I'm going to say something that will make RW Heads explode

[ck4829]

The Insurgency in Iraq is basically the same as the Contras in Nicaragua.

[alcibiades_mystery]

1. Hardly

The two are remarkably different, in fact.

Let's hear your points of comparison, in any case.

[ck4829]

2. Hey, wait a second...

I wasn't actually planning for that.

I can only think of one:

Both came about thanks to RW'ers

I just threw it out for fun.

[Alpharetta]

6. That's some tough homework

I agree with the part about RW heads exploding.

Similarities:
terrorists (intentionally targeting civilians)
mercenary
funded by outside nations
anti-democratic

Differences:
contras were better organized (thanks to the CIA)
I'll think of more and add in a bit.

[alcibiades_mystery]

10. The major problem is simple

The contras were an organized group with a coherent chain of command and a distinct set of political goals.

The Iraqi insurgency is made up of many groups, some of which are at odds, with very little in the way of unified political command or goals.

In effect, there is no "Iraqi insurgency." Rather, there are a number of "insurgencies," some of which fit the Contra model while others do not.

Some intentionally target civilians (as did the Contras), while others do not target any civilians at all, or target civilians only for loyalty and recruiting, as have all partisan movements in modern history.

Some are mercenary, I'm sure, although I suspect this number is small. Others are moved through tribal loyalties, or revenge culture, or nationalism, or whatever. There is no unified mercenary culture in the Iraqi insurgencies as there was for the Contras.

Funded by outside nations? If there were distinct evidence of this it would be on the table. There is no evidence that any nation is funding resistance groups in Iraq as a matter of national foreign policy, as were the rogue elements within the US government (in contravention of federal law, mind you) for the Contras. Now, one can assume that the funding is coming from somewhere outside Iraq for some of these groups, but that's about all one can assume (without making an ass of oneself, that is).

Anti-democratic. I suppose this requires a great deal more thought than the others, since it really requires a definition of "democratic" that makes any sense at all for the monumental clusterfuck that is the US invasion and colonial occupation of that sovereign state. Even leaving out such disputes, I'd still say that because there is no ONE "insurgency," it is difficult to apply any predicates to the "insurgency" as a whole.

[mctrotter5]

3. Don't you mean the Sandanistas. They were they nationalist

movement against the US funded dictatorships. The contras were funded by the US to destroy the revolution of the Sandanistas.

[ck4829]

5. Here's the kicker

The RW'ers liked the Contras (AKA Nicaraguan Terrorist/Death Squads)

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

4. Nope.

More typical of any civilian resistance in a time of occupation by a foreign source. The Contras and Sandinistas were indigenous peoples (granted there was external arming and funding of both).

Don't see it.

[ck4829]

7. See this post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3799949&mesg_id=3799972

I'm in the mood to goad RW'ers and nothing else.

[Amonester]

8. The only other one I can think of for now is

basically the same as the Vietcong.

Well, I think it's gonna 'end' more or less (hopefully, less) the same way (out).

Peace.

[applegrove]

9. The Sandinistas were not lead by a bloodthirsty monster. Iraq

was. Big difference. But yes - it seems both wars were initially funded by the Coors. And both wars were about imposing a 'certain type of democracy' on an area. And in both cases it looks like the USA has to give up that idea and let the people themselves decide what type of democracy they can live with ... a novel idea.... also know as DEMOCRACY!