Question for the left: Should we take the deal offered by the insurgents? (1 Viewer)

[Goobieman]

Question for those on the left:

Should we jump on this?

Insurgents offer to end attacks for ’08 U.S. exit
Militants set conditions as prime minister offers reconciliation talks

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.

Withdrawal is the centerpiece of a set of demands from the groups, which operate north of Baghdad in the heavily Sunni Arab provinces of Salahuddin and Diyala. Although much of the fighting has been to the west, those provinces are increasingly violent and attacks there have crippled oil and commerce routes.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13594032/

 

[Kelzie]

Re: Question for th eleft: Should we take the deal offered by the insurgents?

Here's my thoughts on it: we will pull out within two years of when the Iraqi army/police force is ready to replace us. Seems more reasonable.

 

[Iriemon]

Re: Question for th eleft: Should we take the deal offered by the insurgents?

If this is a legitimate offer, of course the US should take it. It would reduce the bloodshed and violence, and give Iraq a better chance to rebuild its infastructure. If the Iraqi government is not in shape to run Iraq and cannot stand on its own two feet by that time, it never will.

Stating a date where will absolutely withdraw will prove that the US was not lying when it said it did not intend to control Iraq or its oil, and will be at least a step in the right direction towards establishing credibility.

If the offer is rejected, it would confirm to many Muslims that the radicals are right in what they say about the US and its intent in Iraq.

 

[Goobieman]

Re: Question for th eleft: Should we take the deal offered by the insurgents?

Here's my thoughts on it: we will pull out within two years of when the Iraqi army/police force is ready to replace us. Seems more reasonable.

The insurgency is getting its *** kicked - all they are doing here is asking for a 2-year truce so they can refit and reorganize.

You only offer a truce when you're way ahead or way behind.
They arent way ahead.

 

[Iriemon]

Re: Question for th eleft: Should we take the deal offered by the insurgents?

The insurgency is getting its *** kicked - all they are doing here is asking for a 2-year truce so they can refit and reorganize.

You only offer a truce when you're way ahead or way behind.
They arent way ahead.

1400 bodies arrived at the Baghdad morgue alone last month. They aren't going to establish a working government if that continues.

 

[Kandahar]

Re: Question for th eleft: Should we take the deal offered by the insurgents?

-My- name is Neville Chamberlain

How is it appeasement to withdraw troops after the country is secure? Isn't that what you WANT? What's the difference between:

1. Spending years longer in Iraq with thousands more casualties, then withdrawing within two years of the country being secured (which is by no means a guarantee that it'll ever happen).

2. Securing the peace right now, then withdrawing within two years of the country being secured.


#2 certainly seems more pragmatic to me. Perhaps you can explain how I'm wrong, when this will give you exactly the result in Iraq you're looking for.

 

[Peralin]

Re: Question for th eleft: Should we take the deal offered by the insurgents?

Question for those on the left:

Should we jump on this?



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13594032/

No. The offer sounds good to me, but the USA should never deal with terrorists. It's been government policy for some time now. It sounds harsh, but dealing with terrorists shows weakness, and it will only lead to more attacks. While the offer sounds good, I would be shocked if the insurgencies actually did stop and the US shouldn't trust them to keep their promises.

 

[Goobieman]

Re: Question for th eleft: Should we take the deal offered by the insurgents?

How is it appeasement to withdraw troops after the country is secure? Isn't that what you WANT? What's the difference between:

1. Spending years longer in Iraq with thousands more casualties, then withdrawing within two years of the country being secured (which is by no means a guarantee that it'll ever happen).

2. Securing the peace right now, then withdrawing within two years of the country being secured.


#2 certainly seems more pragmatic to me. Perhaps you can explain how I'm wrong, when this will give you exactly the result in Iraq you're looking for.

What reason do you have to believe that the insurgents will not use this time to refit and reorganize themselves and then resume their activities once we leave?

 

[Kelzie]

Re: Question for th eleft: Should we take the deal offered by the insurgents?

The insurgency is getting its *** kicked - all they are doing here is asking for a 2-year truce so they can refit and reorganize.

You only offer a truce when you're way ahead or way behind.
They arent way ahead.

Which is why I say the two years should start when Iraq is capable of handling itself. We shouldn't be there at that point anyway.

 

[Goobieman]

Re: Question for th eleft: Should we take the deal offered by the insurgents?

Which is why I say the two years should start when Iraq is capable of handling itself. We shouldn't be there at that point anyway.

Right. I agree with you.

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

Re: Question for th eleft: Should we take the deal offered by the insurgents?

Of course I have mixed feelings about this...

On one hand there's a deal that seems to put an end to the violence & would enable Iraq to really begin to govern itself --- But, would these insurgents be able to control the violence from other groups not a part of this truce/agreement? I really don't think so. Or, does this actually include them all? A definite time-table is ignorant --- but, a systematic withdraw that is able to conform to any changes that are needed is the way to go. Certainly a projected time-table might be in order --- but, one that can't roll with the punches/changes would be a shot in the foot (maybe even the head).
Despite what our policy is we've been negotiating with terrorists for years.
Now Israel on the other hand --- take one of our own hostage & we'll bomb the crap out of you --- anything less is a negotiation of sorts.

 

[Kandahar]

Re: Question for th eleft: Should we take the deal offered by the insurgents?

What reason do you have to believe that the insurgents will not use this time to refit and reorganize themselves and then resume their activities once we leave?

None.

What reason do YOU have to believe that if the attacks suddenly stopped tomorrow WITHOUT us agreeing to a deal, that the insurgents were not just using the time to refit and reorganize themselves and then resume their activities once we leave?

 

[Kandahar]

Re: Question for th eleft: Should we take the deal offered by the insurgents?

No. The offer sounds good to me, but the USA should never deal with terrorists.

I would modify that slightly: The US should not deal with terrorists in 99% of cases. This would fall in that remaining 1%, as they've killed thousands of people, are quite capable of killing thousands more, and have imposed a far greater financial drain on the US than any sign of weakness possibly could.

It's been government policy for some time now. It sounds harsh, but dealing with terrorists shows weakness, and it will only lead to more attacks. While the offer sounds good, I would be shocked if the insurgencies actually did stop and the US shouldn't trust them to keep their promises.

I agree, but there's no harm in taking the deal then. If we accept the deal and the attacks don't stop, then we're no better or worse off than we were before.

 

[Goobieman]

Re: Question for th eleft: Should we take the deal offered by the insurgents?

None.

Then there is absolutely no rational reason to take the deal.

What reason do YOU have to believe that if the attacks suddenly stopped tomorrow WITHOUT us agreeing to a deal, that the insurgents were not just using the time to refit and reorganize themselves and then resume their activities once we leave?

Seems to me if they were going to play that game, after three years of getting pounded on day in and day out, they would have done so already.

 

[Kandahar]

Re: Question for th eleft: Should we take the deal offered by the insurgents?

Then there is absolutely no rational reason to take the deal.

Sure there is. You simply aren't framing the question correctly. There's no reason to believe that they won't just wait until we leave if we take this deal...similarly, there's no reason to believe that they won't just wait until we leave if we DON'T take this deal. So let's go with the option that kills less people and costs less money.

Seems to me if they were going to play that game, after three years of getting pounded on day in and day out, they would have done so already.

Right, because terrorists are usually guided by self-interest and rational decision-making processes. :roll:


If you won't trade peace in Iraq for the withdrawal of American troops, walk me through your "road map" to peace. Please explain the best-case scenario of what should happen in Iraq in the next two years, that would not be possible if we agreed to this deal.

 

[Iriemon]

Re: Question for th eleft: Should we take the deal offered by the insurgents?

If you won't trade peace in Iraq for the withdrawal of American troops, walk me through your "road map" to peace. Please explain the best-case scenario of what should happen in Iraq in the next two years, that would not be possible if we agreed to this deal.

I think an undercurrent of neocon thinking is that they do not want to withdraw American troops from Iraq. I have heard it argued many times that one reason for invading Iraq is that it is a strategic location for asserting US interests (ie oil supply) in the region.

The insurgency benefits their position because it provides an excuse for maintaining US forces in Iraq, maybe for generations as some have asserted.

 

[Iriemon]

Re: Question for th eleft: Should we take the deal offered by the insurgents?

Then there is absolutely no rational reason to take the deal.

It is absolutely rational if our goal is the secure Iraq, help it rebuild, and withdraw our forces.

I agree with you if our goal is to maintain a permanent presence in Iraq by US forces.

 

[Navy Pride]

Re: Question for th eleft: Should we take the deal offered by the insurgents?

Not no but Hell no............We should make no deal to leave with terrorists......That is what Liberals do............We should leave Iraq when the Iraqi military and police can handle the security and not one minute sooner.....


You don't negotiate with terrorists no matter how much the left wants to.......

 

[Kandahar]

Re: Question for th eleft: Should we take the deal offered by the insurgents?

Not no but Hell no............We should make no deal to leave with terrorists......That is what Liberals do.

Even if the deal was what the Bush Administration (supposedly) always wanted anyway? Peace in Iraq, followed by the withdrawal of our troops?

...........We should leave Iraq when the Iraqi military and police can handle the security and not one minute sooner.....

If the terrorist attacks stop, they'll be able to handle security tomorrow. Duh.

 

[Navy Pride]

Re: Question for th eleft: Should we take the deal offered by the insurgents?

Even if the deal was what the Bush Administration (supposedly) always wanted anyway? Peace in Iraq, followed by the withdrawal of our troops?



If the terrorist attacks stop, they'll be able to handle security tomorrow. Duh.

I can't believe how you liberals trust what terrorists say in the first place.....Don't you know to them you are the infidel? Don't you know they want to kill you? Wake up and smell the roses........

 

[Kandahar]

Re: Question for th eleft: Should we take the deal offered by the insurgents?

I can't believe how you liberals trust what terrorists say in the first place.....Don't you know to them you are the infidel? Don't you know they want to kill you? Wake up and smell the roses........

Of course, but if we accept the deal and the attacks continue, then we're exactly where we were prior to the offer. There's no HARM in accepting it.

 

[SixStringHero]

Re: Question for th eleft: Should we take the deal offered by the insurgents?

The only way you can have a TRUCE with terrorists is by putting a bullet in their head.

 

[Navy Pride]

Re: Question for th eleft: Should we take the deal offered by the insurgents?

Of course, but if we accept the deal and the attacks continue, then we're exactly where we were prior to the offer. There's no HARM in accepting it.

So we accept it and the terrorists lay low, lick their wounds bring in thousand more then the day after we leave its all out war.............

Liberals trust terrorists, Conservatives don't............

 

[SixStringHero]

Re: Question for th eleft: Should we take the deal offered by the insurgents?

So we accept it and the terrorists lay low, lick their wounds bring in thousand more then the day after we leave its all out war.............

Liberals trust terrorists, Conservatives don't............

Well, I'm not a conservative but I sure as hell don't trust terrorists.

 

[Deegan]

Re: Question for th eleft: Should we take the deal offered by the insurgents?

Well, I'm not a conservative but I sure as hell don't trust terrorists.

He should have said, "Neo-liberals":doh