• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

FT: Iraq Insurgents 'Seek Exit Strategy'

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/7b2a3b4e-9d4e-11d9-a227-00000e2511c8.html

Many of Iraq's predominantly Sunni Arab insurgents would lay down their arms and join the political process in exchange for guarantees of their safety and that of their co-religionists, according to a prominent Sunni politician.

Insurgent leaders fear coming out into the open to talk for fear of being targeted by US military or Iraqi security forces' raids, he said.

Sharif Ali Bin al-Hussein, who heads Iraq's main monarchist movement and is in contact with guerrilla leaders, said many insurgents including former officials of the ruling Ba'ath party, army officers, and Islamists have been searching for a way to end their campaign against US troops and Iraqi government forces since the January 30 election.

Sharif Ali said the success of Iraq's elections dealt the insurgents a demoralising blow, prompting them to consider the need to enter the political process.
 

Interesting article, good post. Wonder how long after they begin their exit we can start thinking about ours?
 
I wonder how long after the insurgents surrender and ask for peace, the left will admit that the invasion may have been a success and that things are taking a turn for the better in Iraq?
 
RightatNYU said:
I wonder how long after the insurgents surrender and ask for peace, the left will admit that the invasion may have been a success and that things are taking a turn for the better in Iraq?
Click to expand...

I certainly think there have been successes and things have taken a turn for the better. And not just in Iraq but the entire region is seeing improvement.
 
RightatNYU said:
I wonder how long after the insurgents surrender and ask for peace, the left will admit that the invasion may have been a success and that things are taking a turn for the better in Iraq?
Click to expand...
While things may indeed turn out for 'the best', this remains to be seen. Comment on things turning out for the best in 10 years or so, when we will actually be able to tell. But, as long as I remember that this war was begun after Bush fooled the public with a series of lies, and also that some 20,000 innocents have died because of it, I will not, nor will I ever, I think, support this war. It was unneccesary. We should have waited ten years or so, until Saddam wad dead. A struggle would have likely insued, and then we could have given aid to the Iraqi people. But I believe this war has not been worth its human and monetary costs.
 

Well, that's your opinion, and you have a right to it. I don't believe that anyone lied to us before this war, and I've got the quotes from everyone on every side of the political spectrum to prove it.

20,000 innocents are dead, but again, many more lives have been saved as a result of the removal of Saddam.

In 10 years, Saddam would have killed at least another 300,000 of his countrymen. Tell the tens of thousands of people who we liberated from Saddam's torture prisons that we should have waited 10 years.
 
And you know that Saddam would have killed 300,000 more people? And how do you know this to be a fact? And how many people did Saddam kill in the previous 10 years that would show that trend? And how about the people held captive in Guatanamo Bay? Should they be liberated by force too? And what about Scarecrow's brain? You can "what if" and "it might have" but still it didn't and you're just using the ends to justify the means.
 
You're right. Saddam killed (at minimum) 600,000 of his own people, but he would have stopped of his own accord.
 
RightatNYU said:
You're right. Saddam killed (at minimum) 600,000 of his own people, but he would have stopped of his own accord.
Click to expand...
In the last ten years? No.
 
What proof do you have that he stopped?

And last time I checked, there were still thousands in the prisons who were freed.

Why do you keep trying to make it seem like Saddam wasn't so bad? "He killed all those people, but most of them were a while ago, so it's okay."
 
RightatNYU said:
What proof do you have that he stopped?
Click to expand...
More genocide would have obviously have come to surface by now. I'm still waiting proof on your crystal ball of another 300,000 dead. That's the more outrageous of claims.

RightatNYU said:
And last time I checked, there were still thousands in the prisons who were freed.
Click to expand...
Are you talking about Iraq or Guatanamo bay?

RightatNYU said:
Why do you keep trying to make it seem like Saddam wasn't so bad? "He killed all those people, but most of them were a while ago, so it's okay."
Click to expand...
Because life isn't so black and white as you make it out to be. Hussein was a horrible person and the citizens of Iraqi are indeed much better off not having him in power. The way the US went to war against Iraq on the premise of WMDs and then the whole politics behind it made us lose a lot of global credibility. Global credibility needed when crying wolf over and over has shown that we're apparently faking it, but now that there is a wolf at the door (North Korea), it's going to be more difficult getting needed support.

Moreover, the facts that you're stating are complete lies because you have no way of proving that those things would happen in the future. And way to try and twist my words so it sounds like I'm condoning Saddam's actions. Don't be a jerk.
 
So, here we are. The bad guys are sniffing around trying to find the best way out of what they see as an impossible position, and the socialist-lib-Dems act as if they are disappointed that this may be seen as vindication of the strategy and tactics of the Bush Administration.

After all, as Shakespeare wrote, "All's well that ends well."

Yet, some folks just can't be pleased.
 
Were these people the "bad guys" before the war started as well or were they just aligned with the ruling party?

The Sunnis that are now amenable to reconciliation are most likely afraid of what is going to happen to them now that they are not in power. I don't see that it was the strategy and tactic to knock the Sunnis out of power by the Bush Administration, I see that the Bush Administration knocked Hussein and his political compatriots out of power and then opened up the elections to everyone. (The compatriots, albeit Sunni, did not necessarily make up the party in and of itself. That's why the Sunnis were still in the electoral process). It would have been doubtful that the Sunnis would have regained power since they are a minority in Iraq.

