WHAAAA?! Insurgents offer end to attacks...

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by XNine, Jun 28, 2006.

  1. XNine macrumors 68040


    Apr 7, 2005
    Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
    link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13594032/

    Quite a turn of events. I say Dubbaya needs to take a long look at this.
  2. zimv20 macrumors 601


    Jul 18, 2002
    it's really disheartening that the bush administration would so quickly dismiss this. what a clear indication that their stated goals are not their actual ones.
  3. zap2 macrumors 604


    Mar 8, 2005
    Washington D.C
    And you know Bush would think this is giving up to terrorist, not looking at the over all picture.

    Less USA Troops die, yes Iraqis dies, iraq becomes stronger with a real government. And he still has almost 2 years to do what he wants in iraq
  4. Tanglewood macrumors 6502a


    Jun 7, 2006
    San Diego, CA
    Though they want a lot more than the just the US and international forces getting out by 2008.

    Do you see the US giving money to Saddam for killing his two sons?
    Or better yet release him since he is a detainee?
  5. pseudobrit macrumors 68040


    Jul 23, 2002
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    No, and that's why you'd normally use diplomacy to define your boundaries and come to compromise.

    That is assuming you want peace and you're not a complete sociopath of a leader though.
  6. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Feb 14, 2004
    OBJECTIVE reality
    The view of the insurgents, I'm sure, is that their actions are justified based on the fact that the US attacked Iraq on a false pretense.

    Regardless, they have not fought this as an army repelling an invader. They have used terrorist tactics with little regard as to whom they kill.

    Much as I'd like this to end here and now, I don't believe in making "deals" with these people. First of all, there are so many running around they can't guarantee the violence will stop. Second, I don't believe anybody who goes around blowing up people is in a moral position to demand compensation. Third, now that the government is set up, the insurgents are going to dictate that the Baath party will be in the army and in the government? And that insurgent detainees will be released? Please.

    Yeah, I guess Bush needs to take a look at this -- but he needs to make some demands of his own and refuse others. No way should he consider this a take-it-or-leave-it deal.

    Of course, what am I talking about? He'll turn them down flat.
  7. benthewraith macrumors 68040


    May 27, 2006
    Miami, FL
    I actually hope the Americans don't do it. It means that the other side is desperate, and is willing to budge. The greater they budge, the sweeter the juice will be. While I have my misgivings about how the war has gone, I don't think Bush is the "sociopathic war-mongerer" some claim him to be, and I think he's open for diplomacy (look at Iran and NK).

    We should all just be lucky that the casualties aren't anywhere near WWII. :)
  8. zap2 macrumors 604


    Mar 8, 2005
    Washington D.C
    Hopefully, we do talk it out, releasing some iraqis, fine, they saw use as foriegn invaders attacking there country, i'm sure some american would have done the same(in attacking invading troops). As for releasing Saddamn, well if we get until 2008, perhaps we can get him to the UN first, or make terms that we want to keep him.

    As for paying them for victims of the war.. no as they kill iraqis and our troops as well.

    Most importantly, its a starting point, as long as we can get out, make sure Saddam goes not get back and take power, make a ""freeer" iraq, i think thats a fine trade TO SAVE SOME AMERICAN AND OTHER TROOPS LIFES. That way, we leave with a government in place, and stop the death
  9. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Feb 14, 2004
    OBJECTIVE reality
    Well, benthewraith raises an interesting point. I don't know if they're "desperate", but perhaps they can see as well as we can that this is going nowhere fast, and nobody is gaining anything.

    Certainly one of the main goals should be to stop the bloodshed as soon as possible. The sticking point is the age-old policy -- and not an unwise one -- of never doing business with terrorists.

    So perhaps if you're going to talk to them, you need to do it deep behind the scenes. On the surface, you're still adhering to that policy, but beneath it, you are trying to get something practical done.

    Give the Baath party some power again? Well, maybe...but not immediately. The Iraqi government is just getting on its feet. Tell 'em something like, the Baath party is welcome to run candidates just like any other party, after a reasonable amount of time for the new Iraqi government to establish itself...say, five years or so.

    Release detainees? Again, we're gonna want something for that. Don't expect amnesty for all insurgents then. They may have to turn over some of their leaders to us or the Iraqi government.

    Compensation? Our government is already trying to rebuild the infrastructure. If the insurgents stop blowing that infrastructure up, we can finish rebuilding and turn things over to the Iraqi government.

    Withdraw US forces? Okay...but how about keeping a UN presence in place for a while, to keep things honest?

