This Iraq War is Reagon's fault.

[roguevalley]

www.americablog.org

Reagan to blame for the Iraq fiasco
by John in DC - 9/14/2004 09:19:21 PM

A fascinating little nugget buried in today's Washington Post op ed section. In an article by David Ignatius about Saddam Hussein and the lead up to the Gulf War in 1991, Ignatius drops this little bomb shell about why Saddam felt he could invade Kuwait with impunity:

Hussein was contemptuous of what he saw as U.S. weakness, viewing America in much the same way that Osama bin Laden did. When Wilson met Hussein on Aug. 6, 1990, just after the Iraqis had invaded Kuwait, Hussein explained his belief "that the United States was unwilling to spill the blood of 10,000 of its youth in the sands of Saudi Arabia, or the Arabian Desert. He thought that we didn't have the staying power for the sort of war that he contemplated. He was basing his view on a couple of things: one, his ability to have stalemated Iran for 10 years ; two, his understanding of our experience in Vietnam; and, three, his understanding of our experience with the Marine barracks in Beirut and the various hostages in Beirut."

So, let me get this straight. Saddam Hussein himself said that the reason he felt so confident invading Kuwait, and starting off the entire series of consequences that led to today's horribly bloody quagmire in Iraq, was because Ronald Reagan did such a wimply job responding to the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon and the ongoing hostage crisis during the 80s.

You heard it here folks. Ronald Reagan is one-third of the blame for this entire mess. God bless him. And in a way, I guess that means George W. Bush was right in saying he's following in Reagan's footsteps.

[bluestateguy]

1. reply

Hussein explained his belief "that the United States was unwilling to spill the blood of 10,000 of its youth in the sands of Saudi Arabia, or the Arabian Desert.

10,000? Were getting there, believe me. Just give Bush 4 more years and it wlll happen.

[abrock]

2. 4 more years? How about 1 year.

Bush, in keeping with the ideas from PNAC, will be invading a lot more than 'just iraq' if he gets 4 more years. Expect a war with Iran to commence almost immediately if he is re-elected, followed by action against Korea (I doubt war, probably a nuclear strike to take out their nukes... Bush is stupid enough to try it), followed by the collapse of America as a great nation as the administration belatedy realizes they have not only bitten off more than they can chew on (and without any allies to help them swallow), their own population doesn't support their actions.

Hopefully we aren't too lazy and inactive to revolt at that time.

[Julien Sorel]

3. No one in this country is going to sign off on a war in Iran.

It falls under the rubric "fool me once." Think a majority in the senate would vote for IRW II?

Bush talks about "pre-emptive war" as if it were a good idea, but he has to do that for his campaign. Looking at Iraq, pre-emptive war is a failure; looking at Iran, 4 times as big and 3 times as populous as Iraq, it would be a disaster.

Of course, an invasion of Iran would likely mean the Shia in southern Iraq would join the "insurgency" against the U.S. in Iraq. That would mean the U.S. would be trying to occupy a hostile region as large as Alaska and California -- combined. Even Bush isn't that stupid.

The little man wants to win (finally) an election, maybe cut taxes some more for his cronies, and then retire back to Texas and pat himself on the back for one-upping his daddy. That's the extent of his ambition, and it's one of the many reasons he should go, because the country needs someone who has a vision for the future, not some sad personal desire to prove himself.

[babylonsister]

4. 100% blame on *

Reagan is dead, Bush is not. Bush and his ilk started this and I hope he's tasked with it, 'cause it ain't pretty and he earned it.