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.

Oh so you can show us a speech by Bush condeming the nodemocatic royal family that rules the Saudis and calling for free multiparty elections in Saudi Arabia? The US is not behaving any different to any other super power of any time in history you care to name. the US is looking after it’s self and to think other wise is naïve to say the least. Just have a read of a few American conservative web sites some are calling for the US to put in a dictator and some are even calling for the US to allow the ethnic cleansing of the country.

Ps for a bit of a history lesson the US were still dealing with their Iraqi dictator even after the gas attack on the Kurds.
The US is not the root of all evil but to think their actions are not out of self interest is just foolish.

If easy and the colonel want anti american they should read Leunigs latest offering in the Age after Bush announced another live sheep export of lambs to the slaughter - this guys some what accurate and sanguine description of America is verging on the patriotic when compared to the latests scribbling of one of our national living treasures.

It really is high time the proponents of this nonsense in Iraq got over themselves and got out of there. People loose fights all the time and the west lost this one almost before it started - big deal

With Saddam died all the past deals he had with the U.S.A. when they were mates, "dead men tell no tales", is so true.

I hardly find so balanced and analytically documented article as of this one, yet, I am shocked to see that there are American-Salivates in this forum like easytime and col, these are the retarded people sitting home on public welfare with their bear and pizza and make fun of others killings... and so biased that blaming an excellent writer as fool- it’s a shame for online readers and management….

Even if Bush Junior claims that he is fighting against terrorism in the interest of democracy, peace and freedom, the world is witnessing except few mentally dump slavering minded, the divergent upshots in the masses. Today, the world is looking more in parts and drifting towards more divisions politically and religiously. Looking the balance-sheet and the historical facts from Bush senior to Junior one finds yet it is not fight for civilization or aiming to wipe-out terrorists instead it is a mission of those white house occupants - clusters of Bush Senior and Junior - who dream to see America as dominating the world by controlling the maximum natural resources of the globe and ruling the world by power. From Panama, Haiti to Iraq and Afghanistan billions of dollars spent on engineering the dirty games through CIA, other agencies and puppets-heads of US allies to retain the US supremacy in the world

Malik “American-Salivates in this forum like easytime and col, these are the retarded people sitting home on public welfare with their bear and pizza and make fun of others killings...”

I have no need for “Public Welfare”. I have been self employed for more than 20 years. I own one company outright, another I own half of and I have a half interest in a Mortgage Business.

I probably pay more tax than you earn gross.

As for pizza, and beer and making fun of others killing.

I occasionally drink a light beer, rarely eat pizza and I find nothing to laugh at when either pig ignorant mud humping muslims find out they have no sense of morality and start bombing Jews and Christians because they are Jews and Christians or when morons like you try to be smarter than your language skills allow.

As for “American-salivates”, are you suggesting I “drool for America”. I did live there for 3 years but I am quite happy in Australia.

Maybe you meant “To be full of desire or eagerness for something” in which case I could suggest a truck running you over so we do will no longer endure your stupid remarks does have some appeal.

Similarly I have little time for the booger snots whose spelling competencies allude to their own retardedness.

“Bear” is not to be confused with “Beer”, I know it is hard for you when both spellings pass the MSWord spelling test but if you had a proof reader to hold your hand and check your posts we would not need to suffer your linguistic incompetence.

Re"US supremacy in the world "

A few years back most of us were pretty pleased not only to be on the same side as USA but that the USA and the western democracies prevailed in the cold war.

If Czechoslovakia, Hungary or Afghanistan were examples, Russians marching into Iraq or any other middle eastern medieval cesspool would have been far less tolerant and far more murderous. Maybe they would have done the right thing and already strung you up Malik?

Hmm... Malik, from what I've seen, most of those aligned with the conservative factions of politics tend to be those who are opposed to increasing welfare, which wouldn't tally with the notion that they are on welfare themselves.

Though there's other more logical arguments you can assess.

Col: "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?"

America and Israel are closely aligned on a number of levels. There is the religious element, where Bush's particular brand of born again Christianity supports the notion of the Jewish state in Israel.
There is the more pragmatic argument focusing on the large proportion of the jewish vote in the US, not to mention the lobby groups.
It's quite simple: the US is a close ally of Israel but not the other ME nations, so why wouldn't Israel be an exception? Their relationship with Israel is distinctly different to all the other ME nations so of course it is an exception.

I tend to think that it is somewhat irrelevant to the US whether the ME nations are totalitarian regimes or not. They couldn't care less whether the Saudis hold elections. The real issue is whether or not they are friendly toward the US, and are willing to trade oil on their terms.
This was one of the key elements of the article - the US wants to merely have a government that will cooperate. Dictator or no dictator. The issue is finding one they can trust.

In regard to Saddam, there is plenty of documented evidence about the close relationship between him and the US. You state that Saddam received close support from Russia.
Indeed.
The point was however, that once upon a time he and the US were allied. Is this something you dispute? I'll grant it's relevance can be debated, but the fact that Saddam once cooperated with the US is much harder to deny.

Regardless of their true agenda, American action in the Middle East will always be a victim of past actions.

