I know that feeling well. 
- Edit 2
- Edit 2Before modification by Joel at 06/02/2011 01:57:29 AM
No, Lebanon isn't Syria; my bad. Although Syria's been trying to "fix" that for decades no matter how many bodies it takes, and with Hezbollah in charge now they may have largely accomplished it, at least for the moment; I'll hope you'll excuse me if I don't expect Lebanon to sprout women in bikinis tomorrow or celebrate because Hezbollahs had a majority for a few weeks without imposing Sharia law.
Seriously, Joel, I don't want to be insulting, but could you just do some background reading and investigating about the country in question before making statements like that? Lebanon HAS women in bikini, and has had them for a long time. Sure, the most liberated women are generally Christian ones, but when you know Hezbollah's current government only exists by the grace of their Christian allies, you realize that things are not so simple, and that it isn't "Christians vs. Muslims" by any means.
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.
And Syria, too, actually ranks among the most secular countries in the Middle East - among the safest to walk around in for lone travelers, male or female, as well. Yes, the Syrian government has strong ties to Hezbollah, but that doesn't mean it's Islamist.
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....
And since you mention "imposing Sharia law", allow me to debunk the view a lot of people - certainly not just you - seem to have of that issue. They seem to think that either one has "Sharia law" in a country, or one does not, as if a country can switch from a completely Sharia-based law system to a completely non-Sharia-based one just like that. That's a fairly silly view, as I'm sure you can see. It's not as if there is even a single all-encompassing Sharia system that you could impose. There are religious laws on a huge number of issues that are called "Sharia" - on some issues there is more or less consensus, on others there are several different mutually exclusive views. But in all of the countries of the Middle East and the rest of the Islamic world, the law system is based on a number of influences, among which Sharia is merely one.
Obviously if Islamists take over a country, like they did in Iran, they can base more and more laws on the Sharia, which is presumably what you meant, but to talk of "imposing Sharia law" like you'd talk of "imposing martial law" makes no sense.
Obviously if Islamists take over a country, like they did in Iran, they can base more and more laws on the Sharia, which is presumably what you meant, but to talk of "imposing Sharia law" like you'd talk of "imposing martial law" makes no sense.
You know what I meant: Largescale systemic legal orders predicated on Sharia law, where things like honor killings 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. That's why, 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.
The bottom line in all this is that whether or not anyone wants to admit a religious basis (most of that is just a rallying point for deeply religious people who might not otherwise support militance) DEMOCRACY is at or near the top of the list of "Western" values viewed with such disgust by most of the popular uprisings. Expecting them to PRODUCE democracy is like expecting Robespierre to crown the Pope King of France. The BEST I think we can hope for in most cases is a mostly non-violent theocracy, but since the same groups pushing for theocracies against secular nationalist governments are provincially conservative to the point of condoning and encouraging violence as penalty for transgressing religious laws even that might be unduly optimistic.
What nonsense. These popular uprisings are all occurring in dictatorships and aimed at said dictatorships. Of course there are different views among the protesters about what kind of government there should be instead, but making blanket statements like that about them "viewing democracy with disgust" is ridiculous. Some of those protesters - more in some countries than in others, no doubt - are liberal even by Western standards, and don't view any "Western values" with disgust, or it'd have to be the "value" of supporting dictatorships for reasons of Realpolitik. Some are radical Islamists who do indeed say that they don't want democracy. And the majority, as usual, is somewhere in between - wanting democracy, and freedom, but not necessarily in the American or European style.
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.
Egypt IS different than the rest of the Mid-East though; one of the oldest civilizations on the planet and a center of culture and learning for millennia, with strong if not always friendly Western ties. It may be that Egyptians as a whole can resist the surge the pull of theocracy, but if it does it will be the exception rather than the rule. Still and so, if the only brutally repressive regimes overthrown in the region wide grass roots democracy drive are pro-Western ones, while equally brutal but anti-Western tyrants in, say, Iran, grow stronger, is it really about democracy or just about expelling the Western influences of which democracy is chief?
Is your memory so short? Have you already forgotten what happened in Iran just a few years ago? There are various reasons why it's more successful in Tunisia and possibly in Egypt than it was in Iran, but you can't close your eyes to the desire of a large part of the Iranian people to have a free democracy.
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.