tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post3580957381714116978..comments2024-03-25T17:38:55.490-07:00Comments on Dar Kush: What Would YOU Think?Steven Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13630529492355131777noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-65174522678996235832008-07-27T18:44:00.000-07:002008-07-27T18:44:00.000-07:00I do not think that the US should use the spectre ...I do not think that the US should use the spectre of civil war or ethnic cleansing or whatever to justify its presence in Iraq.<BR/><BR/>Those evils were unleashed as a result of the US invasion. The US has absolutely no right to be in Iraq. It's a war crime. This is not just hyperbole. Launching a war of aggression is a violation of just about any moral or legal principle one can cite. People were hanged or imprisoned at Nuremberg for this.<BR/><BR/>Occupying nations always like to posit themselves as essential to keeping the peace. It's rarely the case. <BR/><BR/>The majority of Americans think the war was a bad idea and want a schedule to leave. Similarly, so do the majority of Iraqis. <BR/><BR/>The fact that withdrawal hasn't occurred is testimony to the fact that the War Party is pretty firmly ensconced in both political parties, Democrat and Republican.<BR/><BR/>I don't see this as a conservative/liberal issue. There are plenty of anti-war conservatives and pro-war liberals.Shady_Gradyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00996625985002373392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-16501407300698066032008-07-26T06:39:00.000-07:002008-07-26T06:39:00.000-07:00Afl: Yes, Israel won against the combined forces 3...Afl: Yes, Israel won against the combined forces 35 years ago, the nature of the forces and weaponry has changed just a wee bit since then. In the last battle Israel couldn't even defeat just the forces of Hezzbola.<BR/>During the Cuban missile crisis, we were discussing the situation at dinner my father commented that he was worried. He said the U.S. and Russia would never fight a war. He said the next flashpoint for a major world war would be the Mideast. To me that prediction still looks pretty good.Marty Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465745755940914756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-82443471796272879382008-07-25T14:08:00.000-07:002008-07-25T14:08:00.000-07:00"Afl: Your view of things is simplistic. Here is t..."Afl: Your view of things is simplistic. Here is the scenario to be afraid of if we are perceived as weak. The perception of U.S weakness encourages Middle Eastern armies to start a war with Israel."<BR/><BR/>Let Israel and it's neighbors deal with it. It's not worth the lives of our soldiers or worth our tax dollars.<BR/><BR/>I don't agree that Israel would need nukes, by the way. The US has supplied them with plenty of advanced armaments.<BR/><BR/>And they have won against a combined force of Arab coutnries before.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-68851243229427135272008-07-25T12:58:00.000-07:002008-07-25T12:58:00.000-07:00That must be very psychotically comforting for you...<I>That must be very psychotically comforting for you. It is much easier to think your political enemies are just twirling their evil mustaches than that they may be good smart people who see things differently from you.<BR/><BR/>It is a bit childish though. </I><BR/><BR/>Shrug. The people who got us into Iraq are either not good, or not smart. If that's a psychotically comforting childish analysis, I'll stand by it.<BR/><BR/><I>From the American perspective, it's a small scale war, in relative terms about as costly as in lives as treasure as the Filipino insurrection. Which is why it's less important to most Americans than the price of gas.</I><BR/><BR/>I'll stand by "epic disaster," too. The fact that it's only killed or maimed 40K American troops may make it cheap and small scale by some standards, but the total weight of this war is epic. It's destroyed American standing in the world, destabilized oil markets and directly led to the remarkable cost of gas, cost us a trillion+ dollars, robbed thousands of Americans of their fathers, mothers, sons, daughters; and killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.<BR/><BR/><I>Figures like General Petraeus are against a quick pull out, for instance, and he has a very high reputation among the American public. The military is the most respected institution in America, and they would be against a quick pull out. So in 2012 it won't be "George Bush was against President Obama pull-out that led to disaster," it would be "The Military said it was a bad idea, but Obama overruled them and it led to disaster!" </I><BR/><BR/>Yes, no doubt conservatives will run that line. But possibly some of the rest of us will point out that it was conservatives who got us into this disastrous war in the first place, and then lacked the courage to admit their error and bring the troops home.<BR/><BR/><I>Also, it's more emotionally satisfying for many people to beleive that their side could have won if only they had tried a little harder.