Iraqi PM Offers Olive Branch to Insurgents
- 06-25-2006, 03:35 PM
Iraqi PM Offers Olive Branch to Insurgents
These are public policy decisions for the Iraqis to decide for themselves, but this doesn't make sense to me even if we are to accept that the underlying idea is a good one.
If you're going to grant pardons only to those "insurgents" who haven't killed anyone, are you really granting pardons to "insurgents"? Wouldn't an "insurgent" who hasn't killed anyone be better decribed as merely "disgruntled"? Isn't the idea of an amnesty program to get people to lay down their arms and join the political process? Is an amnesty going to work if you only open it up to those so ineffective that they couldn't actually kill anyone or so unmotivated that they didn't try?
Iraqi PM Offers Olive Branch to Insurgents
By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Sunday offered an olive branch to insurgents who join in rebuilding Iraq and said lawmakers should set a timeline for the Iraqi military and police to take control of security throughout the country.
The prime minister made no mention of any timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces in a 24-point national reconciliation plan he presented to parliament.
The plan would include an amnesty for insurgents and opposition figures who have not been involved in terrorist activities. Al-Maliki stressed that insurgent killers would not escape justice.
``The launch of this national reconciliation initiative should not be read as a reward for the killers and criminals or acceptance of their actions,'' he said. ``There can be no agreement with them unless they face the justice.''
The Iraqi leader, who has been in power just over a month, said he was realistic about the difficult road that lay ahead.
``We realize that there is a legion of those who have tread the path of evil (who) ... will continue with their criminal acts,'' he said.
But he held out an offer of peace to those who renounce violence, while threatening retribution and punishment to those who do not.
``To those who want to rebuild our country, we present an olive branch ... And to those who insist on killing and terrorism, we present a fist with the power of law to protect our country and people,'' he told lawmakers, who applauded his speech.
The plan won the endorsement of the senior Sunni political figure in parliament.
``In the name of Iraqi Accordance Front, I support and agree with this initiative and call upon all Iraqis to support it because it will be the first step toward security, stability and the building new Iraq,'' said Adnan al-Dulaimi, the leader of Accordance Front, which represents the three key Sunni political parties in parliament.
The Iraqi parliament was to debate the plan, which is believed to face considerable opposition among hard-liners on both sides of the Sunni-Shiite divide.
In southern Iraq, the first of Japan's force of 600 soldiers started withdrawing from the country, crossing the border into Kuwait, according to Associated Press reporters and the Japanese Defense Agency
The Japanese withdrawal began with the departure of about 15 vehicles transporting trucks, bulldozers and equipment from the provincial capital of Samawah early Sunday morning for the 210-mile journey south to Kuwait. Japanese troops were conducting a humanitarian and reconstruction mission.
Al-Maliki's reconciliation plan said there should be a timeline established for Iraqi forces to take over all security duties in the country. It included no specifics on the withdrawal of American and British forces, a Shiite lawmaker told The Associated Press.
Al-Maliki said the general amnesty would exclude ``those who committed crimes against the Iraqi people.''
The most controversial section of the amnesty plan was left ambiguous. Initially it was said to have excluded only those who had killed Iraqi people. But in parliament Sunday, al-Maliki spoke of refusing amnesty to those who had committed terrorist acts, apparently including attacks on American military personnel.
The plan also seeks compensation for former detainees ``and those who were killed by Iraqi and American forces.'' Time spent in prison would be considered as part of a former detainee's mandatory military service.
An early draft of the plan also called for a general pardon for thousands of prisoners who are determined not to have committed ``crimes and clear terrorist actions.''
Hundreds of prisoners have been pardoned and release in recent months in what is seen as a bid by the Shiite-dominated government to appease Sunni Arab anger over allegations of random detentions and maltreatment.
The proposal also would set rules of engagement for military offensives, requiring military leaders to take into consideration and special conditions that might indicate an attack is not warranted.
That was seen as a bid to alleviate Sunni anger over the alleged killing of innocent civilians and bystanders by U.S. and Iraqi forces.
The reconciliation plan also would call for a reconsideration of policies against supporters of former President Saddam Hussein's outlawed Baath party.
The plan said a dialogue should be opened with all organizations willing to participate in the political process ``except al-Qaida'' and hard-line supporters of Saddam.