One key point hinted to in this article is the fashion with which the US has operated throughout history. To meet the "demands" for expansion, its leaders have consistently been content to fatten up their nation on the resources of others in a manner which was entirely one-sided. The US (as well as countless other Western nations) have kept these totalitarian leaders happy with superficial benefits while the people of these resource-rich countries are practically left in the dark ages!

The last thing the US wants are for these resource-rich nations to be democratic and developing at even an "adequate" rate - the US are having enough trouble as it is keeping competitor China down.

This kind of selfish foreign policy by world powers is simply colonialism "in disguise." In an ideal world the citizens of Western countries in particular need to stop craving ludicrously material things and desist in encouraging the rest of the world to feel that they "need" such to. That way our leaders won't feel so pressured to continue in such a selfish manner to expand to meet our "demands." Of course that won't happen because money (and its lapdog, media) really makes the world go round!

Malik, 'American-salivates', 'retards'. You're a Mohammed cock sucker - how's that mate!. your religion is dying, the west will have it destroyed with in the next 50 years. get used to the idea mate.

The tone of Mr. Syed Atiq ul Hassan article leaves little doubt as to which side of the fence he stands.

From Sept.1980 to Aug. 1988 Saddam Hussein received 75 Billion from the Arab States to wage war with Iran. Looks to me as if some others had their thumb on the scale of justice during that conflict.

One might also remember that Ayatollah Khomeini spent a little time in Iraq prior to the oust of the Shah. I doubt rather he was able to keep his mouth shut amongst his Iraqi Shia brotherhood.

One might also consider that there is age old animosity between Iraq and Iran going back to 7th century.
Saddam on numerous occasions alluded to the Islamic conquest of Iran in propagating his position against Iran. For example, on 2 April 1980, half a year before the outbreak of the war, in a visit by Saddam to al-Mustansiriyyah University in Baghdad, drawing parallels with the 7th century defeat of Persia in the Battle of al-Qadisiyyah, he announced:

"In your name, brothers, and on behalf of the Iraqis and Arabs everywhere we tell those [Persian] cowards and dwarfs who try to avenge Al-Qadisiyah that the spirit of Al-Qadisiyah as well as the blood and honor of the people of Al-Qadisiyah who carried the message on their spearheads are greater than their attempts."[3]

The aftermath of the Iranian Revolution of 1979 was central to the conflict. The Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was threatening to export Islamic revolution to the rest of the Middle East.

Now lets all blame the Americans.

I'm somewhat surprised at Mr. Syed Atiq ul Hassan limited scope and his tenuous grip on the subtleties of Middle Eastern relationships. I reckon the old saw that it is easier to blame some one other than yourself holds true.

Then again a arms wide democracy like America carries the mantle of a world dominating evil well. Eh.

I loved Syed Atiq ul Hassan illumination of Americas dark secret. Spreading totalitarianism. Perfect.

TurnRightThenLeft
US and Israeli support is a bipartisan element in American politics and had little to do with Bush. If Gore had prevailed in getting elected, the US-Israeli alliance would, like the Australian-US or British-US Alliances be just as strong.

Regarding what makes Israel exceptional.

Maybe it is that Israel has democratically elected politicians who have conformed to “democratic values” since Israel’s inception in 1948.

Hardly the same can be said of the Palestinians as is confirmed by 60 years of bombings, aircraft hi-jackings, the murder of Olympic athletes and currently the insurrection, verging on civil war between Hamas and Fatah.

The same cannot be said of many other places in the middle east. Lebanon is being dictated to by the Hamas Palestinian minority in Southern Lebanon, the same butchers who started the 2006 rocket war with Israel.

As for “but the fact that Saddam once cooperated with the US is much harder to deny.”

Certainly, before 1990 and the collapse of USSR, any effort by US to displace the Sadaam Hussein Regime would have had consequences with the principle supplier of Sadaams Military hardware.

When faced with a common enemy or a graver consequence, people and nations often choose strange bed fellows.

It is easy to be smug and principled regarding the actions of those in authority when one has no authority oneself. We see it every week in Parliament, the renting of raiment and beating of breast which Beasley, Latham and doubtless Rudd will regale us with.

Politics has been called “The Art of the Possible”

What is possible is not always totally desirable.
Then, what is desirable has to wait for when it is possible.

Nowadays, USSR has been eliminated from contaminating the world with its poisonous politics. What was not possible in 1985 and what was not supported by the UN in 1991 became possible in 2003 when common sense prevailed and what was being blocked in UN by the old antagonist was "ignorable".

Meliorator “stop craving ludicrously material things” it is through trade that China will eventually embrace democracy. Capitalism Works!

Aqvarivs Great Post

Indeed aquarivs, Iraq and Iran have always been at each other's throats... the only thing they could agree on was that Israel was the enemy, though with Iraq and Iran sharing a border, their primary concerns were always each other.

In many ways, this kept them in check. Now that Saddam is gone and there is little or no central control in Iraq, we've seen Iran growing more and more bold.

Sure, Iran has played a role in this. But by removing the counterweight that was Saddam, hasn't the US allowed them much more room to manoeuvre?

Col: Yes, Gore would have also been supportive of the Israeli government, I've no doubts about that. But would Gore have expressed it with the same interventionist militant action?

