It seems that right when Saddam went to prison, the insurgency errupted. I read online that Saddam and his relatives are funding the insurgency. If this is true, why don't they just do away (kill) him and his relatives?
2006-11-14 17:08:56 · 7 answers · asked by mozaffari 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
its not as hard to understand as most dems want to make it. lets make it simple. WE ARE NOT FIGHTING IRAQ, WE ARE FIGHTING IN IRAQ. Its the front line of the war. these so called insurgents are from all over they have come to Iraq because that is where the fighting is. They are gonna fight and we have to fight them. It has to be some where and Iraq is were its is taking place now.
you believe everything you read? I got my thoughts straight from a full bird colonel USAF. People right just about anything. I could find something supporting this on paper if I wanted to better yet I will. brb
didnt take 1 min. if its not a problem they why , "Cutting off the supply of foreign fighters is a priority for coalition forces. Vines, commander of multinational ground forces in Iraq,"
2006-11-14 17:36:29 · answer #1 · answered by CaptainObvious 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, if Hussein had a large role in starting the insurgency, he certainly hasn't had a large role in keeping it going. There are so many groups and cells that there is no centralized command. Maybe his relatives are funding the insurgency, I don't know, but if they are, its probably minimal support. And if Saddam was behind the insurgency, why would it be steadily increasing while he's been in prison?
captainob: ummm, no. the military's estimate (november 2005) was that about 20% of insurgents were foreign fighters, a minority. http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1549369,00050001.htm
and there are claims that even that number is inflated, and that the real number is less than 10%.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html
Even if the military's estimate is correct (and there is good reason for them to publicly over-estimate the influence of foreign fighters to make the war seem central to the war on terror) that means that the insurgency is 80% Iraqi. This indicates that, at best, for every one terrorist drawn to iraq to fight americans, 4 more are created from the iraqi population. And this assumes that those drawn to iraq were terrorists before and didn't become terrorists in response to the invasion.
p.s. here is a more recent article about the small numbers of foreign fighters in iraq. http://www.topix.net/content/csm/3088380044130029190412771430020954056651
2006-11-14 18:10:34 · answer #2 · answered by student_of_life 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because to depart correct after shooting Saddam and now not serving to to be certain a steady executive used to be there could had been irresponsible. And that is no one-of-a-kind than what America did in Germany and Japan, so why is the left so up in hands approximately Iraq?
2016-09-01 12:47:40 · answer #3 · answered by greenland 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think Saddam is yesterday's man now. The anti-coalition insurgency seems to have been cancelled in favor of the Sunni vs. Shiite ethnic conflict. Sunni vs. Shiite is story a lot older than Saddam.
2006-11-14 17:21:43 · answer #4 · answered by michinoku2001 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Saddam plan is working so far in Iraq no one is winner after him and no one will
2006-11-14 19:18:36 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Bush is. Bush is supporting the shias(installed a shia-puppet president) because he thinks that they are a moderate people. The sunnis are more educated and tolerant to the western culture and the shias are generally the more extremist(Iran). We hope Bush withdraws his troops immediately to enable us to settle our problems our selves.
2006-11-14 18:01:41 · answer #6 · answered by kalule 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No - the shias hate being occupied as well
2006-11-14 17:15:18 · answer #7 · answered by brainstorm 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