Re Iraq: Which is the greater immorality? - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

SeattleUte · 09-28-2007, 06:05 PM

To abandon our commitment to the Iraqi people we made as consideration for invading and occupying their country, or to continue to perpetuate a war we cannot win?

Requiem · 09-28-2007, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

To abandon our commitment to the Iraqi people we made as consideration for invading and occupying their country, or to continue to perpetuate a war we cannot win?

No good options there. There is another moral choice: do as Sally Field so eloquently said at the Emmy's. Words to the effect that "if women were in charge there would be no more G** D*** wars". No truer words. Wars are nothing more than testosterone gone amuck.

Indy Coug · 09-28-2007, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Requiem

No good options there. There is another moral choice: do as Sally Field so eloquently said at the Emmy's. Words to the effect that "if women were in charge there would be no more G** D*** wars". No truer words...

Well for one, that would mean that Saddam would never have been in power, so I agree.

Tex · 09-28-2007, 06:14 PM

False dichotomy. Who gets to decide what is winnable and what isn't?

SeattleUte · 09-28-2007, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

False dichotomy. Who gets to decide what is winnable and what isn't?

Consider it a hypothetical. For purposes of analysis.

creekster · 09-28-2007, 07:38 PM

This is not a war, it is an on going attempt to consolidate a conquest. The probklem is that we are just not good conquerors. I have been listening to Plutarch describe some of Caesar's wars in Gaul and against the Germaninc tribes and that is a guy that knew how to kick some butt, terrorize, kill and maim and then sweep in and win over the remains. We just won't and can't and shouldn't do it like that. If you aren't willing to do it like that, however, you cannot be a conqueror and you may not be able to be a liberator, unless it is against someone truly evil (hitler? although even in WWII we had our Dresdens which are reminiscent of the best in conquest). .

RockyBalboa · 09-28-2007, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Consider it a hypothetical. For purposes of analysis.

Yeah but as I've been told on here repeatedly that "intellectuals" don't engage in hypotheticals.

YOhio · 09-28-2007, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Requiem

No good options there. There is another moral choice: do as Sally Field so eloquently said at the Emmy's. Words to the effect that "if women were in charge there would be no more G** D*** wars". No truer words...

She must not have been including Cold Wars.

Archaea · 09-28-2007, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Requiem

No good options there. There is another moral choice: do as Sally Field so eloquently said at the Emmy's. Words to the effect that "if women were in charge there would be no more G** D*** wars". No truer words. Wars are nothing more than testosterone gone amuck.

No all out wars just a constant state of discord.

UtahDan · 09-28-2007, 08:01 PM

I think that you have to formulate the options differently:

1. Maintain a military presence that minimally prevents a broader civil war and potentially prevents a region wide war with the understanding that US military personnel will continue to die and that our presence may be permanent.

OR

2. Stop the shedding of American blood, improve our image with former allies in Europe and other places, and remove ourselves from what amounts to a sectarian war for national self determination, understanding that massacre and potentially genocide and region wide war will ensue, without question, at some level and that this will almost certainly damage US markets, perhaps severely.

Couple of great choices eh?

Here is my solution:

Declare our support for an independent Kurdistan and our belief that the former Iraq cannot exist any longer in its current form. Maintain a high level of troops at our new bases in Kurdistan as well as in our old ones in Kuwait.

Apply pressure to Turkey to accept the new Kurdistan by offering them any economic incentives available, but make clear that with Kurdistan as a regional ally we don't need Turkey that badly. At minimum they should understand that they are not to invade.

Simultaneously allow the Sunnis and Shiites in Central and Southern Iraq to fight it out to either control the remaining ground or to divide it. Make it clear to Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria that any military equipment crossing their borders into Iraq will be destroyed. Prior to pulling out, let the UN know that we are doing so and invite them to bring in a peace keeping presence if they desire to. Then it is on their heads when the slaughter ensues.

What a great set of choices we have.

View Poll Results: Re Iraq: Which is the greater immorality?
To perpetuate an unwinnable war indefinitely?	8	42.11%
To abandon our commitment to the Iraqi people?	11	57.89%
Voters: 19. You may not vote on this poll

09-28-2007, 06:05 PM	#1
SeattleUte fairlds.org Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 10,665	Re Iraq: Which is the greater immorality? To abandon our commitment to the Iraqi people we made as consideration for invading and occupying their country, or to continue to perpetuate a war we cannot win? __________________ Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster

09-28-2007, 06:14 PM	#4
Tex Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,596	False dichotomy. Who gets to decide what is winnable and what isn't? __________________ "Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young

09-28-2007, 07:38 PM	#6
creekster Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: the far corner of my mind Posts: 8,711	This is not a war, it is an on going attempt to consolidate a conquest. The probklem is that we are just not good conquerors. I have been listening to Plutarch describe some of Caesar's wars in Gaul and against the Germaninc tribes and that is a guy that knew how to kick some butt, terrorize, kill and maim and then sweep in and win over the remains. We just won't and can't and shouldn't do it like that. If you aren't willing to do it like that, however, you cannot be a conqueror and you may not be able to be a liberator, unless it is against someone truly evil (hitler? although even in WWII we had our Dresdens which are reminiscent of the best in conquest). . __________________ Sorry for th e tpyos.

09-28-2007, 08:01 PM	#10
UtahDan Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Bluth Home Posts: 3,877	I think that you have to formulate the options differently: 1. Maintain a military presence that minimally prevents a broader civil war and potentially prevents a region wide war with the understanding that US military personnel will continue to die and that our presence may be permanent. OR 2. Stop the shedding of American blood, improve our image with former allies in Europe and other places, and remove ourselves from what amounts to a sectarian war for national self determination, understanding that massacre and potentially genocide and region wide war will ensue, without question, at some level and that this will almost certainly damage US markets, perhaps severely. Couple of great choices eh? Here is my solution: Declare our support for an independent Kurdistan and our belief that the former Iraq cannot exist any longer in its current form. Maintain a high level of troops at our new bases in Kurdistan as well as in our old ones in Kuwait. Apply pressure to Turkey to accept the new Kurdistan by offering them any economic incentives available, but make clear that with Kurdistan as a regional ally we don't need Turkey that badly. At minimum they should understand that they are not to invade. Simultaneously allow the Sunnis and Shiites in Central and Southern Iraq to fight it out to either control the remaining ground or to divide it. Make it clear to Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria that any military equipment crossing their borders into Iraq will be destroyed. Prior to pulling out, let the UN know that we are doing so and invite them to bring in a peace keeping presence if they desire to. Then it is on their heads when the slaughter ensues. What a great set of choices we have. __________________ The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. -Galileo