Article

2004-07-03 Iraq-Jordan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2004-07-03 12:35:11 PM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I hate the wording he used. If they were people who were Iraqi patriots and just didn't believe in our intentions then they are not neccesarily evil. To say that they were "justified" is revolting though.

Posted by Damn_Proud_American 2004-07-03 1:10:26 PM|| [http://brighterfuture.blogspot.com] 2004-07-03 1:10:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 A spokesman for Allawi said fighting with U.S. troops was "justified" as resistance to occupation. "If he (a guerrilla) was in opposition against the Americans, that will be justified because it was an occupation force," spokesman Georges Sada said of the rebels. "We will give them freedom."
This idea is the ultimate betrayal, the supreme slap in the face. This amnesty proposal legitimizes the notion of the USA as an "invading" and "occuping" force and puts the US into the "bad guy" camp along with the terrorist fighters.

I would like Allawi to personally meet with the parents and wives and children of the GI's who were killed by Iraqi "nationalists" so he could give these American families his sage rationale about why the lives of their loved ones, who were fighting for Iraqis' freedom, are worth ZILCH. What a duplicitious bunch of back-stabbers. The Arab mind...always creating new realities.

There appears to be little controversy about pardoning rebels who were not actual killers of U.S. or Iraqi security forces. Sada said it was "no problem" to amnesty rebel financiers and those storing heavy weapons in their homes.
Say what? Little controversy for pardoning those who were hand maidens to violence? No controversy for forgiving those who made our GI's walk in terroro for 18 months? No controversy for the $90 plus Billion that we American taxpayers have paid to fight this the violence which is fuelled by these Iraqi accessories to death and chaos?

If GWB does not intervene and set this Allawi guy straight about "peace loving people" [ie. our GI's] as opposed to "evil doers" [ie. unlawful Iraqi fighters and generic terrorists], then GWB can kiss the Oval Office good bye. End of story. No ifs, maybes. The majority of Americans last polled now oppose the Iraq invasion.[57% or so???]. If GWB allows Allawi to give amnesty to Iraqis who killed or caused violence to be perpetuated against our GI's, GWB is toast, as he should be if he allows this "proposal" to stand.

But what's worse is, if GWB allows Allawi to implement this nasty amnesty idea, then we Republicans will have a very, very, very hard time to get a Republican in the WH for a long time to come, because a Republican President would be associated with "betrayal."

Posted by rex 2004-07-03 1:24:41 PM|| 2004-07-03 1:24:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 This is an AP story, so take it with a grain of salt. The amnesty idea may be reasonable with the more offensive elements added as spin to punch up the story and advance the Kerry agenda. The new Iraqi government hasn't yet learned that the American press is an even more pernicious enemy than the "insurrectionists." Politics are more important than lives (except for those who might vote Democratic).

Posted by RWV 2004-07-03 1:29:32 PM|| 2004-07-03 1:29:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 The amnesty idea may be reasonable
The AP does not have to "punch up" an idea that is a betrayal. You tell me how an amnesty idea can be, in any shape or form, "reasonable."

Posted by rex 2004-07-03 1:34:54 PM|| 2004-07-03 1:34:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Well from the POV of a guy wearing an evil hat, I would offer amnesty.

Yes yes yes, please come forth identify yourself, and turn in your guns. Ho ho ho, amnesty period over, now what was your address again...

Posted by flash91 2004-07-03 1:43:21 PM|| 2004-07-03 1:43:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 rex, it's called double-speak. There is what PM Allawi is saying in English and what he's saying in Arabic -- why didn't you realize that from watching Yasir Arafat? :-P

P.S. Are you one of those "Christ the King" types on the Freeper boards??

Posted by Edward Yee 2004-07-03 1:52:06 PM|| [http://edwardyee.fanworks.net] 2004-07-03 1:52:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Rex, I disagree. To end violence you must always provide amnesty to those that fought against you. Otherwise they have no reason to change their ways. The ones that are truly evil need to be killed. The ones that were fighting because they were confused and now want to rejoin Iraqi society should be allowed to. We did it with the Japanese, we did it with the Germans, we are doing it with the Afghans and if we want this to work we'll do it with the Iraqis.

The part that bothers me is he refers to the act of killing americans as justified. He should have said "those that have been tricked into believing the americans are our enemies and now realize the truth will be granted amnesty."

