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.