Re Iraq: Which is the greater immorality?

[UtahDan]

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.

[RockyBalboa]

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.

[il Padrino Ute]

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.

That's a crock. There would be wars every 28 days.

[Goatnapper'96]

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.

Still bitter about the asskicking those lady warriors laid on ya, eh?

You are a dear soul, but methinks you are a naive dear soul. Ever considered getting married and spending your time shaking your money maker and canning the best in intermountain apricots?

This is an invitation for Seattle, as he is the most enlightened man on this venue with respect to the womens lib movement, to explain that women are actually more ruthless.

Besides that I am a staunch Republican and I am no longer convinced W is a dude.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

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.

With respect, even if you won't associate with blue collar types and I hail from a long line of same (a little joke), I don't think your solution would unfold the way you describe. Turkey would laugh at us, they would invade Kurdistan, Iran would invade to protect the Shi-'ites and destroy the Sunnis and the whole place would go up inflames and we would probably end up with a lot of dead Kurds, alot of dead Sunnis, a more powerful Iran and no influence over the mess that was left, not even in Turkey (If we support the Kurds' independence the Turks would be long in remembering and not soon willing to cooperate again). All this while Russia is increasingly assertive in the world. Not sure that is a better choice.

[creekster]

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 kidding. That Golda Meir, for example, sure was a pussycat.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by creekster

No kidding. That Golda Meir, for example, sure was a pussycat.

Indira Gandhi and Bhuto were also.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by creekster

With respect, even if you won't associate with blue collar types and I hail from a long line of same (a little joke), I don't think your solution would unfold the way you describe. Turkey would laugh at us, they would invade Kurdistan, Iran would invade to protect the Shi-'ites and destroy the Sunnis and the whole place would go up inflames and we would probably end up with a lot of dead Kurds, alot of dead Sunnis, a more powerful Iran and no influence over the mess that was left, not even in Turkey (If we support the Kurds' independence the Turks would be long in remembering and not soon willing to cooperate again). All this while Russia is increasingly assertive in the world. Not sure that is a better choice.

You're probably right. I'm grasping at straws as there really is no good alternative. And I do associate with blue collar folks, I just don't have much in common with the ones in my ward. Doesn't mean they aren't great folks better than me in many ways. Just means that we don't have much to talk about over dinner.

[ute4ever]

The U.S. f****d up this one big time.

I say withdraw the troops, but continue to send $$ for the damage we caused.

If chaos erupts and their new government asks us to return, then we return.

Or if chaos erupts but they tell us to stay out, and things keep getting worse, wait for the U.N. to say let's all go back in there together.

Presently the U.S. is essentially saying, "We are staying in Iraq because our high and mighty intelligence suspects chaos will erupt if we withdraw, so we're the good guy doing the right thing. They don't want us there, but they are like a child trying to tell the superior parent what to do."

If the U.S. leaves, we don't know if chaos will erupt. It's like we are forcing an advisory opinion upon the Iraqi people.

[FMCoug]

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.

The downside being that we'd still hate Japan and Germany. The whole grudges thing.