Before we go any further let's get away from the term "superpower".

I used the term in response to Wisdom_Seeker's post because it was pertinent there. But you're broadening the topic considerably and consequently the status of a nation as a "superpower" is less operative. The United States and the U.S.S.R. are the only nations (or "unions") to which the label of superpower can be accurately applied (although some would argue that perhaps modern China is approaching superpower status).

Desipte that, there are many nations that are guilty of what you're talking about and very few of them are superpowers.

For the purposes of this discussion Portuguese colonial and neocolonial policy toward Mozambique or British policy in Kuwait are just as pertinent as American "meddling" elsewhere in the world.

So having said that...

Essentially you're saying:

"Sometimes colonial and neocolonial policies have been beneficial to small nations and sometimes they haven't.

Sometimes the attention or inattention shown by a larger country toward a smaller country has been beneficial/detrimental.

Sometimes "meddling" by a larger country in the affairs of a smaller country has been beneficial/detrimental."

Okay.

I think it's something that we all can agree on. I'm not arguing about that and I don't have a problem assigning the requsite blame and responsibility for the fucked up situations in some countries around the world to the policies of the west in general but of the United States in particular . Likewise I recognize that the United States and the West have done a lot of good for the world.

But you're response doesn't really answer my question.

Wisdom Seeker said this:

and then I asked this:

What Wisdom_Seeker is implying is that it's perfectly acceptable for third-party nations, some of whom did not call themselves Iraq's ally prior to the U.S. led invasion, to wage wars by proxy against the United States becuase they view the United State's actions in Iraq as "wrongdoing".

Bear in mind that the United States has not actually invaded, attacked, or in any other material way shown aggression toward these third-parties. A little sabre rattling maybe, on the part of both sides, but no attacks by the United States have taken place against these nations (obviously there are places where the U.S. has military forces: Afghanistan, a few skirmishes on the Horn of Africa, drug interdiction and counter narcotics/terror work in South East Asia, South America, etc... but they're not material to our discussion because they don't really apply to Iraq's regional Arab/Muslim/Persian neighbors).

So if it's okay for these third-parties to overtly kill Americans in Iraq because they disagree with American policy and consider it "wrongdoing", then why is it wrong for Americans to kill Iraqis in Iraq because we disagreed with Iraqi policy and considered them to be guilty of "wrongdoing"?

I'm asking if it's okay for one side then it must be okay for the other, right?

And if that's the case, then it pretty much legitimizes the Iraq invasion.

__________________
...Old Europe, a once-dominant region now reduced to sucking at the geopolitical teat of America... they spent the better part of the last millennium conquering the world and taking the good stuff home with them... And what do they get for their troubles? Ungrateful colonies demanding their independence. And after you taught them how to play cricket!...

-Jon Stewart