Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor
All the more reason to make that kind of deal. The US has scaled back on its afgan missions already. Just another excuse to get out of there.
|
Hmmm if that were true then, wouldn't that be the conspiracy thorists wet dream? Letting the noose slip on Bin Laden to help keep Iraq under control would show that a stable Iraq is more important than a stable Afghanistan to the U.S. government. Why would that be? It would also kind of 'prove' that the Afghan war was just a precursor to the Iraq war, if they let go the head of the September 11th 2001 attacks to increase their odds of success in oil rich Iraq.
One could even go from there to suggest that if THAT was true then the U.S. NEEDED a reason to attack Afghanistan and they had already worked with Bin Ladn in the past and yadda yadda yadda that whole can of worms is open.
I don't really believe any of this, but if you believe a deal like that, you could work your way backwards like that.
I just don't believe the rumour for the simple assumption that I would find it hard for those two sides to believe the other one would keep up the bargain. I doubt either would agree to the deal.
Zarqawi definitely could have been betrayed, but I doubt it would be for a deal like that, just doesn't make sense for either side.