Keep trying to belittle the brave work of our troops. Do you agree this is great news and a job well done by our brave troops?
Did you reply to the right person, because you didnt really respond to anything I asked or said. Isnt Zarqawi a monster inadvertently created by the Bush administration ? I'm not talking about their decision to go to war (I’ll get to that in a second) I mean their inability to properly plan the war due to the documented arrogance ("greeted as liberators," "met with roses," etc.) that led them to believe it would be an easy victory. Zarqawi became powerful because of this adminstration's mistakes and they are VERY LUCKY that this country's military is basically the exact opposite of them (not inept) and is able to make up and even fix Bush's errors. As for the Iraqis... Yes, I agree (obviously) that they do deserve, like the rest of us, to have a peaceful country, and one can only hope they can achieve that as soon as possible, but to make this point repeatedly when talking about this war is disingenuous. It's disingenuous because the purpose of this war was not to free the Iraqi people, but to rid Saddam of his weapons of mass destruction. If this war was about them then why did Pres. Bush give Saddam an ultimatum? If Saddam had turned over whatever weapons Bush wanted would he have still been in power? Wasnt that the point of that speech just days before the war? If in the winter of 2003 you asked the American public if they would sacrifice thousands of their sons and daughters, and billions upon billions of their dollars to free the Iraqi people from the reigns of Saddam you may have had some willing...It is a noble cause...But then you would have some wondering why we werent making that great of in effort in other countries. Other countries have vile dictators. Other people are shackled by tyranny, and in a lot of cases are in much more dire situations. Then people would wonder if it was proper to attack a country, and occupy it, if it did not attack us. We needed to be at risk of being attacked...and the Bush adminstration made the public feel that way. We would never have gone to war with Iraq had the cause been about bringing democracy to their land. Okay, now let's pretend that we did go to war with Iraq to free their people. Did the Bush adminstration do a good job of achieving that goal? No... They failed to guard any of the infrastructure and they didnt secure the borders and allowed terrorists, of Zarqawi's "ilk", to enter. On top of that they failed to set up any sort of temporary, stable government to protect those people we were there to "free." How many Iraqis have died needlessly because of this war ? I don't accept either that they "died for their own cause," because they didnt choose this cause in this manner and most of them didnt die fighting, they died unwittingly as pawns in someone else's match. As for the ones who have fought for their country, to fix the mistakes the Bush adminstration has put at their feet, they are extremely brave, but it infuriates me when people use them as examples to justify this war and defend this president. THEY ARENT POLITICAL TOOLS AND THEIR HEROISM AND DEATH ISNT YOURS TO USE TO ADVANCE AN IDEOLOGICAL POINT OF VIEW. These were real people. They didnt have to die. Which ever way you want to look at this, the Bush Iraq war policy (everything that entails) has failed the Iraqi people and the American people as well. Fortunately, however, the war in Iraq is no longer in this adminstration's hands. It's in the hands of people much, much, much better than them : the Iraqis and American soldiers. We can only hope that they can fix the unbelievable mistakes the Bush White House gave them. Killing Zarqawi is a good step in achieving that. But because of this situation it's clear that this Adminstration, from now on, should get ALL of the blame for the failures of this war (because of the way they got us into it) and NONE of the credit for its successes. All of that goes, obviously, to the Iraqis and the men and women in the armed services.
I was under the impression from your posts that you believed that Zarqawi worked for the CIA or some other American government organization.
"It doesn't take a fool to understand that more innocent Iraqis..prob all Shia... were dying due to a.z. than Amercian soldiers." I misread this because I didnt get what you were replying to ( the message) I guess... The war gave Zarqawi the opportunity to kill "innocent Iraqis" was the point I was trying to make, but it was not a point you needed. Sorry.
like profiting from bets placed on military actions, in which surely several American soldiers died? go drink some clorox.
is there any point in engaging you...you've already labeled me a supporter of al-qaeda as well as a few other things...*sighs*
Couldn't answer my question, could ya? I'll give you one more chance: Do you agree this is great news and a job well done by our brave troops?
