NationStates Jolt Archive

My oh my - does that chap inspire mixed feelings here.
Some rejoice at his death.
Others seem sorry for him.

So, witout further ado - POLLTIME

His death changes little, apart from giving Al Quaeda yet another martyr to celebrate, and the number of bystanders killed proves once again that the only thing "surgical" about these strikes is that both involve blood. That is not a defense of Zarqawi, who was both a terrorist and a hate preacher.

A message to the US military: While you're already killing hate preachers, could you off Phelps and Coulter, please?

His death changes little, apart from giving Al Quaeda yet another martyr to celebrate, and the number of bystanders killed proves once again that the only thing "surgical" about these strikes is that both involve blood. That is not a defense of Zarqawi, who was both a terrorist and a hate preacher.

A message to the US military: While you're already killing hate preachers, could you off Phelps and Coulter, please?


I don't think they nailed Zarqawi for his sermons.
It may have had something to do with actively opposing American and Western Armed Forces.
And hurrah for that!

Ah, so hate is only fine as long as the people you hate are brown, gay or liberal. That clears it up.:)

George Bush has never personally slit a man's throat and walked away with a smile on his face, to the best of my knowledge. So I voted that I prefer Bush, and generally, I am pretty glad that Zarqarwi is dead.

Ah, so hate is only fine as long as the people you hate are brown, gay or liberal. That clears it up.:)

No - hate is alright so long as you don't murder thousands of those you hate.

No - hate is alright so long as you do murder thousands of those you hate.

was that 'do' or 'don't'?

Like this:

*Gropes corpse*

I'm sure he was fighting for what he beleived was a just cause.

Whatever the auditory equivalent of a shrug is how I would express my feelings about him. "Meh" is fairly close.

Considerably more than he feels about it.

*waits for DK to say summat*

*waits for DK to say summat*
Your poll options don't make any sense.

If I had been there on the scene when he was dragged from the rubble, I would have smoked a cigarette and watched him expire.

Your poll options don't make any sense.

If I had been there on the scene when he was dragged from the rubble, I would have smoked a cigarette and watched him expire.


*apologises*

Good one!

worst. poll. options. ever.

the man lived by the sword and died by the sword. we werent going to take him peacefully and he needed to be gotten.

its seems ODD to me that we can blow the shit out of a place, killing several innocent (and some pretty guilty) bystanders, call it JUSTICE and dont have to answer for our actions in any way.

As a white house spokesman stated, we have finaly killed the man who has the most blood on his hands through terroism....Funny should he same spokesman had said, Finaly the country wich has the most blood on its hand had put a stop to person with lesser blood on his hand.


I leave it up to you..

Zarqawi was of no benefit to mankind in any way shape or form. He killed randomly, and lashed out with intense violence at those who viewed the world differently than he, even though they were not in violent conflict with each other. It is a shame he had to die now, and not be caught, and have to spend the rest of his life in an Iraqi jail, but as it stands, it's better to have him dead than to have him running about inspiring people to blow themselves up in random public places around Iraq.

A message to the US military: While you're already killing hate preachers, could you off Phelps and Coulter, please?
Phelps yes. Coulter no ... she's too funny! :D

was that 'do' or 'don't'?

Heh, 'don't', thanks for noticing.

You still don't know what you're dealing with do you? Perfect organism. Its structural perfection is matched only by its hostility.

I admire his purity, his sense of survival; unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality.

None of the above. I am apathetic, mostly. It won't solve anything and I don't like people dying, but I'm not that fond of fundamentalists, either, especially not the murderous sort.

None of the above. I am apathetic, mostly. It won't solve anything and I don't like people dying, but I'm not that fond of fundamentalists, either, especially not the murderous sort.
Cutting your fingernails once a week won't solve anything - they'll just grow back. And you might accidentally cut yourself, and that would be bad.

So stop cutting your fingernails.

Cutting your fingernails once a week won't solve anything - they'll just grow back. And you might accidentally cut yourself, and that would be bad.

So stop cutting your fingernails.

In such a circumstance, it would be wise not to exclaim much over cutting one's fingernails.

And, since unlike cutting one's fingernails, hunting and killing people like Zarqawi is an arduous and expensive process that involves the destruction of innocent life, it would be wiser to find a long-term solution.

In such a circumstance, it would be wise not to exclaim much over cutting one's fingernails.

And, since unlike cutting one's fingernails, hunting and killing people like Zarqawi is an arduous and expensive process that involves the destruction of innocent life, it would be wiser to find a long-term solution.

You're saying that Zarqawi and his associates are innocents?

You're saying that Zarqawi and his associates are innocents?

No. I am saying, however, that if you believe this hunt has avoided collateral damage, you clearly have not been paying attention.

Before the November 2004 slaughter, there were numerous bombings of alleged "al-Zarqawi safehouses" in Fallujah, and each one killed numerous innocent people, including several children.

I could go with my more skeptical side, and say that they in fact had absolutely nothing to do with the hunt for Zarqawi and were in fact terrorist atrocities designed to intimidate the population. That was my judgement at the time, based on the assumption that they would never in fact kill Zarqawi but rather keep him as an Emmanuel Goldstein figure, but in the light of recent events I must re-evaluate that judgement; they may really be extremely incompetent, and not quite as malicious as I made them out to be. Thus, I am assuming that they were in fact connected to the hunt for Zarqawi, and were part of the process that resulted in his death.

If you wish to defend the US policy in regard to Zarqawi and those like him, you should take such "collateral damage" into account.

You're saying that Zarqawi and his associates are innocents?
No, he's saying that he'll just be replaced and his death will inspire another 50 people to join AQ. The task ios to stop this from ahppening-to stop people joining up. Ie: Stop your fingernails growing back.