</I><BR/><BR/>True at the level of more emotionally satisfying, but also true at the level of, it's true. Had the United States' survival been at risk in either Viet Nam or Iraq, we'd have won both wars. Both wars were started for foolish reasons and the American public never supported them the way they'd have supported a war where the United States had a meaningful interest in victory.<BR/><BR/><I>Curses! You biting insight and totally impressive analysis has figured us out! Excuse me while I go pet a white cat and meet with a board of shadowy figures to discuss what shall be done now that our secret is lose, and on the internet of all places.</I><BR/><BR/>Any time.Daniel Keys Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12992599044462413412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-20170899371098238732008-07-25T11:58:00.000-07:002008-07-25T11:58:00.000-07:00>I don't believe conservatives really think...>I don't believe conservatives really think Iraq is in the best interests of the United States.<<BR/><BR/>That must be very psychotically comforting for you. It is much easier to think your political enemies are just twirling their evil mustaches than that they may be good smart people who see things differently from you.<BR/><BR/>It is a bit childish though. <BR/><BR/>> Had a Democratic President presided over an epic disaster of this scale<<BR/><BR/>From the American perspective, it's a small scale war, in relative terms about as costly as in lives as treasure as the Filipino insurrection. Which is why it's less important to most Americans than the price of gas.<BR/><BR/>>we can all imagine the conservative howls of outrage<<BR/><BR/>Probable. Politics will always exist and one side will use what it can to beat up the other. I doubt though that the Republicans would be as allied with the anti-war movement as the Dems are. Too many fundamental disagreements and they just wouldn't get along as well on a person to person basis. <BR/><BR/>> I'm not willing to sacrifice American soldiers to prevent someone else's civil war.<<BR/><BR/>It's your right as an American voter to push that view. It's been ignored and overruled for about five years now, and my guess is that it will be continued to be overruled for at least another two. at which point they probably won't be needed to prevent someone else's civil war. <BR/><BR/>> but they've got the anchor of George Bush around their necks.<<BR/><BR/>He'll be gone in six months, and while memory of him will remain, any loss isn't isn't going to come on his watch, so much of the blame will fall on whoever replaces him (if we then lose). <BR/><BR/>Figures like General Petraeus are against a quick pull out, for instance, and he has a very high reputation among the American public. The military is the most respected institution in America, and they would be against a quick pull out. So in 2012 it won't be "George Bush was against President Obama pull-out that led to disaster," it would be "The Military said it was a bad idea, but Obama overruled them and it led to disaster!" <BR/><BR/>Also, it's more emotionally satisfying for many people to beleive that their side could have won if only they had tried a little harder.<BR/><BR/>> And, of course, that's all they ever were looking for; this war always had more to do with domestic politics than with the global interests of the United States.<<BR/><BR/>Curses! You biting insight and totally impressive analysis has figured us out! Excuse me while I go pet a white cat and meet with a board of shadowy figures to discuss what shall be done now that our secret is lose, and on the internet of all places.Mike Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13634414529649908616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-31518255456079518612008-07-25T11:17:00.000-07:002008-07-25T11:17:00.000-07:00Sure. The majority in the South in 1866 wanted Fed...<I>Sure. The majority in the South in 1866 wanted Federal troops to leave. Doesn't mean that was the right thing to do. So yes, it can be "noble" to stay even if the majority want you out. Ditto Germany and Japan in 1946.</I><BR/><BR/>We didn't go into the South, or Germany, or Japan, under the guise of "liberating" its population. (To a minor degree in the case of the slaves, but they weren't the people the North had been fighting.) And no one, with his bare face hanging out, argued that we were there out of any noble obligation to the people we'd conquered; we were there out of our own raw self interest.<BR/><BR/>Which is all good. But when our raw self interest says get out, which it does in Iraq, and the Iraqi people say get out, which they do, I assume that the argument of noblesse oblige is really just an excuse to do something that's in the perceived best interests of the person arguing.<BR/><BR/>I don't believe conservatives really think Iraq is in the best interests of the United States. Had a Democratic President presided over an epic disaster of this scale, we can all imagine the conservative howls of outrage. Or at least, I can.<BR/><BR/><I>The question in Iraq then becomes one of if you think our leaving will lead to a civil war and ethnic cleansing. In 2006 I think the answer was an obvious yes. In 2010 there is a good chance that the answer will be no, in which case we can leave. But I don't know that for sure, which is one reason why I am against setting a timetable.