2007-09-07 12:10:24 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
He didn't keep troops in Panama very long.
Seriously, though, at the time, attacking Iraq wouldn't have been an option, it would have been too provocative to the USSR.
If Reagan were alive and cured of alzhiemers, and had been running the 'War on Terror' instead of Bush II, I supose, even if he sent troops into Iraq to depose Sadam, he'd have called it a day once Saddam had been aced. Of course, I doubt he'd have removed bases from Saudi Arabia, either.
2007-09-07 12:24:33 · answer #1 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Based on the experience in Lebanon, we can pretty much know that the answer is no. The short difference between then and now is that the speechwriters of the 80's became the policymakers of today.
The Reagan hardliner rhetoric never actually matched the actions, So while he made speech after speech about the evil empire, he held more negotiations and summits with the evil empire and their presumably dark minions than any of his predecessors combined.
Neoconservatives have chosen to forget this. Based on the actions of the Reagan Whitehouse, if Reagan were doing this situation now, Iraq would never have happened, we would have some sort of NATO like US funded Arab coalition of states against fundamentalist elements and we probably would have some sort of regional detente with Iran.
2007-09-07 12:31:54 · answer #2 · answered by Mark T 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Many in Iraq were very upset at the US (under Clinton) because when they attempted to topple Saddam from within the US didn't assist. That is one of the reasons that the Iraqis were a little cool at the start during the time Saddam was loose. At the same time Al Queda was coming in & stiring the pot.
I think Reagan learned from Lebanon not to have too restrictive rules of engagement.
2007-09-07 12:37:57 · answer #3 · answered by viablerenewables 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Reagan would have gone after Bin Laden he wouldn't have messed with Iraq. He knew what that would have brought about. It would, therefore, not have been necessary for Reagan to keep troops there as they wouldn't be there.
Reagan would have made sure the Saddam regime crumbled from within. There would have been a civil war but the US would have been out of it. Eventually we would have seen the dust settle and we would have a different government in Iraq. Maybe one to our liking and maybe not. But Saddam would have been gone. Then he would decide what to do about the replacement government.
2007-09-07 12:15:02 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 9⤊ 1⤋
I think we would have gone in with twice as many, kicked ***, killed all terrorists, if Iran or Syria sent as they are now terrorists to kill Americans, he would have dealt with them too. He also knew the middle east was a impossible position, he didn't get bogged down there after the Beirut bombing of our Brave 240+ Marines who died. Trying to give freedom. Lebanon which was mostly Christian until the Islamo fascists took over, destroyed the whole city and country.
The real question is what would Ronald Reagan have done after 911.
Do not confuse or compare President Reagan and President Bush. One had Conservative Values, one has republican liberal values. A big difference.
2007-09-07 12:20:03 · answer #5 · answered by Rick D 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Yep, every President since Carter had little had something going on in the middle east but there all suffered the same fate except they all pulled out too early. Leaving this one confused.
2007-09-07 12:19:39 · answer #6 · answered by Alana Awareness 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
poorly stated question.
after 9/11 what would he have done?
if he had been elected and left with incompetent CIA and FBI leadership would he have fired them all unlike Bush who kept the clinton leftovers that did nothing for 8 years but issue memos?
too many what ifs to give a rational answer.
as stated above, Reagan conservative, Bush liberal republicant.
to the other morons above Reagan was very smart despite the idiocy you believe as truth which was promoted by your lefty buds. Reagan freed nations from communism not got in his knees for the commies. Aks polish people what they think of Reagan. They have an entire square and neighborhood devoted to Reagan. They're greatful he was our President and stood with them against tyranny. unlike the liberals who ran and cowered and left them to be beaten down like dogs unlike the yoke of communism.
The berlin wall didn't fall because of liberal tolllllllllllllerance and open miiiiiiiiiiiiindedness. It fell because someone has cajones and said take it down!!!!!!!
2007-09-07 12:24:21 · answer #7 · answered by pissdownsatansback 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
it would have been Panama all over again...
a dictator... taken out in like a week... and troops back home in like a month...
in and done... and then Van Halen could write a song about it...
he wouldn't have been stupid enough to stick around to clean up every little mess that occurred...
EDIT: and I'm not a huge Reagan fan... but he wasn't stupid...
2007-09-07 12:17:29 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 0⤋
Reagan would have chased Bin Laden's carcass down in Afghanistan and Pakistan, seen him killed and skinned and brought the troop home before Christmas.
2007-09-07 12:16:32 · answer #9 · answered by Deep Thought 5 · 8⤊ 2⤋
Just as he withdrew the troops from Lebanon, he would redraw from Iraq. Same kind of thing going on, civil war and such.
2007-09-07 12:16:28 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