[BARLF]

I certainly don't know all the ins and outs of the first gulf war, just seems to me had we went after Hussein then we might not had this war to fight today.

JMHO

[Killborn]

There's still a lot of argument on that. Personally I think it's a good thing we didn't take him out.

We either let the region rebuild it (Iran, Syria, Saudi) or we do. The President lost in 92, guess who comes in during rebuilding.

That's right. The reason Balkans is so messed up, worse than Iraq it seems, (now there's a real quagmire), is because we were so uniformly one sided it's embarrassing. See how the PResident, our military, and the Iraqis do it? Anyone who steps out of line gets a uniform @$$whupping. Shia, SUnni, Kurd, other than IRaqi, doesn't matter. That's what we should have done there. But NOOO Serbs bad. Serbs must be punished because we are too lazy to actually find other scumbags on the Croat, ALbanian, and Bosnian side.

IF we are going to rebuild and Bush the elder was the one in the White House in 93, we should have taken Saddam. Otherwise, all betts are off.

I can see the toon now, backing up the Shia as a majority while, telling the others to screw off, and letting the whole of Iraq devolves into civil war.

Of course there'd be a news black out from the Monica wannabes in the DEMONcrap ministry of information and propaganda.

[Blue State Insurgent]

I think that the reason 41 didn't take Baghdad in 91' was fear of Saddam's chemical weapons.

Remember Col Hackworth complaining about the lack of proper chem suits for the troops in the run up to OIF?