Amnesty for "terrorists"
 

Iraq wants us to leave. Our presence there just incites violence. As part of their request, they've said something along the lines of "nationalism (insurgency) is the right of all peoples."

So, the Iraqi government recognizes that it will need to apply some sort of anmesty to its citizens who resented the presence of the US military on sovereign Iraqi soil. Kinda like you would feel if someone invaded America as some sort of so-called "international police action." The amnesty thing, if you think about it for a moment, will be necessary.

Now, what will you neocons, who do not distinguish between the terms "insurgency" and "terrorism" think about that? Will you like the fine new country of Iraq that we've created?

We are going to need to leave lots of spys there, they will remember this for the next 1,000 years.

****, who thought this one up again?

I support amnesty for neoconservatives.

Amnesty isn't for resentment, it's for turning that resentment into action.

Don't all conflicts end with that sort of amnesty? There were plenty of Germans after WWII that had attempted to murder our soldiers, and we granted them amnesty. No big deal.

However, the other side to that coin is that after we're gone, they do not continue to practice their "resentment" on our business assets, our tall buildings, our subways, etc.

Re: Amnesty for "terrorists"
 

Are these your thoughts, or did you read this somewhere. Either way, I believe amnesty is/will be necessary.

We have to face the fact we lost this war. Just like Vietnam.

Plenty of amnesty from the beginning. Baathist party bigwigs who were never rounded up in the first place.

dd74, I don't have thoughts of my own. I saw this on the news this morning.

RallyJon, if a foreign country invaded Pennsylvania to oust your governor, would your resentment be limited to internal feelings, or is there a chance you would defend your country?

So......when these terrorists are granted amnesty, we'll all be okay with that?

I think Supes refers to official amnesty, which flies more in the face of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld than against any other perceived impetus, reason or cause.

I will. The sooner this debacle ends, the better. It's going nowhere. NOWHERE!

So disbanding the Iraqi Army and Baathist Party was not an amnesty? So they were just lucky?

Well, after the evil Ed Rendell was deposed and freedom came to our land ;) , a peace would be declared and I would hope to be granted amnesty.

Seriously, how is the WWII German soldier any different from the Iraqi insurgent? At some point, the conflict ends and you stop shooting. If you keep shooting, you stop being a soldier and you start being an outlaw/terrorist. The various administration-marketing definitions going around are a red herring.

When our troops begin to leave Iraq, I'm sure that amnesty doesn't mean they get to shoot at us on the way out. What sense would that make?

Let's face it -- we are deep in the rabbit hole right now. Nobody has a plan or a clue for how we get out. The repubs have, as usual, been better at the marketing side of things, and made the "Democrats have no plan" mantra stick.

The admin plan? The repub plan? None, the Senate had to pass a Resolution asking for one last week!

The Iraqis want us out, we need to get out. Hopefully whatever government shapes up there will not be too hostile to the U.S. That's the only "plan" left.

Amnesty? Heck, we'll be lucky if they don’t form an alliance with Iran to develop nuclear weapons. Amnesty is going to be the least of the insults to come.

Alright, just to distill it down to basics:

If you used to shoot at American soldiers IN Iraq, and you stopped when they left, you are a soldier/resistance fighter/whatever and you get amnesty.

If you used to shoot at American soldiers IN Iraq, and you started looking for other Americans to kill after they left, you are a terrorist and you don't get amnesty.

If you used to shoot at Iraqi policemen, women showing a bit of leg, and anyone else you don't like the looks of, you are a criminal scumbag and you don't get amnesty.

Lucky? Why do you think Talabani was in Iran the other day?

Except if they make you Mayor of Basra. Or vice president. Then you're ok.

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't - but if you're pro war in this region, your question just blew a huge hole in the effort.

...think about it: if disbanding the Iraqi Army and Baathist Party was amnesty created to stem the violence, why are we still there? To use military force? Which also isn't working?

Look, as it seems, the whole reason for this quagmire was to secure the oil. Then go ahead, surround the fields with U.S. Forces, and take it. Quit ****ing with the country's infrastructure by forcing democracy down their throats.

Which do you think is preferable to the administration:

1) All our troops wandering around a hostile Iraq, getting picked off a few at a time for an undefined goal, or

2) All our troops home with their families, and a new, definable, evil entity building WMDs and openly hostile to America?

If I was a Republican running for office, I would take #2 in a heartbeat. Iran spouting rhetoric, influencing fragile Iraq and building nuclear weapons is a neo-con marketing dream come true.

y'all fail to notice the simple facts :

A it's their country
B it hardly ever posed a thread to y'all great nation
C your guys bleed harder then their guys.... (hell they just blow up voluntary)

my conclustion .... Sadam is gone , so what , bring on the next new Sadam , i'm sure hte CIA will sponsor his ass, and in 20 years from now , let's discuss the situation agian over Gulfwar 3 ( give em some tmie to regroup after Gulfwar 1&2 , yeas? )

Sadly, it isn't that simple. Didn't ya'll get the memo from OBL? The goal isn't to get America out of Iraq, or even to get America out of Israel or the entire Mid-East, or even to get Israel out of the Mid-East. The goal is the wholesale extermination of all non-Muslims. The President lacks the sack to come out and say it, and the American people lack the situational awareness to admit it, but whether we want it or not, we are in the midst of a holy war. While the applicability of Iraq as a part of The Big Picture can be debated, focusing on Iraq as the end-all-be-all of this problem is tragically short-sighted.

Re: Re: Amnesty for "terrorists"
 

That's right, just like Britian had lost Europe at Dunkirk, or the Yanks had lost the Pacific on Dec 7 1941.:rolleyes: