Insurgents offer to halt attacks in Iraq

[Nightson]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060629/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Eleven Sunni insurgent groups have offered an immediate halt to all attacks — including those on American troops — if the United States agrees to withdraw foreign forces from Iraq in two years, insurgent and government officials told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

Think we should take them up on it?

 

[k]

(Mods--please move this to GPD as it will surely be a debating thread.)

This is a smart political move by the Resistance because it's showing the world it is capable of negotiating and revealing an aspect of the invasion many have not seen or denied: The fact that the US NEVER plans to leave.

The Bush Admin will work overtime PR on this to discredit the offer as much as possible because permanent presence in the region has been the goal from the start.

 

[Billnew]

So they will stop attacking the Iraqi people until the
troops that can protect them leave.
What could be the motivation here?

"We train and rebuild our ranks while the troops withdrawl. That way we'll be rested and ready to
put in an oppressive goverment, like there should be.
One where Sunni's(or insert other group) control everything and everyone pays to that group.

Even the enemy love timetables. So whose side are the
Democrats on?

Peace must be fought for. Not plea bargained away.

(for those keeping score, I am not happy with Republicans but the Democrats are even worse.)

 

[MethodMan]

Another deadline - NOPE

 

[dignitized]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060629/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq




Think we should take them up on it?

Do we know that these are actual insurgent groups? Or is it more of the press calling foreigners fighting in Iraq insurgents?

 

[zoziw]

I question if the insurgent groups have a strong enough central leadership to actually be able to follow through with this.

Leaving Iraq now would most likely result in a civil war anyways (it might end up in one even if they stay).

 

[Foolish_Fool]

Eleven insurgent groups is nothing. We really have no idea how many groups or people we are fighting.

We are dealing with so many groups, many of whom have conflicting goals, that it would be impossible to have any sort of negotiations.

Which brings us to the core problem with this war, we really don't know who we're fighting.

 

[Vylo]

Anyone catch their other demands?

• An end to U.S. and Iraqi military operations against insurgent forces.

Uh, sure, if you stop, you know, fighting.

• Compensation for Iraqis killed by U.S. and government forces and reimbursement for property damage.

Civilian Iraqi's? Isn't this what the reconstruction is for?

• An end to the ban on army officers from Saddam's regime in the Iraqi military.

Not comfortable with this.

• An end to the government ban on former members of the Baath Party — which ruled the country under Saddam.

No.

• The release of insurgent detainees.

Are.....are they serious?


This is what we call unrealistic demands. We will set our timetable with the Iraqi government, not the insurgents. They want to stop fighting, they can.

 

[k]

So they will stop attacking the Iraqi people until the
troops that can protect them leave.
What could be the motivation here?

"We train and rebuild our ranks while the troops withdrawl. That way we'll be rested and ready to
put in an oppressive goverment, like there should be.
One where Sunni's(or insert other group) control everything and everyone pays to that group.

Even the enemy love timetables. So whose side are the
Democrats on?

Peace must be fought for. Not plea bargained away.

(for those keeping score, I am not happy with Republicans but the Democrats are even worse.)

The US created a Civil War and is now dealing w/ the consequences. The Resistance could not have not only lasted this long, but actually increased in strength were it not for the help of Iraqis.

While the US may be protecting certain groups in Iraq, those same groups are exploiting that protection to continue fighting the CW. Nobody there is innocent. (except for the children who pay the price for our mistakes/arrogance.)

 

[MichaelFJF]

The US created a Civil War and is now dealing w/ the consequences. The Resistance could not have not only lasted this long, but actually increased in strength were it not for the help of Iraqis.

While the US may be protecting certain groups in Iraq, those same groups are exploiting that protection to continue fighting the CW. Nobody there is innocent. (except for the children who pay the price for our mistakes/arrogance.)

The US created a civil war? That's funny - I had the impression that these people have been blowing each other up for a thousand years.
This "offer" should be dealt with like all other communication from terrorists.

 

[MethodMan]

The US created a civil war? That's funny - I had the impression that these people have been blowing each other up for a thousand years.
This "offer" should be dealt with like all other communication from terrorists.

.

 

[Nightson]

The US created a civil war? That's funny - I had the impression that these people have been blowing each other up for a thousand years.
This "offer" should be dealt with like all other communication from terrorists.

They aren't terrorists, they're insurgents. Unless you define terorrist as anyone who fights against the US military when it invades a country. These groups do not taget civilians.

 

[Nightson]

Anyone catch their other demands?



Uh, sure, if you stop, you know, fighting.

That is what they're offering.

Civilian Iraqi's? Isn't this what the reconstruction is for?

Reconstruction has done very little and has pretty much ground to a halt. In fact I think Bush said that there would be no more money put into reconstruction.

Not comfortable with this.

Agreed

No.

And agreed. That question should be in the hands of the Iraqi government.

Are.....are they serious?

Yes I imagine, the Iraqi government has discussed doing the exac same thing.

 

[Norseman]

Even the enemy love timetables. So whose side are the
Democrats on?

Let's turn those blue states into a glass crater!

 

[Inconel]

They aren't terrorists, they're insurgents. Unless you define terorrist as anyone who fights against the US military when it invades a country. These groups do not taget civilians.

I think the news from Iraq in the past few years says otherwise.

 

[Qrusty]

So whose side are the
Democrats on?

They seem to be siding with our generals on the ground...who's side are you on? You don't support the troops?

 

[Qrusty]

As usual...Neverstop nailed it. This is a political move to get the U.S to state its intentions.

 

[Nightson]

I think the news from Iraq in the past few years says otherwise.

These specific groups do not target civilians as it says in the article.

 

[dignitized]

MOVED
AS per the request of the OP.



Please be aware that this thread was stared in NCE and was moved to GPD on 6/30/06 at 9:32 PM EST.​

 

[k]

The US created a civil war? That's funny - I had the impression that these people have been blowing each other up for a thousand years.

A lot of people have the wrong impressions about the ME but that's why Orientalism exists at all.

Let's look at it like this...prior to the US invasion how many Iraqis were being murdered on a daily basis by other Iraqis? Even with the US occupation it fits the definition of a Civil War.

"A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight for political power or control of an area."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war

Also by definition, there are NO "insurgents" in Iraq because there must first exist a government.

This "offer" should be dealt with like all other communication from terrorists.

So people who defend their Homeland are terrorists?