"progressives" don't want the government to agressively pursue or question terrorists...

Actually, we do. It's the conservatives that don't want that. They want instead to torture innocents and ignore terrorists. There's a huge difference. For one thing, aggressively pursuing and questioning terrorists might be effective. Torturing innocents while minimizing and ignoring Bin Laden and the Taliban is not effective.

Several people in this section have presented the argument that we cannot leave because the consequences would be on our shoulders. I challenge any of them to answer the allegation of the consequences of what we've already sown. At ~600,000 dead and the rate of death still rising, we have not prevented and are not preventing the genocide.

How many deaths must there be before someone realizes that this isn't the best strategy? Let's say a generation has to pass before the situation stabilizes - I think that's a reasonable assessment. But how many Iraqis will be left at that point? Of course the situation will stabilize then.

Or is that the plan?

Others have spoken of Democracy. The Democracy in Iraq is a sham at this point. Between the insurgency and our contempt they have very little real power. If we're going to pretend that we want Iraq to be a Democracy, then shouldn't we allow them to tell us to go home? If this is being done for the Iraqi people, shouldn't they have a say? Or are you all so arrogant as to think we know what's best for them better than they do?

They are just participating in the same freedoms that everyone else has in those societies. They are part of those societies and shouldn't feel grateful for the same liberties that everybody else in those societies enjoy.

I'm not Muslim and I certainly don't wear a veil, but I'm still grateful for the liberties of a free society. I think we need to be, since they're under relentless attack from fundamentalists and tyrants here in the U.S..

I don't think it's appropriate to equate what people wear to murder.

Aside from a few extremes like obscenity, it's not okay for a government to tell people what they must or must not wear. One interesting aspect of the veil debate is the vile Catch-22 spin being perpetrated: if you tolerate women wearing the veil, you're supposedly supporting Islamic-based forced wardrobe choice, while if you're against the veil, you're supposedly supporting religious intolerance.

Well, I'm pro-wardrobe-freedom, and that means I'm for allowing women to wear veils and against forcing them to wear veils.

And why shouldn't I be? The religious have little or no tolerance for anyone else!

So, you do not aspire to be any better?

Anyway, if you're against basic human rights in the first place, who cares what you think about the veil?

The assumption that a respect of religion somehow translates into a respect for human rights is disingenuous...

I disagree. I didn't write the U.S. constitution, and I don't think those who did were being disingenuous in doing so.

The religious have done nothing but spread misery and despair for the last several thousand years...

Do you actually believe that? I'll write a detailed response if you ask, but frankly the claim is so absurd on the face of it I'm not sure I should bother.

...but until we do, women, gays and unbelievers will have to learn to live as second class citizens - often at their own peril.

Homophobia, sexism, and intolerance of disbelief are neither restricted to religion, nor universally embraced by the religious.

How do you know that?

Because I know people who display those attributes who are not religious and vice-versa.

What would the world be like today...

Meaningless speculation. Religions are more likely to reflect the morals of their time than to create them. Moral inflexibility is typical of any moral ideology, by nature. A lack of moral ideology is silly - beyond the possibility of social development, really. Of course, better moral ideologies can be and have been made, but once again that's into the realm of morality independent of religion.

...where intellect was free to roam unconstrained by superstition...

Sure, but now you're talking about some futuristic breed of robot, not humanity.

...where there was no such thing as unclean thoughts and sin and impropriety and fear...

That's easy, but the result is violent anarchy - really, uncivilized nature itself.

I know great things have been done in the name of God.

It's good to see you've stepped back from the utter absurdity of your prior posts. You're still over-stating your case to a ridiculous degree, however.

Ethics are outright necessary for civilization to even exist, nevermind flourish. Many if not most people, however, are simply not up to athiestic humanistic ethical thought. Maybe one day that can be overcome through better education. However, this reality (and it is a reality, I'm afraid, I've seen far too many examples to doubt it) casts a long shadow over what religion has and hasn't done, and does and doesn't do to this day.

...no matter how tall your cathedrals nor brilliant your stolen gold.

Heh, you're such a blind extremist you don't even realize you're arguing with someone who's against religion in the first place. I am, however, even more against the sort of ideological tyranny you're supporting. (In fact, that's my biggest objection against religion. I don't see your position as being much better than theirs; in fact, it's remarkably similar: "Must convert everyone who doesn't think the way I do!")