Bring em home
Well that seems pretty clear. They want a timed withdrawal not much different from what Murtha proposed. This paragraph is notable in its lack of reference to U.S. forces. I think it is clear that attacks against American Troops is not considered terrorism, but rather resistance. So why the hell are we there.
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
Guardian Unlimited | World Latest | Iraqi Leaders Call for Pullout Timetable: "CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - Leaders of Iraq's sharply divided Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis called Monday for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces in the country and said Iraq's opposition had a ``legitimate right'' of resistance.
The final communique, hammered out at the end of three days of negotiations at a preparatory reconciliation conference under the auspices of the Arab League, 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.
The participants in Cairo agreed on ``calling for the withdrawal of foreign troops according to a timetable, through putting in place an immediate national program to rebuild the armed forces ... control the borders and the security situation'' and end terror attacks."
Comments
"Bring em home" I'm suprised you posted that headline, afterall given the content of the preceeding post, "no can do" we haven't secured the oil fields yet (if ever) I think Bushco should mend a few fences with Venezuela, or invade, I'm sure there is a plan in the drawer. Personaly I think the inevitable outcome in Iraq, resulting in a greater Iranian state in everything but name, will do little to feed US demands for oil. And the next scenario, Bushco's spreading of democracy (read instability) in the middle east will put the House of Saud in not inconsiderable jepordy. Should Saudi Arabia sink into turmoil, and interupt or dry up the oil flow, then it won't be blood for oil, it will be something a tad more drastic.
i dont see how oil is the biggest concern. it seems we have been arming and training one faction against the other, and the more i learn about it the more likely it seems a civil war is coming.
relating to our interests-we have caused so much damage to the iraqis over the last 15 years that hatred toward america would not surprise me, especially if after everything we have done we cause a bloody civil war. however, i think our presence might be causing more harm than good, though it is hard to know.
So who's left of the "Stay the Course" crowd? Bush, Cheney, Mean Jean, Condi, maybe Rummy (who you will recall was not asked his opinion on the invasion) ... that's about it!
We have been arming and training opposing factions for decades it was actually Daddy Bush's specialty. Divide and conquer is one of the oldest tactics in the history of war. The practise of corporate imperialism has been on the rise for the past few years. The military gets us in, the "rebuilding" process is conveniently given to favored defense contractors and as long as the host nation's political situation remains unstable our continued involvement is justified.