Iran's Supremo: "Iran will stand by all those who will confront America and Israel"

On this matter you simply fail to see or mention the actual cause leading to the misery to which you claim empathy towards.
Long after saddams capture, he was asked about the calculations and the decisions he performed relating to his plan of invading Kuwait, and to his subsequent actions antagonizing the US and the world. In a candid confession he related that he simply and truly believed that the US would not act. Saddam was cruel, a tyrant, a mass murderer but he was not suicidal and not a complete idiot.
The basis for his assessments were almost indistinguishable from those of osama bin laden, and just like Qaddafi(pre-desert storm). They were based on the words and actions he observed American liberals were making, such as those of the freshman senator of Illinois, that obozo what not saying no to funding military acton againsy him, those of that Kerry no-more viet Nam dude, etc, and the many signals liberals in America broadcast in their unending drivel.This to our catastrophic detriment. He calculated that the US would not muster the resolve to sacrifice the necessary energy and militarily might that it would take to check him. An errant missile ala Clinton, but not much more.
RonaldB, perhaps you'll find more agreeablity (gullibility?) blaiming bush for it all back at the huffington post but you wont here.
so now tell us ronaldb, who is to blame?

"so now tell us ronaldb, who is to blame?"

Well, Wakingwest, the answer is clear. I blame George Bush.

First of all, the US should act on its own interest. Saddam Hussein was a vicious nuisance, but it is still the responsibility of the President to investigate whether deposing the Iraq leader and destroying the entire structure of social control in Iraq is in the best interest of the US.

During Desert Storm, the elder George Bush, an infinitely better President than his son, decided not to depose Saddam Hussein, although he could easily have done so. This decision was taken in consultation with the Saudis, who were paying most of the costs of Desert Storm. The Saudis, although directly threatened by Saddam's Iraq, were also threatened by Iran. They preferred to have the two vicious regimes, Iraq and Iran, both facing each other, than one or another alone facing the rest of the Middle East.

The interests of the United States in no way coincides with that of the Saudi rulers, but the logic holds: it is far better to put up with Saddam Hussein than to allow Iran to exist without any natural enemies in the Middle East; other than Israel, of course, which is no threat unless it is directly threatened.

So, thanks to the shortsighted actions of the second George Bush in toppling the Iraq government structure (not just its head), Iraq no longer poses the least threat to Iran.

If Iran were facing a strong, hostile Iraq, Iran would be far more susceptible to western influence. Iran would need western arms and money, because Iraq would invade in a minute. Therefore, Iran wouldn't even be close to a nuclear weapon, because they would be forced to open their nuclear facilities to a genuine inspection. Or else, the west could just cut out its arms shipments to Iran, and increase them to Iraq.

If the West dithers long enough, Iran will get nuclear weapons, and will become immune to retribution for sponsoring terrorism, just like Pakistan now is. In the worst case, Iran will actually use nuclear weapons, as its present rulers do not have the least interest in saving lives, either Muslim or non-Muslim. This will result in possibly hundreds of thousands or millions of deaths. And primarily, because George Bush the second couldn't be bothered to research and consider in depth the consequences of his decisions to invade Iraq for no good reason.

The Bush administration claimed that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear materials, but when challenged by a credible opponent, Joe Wilson, the administration decided to malign the opponent, rather than argue the case openly.

We may yet pay a great price for the incompetence and arrogance of the second Bush administration.

Agreed !

Your kidding right ?

The US led an Allied force because Saudis asked them to step in.
I always thought Bush sr should have finished the job like Israel should have in 67 ! Two major blunders !
Look what you have in Israel. Constant killing and the Israels had to build a wall, buffer zone and implement a blockade.
All these things just fuel left wing and Muslims . Don't kid youself Iran hates the West as do all Muslim countries and territories,
Sitting back and not facing reality is a fools game when it comes to Muslims ! there mandate is to spread Islam throughout the world as you know.

Ronaldb, your support for obozo is blocking you intellect form comprehending simple reality Generally I share your preference for the US to stay out of internal ME ,especially when in the end, we sacrifice a lot for less than nothing results. Good sound, reasonable logic, bravo, now lets go on.

Fundamental in the analysis of just abound anything you must go back and investigate the begging, the cause, the what happened before, in order to get a better understanding of things. At the earliest point you assign blame, ultimate responsibility and even better, you are sometimes able to find the key of preventing the problem in the first place.
The idea I’m attempting to make you consider or understand is that we would have never had to deal with a desert storm, or it’s corollary of finally disposing of the mother of all instigators with all the resulting ugly scenarios .
I trust that you are capable of understanding the simple but salient concept here that Saddam Husain would have not dared to attack Kuwait or later endlessly violate the terms of the peace terms if he felt form the beginning that he would loose, experience pain? Do you think that if he would have been able to foresee himself dangling from his neck after he and his world was reduced to waste, he would have gone ahead with such a horrific and catastrophic failure both in terms of material and ego? What is the basis of his miscalculation, can you answer that?
Why did he think he could get away with the actions he took?. Who was there to stop him, ? Why not the USA? what in his mind would stop or impede the US from taking action? Now you have gone from tic-tac analysis to chess level. Look around you, look in the mirror Robnakdb, it’s the people and especially the imbecilic political liberals of which obozo is the prima-facie evidence, who emboldened him and those who take their chances warring against America and our people. These are the people to blame, these are the people who are fundamentally responsible for the enormous loss of life and treasure which has afflicted our nation. Think ronalb think, I know you have ample knowledge and often use it well,
Wake up.

RonaldB, You wrote,
"...it is far better to put up with Saddam Hussein than to allow Iran to exist without any natural enemies in the Middle East..."
There are 10's of thousands of massacred Kurds and other dead Iraqis who I am sure would disagree with you.

Agree. Bush started what Obama continued. History will sort it out.