Iraqi insurgents offer to negotiate

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Thomas Veil, Oct 17, 2006.

  1. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Feb 14, 2004
    OBJECTIVE reality
    CNN link

    Umm...does it seem to anyone else here that what is needed by the United States right now is diplomacy, not Bush constantly reiterating his plan to destroy the insurgency completely?

    Here we have the country, on its own, talking about dividing itself into autonomous regions (Clinton/Bosnia haters, please note), and insurgents willing to talk about reaching some kind of settlement, working its way out of the stalement in which both they and the U.S. find themselves.

    Okay, obvious objection: the U.S. doesn't negotiate with terrorists. Counter-objection: yeah, like that's always true.

    There seems to be plenty of breathing room for some hard dealing here. If the U.S. doesn't want to look like it's negotiating with terrorists, then it can, for example, insist that the insurgents' demands be brought forth through a more legitimate group, such as Sunni members of parliament. It can suggest that the U.S. troops will withdraw over a time period, in exchange for the drawing up of some firm, mutually-agreeable regional borders, with U.N. troops to monitor the peace for a specified period of time. And, such an agreement would have to assure that the Sunnis would share in the country's oil profits.

    It just seems to me that there's a lot of room here for some kind of an agreement which, while it does not make everybody completely happy, would still be far superior to the chaos that we are seeing today.

    What stands in the way of such a negotiation? Well, for one, you'd have to make sure that such negotiations would be agreeable to most of, if not all insurgents.

    But the really big problem is the Bush government's insistence, of course, that Iraq be ruled by one government, one parliament. Bush's vision is that the Iraqis will all someday stand in a circle and sing "Kumbaya", basking in the glow of democracy. This, while mired in the middle of a fiasco that is going nowhere and, if anything, is getting worse.

    Which path do you think is more likely to lead to a little peace? [​IMG]
  2. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Dec 21, 2002
    Yahooville S.C.
    Best way for some kind of peace is to give it all back to Saddam with a box a chocolates and a apology from Bush & Cheney. Its clear this society needs a ruthless dude to run it. Democracy can only work in a law abiding society. Perhaps in another 100 years or two they might figure it out.
  3. Queso Suspended

    Mar 4, 2006
    As long as Bush's kids aren't the ones being killed, he couldn't give a flying f**k about US soldiers on Iraqi soil nor Iraqis themselves. War sells bullets.

    Bush will also never admit he made a mistake, so won't allow the insurgents to start looking like the good guys. If these people come forward, US troops will be told to butcher them in the name of "freedom".

    I hate Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld. Every time I make a post like this I feel my blood boiling. God knows what muslims must feel.
  4. mactastic macrumors 68040


    Apr 24, 2003
    If Bush doesn't take a chance at the talking path (not bloody likely), we'll be facing another "only Nixon could go to China" moment, where if a Democratic president were to try to negotiate an end to the insurgency s/he would be crucified for political gain by the right. It will take a Republic president to keep the rabid righties from crying "treason" and "appeaser" in any talks with "terrorists" to try to extricate ourselves from Bush's folly.

    Sad, but most likely true. If by some chance we do elect a Democratic president in '08, unless they have an actual mandate (as opposed to a Bush mandate) they will be too weak to withstand the Republic attack machine that will certainly seek to make political hay out of any negotiated settlement.
  5. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Jan 30, 2004
    having a drink at Milliways
    not if the negotiation are part of the election platform

Share This Page