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm not willing to sacrifice American soldiers to prevent someone else's civil war. Nor would conservatives be, if it weren't a conservative President blundering us into this mess.<BR/><BR/><I>Currently, the democrats are also aliening themselves with the anti-war crowd. If the US wins in Iraq they will get no credit, and if the US loses they will get the blame.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, conservatives will do their screaming best to make the argument, but they've got the anchor of George Bush around their necks. All they're really looking for out of the Iraq war: not what's best for the U.S., but what's best for conservatives. And, of course, that's all they ever were looking for; this war always had more to do with domestic politics than with the global interests of the United States.Daniel Keys Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12992599044462413412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-85361737421764137222008-07-25T10:25:00.000-07:002008-07-25T10:25:00.000-07:00> 1) Slavery in Rome was much different from sl...> 1) Slavery in Rome was much different from slavery in the United States. There was far greater respect for the "inwardness" of, say, Greek captives,<<BR/><BR/>People often focus on the small minority of slaves in Rome who could go on to achieve something. They were there, but they were dwarfed by the vast number of slaves who were worked and starved to death. Studies of Roman slave bones show malnutrition and starvation to be chronic states of their existence. This was not the case with slaves in the American south. <BR/><BR/>Slaves in ancient Rome were more numerous and easily obtainable than African slaves in America, hence they were not valued as much and would be used and disposed of much more easily than African slaves in America. Ceasar may have enslaved more people in his Gual campaign than were shipped to the US and proto-US in the entire Atlantic slave trade, for instance, and supply and demand works on people too.Mike Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13634414529649908616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-36849759374514521062008-07-25T10:11:00.000-07:002008-07-25T10:11:00.000-07:00>Can you have that when the being you're be...>Can you have that when the being you're being nobbly to want you to get out?<<BR/><BR/>Sure. The majority in the South in 1866 wanted Federal troops to leave. Doesn't mean that was the right thing to do. So yes, it can be "noble" to stay even if the majority want you out. Ditto Germany and Japan in 1946. <BR/><BR/>The question in Iraq then becomes one of if you think our leaving will lead to a civil war and ethnic cleansing. In 2006 I think the answer was an obvious yes. In 2010 there is a good chance that the answer will be no, in which case we can leave. But I don't know that for sure, which is one reason why I am against setting a timetable.<BR/><BR/>>Fortunately less of a one than in election cycles past.<<BR/><BR/>The nature of politics is that various issues come and go and fluctuate in perceived importance. This is not surprising.<BR/><BR/>>much differenty than they treated a Republican President in the same circumstances.<<BR/><BR/>That is true, but it's not just conservatives but large numbers of moderates as well. <BR/><BR/>Most high ranking Democrats know what allying themselves with the anti-war crowd in Vietnam cost them. Americans came to the conclusion back then that the war was just not worth the cost, but they never thought the communists were anything but evil men, so that loss produced bad feelings. Once there was no chance of further sacrifices in Vietnam, it was easy for many to blame the defeat on the political party that had aligned itself with the anti-war crowd, many members who did regard the communists as the good guys, or at least regarded the US as the bad guys. <BR/><BR/>Currently, the democrats are also aliening themselves with the anti-war crowd. If the US wins in Iraq they will get no credit, and if the US loses they will get the blame.Mike Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13634414529649908616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-65623630825516891552008-07-25T10:01:00.000-07:002008-07-25T10:01:00.000-07:001) Slavery in Rome was much different from slavery...1) Slavery in Rome was much different from slavery in the United States. There was far greater respect for the "inwardness" of, say, Greek captives, while African slaves were pretty much considered sub-human, "natural slaves" who were inferior mental, physically, and morally.<BR/>2) "We should leave when they can defend themselves." According to whom? Their elected officials? The average Iraqi? The average American? God Almighty? It would be perfectly possible to stay there forever, if the evidence procedure isn't spelled out explicitly.Steven Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13630529492355131777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-24549464599756819302008-07-25T08:30:00.000-07:002008-07-25T08:30:00.000-07:00-- "A conservative believes the government is ther...-- <I>"A conservative believes the government is there to ensure things run well not to run my life."</I> -- <BR/><BR/>Oh really? It seems to me that the only difference between liberals and conservatives is that they each want to run different aspects of our lives. And look how well things have been running lately.