Shortly after taking office May 20, al-Maliki vowed to take over security responsibilities from American and other foreign troops in all of Iraq's 18 provinces within 18 months.
He already has announced plans to take over security from coalition forces in the southern province of Muthanna next month and Japan ordered the withdrawal of its 600 ground troops home from the area.
The New York Times reported that U.S. Gen. George W. Casey Jr. has drafted a plan that projects sharp reductions in the United States military presence in Iraq, with the number of American combat brigades projected to decrease to 5 or 6 from the current level of 14 by the end of 2007.
The first reductions would involve two combat brigades that would rotate out of Iraq in September without being replaced, according to the plan Combat brigades, which generally have about 3,500 troops, do not make up the bulk of the 127,000-member American force in Iraq.
The report cited officials describing a classified briefing at the Pentagon this week by Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq.
Military officials in Iraq, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition on anonymity because they were not authorized to disclose the information, said there were plans to start the withdrawal by pulling out two brigades in late summer or early fall. Those troops could include forces currently based in the west of Baghdad and in Salaheddin province to the north of the capital.
The administration has repeatedly said that U.S. troops will stay in Iraq until Iraqi security forces can defend the country against a lethal insurgency that rose up after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion toppled Saddam Hussein.
Casey said earlier this week that he expected reductions in U.S. forces this year but did not agree with congressional efforts to put a timetable on the effort.
Associated Press writers Kim Gamel and Sinan Salaheddin contributed to this report.
Last edited by yeahright; 06-25-2006 at 06:00 PM.
- 06-25-2006, 04:22 PM
we did the same thing in our country after the civil war.. and if iraq went into a civil war.. the winning faction would have to do the same thing if they wished for peace.. but i will say.. if they give amnesty for those that killed... then i will then say leave iraq and wash our hands of it...
there is something to be said about having non violent insurgents.. they do exsist.. it may not be the best name for them.. but they are just as effective as guns... just ask the british whilst in India
06-25-2006, 05:57 PM
I fully understand that all civil wars end with some such amnesty. But the purpose there is to convert combatants into noncombatants.Originally Posted by MaynardMeek
Here, by limiting the amnesty to noncombatants, the program won't actually reduce violence. By definition, it won't turn combatants into noncombatants.
This just puzzles me.
It's like saying that the government is willing to forgive those too timid or inept to put up effective resistance but that those who are effective (those who have inflicted death upon Coalition and Iraqi forces) have no other choice but to fight on.
I don't understand what this amnesty program is supposed to achieve.
This would appear to harden the resolve of those who are good at fighting us and offer forgiveness to those who weren't fighting us....so what are they being forgiven for? Not liking us?
As to India, there is no such analogous nonviolent civil disobedience resistance to Coalition and Iraqi forces....so that's a nonpoint.
06-26-2006, 09:55 AM
They may or may not have any sort of civil disobedience resistance and i would not totally reject anyone saying anything in the affirmative regarding it. I do also know that our media would jump on that if it were or is taking place.. anything to show how horrible our troops are and bush.. the better for them. But civil disobedience resistance, for the argument, can be slotted into the deffinition of insurgent... guns do not make a war.
the only good that can come of this selective program is to put more people in line for a common cause... so though these people aren't the ones causing the violence in Iraq.. they are not doing anything to stop it.. and that is just as bad.... so... get them together.. unify... .... this is the most half full way i can look at this
06-26-2006, 11:30 AM
Consider though that the violent need the support and often the help of the nonviolent. Those who move the money, secure the safe houses, arrange the delivery of weapons, etc. Some of those guys may just want a way out, and if both sides would be after their skin upon surrender it makes the status quo look better. If however they can get some measure of personal security by coming to the side of the government they may be more likely to leave their companions in the insurgency swinging.Originally Posted by yeahright
06-26-2006, 01:50 PM
Perhaps......I'm trying to think of another model in history where such a limited amnesty has de-escalated a conflict....drawing a blank at the moment.Originally Posted by CDB
06-26-2006, 02:51 PM
Me too, but a complete cessation of hostilities is perhaps not the goal, perhaps because it's not possible in the end.Originally Posted by yeahright
06-26-2006, 02:56 PM
Yeah, some conflicts end when people put away the guns and go back to work. Others just sputter out slowly as the combatants die and the conditions which created the combatants change over time.Originally Posted by CDB
06-27-2006, 09:36 AM
06-27-2006, 11:31 AM
it will never end, it hasn't even really ended in the USA. From time to time you get branch groups who stock pile guns etc and try to become their own little nation. For right now Waco comes to mind.. but something like that doesn't effect much of the outside world because our government is big enough to let those people know... you come out here, you will be removed from this earth. That is what the iraqi government has to do.. find that balance between violence and law....and use each as needed...
