Breaking News - Zarqawi Killed

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Breaking news reports are saying Zarqawi was killed in a military operation. Well done.

[SackAttack]

Don't I remember him kind of getting marginalized by al-Qaeda not so long ago, though?

What I mean is, is this impactful, or more of an "about time" thing?

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Briefing says he was killed in an air strike on a house based on a 2-week intelligence operation.

I think his death is a little bit of p.r. help for Bush here. As far as in Iraq, I don't think Al Queda is behind a lot of the insurgent stuff (it's mostly Iraqi nationalists/religious guys), but some small part of it I believe he was behind. Probably, as the days go by, not much will change. More p.r. for Bush and good feelings for Iraq citizens.

[Hurst2112]

hasn't he been killed about 4 times already?
;)

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Yup. But it looks like this one is confirmed by seeing his body.

[Hurst2112]

cool. i mean...good. i mean...mission accomplished.

[BishopMVP]

Don't I remember him kind of getting marginalized by al-Qaeda not so long ago, though?

What I mean is, is this impactful, or more of an "about time" thing?Yeah, he has been marginalized along with al-Qaeda in Iraq in favor of indigenous Sunni terror groups... killing a number of Sunni tribal chiefs didn't help in that regard.

Overall, it's hard to define the violence in Iraq as any one trend - you've got some that's anti-Coalition, some that's sectarian or Sunni/Shi'a in nature, a lot that's gang violence, but in the end any time you kill 8 terrorists (Zarqaqi + 7 aides) it's a good thing.

[stevew]

I can't believe it took this long. Though I applaud the effort, late or not. I hope they got some good evidence from the site, although with the bombing, it's possible whatever was there got destroyed.

[Qwikshot]

Shame he couldn't be taken alive, that would have brought so much information after they would have broken him.

I've been watching a lot of movies that have dealt with covert war like "The Quiet American" and "Battle for Algiers".

I think we all know that the Middle East is only stable because of oil (the majority of sections) and even with rampant fundamentalism, money keeps most things in check. The tragedy is that influence to the region is only about oil, not about the people or culture, and there has been little care to the most marginalized in those regions (again it's the have-nots in the majority over the haves, which I believe causes the most amount of animosity due to the poverty over wealth, and the additional lack of education or treatment of poor leads them to be easily subverted and exploited by the ruling class and thus by the higher powers)...

where am I going witht this...

Africa, I believe in the next 20 to 30 years, Africa is going to be the next unstable region to slowly start to become a point of contention with resources and cultures. Sure I know it's majorly exploited now, but there seems to be a rush of fundamentalism flowing there and with anti-colonialist feelings, there may be a spark of not only Anti-American but Anti-Western majority and thus support to not only the Middle East (in an OPEC dominance) but also China (I believe China is already setting major roots in Africa).

Why does the West continue to ignore and exploit these regions rather than stabilize them? And not the bare minimum but major support before they become regions of ethnic cleansing (we've seen one in Serbia, but there's now at least TWO in the past years in Africa with Rwanda and now Darfur).

I was reading an article just yesterday at slate, and while it's a heavily left page, I must say it warmed my heartstrings to see my theory that without Soviet Russia to keep the U.S. in check, the majority of nations no longer consider us a neccessity or welcome our insight or support, they don't fear the bear anymore therefore no need to bid tribute to the Eagle (much less curry favor between both). Now it's all about the money, and Red China is doing it's best to influence and flood the market, and cheap labor and low prices will lead to a economy slowness with American, plus we're throwing money at the Middle East which is winning us no friends nor acheiving economic goals.

Yet, if American policy had helped influence and dare I say nationbuild Africa, we've could've caused far more inroads and better leverage with the Middle East and probably less bloodshed.

I continue more later, back to work.

[SFL Cat]

Very good news.

[Warhammer]

Qwik,

I can't remember where this comes from, but I know it was a WSJ editorial some time ago. To summarize, the West should not blame themselves for what has happened in Africa. The West has sent billions of dollars in loans, aid, etc., to Africa. Each time loans are sent, nations spend the money on stuff that is not for the people (new palace, new unis for the army, etc.), the result is the money goes into a black hole. Then, the West is made to feel guilty, so they write off the loans and do not make the nations pay them back. Then the cycle starts all over again.

