<p>citygirlsmom,</p>
<p>Just looking at the neo-con line of thinking, I can’t help but believe that it’s true, but not for the reasons that most liberals would want.</p>
<p>First off, going to war for oil is just economically stupid. </p>
<p>The neo-con “American century” line of thinking leads me to believe that this was the start of a plan to set up a democracy as a catalyst for developing pro-West democracies in the region.</p>
<p>So far, they can’t even get the first domino to stand.</p>
<p>Macho pride…its like a western…</p>
<p>If I could figure it out, I would scare myself</p>
<p>citygirlsmom,</p>
<p>Huh? It has nothing to do with macho pride. It has everything to do with long-term interests in the region, coupled with a desire to make sure that we don’t have to stare down a bunch of terrorist producing dictatorships in the next half-century.</p>
<p>UCLAri, I’m all in favor of being ahead of the curve in addressing our longterm interests. Unfortunately, this administration acts as if it’s one of those war games where you cardboard counters around on a mapboard. Ummm…no.</p>
<p>One of the worst things is that they keep expecting Iraqis to act like they think Americans would in the same situation. To quote from a movie I’ve never seen, “A man has got to know his limitations.”</p>
<p>But what else do you expect from a man who sneers at nuance, sneered at “nation building” until confronted with an absolute necessity, and prefers not to deal with anything more complicated than a two-page executive summary.</p>
<p>It’s a fair cop that Clinton’s wonkish habit of eternally soliciting new input and letting discussions continue endlessly without coming to closure was maddening at times. However, the present administration proves the notion that if A is not so good, then -A isn’t necessarily the answer.</p>
<p>What? Iraqi terrorists…the ones we let in?</p>
<p>Or are you referring to the ones in Afghanistan or the ones that did 9-11…</p>
<p>I thought it was for WMD and nuclear weapons…oops</p>
<p>TheDad,</p>
<p>You’re preaching to the choir. I’m explaining what I think was the actual logic behind the invasion. The whole “blood for oil” argument used by college liberals is really far from accurate, and if anything, the actual reasoning behind the neo-con plans are far more sinister.</p>
<p>citygirlsmom,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What on earth are you talking about? If you’re referring to 9/11, then the regime we can thank for those wonderful scamps was Saudi. While Iraq was made (in)famous for terrorism, it’s actually interesting how very little of terrorism worldwide was directly Iraqi caused. Even now, a large number of insurgents are not Iraqis.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“WMD and nuclear weapons” is a bit redundant, no? Anyway, I’m afraid that few things in international relations are as simple as they appear.</p>
<p>Looks like things just got a bit worse for al Qaeda in Iraq. I guess bin Laden is out interviewing for a replacement “Prince” right now.</p>
<p>^^Wonderful! So as I said back in post #7:</p>
<p>“Great news! With the bad guys in such poor shape, we can bring the US troops home then. Right?”</p>
<p>Too bad we gave up the Bin Laden hunt, cause bush doens’t think about him much…my guess, last week in October, he will be “found”</p>
<p>And when in six months Iraq is just as unstable, violence-wracked, and heading in directions that we’d rather not see, I wonder what the new excuse will be. AQ had negligible presence in Iraq before we invaded (to count the Ansar al-Islam group in the northeast corner near the Iranian border in an area that Saddam couldn’t control is ludicrous) and is only a bit player in the current intramural frolic. </p>
<p>Getting rid of a bad actor is a good thing. But doing so, even with one more than significant than most as with Zawqari, doesn’t change the fundamentals of the situation much at all.</p>
<p>TheDad has missed the obvious real story here, so I’ll help him out: The killing of Zarqawi is just another example of Bush’s wasteful deficit spending. Now he has to pay the $25M reward. Our children and grandchildren will be paying for this cowboy stunt for years to come.</p>
<p>Feel free to use that in your next screed at Huffington/Kos/Juan Cole or elsewhere.</p>
<p>Reading CGMs and TheDads posts youd think someone just died I mean, other than the actual psychopathic terrorist that did.</p>
<p>Tough day, I suppose --I cant imagine the dour mood when Bin Laden is delivered onto paradise. </p>
<p>And yet, as it has been said if it be now, 'tis not to come. If it be not to come, it will be now. If it be not now, yet it will come. The readiness is all.</p>
<p>Get ready.</p>
<p>-</p>
<p>Mission Accomplished…again!</p>
<p>This is what, “turning point” #61?</p>
<p>I’m not sure today’s events will have any concrete effect, but if it does, I will never have been as glad to be proven wrong.</p>
<p>Someone did die, a mother and her child, while I am glad we “got” the bad guy, we killed someone’s baby in the process</p>
<p>Maybe they should have just asked him to come out with his hands up…</p>
<p>Thank goodness someone will get the 25 million. I’m sure that the families of the beheaded americans wish the 25 mil could have been paid out a few years ago!. Each of those lives is worth more than 25 million!</p>
<p>25 million is CHEAP if it means no more beheadings of Americans. That is ONLY 8 cents per American! </p>
<p>I am thrilled that Zarqawi is dead. I hope he’s in hell.</p>
<p>One American dies, and we are all out for blood, but we kill Iraq women and children no one cares? Is that woman and her baby less valuable than an American life? Seems so…ALL life of the innocent is valuable, but so long as we get our guy, we shouldn’t feel the least bit sad that Americans killed innocents…is that what you are saying? </p>
<p>i understand war, and I understand needing to get this guy, but to pretend others who are not terrorist don’t get hurt is arrogant and sad…</p>
<p>If we don’t aknowledge in war that innocent people are killed, and track that, and only count Americans, what does that make us?</p>
<p>“One American dies, and we are all out for blood, but we kill Iraq women and children no one cares?”</p>
<p>It is too bad that a woman put her baby in danger by having the baby around a known military target – Zarqawi. We don’t put our babies around our military in Iraq! </p>
<p>If Zarqawi had cared about the baby or the woman, he wouldn’t have let them be around HIM. He is responsible for their deaths.</p>
<p>The raid also killed Zarqawi’s spiritual advisor…a man of the cloth. This can’t help Bush with his base in the religious right. I’m sure there are more negative things about this as well.</p>
<p>Is is ever bad in your eyes, Jlauer95, when an Iraqi innocnet civilian is killed? By Americans…</p>