http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060628/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_060628170119;_ylt=AuVQY.CKcnaspY5iQf40PKpX6GM A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

By STEVEN R. HURST and QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press Writers Wed Jun 28, 7:39 PM ET

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....



* OK, I think this isn't so bad. I think we should have been out of Iraq long ago. I am aware that this isn't representative of all insurgent groups, however it is 11 of them. It seems to me that this is a good things to accept. It doesn't say we "negotiate with terrorists", simply that peace and self-governance is ultimately the goal.

I agree, it sounds like a good place to start and its not like they are saying that we have to have our troops out within the month or the deals off. Maybe this will put some prssure on the Bush administration to get the ball rolling on getting our troops home.

I don't see america accepting the offer for one major reason. The Iraqi groups are talking about FULL withdrawal and the current US administration is set on leaving permenant bases within Iraq so that they can continue to influence the iraqi government.

Yet, somehow the president will say how they're declining the offer in the best interests of Iraqi freedom, but we all know thats a crock of shit.

OK, I think this isn't so bad. I think we should have been out of Iraq long ago. I am aware that this isn't representative of all insurgent groups, however it is 11 of them. It seems to me that this is a good things to accept. It doesn't say we "negotiate with terrorists", simply that peace and self-governance is ultimately the goal.

You're right by saying "I am aware that this isn't representative of all insurgent groups" It's not "representative" by a longshot. And it sure as hell isn't "a good things to accept."

I could see you having a logical argument, which I wouldn't agree with of course, if every group in Iraq that's attacking our troops across the board, from Al-Qaeda on down, agreed to stop the violence. That not being the case, your opinion this is something we should accept is asinine beyond belief.

Also, from my limited reading on this subject, these Sunni groups that have come forward aren't major players in the area as far as carrying out major attacks. They're small crabs in a sea of sharks. We'll see in time.

It will be an interesting story to follow, though, and give people who like to bend over to the enemies' wishes, allow the terrorists to set a timetable for our withdrawal, et cetera, something to squawk about.

Head here if you want to see a detailed list of the groups and more info about them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_resistance

Go to the section titled "composition" and "Iraqi insurgency organizations." You'll see just 11 groups isn't dick in the overall picture of what's going on in the region.

But I am interested in General Casey's plan. Here's a link to it if anybody hasn't been following this issue.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13552784/

I also believe we will in the near future start seeing a reduction of forces in the region. But like GCD said, and I believe I read somewhere else, we plan on maintaining a presence in the region, a minimal number of bases.

That might be good in the short-term, once our troop levels drastically decline, just as a precautionary measure. But once the region is stabilized (if that's even possible with those crazy fucking Sunnis and Shiites being at each others throats) we need to get the hell out of there.

You like to use the word asinine don't you? Anyways, I fully expected you to chime in telling me I'm an idiot or loon for thinking it's reasonable to actually work for peace. And of course to you it means that I am bending to the enemy's wishes even though I think we need to be out of there as soon as possible anyways.

Further an agreement to such a timetable would have religious implications as well as us being there as invaders gives them a perceived religious right to fight us. When Muhammad fought back against Mecca and won he didn't go around killing everyone. When they stopped fighting so did he.

[22.39] Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them;

[2:194]Whoever attacks you, attack him in the same way that he attacked you, and trust Allah and know that Allah is with those who put their trust ;...

Among others.

[I]Your pride is killing people.

I thought this was a bad idea at first

But now I think, why not?

It would get troops out, and If they go back on their word just bomb the shit out of the country again and not bother picking up the pieces this time.

I’m at the point where I could no longer give a crap about middle eastern crazy religious sects or capitalism hating retards who think killing is ok and living in country under oppressive religious or tyrannical rule is better than trying to adopt a democracy. They aren’t worth wasting bullets on

You like to use the word asinine don't you? Anyways, I fully expected you to chime in telling me I'm an idiot or loon for thinking it's reasonable to actually work for peace. And of course to you it means that I am bending to the enemy's wishes even though I think we need to be out of there as soon as possible anyways.

Further an agreement to such a timetable would have religious implications as well as us being there as invaders gives them a perceived religious right to fight us. When Muhammad fought back against Mecca and won he didn't go around killing everyone. When they stopped fighting so did he.

[22.39] Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them;

[2:194]Whoever attacks you, attack him in the same way that he attacked you, and trust Allah and know that Allah is with those who put their trust ;...

Among others.

[I]Your pride is killing people.

You are a loon because of what I stated in my post. Did you go to the link I put up? It's just 11 groups, according to what you put up. If it was ALL groups, then your argument would make more sense. That not being the case, I'll say it again. It's completely asinine.

I thought this was a bad idea at first
But now I think, why not?
It would get troops out, and If they go back on their word just bomb the shit out of the country again and not bother picking up the pieces this time.
I’m at the point where I could no longer give a crap about middle eastern crazy religious sects or capitalism hating retards who think killing is ok and living in country under oppressive religious or tyrannical rule is better than trying to adopt a democracy. They aren’t worth wasting bullets on

I could see you believing, just like Outsider, it was a good idea if these 11 Sunni groups were all that was attacking our troops and causing problems in the region.

