Even if they were usable I'm sure we have done much more damage than those could ever do. Not to mention, if these are "WMD"s then the fact that the US is using and shooting off rediculous amounts of Depleted Uranium would constitute Weapons of Mass Destruction.

The bottom line is Iraq is now out of the picture as a sponsor of terrorism and a supporter of terrorism and is now an ally in the war on terrorism. The proof of that fact is all the suicide bombings taking place. If Iraq is not that important, why are the terrorists killing themselves to try to get a hold of it?

All the insurgents have to do is stay alive in Iraq until the United States leaves. If we kill them all, stop foreign insurgents from coming in, create a democratic government capable of defending itself, then we have won. If we don't do that, enough terrorists will remain or keeping coming in to drag out the conflict to long and too messy for the will of the American people. Once this will is broken, the end of the war will be demanded and the U.S. will have lost. Iraq is not out of the picture at all. It's like people forget who was actually behind 9/11. Why isn't al-Qaeda completely destroyed. Bush changed the foreign policy so that al-Qaeda had to be destroyed. You're always arguing about how we're at war and we need all the tools available to defeat the enemy? Who is your enemy? al-Qaeda murdered 3,000 Americans and I'm pretty damn worried about them. I think it's pretty clear that this administration used 9/11 as a vehicle for both the invocation of the preemption doctrine and to create a foreign policy loophole that would allow, specifically, the invasion of Iraq.

We are at war with terrrorists and there is more than one terror organization. We are at war with all of them. Simple.

And it just doesn't cut it.

Works for me. Kill them until they are all dead or decide to act right. There is no excuse for their violence except following some senile muslim cleric's orders.

I know.

Unfortunately it doesn't work for the real world.

That's pretty simplistic (despite you even saying 'simple'). Its kind of hasty too. "Terrorism" is a pretty broad term to be used when saying we have declared war on all terrorism. Not all terrorist organizations despise the United States. In fact, our own governments have sponsered terrorist organizations that worked in our benifit in Central/South America as well as the middle east. We were at war with those who attacked us; which was Al-Qaeda. Iraq had nothing to do with the war on Al-Qaeda. But now that the US government has made asshats out of themselves by invading a country purely on offensive means under the false pretense of WMD's, we have a lot of the radicals in the region targeting us. Under these circumstances, the administration and their policies have inflamed the situation, as well as complicating it further. Our own government (minus Bush and his cronies) admit this; its not debatable; its fact that the Iraq War has significantly increased Al-Qaeda recruiting rates globally.

The idea of a "war on all terrorism" is kind of Orwellian in the sense of "War is Peace". Its an indefinite war. If we were to limit our liberties in the name of this war on terrorism, it would be an indefinite state of emergency. It isn't unbeatable due to any incompetences (although they play their part); it's unwinnable because its neither a war in the traditional sense, nor does it I think meet the definition of war. The more you feed into it, the more it grows. With every invasion of these so-called "terror supporting states", the more terrorists are recruited (and popular insurgencies on top of that). With every raid, with every assassination or government sponsered coup comes more enemies of the United States as a consequence. Its a complicated situation. Peace in terms of this type of conflict may only be brought by understanding. It isn't dramatic and heroic; but if you want to win this supposed "war on terror" you can't do it by these types of reckless military operations.

You're right, the "war" the terrorists fight does not meet the Clauswietzian rules of war. The terrorists as enemies do not meet any sort of definition as an opposing army or force really. People who study terrorism can not agree on the definition of terrorism, nor can they agree on what its "cure" is. Personally, I don't think terrorism could be non-existent in a capitalist, Western dominated world. There has to be the little guy, the lower class. It just doesn't seem possible. At any given time, there is going to be some group of people who, in their minds (which I add pertinently is all that is needed) have been discriminated against and abused. They have no access or ability to create a standing conventional army to meet any opponent, yet their need for political realization drives them to resort to the tactics the CAN use to make a difference. Most or all of these tactics are completely dispicable to Western society (which is why most Americans don't understand terrorism). I just really don't think it is possible. We can do all we can to protect ourselves, our land, and our interests from terrorist attacks but whether terrorism itself can be completely destroyed is another question, to which I think the answer is no. That doesn't mean we can not effectively destroy those people and groups that are most dangerous to the United States, though. But I don't think terrorism will ever be gone.

Yes it does. It works all the time. You kill them until they can't regroup or are so thinned out they have no force. It's worked throughout history.