I support amnesty for insurgents

[liberalpragmatist]

I know this is a politically unpopular position, but I favor amnesty for Sunni insurgents who killed US troops.

Certainly I don't want our troops killed, but they are in a war. You don't make peace with friends. The U.S. gave amnesty to Confederate soldiers who were committing treason against the United States. If we want the Iraqi government to stabilize and for us to be able to get out of Iraq, amnesty may be the only way to do it. We are, after all, dealing with a political insurgency, against Sunni militants who are in a state of war against us and against the Iraqi government. Negotiation in warfare is all about give-and-take, including sometimes making some unsavory deals in order to advance general peace. And remember too that this is the decision of the Iraqi government; if they choose to, I don't see how we can insist otherwise if they are a sovereign government.

I should add that amnesty for those who kill US troops makes sense; amnesty for those insurgents who kill Iraqi civilians deliberately actually makes much less sense and is even more morally heinous than killing troops (who are actors in a war situation)

Now, I retain an open mind. I'd like to here the arguments on how NOT offering amnesty to insurgents who kill US troops will get Iraq peace or won't affect the chance for peace.

[still_one]

1. you only do that AFTER THE FIGHTING STOPS

NOT DURING

It is a very bad policy

[journalist3072]

2. Right. That's my whole issue in this.

I support amnesty for the insurgents too. But not WHILE our troops are still there.

[mike_c]

3. the fighting will never stop-- I support amnesty too...

...on the general principle that it is their right and their duty to fight foreign invaders and occupation forces.

[beam me up scottie]

5. I'm with you.

As usual, Mike, you nailed it.

WE are the invaders.

WE are the occupiers.

This is an illegal war against a sovereign nation.

Why do people keep forgetting that?

[still_one]

7. Then we should get the hell out of there, which I am for

but forget amnesty while we are there

[mike_c]

8. why?

Seriously, why "forget amnesty...." Do you dispute that Iraqis have every right to defend against American invaders?

[still_one]

9. I am not going to debate that point since I do NOT believe we

should be there. If the U.S. government has troops there fighting, and they won't bring them home, then OUR government should not allow amnesty with who they are fighting. What the Iraqii government does is their business. If the Iraqii government wants to give the opposing SIDES amnesty that is their issue, NOT the U.S. government issue.

We should bring the troops home in this illegal war, but for the criminals who started this war to agree allow amnesty while the soldiers are fighting THEIR war is wrong.

[mike_c]

11. OUR gov't isn't the one at issue here....

The amnesty proposal is from the Iraqi Prime Minister-- as is fitting, Iraq being sovereign and all. Do you mean to suggest that our gov't should dictate the actions of the Iraqi gov't? That is the plan in any event, I suspect.

And we ARE there, so my original questions stands: given that immutable truth, why shouldn't Iraqis have every right to defend themselves against occupation?

Naturally, I agree with you about ending the occupation immediately, but as long as American troops are there in contravention of international law they are, and should be, targets for Iraqis seeking to repel the occupiers. I'd certainly do the same if the situation were reversed.

Certainly the Iraqi insurgents agree with us both on the essential point that "we should (not) be there."

[still_one]

12. if you read my post I never suggested that we should dictate

to the Iraqiis. In fact I said JUST THE OPPOSITE. The Iraqii government should do what it needs to do in its own interest.

In reality this is a moot issue:

both democrats and republicans are going to stay the course. If the democrats, except for a few, actually acted as an opposition party, maybe things would be different.

it is irrelevent what should or should not be. The people in the U.S. are dumb fat and happy, and until they are directly affected, NOTHING will change

to your original question, the Iraqis will do whatever they will do, and that includes defend themselves against occupation, but the American soldiers will also defend themselves, and it won't be pretty

[liberalpragmatist]

4. I can understand that

Although I'm not sure it always works out that cleanly - what if we're not going to get stability without making such a deal? In that case, it becomes a moot point because the whole country has blown up already.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. Then the fighting will never stop.

Suppose that a deal was worked out: our troops return to their bases and then exit in 60-90 days (we left vietnam in 60 days,) a cease fire is declared immediately, and a general amnesty is declared effective on the same day as our departure. Would you oppose that too?

[AlamoDemoc]

6. This whole amnesty issue is a scam imo

You can't be offering amnesty to small-time criminals, con-men, gurus, and petty theives.....they aren't part of the political process, and don't need amnesty. This amnesty should be about political dialog between all Iraqis and the full withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq.