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...**