06-27-2006, 06:49 PM
The way it has been successfully done in Egypt, Algeria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc where there has been Islamo facist scumbags, is to hunt them down systematically and kill them off wholesale with all the brutality necessary.
Divide the conquer. Those who don't submit, are systematically hunted down and killed off. But I am sure that would be too much for bleeding hearts to stomach. When you get on the Most Wanted List of Saudi Arabia, there ain't going to be your Miranda rights and free legal counsel.
Let's face it. The reality is, the majority of the Sunnis will grab the best deal they can get. Because, despite the media rheotic, they know they are ****ed. The media would like to pretend that this so called insurgent is winning. LMAO. But the 'insurgents' and the people there, they know better what reality is. Either get the best deal they can or face slaughter. As soon as the US leaves, they are finished. They have done all the killing, torture and rape for decades. They know they are on the receiving end of it now. And there will be no restrain once the US leaves. The Kurds and the Sh1tes know who those with blood on their hands are, because those Sunnis oppressors have never bothered to hide their identities back then.
Those with blood on their hands will pay, one way or the other. The Kurds and the Shtes are not going to let them off without extracting revenge for decades of killing, rape and torture. They don't give a raging **** what the bleeding hearts in the west think.
Extracting revenge is a matter of honor and tradition.
Those with no blood on their hands will cut the best deal they can. Those with blood, with fight on, and will be killed off.
06-27-2006, 10:05 PM
"Those with no blood on their hands will cut the best deal they can. Those with blood, with fight on, and will be killed off."
To some extent yes, but there is and is going to be movements by the Sunni to get their people into positions of power, influence or even just strategically positioned like the current Iraqi prison system problems. The worst of the Sunni oppressors will be remembered and hunted if they leave the Sunni controlled areas, but one must not underestimate the determination of those who are resentful of the new Iraqi govt for a myriad of reasons.
It makes sense in the end to offer inclusion to as many people as possible. There's no way to seperate the wheat from the chaff here...no way of knowing who was "violent" and who was not. We don't even currently know that and have hired on many who seek to subvert the system. BUT, all wars come to a point where both sides need to forget about revenge and just start working together to form a common cause.
06-27-2006, 10:23 PM
Ahhhhhhh, you've misdiagnosed the problem in Iraq. First off, the Islamo Facist Scumbags WON the elections were set up for them. The two main Shia religious parties in power are pretty bad (Sadr's being more fundamentalist) and they are already running parallel government institutions according to Islamic law.Originally Posted by BioHazzard
Of the insurgent groups, only those allied with Al Queda are fighting for a pure Islamist state (Shia are considered deviants from true Islam). Most of the insurgent groups claim some sort of nationalist or tribal affiliation.
Moreover, none of those states you cite are democracies.
Egypt and Algeria are very interesting examples. In Algeria, the Islamist parties were going to win the elections (according to polls) in 1992 so the military cancelled them. There has been a state of emergency with mass killings, censorship, arbitrary imprisonment ever since.
In Egypt just this year the police lined up outside polling stations and beat people who tried to vote after parties aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood were winning the exit polls.
So, you're left with a very interesting philosophical problem. If the Islamist parties are going to win free and fair elections (and then impose Islamic law), do you subvert the democracy in order to save it?
None of the conflicts you cite are examples of de-escalating multi-ethnic, multi-religious civil wars. If you want to look at conflicts that have parallels with Iraq, you need to look at Lebanon, Yugoslavia, and Chechnya.
06-28-2006, 03:05 AM
I misdiagnosed nothing.
Algeria : How convenient of you to put the blame on the government when the mass killing, mass rape, is almost all carried out by the Islamo facist terrorists exclusively and targeting civilians. So, according to you, those fanatic murderers should be allowed to take power, in accordance to the moral prudence of upholding democracy? What kind of perversion is that? Typical of left wing garbage. But no matter, they are being wiped out and are almost extinct now.
