Leave Iraq immediately, and a while ago if possible.

If you mean by "foreign observers" people to report on the election, then we had those during the election. Reporters from the US are plentiful in Iraq, and many parties kept watch on it. I did answer the question of why many Iraqis chose not to vote (even though the majority did vote, proof that voting was not impossible regardless of conditions). The Sunnis dislike the idea of democracy, therefore they did not vote. Simple. See http://www.census.gov... for evidence that only 64 percent of eligible Americans voted in the 2004 election. That means MILLIONS did not. Campaigning has more to do with misinformation than real information, for example Mike Huckabee advertises an opposition to taxes despite having raised them many times as governor. Besides, simply because Iraqis don't campaignt the same way we do doesn't mean they don't campaign. See all the graffiti on the walls there? That's a political campaign. Probably about as informative as the average US campaign too. By the way, the voter turnout in Iraq's last election was 58%. The voter turnout in France's last election was 59.9%. So whatever your protests, the French did about the same as the Iraqis in that regard. People are not starving widely in Iraq it seems (mainly due to subsidies I'm sure) whatever their joblessness. Besides, unemployed people have MORE reason to go to the polls than those who are employed- they hope to fix the problems that elections supposedly fix in order to get a job. America cannot fix the unemployment rate in Iraq anyway unless all of a sudden attacks stop, in which case our corporations will probably be glad to step in to the fresh new market with jobs. It is incumbent upon Iraqis to make this happen, the US can't, and indeed our presence makes it less likely. I did not say violence was being directly committed by all Iraqis. However, most Iraqis don't seem to be doing anything about it. Nobody snitches when someone plants an IED for example, despite the fact that this has to occur in pretty plain view. If you passively accept your neighbors' violent actions and do not attempt to stop them, you have no business asking someone else to. Up till now you never said anything about America fighting for "freedom." You said they fought for democracy. There is a difference. So no, I was not making your point. And they fought in Kuwait to preserve, not Kuwait's freedom alone, but America's freedom- because America had roughly free trade with Kuwait and wished to preserve it. America's freedom, not Kuwait's, was the motive. Kuwait's was a side effect. I don't know where you are getting this data on a "peaceful Afghanistan." The news doesn't support it, Wikipedia doesn't support it, human rights groups would laugh at the idea. Al Qaeda might be less powerful in Afghanistan, but they are gaining ground in other places (and by the way several new tapes of Osama's existence have been released to news agencies since the invasion, and CIA itelligence leaks report a sheik granting his request for permission to kill up to 3 million Americans in a nuclear attack at any time.) I thought I made clear why the military should leave- our presence cannot secure Iraq, and we have no business doing so when that aids our enemies. Leave the problem on Iran's doorstep, and they'll be too busy with that to pose a threat to us.