Why was a Indian/French/American/South African/Russian-like revolution impossible in Iraq?
A detailed answer to that would involve a lot of time. The short version is that if, during any one of those revolutions, the party in power had massacred tens of thousands of people and buried them in mass graves, the result might have been different.
A reference point: The Boston Massacre killed five people.
For Iraq's methods, start here.
Your question was inane, and more than one person told you why.
Where does any of that make it America's responsibility to set things right?
With a few minor exceptions, there isn't anyone else. And frankly, there hasn't been for over sixty years.
If you want to be isolationist, go for it. Some people have made a reasonable case for it. But then you can't pop up and say we have to "do something" about Darfur, or anywhere else where tyrants are eating their own nations and those around them.
Current Events » in reply to This from the guy who thinks the solution to Iraq is "Do whatever it takes. Stay as long as it takes." Hah!
Questions
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