Egypt: I see, again, you have totally forgotten about what the Islamo facist terrorists did. Remember the mass slaughter of foreign tourists? Do you know what happened following that? Do you know how Egypt ****ed the Brotherhood to hell after that? Do you know where the remnant of the Brotherhood went? That's right. They had to leave because the Egyptians are not *****footing with them.
Saudi Arabia: Do you know how the House of Saud deal with the last 'Brotherhood'? Do you know what the result was? Do you know what the Saudi have been doing to deal with the Al Qaeda in their midst ever since Al Qaeda turned on the Saudis? Do you know what the result is?
Yugoslavia: Do you how peace got installed? FIREPOWER!!! The Croats turned the tide when they hired American mercenaries to train their army. Peace is restored after the Serb separatists were defeated militarily. In Bosnia, the same deal. Peace is restored after the Serb separatists were bombed into submission. In Kosovo, Yeltsin was bought and paid for. He sold the Serbs' a$$ down the river and NATO (lead by the US)took over Kosovo. The last shoe is yet to drop in Kosovo. Nice lesson for nation building and democracy there.
Chechenya : The Russian employed brutal firepower and the good old tradition of killing them wholesale until the masses beg for peace. They are playing from the same rule book they played the last time they pacified Chechenya. After the Chechens got tired of the killing, the majority gave up and allied with the Russians. Right now, Chechenya is run by a Chechen warlord who is allied with Moscow. So, basically it is for the most part, Chechen against Chechen in Chechenya now. BBC NEWS | Europe | Chechen life in the fast lane
Lebanon: I don't know what kind of democracy lesson you can possibly extract from that. It is absurd to use that as a model for anything. The underlying current crisscrossing Lebanon's politic is anything but about democracy or racial harmony. There are so many domestic and international powerbrokers having their hands in Lebanon, that you are not going to know how things are going to unfold next. I can write a freaking book about the situation there. Moreover, things are so freaking muddy over there that it has got to be the biggest ****ing joke if anyone tries to use Lebanon as an example for nation building.
The simple fact is, the real world is not something that fits nicely into little pretty and nice, ideology pigeon hole.
The participants in the turmoil have a lot more at stake than philosophical conflict. If anything, philosophical conflict means **** sh1t as far as they are concerned. To them, real life conflict of interest is the driving force and the focus of their consideration.
I am not some insulated pontificator. I don't give a sh1t if popularly elected terrorist scumbags got snubbed out.
About the situation in Iraq, it isn't about ''de-escalating multi-ethnic, multi-religious civil wars." You are just eating up Al Jazeera's garbage. It is about the Kurds and Sh1tes extracting revenge against their oppressors. It is about the Sunnis seeking to get the best deal they can, using violence as leverage. It is about the dead-enders with blood on their hands and no way out. It is about Al Qaeda becoming the most effective counter Al-Qaeda weapon. It is about Iran trying to exert influence in Iraq.
The solution is a factor of what kind of deals to be cut and whether the participants can uphold their ends of the bargain.
06-28-2006, 03:32 AM
"...There's no way to seperate the wheat from the chaff here...no way of knowing who was "violent" and who was not...."Originally Posted by bioman
That may be the case for outsiders. That is not the case for those who live there.
The Sunnis is only 20% or probably even less, given the exodus. They are on the losing side. Heck, even Zarqawi's own memo was whining about that. There is this delusion, propagated by Al Jazeera and the anti America European media, that somehow the terrorists are popular insurgents and they are winning. The reality is far from that. If anything, the Shi1tes and the Kurds have been complaining that the Americans are tying their hands and are not going about fighting the war aggressively enough. The Kurds want to unleash their militia, in conjunction with the Sh1t militia and go after the Sunni terrorists the good old fashion way, with massive and absolute brutality. Heck, even the Ayatollahs want in on the action. They are offering the Americans a deal. In exchange of accepting Tehran's dominance over Baghdad, Iran will wipe out Al Qaeda in Iraq using their ruthless brutality.
