Poll
Should Iraq talk to insurgents?
| Yes | 75% | 75% - 41 | ||||
| No | 24% | 24% - 13 | ||||
| Total: 54 | ||||||
You might as well ask the question "Do you want succes in Iraq?"
I agree, they are the same question.Spearhead wrote:
You might as well ask the question "Do you want succes in Iraq?"
Its not up for the west to decide its up to the iraqis...U know since they got democracy and shit
Mostly shit you may say.Magpie wrote:
Its not up for the west to decide its up to the iraqis...U know since they got democracy and shit
True and they have the west to thank for there shit . I wonder why they dont like ussergeriver wrote:
Mostly shit you may say.Magpie wrote:
Its not up for the west to decide its up to the iraqis...U know since they got democracy and shit
Yep I say invite there leaders to a conference table, then fly a cruise missile through the window.
I would like to say no way fuck em no discussion with murders.
But talking has been working in Northern Island, not saying it the say thing but it might help.
But that said if they get their way around the a discussion table, what's to stop them from starting it all again as soon as something else happens they don't agree with.
Hell even if talks happened I bet that the bombings wouldn't stop.
I would like to say no way fuck em no discussion with murders.
But talking has been working in Northern Island, not saying it the say thing but it might help.
But that said if they get their way around the a discussion table, what's to stop them from starting it all again as soon as something else happens they don't agree with.
Hell even if talks happened I bet that the bombings wouldn't stop.
Why the fuck not? Tony Blair talked the to baby-killing IRA and Unionists, who are no better than the IRA, so that kinda sets a precedent. The end result is peace and peace is a good thing.
I agree with your point but I don't think the IRA (or even the Unionist military groups) ever went out of their way to try and kill babies.aarfrith wrote:
Why the fuck not? Tony Blair talked the to baby-killing IRA and Unionists, who are no better than the IRA, so that kinda sets a precedent. The end result is peace and peace is a good thing.
i say nay as that would recongnize the groups as political activist more than what they really are terrorist or in bubbalos case freedom fighters
Perhaps they should be talking to the people funding them. You should never take completly off the table. But the "insurgents" don't sound like reasonable people to me. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070320/wl … 0320203409
There should be some dialog with the people who have grievances and don't feel the best thing for their country is to load a car down with chlorine gas, drive it to the local market place, and murder their own citizens/sympathizers. There are people to talk to that are not content on slaughtering Iraqi's.
There should be some dialog with the people who have grievances and don't feel the best thing for their country is to load a car down with chlorine gas, drive it to the local market place, and murder their own citizens/sympathizers. There are people to talk to that are not content on slaughtering Iraqi's.
Last edited by Kmarion (2007-03-21 14:42:27)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
They need to talk to people high up from all sides. With a little co-operation and some luck the guys at the top can convince the hard-liners/brutal bastards to restrain themselves at the grass roots level (like the IRA have managed in Ireland). Having said that in Iraq at the moment there is a lot of chaos and many of these incidents are carried out by splinter groups with no strong leadership, it's hard to do business with these kinds of factions as they're little better than bandits in many cases. Talking should never be ruled out though as it often ends up being the solution after years and years of violence.
That's what i was trying to say as well. The title of the thread says to talk to "insurgents". If anything is to be achieved they need to talk to the people who tell them to do the dirty work.Braddock wrote:
They need to talk to people high up from all sides. With a little co-operation and some luck the guys at the top can convince the hard-liners/brutal bastards to restrain themselves at the grass roots level (like the IRA have managed in Ireland). Having said that in Iraq at the moment there is a lot of chaos and many of these incidents are carried out by splinter groups with no strong leadership, it's hard to do business with these kinds of factions as they're little better than bandits in many cases. Talking should never be ruled out though as it often ends up being the solution after years and years of violence.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
It is the only way to get them to stop. While we do not have to give into their demands right away if talks are being help then they are less likely to feel hostile, which means they will not feel inclined to blow up stuff. Also if the insurgents do stop most of their attacks then Bush will probably order a withdrawal, he did say when the insurgents are under control he would withdraw troops. And what bad could come from talking with them anyway?
