If you are watching news you know what is happening. Lybia protesters are being killed brutally.

85 dead people in the last few hours. Human rights reported another 84 deaths in the last three days.

this video in  Bahrain:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwnUQcKXmMM&feature=player_embedded&skipcontrinter=1

They can. Trouble, is, will they. Will they succeed?

Honestly, too early to say currently. Granted, Egypt's response to prtests was a lot lighter than Bahrain or Yemenj or even Lybia's.

Although, interestingly enough - cables suggest Gadaffi is actually facing pressure for change from his own son. So hope can be lived for. It may sound an idealistic reason to go for change but people act on such...irrationalities.

Egypt's response to the protests shows just how good Egyptians had it compared to some of their neighbors. I figured Libya wouldn't brook insubordination as easily as Egypt did. Bahrain is the one that surprised me, i figured they were more progressive than this

Libya... no

Baharain... possibly

Yemen... maybe.

The problem with Libya is that it JUST recently entered the international community, actually due to the strongarm tactics of the Bush administration along with others factors.  There is no way for the international community to intervene... they are fully willing to use full force and to go back in on themselves.  They'll end up like the protestors in Iran.

Baharain they SHOULD be able to pull it off, and the Prince has been authorized to start talks.  If Obama gets off his ass and starts pressuring them, they should be able to pull it off as they have been tied up with western interests for a while now.  I can only imagine that's why the troops have been ordered off the streets, more behind the scenes work from Obama like in Egypt.

Yemen... despite having little Western ties... was fragile before this started... and there are already some violent opposition groups... but even if they succeed... it probably would only lead to another dictator.

Firstly, I will say (although it's perhaps the only reddeming feature of the his admin.), Bush did try to have a mission to spread democracy set up in the area, it justwasn't done well and never got funding.

As to the second bit I've copied, that is the problem. Revolution tends to swap one form of corruption for another. It's a whole lot of blood and a whole lot of killing for nothing. Hopefully, they'll get somewhere but it looks like the government isn't after a peaceful transition like Egypt - the kind which does get somewhere.

Really though it seems like there isn't a country in the Middle East that hasn't had protests. 

Outside of Qatar anyway. 

Wonder if they would of kept the World Cup bid if there was a revolution.

Edit: Oh, guess there were a few protests there too... though minor.

@Kasz. The international community ended up having almost no influence on Egypt or Tunisia, why should they here?

Bahrain - Yes. Because of the brutal but unsuccesful crackdown the protestors are super pissed off and have the momentum, the monarchy is likely to be toppled or made ceremonial.

Libya - Maybe. If the protests spread in a big way to Tripoli then the answer becomes yes. Currently as the protests aren't in the capital it's unlikely that they can topple Gadaffi.

Yemen - Maybe. It's a wait and see for how big this is going to get.

Jordan - Had the perfect response to the unrest. Also they weren't treating people so bad as the others and so the protestors weren't nearly as pissed.

There are a few things every revolution relies on. One is the other revolutions, the more dictators that fall the less chance the other ones have. Hosni was a big blow for all of the others. Another thing is the army, while the senior officers in each army are well entrenched in the regime all it takes is for the junior officers to say 'Sod this, we're not shooting civilians' and the protestors win.

It's why I think, despite the opposite of what it seems... that working with dictators is the best way to overthrow them.

The Egyptian Military wanted a peaceful transition because they saw themselves more as the protector of Egypt then working for their "President".

Unlike the rest of the armed forces in Egypt... why did they have this difference in opinion?   Well look who trained them.  With the right mindset and enough outside support you know a democracy will follow.

That's untrue.  Egypt was VERY MUCH influenced by the international community.  The Egytpian Military was apparently in constant contact with the USA on a back channel, removal of the police and in general his stepping down was helped negotiated by a lot of backdoor behind the scenes dealing by Obama... apparently Obama also demanded the government to be handed over to the military in private before he stated it should happen in public... and before the Military was even know to be an option and before the military publically announced it wouldn't fire on it's own.

Without these things Mubarack would still be in power.  Egypts military moved embolded by US support.  It's all stuff that might be missed in the casual reading the occasional article following of it... but if you really get in and look at this stuff you'd be surprised just how much the US had to do with Egypt.

LMAO I love how you managed to mis-spell 2/3 of the countries. Libya and Yemen.