Hundreds of thousands marching sounds like more than a few to me.
I didn't say it was a "few." But relative to Iraq's overall Shiite population and much more there general population, this doesn't in any way prove a majority sentiment. It was 2% of Iraq's population, less than 5% of Iraq's Shiite population. And I'd put money that many of them were shipped in from Iraq.
Shipped in from Iran I meant.
I wouldn't get all worked up over the fact that hundreds of thousands of people were marching. Of course, I wasn't there to count them, and the people who are reporting the numbers don't have the greatest amount of credibility in my opinion. I am doubtful about the accuracy of the estimates, which are nothing more than estimates, probably exaggerated by media bias.
Having said that, I would have to add that there is more to our presence in Iraq than giving the Iraqis a chance at democratic self-government. Iraq under Saddam was a threat to us, and if we hadn't turned him out of power, he very likely would have demonstrated how dangerous he was. We had no choice post-9/11 than to deal with him, and in spite of the loss of American lives, I don't know how we could have done it much better.
Now, we have the country of Iraq to deal with, and I am fairly certain that Iraq is not going to sponsor any huge terrorist attacks on the United States of America. Also, we get the strategic advantage of having bases in a country that is somewhat friendly to us, and probably the first time we have supported a friendly fledgling democracy over a totalitarian regime. Historically, we have always supported the despots and tyrants like Allende, Marcos, the Shah, the Saudi Royals, even Saddam, because they kept stability for our oil companies to operate under. I think this is a new approach in foreign affairs, and I like it.