Quote from Gabfly1:
Were you bad haircuts making the same argument when Bush wanted to "spread freedom and democracy" in the Middle East by invading Iraq? Freedom was good then, but not now? Please tell me how that works.

Quote from pspr:
"... some within the U.S. intelligence community, foreign diplomatic circles and the Republican Party say Obama's readiness to accept Islamist movements, fails to take into consideration the methodical approach many such parties adopt toward gradually transforming secular nations into Islamic states....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/03/AR2011030305531.html
? These young protestors are studying the ways of freedom. The internet has given them new information and they have realized that they can actually change society and improve the quality of their lives. Quote from Trader666:
I know you're immune to reality but here's why we really invaded Iraq anyway.
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Cwqh4wQPoQk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Quote from NeoRio1:
The main force behind the Arab uprisings are not islamic radicals. Look at the protests in Egypt. The protests were largely secular. The Muslim Brotherhood engaged in the protests as well but the secular protestors would not even allow the brotherhood to wave islamic flags and signs in Tahrir square.
Also, why do you think the arab governments are shutting down the internet? Do you think it is because the protestors are reading too much Islamic material on the internet? These young protestors are studying the ways of freedom. The internet has given them new information and they have realized that they can actually change society and improve the quality of their lives.
Over 90% of the population in Egypt, Libya and Saudi Arabia are Muslim yet the protestors are strongly against traditional Islamic practices. They argue for religious freedom, womens rights, freedom for the press and a functioning democracy. Those principles hardly signal a turn towards theocratic fundamentalism.
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
This is clearly the optimistic case, one that has been pushed by the media and seemingly forms the basis of the administration's policy, to the extent there is a cohehrent policy.
For a contrary view by a very astute observer, consider this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/04/AR2011030402322.html
He makes the points that just because radical islamists have not been front and center doesn't mean they are not involved and that they will likely be the best organized and most motivated participants in post-tyrant regimes.
Islam isn't going to just march across the world without setbacks and resistance and stalling out. Christianity, if it is really the true religion from God, cannot perish. God will see to that.Quote from Scataphagos:
Does that include the "fundamental transformation of the United States" into an Islamic state?