Originally posted by Gunslinger
Actually you got it backwards. It's not the S h e i t s that are the insurgants (although i'm sure some are) its the sunnis. They are the minority population in Iraq that have been in power all these years. They are no longer in power and are feeling the pain of it. The Shia are the majority population in Iraq next to the Kurds who are everyones black sheep for some reason.
Ironicly it's the Kurds that are the most peacufull (right now) and are less likely to blow crap up. There's cities in kurdish areas of Iraq that American GIs can walk through with out carrying weapons and feel completly safe.
Insurgents defined; "..guerrilla combat against the armed forces of the established regime, or conduct sabotage and harassment in the land in order to undermine the government's position as leader."
If the Saudis are giving $$ to Sunnis, and the Saudis don't like the "agent of Iran" Iraq president.. I imagine that $$ is used to fight against the Iraq .gov. But ok, I get the semantics of it; one mans insurgent is anothers freedom fighter. Here's an article about "Sunni insurgents";
http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr134.html"In effect, U.S. success on the battlefield, while deterring some, had on other occasions only served to perpetuate the insurgency.".. I do wonder how many Sunni attacks against US troops have been funded by Saudi $$.
Look like our troops have few, or no, friends anywhere in the mid east, esp if our so called allies, "friends of the United States", are funneling $$ into Iraq to destabilize the Iraq president we're dying to stabilize... it's an "illegal occupation" to the Saudis anyway, not exactly a sparkling endorsement on the decisions made by the administration from hell.
It sure seems our friends and "enemies" alike don't want us there, didn't want us there before, don't want us there in the future. I bet when W was a kid, he went to parties uninvited, then hung out even after realizing nobody liked him.
