Tunisia's "Ennahda" Party and the Egyptian MB: Still a bunch of racist totalitarians.

[DaShi]

They are not being replaced by worse ones. Not one of them.

[DaShi]

Well, maybe Iraq. But not by much.

[C0ckney]

They are not being replaced by worse ones. Not one of them.

bears repeating.

[regexcellent]

Egypt is definitely worse off now than it was under Mubarak.

[onodera]

Egypt is definitely worse off now than it was under Mubarak.

So a secular dictatorship is better than a religious democracy? Okay, an islamist democracy.

[Zevico]

So a secular dictatorship is better than a religious democracy? Okay, an islamist democracy.

The rule of law, a free press and free speech, an independent judiciary and a vibrant civil society and public debate are essential to functional democracy. Elections that give rise to a majoritarian government are merely one aspect of democracy. An Islamist democracy is a contradiction in terms: Islamists oppose the free press and free speech as blasphemous, and the independence of the judiciary as contrary to the rule of sharia and clergy, and as a consequence in fact if not in theory, the rule of law. Tyranny follows from these elements of the Islamist ideology.
That Islamist ideology, incidentally, calls for eternal war against the United States and other Western countries. In fact the head of the Muslim Brotherhood explicitly stated that ""Resistance Is the Only Solution against the Zio-American Arrogance and Tyranny."

http://www.memri.org/report/en/print4650.htm

In short, the Egyptian government is soon to be run, to some extent, by a political movement devoted to holy war against the United States and the West. Under Mubarak this was not the case.

[Zevico]

Zevico, do you think that Republicans can reasonably be perceived as moderates outside of the US?

1. The question is phrased poorly. Consider the use of the word "reasonably". You're posing an objective test: "can a reasonably well-informed person perceive Republicans as moderates?"

2. But if you are posing an objective test then the location of the person is irrelevant.

3. Yet the trouble with an objective test is that it fails to account for the vast differences in culture and ideology throughout the world. How does a reasonably well informed Islamist, for instance, regard Republicans in the US? Much as he does Democrats: as aspects of the Great Satan. Is a reasonably well-informed person an Islamist, a classical liberal, a social democrat, a free marketeer, etc? See also e.g. http://alittlebitofjake.wordpress.co...s-a-p-herbert/

4. So, if you wish to rephrase your question, please do so. But do so in another thread as I don't see what this has to do with the topic at hand.

[C0ckney]

Egypt is definitely worse off now than it was under Mubarak.

no it isn't. it was a state run by the military, and now it's a...err...state run by the military.

however now at least, there have been elections and the people have expressed their view about who they would like to govern them. there is also a chance now of real change and movement towards a more democratic society, or at least, a society closer to what the egyptian population aspires to.

[Fake Boris]

1. The question is phrased poorly. Consider the use of the word "reasonably". You're posing an objective test: "can a reasonably well-informed person perceive Republicans as moderates?"

2. But if you are posing an objective test then the location of the person is irrelevant.

3. Yet the trouble with an objective test is that it fails to account for the vast differences in culture and ideology throughout the world. How does a reasonably well informed Islamist, for instance, regard Republicans in the US? Much as he does Democrats: as aspects of the Great Satan. Is a reasonably well-informed person an Islamist, a classical liberal, a social democrat, a free marketeer, etc? See also e.g. http://alittlebitofjake.wordpress.co...s-a-p-herbert/

4. So, if you wish to rephrase your question, please do so. But do so in another thread as I don't see what this has to do with the topic at hand.

There is no a priori knowledge of politics, you buffoon.

And "reasonable" does not mean "objective".

[rah]

Yep, one of the downsides of promoting democracy around the globe. They get to choose how they want to be ruled, we don't.
We either respect it or we're hypocrites.

[The Mad Monk]

Yes, that's exactly it. I would rather we leave them alone either way.

[rah]

Yep, maybe they wouldn't hate us so much then.

[DaShi]

no it isn't. it was a state run by the military, and now it's a...err...state run by the military.

however now at least, there have been elections and the people have expressed their view about who they would like to govern them. there is also a chance now of real change and movement towards a more democratic society, or at least, a society closer to what the egyptian population aspires to.

Exactly, even the US had it bumps when it became a democracy, having ditched the Article of Confederation for the Constitution. In fact, the founding fathers realized that they still were not creating the perfect government and created it to be as malleable as necessary.

[regexcellent]

So a secular dictatorship is better than a religious democracy? Okay, an islamist democracy.

Short answer, yes.

[DaShi]

A shame we're not getting Santorum.