The double standard is that they feel perfectly comfortable hating us unconditionally and holding all kinds of bigoted beliefs about us but at the same time want to tell us its our fault they are this way. Its bullshit. Arabs hated us before this happened. Had we tortured the guilty parties to death, Arabs would still hate. If you want to believe your own bullshit and tell me that isn't the case, that's your right. But its might right to tell you that you are full of shit.

Sorry, but do you know any Arabs?
I've lived in that part of the world and I didn't find anyone who hated me. Quite the opposite actually.
What I did find was a lot of hatred for America's foreign policy.

If you can't see the connections between the US installing our thug the Shah, the subsequent Islamic Revolution as a grassroots response to Western meddling, and the all-too-easy fomenting of anti-Western sentiment among the uneducated as a way to turn the Average Joe's hatred away from the Islamic Council... well I guess that explains why you always post the same load of crap every time this issue comes up.

(And yes, I am picking Iran as my example, even though them folk ain't Ay-rabs.)

The opening of the current war with the West can probably be traced to the Munich massacre.

The current war, you say?

What war opened with the bulldozing of hundreds of Arab villages in Palestine because the U.N., a foreign policy arm of the USA, said it was okay to do so?

I worked with an Iraqi native and all he did was complain and blame everyone else for his problems. It was pathetic.

Well, since we're delving into anecdotes...
My Iraqi barber was all for ousting Saddam.
Saddam, you see, imprisoned or killed his whole family after he fled.
He admitted the war didn't really do any good for the USA.
He just hated Saddam.
It was pathetic.
But entirely understandable.

Point was, the U.S. does what it wants. Anyone who resists is destroyed, murdered, or belittled.

If you want to think this way, that's fine.
It's a perfectly valid and time-honored way to run your show, from Alexander the Great to Napoleon to Godwin.
Just don't cry "What did we ever do to them?" when a few planes fly into some of your buildings.

Start by finding the guys who are setting the IEDs and you've solved 99% of your problems. Then start organizing a political party to take control of the country and point it in the right direction. Running the country out of the Koran is not going to help. Get women into society. There's no point subjugating half of the population.

Sounds like someone needs to revisit what Iraq was like under Saddam.
He kept the radical Imams in check. As in, he executed or exiled them.
Women weren't forced to wear burkahs and worked at all levels of government.
(Okay, not so much at the top, which is a lot like it is here. What do we have, nine female Senators?)
He did a bang-up job rooting out and making examples of the sorts of guys who would set IEDs.
Though, imposing a no-fly zone over 2/3 of his country made it impossible for him to clean out all the terrorists and/or freedom-fighters.

What's your larger point here?

It's that getting rid of Saddam made things worse.
American intervention in the Middle East, whether it be propping up dictators or "regime changing" them, always makes things worse.
"Spreading democracy" is very costly in both blood and treasure, and doesn't provide any economic or security gains for Main Street.

That being said, Libya is in the TBD column right now.
Maybe Obama can be the combo breaker, but I'm not counting on it.
Regardless of how it plays out, at least Libya wasn't costly to us in terms of blood or treasure.
Hmmm. Perhaps the combo has already been broken.

And if you're unhappy about that, you should vote GOP, because a vote for the GOP is a vote for a bloody, expensive war with Iran.