US 'in talks with Iraq militants' - Democratic Underground

ECH1969

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-06-06 08:54 PM
Original message

US 'in talks with Iraq militants'

The US ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, has said US officials have held talks with some groups linked to the Sunni-led Iraqi insurgency.

Mr Khalilzad told the BBC that, in his opinion, the talks had had an impact as the number of attacks on US troops by Iraqi militants had fallen.

However, the ambassador said militia groups, which he described as the infrastructure of civil war, were just as much of a problem.

He said the risk of sectarian war breaking out in Iraq remains if ethnic divisions between its Kurdish and majority Arab population developed, and warned it could turn into a wider regional conflict.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4885874.stm

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

LynnTheDem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-06-06 08:59 PM
Response to Original message

1. bush "doesn't negotiate with terrorists" so now they're "militants".

Not heard "dead-enders" or "Saddam-lovers" much lately.

Rightwingnuts and their bush-god; stupidest MFers on the planet.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

bucknaked

(818 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-06-06 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #1

2. a policy, clearly enforced when dealing with Libya, ahem... whom also...

Edited on Thu Apr-06-06 09:04 PM by bucknaked

had oil to sell. Nevermind, Lockerbie.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

UpInArms

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Apr-07-06 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #1

7. and if they are now militants, should they not receive POW status

and be protected under the Geneva Convention?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

cliss

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-06-06 09:07 PM
Response to Original message

3. Isn't this an amazing story?

Here the US, under the guise of "Helpful Occupier" lets the country have an election.

To its dismay, the outcome is not what the US wanted. No matter! We said Democracy for the Iraqis. Soon, they elect a leader that the U.S. doesn't like (Al Jaafari) who's in fact sympathetic to Muqtada Al Sadr (Pentagon "Bad Boy"). What do we do? We send Rice over there to pressure them to kick him out. Bush says Jaafari needs to be gone.

Next? We go over there and meddle with insurgent groups. It just goes to show you: the U.S. cannot keep its hands off.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Teaser

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-06-06 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #3

4. Every move they make is a bad one.

But that is because the only moves available are bad ones. There is no "solution" to Iraq, other than letting the country fly apart. Which is going to happen whether we're they're or not.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Barrett808

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-06-06 10:33 PM
Response to Original message

5. The big surrender to Iran is scheduled for next week

This may be the biggest humiliation since the hostages were taken a generation ago.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

enigma000

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Apr-07-06 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #5

6. Which states are the Iranians getting?

Probably Blue States right? Does that mean the US flag is going to have to change now? A few less stars. I wish the Iranians would demand the US surrender Texas - that would be an improvement.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Tue Apr 30th 2024, 05:51 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.