This whole need to choose which "side" of the fence one must barrack from is ridiculous, especially "when one has no authority oneself." This merely leads to defending the actions of chosen side practically unconditionally. Every "side" clearly makes mistakes, so what is wrong with just "judging" every action on its merits/faults without having to "swear allegiance" to a particular stance/view?

Apparent fence-sitting probably appalls many of you, right? Well to me, forming my own opinion according to what I consider is "right" or "wrong" is much more appealing than trying to have to claim that America's selfish foreign policy is just, or on the other "side", that deposing a viscious dictator wasn't warranted.

However the grass isn't always greener on the other side: while our ideal, democratic capitalist giants jockey for position, the Darfuri are still wondering when their "divine" intervention will come.

I am not anti-capitalist. I am not anti-America. I am not evenanti-Bush. I'm just anti-stupid!

**Awaits the pending ridicule...**

Words can tell mentality of the people. TrueAussie...

If you claim yourself as ‘TrueAussie’ then shame on your abusive and racist language. I wonder how OLO management allowed these kinds of crazy mind people in the forum….you don’t deserve to involve in any debate….

Anyway, I already know there are people here whose primary goal is to abuse Muslims and Islam….but this will not change the realities….

Hey Malik…. Don’t waste your time on these Idiots… they have enough skills to turn the positive debate into 3rd degree communication…. You should understand their background and qualification reading their writings…the management is also don't care about the quality and editing that is why I just gave up feeding anything...

There is no doubt that the current US oil-worshipping regime is overtly aggressive and corrupt. Then we have ignorant fools who call any voice of descent "anti-American." I don't know who is worse - the followers or the leaders.
So tell me again - Why have Bush and his toy boys left Bin Laden to himself? Now with all Bush's military might, his access to technology and intellect (cough, cough) you would think something would have been achieved by now.

Col Rouge,
I'm just interested in knowing where your judgment and understanding of the Israeli, Palestinian conflict arises from? I wouldn't be surprised if it has derived from the biased and unscrupulous media coverage on the conflict, which has pitted the majority of its viewers in favor of Israel and failed to provide any sort of balanced coverage on the conflict.. before portraying yourself as the bastion of humanity step back and stop viewing the conflict in the time frame of a few years. The Israeli nation was mostly founded under the UN pre-tense of "occupied territory", when Israel began invading the West Bank and Gaza beginning in 1967.. yes that means the land was occupied, which has been found to be illegal under UN conventions, but of course what does the UN know? the notion of terrorism was non existent by Palestinians at the time and only began to come into existence after the 12/9/87 intifada, from which since 1471 Palestinians and 168 Israelis have died... stop using the notion of co-existence because its non applicable in the sense that the existence of Israeli land is illegal

Yes terrorism is a disgusting atrocity, but careful how u define the word terrorism because doesn't the bombing of civilian infrastructure without warning killing innocent people translate into a similar description? Atrocities have been committed by both sides but every violent action undertaken by Israel has been justified by rationalisations, whereas Palestinian action vilified as Terrorism. Just step back from a second and stop dribbling your misguided and clouded interpretation of the issue without taking a holistic and historical viewpoint.

peachy,

Terrorism already occurred in the 1930s when Arabs in Palestine attached Jewish communities, some of which had existed for hundreds of years. It then had a different name but the principls were the same.

It was part of a process of Islamicism in the middle east when Christians and Jews in ancient communities predating Mohamed suffered discrimination and pressures to either convert to Islam or leave. Talk to a few Copts or Christian Lebanese.

This is not propaganda but a valid view of history. I would not blame the US for all that is wrong in Iraq, if the Iraqi state was mature enough they would have had a stable society of their own. When they stop blaming others for their problems and face their own shortcomings, as others do they will be able to work a better destiny.

The fighting and killing between Shia, Sunni and the Kurds is like the battles between the Catholics and Protestants, but that was in the middle ages.

Peachy “The Israeli nation was mostly founded under the UN pre-tense of "occupied territory", when Israel began invading the West Bank and Gaza beginning in 1967..”

The usual misguided bunkum of someone who listens to the jingo and runs along with the crowd. In short total Crap.

Israel was founded in 1948.

As for 1967 War.

1967 Arab-Israeli War, the Third Arab-Israeli War, Six Days' War, an Naksah (The Setback), or the June War, was fought between Israel and the Arab states of Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and Syria. When Egypt expelled the United Nations Emergency Force from the Sinai Peninsula, increased its military activity near the border, and blockaded the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships, Israel launched a pre-emptive attack on Egypt's airforce fearing an imminent invasion by Egypt. Jordan then attacked the Israeli cities of Jerusalem and Netanya. At the war's end, Israel had gained control of the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights. The results of the war affect the geopolitics of the region to this day. (Wikipedia)

I would note that since that time the negotiations have seen Gaza repatriated into Palestinian hands, from which it now suffers interminable civil conflict Palestinian against Palestinian.

As for “I'm just interested in knowing where your judgment and understanding of the Israeli, Palestinian conflict arises from?”

Well you have already answered that with

“I wouldn't be surprised if it has derived from the biased and unscrupulous media coverage on the conflict,”

So why should I bother with your stupid, rhetorical question?

