Indeed. I can't help but wonder how the US would respond if the Iraqis did manage to create a stable democracy, with a leader they genuinely elected - who was hostile to the united states, and advocated state control over oil exports. I rather suspect the country would immediately be denounced as a rogue state, and another liberation (read: invasion) would be in the offing.

Now that I am living in the East my view of these events is unclouded by partisan rhetoric or hysterical media and public opinion. It is a sobering thought that to the average "person on the street" these events are regarded in every bit as clear-cut a manner as they are presented in this article. While debate may split the people of the West into opposing camps regarding US aggression and culpability, there are millions - if not billions - in the East who regard America in the same light that Americans viewed Russia at the height of the Cold War: as the single biggest threat to them and their way of life; and as a force that will stop at nothing in their quest for world domination.

This clearly stated analysis of what is a complicated story of British colonialism and current American aggression is remarkably honest and insightful.

By contrast, the coalition of the aggressors, would have us believe it is a simple situation of conflict with terrorism, and they convey this to us with great spin, falsehood and deceit.

If the ordinary voter knew the long story of Iraq, as competently summarized in this article, the current leaders' arrogance would be deservedly challenged.

What a load of anti American crap!
All you people who look at previous dealings the united states had with Iraq and say they are responsible for everything that has gone wrong in Iraq and are responsible for Saddam's crimes is like saying in 1914 that because England and Prussia where allies a few decades ago, so they (England) are responsible for the first world war! I mean it’s the same ridiculous logic and with the foolish comments you make its there for the whole world to see that you all have the same grasp of international politics as does a small raccoon.

The man who wrote this article is a babbling fool and has forever lowered that standand of OLO.

Well Easy Times, considering that Hussein was actually put into power with the assistance of the USA primarily to serve their interests, I think they can share in a significant portion of the consequences of that decision.

They supplied him with the WMD he needed to fight Iran on their behalf and were more than happy to have him as a trading partner during most of his reign.

They did this with the full knowledge of the atrocities he was committing so it's a bit hypocritical of them to suddenly realise that he was a nasty piece of work.

Like all dictators he eventually came to believe that he was "bulletproof" and beginning to show too much independence so they conned him into invading Kuwait and starting the beginning of his own downfall.

The history of Western relations with the Middle East during the last century has been nothing but a long series of broken promises, betrayals and exploitation and the decision to bomb some democracy into them will probably be more of the same.

EasyTimes. I agree with you.

Just a bunch of malcontent anti American Crap.

Selective terminology like

“While advocating democracy around the world, totalitarianism suits the US more in most of the Muslim states, especially in the Middle East region (barring Israel).”

So why “Except Israel”?
Why spend 50 years in a opposing the totalitarianism of communism only to support totalitarianism in some selected parts of the Middle East?

Oh and Ronald Reagan was, rightly, more concerned with the domino effect of export of an Iranian cultural revolution than Sadaam Hussien. Faced with a greater strategic risk (Iran) would make for strange bedfellows.

Whilst we are at it, most of Sadaams support was coming from USSR anyway, like his army and airforce equipment and munitions.

As for “the US administration refused to accept the democratically elected Hamas. To forcibly throw out the Hamas government, United States asked its allies, close friends and the European Union to stop giving aid to Palestine.”

Hamas has refused to accept co-existence with Israel.
Hamas initiated rhe rocket war from Lebanon which Israel, rightly responded too. If it had been me, I would have pushed Hamas into the sea rather than take a step backfrom positions held in Lebanon in 2007.
Hamas actively supports the use of suicide bombers and the export of violence throughout the region..
Palestinians are fighting themselves today between Hamas and PLO/Fatah.

I think you are right in part of your comment “The man who wrote this article is a babbling fool and has forever lowered that standand of OLO.”

OLO lives on a varied diet and so it should recover.

But we can go with “babbling fool”, which is more polite than my first choice of words. I am sure though, I will get to use some more appropriate colloquialisms before too long.