Alot of blogs are talking about the statement from Iraq on wanting a timetable to withdraw troops. I personally don't think that is that large of an issue or some huge "They don't want us there either" moment. I think it is a statement designed to attempt to convince the Iraqi people that one of their largest fears that the US isn't ever going to leave is not true.
What I found interesting though is this part from the above linked Washington Post article:
Iraq's opposition had a "legitimate right" of resistance. Okay, all people in a democracy do have the right to resist. Yet....
"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,"
In Egypt, the final communique's attempt to define terrorism omitted any reference to attacks against U.S. or Iraqi forces. Delegates from across the political and religious spectrum said the omission was intentional. They spoke anonymously, saying they feared retribution.
So, killing US troops or Iraqi security forces would be "legitimate" if no innocent Iraqis were involved depending upon the location of said attack? That is the way I'm reading this as it is stated.
I realize they are trying to reach out to the Sunni opposition but I think that statement is one that should be getting the media attention and some clarification rather than Iraq stating they eventually want the US to leave at some future point maybe in a year.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The Details...
Financial resources & Fun!
Financial Resources:
Corporate Recovery
With a shaky stock market, now's a great time to invest in diamonds.
Fun!
Yard Signs Cheap
Yard Signs Cheap
Corporate Recovery
With a shaky stock market, now's a great time to invest in diamonds.
Fun!
Yard Signs Cheap
Yard Signs Cheap
Regular Reads
History Mike's Musings
Toledo Tales
Hooda Thunkit
Aaron's Blog
Along the Tracks
The Glitch
Roland's Ramblings
Judy's Jewels
I think about by Valbee
Toledo Speaks Out
Maggie Thurber's Thoughts
Color Orange Art
The Yippie Show
Progressive Toledo
Thoughts on TPS
Shanahan Select
Make A Difference
Toledo Perspectives
Toledo Tales
Hooda Thunkit
Aaron's Blog
Along the Tracks
The Glitch
Roland's Ramblings
Judy's Jewels
I think about by Valbee
Toledo Speaks Out
Maggie Thurber's Thoughts
Color Orange Art
The Yippie Show
Progressive Toledo
Thoughts on TPS
Shanahan Select
Make A Difference
Toledo Perspectives
Blog Archive
...
...
Thank you!
Thanks for visiting Liberal Common Sense...
24 comments:
Paul, that is a very valid point. The way "terrorism" was defined bothered me no matter what they were trying to accomplish with it. I don't see attempting to kill US troops as some type of legitmate resistance. Especially since most of the time our troops or Iraqi security forces are targeted innocent civilians are killed as well.
I think that there are 2 basic groups of concerns among the Iraqi people:
Those that want us out of there and see us as occupiers of their country,
-and-
Those that fear our leaving because they are not yet capable of their own security and self protection.
What is the difficulty for us, is to know which is correct and how to choose our departure moment appropriately.
Oh and a minor concern for the howling dogs here in the Congress and Ssenate who haven't a clue about what's going on either here or in Iraq.
Hopefully, our leaders will continue ignoring our ankle-biting critics and lead. Not all of the terrorists are in Iraq. Some can be found in Washington D.C.
The targeting of US military and Iraqi forces is different than terrorism. I could understand military targets just like I would have understood more if they just hit the Pentagon and military bases instead of the WTC. The difference between the terrorists and the insurgents is that the insurgents are fighting a guerrilla war while the terrorists are just trying to kill.
It can't just be based on civilian deaths, but who the target was either.
Yes Brew we did fight the British for our freedom and we killed some of them. In addition some of what we did to the British could have been viewed as "terrorism" (especially if you were British)
My (many greats) Grandfather was a General in the Revolunary War. So is the US playing the role that the French did for us in helping us beat the British or are we the British...
The irony is it is easy to see each side as both.
Yes, I've thought about this. Are we really trying to free the Iraqis? Some of us believe so, that we freed them from Saddam and that those that are the insurgents do not want a free Iraq. Part of the problem is no matter how hard we try Iraq will never be like our country. I don't think any muslim nation can pull off the level of freedom and rights we have here.
So? Do we try to help make it the best muslim democracy/republic it can be or do we let those who would rather have it be like Iran take power. It appears the majority of Iraqis don't want that, else we'd already be out of there. The reality is it is possible that we could have spent all that money, lost all those lives and another Saddam could very well come into power, especially if Iraq does not learn to stand on it's own.
We can discuss should we have gone there forever, but we can't undo it so to me? We do the best we can to help them stand on their own and get the hell out. Hoping that they can stand on their own and that enough of them really do want a better country than they had under Saddam.
:-)
I think we have to stay in some form until Iraq can stand on it's own. But the presence of US troops is both a blessign and a curse for Iraq. We offer military protection but the presence of our military is also part of the problem.