Ah, so hate is only fine as long as the people you hate are brown, gay or liberal. That clears it up.:)
You can hate all you want, but when you cross the line and saw the head off the guy you hate or blow up civilians to spite those you hate, someone's going to make a serious effort to kill you. As it should be.

You still don't know what you're dealing with do you? Perfect organism. Its structural perfection is matched only by its hostility.

I admire his purity, his sense of survival; unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality.
Where's Sigourney Weaver when you need her?

He's dead and that is all that I care about.

No, he's saying that he'll just be replaced and his death will inspire another 50 people to join AQ. The task ios to stop this from ahppening-to stop people joining up. Ie: Stop your fingernails growing back.
So how do you do that? Genocide of all Muslims or surrender and live under the harshest version of Sharia law, give up equality and elected government and embrace a taliban style state? I'd much rather just fight the war eternally if need be.

These poll options are teh suck.

Where's the "Although I do not condone violence, it appears to be the only language these murdering fucktards appear to understand."?

So how do you do that? Genocide of all Muslims or surrender and live under the harshest version of Sharia law, give up equality and elected government and embrace a taliban style state? I'd much rather just fight the war eternally if need be.

Giving up US imperialism in the Middle East would be a reasonable course of action.

These poll options are teh suck.

Where's the "Although I do not condone violence, it appears to be the only language these murdering fucktards appear to understand."?

They seemed to understand other languages well enough back when the US was using them as proxies.

Giving up US imperialism in the Middle East would be a reasonable course of action.

And yet....we are not being imperialistic in the Middle East.

And yet....we are not being imperialistic in the Middle East.

Strange, I was thinking that one country invading another country and imposing its rule upon it was pretty imperialistic. Not to mention subsidizing authoritarian regimes.

Strange, I was thinking that one country invading another country and imposing its rule upon it was pretty imperialistic. Not to mention subsidizing authoritarian regimes.

Funny. I thought Iraq can tell us to leave whenever they feel like it. I guess that kinda destroys what you are saying.

They seemed to understand other languages well enough back when the US was using them as proxies.

Not really. The Soviets, the Israelis, or the West in general. All they want to do is kill whomever doesn't subscribe to their religion.

Not really. The Soviets, the Israelis, or the West in general. All they want to do is kill whomever doesn't subscribe to their religion.

Which is one of the reasons they were so useful. Too bad such projects tend to backfire.

Funny. I thought Iraq can tell us to leave whenever they feel like it. I guess that kinda destroys what you are saying.

Who is "Iraq"?

Giving up US imperialism in the Middle East would be a reasonable course of action.
But that's not Al Qaeda's ultimate goal. They want to restore a strict Salafiyya caliphate and have it expand it's rule to the entire world. Also, what imperialism? We support governements that keep the region stable and the oil flowing, but we don't take over countries and make them into collonies. The definition of imperialism is getting stretched beyond recognition.

Who is "Iraq"?

Either you are being serious or you are being sarcastic. If you are being serious then I am going to have to question your intelligence.

Strange, I was thinking that one country invading another country and imposing its rule upon it was pretty imperialistic. Not to mention subsidizing authoritarian regimes.
We didn't impose our rule. The Iraqis elected their own government in elections that were ruled fair by the international community.

Your poll options don't make any sense.

If I had been there on the scene when he was dragged from the rubble, I would have smoked a cigarette and watched him expire.

You'd do that with any dying Muslim, not just Zarqawi.

But that's not Al Qaeda's ultimate goal. They want to restore a strict Salafiyya caliphate and have it expand it's rule to the entire world.

And they have absolutely no capability of doing so, nor any serious interest.

Also, what imperialism? We support governements that keep the region stable and the oil flowing, but we don't take over countries and make them into collonies. The definition of imperialism is getting stretched beyond recognition.

We don't have to make them colonies. Proxy governments are cheaper and require less manipulation of public opinion.

We didn't impose our rule. The Iraqis elected their own government in elections that were ruled fair by the international community.

Democracy requires quite a bit more than elections.

Either you are being serious or you are being sarcastic. If you are being serious then I am going to have to question your intelligence.

I was being serious. You were referring to "Iraq" being capable of something. I want to know what you mean by "Iraq."

And they have absolutely no capability of doing so, nor any serious interest.

Then it is apparent you have not been paying any attention at all.

I was being serious. You were referring to "Iraq" being capable of something. I want to know what you mean by "Iraq."

Yep. I'm going to question your intelligence. Iraq is a Middle Eastern Nation sandwhiched between Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Syria, and Jordan. Are you telling me that Iraq does not exist?

Yep. I'm going to question your intelligence. Iraq is a Middle Eastern Nation sandwhiched between Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Syria, and Jordan. Are you telling me that Iraq does not exist?
As a goverment it dosn't. It's goverment has no power at all, it's just a puppet regime. How else do you explain why Bush was able to force a constuntion through.

Ah, so hate is only fine as long as the people you hate are brown, gay or liberal. That clears it up.:)

How about if they're nihilistic butcherers who take pleasure out of slaughtering anyone who does not conform to the theological tyranny that they seek to impose?

So how do you do that? Genocide of all Muslims or surrender and live under the harshest version of Sharia law, give up equality and elected government and embrace a taliban style state? I'd much rather just fight the war eternally if need be.

It is difficult. Quite simply, deportation would be effective.

How about if they're nihilistic butcherers who take pleasure out of slaughtering anyone who does not conform to the theological tyranny that they seek to impose?

Steady on... he beat Kerry fair and square.

Steady on... he beat Kerry fair and square.

*arches eyebrows*

Florida?

Ah, so hate is only fine as long as the people you hate are brown, gay or liberal. That clears it up.:)

I don't have a problem throwing insults at Johhny Taliban walker.


