Is Withdrawl From Iraq ETHICAL?

I’m no proponent of the war - have been against it from day one. I was one of the millions upon millions of people around the globe who cared enough about stopping this war to get out and protest it. I have not voted for Democrats before because they weren’t LIBERAL ENOUGH.

…and yet, I don’t think we can leave Iraq. Whether or not you agree with the the fact that we invaded is irrelevant - we’re THERE. We made a terrible mess of an already fucked up country. …but if we left now, Iraq would plunge into civil war, and would probably eventually succum to one or more of the various brutal Islamo-fascist warlords that will vie for control of the nation, or at least part of the nation.

Freedom in Iraq will become a huge fucking joke, and it’ll all be our fault. This will result in MORE terrorists whose fathers died in the war and want revenge. When you kill a man, you invite revenge from all that loved that man, especially his children.

When I was a kid, we went camping a lot. Every time we were there, my Dad would SCOUR the campground for any little pice of paper or plastic or metal that he could, and he’d put it in the trash bag and cart it out when we left. Once I asked him why he was doing what he was doing, and he replied, “Always leave the campground nicer than when you found it.” I’ve tried to live this motto - I fix up houses that I’m renting, I tune up and change the oil in a vehicle prior to selling it, and when I’m hiking, yes, I pick up whatever trash I see.

The point is, aren’t we obligated to clean up the mess we made in Iraq, even if we were against making it in the first place? This isn’t Vietnam where we’re inbetween two sides, one of which will inevitably take over and stabilize the country - there are MANY sides to the battle, and we’re in the thick of it.

The sad part is, I’m not so sure we could clean up this mess if we tried.

…but dammit, we oughta try.

[quote]knewsom wrote:
I’m no proponent of the war - have been against it from day one. I was one of the millions upon millions of people around the globe who cared enough about stopping this war to get out and protest it. I have not voted for Democrats before because they weren’t LIBERAL ENOUGH.

…and yet, I don’t think we can leave Iraq. Whether or not you agree with the the fact that we invaded is irrelevant - we’re THERE. We made a terrible mess of an already fucked up country. …but if we left now, Iraq would plunge into civil war, and would probably eventually succum to one or more of the various brutal Islamo-fascist warlords that will vie for control of the nation, or at least part of the nation.

Freedom in Iraq will become a huge fucking joke, and it’ll all be our fault. This will result in MORE terrorists whose fathers died in the war and want revenge. When you kill a man, you invite revenge from all that loved that man, especially his children.

When I was a kid, we went camping a lot. Every time we were there, my Dad would SCOUR the campground for any little pice of paper or plastic or metal that he could, and he’d put it in the trash bag and cart it out when we left. Once I asked him why he was doing what he was doing, and he replied, “Always leave the campground nicer than when you found it.” I’ve tried to live this motto - I fix up houses that I’m renting, I tune up and change the oil in a vehicle prior to selling it, and when I’m hiking, yes, I pick up whatever trash I see.

The point is, aren’t we obligated to clean up the mess we made in Iraq, even if we were against making it in the first place? This isn’t Vietnam where we’re inbetween two sides, one of which will inevitably take over and stabilize the country - there are MANY sides to the battle, and we’re in the thick of it.

The sad part is, I’m not so sure we could clean up this mess if we tried.

…but dammit, we oughta try.[/quote]

Good post, but it is like Vietnam, in that if we leave the people who die will be people we betrayed. The Communists shot 60,000+ people in the South within six months of taking over. We lost 58,000 soldiers in nearly a decade of war.

I think that if civil war is inevitable and that we cannot give the country a stable government, we should leave right now and not put any more of our soldiers in danger.

If there is a chance that we can salvage the mess and form an acceptable government we need to see it through.

The burden of proof here is on the side that wants to pull out, at least ethically, though politlcally it’s probably reversed.

I think we might need to build a few big bases in Kurd territory, then withdraw everyone to there. Be prepared to swoop in and do what we need to do, but keep our troops out of day to day bullshit.

I don’t know… it’s not so simple.

How many more lives must be thrown away now that the situation is a shambles? How much is enough? Why not simply relocate all US citizens to Iraq and turn it into a state, if the level of responsibility is so high?

At the same time, it’s true, if the situation can truly be salvaged, without incredibly undue cost, then should it not be salvaged?

I’m not sure anybody can provide concise answers… and I don’t know how you measure it. Why are we not willing to use the lives of our citizens to aid those being exterminated in Africa?