I'm happy that the Sunnis realize that they cannot take the government back by force and need to start working within the confines of the new system. The ends to this are good, the means to reach them...not so much.
 
shuamort said:
The ends to this are good, the means to reach them...not so much.
Click to expand...
Without the means employed, there would have been no achievement of the ends, thus far.
 
Fantasea said:
Without the means employed, there would have been no achievement of the ends, thus far.
Click to expand...
Most likely very true. It really is a sticky argument to be against the war with the results as they are. I've always sat on the fence neither being for it nor against it. Saddam Hussein needed desperately to be removed from power. There's no doubt in my mind about that. The atrocities committed especially on the Kurdish people needed attention a long time ago and should have been stopped. On the other hand, how we went about it and such still doesn't sit too well for me though. To paraphrase what you said earlier, you can't please everyone.
 
When the house is on fire, what's the best way to put out the blaze?

Given all your concerns, what action by GWB do you think would have been better.
 

How would you have gone about it? The sanctions which did nothing for 10 years, or the weapons inspections which did less?

I can understand how you might be uneasy about the way it played out, but I truly believe there was not a concerted effort to lie about the WMD's in order to have an "excuse" to attack Iraq as many have claimed.
 
I agree with you there that there was not a concerted effort to lie about WMDs. Both sides of the aisle believed that the WMDs existed at one point in time. To claim that Bush lied about 'em is really disingenuous, ill-informed, and ignorant. I believe that Bush believed that they existed.

The problem was that the house turned out not to be burning. The demands we put on Saddam Hussein were literally impossible. Give us your WMDs we said since the inspections brought up nothing. Saddam didn't have the WMDs to hand over because he didn't have any. That's the interesting point.

An interesting "what if" proposition would be, "What if Saddam did have WMDs and conceded and handed them over?" Would the United States still have invaded Iraq? Would we have any justification to do so anymore?
 

That is an interesting question. I am of the school of thought that he should have been removed in Gulf War I, and that we are partly to blame for the poor conditions in Iraq during the 90's.

By allowing the UN to impose sanctions without doing anything more, we allowed Saddam to pretend the country was starving, while he siphoned off billions using Oil-for-food. We also gave him the perfect propaganda to use to convince the Iraqis that they were starving because of the US.

If we had done things differently then, things would be different now. But then, that's the case with pretty much everything.

All we can do now is try to make the best out of the situation. The fact that Zarquawi is in Iraq is a good enough reason for me to support the continued actions against the insurgents.

I say, the insurgents want an exit strategy? Announce amnesty for the average fighters if they hand over the foreign terrorists.
 
shuamort said:
The demands we put on Saddam Hussein were literally impossible. Give us your WMDs we said since the inspections brought up nothing. Saddam didn't have the WMDs to hand over because he didn't have any. That's the interesting point.
Click to expand...
My recollection of events were slightly different. Bush said to hand over your weapons of WMD OR prove that they ALL have been destroyed.

Saddam refused.
 
vauge said:
My recollection of events were slightly different. Bush said to hand over your weapons of WMD OR prove that they ALL have been destroyed.

Saddam refused.
Click to expand...

And might I add, made no effort to make it seem like he was complying either. He got in a ****ing contest, and, well, you can see where that will end him.

On a scaffold.
 
Vauge, here's what Bush said in his State of the Union address dated 3/17/03:

He did say in February:
.


So yes, Iraq said that all WMDs are gone and apparently that was correct (as of today). You were right that a contingency was also to prove that the WMDs were destroyed. I haven't found fact that Iraq ever showed proof or even attempted to.
 
shuamort said:
So yes, Iraq said that all WMDs are gone and apparently that was correct (as of today). You were right that a contingency was also to prove that the WMDs were destroyed. I haven't found fact that Iraq ever showed proof or even attempted to.
Click to expand...

And if one wanted to be a stickler for the letter of the law, one could claim that that alone was grounds for the invasion. I agree that it's a shame they weren't found, but I'm still not convinced that there were no attempts to develop weapons.

Also, there's the issue of Saddam funding Palestinian terrorism, which, although it wasn't specifically brough up, was enough to tie him to terror...
 
While the surface is still being scratched in the matter of the UN Oil for Food Program scandals, the 'leakouts' seem to confirm that Saddam Hussein was buying influence among members of the Security Council. Major arms purchases, in violation of the UN embargo, went on for some time.

There were stories circulating that Hussein was assured separately by France, Germany, and Russia that they would vote to avoid hostilities, which they did. Based upon it's track record, neither Hussein, nor France, Germany, or Russia believed, right up to the end, that the US would never act without Security Council approval, which they knew, of course, would never be given.

Having bought a few heavy hitters for his team, Hussein just continued to play the game he had been playing for twelve years.

Perhaps the stories will be confirmed as information is released. On the other hand, in the interests of permitting France, Germany, and Russia to avoid embarrassment, the information may be buried.

All that notwithstanding, they didn't expect the "Sheriff from Texas" to keep his word. They know better now.
 
Very good points. :applaud
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…