Still waiting for your 'patriotic' explanation of how our trooops in any way resemble terrorists.

Just so you don't remain confused, I'll further explain the 'terrorist' issue. Iraqis that don't want the U.S. in their country can help stop the violence, go and vote, and formally ask us to leave when they put a stop to their shenanigans. So much for 'freedom fighters'.

The terrorists, regardless of their religion, group affiliation, or motives (also still waiting for your explanation on that), are the ones who kill indiscriminately, who undermine infrastructure growth, who promote fear. Some of them, we now hear are Iranian, or are supplied with Iranian weapons. Their day is coming...

With people like this in charge they would send a pre-teen girls soccor club to Gitmo if they called themselves the All Que Duhs.

Meanwhile Osama continues to enjoy his freedom, courtesy of conservatives in Washington and around the country who think going after him would be too tough on a job for our troops to handle.

Wow you sure are tough on terrorists from the safety of a keyboard. When are you joining "the mission" dude?

So I am misinformed? Was the carnage & choas in post-Saddam Irad Bush's plan all along then?

For once, you make a valid point. It might have been nice if the Bush admin had made some sort of plan for Iraq beyond simply defeating Saddam's armed forces, which was something we obviously were able to do easily.

But that would have required thought, and that is something the Bush crowd is not all that big on.

How's the weather out there Ken?

the policies that you support that have unleashed all the death and destruction in Iraq

Because there was no violence in the ME before we got there. Because the U.N. didn't ask us to get involved a decade ago, to stop Saddam from invading his neighbors. Because Iran has been such a team player in the international community. Because the ME has worked very hard not to support terrorists.

Your condemnation of Iraqis for utilizing violence to achieve their ends

What exactly is 'their ends'. Killing all those who do not support their religion? The elimination of Israel? What? I'm interested to hear about what justifies indiscriminate attacks, or those which specifically target civilians. Once you do that, explain to me how the tactics that we've seen used support 'their ends'.

You cannot excape responsibility for setting off the horrors now taking place in Iraq.

You're right there. We shoud lahve killed Al Sadr and his whoopdi long ago. We should have spent less time being politically correct and sensitive, and agressively rooted out the bad guys.

Your condemnation of Iraqis for utilizing violence to achieve their ends is pure hypocracy when you eagerly embrace violence yourself.

You cannot excape responsibility for setting off the horrors now taking place in Iraq.

The judgement of history will not be kind to you LJD. It is never to late however to do the right thing and to make amends.

I agree with our foreign policy and the actions of an overwhelming majority of our troops. I disagree with some, when in isolated instances they step outside the rule of law. I support prosecuting those 'bad apples' because their actions hurt the majority of the troops doing their job honorably.

I do not agree with 'terrorists', which is the name I use for some one who leaves a bomb on the side of the road to kill whoever comes along, be they women, children, men going to work to provide for their families. I do not agree with 'fighters' who don and abandon their uniform when it suits their purpose, who shoot from hospitals, or who store weapons in mosques.

Yes, I condemn these actions, especially when we have given them a voice, a government structure within which they can voice their 'grievances'. This one fact proves to me that they are not 'freedom fighters' at all. They fight for nothing more than anarchy and chaos.

What is absolutely amazing to me... no, what really disgusts me, is that you cannot tell the difference.

G.A Philips, be sure to share that 'theory' of yours at the next session you have with your shrink.

So Iraq is experiences sectarian conflict right now and I would think it natural that each side thinks of the other side in negative terms.

So who do you define as terrorists? The shites or the sunnis?

But perhaps Ken can shed light on why some one who indiscriminately blows up women and children, hospitals and places of worship, might be referred to as 'another man's freedom fighter'?