Insurgents offer US 30 day truce to get out of iraq

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The leader of an umbrella organization for Iraqi insurgent groups is offering the United States a one-month truce to withdraw all U.S. forces from Iraq and turn over its military bases "to the mujahedeen of the Islamic state."

In an audiotape posted on Islamic Web sites Friday, a speaker identified as Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Mujahideen Shura Council, said that if U.S. forces begin withdrawing from Iraq immediately and leave their heavy weaponry behind, "we will allow your withdrawal to complete without anyone targeting you with any explosive or anything else."

"We say to Bush not to waste this historic opportunity that will guarantee you a safe withdrawal," al-Baghdadi said on the audiotape.

www.cnn.com...

perhaps this is a sign of things to come? what happes if troops dont leave and keep killing insurgents?

your thoughts?

Nothing will happen.
At least not the direction that Omar of Baghdad would like. Whoever he is.

Leave the heavy stuff behind. he says..convenient.

He also speaks as if he believes he has control over all these fighting factions.
Delusional..

Interesting article though..Thanks for posting it..

Take the offer and sort out your Democracy ( or lack of it ) back home as there is no good news on the horizon if you stay there.

That's fair isn't it? After all you've done.

Everyone know that retriets are when you lose the most men.
they could have kept gunning you down untill the last man leaves and still be in the right but they chose to do the honourable thing.

I suggest you take it.

if i was in charge i would back out of iraq. the us has enough troubles as it is without iraq in the picture...

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
That's fair isn't it? After all you've done.

Everyone know that retriets are when you lose the most men.
they could have kept gunning you down untill the last man leaves and still be in the right but they chose to do the honourable thing.

I suggest you take it.

you know nmothing of how these things go do you?

this is an obvious sign that the insurgent position is weakening, this is the same tactic hamas and hezbollah used when fighting israel. Basically, they are losing and need time to re-arm and re-supply. We arent like Israel, the insurgents shall be slaughtered like the pigs they are.


leave your supplies? LMAO! they are losing and need help. This is our chance to crush them, hopefully more troops will be sent.





[edit on 23-12-2006 by XphilesPhan]

Not until every last child has converted to Capatilism and Christianity could you win in a place like Iraq, people dont want Authoritarian foreign influences in their country even if it was a working Utopia with cream on top.

The NWO should take heed as not until they have killed every last restistance fighter in every non-aligned country can they achieve their goals and who would want to live in a world full of their kind anyway?.

[edit on 23-12-2006 by mazzroth]

Look, no one is more against the Iraq War than I am, but the fact is we're completely stuck there now. Leaving won't solve anything. We have to get the different factions to sit down and agree and we have to get Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and all the other major players involved as well.

Remember, this isn't just a problem with violence on a sectaarian level than can be easily solved. This is a problem surrounding the fact that most of the people who live in Iraq have no comprehension of what a Democracy is or how it works. They only know Totalitarianism. Middle-eastern Democracies are much different than our own, look at Iran. Plus, Democracies usually are the result of revolutions, not invasions. It's usually something the populace wants and fights for, not something they are simply given.

And, as someone else mentioned, I doubt Omar has the power to negotiate any kind of truce on a wide-scale. This is just posturing by some random warlord. If anyone was smart, than they would realize this is the kind of person we need to bring to a negotiating table (along with the others like him) in order to have any hope whatsoever of actually winning.

Originally posted by RockerDom

And, as someone else mentioned, I doubt Omar has the power to negotiate any kind of truce on a wide-scale. This is just posturing by some random warlord. If anyone was smart, than they would realize this is the kind of person we need to bring to a negotiating table (along with the others like him) in order to have any hope whatsoever of actually winning.

Even if he did, this would simply be a ploy. They are buying time. They need time to re-organize, Re-arm, Re-supply. I dont believe for a minute they had some noble aspiration and decided to make a "generous" offer. We are talking about a group of people who have no qualms whatsoever about bombing or shooting you and anyone else that gets in the way. Why they hell should we not believe that they would not slaughter US soldiers if they had half the chance? Besides, imagine the bragging rites that would come with single handedly defeating the US armed forces? There is something more behind this.

My guess is that the years of fighting is begining to weaken their positions in Iraq. I imagine their supply lines are cut off or severely hampered, their numbers are probably falling, their lines of communication with other cells is probably routinely disrupted. They are simply buying time, how many times have we seen this tactic among other terrorist groups?

too damn often.

I am no fan of the Iraq war either, but what's done is done.

No one in there right mind would accepted such an offer .
Currently the insurgents have an almost bottom less pit of man power . No pressure what so ever has been applied to the insurgents supply lines. Due to this and the fact that the last three years have been wasted on the idiotic notion that elections would bring security the only sane option left is to partition Iraq along tribal lines.

It's a little reminiscent of situations in the Crusades isn't it?

Anyway Omar hasn't done his homework very well. The last time the U.S. got an offer like this was at Bastogne from the Germans who were admittedly in a weakening position. The reply from the U. S. Commander was simply 'Nuts'

Then again Dien Bien Phu and the evacuation of Saigon also spring to mind. I'd be amazed if after the 30 day deadline the insurgents could make good on their threats. Then again I was amazed that Hezbollah had thousands of katushas in the recent Lebanon conflict.

It's worrying because both sides are weakening in some ways and things are definitely getting worse.