Re “Just step back from a second and stop dribbling your misguided and clouded interpretation of the issue without taking a holistic and historical viewpoint.”

I am stepped back, the “dribbling misguided and clouded interpretations” are all yours.

Feel free to challenge the accuracy of my post.
Attack me with your asinine innuendo and I will bite back.

Your views are unsupported by historical fact.
Your attack on me is personal.

Find a stone and crawl back under, I have spent more time you, you retarded prat, than your IQ warrants.

Col Rouge,
yes i know Israel was founded in 1948 and yes the 6 day war was what i was referring too, and unfortunately what i forgot the mention was that it was fought between the arab states of Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and Syria.. my point has nothing to do with that though, and i wish that your research extended further than your half assed attempt to discredit me by using Wikipedia, the 6 day war was a misguided pre-tense to capture the West Bank,
"in 1967, Palestinians fled their homes during the Six Day War when Israel occupied the remaining 22% of Palestine, describing this as an act of self-defence" (John Pilger, 2006)
I'm glad u pointed out much of the land has been repatriated, but its not entirely true, illegal settlements still exist that are strategically placed to ensure dominance, this is even highlighted in Wikipedia "Israeli settlements on the West Bank beyond the Green Line border are considered by some legal scholars to be illegal under international law, The Independent reported in March 2006 that immediately after the 1967 war Theodor Meron, legal counsel of Israel's Foreign Ministry advised Israeli ministers in a "top secret" memo that any policy of building settlements across occupied territories violated international law and would "contravene the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention"" (Wikipedia), but of course what does international law matter right? .. Extend your research further than what the media portrays as its often misguided, I'm trying to discredit your use of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as a means to assert your worldy, 'well researched' beliefs on Hassan's work..

MAlik to trueaussie your wrote “I wonder how OLO management allowed these kinds of crazy mind people in the forum….you don’t deserve to involve in any debate….”

And I could just easily apply similar words to you, with your crass generalizations like “the retarded people sitting home on public welfare with their bear and pizza and make fun of others killings...”

you hypocritical ingrate.

I think trueaussie was pretty right in what he said. Maybe not the words I would have used but certainly the sentiment.

Every day we see people like you who try to give it out but when it comes to being on the receiving end you call foul (or with your words skills that would possibly end up as fowl (cluck cluck)) and suggest this site should moderate those like trueaussie because he offends you.

Keep posting trueaussie, I have been suspended more times than I care to remember but OLO has it pretty right.

Peachy “"contravene the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention"”

Back for a second slap?

Maybe you could tell us what the Geneva conventions say about unprovoked Hamas rockets raining down on Israeli civilians?

Or what is dais about Hamas and Palestinians sponsored suicide bombers climbing on Israelis school buses?

Before you criticize the defensive strategies of Israel, which you claim might fall short of the expectations of the Geneva convention(s), I suggest you check the compliance of the adversarial forces which reign madness and mayhem against Israel and you check the “remedies” available to victims of Palestinian / Hamas / Arab aggression under the terms of the Geneva Convention.

“illegal settlements” were de-populated by the Israelis in Gaza and the land handed back to Palestinians. You make no mention of them.

I would further comment, the strategic position of the Golan heights (because of their “height”) and other areas, would deem their surrender from Israeli occupation a military disaster. No nation should be forced to surrender land from which it has been attacked and from which future attacks would be certain of forthcoming.

Wanna try again, putz?

Oh when are the democracies going to learn that even totalitarian governments, dictatorships, authoritarian theocracies and terrorist elected by other terrorist have rights man?
It's a free world man. Everybody should be able to do what they want with out consequences dude. Rules are so harsh man. Democracy is such a bummer dude. Like freedom is like something your born with man. It isn't for everybody. Some people need to be kept down. Like Muslims man. Muslims shouldn't have freedoms outside of the dictates of their religion and their leaders. It's just not natural dude. It's like China dude. The Chinese need communism to survive as a people. It's like a fact man that Chinese die outside of communism. And look at Russia man. More proof that some people just can't cope with freedom.
America understands this, dude, which is why it is spreading totalitarianism around the world. It's like a religious message man.
No. No. It's like a message from outer space, man. You don't want to listen but, like you never made a hat out of tin foil. So like now you have no choice. Your like a victim, dude. The aliens are like sending messages in the clear and like people everywhere are self-immolating on democracy, freedom, liberty, justice, rights of the individual, human rights. Like people don't understand man. All that stuff is going to destroy the world dude. That al-Zarqawi dude was so right man when he said, "We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology. Totalitarianism is what people understand dude. Freedom of choice causes wars. Oh ya, and people are inherently bad. Which is why like we have prisons dude.
Personally I think like a military dictatorship is best man because like every one marches in a straight line.

=/= DEMOCRATIC PRIORITY =/=

I am trying to think of a post-WWII example, where the US decided to side with pro-democracy groups against an allied government which was not democratic, i.e. when the US was faced with a choice between its own interest and the principles of democracy.

