"... 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."
It appears terrorists appeasers have infiltrated this "meeting".
Oh, this must be the Murtha plan. When we pull out, this country will fall to islam. There is no reason to believer otherwise. If islam can insinuate itself into non-muslim (but democratic) Europe, Iraq will be a piece of cake.
This call is meaningless. The new Iraqi government put in place in December will make the call.
Almost all the parties before the January election were demanding a US pullout, then after they get elected the asses notice it means their head if the US leaves so they want us to stay. Politicians are self serving scum the world over.
They already have a timetable. What don't they understand about:"When the job is done"?
"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," the document said.
So killing our men and women is acceptable as long as they don't target these other people and places? If so, bring the troops home today. Screw them and their shit hole country!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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
You mena like the hundreds and hundreds of innocent Iraqis killed at funerals, weddings, markets, etc.? You mean like the hundreds killed at their police stations, their judges and lawyers, their power plants, etc.?
This doucment itself is repleat with abject contradictions and fantasy.
The people fighting coalition forces ARE terrorists, plain and simple, and anyone with open eyes and hearts can see that in the rivers of the blood of innocents they have on their hands...they are shoulder deep in it.
This will get WAY overplayed and spun as some sort of American retreat. Of course there have always been plans for a phased withdrawal beginning after the elections. 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.
Looks like the Sunni's are getting their talking points directly from the the democrats.
The goal of the adminstration was to have elections on new interim governments, a constitution and now another election of a permanent government. The left said it would not happen but thanks to the troops it has. I can still remember reading all the doom and gloom that a new constitution would not get done but it did!
The other goal is to bring stability by way of building up the security forces. This should be completed in 2006 sometime. There has been some quiet handovers of area to Iraq forces that are very rarely talked about in the LSM. Thus, I expect a lot of troops home in 2006.
I think the administration does not want to give a fix date on INF troops taking over MNF responsibilities (unlike the elections) since things might get delayed due to a variety attacks going on in the theatre.
BTTT
That's fine. I'm not joking.
They may have a 'legitimate right' for Iraq's opposition to resist a foriegn military, but there is none such acknowledged to resist the Iraqi government. The U.S. presence has huge propaganda value for the insurgents, but we can take that away from them. If we withdraw to a few bases out in the desert, as we are basically planning on doing now, and leaving everything else to the Iraqis, then the fight between the foriegn invaders and the Arab resistance becomes a fight between Iraqi citizens and foriegn terrorists.
That's a horse of a different color, folks.
So, relax. There's nothing wrong with handing the country back to the locals. We don't want to occupy Iraq forver. If the political leaders feel they're ready for us to withdraw so they can take over, then I'm all for that. I know we keep saying 'all the terrorists have to do is wait', but that only works if there's nothing to replace us when we leave. The Iraqi military and police can deal with the terrorists just fine, when properly motivated, and will, once we get off their backs.
Besides, it's not like we're really leaving. We'll just be out of sight from the average Iraqi. They'll still benefit from our air power, special forces training, and logistical support, for a very long time. So, lets not be overly pessimistic about moving into the next phase.
"The communique included no means for implementing its provisions, leaving it unclear what it will mean in reality other than to stand as a symbol of a first step toward bringing the feuding parties together in an agreement in principle."
Just the same old, typical BS.
An Iraqi's thoughts on the Cairo conference can be found here:
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
"We heard a similar sort of talks prior to January elections and many parties held the slogan of ending “the occupation” but after the elected representatives sat to figure out what to do most of them found that asking the troops to leave would be in no one’s interest so they found themselves asking the UN to let the troops stay for another couple of years instead of asking them to leave.
Again, this issue is a technical one and speeches mean almost nothing and I’m positive that whoever is to be elected next month will realize the complexity of the situation especially when it comes to building Iraqi forces capable of preserving security."
I have a feeling that this is just a bunch of local Napoleons and NOT legally elected representatives from the government.
It's the same one we have..get the Iraqis trained first.
The Iraqis did not want to put a date certain.
OK,bye bye...
Before some will go hysteric over this you must understand the following. In the Arab language it is very easy to twist and play with words so when they talk about the so called “resistance” in this communiqué it does not mean at all that they have legitimized the attacks against of our troops, the Iraqi forces, and other coalition troops. It was just a three words statement in 5 page long document that says the people have the right for resistance. There were much more statements in the communique that condemn terrorism and basically declare the insurgent groups as terrorists. In fact the important part of the communiqué states that the future Iraqi governments will put a schedule for the withdrawal of foreign troops in conjunction and with the conditions of the build up and “capability” of the Iraqi security forces to take over and establish peace and security in Iraq. This is exactly what President Bush has been saying for a long time, i.e. when the Iraqi forces stand up we will stand down.
2050, that should cycle the population