It's about time a U.N. Force went in like Kosovo. It's the only way any outside force will have any respect, it may not solve the situation but I believe it's the last option.

Originally posted by kickoutthejams
It's about time a U.N. Force went in like Kosovo. It's the only way any outside force will have any respect, it may not solve the situation but I believe it's the last option.

If a UN force cant solve any of the problems then what would the point be in sending such a force to Iraq ?
The idea wouldn't even get off the ground much of NATO wont even commit to a combat role in Afghanistan little alone Iraq.
Bearing in mind that if NATO as whole dosnt come to the party manpower shortages would cripple any NATO force in Iraq from the outset.

I didn't say NATO (just like Afghanistan that's not going to help) I said United Nations. A force could be made up of muslim nations or at least those nations not likely to exacerbate the problem (like Britain and the USA) that would be more tolerable to the people of Iraq and the wider arab region.

It's the whole 'occupation force' that causes so much problems, a U.N. Force would be perceived differently from the outset and have an entirely different mandate.

Frankly there's been little reconstruction in Iraq even though the U.S. has been there longer than they were in Western Europe in WW2. Basic services such as water, electricity etc are still worse than prior to the invasion.

A U.N. Force with a clear mandate for peacekeeping and reconstruction could make the difference with the right composition of forces sensitive to the local / regional situation.

Who says a U.N. force can't solve any of the problems? Apart from you there just then which is unqualified because it hasn't been tried. It helped bring levels of genocide and factional conflict down in Kosovo. I think you appear to be confusing NATO with U.N. they are NOT the same thing.

I'm not confusing the UN with NATO instead I'm being realistic just which Muslim countries are going to supply the boots on the ground in any significant numbers ?
I was merely questioning where your going to get the sheer numbers of troops from.
Sending in troops from the Middle East region is a very bad idea Iraq's neighbors have hardly been friendly towards the Iraqi government.

Peacekeepers you have to be kidding me such a force wouldn't have enough teeth to deal with the insurgency. The UN peacekeeping record isn't great in areas that are more secure then Iraq.

[edit on 23-12-2006 by xpert11]

The only time terrorists offer cease fires or timed truces is when they are having a hard time and they want time to regroup. They must be suffering or in trouble. I don't believe anything they say.

That being said - I'm against sending the additional 50,000 troops over. That should have been done years ago to secure the borders to keep the insurgents out. It's too late now. We are handing off control to the Iraqis and so we should be scaling back ... not driving up our numbers there.

I'm not necessarily saying a U. N. Force needs to be muslim but at the very least it could be non-American and non-British and acceptable to the region. No matter which way you look at it the occupation force is making the situation worse and furthermore the situation will never get better while they are there. No matter how many troops they put in. They added thousands more troops to Bagdad not that long ago and it only got worse, it's like pouring gasoline on a fire.

If given the right mandate and the right people the U.N. couldn't do any worse than the current situation. The problem is the occupation forces will rubbish the idea because for the U.N. to clear up their mess would be a loss of face equal to any kind of cut & run 'strategy'.

People are quick to say the insurgents are weakening, but daily reports and increasing spikes in violence don't bear that out. It's generally held now the occupation forces only control their own bases but nothing outside of it and it's been that way for several months. Troop rotation levels and extensions of tours are now at breaking point. There's no slack in the force pool of the USA and UK. Something has to give.



[edit on 23-12-2006 by kickoutthejams]

Hey if you don't want to take it, it's your funeral. Literally.

My guess is your just going to try the tired old "send more troops in" strategy, because that really worked well for you right before the fall of saigon.

Frankly i can't wait untill you do, because it shows we are getting closer to the end. Another chapter gone of history repeating itself.

All we need now is a tet offensive.

I think taking the deal would be a bad idea. In my opinion, it would send a bad message to the rest of the world. We are the ones who created this mess, so we should attempt to fix it the best way we can.

I also think that we need to send many more troops(myself included). It may not be a good political move for any party but it's the right thing to do.

id take it, US leaders have already admitted they are not winning in iraq.

america's war on the middle-east have just made a joke of the US armed forces once again just like in vietnam 30 years ago.

Originally posted by XphilesPhan

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
That's fair isn't it? After all you've done.

Everyone know that retriets are when you lose the most men.
they could have kept gunning you down untill the last man leaves and still be in the right but they chose to do the honourable thing.

I suggest you take it.

you know nmothing of how these things go do you?

this is an obvious sign that the insurgent position is weakening, this is the same tactic hamas and hezbollah used when fighting israel. Basically, they are losing and need time to re-arm and re-supply. We arent like Israel, the insurgents shall be slaughtered like the pigs they are.


leave your supplies? LMAO! they are losing and need help. This is our chance to crush them, hopefully more troops will be sent.





[edit on 23-12-2006 by XphilesPhan]

I don't see this as a sign of weakness by the insurgents at all.. As a matter of fact I would withdraw and leave all our heavy supplies. I would also slip trap all of them with a leathal dose of radiation. We are stupid to be killing our own kids fighting this war. But then again Republicans and Democrats have no other answers cause they are the same groups who have been screwing up for the last 50 years. In stead of our troops fighting maybe everyone who keeps voting Republican and Democrat should load their rear ends up and go fight for our troops so they can come home to their family's. Maybe then voters would see how stupid this political system has become.