Iraqi leaders want timetable-say insurgents not terrorists
- Thread starter kosar
- Start date
I think we can all agree that the way we are "waging" this war, needs to be improved. The borders are not secure. Insurgencies are popping up all over. We address one and another forms and we go to take care of the new one, and the one from before comes back.
nice to have you on our side,stevie...lol
what`s wrong with having the democratically elected government....make the call?
when they feel capable of handling the insurgency.....
if we pulled back immediately,i wonder what fallujah would look like in a week?....i shudder to think..
""terrorism but was a clear acknowledgment of the Sunni position that insurgents should not be labeled as terrorists if their operations do not target innocent civilians or institutions designed to provide for the welfare of Iraqi citizens""..
btw,"the insurgency"isn`t just killing american troops...they`re killing civilians... by the boatload....
lmao........just because they state it,doesn`t make it true...that statement is laughable...
why would we stay a day longer than necessary?...given the political problems that bush has experienced from this war....why would he want to stay a day longer than necessary?
if i were bush,i pray that they`re ready for us to leave...the sooner the better...
what`s wrong with having the democratically elected government....make the call?
when they feel capable of handling the insurgency.....
if we pulled back immediately,i wonder what fallujah would look like in a week?....i shudder to think..
""terrorism but was a clear acknowledgment of the Sunni position that insurgents should not be labeled as terrorists if their operations do not target innocent civilians or institutions designed to provide for the welfare of Iraqi citizens""..
btw,"the insurgency"isn`t just killing american troops...they`re killing civilians... by the boatload....
lmao........just because they state it,doesn`t make it true...that statement is laughable...
why would we stay a day longer than necessary?...given the political problems that bush has experienced from this war....why would he want to stay a day longer than necessary?
if i were bush,i pray that they`re ready for us to leave...the sooner the better...
kosar said:
no we gain credibility because we didnt retreat, we didnt let some maniac push us and our policy around, and we fought back
i know democracy is a big goal of some in the admin, but personally i could care less if they have a democracy...i just want us to be safer...if they get a democracy then so be it
and i believe we are safer because we fought back and didnt retreat
no we gain credibility because we didnt retreat, we didnt let some maniac push us and our policy around, and we fought back
Yeah right! Actually we lose since it is only a matter of time without our presence that one of the sects takes control of the country in a power struggle or the country develops close ties to the current regime in Iran. Half the country does not have functioning electricity and other every day needs, the streets are unsafe to walk on, by our own estimates it will take at least another year to adequately train the Iraq Military so that they will be able to control just portions of the country. Yes I am sure that our forefathers would declare Iraq just a smashing success that is a beacon for the rest of the world to stand up and say yes we also want democracy just like Iraq. Basing a victory on not retreating is moronic and goes completely against what the whole purpose of the occupation which was to set up Iraq as a beacon of democracy in the middle east that the other countries would fall like dominoes to become the next beacon and this has not happened instead we have turned the place into chaos where many people are living in circumstances that are below the levels they were accustomed to under Saddam.
Yeah right! Actually we lose since it is only a matter of time without our presence that one of the sects takes control of the country in a power struggle or the country develops close ties to the current regime in Iran. Half the country does not have functioning electricity and other every day needs, the streets are unsafe to walk on, by our own estimates it will take at least another year to adequately train the Iraq Military so that they will be able to control just portions of the country. Yes I am sure that our forefathers would declare Iraq just a smashing success that is a beacon for the rest of the world to stand up and say yes we also want democracy just like Iraq. Basing a victory on not retreating is moronic and goes completely against what the whole purpose of the occupation which was to set up Iraq as a beacon of democracy in the middle east that the other countries would fall like dominoes to become the next beacon and this has not happened instead we have turned the place into chaos where many people are living in circumstances that are below the levels they were accustomed to under Saddam.
dr. freeze said:
Well I find that to be kind of strange. Isn't that(establishing a real, lasting peaceful democracy) the last remaining saving grace that we have that justifies this thing at all.
If we leave and there is a civil war and eventually a radical government that actually *does* support terrorists, then what exactly did we do to make ourselves safer?
If/when that happens, then this goes down as a tragic, massive failure that i'm sure Wayne won't ever mention as he continues to refer to Somalia every other day.
If we do follow their timetable, one good thing is that we won't have to listen all the yahoos saying that the media cost us this war, after the chaos starts.
Here is a poll Id like to see.
Do Iraqi's feel safer now or when they had Saddam.
Is their quality of life better or worse?
That would be telling
Do Iraqi's feel safer now or when they had Saddam.
Is their quality of life better or worse?
That would be telling
Clem,
I would say your first part would come out 50-50 since depending on your religion you had good reason to fear Saddam, but today it doesnt matter what sect you hail from since it is unsafe to even walk down many of the streets.
Your second part, Im not sure but I do know most if not all of the country had running water and electricity under Saddam, but heck why do need that now they got a constitution.
I would say your first part would come out 50-50 since depending on your religion you had good reason to fear Saddam, but today it doesnt matter what sect you hail from since it is unsafe to even walk down many of the streets.