The current regime is giving the Sunnis their last chance for a deal. If the Sunnis don't sign on and uphold their end of the bargain, you are going to see wholesale bloodshed. The Sh1tes have had it. But a lot of other sh1t is going on over there and will muddy things up further. The biggest problem is not the Sunnis insurgency, as portrayed by Al Jazeera and the like. The biggest problem is Sh1te civil war. Word is out that the Iranians are killing off Sh1te leaders that do not answer to Tehran's beckon and call. Al Sistani is not too thrilled about it. Al Hakim is not too thrilled about Al Sadr. And neither is any of them too thrilled about the Kurds wanting to keep Kirkul for themselves only. And none of them really give a sh1t if all the Sunnis are killed off, except that the Kurds would like to have the Sunnis around, so that they themselves don't become the new target for the Sh1tes.
Nice neighborhood............. Mesopotamia- Craddle of World's Civilization.
Sure of course, it would be nice if everyone would just let bygone be bygone and gets on with their lives. But we all know that is just pipedream.
06-28-2006, 03:42 AM
We can sit and think about what is best, and reaching into the reservoir of our philosophical ideology for solution. But the simple truth is, that is just academic exercise. The real world simply does not operate that way. In the real world, the ability to navigate through and balance the conflicting interests of the parties involved, is the driving force. Philosophical conflict is in the backseat.
06-28-2006, 02:40 PM
Sigh. Ok, let me get this straight.
You don't care about democracy (hence your cheering when democratic elections are cancelled when it looks like Islamists are going to win in Algeria and Egypt).
You don't care if your facts are 100% backwards. You claimed that the Islamists were fighting the government but when I pointed out that we actually installed the Islamists into power, you moved on to talk about others things rather than retract your error.
I cited specific examples (Lebanon, Yugoslavia and Chechnya) to point out the complexity of this situation.
In Chechnya, what was mostly a nationalist movement slowly became an Islamist separatist movement because the secular forces were marginalized and proven impotent. So, in putting down a nationalist movement in the brutal way the Russians did, they created an Islamist uprising that has been incredibly brutal and spread into neighboring regions.
In Yugoslavia, the Croat war ended militarily. The Bosnian war lead to the marginalization of secular forces and the rise of Islamist forces, the Albanian war ended militarily, only sad little Macedonia largely escaped bloodshed (but they may fall into conflict with Greece in the near future if nationalism takes hold).
And yes, Lebanon is a complex mess....which is precisely why I cited it. Iraq is not good versus evil. Iraq is a variety of groups all acting int heir own interests all along the spectrum of good and evil.
Looking at another example. In Afghanistan, the West poured money and weapons into the country to help drive out the Soviets, but when that was done, we largely abandoned the country. Civil war broke out and the strongest forces (supported by Pakistan) ended up taking power (the Taliban). The Taliban harbored Al Queda. Al Queda took their war to us.
This is the law of unintended consequences.....and it is precisely what we should be paying attention to in Iraq.
For myself, I happen to think that a theocratic state run rampant with death squads, ethnic cleansing, and a variety of insurgent groups (some who deliberately target noncombatants) is a very bad thing and that all efforts should be made to channel things into more positive directions.
06-28-2006, 07:43 PM
On the contrary, I got my facts straight. It is you who are running around all over the lot like a chicken with its head cut off. lol I have no idea what your point really is. You changed things around after I punched holes in your original assertions. I think it was about defeating islamic terrorism, but then you lost me when you brought up a bunch of things about countries that have little to do with islamic terrorism, except that it seems that you are trying to insinuate that islamic terrorism is somehow our fault. Smell like the usual anti america left wing trash again.
Let's get back to the original topic, ie defeating Islamic terrorism. You demonstrated complete lack of understanding on how islamic terrorism has been squashed in the past. I cited historical examples where Islamic terrorism has been successfully squashed. But in typical left wing, blame America first, tradition, you twist things around and insinuate that it is America's fault. LOL
I love it when armchair quarterbacks talk about unintended consequence. LMAO. Every one is a genius, AFTER THE FACT!!
I just love how the lefties like to talk from both sides of the mouth all the time. On one hand, they whine about how America butts into other people's affairs. At the same time, they have the balls to whine about America NOT helping Afghanistan after the Russians were defeated. Talk about hypocracy!! So, which is it? Should we butt in or should we not? Or do you just want to whine, no matter what it is? That seems to be the consistent left wing anti America modus operandi.
