Some (maybe) good news out of Iraq

[Vaevictis]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060629/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

We'll see, but it could be a very good sign.

From what the article is saying, these seem to be people who try to restrict their attacks to military targets, so I think it's reasonable to negotiate with them to see if we can work out a mutually beneficial agreement.

(especially if the first offer, as is usual in negotiations, is just the "starting" point and they are willing to give and take at the table)

EDIT: Meh, link has changed now. Rough gist of article was that 11 Sunni insurgent groups offered to lay down arms in return for a promise that we would withdraw from Iraq in no more than two year's time. Article also reported that these groups tended to restrict themselves to military targets. The additional demands at the end were added later.

[good2geaux]

The democrats wanted us out of Iraq in less time than the terrorist/insurgents. Go figure.

[Vaevictis]

Well, it ain't all of them that are coming to the table. But if we can remove a few groups from the board, that's a few less we have to deal with. That's good news.

This alone ain't gonna fix all of the problems over there, but it is, in fact, some kind of progress if we can negotiate some kind of agreement that both of us can live with.

[jk the sooner fan]

why am i not surprised that you'd favor striking a deal with them.....

[Vaevictis]

Dude, they essentially just said, "We're willing to lay down arms if you'll meet us half-way." Hell, it may be that what they're *really* saying is "We're willing to lay down arms if you'd just give us a face-saving excuse."

Believe it or not, some -- many -- wars end through negotiation. If they're not asking for anything we're not willing to give, why shouldn't we make a deal?

[jk the sooner fan]

yes i'm aware that wars end thru negotiation, but i personally think its a bad idea to put a pull out date on one side of this agreement

they're asking for negotiations for a reason, normally if you have the upper hand, you dont come asking for a deal like this

the bottom line is that you cant trust these groups.....and if you broker a deal with them, you better be prepared for them to break the terms and ask for new concessions

[Vaevictis]

they're asking for negotiations for a reason, normally if you have the upper hand, you dont come asking for a deal like this (...)

the bottom line is that you cant trust these groups.....and if you broker a deal with them, you better be prepared for them to break the terms and ask for new concessions

Well, no ****. But annihilating the enemy takes time, money and men. It's a simple cost equation; does what they're asking us to give up (after you consider the fact that they might break the deal) cost less than what it would cost to solve it at gunpoint?

If it does cost less, you might as well make the deal.

[OklahomaTuba]

The democrats wanted us out of Iraq in less time than the terrorist/insurgents. Go figure.

REDEPLOY TO VICTORY!

http://blamebush.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/johnkerry.jpg

[OklahomaTuba]

If it does cost less, you might as well make the deal.

Of course, cause if it costs less, then it must be the right thing to do.

Thank Gawd that twisted liberal logic wasn't used in the revolution, the civil war, WW1, WW2 or the cold war.

[Vaevictis]

What, did we lose the Cold War when I wasn't looking or something? In my book, outlasting the USSR and avoiding a nuclear holocaust counts as a win.

And WWII wasn't a result of the Allies negotiating with Germany; if anything, it was a result of the economic ruin the Allies inflicted on them with the terms we gave them. We had this thing after WWII called the "Marshall Plan", and believe it or not, there was like, a reason for it.

... and, you know, we had this thing called the "Treaty of Paris" to end the Revolutionary War. That involved negotiations. War of 1812, too. And we negotiated with the Confederacy during the Civil War even though it never really amounted to anything.

[BoomerJack]

FWIW, here's link to another AP article on the subject.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060628/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_insurgent_offer

[Scott D]

Conceptually it's a good thing. However it's mainly 'minor' groups whom are in this collective. I do like the Iraqi PM being ambiguous about agreeing to a 2 year pull out deadline. I do also like the request they have that there be a way of disbanding a lot of these Shiite militias who are just helping escalate matters in a sectarian manner.

Then again, what do I know..ole Condescending would say that I'm for this being something positive because I want the terrorists to win.