Your second part, Im not sure but I do know most if not all of the country had running water and electricity under Saddam, but heck why do need that now they got a constitution.
Kosar the story make sense with the recent poll where 78% of Iraq's wish we would go soon. 06 elections are soon so you can count on it. All Bush has to do is leave some troops in Kuwait, Saudi and Jordan. Then were close if needed and we will find out if the bombers will follow our troops or not. With troops that close and our air power we can take care of needed business. I'm surprised we have not started this already.
I don't see any prop with article--you have to take into consideration it was reported by AP guy SALAH NASRAWI and any remarks were twisted to their agenda.
However the basics of it were quite like the Iraq's leaders have been telling us past year.They would like to take over and reduce foreighn troops as soon as possible.
You have to look whats in quotes and whats "presumed" by writer.
example
presumed by writer---
The communique - finalized by Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni leaders Monday - condemned terrorism but was a clear acknowledgment of the Sunni position that insurgents should not be labeled as terrorists if their operations do not target innocent civilians or institutions designed to provide for the welfare of Iraqi citizens.
however I come away with different perspective on latter quote--
"Though resistance is a legitimate right for all people, terrorism does not represent resistance. Therefore, we condemn terrorism and acts of violence, killing and kidnapping targeting Iraqi citizens and humanitarian, civil, government institutions, national resources and houses of worships," the document said
Hard to sperate fact from fiction--kinda like reports earlier that poll showed 80% of Iraq's did not like troops there--yet it was exactly that porportion (Kurds and Shites) of population that was liberated by our troops from Sunni's.Common sense would tell me #'s were tainted--unless they use the liberal accounting of AP I put up here a couble weeks ago--
---worth a second look at their accounting to get their message across--
"Given a choice in the survey, 42 percent favored cutting spending on Iraq to pay for relief efforts on the Gulf Coast, and 29 percent wanted to delay or cancel Republican tax cuts. That's a whopping 71 percent backing options that Bush doesn't even have on the table."
or if you look at it by their reasoning you could say its "whooping"129% the other way and be equally correct.
However the basics of it were quite like the Iraq's leaders have been telling us past year.They would like to take over and reduce foreighn troops as soon as possible.
You have to look whats in quotes and whats "presumed" by writer.
example
presumed by writer---
The communique - finalized by Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni leaders Monday - condemned terrorism but was a clear acknowledgment of the Sunni position that insurgents should not be labeled as terrorists if their operations do not target innocent civilians or institutions designed to provide for the welfare of Iraqi citizens.
however I come away with different perspective on latter quote--
"Though resistance is a legitimate right for all people, terrorism does not represent resistance. Therefore, we condemn terrorism and acts of violence, killing and kidnapping targeting Iraqi citizens and humanitarian, civil, government institutions, national resources and houses of worships," the document said
Hard to sperate fact from fiction--kinda like reports earlier that poll showed 80% of Iraq's did not like troops there--yet it was exactly that porportion (Kurds and Shites) of population that was liberated by our troops from Sunni's.Common sense would tell me #'s were tainted--unless they use the liberal accounting of AP I put up here a couble weeks ago--
---worth a second look at their accounting to get their message across--
"Given a choice in the survey, 42 percent favored cutting spending on Iraq to pay for relief efforts on the Gulf Coast, and 29 percent wanted to delay or cancel Republican tax cuts. That's a whopping 71 percent backing options that Bush doesn't even have on the table."
or if you look at it by their reasoning you could say its "whooping"129% the other way and be equally correct.
My war plan divide the country into 3 parts just like we divided Germany .... Shite ...Sunni ....Kurd That would serve several purposes and flatten Falluja (SP?) Mosul ....and one other city that escapes me at the moment , on departure ! But only after we beat on terrorists for a couple of years ...better their than my house
In doing a little research on Salah Nasrawi previous articles it easy to see wheres he's coming from and has been caught in erronious reporting before in March 05--
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=10&x_journo=404
Salah Nasrawi
Error (Associated Press, Salah Nasrawi, 3/18/05): The Jordanian proposal is meant to amend a Saudi peace initiative adopted at the 2002 Arab summit held in Beirut, which offered Israel peace with all Arab nations on condition it returns all land seized in the six-day war of 1967 - including East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Syria's Golan Heights - in line with U.N. resolutions 242 and 338.
Correction (Updated story, 3/18/05): The Saudi initiative offered Israel peace with all Arab nations on condition that Israel returns all land seized in the six-day war of 1967 in line with the Arab interpretation of U.N. resolution 242. The initiative also calls for the creation of a Palestinian state and a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue. Resolution 242, passed after the 1967 war, calls on Israel to withdraw "from territories occupied in the recent conflict" but does not say explicitly that the pullback should be from all such territories. However, Arabs view the resolution as just that - calling for Israeli withdrawal from East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Syria's Golan Heights.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Also noted on article was nothing but half uncomplete quotes. Below are all quotes in article--is it not surprising NOT ONE is complete--Kinda lets one work ala Micheal Moore on the chop chop to get agenda across--As Clem said--"there you have it"
"legitimate right"
"By the middle of next year we will be 75 percent done in building our forces and by the end of next year it will be fully ready," he told the Arab satellite station Al-Jazeera.