I've just looked up Haiti, which I thought might be promising because I remember the Clinton Administration worked to restore the elected President, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, to power in 1994. However in 2004, Aristide was taken to Africa by the US Military and the circumstances are disputed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Haiti_Rebellion)

When I look back, the US often seems to act both against the principles of democracy and its own interests at the same time. But surely there is a clear-cut example were US demonstrated a decisive commitment to democracy above-all and/or in spite of other factors and influences.

Looking forward to your thoughts, if any.

Meliorator
“However the grass isn't always greener on the other side: while our ideal, democratic capitalist giants jockey for position, the Darfuri are still wondering when their "divine" intervention will come.

I am not anti-capitalist. I am not anti-America. I am not even anti-Bush. I'm just anti-stupid!

**Awaits the pending ridicule...**”

I would agree wholly with your post.

I do not think all which Israel has done over the past 40 years since the 1967 war has been laudable or defendable. I do not think everything which USA or the “Allies” have been right.

What I do believe is, on balance, they have been significantly more “right than wrong”

What I do believe is, if countries like USA and Israel were to capitulate to the forces of tyranny and oppression, left or right, which surround us all, we would be in a significantly worse situation than the ones we find ourselves in, with errors, mistakes and the short sighted strategies as played, which we do not necessarily agree with.

Anyone in any doubt, read solzenitzen or try being a “Christian” in some of these “Muslim” countries.

No ridicule form me. Keep posting.

David Latimer
“I am trying to think of a post-WWII example, where the US decided to side with pro-democracy groups against an allied government which was not democratic,”

That is a difficult question because most governments which are allied with USA are DEMOCRATIC to start with, same goes for Australia.

The only US Allies which “spring to mind” and could be called “non-democratic” are the sheikdoms and Monarchies of the middle east, some of which are slowly moving forward along a liberalizing path.

I would further remind you that whilst it did not go to war with South Africa, USA exercised strict technology, trade and arms embargos against the old Apartheid regime and supported “democracy movements” there.

Liken Australia, US supports many democracy movements around the globe where they are struggling with a despotic regime. We can look simply to the protracted struggle with the former USSR, which lasted for almost 50 years, as evidence of that

Crime and punishment has always been a subject that was my interest going as far back as my time still in primary school,when kids got a whipping for just a minor mistake.But those were the teachers that decided punishment for a minor offense.Today we have a different system,western war crims, executing non western war crims both parties guilty of the same crimes against innocent civilians.What a wonderful world

Although I find it hard to quarrel with opinion that English Crown as sovereign is responsible for both the First and Second (utterly defined with history recorded, ousted king’s personal pro-Hitler attitudes being eventually reflected with known Chamberlain’s flirt with German Nazis) World Wars – and for a recent turmoil in the Middle East definitely, GOD BLESS AMERICA for hanging mere murderers and criminals having once upon a time sized power over a country artificially created by London minders, EasyTimes, meliorator.

However, politics is a choice of actions where the lesser devil usually is more preferable imminently for decision-makers.

It is not-at-all Bush or America’s task to clean Saddam’s mess - but creating conditions local pro-Western-values-accepting forces to surely execute a project.

“Democracy” is a vogue definition, and keeping billiards, as rightfully noticed on these pages already, of the hatred-out-of-their-world-explicitly on a bay is seen to be a task more practical and realistic to the date rather than cleaning shelves of own supermarkets from affordable food to indefinitely feed this all-run-of-history hostile tribe overseas.

To Col and Aqvarivs

Syed's point in relation to totalitarianism in the middle east rested on one clear notion:

1. The majority of citizens with middle eastern states have a certain level of animosity toward the United States.

2. Therefore, any democratically elected leader in a middle eastern nation is therefore likely to have a similarly hostile view of the US.

3. Therefore, if the US is to have a friendly government in the Middle East, this government will not be representative of the people. i.e. Saudi Arabia.
There is also a likelihood that if it is not representative of the people, there are going to be clashes between the government and the people, as the rulers crack down and try to hold on to their power.

So... effectively, this argument indicates that the only ME government the US can install, is a dictatorship that will not represent its people - a totalitarian state.

This isn't necessarily about ideology, but pragmatism. In this post I am not arguing that the US is an evil empire, but I would appreciate it if you could address the flaws in the above argument I have set forth.

TRTL

It is not necessary that ALL Middle Easterners hate America. Ie, the number of Iraqis living in the U.S. as well as other Muslim's from many other Islamic states. Many are being led by those who don't want democracy, majority is debatable, in a democratic world they would be identified as the thugs they are. They're after power. There is a great disconnect between what the Iraqi middle class wants and what the clerics want. The advantage the clerics have is the mosques. And that's where they indoctrinate the youth to fulfill their anti democracy, anti western, anti American ends. Sadly in Iraq the middle class. The doctors, the teachers, the lawyers, the business men, have all left for America, or Europe, or Canada, or Australia, or Jordan or Saudi Arabia or... The clerics know if they can get rid of the educated class they can say and do to the uneducated class as they will. So far they have managed to kill some 100 civilians every day since march 2003.
It's very convenient to blame America. How does one undo the harm the clerics spew at mosque during their class instruction and recruitment seminars for the jihad.
Hell, it takes place in the Australian mosques. Even here they try to twist the minds of the young. It's going on all over the world right today to counter the Muslim immigration to the west and poison those who are struggling to live with in Islam and their desire for liberty.
Democracy is not an Islamic precept, and the fundamentalist want no part of it becoming part of any Islamic Institution.
This is what the war is all about

There are merits in your post Aqvarivs - I'd never suggest all middle-easterners hate the US and you're right in that it is an issue of freeing the people from the grasp of fundamentalists.

