Was killing Al-Zarqawi worth all the dead Iraqi woman & children?

Just curious, would you like to see your family members/children/wives/husbands be sacrificed just so your government could claim they "got the bad guy"?

on edit: typo

Especially since we have people who could've taken him out without any other casualties.

Al-Zarqawi was only in Iraq because the U.S. invaded and removed Saddam from power. We created the "opening" for this guy to do everything that he did, but in order for the opening to exist, we had to start a war. Since we started the war, it would be impossible for us to ever "take him out" without any other casualties. These casualties have been building for years.

The question wasn't about the war, it was about killing this guy, which we could've done without the war. By your rationale, I could also say that if we had lost the Revolutionary War, none of this would've happened either, but I was restricting my answer to the scope of the question. Even if we had never gone into Iraq, we still could've taken him out without touching anyone else, whether or not we would've deemed it necessary.

...I'm not exactly sure what hypothetical capability you are talking about.

It seems that we both agree that this war was totally unnecessary, so good there.

But the scope of the question absolutley includes the war, because it was the war that allowed this situation to happen in the first place (the situation being a violent insurgency which requires leaders which just so happened to include Al-Zarqawi).

Not to mention, the claim by the Bush Administration (and the Right's general war cry) has always been that we went to war precisley because he wanted to lure the terrorists from around the world to Iraq, so that the war could be "fought over there, not over here".

So again, was starting a war to lure Al-Zarqawi to Iraq so that we could kill him really worth all the innocent deaths?

I don't understand why you don't understand, and I don't care enough to keep beating you with it.

Zarqawi was in Iraq before the war started. He was in Baghdad seeking medical attention for a leg injury sustained in Afghanistan. Actually, he was one of the links to terrorism that * highlighted before the war.

...it wasn't amputated.

The report of medical treatment wasn't even credible to begin with. According to U.S. intelligence, Zarqawi had a leg amputated in Baghdad. Except that most sources now believe Zarqawi was equipped with two working legs.

There is no evidence to support claims that al Qaeda and Iraq were working together. Osama bin Laden openly advocated the overthrow of Hussein before the U.S. decided to invade. There may well have been al Qaeda operatives in Baghdad, but there were also al Qaeda operatives in New York, Madrid, Cairo, Fort Lauderdale and Norman, Oklahoma.

Redstone

their weapons.... tick, tick, tick, tick.....

There is no "winning...there is no "victory"...there are no "benchmarks of success"

the article I read said 5 others, which included a woman and a child, but it also said other houses around the house they were in were also destroyed (so were there others in those houses?)

10's of thousands of innocent civilians, women and children included, right? You do realize that, correct?

So it doesn't matter how many people were in that house or the neighboring houses.

I refuse to feel any sympathy for any low-life who hides
behind religious mumbo-jumbo just to get his jollies causing
the deaths of large numbers of people.

And I don't mean just Bush, I didn't much care for Zarqawi, either.

with this question. None.

This is about the sympathy of the 10's of thousands of innocent women and children that have died in this war and that will continue to die in this war that the U.S. started when we invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq.

Was killing that one guy really worth all those innocent deaths? How about your sympathy for them? If you have kids, think of them first before you answer.

My point was that the two of them are guilty of
the same crimes, just that one wears a suit and
sends others to do his dirty work for him.

That, plus that fact that Zarqawi wouldn't even
have been in Iraq if we hadn't invaded. Saddam had
a healthy fear of religious zealots, as they were
just as much an internal threat to him as anything else.

I have kids, and think of them all the time, even when
I'm not being berated on my symantics.

the absolute interconnectedness and causal nature between the war, the loss of innocent lives, and his death.

Cheering death for any reason makes me sick.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm thoroughly disgusted.

I'd wager that Zarqawi's car bombs, mortars, etc. killed more Iraqis than we have.

Your point wouldn't be that Zarqawi was there killing people because the U.S. wanted him to be there, would it?

You do remember that Bush started the war to draw all the terrorists from around the world to Iraq so that we could "fight them over there, not over here"? You remember that? That was his plan.

In the mean time, over the last 3 years, the U.S. has killed thousands of innocents and so has Zarqawi. But Zarqawi wouldn't have been there if we hadn't have started the war to begin with. Get it?

Bush even urged Zarqawi (as well as all the insurgents) to "bring 'em on".

So really, all those deaths (Zarqawi's killings + US killings) are ultimately are the U.S.'s responsibility.

It's like if you stab somebody and they develop an infection and die as a result. Ultimately it's you who are to blame, and not the bacteria that were enabled to enter the wound.

Our country is responsible for ALL of the excess deaths in Iraq since our invasion. Under international law, an occupation force has responsibility to maintain order and protect civilians. If civilians die because we can't keep order then their deaths are on our hands.

Here is an article from Oct 2004:


<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7967-2004Oct28.html>

Estimates of Iraqi deaths resulting directly from the U.S. invasion now soar to around 200,000.

"serial killer", would that be a good thing?

sure I would be upset - but I would sure as hell be glad a lot of other families were spared because the freak was gone.

Hell, if I was in the building, and they took their one chance - I would be pissed I got torched in it all, but I sure as hell would feel my death was justified because many others would be saved.

Sure - other serial killers would pop up I am sure, and I would hope they would meet the same fate.

It is real simple - quit the killing. We bitch all day about us and how we are killing people and such, would like to hear some people bitching about the other folks killing as well. Most the people being killed in Iraq now are by terrorists. And I DON'T hesistate to use that word. Attacking civilians, blowing up buses with women and kids, what have you, is plain freakin evil and dumb. It's wrong when we do it, it's wrong when someone else does. And I call it terrorism when you purposely target innocent people (haditha would be a terrorist act). Innocents killed in the line of fire sucks, should be avoided, but it is different than singling them out to kill to invoke fear.

you want to attack our marines? Go for it - it is war, I get that. I hope the marines whip you. But if you kill some of them, well this is a war. I expect them to be attacked - they are the ones carrying the guns and all that. Blow up a bus full of people? That's fucking wrong. And it is wrong to blame bush or our troops for that - those people are no less human than we are, and I damn well expect them to leave the innocent people out of it. It is cowardly.

Set off an IED to blow up a tank, a civlian or two dies - well, that was not their intention and is part of the rules of wars. Sucks, but is not unexpected.

If I were to protest someone in a march, it would not be our troops (except the fucktards at haditha and the torture freaks) I would be protesting the assholes setting off car bombs and killing innocent people who aren't even out there trying to shoot you.

You damn well bet if some damn terrorist was in my house I would be the first one dialing 911 and giving the co-ordinates to the planes. At least some murderous freak would be taken out and a lot more lives saved.

I hope it never comes to that, but I ain't so selfish I would let a known psychopath leave freely.

the Police unneccessarily broke down your front doors to let the serial killer in?

It wouldn't cause you to question authority if you later discovered that the Police Chief said "Bring it on!", in response to the serial killer's threat that he would kill your wife?

Would it not give you pause to find out that the Police made this whole thing happen because what they really wanted was an excuse to get into your house to steal your valuables (oil)?

Okay, I guess as long as they "got the bad guy", that's the only thing that is important.

He is responsible for his actions. Not me or anyone else.

No matter the reason he wants to make, the guy was still a killing machine.

I question the police all the time, I just wish others would see the killer for what he is and not make excuses for him.