Forums | MacLife

Could've taken out al-Zarqawi  before the invasion:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/

Well, I'm not the only one that thinks this:
http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd06082006.html

Whatever you think of the Zarqawi-as-much-to-perfect-propaganda-material-to-be-real, the article does point out, as a PS at the end, where the $25 million in reward money might go.  Turns out that Sunni insurgents may have revealed the hiding place of whomever the airforce killed in the airstrike.  So, if there is a reward payout, it's going to have to go right into the hands of the enemy.

Enough for now; I'm headed to the library to check out Catch-22 for a re-read.

Hank Rearden wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

DailyKos has this interesting link.

Reportedly, Zarqawi was captured like a year ago, but Iraqis didn't correctly identify him, so he was released.

I heard that a year or so ago, too.  But, remember...that's just what they were telling you to add to the mystique of his invented persona.

Besides which, as I said earlier, a captured "Zarqawi" would be a pain in the butt to pull off.  Better a corpse "Zarqawi" at a convenient time, as a morale booster, and as footage for mid-term election ads.

NPR had a journalist on this afternoon who has a spent a good deal of time in Iraq.  His opinion was that Zarqawi had the U.S. (and its initial denials of any substantial Iraqi insurgency) to thank for the incredible notoriety that he developed over the past few years.

With a Zarqawi-like figure out of the way, it may open the possibility of uniting certain sunni resistance elements which had previously argued over what to do about the shi'ites. His star  rose through the efforts of U.S. propaganda, so his demise may mean little more than an end to that propaganda effort and have little impact on the actual insurgency.

iZoe wrote:

I was thinking the same thing... OBL was tiring of Zarqawi's war on the Iraqi inocent and maybe would like to rid himself of this moron.  Now I wonder if that $25 million might somehow end up in Bin Laden's coffers... GULP!!  Ah well, have fun in Hell, Zarqawi, with your 72 vermin.

I doubt very much that OBL gives a smurf about the Iraqi Innocent. He does not want the new nation of Iraq to be succesful. But the best way to that is to join the different factions against the US - then once we have cut and run as certain politicians want, THEN massacre the infidels that don't buy your version of Islam.

A lot of the 25 Million I think is going to Jordon - apparently they played a very active role in the intelligence.

btw - had we cut and run, Zarqawi would likely still be alive.

kb5zhh wrote:

resedit wrote:

btw - had we cut and run, Zarqawi would likely still be alive.

In some ways though, that's not a good thing.  That's an admission that we can't hope for the legitimate security forces of Iraq to have a hope that they can put an end to the insurrection in the country.

Initially, no we can't.
There is no magic pill they can take to suddenly become adept.
But there is no reason why they can't be with proper training, Arabs are not inherently inferior to us - they just need to training and guidance.

A child doesn't get on a bike for the first time and ride without falling.
Their government is very young. How long did it take us from the declaration of independence to a working constitution? Many years - and we didn't have factions with car bombs blowing up our law enforcement centers.

No, for 2 decades.

kb5zhh wrote:

resedit wrote:

How long did it take us from the declaration of independence to a working constitution? Many years - and we didn't have factions with car bombs blowing up our law enforcement centers.

So you're saying that we'll be in iraq for at least a decade fighting insurgents?

We will be there for as long as it takes.

Wether or not it was justified for us go in, we did go in - and it is our duty to remain until the country is stable.

resedit wrote:

kb5zhh wrote:

resedit wrote:

How long did it take us from the declaration of independence to a working constitution? Many years - and we didn't have factions with car bombs blowing up our law enforcement centers.

So you're saying that we'll be in iraq for at least a decade fighting insurgents?

We will be there for as long as it takes.

Wether or not it was justified for us go in, we did go in - and it is our duty to remain until the country is stable.

No we won't.

The debate between the White House and certain Democrats is not WHETHER to cut and run. It's WHEN to cut and run.

The cutting-and-running is already well-established.

Last edited by Jaligard (2006-06-09 10:05 am)

No we won't.

The debate between the White House and certain Democrats is not WHETHER to cut and run. It's WHEN to cut and run.

The cutting-and-running is already well-established.

Fraid not.
What I've been hearing is that we are going to stay until the job is done - which has always been the plan.

Not until they beat the hide off of the dead horse.

Jaligard wrote:

resedit wrote:

No we won't.

The debate between the White House and certain Democrats is not WHETHER to cut and run. It's WHEN to cut and run.

The cutting-and-running is already well-established.

Fraid not.
What I've been hearing is that we are going to stay until the job is done - which has always been the plan.

Yes, but your filters won't permit you a bad thought on the president.

Would you stop that?
This must be the 5th or 6th time someone has made that accusation this year - and I have pointed out my disagreements with the president enough that I am not going to anymore.

Besides - what the flying oysters does this have to do with bad thoughts about the President?

Wait, who leaked that to Res?