David Hobby wrote: > > And how do you propose that be done? From what I can make out, most > > Iraqis seem unhappy with the notion of a partition or two, and very > > few areas contain just one ethnic group. So any such > division is bound > > to involve uprooting and dislocation of a lot of people. Given the > > high emotional fallout of any such dislocation, and considering the > > somewhat stressful conditions the Iraqis have already been living > > under, I rate the chances of such an upheaval remaining largely > > peaceful as between nil and zilch. Besides, such partitions > not only > > give boost to sectarian violence, they are almost always > the cause of > > further unrest. > > Ritu-- > > I maintain that a peaceful partition is better than > a decade of civil war, followed by the same division.
I am willing to concede the possibility that it might well be true, David. What I am questioning is the notion of carrying out a peaceful division in the current circumstances. > Yugoslavia, for instance, wound up partitioned. It's not > even clear to me that partitioning is bad per se. Most of the > problems seem to arise when various groups are arguing about > how a country should be partitioned. And various groups invariably argue about how a country should be partitioned. It, after all, is a matter of territory and resources, and therefore a matter of the power they can project later. > If one can broker a "fair" partition, it could all be > fairly painless. I also think that minority groups > could avoid persecution, IF it was clear to all involved > that they were a minority. There are many instances in > history where minorities have been tolerated, even by > societies that one would hesitate to call enlightened. Unless the constitution guarantees equal rights to the minorities, any such 'tolerance' is dependant upon the whims of the majority. And, in practice, it usually means that the minority gives up a large portion of its rights. > >>It would be best for the Iraqi people, > > > > I really don't agree. It would be a very messy situation > even with the > > best of planning and execution, and I doubt that either the > planning > > or the execution would be anything to write home about. > > Wait a minute, I wasn't thinking it would actually > happen in Iraq. Certainly not with the present group > of "planners" who are running the USA! So I was > imagining competent planning and execution, since > this was a thought experiment. *g* Ok > > Ritu > > GCU Partitions Are Bad, Mmm'kay > > ---David > > But sometimes better than the alternatives, Maru. I have been thinking about this, and have realised that I'd have less of a problem with a Partition if the people involved decide they want one - after trying to find a way to run their country without partitioning it. What I seem to be strongly opposed to is the notion of some outsider deciding that partition might be the best simply because they can't control what is happening on the ground and aren't invested in the country enough to want to figure out a solution. I wonder where I got that from... ;) Ritu _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
