Finally.

I find it retarded that US troops captured him in late 2004 but released him because they didn't recognize him.

Anyways, I hope this is a big morale booster for the soldiers there, and just the opposite for insurgents.

Awesome.

Didn't RTFA but woo (I think)

Yeah, it's not like it's hard to recognize one bearded dark man in Iraq over all the others...

Anyway, I'm glad to hear this, been getting news alerts constantly for the past few minutes about it.

holy **** randomly browsing massassi and you guys break that kind of news.

awesome!

I don't see how this will help. I thought Saddam's capture was supposed to turn the tide. Or the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq was supposed to turn the tide. Or tapping American international phone calls was supposed to turn the tide.

Terrorism is like a hydra. Killing one leader doesn't do anything. Eliminating the origin point of the ideology would. I have no idea how that would work though, so I guess... just keep killing them.

A massive propaganda campaign in the vehicle of pro-democracy/capitalism/Westernism franchising?

Zarkawi =

Didn't this sort of news errupt last year about one of Al'Qaida's leaders being killed during a bombing operation, and like a week later, it turned out he wasn't dead at all?

Tis good news indeed. Though I tend to agree that killing such leaders won't win the "War on Terror" there is no doubt it will make things a little more difficult for the insurgents.

Another one bites the dust...

I think you referring to a missile strike on a house in Pakistan where Ayman Al-Zawahiri, a right-hand subordinate of Osama Bin Laden, was suspected to be. This case is different. The U.S. has the body of Zarqawi; his face is intact. They also had apparently very strong intel that directed them to launch the airstrike. One of the commanders was confident enough to say 100% credibility in the leads.

This isn't the end of the insurgency but definitely a great accomplishment. Zarqawi has been notorious for leading a brutal wave of bombings (suicidal and IED-based) and beheadings. He was also one of the principal foreign Al-Qaeda fighters who established its strong arm in Iraq. Definitely a day to be proud for the coalition forces.

In order to stop terrorism, America and all its allies will need to retreat from every single country they're messing with in the Middle East. Stop 'enforcing democracy' (read: installing pro-American/western governments for cheap oil) and such. They would also need to get rid of all the existing corrupt, pro-western regimes in the area.

Then secondly they would have to set up fair trade with those countries to help eliminate poverty.

Taking the war to their doorstep is like multiplying the fanaticism and numbers of those terrorists, because it is considered as some sort of 'crusade'. It is highly insulting to a lot of those people that other countries are simply invading their country, and deciding for them that they need a regime change.

The fact that you said we are going to war for oil makes me not want to read the rest of your post. I agree we should not set up western governments in countries that do not have the institution to support them, but saying we did so in Iraq for cheap oil is just ignorant.

The Western world could leave the middle east alone, completely, and it wouldn't help.

Ignorant is not the word to use on ORJ_Jos. Instead, naive works much better for you. It's ridiculous to suggest that the U.S. would sit idley by while the world's oil supply dries up and do nothing to protect its power and influence. Trust me, whatever the original motive for going to war with Iraq, we are definitely benefitting logistically from our presence there.

Yea that was it. *nods*

[Edit]Screw it, not going to argue econ[/edit]

You should've, but you also have to remember that the US isn't exactly about creating a fair play environment where everyone is happy and loves each other.

The US policy makers take a realist approach to international affairs. They realize the US is the hegemon. They realize that the US needs to be the hegemon to enjoy economic security and unchallenged military/political power. Basically, it's good to be able to strong arm the rest of the world into doing things and then throw in some democratic catch-phrases to throw the light off of the corporate influence of decision-making.

I say if the US wants cheap oil and can deal with terrorism, DO IT.

If this thread gets next to the "Instant Justice" thread then I'm going to revive "When Topics Align"

What a politically convenient headshot.

Well, not quite. Bush's policy was unabashedly realist before 9/11, but since then it's far closer to what you'd call liberal in the IR sense of the word. The best way I've heard it described is "neo-Wilsonian idealist."



Believe it or not, it's not all about us. US hegemony is, obviously enough, good for America, but it's good for the rest of the world too as long as the US remains a stabilizing rather than destabilizing force. And don't think that the neoconservatives don't believe in their pro-democratic rhetoric either. They see it as in the best interest of America's security to encourage democracy in as many countries as possible.

As for the original topic of the thread, he was a *******. Now he's a dead *******. I'm happy with the result.

I didn't say that.

However:

Afghanistan, Karzai, ex-Unocal (Texas), new oil pipeline, yada yada

Yes, you did:



...with the addition of the context of a thread discussing the death of the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, yes, you said we went into Iraq for oil.

Good, since what is going to happen to oil in the coming years is unprecedented anyway.

So all the bad guys are corrupt pro-western regimes?

If they were all pro-West, the current issues in the Middle East wouldn't be there.