Terrorism is using terror to influence political change. It doesn't matter whether its done by assassinating government officials, killing civilians, or destroying property. The fact is that doing any of those things, a person is trying to bypass legitimate political institutions to force his way on the opposition by striking fear in the opposition's heart.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

Definitions of terror on the Web:

panic: an overwhelming feeling of fear and anxiety
a person who inspires fear or dread; "he was the terror of the neighborhood"
a very troublesome child
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Is anyone, "Terrorized" or pissed off? Maybe they should be redefined as 'Assholists'. Its been proven time and time again that you cannot effect political change by murder, and in fact backfires really badly.

Hundreds of years ago terrorism would have worked, the best way to be king is to kill another king. But these days it doesn't work in Western Countries.

If they seek WMD's, then they enter the realm of mutually assured destruction (MAD). A really lobsided version of MAD. Still, no political change.

I agree with you there.
But the terrorists haven't figured it out yet.
They take small victories as major ones. They believe they win if they destroy the enemy... regardless of what becomes of them and their brothers and their children.
But they do succeed in destabilizing regions and creating conflict. And unfortunately terrorists take that as a sign of victory... and the scared people flock to their side for protection from the conflicts those very terrorists started.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

So you are now trying to make the claim that Germany's peace is only temporary as well? heh heh

Are you for real?

Well I just gave you several groups that do that who are not Muslim. I can provide more. Before the current Islamofacist fad, animal rights and commie groups were the professional terrorists.

Your original statement was wrong. Period. Sorry.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page

Because everytime anyone says that the US troops need to be removed and the Iraqi's put in charge, the Karl Rove and the republicans in general start whining about "cut and run". Show me one place where a member of this administration has made anything close to this kind of statement, that the Iraqi forces would be in charge of the country by years end. So why would Bush be peeved, because this is not the "stay the course" policy that he expouses.


Well then, why don't we. You are kidding me if you think we are there as a support role now.

More Choas? Come one, they kill and the US forces are doing next to nothing to stop it. The deaths are continueing unabated and our presence is NOT stopping the insurgancy, or even making much of a dent in it. We can't. That would require the population to turn against the insurgancy. Which will not happen while we are there. And you do realize that we are already "securing" towns and then leaving and then "securing" them again. If our troops do what is proposed and start to withdrawl, and the country falls into civil war. We will then support the exisiting democratic government, and if that is not enough, we can re-engage militarly. Withdrawl DOES NOT mean the country will become a fundamentalist taliban regime. Stay DOES mean that the country will not stabilize itself.

Like I said, let's see. And if they then need more help, we can return with more help.

http://hnn.us/articles/27768.html

Because we can leave and Iraq will stabilize.

Or we can stay, kill many many more Americans and accomplish the same thing.

You seem to be missing how our political system works. The Pubs aren't just calling opposition "cut n' runners" because they don't want to leave the Iraqis in charge. They do it strictly to put the "spineless" label on the Crats while they work on their own plan to leave.
I don't feel that sorry for the Crats because that same tactic is why a lot of them accuse the Pubs of not wanting to leave Iraqis in charge.

Face it. Our parties suck.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

That didnt answer my question.

Saying that we do not want to cut and run does not = "We dont want the Iraqi government to control Iraq". I am not sure where you got that idea.

The fact that Bush does not want to cut and run means that he doesnt want the Iraqi government to make it's own decisions...is that your argument?

They are not guilty by default. You are making the claim. You have to provide the evidence to support it.

So far I have seen zero indications that the Bush administration has even considered overruling the Iraqi government on any decision.

Short answer: He wouldnt, as far as we know. It is an assumption you are making, and then projecting as if it is undisputed fact.

Because they have asked us to stay until they are ready.

Did I stutter?

I do not agree that we are doing next to nothing to stop it. More projection on your part.

Really? Why hasnt the insurgency destroyed the government then?

The Iraqi's elected leaders seem to think we are doing something. otherwise, why else do they want us to stay?

We wont be there forever. Why are you so eager for us to pull out prematurely? One would almost think you want the Iraqis to fail.

Why not wait until the Iraqi forces are strong enough to handle it on their own?

Which I think is what a lot of people on the left would like to see happen. Not naming any names. You all know who you are.

I agree. But premature withdrawl will increase the chances of failure and prolong the transition period...resulting in more deaths and a longer recovery period in the end.

I think our way is more efficient than your way. And the elected Iraqi government apparently agrees with us.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page