News You're cheering because Saddam is 'caught' Why?

[kat]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
The continuing insurgency in the wake of Saddam's capture demonstrates his irrelevance to an inherently democratic guerilla movement.

I'm sorry but you would just have to show me some sort of proof before I would by that this particular movement is "inherently democratic" why couldn't it be theocratic for instance?

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
Obviously you wouldn't join an insurgency if foreign nation occupied US soil? No, I meant within guerilla movements there's usually a democratic structure, as in, they vote on the next primary target, vote for their military commanders etc.

By that logic Josef Stalin was democratic. His vote was just the only one that mattered.

Njorl

 

[selfAdjoint]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
Obviously you wouldn't join an insurgency if foreign nation occupied US soil? No, I meant within guerilla movements there's usually a democratic structure, as in, they vote on the next primary target, vote for their military commanders etc.

An insurgency that works like that is an insurgency that is headed for trouble. Too easy to penetrate. Most successful insurgencies have adopted the cell structure, where the members of the cell only know each other, and only one or two know how to contact the next higher link in the hierarchy. If your theory were correct, successful insurgencies wouldn't be so focussed on the charismatic leader, Fidel, Commandant Zero, etc. The leader BTW, doesn't risk himself on operations.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
No, I meant within guerilla movements there's usually a democratic structure, as in, they vote on the next primary target, vote for their military commanders etc.

You should join the army - you seem to know more about the structure of the insurgency than anyone else does.

Obviously you wouldn't join an insurgency if foreign nation occupied US soil?

False analogy. If I were an Iraqi living in Iraq today, I'd join with the Americans.

 

[amp]

Good answers Phobos...

What I think Adam is looking for is:
No, Saddam was fairly irrevalent. His capture was likely timed to coincide with the comming election. The approval ratings were skidding so ... abracadabra... We got 'im. Approval ratings start climbing. Now there is no proof that that is what occurred but given the way the media is used its likely. Also, it took attention away from, as you mentioned a certain vice-president's business and Haliburtons price gouging. It soothes the masses who notice how difficult the war on terror has become. There is more to it as I'm sure you know Adam.

 

[GENIERE]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius

No, I meant within guerilla movements there's usually a democratic structure, as in, they vote on the next primary target, vote for their military commanders etc.

Ingenious; these terrorist cells. I assume all targets are deemed primary to avoid the CIA knowing which target to protect. In my naïveté, I would have designated them primary, secondary, tertiary…

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius

Obviously you wouldn't join an insurgency if foreign nation occupied US soil.

This befuddles me somewhat. I’m not sure if a large nation such as Russia could fit on US soil. I would just send troops.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
If I were an Iraqi living in Iraq today, I'd join with the Americans.

No, you probably wouldn't...as a self-proclaimed partiot, you would see American troops as invaders, and join a group to fight them.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
No, you probably wouldn't...as a self-proclaimed partiot, you would see American troops as invaders, and join a group to fight them.

I've explained the definition of "patriot" to you too many times to attempt it again. If you haven't gotten it by now, there isn't any way I can teach it to you.