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-50530120066250557642008-07-25T08:29:00.000-07:002008-07-25T08:29:00.000-07:00Nancy: to me there are two extremes of taxation.1)...Nancy: to me there are two extremes of taxation.<BR/><BR/>1) There are no taxes. People realize the need for certain governmental functions and voluntarily give to the government what they feel is right.<BR/><BR/>2)All income is 100% taxed and each individual receives a stipend from the government depending upon that persons needs as the government sees those needs.<BR/><BR/>Given human nature I don't believe either of these two extremes will work. So liberals and conservatives are just arguing where between these extremes the right answer lies. The problem is that going too far in either direction is almost as bad as the extremes and arch conservatives and arch liberals don't seem to understand the danger posed by going too far in their direction.Marty Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465745755940914756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-91068814786851719142008-07-25T07:13:00.000-07:002008-07-25T07:13:00.000-07:00Marty, I'm a liberal-flavored libertarian, not a l...Marty, I'm a liberal-flavored libertarian, not a liberal.<BR/><BR/>I'm in favor both of gay marriage and the right to choose your own insurance and medical treatment.<BR/><BR/>As for taxes, I find anarchism very tempting. It's a lovely theory, but doesn't seem workable at present. I'm not sure what the reasonable take on taxes is, but the extremely complicated cobbled-together system we've got isn't it.<BR/><BR/>There's a sensible bit from Matt Ruff about one of the costs of the tax system is just the amount of time people (some of them very bright who could be doing something more useful) spend thinking about it.<BR/><BR/>I twitch every time I hear someone say that highly progressive taxes are a good solution for income inequality. Aside from issues of justice, anyone who argues that way seems to think that the government is a benevolent distributor for the money rather than an institution which can use the money destructively. And there's a tremendous power imbalance between people and "their" government, even in a democracy.<BR/><BR/>I was being sloppy, since there's more than one sort of conservative. I do think there are conservatives whose primary concern is about not breaking the system for fear of ending up with something very bad.Nancy Lebovitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07068537632391466902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-26616607037559301382008-07-25T06:41:00.000-07:002008-07-25T06:41:00.000-07:00Afl: Your view of things is simplistic. Here is th...Afl: Your view of things is simplistic. Here is the scenario to be afraid of if we are perceived as weak. The perception of U.S weakness encourages Middle Eastern armies to start a war with Israel. Israel with not enough conventional military strength at this point resorts to using its nuclear weapons and the whole Mideast goes up in a radioactive cloud. While you may not care about the Mideast this would be very bad for the environment and global warming.<BR/><BR/>Nancy: I find your analysis that conservatives care about stability and liberals about freedom interesting. My first reaction was to be very offended. I am a conservative and I certainly care deeply about freedom. Then I thought about it and realized you were talking about a different type and set of freedoms then the freedoms I think of when I here the<BR/>about when I say say the word freedom. You are talking about freedom of gays to marry. I am talking about freedom to choose my own medical plan or freedom from an oppressive tax structure. A conservative believes the government is there to ensure things run well not to run my life. A conservative would say he/she is for freedom from the government.Marty Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465745755940914756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-57866253593364789812008-07-24T21:25:00.000-07:002008-07-24T21:25:00.000-07:00It's a moral thing, more or less. Many people, mys...<I>It's a moral thing, more or less. Many people, myself included, would regard it as morally wrong to abandon the Iraqi people at this point and at the costs we are currently incurring.</I><BR/><BR/>Noblesse oblige? Can you have that when the being you're being nobbly to want you to get out?<BR/><BR/><I> We vote, so we have a say in things.</I><BR/><BR/>Fortunately less of a one than in election cycles past.<BR/><BR/><I>The politicians also know that if they pull and Iraq goes to hell, people like us, and a good % of people who say they want a pull out, will blame them and their party for the next generation.</I><BR/><BR/>The way people blamed Republicans for a generation because Nixon pulled out of Viet Nam?