They can whine about America not intervening in Rwanda and about America butting in everywhere, all in the same breathe. What a bunch of double talking loonies!
Right now, the lefties whine about America's involvement in Iraq and demand that America get the hell out. As soon as we leave, the same bunch of morons will whine about America abandoning Iraq. I can guarantee you this is how it will unfold. If anything, the lefties anti America bunch is predictable.
Another thing. You are just trying to superimpose your ideology onto reality. It has never worked. And it will continue to fail, and you continue to whine about how the world is not what you think it ought to be, till you drop dead.
The world does not work that way. You can whine about it on the forum, but the rest of the world will just simply roll on. OTOH, that is a comforting thought. You can safely ignore the left wing rheotic, as it never has any material impact.
06-28-2006, 08:13 PM
I see. You want murderous scums to be in office and slaughter civilians at their pleasure, just so you can sleep well knowing that your beloved democracy is at work. NiceOriginally Posted by yeahright
Seems like the same left wing garbage to me. The lefties like to impose their ideology onto everyone else. They couldn't careless when women and children are raped and men are tortured or murdered wholesale. They couldn't care rest when criminals are set free to prey on the innocents. Gee I wonder why liberalism is described as a form of mental illness....
On the contrary. I have a firm grasp of the reality on the ground in Iraq. It is you who got the facts muddied up.You don't care if your facts are 100% backwards. You claimed that the Islamists were fighting the government but when I pointed out that we actually installed the Islamists into power, you moved on to talk about others things rather than retract your error.
You like to lump things together. For example, your Islamists. Who are they? lol
It isn't the Islamists who are in power that are carrying out the daily carbombing of civilians. You seem to ignore that.
It seems that you are sheepishly trying to blame the terrorism in Iraq on the Sh1tes and Kurds.... It is odd that you are going out of your way to exonerate the Sunni terrorists and the Al Qaeda terrorists.
No sh1t! Do we need you to point out the complexity of the situation?I cited specific examples (Lebanon, Yugoslavia and Chechnya) to point out the complexity of this situation.
Besides, you didn't mention complexity. You mentioned 'parallel'. There is little parallel about the situations. Each is different. Don't try to use academic models to pigeonhole reality.
Yep. It is the Russian's fault. They created Islamic terrorism. LOLIn Chechnya, what was mostly a nationalist movement slowly became an Islamist separatist movement because the secular forces were marginalized and proven impotent. So, in putting down a nationalist movement in the brutal way the Russians did, they created an Islamist uprising that has been incredibly brutal and spread into neighboring regions.
Whose fault is it here? NATO? American?In Yugoslavia, the Croat war ended militarily. The Bosnian war lead to the marginalization of secular forces and the rise of Islamist forces, the Albanian war ended militarily, only sad little Macedonia largely escaped bloodshed (but they may fall into conflict with Greece in the near future if nationalism takes hold).
I love how you so conveniently left out the actions that Al Qaeda and other Wahhabi fundamentalists took to actively move into the Balkan and the Caucusus region and established operating foothold.
I love how you sheepishly imply that somehow it is due to our action that by some magical phenomenon, Islamic terrorism just sprouted out from the ground.
I don't know whether it is because you actually simply are NOT aware of the operation of Al Qaeda and the Wahhabi fundamentalists OR you are simply just following the left wing haters' Blame America First modus operandi.
I don't know if it is because you simply don't know or you just choose to ignore the fact that there were lots of Chechen terrorists fighting on Al Qaeda/Taliban side in Afghanistan. Do you know how many were caught and killed?
I just love this, everything is the freeworld's fault. lol The bad guys are never at fault. Everything is either due to something we did or do directly OR unintended consequences of something we did or do, or we somehow failed or fail to do. It is all our fault. lol Yep, it is the good ol Blame America First, Blame America Only. How predictable!
No sh!T !!And yes, Lebanon is a complex mess....which is precisely why I cited it. Iraq is not good versus evil. Iraq is a variety of groups all acting int heir own interests all along the spectrum of good and evil.
I love it. Everything is so clear with perfect hindsight!!Looking at another example. In Afghanistan, the West poured money and weapons into the country to help drive out the Soviets, but when that was done, we largely abandoned the country. Civil war broke out and the strongest forces (supported by Pakistan) ended up taking power (the Taliban). The Taliban harbored Al Queda. Al Queda took their war to us.
