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.

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.

Tex · 09-28-2007, 06:14 PM

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

Jeff Lebowski · 09-28-2007, 06:15 PM

Tough question, SU. If it's truly unwinnable, then we should pull out. But how can we know that for sure? What a mess.

SoCalCoug · 09-28-2007, 06:25 PM

Very good question. Of course the best option - not going in there in the first place - is not available. It's one of those "you've made your bed, now lie in it" situations.

I voted for the first option. At some point, you've got to cut your losses and pull out. I don't want to keep losing soldiers to Iraqi sectarian violence.

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). .

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.

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	#5
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, 06:15 PM	#6
Jeff Lebowski Charon Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the heart of darkness (Provo) Posts: 9,564	Tough question, SU. If it's truly unwinnable, then we should pull out. But how can we know that for sure? What a mess. __________________ "... the arc of the universe is long but it bends toward justice." Martin Luther King, Jr.

09-28-2007, 06:25 PM	#7
SoCalCoug Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Orange County, California Posts: 3,059	Very good question. Of course the best option - not going in there in the first place - is not available. It's one of those "you've made your bed, now lie in it" situations. I voted for the first option. At some point, you've got to cut your losses and pull out. I don't want to keep losing soldiers to Iraqi sectarian violence. __________________ Get your stinking paws off me, you damned, dirty Yewt! "Now perhaps as I spanked myself screaming out "Kozlowski, say it like you mean it bitch!" might have been out of line, but such was the mood." - Goatnapper "If you want to fatten a pig up to make the pig MORE delicious, you can feed it almost anything. Seriously. The pig is like the car on Back to the Future. You put in garbage, and out comes something magical!" - Cali Coug

09-28-2007, 07:38 PM	#9
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.