Way back when we didn't like the guy running Iran, Mohammed Mossadegh. So, the CIA worked to overthrow him, and did, installing the fellow we called the Shah of Iran. That guy instituted a pro-American regime, and we got along well with Iran.

The US sold them weapons, trained their police and army, and bought oil. All was well.

Except, the Shah's government was as repressive as they get. The police and army the US trained were used to suppress the people, using the arms supplied by America. The people knew that, and not only disliked the Shah, but his principle backer, the US.

There wasn't any democracy in Iran after the US got through installing what was pretty much a puppet government.

That's the background behind the Iranians taking the US hostages when the revolution came. Whether true or not, the hostages were regarded by the Iranians as agents of their repression and legitimate targets.

When we freed Kuwait in the Gulf War, we had a chance to install a democratic regime. After all, GHWB said it was all about freedom, right. "This isn't about oil, it's about democracy." And we just put the same old folks back into power, anything but a democracy.

And now public opinion in Kuwait is strongly against the US "war on terrorism".

Next, try the Phillipines. That was our colony, and we left behind a kleptocracy.

Anyway, that's some background on the US and installing governments in other countries. The US seems more interested in having regimes with whom it can trade than in democracies. India is the largest democracy in the world, and you'd think the US would be best buddies with her. Nope, we usually come down on the side of Pakistan, which is not, repeat not, a democracy.

Political facts sometimes don't match political rhetoric.

Arf