Had we stayed, my money is on the leftie crying foul, demanding America to butt out of the Afghan's business. The leftie would be whining about America getting involved in the civil war of the peace loving Afghans. And all the destruction and slaughter, my goodness! It is the damn Imperialist's fault for butting into the Afghanistan's internal affairs and killing their civilian. blahblahblah.....
What is funny is, your left wing cohort want us to abandon the Iraqis just like when we cut and ran in Afghanistan. So, what do we do? LOL
Perfect hindsight and armchair qaurterbacking....This is the law of unintended consequences.....and it is precisely what we should be paying attention to in Iraq.
I like us to all sit around and sing Kumbahya.......For myself, I happen to think that a theocratic state run rampant with death squads, ethnic cleansing, and a variety of insurgent groups (some who deliberately target noncombatants) is a very bad thing and that all efforts should be made to channel things into more positive directions.
06-28-2006, 10:11 PM
Ummmmmmmmm, it was President Carter who started the covert war against the Soviets and President Bush who abandoned the Afghanis after they had thrown the Soviets out.Originally Posted by BioHazzard
I'm happy to debate people and I accept that reasonable people can have opposing views, but you don't appear to be bound by facts at all....which makes discussing this with you kinda pointless.
06-28-2006, 10:18 PM
Well no. The topic (since I started it) was whether this limited amnesty announced by the Iraqi Prime Minister would actually de-escalate the conflict in Iraq. You bumbled into that conversation with half-understood rhetoric, made-up facts, and a general disdain for anyone who doesn't share your opinion. This isn't productive.Originally Posted by BioHazzard
You cited historic examples of where Islamist movements have been countered but it's quite obvious that the tactics you champion haven't defeated the Islamist movements in any of the countries you cited. One of the consequences of those tactics has been to radicalize and militarize the Islamist movements (Agleria has been in a state of emergency for 14 years now with the Islamists conducting a brutal insurgency the entire time; Egypt has been in a state of emergency for more than 30 years with the Islamist movement splintering into peaceful and violent factions....the peaceful movements being attacked by the government when they started to win elections - which I predict will only radicalize more people as they see that peaceful ways to achieve their aims will be thwarted).
I would welcome your participation in this discussion if you could keep it civil. All viewpoints are welcome but civilized discourse is not optional.
06-29-2006, 12:12 AM
Your objection seems to center on the fact that the Sunnis and Al Qaeda with blood on their hands are not going to get off. I got 3 words for that. Too ****ing Bad.Originally Posted by yeahright
You seem to have some special affection for those killers. I just don't quite understand it.
Btw, it isn't my opinions. It is what is called fact on the ground.
You may want to do some research on how Islamic terrorism was defeated in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Algeria, Syria (eventhough I don't condone gassing the whole city), Chechenya, etc.You cited historic examples of where Islamist movements have been countered but it's quite obvious that the tactics you champion haven't defeated the Islamist movements in any of the countries you cited. One of the consequences of those tactics has been to radicalize and militarize the Islamist movements (Agleria has been in a state of emergency for 14 years now with the Islamists conducting a brutal insurgency the entire time; Egypt has been in a state of emergency for more than 30 years with the Islamist movement splintering into peaceful and violent factions....the peaceful movements being attacked by the government when they started to win elections - which I predict will only radicalize more people as they see that peaceful ways to achieve their aims will be thwarted).
That's right. Go check out how the previous generation of islamo terrorists were wiped out. It has been done before. What we have now, is not exactly new, eventhough most people are not aware of this fact.
And the same playbook is being used again this time, whether you recognize it or not. Same tune different song.
I know you don't like it when terrorists are hunted down and killed off, but that is exactly what is going on now. We can argue till faces turn blue and it isn't going to change what they are doing overthere now.
06-29-2006, 12:16 AM
You are wrong again.Originally Posted by yeahright
It was Carter's wishy-washy weakness and blatant impotence that invited the Soviet's bold invasion of Afghanistan and it was Reagan's bold assistance of the Afghan resistance by supplying them with the Stinger missiles that turned the war around and ensuring the Soviet's defeat in Afghanistan which ultimately led to the demise of the Evil Empire.
