It wouldn't be the first time [1][2][3]
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_intervention_in_Libya...
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Ven...
It wouldn't be the first time [1][2][3]
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_intervention_in_Libya...
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Ven...
> There is some truth to this insistence. But it is mostly disingenuous. The Constitution was meant to foster a complex form of majority rule, not enable minority rule.
Forming the United States also took a lot of compromise. If nobody was willing to budge on these archaic issues we wouldn't be here today. It doesn't change the vision that all men are created equal and entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
"I don't like where this is going so I'll just arbitrarily disqualify the line of argument even though it's logically valid."
> Situation in Syria or "democratic" Iraq is probably more illustrative
Cynicism is a hinder to progress. Reality is messy, but if we tell people to stop aspiring, things can only get worse. Tunisia after the revolution has had its problems but it's still freer than it was, for example; same for Algeria. Chances are even going from a theocracy to a secular dictatorship on the Egyptian model, for example, would be a significant step forward.
They are often externally helped, but considering the casus "belli" in this case was an extremely natural one (a popular reaction against a brutal abuse of power that resulted in the violent murder of a woman for not properly wearing the mandated veil), it's very doubtful the protests were started by foreign-affiliated/financed parties.