Posted by Damn_Proud_American 2004-07-03 2:01:03 PM|| [http://brighterfuture.blogspot.com] 2004-07-03 2:01:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Btw, we WERE an occupying army. Just because the LLL media has made that an evil word doesn't mean it is. We were liberators and then occupiers as was neccesary to bring freedom to the Iraqis. Denying that we occupied the country is exactly what the LLL's want you to do because it means you've bought into their ideology of attacking any occupation as evil. Instead the argument is that we occupied and bled for the Iraqis because of how good we are.

Posted by Damn_Proud_American 2004-07-03 2:03:56 PM|| [http://brighterfuture.blogspot.com] 2004-07-03 2:03:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 There is what PM Allawi is saying in English and what he's saying in Arabic
Allawi was educated in the USA, didn't you know? He can speak in Arabic as well as English.

Are you one of those "Christ the King" types on the Freeper boards??
No, I don't post on Freeper Boards and I am a non-practising Catholic. Are Catholics bad people in your view, too? Is there a particular faith you want all posters to be so as to meet with your approval?

To end violence you must always provide amnesty to those that fought against you.
Almost 900 GI's were killed in Iraq, mainly by Iraqis, who took up arms against America, along with the foreign fighters. Comparatively speaking, few Iraqis were killed by fellow Iraqis-maybe a couple of hundred, and some by accident. Iraqi insurgents were targeting for the most part American soldiers. ie. Allawi is promising amnesty to Iraqi "nationalists" who hate America and who will go out and kill GI's again because American GI's are still in Iraq and will be there for a long time, as we are told. What will make American GI's less an "occupying force" 2 months from now than 2 months ago? American troop presence is being increased with the hand over of the government, not decreased.

the argument is that we occupied and bled for the Iraqis because of how good we are.
And who do you think should be making that argument to Iraqis??? Perhaps Allawi, perhaps??

Posted by rex 2004-07-03 2:25:34 PM|| 2004-07-03 2:25:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Nope on the Freeper subject, and I'm more pro-Catholic ... well, minus the "Christ the King" ones >_> (I remember one posting a thesis on "monarchy > democracy because democracy = anti-Christian")

I'm aware of Allawi being educated in the US and being bilingual - so is Arafat, but see his double-speak. If it's of the good sort ...

Posted by Edward Yee 2004-07-03 2:42:53 PM|| [http://edwardyee.fanworks.net] 2004-07-03 2:42:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 I'm all for "Christ the King." However, I want the real thing. No stand-ins or stooges, please.

Posted by Ptah 2004-07-03 3:45:39 PM|| [http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2004-07-03 3:45:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 By even hinting at amnesty, Allawi has done more to damage American standing in Iraq since Sadr's open rebellion. This positively reeks of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of Arabic horseradish. To attribute even the remotest justification for killing American combatants is flat-out betrayal. Every kind of wrong message is being sent to the Iraqi people loud and clear.

Actively seeking to reel in some of the most violent and subversive elements within Iraq's insurgency simply indicates that Allawi has no intention of purging his nation of its extremists. Seeking any sort of alliance with these cutthroats is tantamount to collaboration.

If no backbone is shown now, what sort of complicity might we expect after exiting the scene? Will international terror once again find a haven in Iraq? All indications are that the answer is yes. Someone should point out to Allawi that if terror operations can be traced back into Iraq, we will return to depose him and possibly turn his entire country into a suzerain and be done with it for once and all.

Iraq's nationhood must not be permitted any foundation upon antipathy towards America. While the populace may not fully concur, if their country's charter implicitly incorporates respect for rebellion against those who liberated it at great cost, such a degree of treachery must not go unpunished.

We would be idiots for allowing Iraq to bite us on the hand after pulling them out from under Saddam's tyranny.

Posted by Zenster 2004-07-03 3:47:32 PM|| 2004-07-03 3:47:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Your powerful passionate statements, #12, are exactly what I had tried to express earlier, albeit not as eloquently. Hear, hear, Zenster!

Posted by rex 2004-07-03 4:23:05 PM|| 2004-07-03 4:23:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Thank you for the kind words, rex. You do a pretty good job of expressing yourself around here as well, I've noticed.

