Without the first coup there would have been no second coup and no Saddam.

This is disingenuous at best, McG. The point that Teribus makes is that any of several candidates could have made capital out of this. If you had said that "the first 1917 revolution gave Kerensky the opportunity to establish his powerbase" you would have been wrong. Nevertheless, the first 1917 revolution did create the climate in which Lenin could succeed. If you want to suggest that Saddam's 1979 coup was directly attributable to America, offer concrete evidence. Otherwise you're merely muckraking without substantiation.

"Hitler's rise owed a lot to that kind of thinking for that matter. And it would be only too easy for it to happen again, and it is only too likely that there are people working to achieve that kind of outcome. "

This also is arguable. It is possible to lay direct blame for Hitler upon the unreasonable terms of the Versaille Treaty. Any number of individuals could have made capital out of this, Hitler was the one that was the most succesful. It could have been any of many.

Moreover, if the rise of Hitler was inevitably determined by history & human nature, then the US cannot be blamed for the future of Iraq. Which is it, Kevin? I won't dispute that there is something nasty in store, but I'll wait until it happens before I start trying to identify the culprits!