Is it okay to stand by and watch in that situation, when the cost is so high, but not in Iraq?

[quote]vroom wrote:
I don’t know… it’s not so simple.

How many more lives must be thrown away now that the situation is a shambles? How much is enough? Why not simply relocate all US citizens to Iraq and turn it into a state, if the level of responsibility is so high?

At the same time, it’s true, if the situation can truly be salvaged, without incredibly undue cost, then should it not be salvaged?

I’m not sure anybody can provide concise answers… and I don’t know how you measure it. Why are we not willing to use the lives of our citizens to aid those being exterminated in Africa?

Is it okay to stand by and watch in that situation, when the cost is so high, but not in Iraq?[/quote]

At least part of the reason why our duty in Iraq is higher is because civil war would be a direct consequence of our invasion.

That being said, I don’t think we are correct in standing by during the ethnic cleansings in Africa.

A part of my post that I left out was the huge epistemological problem of whether or not Iraq actually is salvagable.

Very soon, Iraq will settle down, the oil will start to flow and, 5 years from now, it’ll actually be a mecca for capital and investment. The ‘civil war’ will simply evaporate and the country will boom economically. We SHOULD NOT leave these magnificent people!

I’m putting some chips on the resurgence of a liberated people.

Headhunter

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Very soon, Iraq will settle down, the oil will start to flow and, 5 years from now, it’ll actually be a mecca for capital and investment. The ‘civil war’ will simply evaporate and the country will boom economically. We SHOULD NOT leave these magnificent people!

I’m putting some chips on the resurgence of a liberated people.

Headhunter[/quote]

I hope you’re right, but I’m pretty curious about what, if anything, you’re basing this on.

[quote]doogie wrote:
I think we might need to build a few big bases in Kurd territory, then withdraw everyone to there. Be prepared to swoop in and do what we need to do, but keep our troops out of day to day bullshit.[/quote]

I don’t see civil war. The Sunni’s don’t have enough people or control to make a go of it. If left on their own the Shia will crush them. The only thing that is preventing that are US forces.

That being said, the Kurd’s are reliable and want to be our allies. IF you are going to pick a winner at this point, consolidating in the Kurdish areas to the north and then backing the Shia but not participating in the battles is an interesting tactical proposal, in my opinion.

[quote]hedo wrote:
doogie wrote:
I think we might need to build a few big bases in Kurd territory, then withdraw everyone to there. Be prepared to swoop in and do what we need to do, but keep our troops out of day to day bullshit.

I don’t see civil war. The Sunni’s don’t have enough people or control to make a go of it. If left on their own the Shia will crush them. The only thing that is preventing that are US forces.

That being said, the Kurd’s are reliable and want to be our allies. IF you are going to pick a winner at this point, consolidating in the Kurdish areas to the north and then backing the Shia but not participating in the battles is an interesting tactical proposal, in my opinion.

[/quote]

I’m not asking this sarcastically, but wouldn’t that constitute a civil war? A short lived one, you say, but a civil war nonetheless?

[quote]doogie wrote:
I think we might need to build a few big bases in Kurd territory, then withdraw everyone to there. Be prepared to swoop in and do what we need to do, but keep our troops out of day to day bullshit.[/quote]

I think that’s a really good idea. I believe that idea has been offered by some generals as well. Getting the work done without being seen as “occupiers” would, I believe, be the key to finishing the job in Iraq.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
doogie wrote:
I think we might need to build a few big bases in Kurd territory, then withdraw everyone to there. Be prepared to swoop in and do what we need to do, but keep our troops out of day to day bullshit.

I think that’s a really good idea. I believe that idea has been offered by some generals as well. Getting the work done without being seen as “occupiers” would, I believe, be the key to finishing the job in Iraq.
[/quote]

That was basically Murtha’s idea, only having us outside of the country. We would mainly use airpower to support the Iraqi forces in quelling the insurgency.

[quote]ExNole wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
doogie wrote:
I think we might need to build a few big bases in Kurd territory, then withdraw everyone to there. Be prepared to swoop in and do what we need to do, but keep our troops out of day to day bullshit.

I think that’s a really good idea. I believe that idea has been offered by some generals as well. Getting the work done without being seen as “occupiers” would, I believe, be the key to finishing the job in Iraq.

