1. What is the difference between an insurgent and a terrorist in Iraq?
Well if we just go by word usage an insurgent is just a person or group using guerilla warfare tactics. A terrorist is one who committs attacks upon, usually, civilian targets using such tactics as suicide bombing, car bombs etc.
Legal: Probably the need to depose a dictator/freeing the people is the best reasoning. Ending Saddam's mass murder as well and making him pay for prior crimes as well.
Illegal: Probably the lack of any viable threat, that it was a "first strike" and that no weapons of mass destruction have been found.
Probably not. No significant amounts of American troops have been removed from Afghanistan to effect operations against Taliban targets in Southern Afghanistan. That coupled with a continued multi-national precence means that any repercussions from Iraq probably have little effect upon the Taliban.
I don't believe Kansas was all that dangerous to begin with. If by safer, since you really didn't give a description of what you meant by safer, you mean crime statistics I think they are probably the same as the last few years. As for terrorism Kansans have never really had anything to fear as, unless the terrorists decided to attack the Bombardier aircraft plant in Topeka, there are no major terrorist targets in Kansas. That's probably the best answer I can give to a stupid and awfully devised loaded question.
Huh? Well before the invasions the troops were preparing to invade those areas or working in other areas of the world. So now that they are in the countries their job has gone from one of preparing and carrying out to one of gradually ending their mission. As for the only coherent question in number five, the one about the current mission, I believe both missions are to continue to facilitate the reconstruction of those two nations and to stabilize the internal political situations in each.