I'd like nothing more than to have 5 minutes with him before he died. Shove bacon and pig grease down his throat followed by dousing him with nitro fuel and road flares.

ETA: When I found out about Zarqawi's death I went and bought some BBQ which will serve a double purpose-celebrating Father's day and celebrating the death of a wicked man.

*arches eyebrows*

Florida?

Bush got Florida both times, thanks to Escambia county. Something like 2300 votes for Bush, 100 for Kerry, and 100 for other candidates...

Pcola owns.

Haha! That fucking sectarian rat's finally fuckin dead! Maybe we'll see some real progress for the Iraqi resistance with a bit of luck!

Haha! That fucking sectarian rat's finally fuckin dead! Maybe we'll see some real progress for the Iraqi resistance with a bit of luck!

There were 60+ raids within hours of Zarqawis death.

Good.

I'm sure he was fighting for what he beleived was a just cause.

I'm sure Hitler was, too.

You can hate all you want, but when you cross the line and saw the head off the guy you hate or blow up civilians to spite those you hate, someone's going to make a serious effort to kill you. As it should be.

And if you are the person to decide what 'undemocratic' countries you want to send troops into, a side-effect of which being the ending of innocent people's lives(intended or not) and the destruction of their social structure amongst others, is it not fair that a serious effort be made to kill you?
Yet I bet there's be a bit of a row if the insurgents in Iraq (were they capable) led an airstrike on Bush's weekend home.

There are many countries who have broken all the same rules Iraq did according to the US' reasoning for invasion. But I don't see the US invading half of the Indochinese peninsula.

I can tell you right now there are terrorists in Ireland, and there are some in Afghanistan. Only one has been invaded recently.

Have any of you seen the film, Rambo III? When the colonel is being interrogated by the Russians in Afghanistan, he explains that they are fighting a war they cannot win. The people they fight have lived on this land for thousands of years and would sooner die than give it up. You cannot beat that sort of force, it is a war you cannot win.
20 years ago I actually think that was close to the US thought on foreign policy in regard to countries such as Afghanistan. While the cold war was a dangerous time, the constant threat of dispute is far better to live with than the constant threat of a bomb going off in your local shopping mall or train station.

Well, explosions are just funny. Had nothing to do with the guy...

I'm sure he was fighting for what he beleived was a just cause.
so was Hitler idiot

And if you are the person to decide what 'undemocratic' countries you want to send troops into, a side-effect of which being the ending of innocent people's lives(intended or not) and the destruction of their social structure amongst others, is it not fair that a serious effort be made to kill you?
Yet I bet there's be a bit of a row if the insurgents in Iraq (were they capable) led an airstrike on Bush's weekend home.

There are many countries who have broken all the same rules Iraq did according to the US' reasoning for invasion. But I don't see the US invading half of the Indochinese peninsula.
I can tell you right now there are terrorists in Ireland, and there are some in Afghanistan. Only one has been invaded recently.

Have any of you seen the film, Rambo III? When the colonel is being interrogated by the Russians in Afghanistan, he explains that they are fighting a war they cannot win. The people they fight have lived on this land for thousands of years and would sooner die than give it up. You cannot beat that sort of force, it is a war you cannot win.
20 years ago I actually think that was close to the US thought on foreign policy in regard to countries such as Afghanistan. While the cold war was a dangerous time, the constant threat of dispute is far better to live with than the constant threat of a bomb going off in your local shopping mall or train station.


We are selectively invading countries. Can't invade everyone.

Just glad he is dead and rotting in hell……………….:)

to tell u the truth i rejoiced when i found out he was dead... i was happy... he was an evil man.. and i don't care what happened to him after the bombs dropped.. he is dead.. and that is all that matters

so was Hitler idiot

And stalin and mao ze dong and in the end they all lost ^^

Peachy.

to tell u the truth i rejoiced when i found out he was dead... i was happy... he was an evil man.. and i don't care what happened to him after the bombs dropped.. he is dead.. and that is all that matters

I broke out into a chorus of Ding Dong the Witch is Dead.

About Zarqawi:

I find myself wondering if he had an opportunity to shit himself before, during or after the explosion.

I broke out into a chorus of Ding Dong the Witch is Dead.

damn why couldn't i have thought of that
Hehe well i am just happy he is gone!

Is it just me, or is the poll a little skewed?

Liasia']Is it just me, or is the poll a little skewed?


55 or so people say it's a good thing Zarqawi is dead?


nah.....

55 or so people say it's a good thing Zarqawi is dead?


nah.....

*Looks at poll* What?

And yet....we are not being imperialistic in the Middle East.
Operation Iraqi Liberation

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/36463/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/after/2003/0512bechtelrule.htm

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm

http://www.publicintegrity.org/wow/

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=15

Wake up Corny.

I can honestly say I like Bush better.

Operation Iraqi Liberation

So what? The West needs oil, it's the lifeblood of the economy at this point in history. Would you rather we have waited until Iran got nukes, taken over Iraq (and maybe even Saudi Arabia), and cut off a majority of our oil supply before we went in and did something about it? Iran is a dangerous country, and one of the main reasons we invaded Afghanistan (besides 9/11) and Iraq, is to form a barrier between them and other nations. In other words, containment. Democracy in those countries and killing terrorists was just the icing on the cake.

So what? The West needs oil, it's the lifeblood of the economy at this point in history. Would you rather we have waited until Iran got nukes, taken over Iraq (and maybe even Saudi Arabia), and cut off a majority of our oil supply before we went in and did something about it? Iran is a dangerous country, and one of the main reasons we invaded Afghanistan (besides 9/11) and Iraq, is to form a barrier between them and other nations. In other words, containment. Democracy in those countries and killing terrorists was just the icing on the cake.
The western world was served a wake up call back in the early 70's. Instead of making their economies less dependent upon oil, they made their economies more dependent upon oil. And now they are killing Muslims because of their greed. And all you can do is say "so what".

