Posted on 11/22/2005 5:24:24 AM PST by paudio
CAIRO, Egypt — 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
So, why don't we leave and get their civil war over with, if its coming anyway?
"The Democrats, knowing this tried to capitalize with the overhyped and mischaracterized Murtha pull-out-now "reversal". They would like nothing more than for people to think that they forced the issue when of course it was part of the plan all along."
Bullseye!
Source?
As the old saying goes. Democracy is like sausages. It's better not seeing either of them being made.
No. Don't be such a reactionary and fall for every sound bite.
As best as I can tell, It means that after the war's over, insergents won't be imprisoned for war crimes unless they targeted civilians.
Well, that'll sure give them a disincentive to attack soldiers!
The left takes the U.S. to task if there's a hint of impropriety, but never addresses the butchery conducted by the terrorists.
I didn't attribute the rest to them, but you can count on them feeling the same way and in fact moreso IMO.
This is Reuters (yes, I know):
“Although the concluding statement recognised resistance as a legitimate right of the people against occupiers, participants differed on their definition of resistance, a controversy that continued throughout the three-day conference.”
. . . .
“In the end, all participants agreed to request the withdrawal of foreign forces according to a timetable conditional on the building of an Iraqi armed force that was well trained and sufficiently equipped to protect the country, control the security situation and end terrorism.”
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/02fb4b61d54a2c57402b7548073d955e.htm
Everyone is coming away from this thing with a different definition of what was agreed. Typical political maneuvering, which is even more pronounced in some regions of the world. They are trying to come up with a political arrangement of reconciliation.
It is heartening to see folks added daily to the list of those that 'get it'.
They may have disagreed on their definition of resistance, but they didn't on their definition of terrorism. Which is more important?
"You seem to be stuck on stupid? Can we do anything for you? You need the article translated into something like " phonics is fun" so that you actually understand what it all means?"
You took my breath away with yours, in this post, #89.
Fine. Let's pull out and let them kill each other by the thousands, just like the good ole days of Saddam. /sarcasm still on.
Agree,that is absolutely my sentiments. So we saved their Iraqi butts and now it is okay to call killing American military just "resistence." Such ingratitude.
Looks to me that the Iraqis will be at 75% sometime in the summer of 2006 and no sooner. Someone have reference to anything more optimistic than that?
From the article:
"The conference was attended by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Iraqi Shiite and Kurdish lawmakers, as well as leading Sunni politicians."
The article says that the Iraqi President was there.
Better yet, lets go into every Muslim country with religious war, and help them settle their differences.
"If democracy is just free elections, it is likely that the most fanatic regime will be elected, the one whose incitement and fabrications are the most inflammatory. We have seen it already in Algeria and, to a certain extent, in Turkey. It will happen again, if the ground is not prepared very carefully. On the other hand, a certain transition democracy, as in Jordan, may be a better temporary solution, paving the way for the real thing, perhaps in the same way that an immediate sudden democracy did not work in Russia and would not have worked in China.
First, thank you for your service, and secondly I think you are dead wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.