I understand we are a republic but we are also a democratic society where for the most part the majority rules.... That is what elected officals do in America they try to represent the majority of the values or beliefs of the people who elected them..

Surely you jest. You still appear confused. The majority "rules" only within the boundaries of the constitution. We are not a Parliamentary government, there is no such thing as a loss of confidence and/or calling new elections.

Polls, petitions, protests, etc., are a method to try and get the attention of the politicians. Whether or not they pay attention and make changes is entirely up to them.

The ballot box is the constitutional way we have of changing members of the executive, congressional and (eventually) the political and social philosophy of  the judicial.

The constitution was deliberately written so that the House can respond quickly. It can actually be 100% changed every two years. Since the Senate can change only  1/3 (one third) every two years it is a brake on popular demands that may actually, be wrong.

The judiciary, being appointed for life, is a further brake on change. You might even find this good. I refer you to members who have, time and again, resisted demands for loss of women's rights by many on the Right. And, BTW, causing the Right to demand that the judicial respond to the wants and desires of the "majority."

The Executive is limited to two terms to prevent it from acquiring too much power. This works against both parties. Reagan and Clinton both could have been elected to a third term, although Reagan's age and health probably would have prevented him from running.

The only other method of change is impeachment, which you would probably support.

Americans hate to lose, and if the anti-war Left and Demos are able to force our troops to cut and run, you can expect a backlash from people you think are against "the war" but who are actually only against "how we have fought the war." You should remember that the Senate was won due to several races that were won by the Demos with only the slimmest of margins. I would advise you to remember the joy and forecasts by the Repubs in January of 2005.

Life and politics are uncertain things. Nixon begat Carter who begat Reagan.

Oh. You did. You just can't seem to understand. Evidently you haven't be reading the news.

Let me answer your questions.

First, we the various milita. Suni, Shia, Kurdish.

Then we have the Baath party, who may, or may not, have elements of/in Suni militia.

And then we have the Iranians who may, or not, be part of all Shia milita, or just part of some.

Then we have al-Qaida who may be all by themselves, or scattered aross the Shia.

As Bush pointed out, in the past we haven't been cleaning these folks out because of variouys political pressures. He says that must stop and will not be tolerated. That's what the new troops are for. Based on the complaints detailed here, I would say we are making progress.

Now, since you can't see how we can do it, then you don't think we can win. Okay. I see your point. You believe it is a lost cause, and
don't understand that until you kill enough terrorists to allow the non-terrorists to feel not threatened, then you can't expect their cooperation.

And, of course, as long as the Left and the Demos... they are actually one and the same now days...are demanding that we cut and run, the terrorists will be emboldened and believe that they can win if they just hang on.

Who are these "terrorists" you speak of? How are we going to kill them without killing civilians? How are we going to know them from the civilians?