The funny part is that none of those here who say "awww zarqawi, he must have gotten due process, awwww he was just true to his beliefs, damn teh jooos blah blah" would have rather not have him around them when he was alive.

Reg his death, I am not that euphoric since he was on the run of late and kinda expected him to be bumped...it was a surprise he did manage to hold out this long...

yeah he will eventually be replaced but it is a setback to the sunni islamist faction...

The western world was served a wake up call back in the early 70's. Instead of making their economies less dependent upon oil, they made their economies more dependent upon oil.
Because of economic growth...We did'nt have an alternative to oil back then. What do you want us to do, stop succeeding so much?

And now they are killing Muslims because of their greed.
Part of it is out of greed. Most of it is survival. Sure, the oil companies & gov't had'nt exactly encouraged alt-fuel research the way it should've, but if we lose the oil at this stage of history, we won't have a chance to research fuels, because our economies will implode without oil...That includes Europe, not just "Those filthy, stupid Americans, *ptooi!*"

And all you can do is say "so what".
Exactly. Even if we did'nt need the oil, i'd support invasion to keep Iran from growing...Would you want a fundamentalist, Islamist, terroristic theocracy in your backyard? I think not.

Because of economic growth...We did'nt have an alternative to oil back then. What do you want us to do, stop succeeding so much?

Part of it is out of greed. Most of it is survival. Sure, the oil companies & gov't had'nt exactly encouraged alt-fuel research the way it should've, but if we lose the oil at this stage of history, we won't have a chance to research fuels, because our economies will implode without oil...That includes Europe, not just "Those filthy, stupid Americans, *ptooi!*"

Exactly. Even if we did'nt need the oil, i'd support invasion to keep Iran from growing...Would you want a fundamentalist, Islamist, terroristic theocracy in your backyard? I think not.

A free Iraq would be a major threat to Iran.

I feel glad that he won't be able to hurt anyone now.

I feel sceptical that this will achieve anything.

I feel hopeful that his successor will be more in-line with Zawahiri's policies and will stop killing other Muslims.

I feel annoyed that the US couldn't manage to capture him and put him on trial.

A free Iraq would be a major threat to Iran.
Exactly.

A free Iraq would be a major threat to Iran.
Not if it was free enough to allow the majority Shi'ites to rule...

Not if it was free enough to allow the majority Shi'ites to rule...
Not really...As long as we keep even a small American force-presence there, the Shi'ite leaders will not fall out of line with our strategic wishes. They know we will replace them if they side with the Iranians in any significant fashion...We already have 14 bases being built there, so we're there for the long-haul, even if we reduce our troop-strength there to five-digits...

Not if it was free enough to allow the majority Shi'ites to rule...
Exactly.

Not really...As long as we keep even a small American force-presence there, the Shi'ite leaders will not fall out of line with our strategic wishes.
:D

I like you, dude. Your no-bullshit approach:

"Free"? What are you talking about, "free"? "Free" is what I tell people it is!

Not really...As long as we keep even a small American force-presence there, the Shi'ite leaders will not fall out of line with our strategic wishes. They know we will replace them if they side with the Iranians in any significant fashion...We already have 14 bases being built there, so we're there for the long-haul, even if we reduce our troop-strength there to five-digits...
Well, I have to give you credit for your brutal honesty on this one, even though you may fail to realize the long term consequences for these types of actions. It is policies such as these that create more terrorism, and more resistance to being "assimilated" by western culture and values.

:D

I like you, dude. Your no-bullshit approach:

"Free"? What are you talking about, "free"? "Free" is what I tell people it is!
Free as in Freedumb? The US will tell them that they are now "free", and just hope that they are dumb enough to buy in.

I had a big long post planned, but the internet reached out with its' horrific Cthuloid tentacles and swallowed it...Just goes to show, save-as-you-go...Oh well, a shortened version:

I like you, dude. Your no-bullshit approach:

"Free"? What are you talking about, "free"? "Free" is what I tell people it is!
Democracy ends where survival begins. If we don't isolate Iran, the entire world will suffer, and more will have died than if we had'nt gone in. Iran will hardly be as soft as we are on dissidents...Step out of line with the Iranians, get your head chopped off...That would be the only "justice" in a Middle-East dominated by Iran...And we will have to invade anyway once that happens...Why not cut it off at the pass?
Well, I have to give you credit for your brutal honesty on this one, even though you may fail to realize the long term consequences for these types of actions. It is policies such as these that create more terrorism, and more resistance to being "assimilated" by western culture and values.
Terrorists should be assimilated or killed. Most-likely killed, though, since they seem to be "over-the-edge" already...Most Mid-Easterners are'nt terrorists, but they are undeniably a powerful faction, and a particular threat to both ours and the MEers' security...Especially terrorists supplied by an aggressive, nuclear-armed Iran.
Free as in Freedumb? The US will tell them that they are now "free", and just hope that they are dumb enough to buy in.
I'll just let this post stand on its' own, *ahem*, "merit"...

I'm just saying that you're being extremely unrealistic about the way the world works. If we were to allow Iran to build nukes, there will be a new Cold (and very possible Hot) War...Sorry, but the world can't go through that again, we almost got the world destroyed the first time.

Democracy ends where survival begins.
In other words, if your country was threatened by a certain superpower with war, it would be a good idea to centralise all power with the military, crack down on dissent and perhaps make a point by gassing a few rebel villages?

