Iraqi amnesty. Let me get this straight.

Some in the US Congress are upset about hearing that the newly elected president of Iraq is talking about amnesty for the insurgents? So it's ok to give amnesty to Iraqi insurgents who killed other Iraqis but it is not ok to offer amnesty to any insurgents who may have killed US military? WTF kind of amnesty is that? It's ok to kill your fellow Iraqis but not ok to kill invading, occupying military and receive amnesty? How in the world do we expect this new Iraqi government to bring the Iraqi people together in a unified government if it can't promise amnesty to its native fighters who were fighting FOR their country against occupying forces?

Looking at this assinine policy another way, if the shoe was on the other foot and the US were invaded and US citizens rose up to fight the invaders, at the end of conflict, it would be ok to offer the US insurgents amnesty if they had killed each other in the conflict but no amnesty for killing foreign invaders who had been occupying our country?

Tell me I have this story wrong....please.

That amnesty would only be for those who didn't attack Iraqis.

american soldiers in just about every way you could think of. nothing new about this at all.

of course the justification may be that in those days, the "rules of war" were in effect, and those who played outside
the rules were in fact persecuted and prosecuted.

In iraq the americans and the insurgents may both well be playing outside the "rules". Certainly an unprovoked attack on
a sovereign nation that was not a threat is against a few moral codes and rules these days...somewhere.

sadaam certainly is/was a bad egg. However, there are other bad eggs. Russia and China can blow us off the planet any time they choose but we are not attacking them, as bullies like george w do not attack people who can defend themselves.

Msongs

can you sing?
www.msongs.com/vocalistwanted.htm

...so much the question (this is usual after imperialist wars of occupation.)

What is questionable is putting this out as a probability BEFORE US and UK forces are removed from the theatre in Iraq.

As long as there are US/UK/AU/CN/etc. forces in the streets and back country of Iraq, it is somewhat irresponsible to, in effect, announce an "open season"...which is what telegraphing the amnesty openly can possibly trigger.

(Edited to mention that Canadian forces are solely in Afghanistan, however the amnesty message does hint that Afghanistan may be no different than Iraq, post-occupation...that is, if there ever is a "post-occupation" in our lifetimes, AKA South Korea.)

rules the day with this administration.

Maybe if we bring the troops home, amnesty guaranteed for insurgents, the insurgents and others would lay down their arms, the Iraqis could come together and the new government could work?

Maliki is looking at it....even if it pisses off the US - he's got to pull the factions together. I can't believe there are so many that are "appalled" at the thought of amnesty. We invaded a defenseless country - which as someone else said, that is apparently the only kind we invade. If another country wanted to free us from Shrub and bombed major cities, we would take up arms against the "occupiers". It's what any country would be expected to do.