On 09 Jun 2006 19:07:43 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns97DDA3B13713Ffstone69@66.150.105.47>
wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:nqaj82dbr7q6p6f6b1f303q59qrt9mruc3@4ax.com:

On 09 Jun 2006 15:53:00 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns97DD82AC946CCfstone69@66.150.105.47>
wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:gq3j82h4u0n4s49ejc1i8gv48m261ne9vb@4ax.com:

On 9 Jun 2006 07:22:28 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Robi"
<robi_tola@hotmail.com> in
<1149862948.473495.283750@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

Who says we can't win hearts and minds with 500 lb bombs?

http://baghdadtreasure.blogspot.com/2006/06/thousand-miles-road-

starts-

with-one_09.html

http://makeashorterlink.com/?L20D25C3D

I do for one. For another, more sober, viewpoint listen to this
(look for link at 8:52) from today's Today programme on Radio 4.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/
Its reasonable to speculate that Al-Quaida were getting so fed up
with al-Zarqawi that they collaborated in his death (always
assuming he was actually in the building, I wouldn't be surprised
if he popped up again).

I would. It is a very good chance that al Qaeda gave him up. It is
a good thing that he is not around to kill more and we did a good
job in taking him out (considering some very public failures at
this kind of thing in the past I am glad we got this right), but
he was never the real problem. If anything, he had the net affect
of uniting Iraqis against a common enemy. The real problem was not
al-Zarqawi's indiscriminate killings, it is the religious, tribal,
ethnic, and economic forces that will tear at the country.

The Z-man and his band of merry men played a considerable part in
inciting what passed for those "forces", Matt.

Really? He was responsible for the Peshmerga and their control of
Kurdistan? He was responsible for the conflict over Arab presence in
Kirkuk? Or maybe you want to claim that the Shiites set up their
militia as a response to al-Zarqawi. I have not seen anyone else
claim that but you might have.

Ah, you and your strawmen, Matt.

You said that he incited them. I am asking you to tell me which of
those he incited.

I didn't claim any of those things, but you just did. The Z-man was
real good at setting those forces off though.

Not that I can see. As I said I think he may have had almost as much
of a uniting effect as otherwise. He was indiscriminate in his killing
and so disrupted the sectarian lines.

You grossly oversimplify
to say that he was not *the* problem. Removing that part of the
incitement will play a large role in allowing for useful settlements
to be found to some of the other problems.

Perhaps. Or it will allow the sides to separate more "cleanly" and
accelerate the force towards open civil war.

That's an odd way to read the situation, especially with the Sunnis
having settled their differences over the three security posts in the
Cabinet.

I don't see how the settling of those posts is due to his death. That
was the issue here: what is the affect of his death on the situation.

For all the hoopla over
finally forming a government the issue is not who is head of the
Interior Ministry, but whether or not the Kurds and Shiites will
disarm in favor of national force and whether or not they will
make an acceptable sharing of oil revenue. The Kurds are still
moving out Arabs in the north, the Shiites are still imposing
religious law in the south. al-Zarqawi was not the problem.

Z was not *those* problems. Do not make the mistake of downplaying
every bit of progress because it isn't the ultimate solution to all
the problems.

I did not down play the progress, but I am not quite as giddy as you
would like over this step. He was a horrible man who did horrible
things. That does not necessarily mean things are going to get
better.

But you did play it down, Matt. You tried to imply that it was of zero
or even negative value.

No, I tried to say that it was unclear and could be negative. I am
disagreeing that it is clearly progress.

(And before you bring out your strawman that does not mean I think
we should have left him alone.)

Matt, strawmen are your game. You pull them out at every opportunity.

Keep telling yourself that.