That was basically Murtha’s idea, only having us outside of the country. We would mainly use airpower to support the Iraqi forces in quelling the insurgency.[/quote]

He wanted to do it from outside the Middle East…Guam actually. That proposal was ridiculous.

[quote]ExNole wrote:
hedo wrote:
doogie wrote:
I think we might need to build a few big bases in Kurd territory, then withdraw everyone to there. Be prepared to swoop in and do what we need to do, but keep our troops out of day to day bullshit.

I don’t see civil war. The Sunni’s don’t have enough people or control to make a go of it. If left on their own the Shia will crush them. The only thing that is preventing that are US forces.

That being said, the Kurd’s are reliable and want to be our allies. IF you are going to pick a winner at this point, consolidating in the Kurdish areas to the north and then backing the Shia but not participating in the battles is an interesting tactical proposal, in my opinion.

I’m not asking this sarcastically, but wouldn’t that constitute a civil war? A short lived one, you say, but a civil war nonetheless?[/quote]

I don’t think the Sunni’s have enough forces to fight. Not even enough for a single battle. Shia’s have a large majority. It would be more of an “ethnic cleansing” then a civil war. Sad to say.

All I have to say is… George Bush created one hell of a clusterfuck, which he can’t and never will get himself out of. He figures to follow through with his original plan and will save face if he comes out victorious…

…not gonna happen. This is Vietnam all over again; you’d have to be blind as a bat not to see that. It was a dumb idea to begin with, now he’s making an even dumber decision by choosing to waste more American lives for a cause that has no prevalant-intended outcome.

God bless the troops. And FUCK George Bush, and fuck all his war cronies. Those fucking suit bastards need to step on the front line next time they want to invade. There wouldn’t be a war if that “commander in oil” actually had to pick up a weapon and fight himself… you’d see how unimportant this invasion really was.

[quote]hedo wrote:
ExNole wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
doogie wrote:
I think we might need to build a few big bases in Kurd territory, then withdraw everyone to there. Be prepared to swoop in and do what we need to do, but keep our troops out of day to day bullshit.

I think that’s a really good idea. I believe that idea has been offered by some generals as well. Getting the work done without being seen as “occupiers” would, I believe, be the key to finishing the job in Iraq.

That was basically Murtha’s idea, only having us outside of the country. We would mainly use airpower to support the Iraqi forces in quelling the insurgency.

He wanted to do it from outside the Middle East…Guam actually. That proposal was ridiculous.
[/quote]

Yeah, Guam is kind of a silly idea.

[quote]hedo wrote:
ExNole wrote:
hedo wrote:
doogie wrote:
I think we might need to build a few big bases in Kurd territory, then withdraw everyone to there. Be prepared to swoop in and do what we need to do, but keep our troops out of day to day bullshit.

I don’t see civil war. The Sunni’s don’t have enough people or control to make a go of it. If left on their own the Shia will crush them. The only thing that is preventing that are US forces.

That being said, the Kurd’s are reliable and want to be our allies. IF you are going to pick a winner at this point, consolidating in the Kurdish areas to the north and then backing the Shia but not participating in the battles is an interesting tactical proposal, in my opinion.

I’m not asking this sarcastically, but wouldn’t that constitute a civil war? A short lived one, you say, but a civil war nonetheless?

I don’t think the Sunni’s have enough forces to fight. Not even enough for a single battle. Shia’s have a large majority. It would be more of an “ethnic cleansing” then a civil war. Sad to say.
[/quote]

Hm. I’d say we have a vested interest in preventing that.

[quote]Go heavy fool wrote:
All I have to say is… George Bush created one hell of a clusterfuck, which he can’t and never will get himself out of. He figures to follow through with his original plan and will save face if he comes out victorious…

…not gonna happen. This is Vietnam all over again; you’d have to be blind as a bat not to see that. It was a dumb idea to begin with, now he’s making an even dumber decision by choosing to waste more American lives for a cause that has no prevelant intended outcome.

Good bless the troops. And FUCK George Bush, and fuck all his war cronies. Those fucking suit bastards need to step on the front line next time they want to invade. There wouldn’t be a war if that “commander in oil” actually had to pick up a weapon and fight himself… you’d see how uninportant this invasion really was.[/quote]

Agreed, dumb idea I did everythign I could to stop this war. that’s not the question.

The question is “WHAT NOW?”