About what?
Cutting back on roadside IEDS? A return to one-party dictatorship? The imposition of Sharia Law?
This is far beyond the US and the West: this is tribal fighting which existed for centuries and was only given reprieve due to strong central government - now lacking once more.
Democracy is an impossibility until it is imposed by the barrel of a gun - and then it's not really democracy anymore, is it?
Cutting back on roadside IEDS? A return to one-party dictatorship? The imposition of Sharia Law?
This is far beyond the US and the West: this is tribal fighting which existed for centuries and was only given reprieve due to strong central government - now lacking once more.
Democracy is an impossibility until it is imposed by the barrel of a gun - and then it's not really democracy anymore, is it?
Good pointSondernkommando wrote:
About what?
Cutting back on roadside IEDS? A return to one-party dictatorship? The imposition of Sharia Law?
This is far beyond the US and the West: this is tribal fighting which existed for centuries and was only given reprieve due to strong central government - now lacking once more.
Democracy is an impossibility until it is imposed by the barrel of a gun - and then it's not really democracy anymore, is it?
Beings as the insurgents are mostly Iraqi I'd say they talk them when they gas up their camels.
I'd rather kill them than talk with them.
It appears to be a difficult task. Who is your target?Turquoise wrote:
I'd rather kill them than talk with them.
I gotta give props for this one as well.Spearhead wrote:
Good pointSondernkommando wrote:
About what?
Cutting back on roadside IEDS? A return to one-party dictatorship? The imposition of Sharia Law?
This is far beyond the US and the West: this is tribal fighting which existed for centuries and was only given reprieve due to strong central government - now lacking once more.
Democracy is an impossibility until it is imposed by the barrel of a gun - and then it's not really democracy anymore, is it?
Agreed... I think we should get out of Iraq as soon as possible, since we can't stomach the brutality that would be required to actually "win" this conflict.sergeriver wrote:
It appears to be a difficult task. Who is your target?Turquoise wrote:
I'd rather kill them than talk with them.
Not to mention, after we destroy one country, dozens of other countries would go to war with us. It'd be World War 3... or worseTurquoise wrote:
Agreed... I think we should get out of Iraq as soon as possible, since we can't stomach the brutality that would be required to actually "win" this conflict.sergeriver wrote:
It appears to be a difficult task. Who is your target?Turquoise wrote:
I'd rather kill them than talk with them.
Pretty much... That's the main problem with occupation. We see this spreading of chaos throughout Africa when one regime crushes another, only to find they have to crush the regime next to that one and so on....Spearhead wrote:
Not to mention, after we destroy one country, dozens of other countries would go to war with us. It'd be World War 3... or worseTurquoise wrote:
Agreed... I think we should get out of Iraq as soon as possible, since we can't stomach the brutality that would be required to actually "win" this conflict.sergeriver wrote:
It appears to be a difficult task. Who is your target?
If we left now I think we would see a brutality like nothing else we have witnessed since the invasion. Of course we should get out. But our sense of decency haunts us. Some do really care about the Iraqi people. Getting out without a government that has a chance will lay the ground work for genocide. There are politicians who play on our fears and tell us that when we leave Iraqi's will be swimming over to US soil. That is not why I think we need to be careful when speaking in terms of abandoning Iraqi.Turquoise wrote:
Agreed... I think we should get out of Iraq as soon as possible, since we can't stomach the brutality that would be required to actually "win" this conflict.sergeriver wrote:
It appears to be a difficult task. Who is your target?Turquoise wrote:
I'd rather kill them than talk with them.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Now lets be accurate on this. It is the democrats that could not stomache a win in Iraq because that would surely mean defeat in 08. You know that is the truth, which is why I loath them so much. They use the lives of our troops for their politcal gains, that has nothing to do with the tasks charged to our military.Turquoise wrote:
Agreed... I think we should get out of Iraq as soon as possible, since we can't stomach the brutality that would be required to actually "win" this conflict.sergeriver wrote:
It appears to be a difficult task. Who is your target?Turquoise wrote:
I'd rather kill them than talk with them.