Every Obamaton should take in a Syrian refugee...

Chop them up and sell the parts...


Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Do you think the day after pill is murder? Is that chopping up body parts?

Can you think for yourself or will you fall back on u tube?

I see that WTF posted something ugly and stupid at the same time....I was informed that you can't even walk and chew gum at the same time. That must have been wrong (but it was on the Internet)

I see that WTF posted something ugly and stupid at the same time....I was informed that you can't even walk and chew gum at the same time. That must have been wrong (but it was on the Internet) Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I can answer a simple God Damn question as to whether I think the Morning After Pill is murder. Is that to hard for you birthers to answer?

So how about you nation building neocons house all these Middle Eastern refugees! ....and while you are at it fund all the children who parents wanted to use the morning after pill that you want to ban. Just admit it JD, you are a liberal in PeeWee Herman clothing!

Maybe you're into something there WTF. Maybe JDrunk's just trying to compare Wee Wee with Pee Wee, which is why has so obsessed with other guys' JUNK!

"Fuck with each other" with what? Originally Posted by LexusLover

http://www.history.com/topics/iran-iraq-war

Make no mistake, they fucked with each other.

http://www.history.com/topics/iran-iraq-war

Make no mistake, they fucked with each other. Originally Posted by bambino

Oh, I'm familiar with the "Iran-Iraq War" ... stalemate ... but that's past tense.

I keep asking about the period of time between Bush I and Bush II, and for some strange reason no one wants to answer that question .... and I believe that is the "point" of "blaming" Bush II for taking Saddam out of the role of keeping Iran "in check" ... isn't it?

Since Bill Clinton established the "nation building doctrine" regarding Iraq ....

... and part of his wife's "expertise" and "experience" is being "on hand" while "tough decisions were being made" ... that plays to her "background"!

Just bringing things up to "current events"!

So my question still is: (slightly rephrased for clarity)..

With what would Iraq have held Iran in check between 1991 and 2003?

every Republicunt should take every stupid person with a gun, then theyre will be at least two stupid people with a gun in ur home. Darwinism.

Oh, I'm familiar with the "Iran-Iraq War" ... stalemate ... but that's past tense.

I keep asking about the period of time between Bush I and Bush II, and for some strange reason no one wants to answer that question .... and I believe that is the "point" of "blaming" Bush II for taking Saddam out of the role of keeping Iran "in check" ... isn't it?

Since Bill Clinton established the "nation building doctrine" regarding Iraq ....

... and part of his wife's "expertise" and "experience" is being "on hand" while "tough decisions were being made" ... that plays to her "background"!

Just bringing things up to "current events"!

So my question still is: (slightly rephrased for clarity)..

With what would Iraq have held Iran in check between 1991 and 2003? Originally Posted by LexusLover

If Saddam was still around do you think ISIS and Iran would have infiltrated Iraq? My guess is no.

If Saddam was still around do you think ISIS and Iran would have infiltrated Iraq? Originally Posted by bambino

That really doesn't answer the question ...

So my question still is: (slightly rephrased for clarity)..

With what would Iraq have held Iran and ISIS in check between 1991 and 2015?

Note I modified it to fit your new scenario.

I suspect also had the U.S. retained a force in Iraq past 2007 that would pose a substantial threat to any intruder there would not have been those two intruders. For political "expediency" and "legacy" this President chose to step down and retreat from the Middle East. Beginning in February 2017 ... you will hear the mantra. It will continue ad nauseam with profuse back patting and self-adulation.

Oh, I'm familiar with the "Iran-Iraq War" ... stalemate ... but that's past tense.

I keep asking about the period of time between Bush I and Bush II, and for some strange reason no one wants to answer that question .... and I believe that is the "point" of "blaming" Bush II for taking Saddam out of the role of keeping Iran "in check" ... isn't it?

Since Bill Clinton established the "nation building doctrine" regarding Iraq ....

... and part of his wife's "expertise" and "experience" is being "on hand" while "tough decisions were being made" ... that plays to her "background"!

Just bringing things up to "current events"!

So my question still is: (slightly rephrased for clarity)..

With what would Iraq have held Iran in check between 1991 and 2003? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Bill Clinton invaded Bosnia...not Iraq. Bush gets all the credit for the Nation Building of Iraq.

With what would Iraq have held Iran in check between 1991 and 2003? Originally Posted by LexusLover

With the threat of War. Iran did not want another war with Iraq. Jesus, they lost a generation of men fighting that war.

That really doesn't answer the question ...



Note I modified it to fit your new scenario.

I suspect also had the U.S. retained a force in Iraq past 2007 that would pose a substantial threat to any intruder there would not have been those two intruders. For political "expediency" and "legacy" this President chose to step down and retreat from the Middle East. Beginning in February 2017 ... you will hear the mantra. Originally Posted by LexusLover

If we didn't castrate the Republican Gaurd, maybe that fierce army would have protected Iraq. At one time, they were ranked as the #4 military in the world.

Bill Clinton invaded Bosnia...not Iraq. Originally Posted by WTF

blah, blah!

December 1998 Bill Clinton

"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently."

every Republicunt should take every stupid person with a gun, then theyre will be at least two stupid people with a gun in ur home. Darwinism. Originally Posted by southtown4488

You can't get much more stupid than this. A gun owning household probably has more than one gun which means if more than one person lives there then they both have access to gun. No slaughter, no massacre and more likely to repel a criminal than without a gun.

blah, blah!

December 1998 Bill Clinton

"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently." Originally Posted by LexusLover

You do understand had there been an internal exchange of power as Clinton seemed to advocate instead of our overt external nation building fiasco Bush Jr relied on.?

You do understand that difference?