Posted on 04/26/2006 8:57:26 PM PDT by jmc1969
Iraq's Prime Minister designate Jawad al-Maliki says the failure to disband militias threatens to push Iraq into civil war.
"The weapons must be in the hands of the state," he said. "Their presence in the hands of others will be the start of problems that will trigger a civil war."
US ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad has said the armed groups, which are tied to leading political parties, are killing more Iraqis than insurgents and they must be disbanded.
Mr Maliki urges Iraq's Shiites, Kurds and Arab Sunnis to unite against suicide bombings, shootings and assassinations that have killed many thousands of security forces and civilians since the US-led invasion of 2003.
But he cautions that military force alone will not eradicate the problem. "Force alone will not wipe out terrorism," he said. If it ends in one place it pops up in another. "If we are to succeed with all Iraqi people there must be solutions to unemployment and start a process of investment."
(Excerpt) Read more at abc.net.au ...
Reuters only hopes this will happen. Typical dead media spinning in its grave.
Didn't we do the "civil war is breaking out" thing a month or so ago?
You don't understand, this is a very good thing.
Sadr made a huge mistake in letting his boys kill hundreds of Sunnis several months ago. Because, it has given the Iraqi government and the US military an excuse to disband his militia to protect the country from civil war.
Wonder what Sadr thinks of this?
Yes, true enough.
Sadr threatening Harkim, Kurds, and other UIA politicians and letting his militia kill hundreds of Sunnis has doomed his militia.
It made it clear to the US that there will not be long term stability in Iraq with the pro-Iranian militias running around.
Sadr is also threatening to to take Kirkuk from the Kurds using his Madhi Army right now.
I see a dnc ad...
"What's good for Iraq is good for the US"
Don't the Iraqi militias have a right to bear arms?
By claiming only the state has right to arms, isn't the new PM threatening the developement of a free Iraq?
Is that like the war with General Sherman and General Grant? Boy was that a war!
Iraqis are allowed to have weapons, but there is a big difference between having weapons and several thousand men getting together and deciding to take over part of Baghdad and run that area.
That'll just never happen there. Why's he saying stuff like that?
Read post 13
I did, and he didn't say that. He said take away the guns or there might be civil war. He'll never get the guns away, and he knows it. I can only surmise that the reporter quoted a snippet of a longer statement.
The media drags that one out of the closet, dusts it off and gives it a try every chance they get.
They've been doing that since early '04.
My original thought when I saw the article, but as the poster points out, this story is actually good news. It shows that the new Iraqi government is coming to terms with the reality of the situation...not trying to create a civil war for headlines.
Sadr needs to go. He continues to stir up trouble here.
I hope they can bring charges against him and arrest him.
Or, better yet, perhaps Sadr can catch a stray bullet.
Oh, it's definitely good news. They're getting a handle on things here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.