Our planning has been incompetent at best and our goals have been incoherent. We have to change something and I think we need to get the insurgents who just want us out to join in the security of Iraq. They don't like the al Qaeda types any more than we do, but they have a common enemy. It is the old US mantra that the enemy of our enemy is our friend.
We will never be able to leave Iraq until we accept that when we do, it is possible that Iraq will fail on it's own.
"Part of the problem is no matter how hard we try Iraq will never be like our country."
For myself, I never wanted Iraq to be "like our country." I agree that, at least for a long while, that isn't possible, nor (considering some of the failures we have within our own country) is it advisable. However, I do believe in the inherent goodness of democracy. I believe the Iraqis can benefit from that and can develop something along such lines that will fill their needs.
So, yes I'm with the "make it the best muslim democracy/republic it can be" crowd. Unfortunately, we haven't been doing a good job of that, and this, imho, is our biggest mistake.
As much as I don't like our troops getting shot at, the "terrorism" that targets our troops isn't nearly as bad as the terrorism that targets the Iraqi people. On the other hand, the terrorism that targets the Iraqi people is proof (for me, at least) that these are not people who are interested in the welfare of Iraq, so much as people who are interested in controlling Iraq Saddam-style.
However, the "insurgents" and the "terrorists" being two separate groups...I've not seen evidence of that. From what I've seen (in the papers) they've pretty much been working hand in hand. I'd be interested in seeing evidence to the contrary.
I will try to find the Newsweek where they talked about insurgents and other groups fighting each other along the border. There have been a lot of battles near Syria between Iraqis and foreign fighters trying to come in.
me4, I remember reading that also in the Wapo..there are several different groups. Iraqi insurgents, Al Queda, Iranians, Syrians, former Baathists...Most of the suicide bombings at one time were linked to outside forces not Iraqi.
One main reason why Iraq should have have been started until Afghanistan was more settled, alot of them have come from there as well intially.
"Most of the suicide bombings at one time were linked to outside forces not Iraqi."
I remember reading that as well. However, I've also seen several articles stating that the divergent groups have blended together, which was making it more difficult for them to be eliminated.
Yes, amazing how they managed to come together for that and not get behind the new Iraqi government.
I don't even know what the solution is at this point, more troops, less troops, however it's obvious the Iraqi's need to keep trying to get their security force numbers up. The corruption in Iraq though is so deeply rooted it makes it more difficult.
"The corruption in Iraq though is so deeply rooted it makes it more difficult."
That's true. I would ask how we ever let that happen, but seeing as Bush is in charge I needn't bother.
It's amazing. I mean, at least imo, this could have been a really good thing. A new Iraq could have been, were it handled correctly, enough of a benefit to out-weigh the sacrifices necessary to bring it about. My disappointment with Bush is pretty total here. How could he, with all the resources at his disposal, manage to botch it so completely? I mean, it almost seems like he's trying to foul Iraq up, which, sadly, I could probably believe if presented with the proper evidence at this point.
Some of the corruption has nothing to do with Bush, it's years of the Iraqi government being corrupt and even with Saddam being gone? Old habits are hard to break. Is the Bush administration responsible for allowing some of the very people that were involved in the corruption to have to large of a part? Yes, but the culture of corruption there runs very deep. I was trying to help a blogger from Iraq get medical supplies to his small hospital. What he had to go thru to get supplies was horrible and it was mostly related to Iraq though the US was not very helpful.
I wasn't trying to lay all the blame on Bush. It's just that Bush had the ability to intervene in at least some of the corruption and chose not to. In areas like Iraq, getting medical supplies hasn't ever been easy.
I know that the Saudi royal family often elects to go to Europe for medical treatment, because even they can't get reasonable care in their own country.
I know you weren't, nor was I trying to defend him that much.
:-)
Don't get me started on the Saudi Family....arghhhhggghghg
You mean you don't support a hierarchy of the ultra-wealthy based solely on birth in a country that is otherwise predominantly impoverished? Aw, why not?
Okay, I'll stop now.
Darn you blew my secret cover...
:-)
lol...
Well, my pajamas are dry. So, I'm going to try to go to bed. Maybe my brain will be better in the morning.
Sweet Dreams Stephanie, I'm not far behind you, I have lots of pies to bake tomorrow.
:-)
paul,
"I hope more people will separate the goal from the guy presently running the show."
For me it worked the other way around. I saw a lot of potential good coming out of the war in Iraq (and didn't imagine what we have now in the least, I was a kid during the first Iraqi war and thus was naive enough to believe this one would be a cake walk), and so I supported Bush. Usually I'm more independent than that, going for third party candidates, but last election I chose Bush and defended him staunchly for awhile, as if that would somehow change his actions.