"Though resistance is a legitimate right for all people, terrorism does not represent resistance. Therefore, we condemn terrorism and acts of violence, killing and kidnapping targeting Iraqi citizens and humanitarian, civil, government institutions, national resources and houses of worships," the document said.
The statement also demanded "an immediate end to arbitrary raids and arrests without a documented judicial order."
"We are committed to this statement as far as it is in the best interests of the Iraqi people," said Harith al-Dhari, leader of the powerful Association of Muslim Scholars, a hard-line Sunni group. He said he had reservations about the document as a whole, and delegates said he had again expressed strong opposition to the concept of federalism enshrined in Iraq's new constitution.
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=10&x_journo=404
Salah Nasrawi
Error (Associated Press, Salah Nasrawi, 3/18/05): The Jordanian proposal is meant to amend a Saudi peace initiative adopted at the 2002 Arab summit held in Beirut, which offered Israel peace with all Arab nations on condition it returns all land seized in the six-day war of 1967 - including East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Syria's Golan Heights - in line with U.N. resolutions 242 and 338.
Correction (Updated story, 3/18/05): The Saudi initiative offered Israel peace with all Arab nations on condition that Israel returns all land seized in the six-day war of 1967 in line with the Arab interpretation of U.N. resolution 242. The initiative also calls for the creation of a Palestinian state and a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue. Resolution 242, passed after the 1967 war, calls on Israel to withdraw "from territories occupied in the recent conflict" but does not say explicitly that the pullback should be from all such territories. However, Arabs view the resolution as just that - calling for Israeli withdrawal from East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Syria's Golan Heights.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Also noted on article was nothing but half uncomplete quotes. Below are all quotes in article--is it not surprising NOT ONE is complete--Kinda lets one work ala Micheal Moore on the chop chop to get agenda across--As Clem said--"there you have it"
"legitimate right"
"By the middle of next year we will be 75 percent done in building our forces and by the end of next year it will be fully ready," he told the Arab satellite station Al-Jazeera.
"Though resistance is a legitimate right for all people, terrorism does not represent resistance. Therefore, we condemn terrorism and acts of violence, killing and kidnapping targeting Iraqi citizens and humanitarian, civil, government institutions, national resources and houses of worships," the document said.
The statement also demanded "an immediate end to arbitrary raids and arrests without a documented judicial order."
"We are committed to this statement as far as it is in the best interests of the Iraqi people," said Harith al-Dhari, leader of the powerful Association of Muslim Scholars, a hard-line Sunni group. He said he had reservations about the document as a whole, and delegates said he had again expressed strong opposition to the concept of federalism enshrined in Iraq's new constitution.
DOGS THAT BARK said:In doing a little research on Salah Nasrawi previous articles it easy to see wheres he's coming from and has been caught in erronious reporting before in March 05--
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=10&x_journo=404
Salah Nasrawi
Error (Associated Press, Salah Nasrawi, 3/18/05): The Jordanian proposal is meant to amend a Saudi peace initiative adopted at the 2002 Arab summit held in Beirut, which offered Israel peace with all Arab nations on condition it returns all land seized in the six-day war of 1967 - including East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Syria's Golan Heights - in line with U.N. resolutions 242 and 338.
Correction (Updated story, 3/18/05): The Saudi initiative offered Israel peace with all Arab nations on condition that Israel returns all land seized in the six-day war of 1967 in line with the Arab interpretation of U.N. resolution 242. The initiative also calls for the creation of a Palestinian state and a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue. Resolution 242, passed after the 1967 war, calls on Israel to withdraw "from territories occupied in the recent conflict" but does not say explicitly that the pullback should be from all such territories. However, Arabs view the resolution as just that - calling for Israeli withdrawal from East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Syria's Golan Heights.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Also noted on article was nothing but half uncomplete quotes. Below are all quotes in article--is it not surprising NOT ONE is complete--Kinda lets one work ala Micheal Moore on the chop chop to get agenda across--As Clem said--"there you have it"
"legitimate right"
"By the middle of next year we will be 75 percent done in building our forces and by the end of next year it will be fully ready," he told the Arab satellite station Al-Jazeera.
"Though resistance is a legitimate right for all people, terrorism does not represent resistance. Therefore, we condemn terrorism and acts of violence, killing and kidnapping targeting Iraqi citizens and humanitarian, civil, government institutions, national resources and houses of worships," the document said.
The statement also demanded "an immediate end to arbitrary raids and arrests without a documented judicial order."
"We are committed to this statement as far as it is in the best interests of the Iraqi people," said Harith al-Dhari, leader of the powerful Association of Muslim Scholars, a hard-line Sunni group. He said he had reservations about the document as a whole, and delegates said he had again expressed strong opposition to the concept of federalism enshrined in Iraq's new constitution.
If those aren't the complete quotes, then let's see the complete quotes.
Or maybe we'll just take your word that they are 'half-incomplete quotes.'
Also, the main points were debated on Fox all day yesterday, so I guess they accept the reports.
This wasn't an opinion piece and every major media outlet reported on it and those pieces were even done by people without scaring sounding arab names.