If we don't isolate Iran, the entire world will suffer, and more will have died than if we had'nt gone in.
Why? Iran is not that bad a place. There are a lot worse, from Burma over Uzbekistan to North Korea.
The reason Ahmadinejad is still around is because pressure from the outside unites. Domestically, he has not only pissed off the Ayatollahs but he also failed to realise a single one of his election promises. His arse would be back on the street by now, and new elections would've brought on someone else.
Isolation is something you can do as a reaction and last resort, but the be honest, Iran hasn't done anything bad to its neighbours (unlike multiple other countries in the region). They've never started a war, and they are right when they say that they have a right to peaceful nuclear power.
I agree that they shouldn't get nukes, but why can't that debate be done properly? Why does the US have to refuse to speak to Iran directly, why does Bush language that is quite frankly nothing but "fightin' words"?

Iran will hardly be as soft as we are on dissidents...Step out of line with the Iranians, get your head chopped off...
To be fair, dissidents go to jail, which is probably better than what happens to gays and raped women (sometimes, we hear about the high profile cases, chances are there are many more with more lenient punishments).

That would be the only "justice" in a Middle-East dominated by Iran...
As opposed to Syria and all the other good helpers of the US in the Middle East and Central Asia?

And we will have to invade anyway once that happens...Why not cut it off at the pass?
Why do you think Iran wants to dominate anything? And if you look at regional diplomacy there, you can see that the rest of the Arab world isn't much of a fan or Iran anyways - so why do you think the US has a role to play there? Especially if that role is to suppress the wishes of the majority of Iraqis?

My oh my - does that chap inspire mixed feelings here.
Some rejoice at his death.
Others seem sorry for him.

So, witout further ado - POLLTIMEFeel sorry for a man that considered Osama bin Laden as "not radical enough"? Why should I?

Isolation is something you can do as a reaction and last resort, but the be honest, Iran hasn't done anything bad to its neighbours
Supporting terrorism and performing some acts themselves is'nt "bad"? Wow.

and they are right when they say that they have a right to peaceful nuclear power.
Yes. Peaceful. Which means they must prove that they are not planning to make bombs, let inspectors in whenever requested, and not screw around with them like Saddam did...Until then, I don't trust them to keep their word.

I agree that they shouldn't get nukes, but why can't that debate be done properly? Why does the US have to refuse to speak to Iran directly, why does Bush language that is quite frankly nothing but "fightin' words"?
Huh? BBC says different. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5034228.stm)

To be fair, dissidents go to jail, which is probably better than what happens to gays and raped women (sometimes, we hear about the high profile cases, chances are there are many more with more lenient punishments).
Yes, and we don't do either of those, and we don't torture all prisoners, much as some radical socialists would have people believe. Iran tortures many more.

As opposed to Syria and all the other good helpers of the US in the Middle East and Central Asia?
A sad reality of geopolitics, unfortunately.

Why do you think Iran wants to dominate anything? And if you look at regional diplomacy there, you can see that the rest of the Arab world isn't much of a fan or Iran anyways - so why do you think the US has a role to play there? Especially if that role is to suppress the wishes of the majority of Iraqis?
First of all, there is no guarantee that the combined force of the ME's other militaries could repulse an Iranian invasion, especially a nuclear-armed Iran. In fact, many might surrender and agree to be allies, which would be disastrous to the west, as this would inevitably lead to oil cutoff...If no "Great Alliance"? More war, more chaos, more devestation, disrupted oil shipments, making it necessary to invade to restore order anyway.

Zarqawi was an overhyped tool used by both the Bush Administration and Al Qaeda for propaganda coups. The only thing special about him was he lead a bunch of thugs who wanted to be Al Qaeda and that the U.S. military made him out to be a brilliant Mini-Me of Bin Ladin.

*Yawn*.

Supporting terrorism and performing some acts themselves is'nt "bad"? Wow.
There we go again. That was twenty or more years ago. Hezbollah (just one of many parties in the Lebanese civil war, if you think about it) hasn't hurt anyone in years, and even if they had, the fact that they have a clearly developed civilian arm means that Iran may not be supporting them for the reason that they committed terrorist acts.

Yes. Peaceful. Which means they must prove that they are not planning to make bombs, let inspectors in whenever requested, and not screw around with them like Saddam did...Until then, I don't trust them to keep their word.
See, that's where the problem is. The burden of proof is not upon them to prove their good intentions, it's on us to prove that they are doing something wrong.
They've had thousands of inspections over the years, nothing was ever wrong. The Russians are building new reactors for them, which will need fuel. So there we have a motive for an enrichment program.
And then suddenly the West comes in with its accusations and so on. Wasn't it obvious what the Iranian response would be?

Huh? BBC says different. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5034228.stm)
I suppose my point was more about the fact that diplomatic relations between the countries are still non-existant.
The deal you are speaking of was a conditional one. Why would the Iranians accept it?
Steps (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aRf.cY5fPYzU&refer=top_world_news) are taken in the general right direction, but Iran has obviously shown that it is a normal and accepted member of the international community, and the special treatment must be changed and diplomatic relations normalised. Then the Iranians wouldn't have to be threatened and could cooperate without losing face - and they could take a role in the solution to the problem of islamist extremism as would be befitting of their position.

Yes, and we don't do either of those, and we don't torture all prisoners, much as some radical socialists would have people believe. Iran tortures many more.
A sad reality of geopolitics, unfortunately.
Ultimately, you answered your own question. Iranians will sort themselves out, and they have a much better chance of doing so than Uzbeks or North Koreans have - because they already have fairly democratic structures in place, and their country is advanced and diverse enough to make that step.

First of all, there is no guarantee that the combined force of the ME's other militaries could repulse an Iranian invasion, especially a nuclear-armed Iran.
What's with the war-talk? Who's talking about war?

