Abu Musab al-Zarqawi killed in air raid

[Disagreeable]

I missed the press conference. When did they say our troops could come home?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/iraq_al_zarqawi;_ylt=AvGfcN0VtIbMrMNlWGPay8RX6GMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

 

[BBJ]

At the White House, President Bush hailed the killing as "a severe blow to al-Qaida and it is a significant victory in the war on terror."

But he cautioned:
"We have tough days ahead of us in Iraq that will require the continuing patience of the American people."

You should read your information a little closer in the future dis. :dunce: The death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is not the end of the war.

In the talking points thread you wrote: "Let's see: Saddam is on trial, Iraq has an elected government (after almost six months), there are tens of thousands of trained Iraqi soldiers and police to keep the peace, and now the terrorist is dead. What's the excuse now for keeping our troops over there? For spending billions of dollars on Iraq while we cut homeland security budgets for American cities? Bring the troops home and protect our own country."

You really don't get it do you dis? :? I thought all this time it was just your hatred for President Bush that made you spew the garbage that you do but I am beginning to think you just simply don't get it. We are making progress over there, I don't care how many bad links you cut and paste. Progress is being made! No it won't happen over night and nobody ever said it would. I know you would like to think that it should being the SUPER POWER that we are but this is going to take a while. GET USED TO IT. Grow up.

 

[Disagreeable]

That shows how wrong you are. I don't hate Bush; I hate what he's done to our country.

It's interesting that you don't take on my talking points.

I'll go back and add the big one that I left off. So here they are again, let's talk about them:

1. There were no WMDs.
2. Saddam is on trial.
3. After almost six months of bloodshead and squabbling, Iraq has an elected government.
4. Practically every day President Bush tells us about how many thousands of troops and police have been trained by the US and how good they are.
5. The terrorist leader is dead.

So, come on, BBJ, tell me why we can't bring out troops home. Don't just insult me (that's proof for sure that you don't have a valid argument to make), tell me why we can't bring our troops home now. Every one of them. If you can't do that, tell me what has to happen that will make it ok to bring our troops home, specifics, not rhetoric.

 

[BBJ]

#1 - You don't know that there were no WMD's. That is just another demo-crat talking point. (you called all 5 of them talking points :lol: ) Many prominent dems said he had WMD's before 9/11 (1998 ), the U.N. had resolutions against them for WMD's, the rest of the world knew it, except of course for you. You can hide your head in the sand and say they never existed but too many other people have said that he did so who should I believe? :???:
#2 - saddam is on trial; :???: Would you have rather we shot him on site? I guess I don't understand your intellect here? Yeah he is on trial and that is a good thing for the people of Iraq.
#3 - Iraq has an elected govt.; Again another good thing for the people of Iraq and the people in the region.
#4 - Another plus!
#5 - the terrorist leader is dead; YES ANOTHER GOOD THING THAT HAS COME OUT OF THIS WAR! But don't misunderstand his death. There are more that must follow in his footsteps. He was not the only insurgent over there.

We can't bring the troops home because it's not over yet. There are more qualified people, that YOU and I, making that decision. Maybe after your list of positive things that are happening over there reaches #15 we can talk about it.


BTW you are doing an excellent job of insulting yourself, I don't need to help you with it. :wink: Keep up the good work dissy.

 

[Faster horses]

Reader 2, that was a very powerful post. Well done.
Lots of common sense and truth expressed there, IMO.

Thanks!

 

[Disagreeable]

Whether you believed in the war or not, we need to stay there until the Iraqis tell us they have things under control. We brought now the government, destroyed the infrastructure, and failed to nip the insurgency in the bud, and we have to do what is necessary to leave Iraq in as good a shape as is possible -- which is not and was never the idealized democracy that the administration believed we could quickly and easily establish there. However, when the Iraqis say "go," we have to go immediately and in the meantime, we need to put enough troops there to make a difference. I just read where Bush Sr tried to oust Rumsfeld and get him replaced with a ret. 4-star. The military is irate about their recommendations being overriden and their not being given what they needed to win in the early days.

And here we have a fundamental disagreement. I don't think that we can fix Iraq. Yes, we broke it, but we can't fix it with the military. You may or may not have read the War College paper that I posted a while back. They agree with me. Even military leaders on the ground are speaking out and saying we can't "win" in Iraq with the military. They need jobs, investment from other countries, and none of that will come without stability. IMO, and I'm not alone here, stability will not come as long as the USA is occupying Iraq. Would you set still while the USA was being occupied by a foreign power or would you fight to run them out? I know what I'd do. Why would you expect the Iraqis to do anything else?

 

[BBJ]

Whether you believed in the war or not, we need to stay there until the Iraqis tell us they have things under control. We brought now the government, destroyed the infrastructure, and failed to nip the insurgency in the bud, and we have to do what is necessary to leave Iraq in as good a shape as is possible -- which is not and was never the idealized democracy that the administration believed we could quickly and easily establish there. However, when the Iraqis say "go," we have to go immediately and in the meantime, we need to put enough troops there to make a difference. I just read where Bush Sr tried to oust Rumsfeld and get him replaced with a ret. 4-star. The military is irate about their recommendations being overriden and their not being given what they needed to win in the early days.

And here we have a fundamental disagreement. I don't think that we can fix Iraq. Yes, we broke it, but we can't fix it with the military. You may or may not have read the War College paper that I posted a while back. They agree with me. Even military leaders on the ground are speaking out and saying we can't "win" in Iraq with the military. They need jobs, investment from other countries, and none of that will come without stability. IMO, and I'm not alone here, stability will not come as long as the USA is occupying Iraq. Would you set still while the USA was being occupied by a foreign power or would you fight to run them out? I know what I'd do. Why would you expect the Iraqis to do anything else?

Blame America first? :evil: :twisted: WE BROKE IT?

Please tell us what you would do? You would fight? :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: I bet that would be a hell of a sight :nod: .

 

[Disagreeable]

#1 - You don't know that there were no WMD's. That is just another demo-crat talking point. (you called all 5 of them talking points :lol: ) Many prominent dems said he had WMD's before 9/11 (1998 ), the U.N. had resolutions against them for WMD's, the rest of the world knew it, except of course for you. You can hide your head in the sand and say they never existed but too many other people have said that he did so who should I believe? :???:

:roll: Whoever started the thread asked for talking points. I've got them and you don't have an answer for even one of them. I knew there was no proof that he had WMDs. I knew the UN had weapons inspectors on the ground when Bush decided to invade. I know you don't cause the deaths of 50,000 people based on your "gut."

#2 - saddam is on trial; :???: Would you have rather we shot him on site? I guess I don't understand your intellect here? Yeah he is on trial and that is a good thing for the people of Iraq.
#3 - Iraq has an elected govt.; Again another good thing for the people of Iraq and the people in the region.
#4 - Another plus!
#5 - the terrorist leader is dead; YES ANOTHER GOOD THING THAT HAS COME OUT OF THIS WAR! But don't misunderstand his death. There are more that must follow in his footsteps. He was not the only insurgent over there.

All of these points are excuses George W. Bush gave for invading Iraq and staying. They have all turned out to be not true or have been fixed. So what's the excuse now?

We can't bring the troops home because it's not over yet. There are more qualified people, that YOU and I, making that decision. Maybe after your list of positive things that are happening over there reaches #15 we can talk about it.

What's not over yet? Again, every excuse Bush made for this war is gone today, WMDs, Saddam, terrorist, a freely elected government, thousands of trained police and military. Qualified people like the military leaders on the ground who are saying we can't win a military victory? So why should more Americans die in this place? The insurgents are Iraqis. They are fighting for their country. Why does the US have the right to tell them they are wrong in how they want their country to be run? We don't.

BTW you are doing an excellent job of insulting yourself, I don't need to help you with it. :wink: Keep up the good work dissy.

You wish. And I will.

 

[RoperAB]

Thats what the Soviets did in Afganistan and then the Ben Laden fanitics took over and used Afganistan as a training grounds for their terrorest operations.
Pulling out now is not an option.

 

[RoperAB]

Well look at it this way. Japan and West Germany were strategic nations for us in the cold war.
Iraq will be strategic in the war against Iran.
As far as afganistan and the taliban goes most of their money is coming from Herion addicts in North America so I guess we could blame them as much as anybody :wink:

 

[memanpa]

...

 

[Steve]

(not to say he didn't stir up trouble, train, and arm insurgents but he was one factor, not the entire insurgency).

Nor is he an insurgant. he is just a dead terrorist, ...

Noun 1. insurgent insurgent - a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions)

 

[Steve]

Interestingly they attack civilians at a greater rate then military....why because they are terrorists......