However, I still believe that US action in the middle east has led to a high degree of enmity amongs the average person in the aera - they may reserve their dislike first and foremost, they do indeed have internal struggles for power - but that isn't to say that American action hasn't had a negative effect on perceptions there.

Take Iran for instance. There is indeed still a very strong influence amongst the clerics, and they still grip the reins of power.
On the other hand, Ahmadinejad was elected reasonably democratically. He is popular among the people.
Somehow, I don't think the US would be keen for a few more leaders like him.

When a foreign nation intervenes to sort out an internal struggle, more often than not it will have severe repercussions for them, it is basic human psychology. Have you ever witnessed an argument only to watch someone intervene, attempt to play mediator, and end up reviled by both parties? In such a delicate situation in the middle east, I can't help but feel this is the likeliest outcome - the war thus far certainly indicates this is the case.

Why do middle-easterners and others predominantely of ideologically oppressed places hate America in increasing numbers?
Foreign youngsters like American movies and are just jealous for not being able having sex as much as US teens are exercising on the screens.

Why do middle-easterners and others hate Australia in increasing numbers?
Because no option is being left as far as they had known more and more of Australia from Australian-born, -fed/growing up.

Why do Australian mullahs preach intolerance and hatred?
Because following the belief, mullahs were already in great numbers grown up in “multicultural” Australia.

I think that if you can get to the individual Iraqi and not shove a camera and mike in his or her face you would get quite a different answer than the party line of America is the devil. Down with the big Satan. Like I said before Islam is institutionalized in the Middle East not democracy. Like Russia so too will any burgeoning democracy go with some difficulties while learning to cope with a completely new understanding of government and how to govern. The "Islamofascist" don't give one whit for their own people. To them they have always been a means to an end. Saddam came up through the secret police. He had power. Massive power over the lives of his people. He could have been a different leader. He chose to be himself. No one created him or drove him to ruthlessness. He chose. Moqtada al-Sadr has chosen. Nouri Maliki has chosen. Nouri Maliki and his government are battling for democracy. Ayatollah al-Sistani is using Sadr to steal any chance of democracy for the Iraqi people. Democracy is of no benefit to a dictator. Once more let me say that democracy is not a precept of Islam. Iraqis need our help and they will need the return of their educated class to help heal from this war and to develop and to become participants, citizens of the free world.
They do not need another Saddam Hussein.

Now I think we're getting to the meat of the matter. Ultimately, all of what the US is trying to achieve comes down to the views of the ordinary citizens on the street.

You are right in that they don't want another Saddam Hussein. Aside from the Sunnis who did well out of his regime, most would look on another dictator of his ilk with horror.

Now I can't speak for what the average Iraqi is thinking. Ultimately, unless a poster here is living on the streets of Iraq, none of us really can.

Now my assumptions (and I admit, they are assumptions) would be that the number one concerns would of course be day to day living.

(1. Who can deliver me the best, safest, happiest life).

Number two would probably be along the lines of local politics.

(2. Is my proposed leader a Shia or a Sunni?)

Way down the list, would be international politics.

(3. What do I think of the US?)

Now. On the first score - my assumption would be that most Iraqis don't have all that much faith in the ability of the Americans to deliver them vital infrastructure. www.corpwatch.org has done the best job I've seen of highlighting the fundamental failures of the reconstruction.

On the second score, this would tend toward the notion that a true democracy (and that's a subjective term, I'll admit) is impossible for Iraq. Ultimately, unless conflicts such as this can be reduced to verbal rather than violent clashes, this democracy can't work.

On the third score, I would have thought that with so many dead and wounded and such devastation, combined with the fact that the US is fast becoming perceived as anathema to Islam (partially due to US action, partially due to the strong christian element in US politics) that the average person doesn't have much patience for the US.

How religious the average Iraqi is, and how it affects their attitude is another debate, though I can't see how it would be in any way favourable to the US.

An average Iraqi like an average Afghani like an average Kosovar like an average Sudanese like an average anyone round a world in war torn places especially, an international community is particularly being involved in at, is desperately looking for a BETTER LIFE and some living standards meeting promises of delivering the liberation.

However, some local-mafia-style renovation of in-situ economic affairs is much more easy to practically achieve then a real improvement in economy where practical deeds -surely, creating work places as a vital source for locals to meet the ends- is the most.

Either speechifying of theoretical “family businesses”, playing statistics with re-labeling groups of unemployed or words of an imaginary increase of every individual's whealth as de-facto per capita debt (personal and national) is rocketing, while only hypothetical, calculated in inflated local currency, value of shares had upon last decade doubled somewhere for someone,hardly work used to factually feed hungry people.

