1) I gave a variety of examples of how revolutions happened in the past. They each occurred in very different ways. This proves that a) revolutions are possible, and b) that there are many ways to do them (some do not invlove guns at all).
2) You attempted to show that it was impossible for the poor gunless Iraqis (the ones who can get all the weapons they want now), to successfully rebel.
3) I pointed out that the Iraqis were in a similar relation to their government (including your categorical impossibility of obtaining weapons <sarcasm off>) as the French were.
4) You went back to #2 a few times.
5) Now you want me to plot an Iraqi revolution for you.
Well first off, there are lots of ways to do it. We could use a soft approach like are happening in Cambodia, Viet Nam, and PRC etc., where time, mercantile pressure, and middle class expectations do the work of armies. Or we could do an Afganistan sort of thing where Shia are armed over years by Iran and Kurds are armed over years by US, and then US air power supports the revolution. Or?
Don't the historical examples prove it can be done? Why do you disregard them?
Current Events » in reply to You have yet to explain how you think the Iraqis could have overthrown Saddam
Recap and answer
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