The problem is that nation building typically does not work. Where have we ever been successful in nation building? Japan and Germany. Both of those nations were industrialized. We have never taken an unindustrialized country and been successful in transforming it into a viable thriving entity. Much of this is due to the fact that we have been unable to change the reins of government in many of these poorer countries which are defacto dictatorships. That is why I hoped that Iraq would be an easy success, I think it will eventually work itself out, but I don't think our populace would support another operation like that. Without a stable, uncorrupt democracy in place, any funds you send are going to be siphoned to the leading party/dictator for their own whims.

[oykib]

Qwik,

I can't remember where this comes from, but I know it was a WSJ editorial some time ago. To summarize, the West should not blame themselves for what has happened in Africa. The West has sent billions of dollars in loans, aid, etc., to Africa. Each time loans are sent, nations spend the money on stuff that is not for the people (new palace, new unis for the army, etc.), the result is the money goes into a black hole. Then, the West is made to feel guilty, so they write off the loans and do not make the nations pay them back. Then the cycle starts all over again.

The problem is that nation building typically does not work. Where have we ever been successful in nation building? Japan and Germany. Both of those nations were industrialized. We have never taken an unindustrialized country and been successful in transforming it into a viable thriving entity. Much of this is due to the fact that we have been unable to change the reins of government in many of these poorer countries which are defacto dictatorships. That is why I hoped that Iraq would be an easy success, I think it will eventually work itself out, but I don't think our populace would support another operation like that. Without a stable, uncorrupt democracy in place, any funds you send are going to be siphoned to the leading party/dictator for their own whims.

I have to call bullshit here. Not abotu the article existing-- about what it says.

If I know that there's a crackhead in the neighborhood, and I keep loaning him money and hold his family responsible for the debt when he doesn't, as I knew he wouldn't, pay it back, then I can't really claimed to have helped that family.

The people in these nations in Africa (that were arbitrarily and haphazardly constructed based on where colonial powers decided to draw maps rather than on cultural, historical, language, or-- in some cases-- even geographical lines) never see any of this aid. But they'll be on the hook for this money for decades.

[John Galt]

I have to call bullshit here. Not abotu the article existing-- about what it says.

Since it comes from the WSJ editorial page, that pretty much goes without saying, but I agree. Most of our loans to Africa have not been forgiven, many were for money to buy our arms, and the loans were mostly squandered by dictators who should have never been given the money in the first place. But in cold war realpolitiks, our intent was not to help the people, it was to gain allies. It's not about the West feeling guilty - the U.S. new exactly what it was doing when it gave money to these dictators. To act surprised that the money didn't help anyone is just silly.

[John Galt]

dola,

As to the actual subject of the thread, it is very good news. I hope it will have a much greater effect on the levels of violence in Iraq than did the capture of Saddam.

[Qwikshot]

I have to call bullshit here. Not abotu the article existing-- about what it says.

If I know that there's a crackhead in the neighborhood, and I keep loaning him money and hold his family responsible for the debt when he doesn't, as I knew he wouldn't, pay it back, then I can't really claimed to have helped that family.

The people in these nations in Africa (that were arbitrarily and haphazardly constructed based on where colonial powers decided to draw maps rather than on cultural, historical, language, or-- in some cases-- even geographical lines) never see any of this aid. But they'll be on the hook for this money for decades.


If anything, we placate the powers that be, so that we can exploit the resources that are in that location.

It's almost as if Western powers disregard that they are causing the destabilization of these powers and then they throw money when there is a calamity.

If foreign policy could be directed at one country with the effort to stabilize and industrialize rather than slash and burn, you'd see a drastic change, it would cost money and it would be long term, but other nations would jump because all of a sudden the shift would be to set up links as fast as one can.

Could you imagine the profit that would go into constructing Africa into a 1st world continent? The benefits would be unimaginable, and it's resources would make it a far better buffer than the pacification of the Middle East.