An article from two years ago.....for a retro look..... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601 By Jim Miklaszewski Pentagon Correspondent NBC News Updated: 6:14 p.m. CT March 2, 2004 With Tuesday’s attacks, Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant with ties to al-Qaida, is now blamed for more than 700 terrorist killings in Iraq. But NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the trigger. In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide. The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council. “Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn’t do it,” said Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution. Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe. The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq. “People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of preemption against terrorists,” according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey. In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq. The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it. Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam. The United States did attack the camp at Kirma at the beginning of the war, but it was too late — Zarqawi and many of his followers were gone. “Here’s a case where they waited, they waited too long and now we’re suffering as a result inside Iraq,” Cressey added. And despite the Bush administration’s tough talk about hitting the terrorists before they strike, Zarqawi’s killing streak continues today.
So... Bombing Al-Z = good Bombing Al-Z while claiming that people betrayed him, even if they didn't = Really good Bombing Al-Z while claiming that people betrayed him when they really did betray him = Could go either way depending on motive. If just a regular, normal civilian, that's good, though they will probably face retribution at some point. If it's someone on the inside, well... It's rare that folks who are in that business suddenly have moral doubt about what's going on so it makes me think there was a power struggle going on inside the group and perhaps some ambitious Lt. just promoted himself to General with the help of US bombs. Also, let's not get carried away with Al-Z = Al-Q. According to lots of reports, Al-Z and OBL didn't like each other. My guess is that OBL and Al-Q adopted Al-Z as a way to thumb their nose at the US. Thus, I suspect they shed only crocodile tears at the death of Al-Z. Here are some paragraphs from an Atlantic Monthly article awhile back... http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200607/zarqawi?ca=9hloQUJamUfhaPsPg+9E5USZvqSqBDKyXpAE9U9Gsng= Then, of course, let's not forget we had an opportunity to do this earlier, but refused because the Bush Administration had to try and tie Al-Q to Saddam to justify the war and Al-Z was their way... The article ends with a rather chilling observation... The realist in me notes that during this Iraq thing we've celebrated the deaths or captures of individuals before without it really paying off in the long run in terms of a lessening in the violence or intensity of the resisitance. I suspect this to play out in a similar way, as does, apparently, General Casey and others. Time will tell.
LOL...kinda like how Clinton had bin Laden's head on a platter but decided not to finish the job RM Tex - let's celebrate the good news of today, not seek to belittle it or question why it wasn't done earlier. He's finished.
i think this post is brave very very brave, the bravest thing i've seen today, bravery at its finest...................................
Bullsh**. Bin Laden crowned him the "Prince of Al Queda in Iraq" back in 2004. You liberals are hiliarious. Celebrate the news, folks. I don't understand why you keep trying to belittle it or question it.
lol @ i'll give you one more chance...well please stop badgering and calling me names...i'll give you one more chance as well i'm not interested in jingoism or anything like that...don't try and simplify complex issues...i'm interested in debate and discussion...i've made my position on this issue clear (go see my 1st post on it)...don't try and back me into a corner with the fox news-esque "don't you support the troops" line of argument...it's a non-starter and deflects attention away from the real issues
There are some aspects I can agre with, most notably the last paragraph and fourth to some extent...responding to your question Zarqawi wasn't magically created because we gave the ultimatum to Saddam and acted after numerous warnings and initiatives were exhausted...Zarqawi is/was a bad guy who wasn't on board with the route of peace, he was more than willing to kill Iraqis because the basis of an anti-terroristic supporting government was antisense to him...At least Saddam had no problem with terroristic endeavors as a central governmental authority... I clearly answered your post because the summized "creation" is based on regional opportunity against those that oppose a peaceful life. As stated before, the majority ARE on board with the program of giving back to the people better, and more peaceful way of life... I agree with you that the fault was in the manner of assumption you suggested. It could have been smoother. The whole point was to instill a better government for the Iraqi people. There were ground instances where we should have gone for the throat better such as Fallujah, or some areas where waving the right hand would have been better than quick response...The point is the men and women of the military are doing an absolutely awesome job. The long-term prognosis is looking better with more and more contribution from the citizens of the Iraq.