It took debating on Watchblog for a while (how I met Lisa :-)) to re-discover why I didn't trust the two major parties. And so, I've rescinded my support for Bush, and found a place (VOID) to funnel my political energies into that better fits my political beliefs.
When I take cracks at Bush it is not intended to be a crack against our soldiers or our efforts in Iraq. I believe what we are doing in Iraq could be a very good thing, which is why I supported the war, and I know that it is not going nearly as badly as some make it out to be. However, I'm tired of the political stunts. I'm tired of this war being about liberals vs. conservatives, or Dems vs. Reps, or whatever. It should be about Iraqis and their allies (us) against terrorists and insurgents disrupting the peace.
Welcome Whitey, I'm glad you joined in.
:-)
I agree with what you wrote as far as military decisions in Iraq and the goal of Zarqawi. We both realize though, that the JCOS report to the President and he does have input into what direction is taken.
I think the imbedded journalist situation was a good idea. However, just like any media format there were some that did an excellent job and some that went with a clear agenda.
I also think Zarqawi has underestimated the apathy in America. The polls may show a majority of people do not like the way the sitution in Iraq is being handled however all of these polls no matter how scientificly based are not huge numbers of Americans. The majority of Americans may say they don't like the war but not enough to actually do anything about it. Look at the past elections, there was no groundswell of voter action against the Republican Party that would typically result if a large group of Americans was not happy with the focus our country is headed in. During the last presidential election almost all the candidates spent a great deal of time on the war, the majority of Americans did not care what was happening in Iraq, they were concerned about the economy and other personal issues. Then there are the huge mistakes by the antiwar groups which is a topic for another day. For the most part most Americans see who has been "selected" as their primary media person, shake their heads and walk away from it. If it would have been possible to awake alot of Americans from their apathy and truly make the war an issue it's not going to happen thru Michael Moore or Cindy Sheehan. The media in a way helped the anti-war effort to be marginalized given the huge amount of publicity they gave to those who really were not the best ones to give this issue credibility.
You and I have seen this apathy first hand locally. Everyone bitches about issues yet does nothing. So Zarqawi will fail, unless he would have focused more on building suppport within Iraq rather than trying to sway the American public who too many frankly do not care unless it personally affects them. Zarqawi can bring in as many foreign terrorists as he wants, unless Iraq itself decides civil war is the option rather than attempting to still form some sort of a democracy his efforts are useless. He is killing more Iraqis than Americans which could backfire on him, his family publicly disowning him could be a first sign of trouble for his group.
I have some major issues with the way many things were done after shock and awe, however, it's pointless to discuss that at this juncture because there is not much that can be done about it.
What deeply concerned me was the unspoken impression that removing killing of American soldiers or Iraqi security forces as a definition of terrorism was sending the wrong message to those like Zarqawi that somehow that portion of their "resistance" was legitimate.
There are certain groups within Iraq that are resisting for other reasons, but Zarqawi has remained the focus and at least from a media point of view, and appears to be responsible for the majority of the deaths, especially the suicide bombings.
I realize I have been blunt here, and that it would appear I don't have alot of faith in my fellow Americans. I don't. It's easy to blame the media which does have some part in this but the true fact remains that very few Americans bother to find out information. If this mom of five from Ohio with no political experience can be informed? Anyone can if they wanted to.
Thanks Paul (I got on a bit of a rant there, I had to stop myself or else end up with novel)
:-)
When big decisions, like a war, are made, there will always be desenters. Now, in some cases, those dissenters can be suppressed enough not to make a difference, but they're always there and that's something the strategists should take into account.
As for the media, I agree entirely. Too many people in this country think too little and just absorb what they see in the news as fact. I've studied journalism (only briefly, I didn't have the stomach for it, I prefer my fiction to be called such) and know they purposely manipulate things to fit agendas. It's admitted, it's taught, it's called slanting. Now, sometimes (often) slanting is taken so far that any vestiges of truth is lost, and that's where the major markets are at today.
However, What if's aren't going to end this war. It's going to take some new thought patterns of those in control to finish this thing and America does not have the patience to last ten or more years.
Enjoyed a lot! louis vuitton handbags Chicago conferencing web spark plug replacement for suzuki xl 7 George patton three buckle boots Patterns making jackets sweatshirts http://www.laser-tattoo-removal-bernalillo.info/Colt_football_merchandise.html http://www.tag-heuer-watches-5.info/addressing-wedding-invitations-one-envelope.html tenuate on line Wot are didrex used for Lingerie models fucked Interior designer architect collage Basketball european pro Neurontin for multiple sclerosis Balenciaga motorcycle overnight handbags
You have an outstanding good and well structured site. I enjoyed browsing through it il lotto numbers Vitamin c and aneurism Crossfire chrysler supercharger Black info jack
Post a Comment