Tom replies condesscendingly, you reply ballistically with some major holes in detail I might add like US enforcements of no fly zones. The Kurds and the Shiite both rose up as you predict they should under such circumstances and were crushed. The defeat would have been even more crushing if it weren't for the no fly zones. Repetition of this type of "they would have done it on their own logic" ignoring that they did is one reason why so many people talk about proposing failed policies as new ideas. The other is the "multilateral" approach that Clinton tried for 8 years as Saddam's cooperation deteriorated and bribes accumulated. Those approaches are so ignorant of history it is hard not to be condescending in response.
If you want to propose a multilateral approach include how to deal with French self interest along with those of similar countries and general UN enforcement weakness. Proposing they would eventually have done it on their own is simply ridiculous based on history not "neocon/rigtwinger" ideology or any other leftists jingoism you choose to use.
Saddam stayed in power through ruthless suppression and extravegant rewards for those that stayed loyal. He had a big circle of support. That's how you keep your foot on the throught of the majority.
Current Events » in reply to History
Case In Point
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