From a moral standpoint. We ALL advocate and vote for candidates who will employ strategies that will cause the deaths of thousands. If not Iraq then in Afghanistan or Pakistan or wherever. Terrorists often argue-and I agree-that each American taxpayer is de facto culpable for the actions of our government. Terror can be a righteous act. Few other methods are available to the militarily weak when opposing the mighty. War is no more of a legitimate exercise than terror. Hence is a civil war-a cultural war-fought outside the rules of law immoral? Should the pursuit of justice be bounded by the artificial constraints of democratic action? What if the majority design the benefit of legality to harm an oppressed minority? Many leftists (Iceman, Zhivodka) believe Bill Ayers had a legitimate right to use violence in opposition to the Vietnam War. Is their belief set correct? If not how does one create meaningful change within an unenlightened society? Some would say love it or leave it. Did Lincoln allow the South to just "leave?" Should the rebellious be forced to live as refugees? Is secession not a God given right granted to a sub-set minority?