[Mr.Buttocks]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtm ... ID=7681569

Originally Posted by Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. diplomats and intelligence officers are conducting secret talks with Iraq's Sunni insurgents on ways to end fighting there, Time magazine reported on Sunday, citing Pentagon and other sources.

The Bush administration has said it would not negotiate with Iraqi fighters and there is no authorized dialogue but the U.S. is having "back-channel" communications with certain insurgents, unidentified Washington and Iraqi sources told the magazine.

The magazine cited a secret meeting between two members of the U.S. military and an Iraqi negotiator, a middle-aged former member of Saddam Hussein's regime and the senior representative of what he called the nationalist insurgency.

A U.S. officer tried to get names of other insurgent leaders while the Iraqi complained the new Shi'ite-dominated government was being controlled by Iran, according to an account of the meeting provided by the Iraqi negotiator.

"We are ready to work with you," the Iraqi negotiator said, according to Time.

Iraqi insurgent leaders not aligned with al Qaeda ally Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi told the magazine several nationalist groups composed of what the Pentagon calls "former regime elements" have become open to negotiating.

The insurgents said their aim was to establish a political identity that can represent disenfranchised Sunnis.

The White House had no immediate comment on the report.

Controversial Iraqi politician Ahmad Chalabi said on Sunday the outcome of any negotiations between insurgents and the U.S. military would not be binding for a new Iraqi government.

"I know nothing about such negotiations. Those negotiations will in no way bind the elected government of Iraq," he said. "The issue here is not negotiating with the killers who are killing the Iraqi people," he added in an interview with ABC's "This Week."

[elstatec]

not so secret anymore!

[rdeyes]

lol amazing how fast something secret isnt kept so secret ..

"We are ready to work with you," the Iraqi negotiator said, according to Time.


translates into ... we're sorry for acting up

[ninty]

Originally Posted by rdeyes

lol amazing how fast something secret isnt kept so secret ..

"We are ready to work with you," the Iraqi negotiator said, according to Time.


translates into ... we're sorry for acting up

no, it means, "give me money and i'll stop"

[Duke_of_Ray]

Yea, I really doubt we will give into the insurgents at all.

[rdeyes]

i think it time that the insurgents realize that are fighting a losing battle and america isnt gonna leave til the place is somewhat calm, and i also think the iraqi people have had enough of the bullsh*t that these arabs jihadi pricks have pulled.

[ninty]

You truly think the insurgents are losing?

At last count, 1345 Americans have died since official combat operations ended.

To me, that sounds like the insurgents are winning.

Did anyone in the US really expect to lose upwards of 1500 troops in Iraq? In Afghanistan the US has lost 153 troops. I'm betting that most people in America though that Iraq would be the same. Maybe even say double the numbers from Afghanistan. But 1400?

Americans are being blown up every day, and there's nothing anyone can do about it unless the US wants to pull out.

As for what the Iraqi people want...I think its pretty clear that they did not support the invasion of their own country in the beginning, nor do they support it now.

[rdeyes]

Originally Posted by ninty9

You truly think the insurgents are losing?

At last count, 1345 Americans have died since official combat operations ended.

To me, that sounds like the insurgents are winning.

Did anyone in the US really expect to lose upwards of 1500 troops in Iraq? In Afghanistan the US has lost 153 troops. I'm betting that most people in America though that Iraq would be the same. Maybe even say double the numbers from Afghanistan. But 1400?

Americans are being blown up every day, and there's nothing anyone can do about it unless the US wants to pull out.

As for what the Iraqi people want...I think its pretty clear that they did not support the invasion of their own country in the beginning, nor do they support it now.

theres no way to prove how many of the insurgents have died , but im certain that alot more than america has lost,

[Duke_of_Ray]

Originally Posted by ninty9

You truly think the insurgents are losing?

At last count, 1345 Americans have died since official combat operations ended.

To me, that sounds like the insurgents are winning.

Did anyone in the US really expect to lose upwards of 1500 troops in Iraq? In Afghanistan the US has lost 153 troops. I'm betting that most people in America though that Iraq would be the same. Maybe even say double the numbers from Afghanistan. But 1400?