Yeap. The defeat of the Soviet centered on one key piece of equipment, the Stinger missiles. Before Reagan and Casey shipped Stinger missiles to the resistance, the Soviet were winning and were about to pacify the whole country. The Muj had basically given up and they went to hide in the refugee camps in Pakistan. They had no defence against the Soviet airborne attack. The day the Stinger missiles were first used and brought down a few Soviet gunships, the whole Mujaheedeen camps errupted in euphoria and they pulled up camps and went back into Afghanistan to continue the war.
So it seems it is your camp who got facts mixed up.
06-29-2006, 12:19 AM
hey, do you want do some fact check on that? What are the secular forces margnialized and what are the Islamist forces that rose up?Originally Posted by yeahright
None of that is even true.
Unless you consider this as real...The Peacemaker
- Movie Info - Yahoo! Movies
06-29-2006, 12:36 AM
I am sure you are a good guy and my criticism and disdain is directed toward the left wing anti American fanatism, and not you personally.Originally Posted by yeahright
I am sure that I didn't state that clear in my posts and were simply for convenience sake, opted to use the simple 'you' in whom I direct my comment to.
My criticism about the blatant double talk and hypocracy of the left wing anti America haters is just simply a statement of fact. That is what the lefties have done for decade and are still doing.
You can't complain about the US abandoning Afghanistan and at the same time demand that the US do the same thing with Iraq. That is just shameless hypocracy. The lefties have no credibility left.
Look, you are long on idealistic philosophy and ideology, but short on specifics about the facts on the ground.
You talk about how things ought to be done or ought to have been done. I talk about how things have actually happened and are currently being done.
As it is, things are being done by people whom we have no control, who are guided by their own interest and need for self preservation. They don't give a sh1t about your philosophy or my philosophy.
Sure of course it is wonderful if all the participants in conflicts would just all sit down and talk it all out. But we all know that is just bullsh1t. lol It is not going to happen.
We got to accept facts on the ground and not go about trying to fit the world into our ideological pigeon hole.
06-29-2006, 01:46 AM
December 24, 1979, within hours of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan President Carter signs a secret Presidential finding authorizing military aid to the Mujahadeen to be routed through Pakistan.Originally Posted by BioHazzard
Soviet war in Afghanistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser
Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998
Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?
B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.
B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.
Translated from the French by Bill Blum
06-29-2006, 02:06 AM
Why yes it is. Bosnia was the most integrated and least tribal of the Yugoslav republics. It consisted of all three major ethnic groups (Serbs, Croats and Bosniak - descendants of various waves of Islamic immigration). As many Serbs and Croats rallied their ethnic based armies and paramilitaries, the Bosnians for the most part attempted to hold the line on the value of the multi-ethnic state.Originally Posted by BioHazzard
However, the West slapped an arms embargoe upon all of the former Yugoslavia to try and stop the War. However, since the Croat forces and the Serb forces already had the bulk of the equipment from the former Yugoslav army, this arms embargoe was only effective at hindering the Bosnians from defending themselves and didn't slow the Croat or Serbian armies (nor their pet paramilitaries) from military action.
The siege of Sarajevo was the longest siege in the history of modern warfare and is viewed by many historians as an example of multi-ethnic versus nationalist warfare.
Within Bosnia, the forces of western secularism became more and more marginalized as those they were allied with (the western states) refused to aid the Bosnians and because of the arms embargoe could be interpreted to be actively hurting them. Into Bosnia began to flow Islamist volunteers from around the world. With them they brought arms and military expertise which helped the Bosnians fight their opponents to a standstill. Because of this, those Bosnians who had alligned themselves with the Islamists gained statures and status in the society. The long term results is a much more "Islamic" Bosnia than existed before the war.
BBC NEWS | UK | How Islam got political: Bosnia
Similar Forum Threads
- By NLAFounder in forum Company PromotionsReplies: 11Last Post: 12-23-2012, 06:01 PM
- By chubbarock in forum Company PromotionsReplies: 37Last Post: 05-17-2011, 07:40 PM
- By kwyckemynd00 in forum General ChatReplies: 19Last Post: 09-26-2004, 06:03 PM
- By windwords7 in forum General ChatReplies: 1Last Post: 08-12-2003, 10:54 PM
- By Draven in forum General ChatReplies: 0Last Post: 04-04-2003, 01:58 PM