Flaggie, Not necessarily. In fact, Iraq has its roots in the WWII. An Arab minority Sunni government had been placed in power by the occupying British after Ottoman rule was ended in WWI. (After a particualrly nasty, vicious campaign.)

This government turned to the Axis powers for support when the Zionist Balfour Declaration was pronounced. The British went in again, and had to suppress the Iraquis to preserve their flanks to India, and oil for the war.

After the war, in the '50's, the Baathists came to power, very Fascist in their Socialistic outlook, and continued to suppress, violently, minority Kurds, Turkomen, and majority Shias.

Saddam, a Baathist, overthrew the Baathist leader in the '70's, and promptly declared war on Iran to solidify his power base. The rest is recent history. (A short, incomplete, general history synopsis.)

As to WWII comparisons, any miltary historian worth his salt knows the basics of guerilla war, and how to fight it. Certain rules of conflict never change, from the Greeks to the Romans to modern times. It's not apples and oranges; it's Mcintosh vs. Granny Smith, in the guerilla/terrorist aspect.

The Iraqi terrorist networks are displaced Baathists with nothing to lose, and everything to gain, in their mind. They're time has come, and gone; they're dead; they just don't have sense enough to lie down. They'll never have power over the Shias and Kurds again. The best they can hope for is a divided Iraq, with a small enclave for them. Period.

Don't get me started on Military History; I can rip a new excretory orifice on ANYONE on this board, BAR NONE, and take a backseat to no one on my knowledge in this area! Test me at your own peril.

With this, I'm off to bed. Gonna try to vote, again, tommorrow. Why not? Everybody else seems to be doing it! Gee, hope their are no poll watchers to "intimidate" me! :p