> RoMunn wrote: > I disagree. Bin Laden has never had operational control of Zarqawi or > (apparently) of anything going on in Iraq. There has been plenty of > "executive level" communication and coordination, but nothing operational > apart from Bin Laden and Zawahiri complaining about Zarqawi's tactics. >
Yes, but Zarqawi would have had no division to appoint himself head of had we not provided him the opportunity. My point is that our military is a limited resource and it's best use was finding and killing Al Quaeda, not invading Iraq. In fact one could argue that Zarqawi wouldn't of had the opportunity to come to prominance had we not given it to him. That is, Zarqawi, just like Bin Laden and Hussein is a US creation. > As for the chance we are taking, what I am saying is that there are no > guarantees. Which is why we should have never invaded in the first place. It is a microcosm of George Bush's business philosophy: spend a fortune on a high risk endeavor and hope for the best. Being that he bankrupted all 4 companies he started I wonder if Iraq will turn out any better for him? Only this time his investors have lost $500 Billion and 3000 of their colleagues. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:209668 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