Hey, Alan Bold, cool comment mate (I only just read it) Just wondering if you could fill me in on my "Background and qualifications"
If you are thinking along the lines of 1) Well educated 2) Good career 3) Good salary 4) Well travelled .... Then you just may have a point. If not, then please allow me to have a go at attempting to define you. Ok, here goes... "Many posters on this site are probably B of A students / grads and generate most of their ideas whilst smoking illegal substances and mutter comments like 'Dude....America is just....bad...man...' "

And Malik - I assume you herald from Pakistan. This is a country that I have been to. The people there are generally quite hospitable, but I never came across this 'bear' that you speak of. I hope you are not referring to a KOALA bear - I think we have rules about that sort of stuff, and anyway it's not even a bear!

TRTL

Just watched a street interview with several Iraqi youth. They all wanted the U.S. army to secure their streets and neighbourhood. One girls complaint was that if the Americans aren't going to secure the neighbourhoods. "Then they should just leave and let the people be slaughtered". That's a direct quote. She spoke in english. They made it clear that they were not against the Americans but, against being unable to move securely around their neibourhoods. One person who spoke told the reporter to not show their faces or use names because "they" would harm them for speaking out. They also referred to a particularly hostile section of Baghdad as going down "there". "There" was where people died regardless of sect. The insurgents were killing everyone. They had a kill zone mapped out near the market and people who left their homes to shop risked being killed for it. No other reason. This particular group are said to be Baathist loyalist. Syrian and Iraqi death squads.

Aqvarivs

I don't doubt this is the case for the average Iraqi... the number one concern for the vast majority of people will always be ensuring the safety of their family.

But consider this - what is the ideal outcome for the US in Iraq?

Lets say a true democracy is instituted and violence is curbed to manageable levels. Lets say that sufficient emergency services can be put in place to handle the rogue elements in society.

The question now becomes - will the majority of Iraqis want a government that has friendly relations with the US?
If so, we have no problem. If not, then we need to ask a second question: will the US put up with a hostile government?

Now... I suppose there is sufficient evidence to hypothesize that if Iraqi society became sufficiently stable, they wouldn't bear any grudge toward the west.
But somehow, I think history tells us otherwise.
Iran is reasonably stable... granted, it is poor and the clerics wield too much power, but Ahmadinejad is popular.

I rather suspect an Iraqi government acting in the genuine interests of the people would seriously consider instituting state ownership of oil supplies.

Which brings us to the second question... would America be okay with that?

Yeah, and will national-liberal Howard's Australia be happy with this:

An "Iraqi government acting in the genuine interests of the people would seriously consider instituting state ownership of oil supplies.

Which brings us to the second question... would America be okay with that?
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 29 January 2007 3:32:07 PM "

Eventually this is the FIRST question.

TRTL

"what is the ideal outcome for the US in Iraq?"
I think the Americans will step back as soon as Iraq's current government shows it's willingness and ability to police itself and govern by rule of law. It's a matter of allowing the Iraqi government time and opportunity to strengthen and come to terms with their internal differences. Right now religion is being used to shatter any hope of democracy. I think religion will eventually unite the Iraqi's once the al-Qeada types are seen for what they truly are.

Every one is talking like the U.S. absolutely must have Iraqi oil or America is doomed. I doubt the U.S. government, who ever that might be tomorrow will care if it's State ownership. The care is that the oil revenue goes to the Iraqi people and raises their standard of living and allows for them the opportunity to create something else for themselves other than dependency on oil. Like creating other manufacturing or employment opportunities. Americans will always do business. They have many of the things that the Iraqi's would like to have and will trade for oil given the opportunity.

Look at Iran. Massive oil and natural gas wealth yet the average Iranian sees no benefit thanks to Ayatollah Khomeini and his crew.
Yet Iran can spend billions to frustrate peaceful co-existence in the Middle East. Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and Iraq. And to what benefit?
Why does Ayatollah al-Sistani(an Iranian) encourage Moqtada al-Sadr to develop such internal strife and sanction the murder of his fellow Iraqi's?

If Iran doesn't moderate and quit working against any peaceful resolution for the Middle East it may require a regime change. Are we then going to say. Ya but, America is just doing it for the oil, too?
Is the world going to allow the Khomeini's of the world to have nuclear weapons to be used as a bludgeon to dominate M.E. life?

Do you want a world war?

Do you really want America to stay home and be an isolationist government?

And "Australians" -that is whole population, de-facto biologically inferior non-Anglo populous inclusively, benefit from a colonial-style economical management of selling out local assets overseas by ballooning personal and national debts, which is "investment opportunities for foreigners" as read in a national newspaper.

Is above used ENGLISH clear?

Aqvarivs - nothing would please America more than to have stable, friendly government in Iraq. On this point at least, we are agreed.

I note you talk of the possible necessity of America instituting regime change in Iran to avert a war.
Interesting... there are a few points I'd raise at this juncture.

1) Saddam was hostile to the US, in fact, pretty much all the regimes removed by the US have been hostile ones, for obvious reasons.
The point I'm getting at here, is if a regime is merely bad to it's people but behaves internationally, then it is okay with the US.

Witness Saudi Arabia.

2) Iran on the other hand, has a democratically elected leader. The possible regime change you speak of would effectively be removing a democracy and attempting to install a new one... My question is, would a new one be any better?
Would this new leader be genuinely democratic?

