Libya is currently controlled by undemocratic local warlords
Egypt is currently controlled by undemocratic army officials
Syria is under siege by international terrorists
Iraq is in effect a puppet state of the USA
Libya - if you only count Cyrenaica - is currently controlled by undemocratic local warlords that at least have some sort of popular support, unlike our dear Colonel who did not need to bother himself with such trivialities. Let's forget that the western parts of the country have at least some sort of democratic and relatively stable regime, and let's forget that the civil war did not extend to years and years, causing hundreds of thousands of dead, unlike in, say, Syria.
Egypt is currently controlled by undemocratic army officials, after a brief period of being controlled by undemocratic Islamist extremists determined to turn it into Saudi Arabia as far as human rights are concerned. But of course, Iran under Shah and pre-Taliban Afghanistan were so much more terrible compared to the glorious FREEDOM that came afterwards.
Syria gets a free pass to commit genocide by conventional weapons (chemical weapons are bad, mmmkay, but anything else is A-OK!), because Obama made a strategic blunder and wouldn't stand up to the dictator's Russian friends. That Al-Qaeda hangarounds flock into any conflict that has Muslims as one of the parties is a given, but that could have been avoided if certain dictator had given up or had been ousted earlier.
The US influence in Iraq is by and large limited to the fortified embassy district nowadays. Militarily, they have no control (as is evident from the new government losing territory to Sunni militants & AQ, plus the new government's rather adventurous forays into the Syrian civil war on Assad's side). Politically, the US has very little relevance, and as for MUH PETRODOLLAR WARFARE oil drilling rights are mostly held by French and Russian companies - both countries that were protesting against the 2003 invasion rather loudly.
0/10, made me reply.
---
I find it hilarious that in the West there are many people to whom any kind of dictator - no matter how brutal - is a glorious freedom fighter and stalwart defender of his people against the international conspiracy of bankers and megacorporations, just as long as he has anti-Western agenda.
---
Democratic traditions, corruption-free administration, insert virtue of government here, do not mature overnight and will not - cannot - appear out of nowhere as soon as there is a change of regime. Every nation has to start to build those traditions from zero, if they have not had previous experience. Expecting a country to be a perfectly honest democracy with zero corruption a year, five years, or even a decade after the end of dictatorship is wishful thinking at best, ludicrous delusions at worst. But at least there is the possibility to develop towards those goals.
However, democracy will not necessarily result in tolerance and inviolate human rights if most of the voters are illiterate, uneducated, and as such, can be manipulated by religious or other extremists. There are actually people who sincerely believe that freedom of speech, equality, secularism, sexual freedom, minorities' rights, freedom of religion (especially freedom to abandon one's faith!), etc. are BAD. There is no easy solution to the dilemma how to advance both democracy AND human rights in such countries.
