| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| US military wary of Iranian pledges on arms flow |
| 2007-11-22 |
| BAGHDAD - The US military said on Wednesday Iran must prove over time it is committed to stemming the flow of weapons into Iraq, adding a note of caution after a warming in Washington’s tone towards Teheran. US officials have softened their rhetoric towards Iran in recent weeks. The US military freed nine Iranians held in Iraq. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said earlier this month he understood Iran had given Iraq behind-the-scenes assurances that the flow of weapons would stop. “We are thankful for the commitment that Iran has made to reduce the flow of weapons and explosives coming into Iraq,” Lieutenant-General James Dubik, head of US military efforts to rebuild Iraq’s security forces, said on Wednesday. He added it had made some contribution to cutting violence in Iraq. But Dubik and US military spokesman Major-General Kevin Bergner said it was impossible to tell exactly how much difference those commitments had made. “It’s important here that the commitments that have been made start to see real progress that’s statistically significant, that’s measurable and that is sustained over time,” Bergner told a media conference. Iranian and US officials said on Tuesday they had agreed to hold a new round of talks on security in Iraq, the fourth this year between the bitter foes after a diplomatic freeze lasting almost 30 years, but no date has been set. Bergner said he hoped the latest round of talks, following meetings in May, July and August, would focus on the commitment to stop weapons from entering Iraq. The talks will be limited to Iraqi security and will not include Iran’s nuclear ambitions. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #2 US military wary of Iranian pledges on arms flow A good candidate for "Understatement of the Week" if you ask me. “We are thankful for the commitment that Iran has made to reduce the flow of weapons and explosives coming into Iraq,” Translation: "Thanks for nothing", "Thanks for doing what you should have in the first place", or "Thanks for promising to discontinue to do something which you deny doing". “It’s important here that the commitments that have been made start to see real progress that’s statistically significant, that’s measurable and that is sustained over time,” Am I correct then to take this to mean that the US will be happy if Iran reduces the flow of arms to the degree that the number of coalition troops that die because of these arms will be reduced by a statistically significant amount? Just askin'. This "agreement" is pointless. Is this some kind of lame trial balloon or something to gauge MSM/public opinion? If it is, I hope they're not serious. My head hurts. |
| Posted by: gorb 2007-11-22 03:31 |
| #1 '...will be limited to Iraqi security and will not include Iran's nuclear ambitions.' Thats like saying: "We're going to bomb the s*** out of you next March, but we can be warm and fuzzy on Iraq!" Uhh Right! |
| Posted by: smn 2007-11-22 01:52 |