Why does the US and others balk at the idea of even a mildly Islamist government? Would the US be as safe (less or more?) if it relaxed a bit about political Islam, recognising as Mr Grenier does, a difference between AL Qaida type violent jihadis and other Islamist political organisations?
I wonder if the US would rather have, say in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood in power, an neo-Nasser in power, or the status quo...I'm guessing the latter, since it's the least risky in the short term. At least there's none of Rmsfelds unknown unknowns regarding the current regime.

Quote Originally Posted by Hax View Post
Do remember that some people also refer to their own countries as (Judeao)Christian, here in the west. Notable examples? Geert Wilders, for example, or what about Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reilly. They are like the radical imams of the American right wing, if you forgive the simile. Hell, George W. Bush himself said he had been inspired by God and he called the Republican Party "God's party". You know how that would translate to Arabic?

Hizbollah.
Zing! Very nice :D

Quote Originally Posted by Leet Eriksson View Post
The iranian revolution was mostly communist and Islamic (the communists were consumed, or their cause hijacked later on), and you're wrong, the west supported the islamic revolutionaries over the shah, who was actually worse, and they do export terror, the shia aligned revolts in the arabian peninsula, and hizbollah in lebanon is apparent, they aim to create an unfavourable environment for a whole lot of folks, and there is little reason to believe the IRI's interest in the welfare of shia minories, let alone the region is well intentioned.

The US does not really fear an Islamic government, they simply do not want the status quo to change for a whole lot of reasons, but long story short, stability, business, the whole deal and i guess a little bit of nepotism and buddy buddy relationships with countries like saudi, morroco and egypt since the early 1900s.
Maybe the US is too tempted to thing that change is incompatible with stability. Sometimes the move to a more stable system can only come from a revolution (E.g. Velvet Divorce, Meiji Restoration, establishment of the French Fifth Republic etc.) Rather, what appears to be stability in countries in the Middle East is in fact the kind of rule which characterised Latin American pro-USA dictatorships, frozen in time long after the threat of communism receded.

Quote Originally Posted by Idaho View Post
The US talks a lot about democracy - but in truth they are absolutely terrified of it. Because, strangely enough, poor and abused populaces in other parts of the world, with other cultures, have the odd habit of electing people who they believe represent their interests, rather than that of the US military or economy.
So why did the USA allow Latin America to democratise, rather than continuing to support military rule and juntas?