<BR/><BR/>That didn't actually happen, of course ... though I give you full credit for predicting that conservatives will treat a Democratic President who leaves a stupid war behind much, much differenty than they treated a Republican President in the same circumstances. Foolish hobgoblin, and so on. You do seem to know conservatives at least as well as I do. :-)Daniel Keys Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12992599044462413412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-41198274505127993702008-07-24T19:26:00.000-07:002008-07-24T19:26:00.000-07:00If you really want to get a clue to what Iraqis th...If you really want to get a clue to what Iraqis think read a few Iraqi blogs. They are not "filtered through their Prime Minister" or "controlled by the US government". You might say that any Iraqi who writes in English is not an "average Iraqi" and you might have a good point but you can still see that Iraqis are as divided as Americans are. They don't all think alike anymore than we all think alike.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-65953519539414823502008-07-24T17:57:00.000-07:002008-07-24T17:57:00.000-07:00"would our pull out be spun as a sign of weakness ..."would our pull out be spun as a sign of weakness by the middle eastern press?"<BR/><BR/>What if it was?<BR/><BR/>Are Middle Eastern armies suddenly going to sail the oceans and invade the US because we're "weak?"<BR/><BR/>I could care less how they spin it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-45577476941207682312008-07-24T17:39:00.000-07:002008-07-24T17:39:00.000-07:00"Slave-owners are haunted by the fear of slave rev..."Slave-owners are haunted by the fear of slave revolts."<BR/><BR/>As it should be. Any slave-owner who suffers in this way has the power to free himself by finding a way to live and do business that is not a crime against humanity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-71655692596243226192008-07-24T17:12:00.000-07:002008-07-24T17:12:00.000-07:00Simple patriotsfighting for their culture and coun...Simple patriotsfighting for their culture and country didnt ram an airplane into the world trade center. the problem with the question of the day is that like anything else it depends. Are the Muslims Wahabi or members of a more tolerant flavor of islam? would our pull out be spun as a sign of weakness by the middle eastern press? We have been hated for a long time in the middle east (for good reason sometimes) I think that a time table will not change Most muslims view of us,our unforgivable support of the isrealis and our embrace of a funamentally secular world view and culture have made us the "great satan" for a long time. My view:realistically a time table can be viewed as weakness / victory while not having a time table will be spun as evidence of our imperial intent. So damned if we do damned if dont. Mikes got it right i think. LangdonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-64370122119889753842008-07-24T16:50:00.000-07:002008-07-24T16:50:00.000-07:00What would I think? Oh, maybe that America was an ...What would I think? Oh, maybe that America was an imperialist nation led by a lying nitwit who thought behaving like a cowboy gunslinger was the way to run the world? <BR/><BR/>A man stupid enough to say "Bring it on!" to terrorists who would happily see the entire world in flames because of their perversion of religion?<BR/><BR/>That Americans must have the IQs of turnips to go along with such lunacy without screaming bloody murder, high, wide, and repeatedly?<BR/><BR/>Wait. Wait. I'm not Arabic and I already believe that. God only knows what people on the receiving end of this insanity must think. <BR/><BR/>I think that if there is a Hell, most of the current administration will have reserved seats in the 9th Circle waiting for them.Steve Perryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12079658447270792228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-67415166135207853072008-07-24T16:06:00.000-07:002008-07-24T16:06:00.000-07:00There's very few instances in history where one gr...There's very few instances in history where one group has actually welcomed being invaded by another group. Iraqis are no different than anyone else. They want the Americans out. Direct colonialism is not going to be accepted in the 21st century any more than it was in the 20th century.<BR/><BR/>Fortunately for the Americans the Iraqis are weak and quite divided amongst themselves to the point where there's not really a unified national resistance movement yet.<BR/><BR/>The US is making plans for permanent bases and foreign control of Iraqi oil that few truly independent nations would accept.<BR/><BR/>So the longer the US stays the more likely that enemies who truly hate each other will be willing to make (temporary) common cause against the foreigner.<BR/><BR/>The invasion of Iraq drove the opinion of the US down even further than it was. No one can really say what will happen in the future because of this any more than someone could see that the overthrow of Mossadegh would lead to a fundamentalist Iran nursing a grudge twenty-five years later.<BR/><BR/>But the US intelligence and security agencies have reported that the invasion of Iraq has made the threat of terrorism worse.<BR/><BR/>To my mind the only moral thing to do is to leave now and pay reparations.Shady_Gradyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00996625985002373392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-49954378859826249612008-07-24T15:10:00.000-07:002008-07-24T15:10:00.000-07:00It's a moral thing, more or less. Many people, my...It's a moral thing, more or less. Many people, myself included, would regard it as morally wrong to abandon the Iraqi people at this point and at the costs we are currently incurring. We vote, so we have a say in things.