Plus the humanitarian effort and benefit would be great. I am not saying we'll solve all the problems, but we wouldn't be occupying, we'd be "nation-building".

Japan was blown to sh*t, Germany was over-run by opposing nations. But there was concerted effort in rebuilding. Because of stabilizing Japan, the U.S. has influence in the Asian theater, and a decent buffer to China (and crazy North Korea).

American becomes so short term when it comes to policy, this is one that couldn't fail because there is profit potential but a genuine goal of betterment. Plus it'd scare the hell out of the Middle East and South America, they can't really influence Africa to the same great lengths as American and Europe.

But then again, maybe it's just me.

How does this link to Zarqawi and al-Qaeda? Because we are reactive rather than proactive, we went into a region that views us as evil and greed driven...we went basically alone with little support from our allies (unlike Afghanistan). But we continue to ignore the potential rewards for bettering and stabilzing Africa.

[Buccaneer]

I would say Canada is also breathing a sigh of relief, don't you think?

[st.cronin]

This thread has taken a strange turn, but this is very, very good news, especially when combined with the appointment of a defense minister by the Iraqi gov't.

[Qwikshot]

Well, we see what happens now, but I think that it won't change much, if anything, things may get worse because now there will be in faction fighting.

[st.cronin]

Your pessimism is absolutely breathtaking.

[Qwikshot]

Your pessimism is absolutely breathtaking.


Is it? Do you really think everything will stop with his death? More importantly was it worth over 2000 soliders' deaths and countless civilians, and billions of dollars?

It's like putting a red ribbon on a dead horse and saying it's pretty.

[st.cronin]

Is it? Do you really think everything will stop with his death?

That would be senselessly optimistic, in the same way that this...

I think that it won't change much, if anything, things may get worse because now there will be in faction fighting.

... is senselessly pessimistic.

[flere-imsaho]

Good news. Hopefully this will be a blow to the morale of the terrorists in Iraq.

And hopefully they'll get OBL one of these days.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

This is indeed excellent news. Even if this kill was mostly symbolic and he wasn't in charge anymore, I don't really care. This man deserved to die a horrible and painful death.

[Qwikshot]

That would be senselessly optimistic, in the same way that this...

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i107/qwikshot1975/gbush.jpg

... is senselessly pessimistic.

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i107/qwikshot1975/Gcarlin.jpg

:D

Frankly, celebrate it, that's fine.

Lots of people celebrated Chamberlain's note from Hitler too.

Lots of people celebrated Caesar's death.

Lots of people celebrated Pablo Escobar's death.

Lots of people celebrated Ayatollah Khomeini's death.

Lots of people celebrated Pol Pot's death.

What did they change? It takes more than one dead body to turn the tide, the war is far from over.

Rejoice at his death, but don't let it blind you. Not when you have Iran wanting to influence Iraq policy and world policy with nuclear weapons and Syria sending fighters over to join the Jihad, and Afghanistan not fully eradicating the Taliban. No capturing or confirmation of the death of Bin Laden, and Pakistan minimizing it's effort to eradicate fundamentalists...

[sachmo71]

I'm a bit saddened that this news had made my insides burn with furious justice, but I've been whistling the Air Force hymn all morning.

[cartman]

This is indeed good news. Hopefully we learn something from the ensuing power vacuum and eliminate their leadership structure.

Now maybe that he's gone, and those in the Deck of 52 are accounted for, we can turn the focus back to the guys we were originally after: UBL, Al-Zawhari, and Mullah Omar. Sure, Afghanistan is about 50% bigger than Iraq, but how is it we rounded up or took care of all those folks in Iraq, and we haven't been able to touch these three, over a longer period of time?

[JW]

This is good news, and it is absurd to pretend otherwise. In addition to killing Zarqawi, concurrent raids apparently resulted in the taking of a lot of documents and material that may be extremely helpful. This is a good thing. It is not the end of anything. The conflict continues. But we will also hear now a litany of the same people who have been saying, "Why haven't we gotten Zarqawi?" now saying, "His death will just breed more violence."

