I don't see the difference between a Muslim theocracy and a Christian one...and, quite frankly, I see a few of the western nations sliding way too close towards "theocracy". Australia, for example. Or the
Batshit Bananas Party Republicans in the states.
Me neither. But if you compare the western countries that slid "way too close towards theocracy" to the ones from the ME (Egypt and Turkey being especially notorious examples), there's a striking difference in the mechanism that stopped theocracy from happening: in the West it were the elections (or the Supreme Court at some of the more extreme lunacies), while in the Middle East it was the army. In this latter case I have this feeling that they didn't have any other options left (with a cleric/pack of clerics seizing the opportunity and trying to create a dictatorship much in the way Hitler did after being legitimately elected as Germany's chancellor).
Things aren't so simple as you pain them. Brown people aren't "primitives" that need our "guidance". They're human beings, not all that different from you or I, with hopes and dreams, desires and beliefs. Some are similar, many are different.
I think that this doesn't have anything to do with race at all (in fact I'm more inclined towards religion as the main reason, but that's a different story). Your comment is even beyond the point which I tried to make i.e. the western democracies pretty much have only two options to choose from: either they support a local strongman (who isn't a complete nutjob and can be reasoned with, even if he's a tad bit bloodthirsty at times) who'll turn the country in question into a dictatorship OR they support the local cleric (imam, ayatollah, whatever you name it) who'll turn the country in question into a theocracy or more likely a theocratic dictatorship (and in addition is completely nuts, paranoid, spreads hate propaganda against the West, and cannot be reasoned with at all). Deep inside I really hope that history will prove me wrong, but at the moment no third option seems to be viable.
I hope that Egypt is a tad bit different in this story (since the army turned out to be the smartest part of the government), but it's different in more ways than one: first of all it's the most populous Arabic country, and second (mostly thanks to tourism) it has a very broad SME sector (which is almost unheard of in other Arabic countries). Since these SMEs live pretty much only off of foreign tourists, they surely won't take a cut in their business lightly (which'd happen if theocracy would win over in Egypt and the number of tourists visiting the country would sharply drop). This lessens the likelihood of wannabe despots doing anything stupid. However these same conditions don't apply to the rest of the Arabic world, so I really can't keep my fingers crossed in their case.
By what right do you call yours better, and where is your evidence? Has your society solved all problems? Is it without corruption, without oppression, "-ism"s, dramatic wealth disparity, rampant unemployment and so forth?
The country I come from is a post-Communist Eastern European country full of people who are feeling nostalgic about Communism and are cynical pessimists too who are just unable to think in terms of the free market at all. Thus yes, my country has all the problems common to EE including corruption, cases of oppression here and there, cronyism, unemployment, lack of education etc. However at least I'm confident that nobody would sincerely wish for a theocracy (like many Muslims do) nor any form of dictatorship here. Like I said, in the Muslim world, clerical and worldly leaders are one and the same thing ("western inventions" such as separation of church and state just don't exist there and the general populace seems to reject the notion as well), regardless of the "hopes and dreams, desires and beliefs" they have. And this just isn't gonna change no matter how much "humanitarian bombarding" or "fights for freedom/democracy" (all done by one of the factions against the other ones with the help of the West, especially US) will try to advance the cause (and naturally make things even worse). Intelligence services probably know this already (or at least should) so now they're probably trying to side with the least despicable (and ideally also most powerful) faction (after they gather enough intelligence in such mess of course).
it's their nation, and they're going to run it how they like. And that's the whole goddamned point.
Yeah, but with nowadays the world being as small as it is, they're pretty much "close neighbors" (at least to me). And IDK about you, but I just won't be too happy if whatever
monsterregime they create will spend all its spare time (and maybe even resources) to spread anti-western hate propaganda day and night (and possibly also think up ingenious ways of wreaking havoc in Europe too). The precedent is there already: Gaddafi, but also Iran (even though if the latter was only involved in hate propaganda/political trolling so far, since they still need someone to buy their oil).