Note, that a much more significant threat to the US has been North Korea - yet nothing has been done there.

I for one, wouldn't have objected to an enforced regime change in North Korea for the notable reasons that

1) The motives couldn't be ascribed to economic reasons
2) The US hasn't had the same role in installing Kim Jong Il as they have with Hussein
3) The regime has proven they have the resources to acquire WMD. In the case of Iraq, it has become evident that the 'evidence' was not gathered in a dispassionate manner - rather, with a bias toward an assumption the regime possessed them.

Basically, I'm saying that the US motives you suggest aren't as clear cut as they would appear from your post.
I've no problem believing there was an element of altruism in the US decision to invade Iraq - though that altruism was more a convenience than an actual motive.

TRTL

Iranians do not get to "democratically" elect their leader. Iran is not a democracy. Iran is a Islamic Republic. Ayatollah Khomeini is their leader. They get to elect from a short list of candidates preselected by Khomeini and the State Judiciary, a eunuch. Ahmadinejad being one. Ahmadinejad can not act unilaterally. He would need implicit instruction from Khomeini.

The regime change I'm speaking of is the chatter in the news about Iranian nuclear empowerment, Iranian hostile influence in the M.E. peace process, Ahmadinejad's anti-western dialogue with other nations, and an increase in the number of Iranian secret service personal being captured in Iraq. Infiltrating Shia communities to further disharmony and perpetuate the sectarian violence that they hope will assure that no democracy is created in the M.E. Funding Hezbollah in Lebanon and playing Syria off Fouad Siniora's government and Israel.

Due to these little things that work against any peaceful resolution in the M.E., Iraq, and any opportunity for a Palestinian resolution or Statehood an Iranian regime change has been brought into the equation.

While North Korea may have nuclear weapons. Kim Jong-Il and his personality cult government are isolated from the rest of the world. Kim Jung-il uses his "potential nuclear threat" to extort money from the west as aid and increased trade with South Korea and China at their expense.

This is nothing to do with altruism. This is a hopefully profitable out come for all concerned. The world.

There is bad that you can work with and hopefully influence to positive change and there is bad that just gets worse. GWB had 4 years to do something. He was given 4 more. Some other government will have to take up the torch as to American foreign policy come 2008.

I don't think America is motivated by evil intentions. They are THE superpower trying to make particular changes to the world for tomorrow. Tomorrow it may well be another superpower making changes you don't like too. Like whether or not you have any freedoms. Times change. There is no law that says a superpower must be benevolent.

Around the merry go round we go.

Iran's level of influence in Iraq is open to interpretation.
I've no doubt there has been some interference in Iraq, though I also suspect we'll be seeing an exaggeration of their involvement in the coming months. It will make the US failure there a lot more palatable if they can blame a third party.

You are right in asserting the Iranian democracy is seriously flawed, though there is nominal input from the public.
I think it's far too optimistic to suggest that a regime change could lead to anything better than the current chaos in Iraq, though this time it would be on a grander scale with two nations falling into disarray.
It would create the kind of chaos that organisations such as Al Qaeda thrive on.

What historical examples of successful US led regime change do we have in the middle east, when compared to the failures?

TurnRightThenLeft,

"You are right in asserting the Iranian democracy is seriously flawed, though there is nominal input from the public."

I'm not asserting any such thing. I'm stating plainly, factually that Iranian government is not a democracy. Why you persist on clinging to such an erroneous notion I have no idea.

"What historical examples of successful US led regime change do we have in the middle east, when compared to the failures?"

We have no examples of a U.S. regime change in the M.E.. Iraq is the first of it's kind and It is far to early to label it a success or a failure. Like most others, you have made the U.S. responsible for whether such a change of government is successful or not. When the reality is that the Iraqi people of one stripe or another will ultimately produce a success or ensure a failure to have their own ends succeed.

I can only sit here nestled amongst my freedoms, my democracy, and hope for the best, and that saner minds prevail in Iraq. For any nation to reject democracy in favour of totalitarianism boggles my mind. I can not attribute sound reasoning to such an event.

That and make sure that such like minded people never come to power or attain any office of official influence here. Regardless of race, culture, religion or political stripe. History has taught us that freedom left undefended is soon replaced by dictates

What about Afghanistan, for instance? Or Talibs were not welcomed in Reagan's White House, while fighting pro-Moscow Afghan government?

While the US may not have attempted a direct regime change such as this before, there were certainly indirect attempts.
Most have either resulted in the same situation or worse.

If external regime change worked, we wouldn't have a problem with Iran - the Shah wouldn't have been toppled.

In relation to Iran - yes, it is far from an ideal democracy, and I don't defend it as being suitable.
I do however, believe that it administers a functioning nation.
The nominal input from the public is in choosing one of a few pre-selected candidates. Hence 'nominal.'

What I am saying, is that it is better than the alternative of a weak government where chaos reigns, and that the only way these countries are going to attain a proper democracy is to develop it themselves.

Governments put in place by foreign nations don't endure. It has to be done by the people. History tells us this, yet still we don't learn.

Oh, not so much people "endure their governments": love it or hate it, Bush Jr.'s legacy is uniting the anti-islamist forces worldwide, some Arab and Muslim states inclusively.