Both Iraq's and Saudi Arabia's amnesty plans are nothing more than naked attempts to co-opt terror elements within their borders back into the fold. This in no way represents even the least acceptable sort of attempts to thwart such a menace. It is nothing short of recruiting these extremists to serve the government's ends instead of their own. How this can ever be interpreted as productive or constructive in any manner whatsoever is a matter that only the Arab mind's infinite capacity for duplicity is able to countenance.

Whether by backchannel or direct diplomatic communication, Allawi must be made to understand that any attempt at amnesty will be regarded as outright betrayal and shall result in direct unilateral military action against those targets that would benefit most from such a boon.

If all of this is true, Allawi might as well have spit in our eye to suggest such a thing.

Posted by Zenster 2004-07-03 4:53:52 PM|| 2004-07-03 4:53:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 It is nothing short of recruiting these extremists to serve the government's ends instead of their own.

As long as they don't kill innocent people, let them serve whatever ends they please.

Allawi is bargaining from a position of extreme weakness. Being "sovereign", he will do what he feels is best for stability in his country. And that includes spitting in your eye, if he thinks it likely to improve matters.

And as for the amnesty, what he's talking about is *peace*. Didn't the American civil war also include offers of amnesty? All those extremist Southern rebels, weren't they pardoned?

And if your argument is that you'll invade a sovereign government just because it pardoned people that you didn't want to see pardoned... well, let's just say that you'll have lost any moral right in the war. Allawi so far hasn't proven himself a butchering mass-murderer like Saddam either, so you'll have no humanitarian reasons to invade either.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-07-03 5:15:35 PM|| 2004-07-03 5:15:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Rex, I disagree. To end violence you must always provide amnesty to those that fought against you. Otherwise they have no reason to change their ways. The ones that are truly evil need to be killed. The ones that were fighting because they were confused and now want to rejoin Iraqi society should be allowed to. We did it with the Japanese, we did it with the Germans, we are doing it with the Afghans and if we want this to work we'll do it with the Iraqis.

DPA, while history does indeed bear out your point, it seems unwise in the extreme for Iraq's newly formed government to offer such an olive branch without having first actively demonstrated its resolve to seek out and destroy those who continue to thwart their nation's fragile composure.

Doing this without first making a concerted effort, again, reeks of merely hoping to co-opt these terrorist elements back into the fold. The Iraqi government would be far better off to make clear that death awaits those who do not surrender instead of resorting to flat-out bribery so early in the game. I fail to see where this should have the least curative effect upon the true malaise that rots Iraq at its core. Namely, the continued presence of terrorists and their support groups within Iraq's borders.

The threat of these remnant subversives is not only to Iraq. America will suffer soon enough as well if nothing is done to incapacitate terror's grip within Iraq's Shi'ite community. Those who support such evil must be shown the error of their ways and not merely glad-handed back into societal good standing. Much of our work will have been in vain should this not occur.

Posted by Zenster 2004-07-03 5:21:20 PM|| 2004-07-03 5:21:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Aris, like DPA you make some valid points. However, "Allawi is bargaining from a position of extreme weakness" and I find this to be a foolish way of bolstering against one's vulnerability. Such spineless lack of determination will only serve to encourage renegades like Sadr.

Allawi so far hasn't proven himself a butchering mass-murderer like Saddam either, so you'll have no humanitarian reasons to invade either.

I do not agree. Co-opting the Shi'ite terrorist factions back into Iraqi society without penalty represents a substantial threat to regional and American national security. Allowing Iraq's residual terror structure to go unpunished is the same as condoning it. If Allawi is unable or unwilling to make definite inroads towards exterminating this long standing threat, then America has every right to reverse its own stance on Iraqi sovereignty.

Posted by Zenster 2004-07-03 5:29:53 PM|| 2004-07-03 5:29:53 PM|| Front Page Top

02:17 Anonymous3245697
02:25 Anonymous3245697
10:52 rich woods
03:25 Anonymous15578
03:18 Anonymous11121
01:31 .com
00:35 Zenster
00:20 .com
23:55 Aris Katsaris
23:40 Pappy
23:39 Les Nessman
23:37 Pappy
23:08 Barbara Skolaut
23:06 .com
22:56 Jarhead
22:49 .com
22:46 .com
22:46 Barbara Skolaut
22:43 Frank G
22:37 .com
22:30 Jarhead
22:09 Eric Jablow
21:53 .com
21:49 Frank G