<BR/><BR/>The politicians also know that if they pull and Iraq goes to hell, people like us, and a good % of people who say they want a pull out, will blame them and their party for the next generation. This is one reason why despite widespread opposition to the war, funding bills and other measures that are required to keep the war going pass by large measures.Mike Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13634414529649908616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-26773670292083593492008-07-24T15:02:00.000-07:002008-07-24T15:02:00.000-07:00Granting your premises (which I haven't checked), ...Granting your premises (which I haven't checked), I think you're right about Iraq. <BR/><BR/>I've got a couple of more angles on slavery, though.<BR/><BR/>One is that the fear of death goes both ways. Even you believe that your slaves are your inferiors, you know that they're pretty much like humans, if you're rich, they're got you outnumbered, and some of them might be very angry even if you think it's unreasonable. Slave-owners are haunted by the fear of slave revolts. Slaves have much more reason to be frightened of masters and are more traumatized, but the fear of slave revolts isn't nothing.<BR/><BR/>I've heard that another cost of slave-owning is that it makes work unrespectable for free people.<BR/><BR/>I don't know if it's important for this discussion, but there's at least one other take on slavery possible. It's not a sign of deep inferiority. It's just bad luck. If your people get conquered, you get enslaved, but it doesn't say much about you personally. "A Funny Thing Happened to Me on the Way to the Forum" struck me as curiously unmodern because there was no anti-slavery subtext, and I was pleased to find out that it was based on ancient Roman sources. <BR/><BR/>A general point about thinking: I've been noticing a little about different styles. You like the big generalizations. I like making sure the special cases are included. Some people look for contradictions. Some people try to pin down all the corners of the arguments. I suspect these preferences are very strong personality traits-- modifiable with effort if there's a reason it's worthwhile but at this point mostly interesting as a sort of human variation that usually doesn't get noticed.<BR/><BR/>More about human variation: I work on believing that people really mean what they say about their preferences. It's hard for me to believe, but most (many?) people really like beer. They aren't putting me on, no matter how foul it tastes to me.<BR/><BR/>Conservatives are as worried about stability as I am about freedom.<BR/><BR/>I mostly need some elements of fantasy or science fiction to enjoy a novel. There are people who are equally strongly repulsed by sf and fantasy. And so on.<BR/><BR/>It's surprising how hard it is for me to believe people mean what they say when their view of the world is very different from mine.Nancy Lebovitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07068537632391466902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-44582441477199736262008-07-24T14:12:00.000-07:002008-07-24T14:12:00.000-07:00And from that standpoint, we "leave" [omitted] whe...<I>And from that standpoint, we "leave" [omitted] when the Iraqi government is able to protect the populace and the infrastructure on its own.</I><BR/><BR/>How about we leave when it's in our best interests to do so? Where does it say we're responsible for the Iraqi people or the Iraqi government?Daniel Keys Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12992599044462413412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-44193058347972689232008-07-24T14:05:00.000-07:002008-07-24T14:05:00.000-07:00Mike I think you stated the situation extraordinar...Mike I think you stated the situation extraordinarily well. Think of Arabs as divided into two groups like Liberals and Conservatives. Liberals read liberal blogs and newspapers a which confirm their beliefs and say see I was right. And anything said to the contrary by a conservative source is all lies. The Conservatives do the same. So there are Arabs who are either pro-American or at least neutral and there are Arabs who are anti_American. Whether we set a timetable or not the anti-Americans are definitely not going to change their minds and as long as we don't do anything to outrageous anybody who is still pro-American probably won't change their mind either.<BR/>As I have already said though we should get out when they ask simply because its their country.Marty Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465745755940914756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-72742465475795864062008-07-24T13:11:00.000-07:002008-07-24T13:11:00.000-07:004,000 troops, Christian, not 40,000.Here's a linkI...<I>4,000 troops, Christian, not 40,000.<BR/><BR/>Here's a link</I><BR/><BR/>I said NOT the death toll. The number of casualties is close to 40K(30K+ according to CNN). Didn't you see the posters for Alive Day Memories?<BR/><BR/>Those soldiers can not go back into combat.Christian H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16847810167041864292noreply@blogger.com