http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...ani/index.html

President Bush must be peeved. The leader of Iraq has balls enough to say that he will lead his own country. And to even have some semblence of a plan, God willing, to have Iraqi troops take the lead.

Iraqi troops NEED to take over for the security of their own country. And US forces NEED to leave before any peace will be acheived. As long as US forces are there, there will be a justification for the insurgancy. If US Forces leave, the insurgants will be no more than enemies of the state.

I still don't think they will turn out to be good buds. Think of France but worse.

And i'm not saying this because I am a rabid-socialist who hates Bush with all my soul can muster, but because Iraq is an Islamic based society.

What comments has Bush made that lead you to believe he is peeved or that he does not want the elected leaders of Iraq to take over security duties?

I agree. They cannot do that immediately. He is right, we are there in a support and educational role...not to do their work for them.

If we leave too early, the insurgency will exploit the opportunity to create more chaos and try to destroy the democracy.

Iraq's elected leaders know this. That is why they have asked us to stay.

Which is irrelevant if the State is unable to defeat them on it's own.

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

So is Turkey.

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

Peace in Turkey is only temporary.

I like the way Democrats give fringe exeptions to explain away the rule.

Rule: All terrorists today are Muslim.

Exception: Timothy McVeigh wasn't muslim. (This exception doesn't invalidate the rule because all terrorists today are Muslim, and Timothy McVeigh is dead.)

What makes you say that? Turkey has been around as a democracy for a very long time. Certainly longer than I have been alive.

Define "fringe exceptions". I am not sure where you got the idea that the word terrorism = muslim terrorists alone.

That statement is wrong. Thuh end. The specific exceptions are irrelevant. The fact is that there are lots of terrorists that are neither Arab nor Muslim.

What evidence leads you to believe that all terrorists today are muslim?

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

That is how you define, "very long time"?

If 9 out of 10 muslim countries are hostile to the United States, and you give 1 example of a country that is not hostile to the United States, that is using a fringe example.

When was the last non-muslim terrorist attack?

Here are a few I found via a casual google search:

Biplobi Communist Party - http://www.ribt.org/nuke/html/modules.php?
op=modload&name=Organizations&file=organization&id =44

Batti-Amparai Liberation Tigers - http://www.ribt.org/nuke/html/modules.php?
op=modload&name=Organizations&file=organization&id =41

The Order - http://www.tkb.org/Group.jsp?groupID=120

US Domestic Terrorism overview - http://www.cfr.org/publication/9236/

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

Yesterday? This morning?

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/news...df3552a0b0.htm

A) A civil war isn't terrorism, its a civil war.

B) From your source: ...Abdelwahid Mohamed al-Nur, the leader of another faction of the SLM/A with a predominantly Fur following, and Khalil Ibrahim, leader of the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), refused to sign the DPA, claiming it was unacceptable as it did not fulfil their key demands...