turkmeni populations, the Arab populations or are they gonna pull an Israel on it and attempt to build a "pure" Kurdish nation? Also everytime I see a new map of Kurdistan is seems to get bigger and bigger and bigger. More and more of Syria, Iraq and Turkey seem to fall under its borders everytime " UKIP -- the United Kingdom Independence Party, the golf club version of the BNP, British National Party. " Middle East.. "The vile leading the stupid to kill the decent in the name of the holy."

Aug 11, 2005, 06:29 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
monty of ll Igneous Magma Posts: 169	Patrick Henry- Don't you see the problem with self determination? Look at what happened in Kosovo when the ethnic Albanians decided to make it a part of greater Albania. Now the Serb population of a province that belongs to FRY is being ethnically cleansed of all Serbs. Canadians need look no further than Quebec to see the problems with self determination. If we give up Quebec to the separatists then will they let the English speaking people of Quebec live in the province, respecting all their rights that go along with their English heritage? Once people start looking into the pitfalls of allowing the different ethnic factions to have their way, the problems with that approach become quite obvious. As Milosevic knew very well and I suggest, Saddam also knew very well. It's not usually a huge problem that can't be overcome by peaceful means and then sometimes a country's leaders resorting to force when necessary in order to prevent bigger problems. But when an outside influence such as the U.S., in the case of Iraq, begins to capitalize on the divisions between religious and ethnic groups to encourage splits for their (U.S.) own selfish reasons, that's when the big problems begin. Just ask yourself, if you want to break up a country in order to weaken that country then what better way to accomplish your goals? And I might just add, for what it's worth, what better way to hold a country together than to continuously wave the flag and convince the people that they have the best country in the world?