Leave Iraq immediately, and a while ago if possible.

A concern that is shown to be false is resolved, including one about WMD's. I already told you what "steps toward democracy" have been taken- an election has been held and the majority rules, as opposed to previously the minority. This does not mean I particularly like it, but it's clearly occurred. If you have a different definition of democracy (your prerogative as a democrat I suppose) it is incumbent upon you to provide it. You can certainly attack a country "and just leave it like that." If you do not possess enough of an issue with your enemy to justify to yourself leaving it in ruins, you have no business in a war. It's that kind of mixed emotions at war that led Woodrow Wilson to facilitate Germany's rebuilding, and led to the rise of Hitler. When your enemy has been disabled, you do not attempt to gain his forgiveness, he attempts to gain yours for the offense you fought him over. I see no law forbidding this. Can you tell me what law forbids the military integrity of treating your enemy as your enemy? What precisely is a "fair" election? The one last held had no one prevented from attending the polls. True, many people chose to boycott the election, but that was their choice. Is it "unfair" to take the consequence of your actions when you have done nothing to correct them? How do you intend to achieve "peace and security" with soldiers? There is only one efficient way for soldiers to do that- The complete liquidation of whoever is disrupting the peace and security. I highly doubt you would support this goal when you realize the massacre necessary to attain it. To say I "have no feeling" because I have no compassion for my enemies is hardly justified. I never said Iraq itself attacked America itself. What I said was Saddam Hussein was a genocidal maniac who attacked Iraqis, we eliminated him and those loyal to him, and then insurgents attacked America (specifically America's soldiers), some because they were loyal to him, some because they misinterpreted our presence due to incompetence and imprecision in execution, some just because they hate anyone not like them. None of which is relevant, because defense of a third party is equivalent to self-defense so long as it is also in self-interest. The relevant facts are, we stepped in to eliminate a genocidal dictator (whether that was our goal or not, it remains the justification), we met resistance, that resistance was unacceptable. And no, it is not my democracy. You are the democrat. I am not an advocate of democracy. If you support equality unconditionally, then the quote "Iraqis are becoming more equal in the amount of terror and poverty they live in" is a satire of your views, if you do not, it is incumbent upon you, again, to define the democracy you support. America is not a "democratic country," it is a republic. Though often it resembles a democracy at times, the fact remains that representation is not exactly proportional to number (i.e Bush for example won in the electoral college at least once without winning the popular vote, not sure the second time.) The constitution is antidemocratic because it requires, not a majority, but carefully constructed version of a supermajority, to amend. It is, in short, a mechanism to establish certain principles as immune as they can be from the fickleness of the populace at large. How would withdrawing cause us to "lose credibility?" I say we lose credibility every time we treat our enemy as something other than our enemy. Besides, most people in the region WANT us to leave for some strange reason, so it won't make much of a difference in the hatred, hell it might even tone it down for a while. I can't see how removing fighting men (whose purpose is to create instability by ending lives and destroying things) is supposed to increase instability). Last I checked nothing's getting solved in Pakistan or Burma, (I'm not familiar with East Timor but that was last an issue a while ago if I remember right). Somehow I've seen a lot more Iraqis wanting to leave than go back home (we simply block immigration). People going out to work proves nothing, they kind of have to no matter how dangerous it is after a certain period of time. How will leaving Iraq prove we failed? Failed at what? We certainly didn't fail at getting rid of Saddam and his party. Simply because we have laws does not make it our duty to enforce them everywhere else, at the price of enslaving our taxpayers to the rest of the world. And lastly, if you think America has successfully restored "democracy" or peace in Afghanistan you're nuts. America has no say at all in what goes on in Afghanistan outside the capital, most affairs are run by feudal-style warlords. Not a great example :D.