A lot of people have made the point that they would have rather Zarqawi been brought to justice rather than killed outright, yet in these circumstances I think justice and death are one and the same. Whilst I do not advocate the skipping of 'due process', the outcome of any trial in Iraq involving Zarqawi would have been the death penalty, make no mistake. Furthermore whilst it's possible to advocate some modicum of respect for the dead I would remind people of the acts he committed whilst he was alive and observe that his death does not alter the essence of who he was or what he has done.

In strategic terms, I think this is of pretty sizeable importance. Whilst it remains true that he will be replaced as the senior Al–Qaeda figure in Iraq (in all likelihood by someone more responsible to the leadership) it is unlikely that their logistical capabilities or their sheer brutality (which was excessive even for Al–Qaeda) will match that of Zarqawi. Two of his most notorious bombings in Iraq – the destruction of the Samarra shrine and the U.N headquarters in Baghdad involved the use of military grade explosives which in all likelihood could not have been obtained without key contacts in the military. Furthermore the fact that he was responsible for an estimated 10% of the total number of attacks in Iraq and was able to orchestrate a planned attack on the Jordanian embassy (which would have been horrendous in scale) but also the bombings in Amman seem demonstrative of the extent of his influence as a terrorist operative. This WILL make a difference.

I am very glad to see him dead, I hope it will serve as some consolation to all those whose lives have been devastated by this callous nihilist.

There we go again. That was twenty or more years ago. Hezbollah (just one of many parties in the Lebanese civil war, if you think about it) hasn't hurt anyone in years, and even if they had, the fact that they have a clearly developed civilian arm means that Iran may not be supporting them for the reason that they committed terrorist acts.

Hezbollah routinely attacks Israel. It seems like about a year ago I remember an attack on motorcycles that killed a few Israeli citizens.

But here is a BBC article about Hezbollah attacking Israelis from Nov '05.

Deadly clash on Lebanese border (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4456984.stm)

Hezbollah is still a terrorist group, and it still launches katyusha rockets into Israel from across the border on occassion. Most Hezbollah attacks resemble traditional guerilla warfare rather than the type of terrorism we hear on the news, so its often overlooked. Instead of suicide bombings against civilians, there are more frequent attacks against military outposts within Israel's borders.

Personally I´m glad he´s dead. He was a self confessed murderer with a long list of crimes against him and thus a legitimate target, as opposed to say the occupants of a village picked at random for reprisals.

If you kill innocents by design, I don´t care if you wear the cross, the star of david, the cresent, or a hammer and sickle, you are beyond the pale.

Here's what I think of him:

It's summer, and we're running out of ice.

The poll sucks. I'm not happy that he's dead but i'm glad he's been stopped. It would have been a far better outcome ig he had been brought before an international criminal court the way all terrorists should be dealt with.

The poll sucks. I'm not happy that he's dead but i'm glad he's been stopped. It would have been a far better outcome ig he had been brought before an international criminal court the way all terrorists should be dealt with.


*laughs merrily*

It would appear that some 80% is quite happy that Zarqawi is as dead as dead can be.

As a goverment it dosn't. It's goverment has no power at all, it's just a puppet regime. How else do you explain why Bush was able to force a constuntion through.

You forgot one thing Aust. It wasn't forced through whatsoever.

*arches eyebrows*

Florida?

What about it? oh yea...nothing.

*laughs merrily*

It would appear that some 80% is quite happy that Zarqawi is as dead as dead can be.

Mhe, 40 million Germans supported the Nazis, still doesn't make them right though.

*snip*

CH, do not get me started. You also do not even have the right name for it. Not to mention we are not in control of the nation. If we were being imperialistic, we wouldn't have let them vote and they wouldn't have their own constitution.

Wake Up CH.

The western world was served a wake up call back in the early 70's. Instead of making their economies less dependent upon oil, they made their economies more dependent upon oil. And now they are killing Muslims because of their greed. And all you can do is say "so what".

Oh CH! I forgot to mention. Most of our oil comes from *gasp* Canada and NOT the Middle East.

Mhe, 40 million Germans supported the Nazis, still doesn't make them right though.


Godwinson!

Anyway, so you regret his death, then?

There we go again. That was twenty or more years ago. Hezbollah (just one of many parties in the Lebanese civil war, if you think about it) hasn't hurt anyone in years, and even if they had, the fact that they have a clearly developed civilian arm means that Iran may not be supporting them for the reason that they committed terrorist acts.


See, that's where the problem is. The burden of proof is not upon them to prove their good intentions, it's on us to prove that they are doing something wrong.
They've had thousands of inspections over the years, nothing was ever wrong. The Russians are building new reactors for them, which will need fuel. So there we have a motive for an enrichment program.
And then suddenly the West comes in with its accusations and so on. Wasn't it obvious what the Iranian response would be?


I suppose my point was more about the fact that diplomatic relations between the countries are still non-existant.
The deal you are speaking of was a conditional one. Why would the Iranians accept it?
Steps (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aRf.cY5fPYzU&refer=top_world_news) are taken in the general right direction, but Iran has obviously shown that it is a normal and accepted member of the international community, and the special treatment must be changed and diplomatic relations normalised. Then the Iranians wouldn't have to be threatened and could cooperate without losing face - and they could take a role in the solution to the problem of islamist extremism as would be befitting of their position.


Ultimately, you answered your own question. Iranians will sort themselves out, and they have a much better chance of doing so than Uzbeks or North Koreans have - because they already have fairly democratic structures in place, and their country is advanced and diverse enough to make that step.


What's with the war-talk? Who's talking about war?


You should do a little research before you make claims...like hezbolla hasnt attacked anyone recently...

http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/sib/7_05/img/july6_05.pdf

One of the biggest reasons iran may be invaded because of the nuke situation is BECAUSE of their support for terrorist like hezbolla.

http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/eng_n/hezbollah_e1105.htm

The same group that was responsible for blowing up the Marine barracks in Lebenon and was the major terrorist threat against the US and has killed more US citizens than Al - Queda..up to recently .

