Here's the story:

Link



Other demands made by these groups seem even less likely to be accepted by the United States.



I don't see any real possibility that this offer will lead to anything. However, for the sake of debate, let's assume that the insurgents are sincere, and that announcing a timetable for withdrawal of American troops would lead to a large reduction in bloodshed.

Let me also make my position on the war in Iraq clear. Although I believe that the American invasion of Iraq was a terrible mistake, it is a fact and it must be dealt with one way or another. I see no benefit to a specific date for withdrawal of American troops; I just wish that they had never gone there.

To be debated:

Assuming these particular insugents would really halt all attacks, would this be beneficial enough to make it a good idea for the United States to announce a specific date for withdrawal?

Assuming these particular insurgents would really halt all attacks, would this be beneficial enough to make it a good idea for the United States to announce a specific date for withdrawal?

All wars end with treaties. I'm not sure why the United States would not entertain such an offer of a cease fire. After a specific cease fire period, the US could withdraw.

The problem is that there are various groups involved in the insurgency. The continuing resistance of any one of these groups would be enough to violate the cease fire.

I think this would be a good stepping stone. These groups stop their attacks and assist the US and the Iraq government calm the rest of the groups. If violence continues at the current pace, the war will continue.

Now, the other terms of the agreement are less likely to be agreed upon. Certainly the US must be able to continue operations against still active combat units of the enemy.

I hope the government gives serious thought to this offer.

Assuming these particular insugents would really halt all attacks, would this be beneficial enough to make it a good idea for the United States to announce a specific date for withdrawal?

Firts of all, I should just make it clear that that's quite an assumption. I don't know how we could ever really know whether or not they'd keep their word without actually putting it to the test. In particular, how do we know that after we leave, they won't find some other specious excuse for starting up again? Say, some new Iraqi government policy that they claim will adversely affect them in a way that will "leave us with no other choice" but to start up again?

But even assuming that they will really will lay down their arms permanently, still the key word in your question is "particular". If they stop, but the rest of the insurgents keep going, and we leave, things could easily wind up getting worse than if we stay.

Was it an offer from the real so-called insurgents, or just an offer from Brits or Americans dressing up as Arab commandos? link

You certainly are infatuated with this story, as you seem to post it over and over and over again........

But how does your assertion of somebody dressed up, as you say, 'arab commandos' answer the questions posed by Victoria? How is Chinaview.cn a more credible news source than MSNBC? Even the esteemed folks at DU can't make up their mind as to what the article actually means.
Are you actually interested in debate, or just committing drive-by one liners? Care to provide us with your context?

My words certainly ring true but only in the reality-based meaning of the word. Someone posted an article which was supposed to be about the Iraqi freedom fighters' a.k.a. insurgents' offer to the US to lay down their weapons for a cease fire. The mainstream media has told bogus 'facts' and we all know that is a fact i.e. ignoring important issues such as the British "fixed-evidence" memo and the words of their very own leaders, Rice and Powell in particular. Here's my evidence for that:http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm
So naturally if the mainstream is telling people that the evil Iraqi 'insurgents' want to have a cease fire, and in which that cease fire would effectively cease the entire reason for their even fighting...something is wrong if not a downright lie. What I'm being told is that the 'insurgents' in Iraq are willing to (willingly) lose their fight for a few years, in fact surrendering entirely to the US. That makes no sense whatsoever, so hell yeah I will remain skeptical of what the 'insurgents' really want and are really doing over there, especially when it's someone from the Pentagon saying it.

TM, have you given any thought to the theory that the, ahem "*freedom fighters*" have realized that killing their own countrymen is not leading to the establishment of a base of power for them? That their dreams of either a Ba'athist state or an Umma will not come to fruition, and that some may have decided that working within the political structure will return some peace and normalcy to their lives and the lives and their families?
The MSNBC article states that they received their information from government sources AND insurgents. Feel free to disprove the authenticity of the sources, but if you restrict yourself only to sources and outlets that say what you want to hear, then your probably facing an uphill battle for the truth.

I think there has to some example or willingness to negotiate on Maliki's part on behalf of the Americans. Even if the deal does not go though I would take every chance possible to convince people America is there to liberate and not to occupy. The Americans need to demonstrate they are ready to engage in open talks.

I read an article today I think would be of use here...

Condi rejects overtures for international help.




For myself, I would want to get as much participation as possible. This begs the question, "why would she reject help?"