Noun 1. terrorist terrorist - a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities
radical cell, terrorist cell - a cell of terrorists (usually 3 to 5 members); "to insure operational security the members of adjacent terrorist cells usually don't know each other or the identity of their leadership"

I would say you are correct in saying the operation and action requires differant tactics...Just as I agreed with most of your original post...

Maybe it is the way the media fed us the insurgant term disregarding the definations widely accepted,....and by interchangeing the term with terrorist they allowed some to actually believe that a sunni blowing up other Iraqi's at a market was an honorable way of attacking Bush...

when in reality it is just a Radical Islamic terrorist in another act of terrorism....

 

[mp.freelance]

#1 - You don't know that there were no WMD's. That is just another demo-crat talking point. (you called all 5 of them talking points :lol: ) Many prominent dems said he had WMD's before 9/11 (1998 ), the U.N. had resolutions against them for WMD's, the rest of the world knew it, except of course for you. You can hide your head in the sand and say they never existed but too many other people have said that he did so who should I believe? :???:
#2 - saddam is on trial; :???: Would you have rather we shot him on site? I guess I don't understand your intellect here? Yeah he is on trial and that is a good thing for the people of Iraq.
#3 - Iraq has an elected govt.; Again another good thing for the people of Iraq and the people in the region.
#4 - Another plus!
#5 - the terrorist leader is dead; YES ANOTHER GOOD THING THAT HAS COME OUT OF THIS WAR! But don't misunderstand his death. There are more that must follow in his footsteps. He was not the only insurgent over there.

We can't bring the troops home because it's not over yet. There are more qualified people, that YOU and I, making that decision. Maybe after your list of positive things that are happening over there reaches #15 we can talk about it.


BTW you are doing an excellent job of insulting yourself, I don't need to help you with it. :wink: Keep up the good work dissy.

You're both a bit off.

I also supported the war and believed that there were WMDs. I believe now that there were not and that Sadam was blustering. I don't believe we intentionally misled the U.S. public and Congress, but I do believe that politics influenced intelligence products in a non-constructive way.

There are still insurgents. The U.S. - administration and media - has dramatized Zarqawi and underplayed the native Iraqi insurgency which I understand is still strong, albeit slowly being won over. So it's understandable that Dis and others would think that with Zarqawi dead, the insurgency would fall. We have done this to ourselves by inflating his importance (not to say he didn't stir up trouble, train, and arm insurgents but he was one factor, not the entire insurgency).

Whether you believed in the war or not, we need to stay there until the Iraqis tell us they have things under control. We brought now the government, destroyed the infrastructure, and failed to nip the insurgency in the bud, and we have to do what is necessary to leave Iraq in as good a shape as is possible -- which is not and was never the idealized democracy that the administration believed we could quickly and easily establish there. However, when the Iraqis say "go," we have to go immediately and in the meantime, we need to put enough troops there to make a difference. I just read where Bush Sr tried to oust Rumsfeld and get him replaced with a ret. 4-star. The military is irate about their recommendations being overriden and their not being given what they needed to win in the early days.

I don't know what history will say about the US going into Iraq, I believe it's too early to know, but leaving Iraq to civil war and disrupting the Middle East more, is not the best path. Partition might not be so bad folks : ) It took a dictator to unite Kurds, Shi'te and Sunnis... Lebanon is another "shining example" of the failure of multi-ethnic states in the Middle East and the failure cannot be blamed on any particular religion or sect, whoever was in power has abused it for their own ethnic group.

I agree with your assessment. If the Iraqi government officially requests that we leave, I don't think there's any ethical option but to do as we're told. Until then, we have an obligation to see them through, even if it looks like we're stuck in the mud.

 

[RoperAB]

Donald Rumsfeld is almost a Super Hero.
It was not Rumsfelds fault that the American military wasnt at full strength when it went into Iraq.
Rumsfeld was just doing the best with what he had to do his job.
Donald Rumsfeld is probable one of the greatest Americans that has ever lived! :lol: If you guys dont want him send up here to Alberta.

:lol: The left wing media up here used to refer to the terrorests as insurgents until a few days ago when they found out that the group of Jhadests in Ontario that were arrested were planning on blowing up the CBC<Canadian Broadcasting Corporation> :lol:

 

[Disagreeable]

In listening to the Administration talk about the death of Zarqawi, I almost wonder why we bothered dropping those expensive bombs on him. :roll: According to Bush, his spokesmen, and some military leaders, it won't make much difference in the war. And let's not forget this isn't the first time we've dropped bombs on houses where we though Zarqawi was meeting.