The nice pecefull Hezbolla ..The Shiite branch of uber terrorist vs. the Sunni Al Queda ...take your pick .
http://www.labournet.net/world/0505/iranbus1.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4760240


How soon people forget...

Weblog
The United States at War with Hamas and Hezbollah
July 28, 2003
Almost without public notice, the two sides have declared war on each other. President George W. Bush stated in June 2003 that "the free world, those who love freedom and peace, must deal harshly with Hamas" and that "Hamas must be dismantled." Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage announced in September 2002 that "Hezbollah may be the A-team of terrorists and maybe Al-Qaeda is actually the B-team. … They have a blood debt to us, which you spoke to; and we're not going to forget it and it's all in good time. … We're going to take them down one at a time."




Do you long for the good old days when Hezbolla was the A TEAM and Al Queda was its step sister ?

THE A TEAM

On September 20, 2001, in a historic speech to a joint session of Congress, President George W. Bush famously declared, "Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated." Few terrorist organizations meet this standard, but Hezbollah is definitely one of them. The Lebanon-based group has cells on every continent, and its highly skilled operatives have committed horrifying attacks as far away as Argentina. Before September 11, 2001, it was responsible for more American deaths than any other terrorist organization. Hassan Nasrallah, the group's secretary-general, recently proclaimed, "Death to America was, is, and will stay our slogan." Since the outbreak of the second Palestinian intifada in September 2000, Hezbollah has armed and trained Palestinian terrorists


Lets give them nukes to play with and see if they can go back to being the A - team .


Yedioth Internet: Hezbollah Plotting World Cup Attack
Sunday May 28th 2006, 9:00 pm

“Israel has warned European and American intelligence bodies of possible attempts by Hizbullah cells, led by Imad Mugniyah, to carry out terror attacks during the upcoming World Cup tournament in Germany,” reports Yedioth Internet. “According to the report, the terror plot is aimed at proving to the international community that Tehran is capable of retaliation if attacked.”

Of course, if Iran actually does this, it will demonstrate its leadership has gone stark raving bonkers, as it would provide an ironclad pretext for Israel and the United States to shock and awe the nation into Stone Age submission. Considering this, and the fact the Israelis and neocons are shopping for just a handy pretext, we can assume with a fair degree of accuracy the above mentioned “intelligence bodies,” with the unmentioned Mossad taking the lead, are responsible for conjuring up this nonsense.




Who's afraid of the Hezbolla ... Just a few million people here and there...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imad_Mugniyah

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18188

http://www.tkb.org/KeyLeader.jsp?memID=5871

http://www.nysun.com/article/26427

Godwinson!

Anyway, so you regret his death, then?

Hmm, "regret"... I regret that he was not brought before a court in the same way i regret that Hitler, Osama and even Milosovich were denied their days in court. To be treated as the criminals they are, processed before the law and to face the consequences of their crimes. I do not of course regret that their crimes were stopped and i have no sympathy with their deaths.

Hmm, "regret"... I regret that he was not brought before a court in the same way i regret that Hitler, Osama and even Milosovich were denied their days in court. To be treated as the criminals they are, processed before the law and to face the consequences of their crimes. I do not of course regret that their crimes were stopped and i have no sympathy with their deaths.

Interesting point of view, I'd say.
Not that I share it, but interesting none-the-less.

I suppose my point was more about the fact that diplomatic relations between the countries are still non-existant.
The deal you are speaking of was a conditional one. Why would the Iranians accept it?
Steps are taken in the general right direction, but Iran has obviously shown that it is a normal and accepted member of the international community, and the special treatment must be changed and diplomatic relations normalised. Then the Iranians wouldn't have to be threatened and could cooperate without losing face - and they could take a role in the solution to the problem of islamist extremism as would be befitting of their position.
They are'nt a part of the solution if they still support Hezbollah. And the Iranians should accept it because A: It's fair, and B: They are in no position to negotiate, being encircled by our forces and all...
Ultimately, you answered your own question. Iranians will sort themselves out, and they have a much better chance of doing so than Uzbeks or North Koreans have - because they already have fairly democratic structures in place, and their country is advanced and diverse enough to make that step.
The problem is that it is still an Oligarchy at heart, and by the time "reforms" come, it will be far too late...

What's with the war-talk? Who's talking about war?
Iran is an ambitious country, with ambitious, terror-supporting leaders, who, by the way, are seeking nuclear technology...Need I say more?

Hezbollah routinely attacks Israel. It seems like about a year ago I remember an attack on motorcycles that killed a few Israeli citizens.

But here is a BBC article about Hezbollah attacking Israelis from Nov '05.

Deadly clash on Lebanese border (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4456984.stm)

Hezbollah is still a terrorist group, and it still launches katyusha rockets into Israel from across the border on occassion. Most Hezbollah attacks resemble traditional guerilla warfare rather than the type of terrorism we hear on the news, so its often overlooked. Instead of suicide bombings against civilians, there are more frequent attacks against military outposts within Israel's borders.
Unfortunately, most of these socialists don't consider Israelis to be people, so they'll most likely just shrug at this...

My oh my - does that chap inspire mixed feelings here.
Some rejoice at his death.
Others seem sorry for him.

So, witout further ado - POLLTIME


I like him better dead. Same goes for his advisors and various other toadies that ceased to exist with him.

maybe they'll nail the next replacement asshole a little more quickly.

Well...he is still dead.

Well...he is still dead.
Hence my comment that we're running out of ice.