Americans are being blown up every day, and there's nothing anyone can do about it unless the US wants to pull out.

As for what the Iraqi people want...I think its pretty clear that they did not support the invasion of their own country in the beginning, nor do they support it now.

Yep America is losing alright. I mean how can AMerican win a war? So big deal if our Military could own the rest, we couldn't beat some sand packing camel riding, morons. That is just impossible. We went against the will of most of the world, which usually means you are doing something right, and are now winning and people can't stand that.

[ninty]

[quote:e7170]

theres no way to prove how many of the insurgents have died , but im certain that alot more than america has lost,[/quote:e7170]

So if the US has killed more insurgents than troops they have lost, the US wins? This is not counter strike folks.

[quote:e7170]Yep America is losing alright. I mean how can AMerican win a war? So big deal if our Military could own the rest, we couldn't beat some sand packing camel riding, morons. That is just impossible. We went against the will of most of the world, which usually means you are doing something right, and are now winning and people can't stand that.[/quote:e7170]


We're not talking about the war. The war is over. The war ended when George Bush landed on an aircraft carrier and declared that "major combat operations in iraq are over". I didn't say anything about the US not being able to take out anyone they wanted. To say the US military isn't strong is stupid. I acknowledge the US has the most power military in the world.

It is easy for a country to go in, and fight a military in uniform, destroy bunkers, and capture leaders. It is impossible to corral and police an entire nation of 22 million people with 150,000 troops.

Please explain how "going against the will of the world" means the US is correct in their actions.

Also, please explain what exactly it is you're "winning".

Also, here's an article for your enjoyment:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 22,00.html

[Short Hand]

Well said.

[Duke_of_Ray]

Originally Posted by ninty9

[quote:56797]

theres no way to prove how many of the insurgents have died , but im certain that alot more than america has lost,

So if the US has killed more insurgents than troops they have lost, the US wins? This is not counter strike folks.

[quote:56797]Yep America is losing alright. I mean how can AMerican win a war? So big deal if our Military could own the rest, we couldn't beat some sand packing camel riding, morons. That is just impossible. We went against the will of most of the world, which usually means you are doing something right, and are now winning and people can't stand that.[/quote:56797]


We're not talking about the war. The war is over. The war ended when George Bush landed on an aircraft carrier and declared that "major combat operations in iraq are over". I didn't say anything about the US not being able to take out anyone they wanted. To say the US military isn't strong is stupid. I acknowledge the US has the most power military in the world.

It is easy for a country to go in, and fight a military in uniform, destroy bunkers, and capture leaders. It is impossible to corral and police an entire nation of 22 million people with 150,000 troops.

Please explain how "going against the will of the world" means the US is correct in their actions.

Also, please explain what exactly it is you're "winning".

Also, here's an article for your enjoyment:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 22,00.html[/quote:56797]

Winning the war on terror, as best as anybody can. The war is not over, and the war probably never will be, unless we truly do what has to be done. I admit that we did not have the best plan on how to handle Iraq after the invasion, but now we are there, and we need to go after the enemy wherever they are. We can't give up and pull out. We need to be strong, and thank God we have a leader that is strong. Thank God this will not be a Samolia, or even a Vietnam.

[Alex D]

the problem is, it seems the US Army was reorganized by Rumsfield to perform in a way that ultimately doesn't fit with its current role in Iraq: Occupation Force. They should have asked the professionals in that matter; not Paul Wolfovitz (civilian), but a career general for that matter. It was somenoe who got removed who said a occupation force of at least 400,000 was required to secure the country. And Wolfovitz said that was nosense, that 50,000 would do the job. Finally some consense was reach (120,000 troops) but it was not enough.

If this policy continues, I expect the draft back at sometime before the end of Bush's 2nd mandate.

[ninty]

I see what you mean Duke.

To me, the war in Iraq is not the War on Terror. I see them as two seperate events. I'm sure that many people see them as the same event, but I do not.