That couldn't be further from the truth. Check that link I put up. There's a lot of groups and cells that would keep attacking if we did agree to these Sunnis' offer of peace. :hsugh:

We'll withdraw from the region in time, but it won't be because terrorists politely offer to quit killing and murdering our troops and innocent Iraqi civilians.

Again, I'm interested in what Casey is saying. At least they're starting to talk about a reduction. It's about time. I believe, and I could be wrong, we've almost trained the amount of their security forces we planned on.

That being the case, I see no need to keep the levels as high as they are in the region. I want them out as bad as anybody, but when our generals, and those who know more about the situation than we do, think it will be the right move.

You are a loon because of what I stated in my post. Did you go to the link I put up? It's just 11 groups, according to what you put up. If it was ALL groups, then your argument would make more sense. That not being the case, I'll say it again. It's completely asinine.

It's 11 Sunni groups. It's about 1/4 of the groups according to the link you put up. On the contrary you keep holding to this mythical troop reduction that has been in discussion for the past 2 years with little or no action actually taken on it. Even with a troop reduction it still leaves ALL insurgent groups attacking western troops and Iraqis. Or you can show that our goal is peace and self-rule, swallow an ounce of pride, and work with the people who have such a problem with US troops that they are willing to put their own lives on the line.

There is a middle ground if you cast away your pride.

It's 11 Sunni groups. It's about 1/4 of the groups according to the link you put up. On the contrary you keep holding to this mythical troop reduction that has been in discussion for the past 2 years with little or no action actually taken on it..

I actually said I'm interested in Casey's plan. Learn to read. And 1/4 leaves quite a lot, don't you think? I said your argument would be more solid if ALL groups agreed to halt the violence if a definite timetable was set. That not being the case your argument is utter garbage.

Even with a troop reduction it still leaves ALL insurgent groups attacking western troops and Iraqis. Or you can show that our goal is peace and self-rule, swallow an ounce of pride, and work with the people who have such a problem with US troops that they are willing to put their own lives on the line.


So, work with this small group of terrorists while the others continue to attack. Awesome plan. :hsugh:

And our goal is "peace and self-rule." That's evident, and it's happening as we speak. I don't have to show you jack shit.

Why don't you show it's to just cause misery to the people of Iraq and kill our troops for nothing as the reason we're carrying on as we are. Good luck with that one. Our goals are clear, and from the looks of it finally that's happening. I hope what Casey proposes takes root.

There is a middle ground if you cast away your pride.

So, now you have a middle ground? Weren't you for an immediate withdrawal before? Now it's turned to negotiating with this miniscule fraction of the groups in Iraq causing problems while the others don't jump onboard. That's insane.

As opposed to doing absolutely nothing while still being attacked, only since our leaders are so fucking prideful the whole force of the insurgents are being thrown at us constantly? Do you think that maybe, just maybe those other groups would reduce or stop their attacks if we were actually leaving that country? Remember, they're there to fight us.

If our goals were clear then we wouldn't have yokels like the one Team Brian GB was quoting in his thread who said that Iraq has WMDs right now and had them when we went in and cited them as reason for being there. If our goals were clear then they could be clearly orated and as of this moment they haven't been. What we have gotten is tons of doublespeak and other means of dodgong questions.

And yes, I do want an immediate withdrawl, however that not being the case setting an actual goal for when to be out is a middle ground. This world is not just black and white; one and zero.

As opposed to doing absolutely nothing while still being attacked, only since our leaders are so fucking prideful the whole force of the insurgents are being thrown at us constantly? Do you think that maybe, just maybe those other groups would reduce or stop their attacks if we were actually leaving that country? Remember, they're there to fight us.

If our goals were clear then we wouldn't have yokels like the one Team Brian GB was quoting in his thread who said that Iraq has WMDs right now and had them when we went in and cited them as reason for being there. If our goals were clear then they could be clearly orated and as of this moment they haven't been. What we have gotten is tons of doublespeak and other means of dodgong questions.

And yes, I do want an immediate withdrawl, however that not being the case setting an actual goal for when to be out is a middle ground. This world is not just black and white; one and zero.

I don't see us as "doing absolutely nothing," but that's a personal opinion you obviously disagree with me on.

As far as a withdrawal, I want it just the same as you. But I'm not in a position to know when that can happen, and I think an immediate withdrawal would be the worst thing we could do. And negotiating with terrorists, also, for that matter.

There are people "in the know" who can make that decision. That said, the pressure is on Washington, and hopefully there will be a reduction soon. But me and you aren't in a position to know when that time will be.

The sooner the better in my opinion, but not at the expense of having Iraq implode. Which in all honesty might happen anyway. I'm hopeful that it won't, but not all the terrorist groups are attacking just because they hate us. The whole situation is fucked up.