Hezbollah routinely attacks Israel
....
Most Hezbollah attacks resemble traditional guerilla warfare rather than the type of terrorism we hear on the news, so its often overlooked. Instead of suicide bombings against civilians, there are more frequent attacks against military outposts within Israel's borders.
-snip-
True, I should've qualified that to "not hurt civilians in years". But as long as they concentrate on military targets, one can't say that Iran would be supporting terrorism.
Fact is that Hezbollah is also a political party and a civil organisation that builds schools, roads and so on. And as long as they respect civilian life (which seems to do what they've been doing in recent years), we might disagree with them, but we can't go around calling them terrorists.

They are'nt a part of the solution if they still support Hezbollah.
You're just gonna stick to that, regardless of the fact that they don't do terrorism anymore?

And the Iranians should accept it because A: It's fair
What's fair about it? Iran has no nukes, pretty much everything they've done is within the provisions of the NPT.
Fact is that we're after them because of what we believe to be their intentions, not their actions. Which doesn't make for a particularly powerful argument.

B: They are in no position to negotiate, being encircled by our forces and all...
So you're not interested in dialogue, but blackmail. Which is exactly what I meant when I said that there can't be a solution as long as the two sides don't genuinely talk to each other.

Iran is an ambitious country, with ambitious, terror-supporting leaders, who, by the way, are seeking nuclear technology...Need I say more?
Yes. You could for example talk about the fact that they didn't attack anyone for decades, despite always having been an ambitious country with ambitious leaders, and they've been working on nuclear technology eversince the times of the Shah.

I'm not sure why any of this matters. War will keep recycling, while new technology and the human desire to outdo one's predecessor will lead to worse events.
Many years from now presidents will invade more countries. There will be more major terrorist attacks.

Consider even the past 50 years. Why was Baghdad slightly harder to penetrate than other towns/cities of Iraq (other than it's size)? Because the SAS helped build the defences there. They helped Iraq many years ago, because they were trying to negotiate help against countries in the area with whom they had poor relations.
And consider that the US armed the Taliban and helped them keep the Russians at bay.

Those who can, meddle in too much.

Things are too far gone, there are too many extreme differences of opinion.

I relate it to a discussion I had with someone the other day:
Turns out everyone in the world is going to hell. Because there are numerous religions in the world, and many of them say if you do not follow theirs, you will go to hell. You cannot have more than one religion, so by default, we must all be headed south.
Similarly many countries or people follow the mantra of "If you're not with, you're against".
The world has so many inhabitants and people have vastly differing views on things that conflict is inevitable. The actions countries such as the US, UK, Russia take when these conflicts occur can shape the world for many years. The current actions/decisions are to escalate violence and conflict, leading to a more dangerous world for all.
Makes me wish I lived in Greenland, I don't think they've ever bothered anyone...

No. I am saying, however, that if you believe this hunt has avoided collateral damage, you clearly have not been paying attention.

Before the November 2004 slaughter, there were numerous bombings of alleged "al-Zarqawi safehouses" in Fallujah, and each one killed numerous innocent people, including several children.

I could go with my more skeptical side, and say that they in fact had absolutely nothing to do with the hunt for Zarqawi and were in fact terrorist atrocities designed to intimidate the population. That was my judgement at the time, based on the assumption that they would never in fact kill Zarqawi but rather keep him as an Emmanuel Goldstein figure, but in the light of recent events I must re-evaluate that judgement; they may really be extremely incompetent, and not quite as malicious as I made them out to be. Thus, I am assuming that they were in fact connected to the hunt for Zarqawi, and were part of the process that resulted in his death.

If you wish to defend the US policy in regard to Zarqawi and those like him, you should take such "collateral damage" into account.

i understand your point,and it is a valid argument.

however,what are we to do,if he was out on a battlefield he would have been killed long ago.
instead,he hid amongst innocents(surely hoping to see innocents killed to further his"cause")all the while sneaking here and there,beheading innocent captives,blowing up innocent women and children intentionally for his "cause"

what,and no malice or sarcasm intended,would you have the us do?

leave and create a civil war,ignore him and look the other way as he killes thousands of innocents and hope we catch him in the open?
tell the fledgeling iraqi gov. that he is your problem,and we are here to provide security only?
that may have worked,but i am sure the iraqi's(shiites in particular)would be a whole lot more indiscrimminate in their hunting.

my opinion,he was a disgusting excuse for a human,a vile murderous animal with no value for any life,and if we had to kill some innocents to eliminate that pos cancer,then that sucks badly,but i take solace in knowing that even with us killing some innocents,he would have killed that number 20 fold! if allowed to roam free.

and dont think i am callous,i look at my kids,my nephews...and it breaks my heart to think someone in iraq has lost someone so close to them(like my kids are to me)by being accidently killed by us looking for that pos or by a roadside bomb.

either way they died violently for no other reason then being in the wrong place..and honestly,i dont know if i could survive if something like that happennned to me.
i can only pray the poor survivors find some solace.

that said,that scumbag(whether he thought he was fighting the good fight against the infadels)intentionally targeted innocent people in an evil,callous way.
we do not intentionally target innocents..small comfort for the victims i'm sure..but a huge difference in practice.

i dont care how much i despised being occupied or hated a country...there is no fucking way i would intentionally kill an innocent!
and imho,anyone that does...deserves a violent death.

good riddance to the evil pos.

it kills me to see anyone morning the loss of a loved one,especially someone that hurt no one,so if we need to search the earth to eliminate someone that is so evil they could kill akid or innocent,then we should.

rant off

p.s. i really am open to another way to approach this,if it could prevent the deaths of innocents..i am all ears.

and not going into iraq is not an option..we are there now and that is that.

i truly wished the world was a more pleasant place,but that is not reality,unfortunately.

He's dead. In the ground. Where he belongs. :)

And such an idiotic poll.