[SirFozzie]

A good first step, to capitalize, the US must walka thin line, let internecine conflicts weaken the organization Zarqawi built, without giving them a fresh impetus to unite. (to prevent "the Next Al-Zarqawi")

[sachmo71]

How much of a bump with the president get for this? I'll guess 5 points.

[Galaril]

Good Work! I hope he burns in Hell for eternity.

[King of New York]

How much of a bump with the president get for this? I'll guess 5 points.

That sounds about right. But for how long? I would guess about two months--if there are no successes like this one during that period, the bump will go away.

[Franklinnoble]

Sweet. One less scumbag to worry about.

And you can't say taking him down isn't a good thing. If we nail the high profile terrorists, it sends a message - nobody is immune. The best thing that could happen would be to have Bin Laden's head on a pole in the coming months. Then there would be no doubt in anybody's mind anymore - you f*#$ with the USA, and they WILL find you.

[flere-imsaho]

And you can't say taking him down isn't a good thing.

Uh, did anyone say that?

This is just like saying "So tell me, when did you stop beating your wife."

[GrantDawg]

That sounds about right. But for how long? I would guess about two months--if there are no successes like this one during that period, the bump will go away.


I doubt the bump last that long. There might not even be a bump with the economy turning south again. It might end up a wash.

[st.cronin]

Uh, did anyone say that?

Yes, although I don't know how seriously it was meant.

I think that it won't change much, if anything, things may get worse because now there will be in faction fighting.

[Qwikshot]

Yes, although I don't know how seriously it was meant.


Ok, one more time.

Zarqawi dead = good
Difference to war in Iraq = undetermined

[st.cronin]

Ok, one more time.

Zarqawi dead = good
Difference to war in Iraq = undetermined

:)

[sabotai]

How much of a bump with the president get for this? I'll guess 5 points.

I'll guess "not nearly enough for Republicans to use him to get elected/reelected in November."

:D

[Dutch]

When I heard the news this morning on the way in to work, my first reaction was "Hell Yeah!". And that was well before I gave a fuck what the politicians thought. It's simply good news for us.

[Glengoyne]

Is it? Do you really think everything will stop with his death? More importantly was it worth over 2000 soliders' deaths and countless civilians, and billions of dollars?

...

Zarqawi's Death no. If the Governemnt in Iraq can seriously take hold, crack down on corruption, and stand up for itself. Then very possibly yes. It would be worth that and more.

The deal is, I doubt we'll really know the final score on Iraq for fifteen twenty years.

That said. This, the death of Zarqawi, will probably not mean all that much, but it is a symbolic advance. At least he isn't thumbing his nose anymore.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Actually, I'm not so sure of that. I heard they found his thumb and nose together by themselves in the corner of the house.

[King of New York]

CNN reports that he was still alive when American soldiers found him in the rubble.

Should we regret that he didn't survive, thereby robbing us of the chance to pump him for intelligence? Or should we be glad that he died, saving us the trouble of figuring out what to do with him (and the possibility of a trial as farcical as the Saddsam Hussein trial?)

Somewhere, a conspiracy theorist is going to have a field day with this report.

[flere-imsaho]

Should we regret that he didn't survive, thereby robbing us of the chance to pump him for intelligence? Or should we be glad that he died, saving us the trouble of figuring out what to do with him (and the possibility of a trial as farcical as the Saddsam Hussein trial?)

The latter. Sure, we might have been able to get some intelligence out of him, but apparently we got stuff at the scene, and from others as well.

Honestly, I hope he suffered. This guy's directly responsible for people taking potshots at, and blowing up IEDs under, my brother. Good riddance.

[stevew]

CNN reports that he was still alive when American soldiers found him in the rubble.

Should we regret that he didn't survive, thereby robbing us of the chance to pump him for intelligence? Or should we be glad that he died, saving us the trouble of figuring out what to do with him (and the possibility of a trial as farcical as the Saddsam Hussein trial?)

Somewhere, a conspiracy theorist is going to have a field day with this report.

Glad he's dead, would have been nice to pump him for evidence though.

[st.cronin]

Would have been nice to behead him on the internet.