It seems more like Lebanons Hezbollah exists by the threat of more violence like their seizure of the capital, assassination of the President in concert with Syria (with which we shouldn't confuse Lebanon) and repeated, often successful, attempts to start bloody civil wars between Islamic terrorists and secular authority. So, OK, maybe they have bikinis, but let's not pretend they're some sort of beacon of peaceful secular democracy. Bottom line is an Islamic terrorist group assassinated the secular executive thanks to its decades of aid from supposedly secular Syria and even though that's been proven beyond doubt they STILL managed to take control of the government, not by the "grace" of Christian "allies" but due to their utter exhaustion.

Of course not; it merely aided an Islamic terror groups Presidential assassination as part of years of military occupation in Lebanon (again, it's funny how all the critics of Israeli occupation in Palestine shrug off Syrian occupation of an internationally recognized sovereign state, even when it involves assassinating that states president). If it looks, walks and quacks like a duck....

You know what I meant: Largescale systemic legal orders based on Sharia law, where honor killings etc. are not only a right but civic duty. There are grades and degrees, but the result of radical Islamic militants overthrowing and replacing a government is usually an extreme degree of Sharia law. For all the sneers at Americas hesitation to recognize gay marriage, Iran STONES homosexuals; you'd almost think the US isn't the worlds worst country.

Sure, they're all occurring in dictatorships, but they aren't occurring in all dictatorships, are they? Just secular pro-Western ones; apparently Iranians accept brutal repression (except for the one police shot in the head a couple years ago for protesting). Sure, some protesters are liberal even by Western standards, but don't tell me they're the vanguard because we both know better. There's strong reason to believe the MB is simply biding their time until popular uprisings create a power vacuum they can later exploit and hence happily aid now.

Sure, I know what happened in Iran a few years ago--and before and after, and how little reform and democracy has come of protests there. Until last September I worked with a couple of Iranians who'd been in the US pretty much since '79 so they wouldn't be killed. Where's their popular uprising? Answer: Ahmadinejad already hates America so none is necessary in Iran.

The proof is in the pudding; if Tunisia and Egypt form free democratic governments I'll be the first to applaud, but that strikes me as a naïve hope founded on the notion that the US supported Mubarak because we're evil SOBs who like other evil SOBs. The truth is that Mubarak represented the US and many others making the best of a bad situation. If you want to say we had no business supporting any of the various brutal thugs contending for control of a foreign state I'll agree, but the truth is, one reason--IN ADDITION TO geopolitical ones--we did so was because since bloodshed couldn't be prevented supporting Mubarak meant less bloodshed than supporting any of his opponents. I see little real evidence that's changed, just a lot of wishful thinking.