#1 Democrats oppose chance at Iraqi Peace.
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 9:03 pm
Recently, without discussing it with the US government first (yeah, some puppet government there really) the Iraqi government offered a limited amensty for insurrgents. Now I had thought Jr and the GOP would oppose this, being the hot to trot punish all terrorist now crowd so I thought. Seems I thought wrong
This makes no sense to me. The party that has called repeatly for withdrawal from Iraq, for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, for a drawdown of troops in Iraq... Now refuses a policy that is designed to remove the need for our troops in Iraq. The two stands do not fit. They are in opposition. You cannot call for withdrawal and then demand we kill or jail every man who has ever fired at an American service member.
I have to ask, what do you think will happen if American troops leave tomorrow, do you believe that the men who have been shooting at them will somehow be punished? By who? A coalition government that will feel no great need to do favors for a nation that just abadoned it? Rival rebel forces who were also shooting at American troops? Iranians? Turks? Saudis? Why would any of these groups go into Iraq to punish people for shooting at American troops... THEY DIDN'T WANT IN IRAQ IN THE FIRST PLACE!?! A withdrawal would have the same result in this case as amnesty, no punishment for those men. However, amnesty brings the chance for peace within Iraq, which I had though was our primary goal, democrats and republicians alike.
It may be shocking to hear me, a former Marine who served in Iraq backing the idea of granting amnesty for insurgents. I know I have been among the loudiest voices on this board for staying in Iraq until the job is done and the Iraqi government is stable and the insurgency dead. That however does not make me a bloodthristy idiot.
Ask yourselves this, how many southern troops were punished for shooting federal troops in the American civil war? How many Germans punished for shooting at Americans in WWI, or WWII? How many North Koreans punished? How many member of the Viet Cong were punished for shooting at Americans? A quick look at history shows that the majority of men who shot at an enemy in a time of war, never get punished for it. (You may want to consider that a good thing, after all what happens if next time you're on the losing side?)
The prime and overriding responsibilty of the United States in Iraq is to secure a free, constitutionally governed, peaceful nation where Iraqis can tend to their own affairs. It is not to hunt down every man who ever shot at an American service member and wreck bloody venegence, doing that will ensure that we are there for the next 40 years. If the British could extend amnesties in North Ireland, then the US can back the Iraqi government in extending amnesties to Iraqi insurgents. Otherwise we convince the insurgents that they are locked in a battle to the death, otherwise we convince the Iraqi on the street that all we care about is revenage, not their welfare.
The amnesty is not a perfect or cure all solution, even if it goes through, there will be men who continue to fight. But it is a chance to convince men to put down their guns and stop fighting.
With the death of Zarawki we showed we can kill terrorist, but do we want to have to keep doing it again and again and again when we don't have to?
By refusing to suppor the amnesty, the Democrats are playing politics, petty, foolish politics with the lives of American troops, with the welfare of the Iraqi Government and the lives of Iraqi childern, by stooping to these tactics they have shown that any moral edge they claim over the Republicians is a fable, a myth and a child's tale.
This makes no sense to me. The party that has called repeatly for withdrawal from Iraq, for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, for a drawdown of troops in Iraq... Now refuses a policy that is designed to remove the need for our troops in Iraq. The two stands do not fit. They are in opposition. You cannot call for withdrawal and then demand we kill or jail every man who has ever fired at an American service member.
I have to ask, what do you think will happen if American troops leave tomorrow, do you believe that the men who have been shooting at them will somehow be punished? By who? A coalition government that will feel no great need to do favors for a nation that just abadoned it? Rival rebel forces who were also shooting at American troops? Iranians? Turks? Saudis? Why would any of these groups go into Iraq to punish people for shooting at American troops... THEY DIDN'T WANT IN IRAQ IN THE FIRST PLACE!?! A withdrawal would have the same result in this case as amnesty, no punishment for those men. However, amnesty brings the chance for peace within Iraq, which I had though was our primary goal, democrats and republicians alike.
It may be shocking to hear me, a former Marine who served in Iraq backing the idea of granting amnesty for insurgents. I know I have been among the loudiest voices on this board for staying in Iraq until the job is done and the Iraqi government is stable and the insurgency dead. That however does not make me a bloodthristy idiot.
Ask yourselves this, how many southern troops were punished for shooting federal troops in the American civil war? How many Germans punished for shooting at Americans in WWI, or WWII? How many North Koreans punished? How many member of the Viet Cong were punished for shooting at Americans? A quick look at history shows that the majority of men who shot at an enemy in a time of war, never get punished for it. (You may want to consider that a good thing, after all what happens if next time you're on the losing side?)
The prime and overriding responsibilty of the United States in Iraq is to secure a free, constitutionally governed, peaceful nation where Iraqis can tend to their own affairs. It is not to hunt down every man who ever shot at an American service member and wreck bloody venegence, doing that will ensure that we are there for the next 40 years. If the British could extend amnesties in North Ireland, then the US can back the Iraqi government in extending amnesties to Iraqi insurgents. Otherwise we convince the insurgents that they are locked in a battle to the death, otherwise we convince the Iraqi on the street that all we care about is revenage, not their welfare.
The amnesty is not a perfect or cure all solution, even if it goes through, there will be men who continue to fight. But it is a chance to convince men to put down their guns and stop fighting.
With the death of Zarawki we showed we can kill terrorist, but do we want to have to keep doing it again and again and again when we don't have to?
By refusing to suppor the amnesty, the Democrats are playing politics, petty, foolish politics with the lives of American troops, with the welfare of the Iraqi Government and the lives of Iraqi childern, by stooping to these tactics they have shown that any moral edge they claim over the Republicians is a fable, a myth and a child's tale.