>>...that the French peasants had more advantages than the Kurds and Shiia?
Yes. Big differences. Back then, any sharp object made a good weapon and the French people had them. Sharp farm equipment comes to mind. The peasant’s weapons could match their oppressors.
Iraqis would need guns to fight Saddam. How many had guns?
And you are forgetting the Kurds tried to rise up and were slaughtered by the 10’s of thousands. How are poorly armed people going to fight against chemical WMD? They tried and they died.
And after America left in 1990, the Iraqis on the southern boarder rose up against Saddam(thinking we would back them) and were slaughtered by the thousands.
So it has been tried, and they were slaughtered.
>>You teach history to kids, right?
No. I taught Astronomy, Geology, Earth Science and computer science to kids over 10 years ago. But I do study history on my own time.
You tell me how the Iraqis could have overthrown Saddam. They tried twice that we know of and failed. So you tell me. I’ll promise to keep an open mind. I am listening.
Current Events » in reply to So are you saying...
re: So are you saying...
The whole thread (50 posts)
- Simple question
- re: Simple question
- They have a chance at a better life. Before, the chance was zero.
- Why was a Indian/French/American/South African/Russian-like revolution impossible in Iraq?
- re: Why was a Indian/French/American/South African/Russian-like revolution impossible in Iraq?
- Yes, but we could have taken out Saddam with an air strike
- Something doesn't add up
- Why was a Indian/French/American/South African/Russian-like revolution impossible in Iraq?
- Simple answer
