Whatever girly boy, I’ve been here for years and ain’t going anywhere.

But you know, you’ve done a bang-up job reinforcing the fact that McBush’s supporters ARE ACTUALLY STUPIDER THAN HIM.

Heckuva job loser. Now go cash in your McBush tokens for a free colostomy bag.

So now were blaming Herbert Walker for the current fiasco?

You have to remember that Tracy is a Reagan brat. They never did like poppy Bush. But, they love, love, love junior almost as much as they worshipped Reagan.

Near as I can figure, the Reagan Youth didn’t take to Bush Sr. because he didn’t dress up and play cowboy.

No, of course not – in fact it’s encouraged. We’ve just had trouble in the past with people who want to go purely political (ie. Hillary has cankles, Obama doesn’t wear a flag pin, defeatocrats want to lose, etc.) instead of staying on topic and addressing military/veteran/Iraq issues.

Let me guess: He’s the pitcher, your the catcher.

He’s obviously got more balls than you.

Did mommy and daddy use up all the good genes on your brother and leave you with scraps????

So you ARE blaming the past, other, not-so-stupid Bush?

Again, try living in the present. I know it’s confusing having a girly name and all the baggage associated with figuring out which sex you really are…

Again explain how things would have got better for the Iraqi people if Saddam would have remained in power or if the insurgents would have taken over?
####

Well there are two parts to that.

1. If Saddam would have stayed in power – I don’t think things would have gotten better or worse. They would have stayed the same as they had been for three decades.

2. If the insurgents had taken over – things would have been better for the Iraqi people by a long shot. Being that the majority of Iraq is Shia, there would be no AQI in Iraq. The Badr Organization would still be there, but to a much lesser degree than it is now. Their oil would probably still be nationalized as it had been in 1970, and their infrastructure would not be as destroyed as it is now. They would not have the open trade environment that they have with Syria now, but they also wouldn’t have all of the same border problems. Altogether, if the insurgents had taken over (and if we could somehow keep Saudi from moving in and filling that vaccuum) the Iraqi people would be much better off.

But this is all a history discussion. What we should be focusing on is what to do now. Saudi is the most de-stabilizing and most dangerous threat to Iraq. We need to work with the Iraqi and Iranian governments to minimilize Saudi’s influence there. We need to work with the Syrian government to get a hold on their border problems with Iraq. We ned to work with Turkey and Iran to help broker a deal that is fair to the Kurdish people. But all of these things are political and diplomatic goals – not military ones. Our military is needed in Afghanistan, and our National Guard is needed here at home.

“There would be no Al Qaeda in Iraq.”

But Saddam would still be in power
####

Saddam could be controlled – just like Assad, Musharef, Noriega, and many others. If we attacked every country with a ruler we didn’t like we would be in a perpetual state of war. However, AQ and AQI are loosely based organizations with no central structure or command. Having the choice between AQI and Saddam, I would choose Saddam.

But Saddam would still be in power.

You said only a few days ago that he was weak and would have been easily overthrown by the Islamists. Which is it?

Will you explain to me how dropping a bomb on it improved it ?

Will you explain why they started with electricity and lost it ?

Will you explain why they started with potable water delivered to their house by pipes and don’t have that any more ?

“He is just here to stir up trouble and not for real discourse.”

We have been having good discourse and you are free to join in at anytime.
#####

I’m gonna take a chance and assume that you really want discussion, and you are not just a troll. I think you are just very misinformed about the realities of Iraq. If you click on my name, it will take you to vetvoice.com. I am a front page writer there (click on the “about us” link at the top and you can see a picture of me at the bottom of the page). Anyway, if you go to any of the articles I have written there and click on my name – Chris LeJeune – it will take you to my page where you can read all that I have written concerning Iraq and the inner workings of the Iraqi government. I think you might just learn a thing or two.

One disclaimer about stirring up trouble however – almost all of the commenters, and ALL of the writers at vetvoice are OIF/OEF veterans. Please be respectful.

“If they had continued, it wouldn’t have been long before he was overthrown.”

Sounds very plausable to me. BTW lets think about who would have been in a perfect position to to this. Considering there was no love loss between that Iranians and Saddam with all the internal opposition was all but gone….a weak Iraqi leader who wrought a long war on them…seems like that was going to turn out to be a good opportunity to get rid of this guy and turn Iraq into an extension of the Iranian regime, i.e. another Lebanon…considering those inspections were revealing how weak Saddam was militarily. I think you were on to something with that comment.
####

Tracy,

Iraq is currently an extension of the Iranian regime. If Saddaam would have been overthrown they would have become an extension of the Saudi regime – which would honestly have been much worse. But we cannot change the past, all we can do is learn from it. We have been needing to bring our troops home since 2003. I can make an argument to support the invasion (albeit a weak argument). I can make an argument for the overthrow of Saddaam and the killing of his two sons. However, I cannot make any agrument using logic for why we are still there, or for why we have stayed there since May 30, 2003.

However, now we have the Secretary General of a UN listed terrorist organization as the Prime Minister of Iraq. The Iraqi government has strong social, political, and military ties to Iran. Every political party currently serving in the Iraqi government either originated from Iran, or has spent the last two decades exiled there. The current Iraqi military and police force is predominately composed of the Iranian Badr Corps, and the head of the Iraqi military works with an Iranian general in Qom for the logistical aspects of the Iraqi military. So, I don’t see how we have created anything better.

Perhaps there was a solution that didn’t involve our military… Something about engaging regional powers …

So now were blaming Herbert Walker for the current fiasco?
Unfinished business left by the ex CIA dope, Shrub 1.

Twisted fcuk wingnut’s have a very hard time living in the present, don’t ya?

Tracy_5 Says:
“Remind me – who was it that put Saddam in power again? I seem to have forgotten.”

I don’t see the relevance to the discussion, but since you are asking, it was JFK’s CIA according to many that helped the Baath party come to power.

And the Gold Medal in the Moving the Goal Posts Competition goes to…

Let’s see… the original question was “who was it that put Saddam in power again?”

Trace creatively interprets it this way:

“Hmm… let’s see… Saddam — power… how can I answer this without admitting my side’s cuplability?… Better yet, how can i answer this by blaming it on the other guys?… GOT IT! I’ll go back to when a Democrat was in power! Let’s see… Kennedy, he’s a good one… they’ll hate it if I blame Kennedy for Saddam… how can i do that?… hmmm… GOT IT! I heard on wingnut radio that Kennedy put Saddam’s party in power. It’s perfect! It’ll work! It’s got to!”

So the insurgents, i.e. ex Baath party members or AQI were going to change anything from what Saddam was already doing? Tell us exactly how things were going to get better in Iraq if Saddam and his sons stayed in power or the insurgents succeeded in taking over the present Iraqi government?

You said there was “zero” chance of anything changing with Saddam in power, to be succeeded by his sons. Yet just a few days ago you were claiming that he had virtually no power and that the Islamic extremists would have soon taken him out. Which, presumably, would result in a very different government.

And if you can’t distinguish between Islamists and the Baath Party, you’ve really got nothing.

There would be no Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Would you claim things would be better in Iraq with AQ, rather than without?

Exactly how am I backpeddling?

Quickly, but not very skillfully.