I think that the reason a big part of the world resents us helping them during a crisis is that they don't want to admit they can't do it themselves. But, if you notice...They rarely refuse our assistance.

That earns you an insightful.

>We're just the ones that the world waits for to clean up the mess. So that they can criticize how we went about it.

WRONG
YOU are choosing to put your nose where it doesnt belong.
I dont remember a vote or referendum taken among the worlds community asking you to interfere in their affairs.
Or did I miss THAT vote?

rombios, in what is probably a vain hope that this will encourage you to study some history, let me ask you to point to any world wide referendum that occured prior to World War II authorizing the US to support England via Lend Lease? (That was the program where we sent war supplies to the Brits for free.) There was none.

How about the referendum asking us to rebuild Europe after WWII under the Marshall Plan? None again.

For 20 years the UN has ignored the Sudan. The result? Tens of thousands of deaths, an even greater number of rapes, perhaps as many as 4 million displaced. See http://www.reuters.co.za/locales/c_newsArticle.jsp;:422fe7a9:a32ba5cf3a4337f2?type=topNews&localeKey=en_ZA&storyID=7859938 for today's story. Why has NOTHING been done? "Russia, China and Algeria still object to sanctions."

Imagine yourself, if you will, in a concentration camp. The sign over the gate reads "Work Sets You Free," which was the sign at Auschwitz. But freedom only comes via the gas chamber and the crematorium. Put yourself there.

Now I ask you, would you want to wait on a referendum or would you want someone to do something NOW. My point is that, throughout the 20th Century, that someone who does something has always been the US.

When did the Iraqis have an honest and open election about whether to be ruled by Saddam?

I say the big difference is this... TV, radio and the internet. didn't have all of that in 1920 nor 1950.

once the inernet came to be, combined with tv and radio... it was over. everybody is in everybody elses business whether for good or for bad.

'But, if you notice...They rarely refuse our assistance.'
Not a strong argument. America's "assistance" has been hotly contested by significant proportions of (for example) the Vietnamese people, the Nicaraguan people, the Iraqi people ...

Now, on to my response to 'We're not the ones selling Iran nuclear technology' of 'Oh yes you are!'
Okay, perhaps not this week, but in general - absolutely. The USA (and their poodle, the UK) have a well-documented history of propping up dictatorships, interfering in democratic processes and selling arms of all shapes and sizes that leave most other countries looking positively non-entrepreneurial. The USA did more than anybody else to put Saddam Hussein in power in the first place, and now the rest of the world is expected to demonstrate uncritical gratitude for the pig's ear they've made of the country in deciding (against the advice of the UN) to invade and occupy Iraq under the pretext of removing him? Do me a favour!

Furry Canary said "Okay, perhaps not this week, but in general - absolutely." Which is probably as close to "I was wrong and you are right" as I am going to get. Thanks, I appreciate the recognition.

When people say things like "the USA did more than anybody else to put Saddam Hussein in power in the first place" they do a great disservice to the Arab people. That assumes that the Arab people are passive and incapable of making their own decisions. It shows a lack of understanding of Pan Arabism, the movement that set leaders like Saddam and Nasser and the Asad family in power.

Here is one bio of Saddam http://www.emergency.com/hussein1.htm and here is a different source http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/crisis_in_the_gulf/decision_makers_and_diplomacy/216328.stm

In both cases, you will see that Saddam rose to power, through murders and assassinations, riding the bow wave of anti-Western nationalism. After WW I and the end of the Turkish Empire, Britain and France divided up the Middle East. They did a lousy job, in my humble opinion, and in the years to come anti-Western leaders arose in the newly formed countries. Saddam was one such leader. The US, quite mistakenly in some cases, tried to deal with these leaders. But so did the rest of the world! Look at the sales of Mirage jets by France, look at Germany, look at the Soviet Union and Egypt and Syria.

But back to the point. We can all agree that there are problems. BUT WHAT IS THE REST OF THE WORLD DOING TO SOLVE THEM?!?

'Thanks, I appreciate the recognition.'
My pleasure, Larry!

'That assumes that the Arab people are passive and incapable of making their own decisions.'
Which appears to be the raison d'etre behind the USA's most recent invasion and occupation of Iraq. Now THAT to my mind, and not what people SAY, is what you choose to call 'a great disservice to the Arab people'.

Can you explain how the recent elections in Iraq are anything but an expression of belief in self-determination?

Thats a bit of a conundrum. I would think that replacing a dictator and holding the first free eleactions seen in that country in...well, pretty close to forever, shows our belief in the people's ability to decide for themselves.

If it is helping then people can understand, but looting in the name of helping can not be accepted. power backed by israeli mentality can only be accepted by the christians and jews. What they do there with their military might can not be forgiven.