I don’t think the war is going to be wrapped up by the time November 08 rolls around, and I’m pretty sure we’re going to elect a democrat this time, but AS a Democrat, I don’t think it’d be ethical to withdraw at this point. Once we’ve done everything possible to bring stability to the country, yes, we can withdraw, even if we’ve failed. But dammit, we need to try.

In the buildup there was some discussion of creating a Kurdish nation separate from Iraq, and I’m starting to wonder if that wasn’t such a bad idea.

…less to worry about, and a good place to withdraw to… provided we could still prevent ethnic cleansing and all out civil war in Iraq.

Africa is a nonissue as per this discussion - I’d much rather us have gone there than to Iraq, but we’re IN Iraq, and we’ve so far made the situation WORSE. We need to fix this mess before making any others.

[quote]ExNole wrote:
That was basically Murtha’s idea, only having us outside of the country. We would mainly use airpower to support the Iraqi forces in quelling the insurgency.[/quote]

Murtha’s idea redeployed troops ridiculasly far away. I’m talking more to the Iraqi countryside, That would put large amounts of troops immediately deployable if need be, and at the same time give our military presence a low profile. Murtha basicly wanted to redeploy the troops home.

What really needs to be acomplished is the improvements in the country’s municipal system. The citizens of Iraq will be much happier with their government when the lights are on and the water is running all of the time.

Of course Iraq’s resident terrorists certainly want nothing to do with that. If the citizens of Iraq were to be truly happy with a western backed democracy. That would spell d-e-f-e-a-t for the terrorists.

Hopefully we have the mettle to stay the course and finish the job.

Here’s some interesting reads on what’s being done right now.

Overcoming Iraq’s desert
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has begun a well initiative that is due to be completed in mid-summer 2006. At its completion, the initiative will create 49 wells to service 37 Northern Iraqi communities.
www.grd.usace.army.mil/news/releases/recon062706.html

Hibhib Water Treatment Plant Opens
The project, a joint effort between the Iraqi government and coalition forces, will provide clean water for up to 4,000 people.
www.defendamerica.mil/articles/june2006/a062606ms3.html

Three Electrical Substations Completed in Najaf
The three substations represent the first of many improvements to electrical service for the city of Najaf
www.defendamerica.mil/articles/apr2006/a041006ms2.html

I also thought this was an interesting commentary on the news reporting happening in Iraq.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?

q=YjI0NmZhMGVmZjJjOWE2OWNmOTgyNzNiMGEzNjNjM2E=
Major Gaps
[i]Major Gregory Bishop of the 101st Airborne, writes to the Louisville Courier-Journal that the mainstream media is ignoring many of the accomplishments in Iraq:

The bad news stories should absolutely be told. But so should the “not interesting” stories of small Sunni villages receiving clean drinking water for the first time ever because of U.S. troops or their local governments providing for them, or the stories of local and provincial governments that are getting along (at least as well as the politicians in the U.S.) despite ethnic tensions and are making progress for the people of Iraq.

"… Or the Iraqi Army Brigades that are conducting independent operations and who have taken control of their own areas of operations with only small teams of military advisers.

"… Or the fact that electricity capacity is much greater than pre-war levels, but the reason the number of hours of available electricity is low is because the load on the electrical grid has increased exponentially due to the unprecedented availability of air conditioners, TVs, satellite dishes and other appliances that were not available to non-Sunnis during the former regime.

In addition, Major Bishop points out that our enemy in Iraq “feeds off” negative reporting:

Progress is being made, every day, in small ways and in large, newsworthy ways. Our enemy is feeding off of the nature in which U.S. and international media are treating this war. They (the enemy) conduct their operations SOLELY for the purpose of media coverage and to spread fear.[/i]

Like I said, I hope that we have what it takes to finish what we have started. To do so would benefit the world IMHO.

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Very soon, Iraq will settle down, the oil will start to flow and, 5 years from now, it’ll actually be a mecca for capital and investment. The ‘civil war’ will simply evaporate and the country will boom economically. We SHOULD NOT leave these magnificent people!

I’m putting some chips on the resurgence of a liberated people.

Headhunter

I hope you’re right, but I’m pretty curious about what, if anything, you’re basing this on.
[/quote]

Simple. The United States isn’t leaving, the Iraqi people are highly educated, they don’t want to be dominated by Iran (if they are poor and have no US presence, they WILL be dominated). Check the site. For really a pittance, you can roll those dice. Imagine if you could have invested in German stocks in late 1945. The results are simply amazing.