Should the Iraqi government grant amnesty to those citizens who...

...have taken up arms in active resistance of the U.S. spearheaded invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq? This would include those who may have wounded and/or killed U.S. soldiers, but for the purposes of this poll, not those who've engaged in war crimes as defined by the Geneva Conventions, such as torture.

It seems to me a careful examination as to the question of the legality of the U.S. invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq, not to mention the acts of torture and wanton slaughter that have since come to light, should rightly weigh in answering this question.

Here is a link to the full text of the Geneva Conventions, to which the United States is a signatory, and to which Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales has referred to as "quaint."

http://www.genevaconventions.org/

Please feel free to explain your vote.

I do not think it should be done while the United States is still occupying Iraq, because that is very close to the equivalent of giving Iraqis license to attack Americans.

Then again, I believe that we should leave--soon.

After we leave then I don't think we have much standing to object to such an amnesty, and I would be very surprised if the Iraqi government did not announce such an amnesty, and even more surprised if any government that does not announce such an amnesty survives very long at all.

Then again, I'd be pretty surprised if any Iraqi government that comes to power anytime soon survives very long.

...occupation is ongoing makes it very difficult to vote Yes, since this seems a betrayal of our troops who are in harms way, however, voting No seems to suggest that the citizenry of a sovereign nation only has the right to armed resistance of an illegal invasion/occupation when the invader/occupier is NOT the United States.

USA, wouldn't it be justified for an American citizen to fight for his country? Remember the movie Red Dawn, would you call the Wolverines terrorists or freedom fighters?

on edit: The puppet government in Iraq may be wise to postpone it until the US leaves but you know once we invade a country we will always have a presence there.

...of a foreign invader.

It's been a while since I've seen Red Dawn. As I recall the Wolverines certainly started out as freedom fighters. As the movie progressed I seem to remember it evolving into a warning/reminder that the distinction between good and evil, right and wrong, justified killing and wanton slaughter, is not always so clear cut, black and white, easy to make. Hope I'm thinking of the right movie.

from beginning to end if I remember correctly. They were trying to be like the mujaheddin, our buddies back then--horses and AK's in the mountains.

...I may be confusing Red Dawn with something else.

and a bunch of High School kids killed Commies. Wasn't that complicated. But one of the arguments the NRA bunch make for guns is for protection from a foreign invader, so I would assume you would be justified to use them if the USA were occupied by another country. I have always been fascinated how people in the US think we are superior to the rest of the people in the world. Americans think we single handedly won WWII and made all the sacrifices, but the Russians lost something like 30 million people. Americans like Toby Keith think we just went over there and put a boot up their ass, the Russians probably were 10 times more responsible for the defeat of Germany than we were.

REPUBLICANS: Tough on Mexicans, soft on terrorists.

...This doesn't seem consistent with GOP thinking to me.

I'd be interested to hear the rationale they offered.

But he also asked that the US give a time-table for deploying out of Iraq by year's end, and the GOP aren't having any of that "cutting and running."

It is a mystery. And hypocrisy.

The Dems should take a page out of the GOP playbook and send around press releases highlighting this little factoid. What's good for the goose ...