This story is archived
U.S. weighs options to end violence in Iraq »
Posted by: 1-2-Oscar 2 years, 7 months agoU.S. military commanders are talking with Iraqi militants about cease-fires and other arrangements to try to stop the violence, the No. 2 American commander said Thursday.
Read Full Story at msnbc.msn.com »
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 155
-
1-2-Oscar
May 31, 2007, 2:45 p.m.If anything comes of this, it will be the most important story of today (and many other days). At the very least, it suggests a flexibility on the part of our military commanders which has not recently been evident. At the most, it could signal a significant shift in US policy in
Iraq.
-
SusanParrishComment has been removed: User banned.
-
mozzer
May 31, 2007, 4:53 p.m.I have my doubts that any agreements will be honored on the militants' side. I agree with Deatray, Al-Qaeda will not be a part of these plans.
-
-
not2needy
May 31, 2007, 5:16 p.m.It's time for presidential campaigns to start, hence i think this is entirely political. We will stay there during the rest of Bushies tenure, which was the plan, and he will continue to fatten his coffers until the bitter end. Then at the bitter end, they will end the war, making them look like heros. Simple strategy, completely political, but personally i will take anything i can get if it brings our troops home.
Then i will vote accordingly!!
-
abntv
May 31, 2007, 5:42 p.m.I dont remember any liberals standing up and complaining about the lies that were coming out of the white house when Billy was in the office..the fact that the military commanders are trying to obtain a cease fire is good news..why do some of you have to rain on that parade without giving this the chance to do some good, and I seem to remember alot of people here refusing to refer to the "insurgents" in Iraq as terrorists...I remember them being referred to as freedom fighters by many
-
braveone
May 31, 2007, 5:48 p.m.well if you folks like to consider yourselves experts on geo-politcal agendas and military strategy,
ya got to keep up with the latest briefings,
Iraq is all but passified, we've moved on to confront Iran, their lunatic suicidal leader and his nuke program.
he's just gotten his ultimatum and we're sitting at his door awaiting an answer,
-
NelsonR
May 31, 2007, 7:17 p.m.As a vet I derail these present commanders, who like in Vietnam failed to stand tall against the whims of an American President who is leading our country down the toilet. I have no respect for, yes men, and this attempt at appeasement with the insurgents show one prime fact, America cannot win another countries civil war. These inane Generals will say lets wait and see how events unfold but inwardly they know, its a lost cause from a dillusional president.
So go ahead and listen to these Generals who speak with forked tounges, they lie and they continue the charade since they want promotion and future power as our politicians desire. Its all ludicrous and I for one despise each and every, Yes Men, in the military. You perpetuate the corruption that now exist to appease a dictatorial inane president now in power. Its all abysmal, yet Americans refuse to eject a tyrant of tyrants, BUSH.
-
abntv
May 31, 2007, 7:19 p.m.My Billy comment was directed at those calling the present administration liars...I think there is probably a thin line as to the labeling of the local Iraqi militants as terrorists...I do not place them in that catagory..
-
aceofspades1
May 31, 2007, 7:34 p.m.Susan - I don't get it with you posting the Canadian Anthemn before - are you suggesting we have a hockey game to determine the outcome of the insurgency in Iraq?
-
-
abntv
May 31, 2007, 7:58 p.m.As a vet I would say that generals do what they are told or they will no longer be generals..they could then stand as tall as they want..they are between a rock and a hard spot and taking shots at them will not help the situation
-
truthiness
May 31, 2007, 8:35 p.m."We are talking about cease-fires, and maybe signing some things that say they won't conduct operations against the government of Iraq or against coalition forces.," Odierno told Pentagon reporters in a video conference from Baghdad.
"It's just the beginning, so we have a lot of work to do on this," he said. "But we have restructured ourselves to organize to work this issue."
talking to people. what a novel idea. you might even find out what their problem is and find a way to solve it. you might even stop people from dying. that couldnt possibly be worth the effort could it?
-
onlyonesecret
May 31, 2007, 9:23 p.m.A policy that endorses peace over war, trade over sanctions, courtesy over arrogance, and liberty over coercion is in the tradition of the American Constitution and American idealism. It deserves consideration.
-
amazed
May 31, 2007, 9:43 p.m.and once again, there are those who have such a need to have their President and their country be wrong, that even when something is being done or started or tried that is pretty much WHAT YOU HAVE ALL DEMANDED, you still find fault, and those who do say it's not a bad idea, insist that the motives have to be nasty.
Deathray says it's all political -- like that's a bad thing. What on earth is ANYTHING any gov't does but political?
N2N is so blinded by her hatred of anything to do with Bush or , more to the point, not quite far left, that she's just on a permanant anti-Bush rant -- even when the news is pretty much what she's been asking for.
Nelson -- you often make sense -- but your post is not only a slap in the face of the military (you know those troops you claim to support while trashing anything to do with this war effort) and the gist of it is completely nihilistic and, extrapolating, leaves putting out tails between our legs and slinking away in shame as the only option.
-
canadianrancher57
May 31, 2007, 10:19 p.m.Well I for one hope for positive outcome from talks, I just hope that they don't come asking Canada for a peace keeping force, we've sort of ruined our peaceful stance by going into Afganastan, so the Taliban would really like a chance to pick off a few of our soldiers.
-
el4sail
May 31, 2007, 10:39 p.m.80% of the Russians in 1917 were negotiable.
The Bolsheviks however prevailed and we fought against them from 1918-1921
-
el4sail
May 31, 2007, 10:42 p.m.I predict a spectacular AlQuaeda attack in america which will make us leave Iraq to defend America here at home.
They listen to Bush declare we fight them over there so we dont have to fight them over here. The best way to humiliate Bush is to prove his theory wrong.
-
-
history-ferret
June 1, 2007, 1:52 a.m.IT THE IRANIANS AND IRAQI WANT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OUT OF IRAQ, THEN STOP THE VIOLENCE. THE MORE VIOLENT YOU BECOME THE LONGER THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL STAY IN IRAQ; UNTIL YOU ALL ARE DEAD, AND THEN WE WILL TAKE OVER YOUR COUNTRY FOR OUR OWN USE.
-
MichaelRhodenteComment has been removed: User banned.
-
MichaelRhodenteComment has been removed: User banned.
-
MichaelRhodenteComment has been removed: User banned.
-
jazznut
June 1, 2007, 4:06 a.m.Oh boy, here we go with more propaganda the media thinks we want to hear just to lighten us up off of Bushs ass. Who in hell cares about what U.S. commanders say about what they're gonna do, sheet! They're not in control of it, remember? When was the last time anyone seen a flag draped casket coming off a C130 on tv? Does anyone know that they're patching up soldiers who've lost limbs and sending them back into battle? Medias not showing or talking about that either so, why should we believe this? Let's face it, these people will continue to resist until all US personnel is gone or all the Iraqis are gone. What about Bush and this 50 year occupation crap and where are all these soldiers gonna come from? Resistance will continue and all surrounding countries will eventually join in so don't get happy folks, it'll get worse before it gets better!
Peace,if the word still means anything.
-
The first 147 comments are shown. Show all 155 comments »
Submit a Story
Advertisement