    Most of all, I'd want to know: is any "deal" we strike going to curtail al-Qaeda's vendetta against the United States?

    Whatever. I still don't think Bush has nearly the finesse to work with these people. He's all "black hats vs. white hats". Clinton could've done this. Or Carter.
  10. zimv20 macrumors 601


    Jul 18, 2002
    i think it's a mistake to equate those 11 sunni groups with everything that ills iraq. first, there are many more groups (foreign fighters, kurdish, shia, et. al.) and it's going to do us no good to lump them all together. secondly, we're mismanaging our expectations if we think striking a deal with the 11 sunni groups is going to stop the violence.

    it's a right mess, and i'm pretty much convinced it'll keep that way so long as the US military has a large presence.
  11. FFTT macrumors 68030


    Apr 17, 2004
    A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
    It's going to take a loooong time before there is any real stability in Iraq.
    From what I heard today that could mean we have at least some troops
    deployed over there for another decade at least.

    The credibility we lost with the Iraqi people by funding no bid contractors
    rather than providing them with meaningful employment from the very onset is now coming back to haunt us.

    The few remaining coalition forces are most definitely insufficient to maintain basic security long enough to turn things around.

    I'm not at all sure what will happen with the original international money and manpower pledged to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, but in all likelihood it looks like we're pretty much on our own.

    Without a meaningful cease fire between religious factions, there is no way
    the troops we have deployed there now can maintain control.

    This administration needs to let go and give the new government a chance
    to regain some sort of stability without looking like a puppet regime.
    Doing so means Iraqis may make some unpopular decisions removing U.S.
    controls and that appears to be this administration's greatest fear.
    They wanted someone "friendly" sitting on all that oil. Someone willing to play along with OPEC's game plan while removing all threats to Israel.

    I was just listening to CSPAN's coverage of the Armed Services Committee meeting about how things are going in Afghanistan.

    It was a real eye opener.

    A few points that really stuck out.

    We have now been deployed in Afghanistan longer than we were deployed in Europe during WWII and our projected stay along with other U.N. peace keeping troops is projected to last into 2020.

    They are dealing with a population that only has about 20% literacy.
    Many of the Afghan army and police recruits did not even know how
    to tie a pair of shoes much less operate or maintain complex equipment.

    After all this time, the Taliban war lords are better equipped than the Afghan National Army mostly due to the sale of drugs to the Russian Mafia.

    The director of the DEA would not comment on how many agents they have
    deployed in that region in open session.

    It appears that the greatest threat there is the trading of arms for drugs.

    There is a projected need for 1.2 billion per year through 2020 just to
    maintain control, build basic infrastructure, roads, health care clinics, schools, and communications.

    The commanding general overseeing Afghanistan told the committee that
    he needs 62,000 troops to make any further progress.

    One thing that came as a bit of a surprise was that Pakistan's army has already suffered more casualties than U.S. and coalition forces combined in their attempt to support this effort.

    I want our troops to come home, but it doesn't seem very realistic any time soon.
  12. mactastic macrumors 68040


    Apr 24, 2003
    And to think we could have done Afghanistan right with half the troops and money we've sunk into Iraq. And we'd probably be much better off in our war on terror. We'd sure as heck have more 'hearts and minds' on our side.

    Such are the potential ramifications of Gore losing the 2000 election...
  13. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Dec 21, 2002
    Yahooville S.C.
    I agree, bring home the troops. Using the Label "Insurgent" for anyone and everyone is more Rovian spin. Most of these people fighting are Iraqi not.........insurgent. Verbal games from King Bush and his pet draft dodgers Karl Rove & Dick Cheney.
  14. FFTT macrumors 68030


    Apr 17, 2004
    A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
    We had full international support going into Afghanistan and still do.

    Afghanistan is actually seen as our primary front against terrorism.

    It is there that the drug trade profoundly threatens international security.

    Weapons and money in return for drugs.

    The Taliban manipulates and controls a huge territory of smuggling routes
    that go back thousands of years.

    This is how the real terror cells are funded and supported.

    The Russian Mafia provides ample support in return for opiates.
  15. solvs macrumors 603


    Jun 25, 2002
    LaLaLand, CA
    I wouldn't say this is an act of desperation, just that this group wants an end to the bloodshed and for us to leave. I'm sure most of them do, but they want to extend the olive branch. I'm sure they know BushCo won't actually take them up on it, but it would be nice to open up talks, if nothing else that to extend a branch ourselves. Better than the cowboy thing we're doing now that's failing so miserably.

    For the record, I don't think Bush is evil, just incompetent and surrounded by the selfish and deluded.

Share This Page