The trouble is, Caladan, you're so busy trying to educate me (unnecessarily) on the history of Egypt you've forgotten to make a coherent point. It seems to me you are arguing that Mubarak is the best choice for Egyptians because he's no worse than the endless shower of corrupt, torturing dictators they've suffered under for the whole of their history. In order to be internally rational, this argument must be based on the assumption that no nation has ever made a peaceful transition to meaningful democracy after being ruled by a long shower of corrupt, torturing dictators for the whole of its history. Since this is obviously not the case (as EVERY democracy in history has been won from the whitened grip of corrupt, torturing dictators), the belief that Egypt can not ever have a meaningful democracy is obviously irrational.
Evidently you say you have read my posts. but you have not. because none of that was my main point.
Mubarak and his leadership, whether in the military or the politicians. have worked relentlessly to secure Egypt and make it stable.
the fact that North Americans do not take the time to analyze the hard work these leaders and people have done. in the name of 'democracy' has really become typical.
In the modern age, democracies should arrive through a normative process.
not through North American occupation, nor through toppling a government in a region with poverty stricken individuals who have no concept of the word.
at the end of it. it matters to me, only to a certain point. toppling an Arab regime, will be used for the favour of the major powers and Israel either way, because it will mean that the society will have to face all the challenges they have accumulated and have began dealing with constructively all over again. they will not pose a threat, but instead serve as a base of modern 'imperial' experiments.
It is a shame that there are still people in the middle east who never learn. and its a shame that there are still North Americans in the same situation.