While I like to see populations taking their destinies in their hands and dictators having their arses kicked as much as the next man, I'm a bit divided in relation to the happenings over there in the Middle East right now. It's sort of a realpolitik thing, which is usually kinda disgusting but it is pragmatic. And of course each society is a bit different and it's hard to generalize, but if we don't take hints from history, why study it at all?
The problem is what I call the "Saddam paradox": bad with him, but who knows what will take his place? It could be much worse. And when you have large masses of angry young guys (most of them with very low education levels) running around, they can be very susceptible to radical elements and their righteous discourses. In Egypt's case, the Muslim Brotherhood. What would Egypt turn into after they took power -- which they quite likely would, in case of free and democratic elections there, given their popularity? And in another example, isn't the indicated new prime minister of Lebanon a Hamas guy? The paradox is the democratic choosing of leaders who are bent on destroying democratic principles as soon as they are in power.
I'm afraid this is a somewhat paternalistic way of seeing the issue, but screw it... I don't want even more terror supporting/war mongering organizations taking hold of governments, thank you very much.
All this said, I don't think "we" (the "Westerners" and friends) should mess with what's going on in Egypt -- let them sort it out, because imposed solutions have a knack of making things worse (as the Brits, French, USAians etc. should have noticed by now given the past and current mêlées they've caused). But I'm sure hoping for a more gradual change to better, more democratic and tolerant regimes in Egypt and the rest of the Middle East. Evolution, not revolution, usually gets the job done better -- or at least with less heads laving their necks all around and the future resentments that type of thing curiously bring.