Maybe I should try this .sig on Usenet:

Liberals used to be the ones who argued that sending U.S. troops abroad was a small price to pay to stop genocide; now they argue that genocide is a small price to pay to bring U.S. troops home.

As a liberal, I believe that Iraqis will be better off if Americans leave. I was also against Clinton's bombing of Serbia, but ambivalent about Bush's invasion of Afghanistan. So your .sig, while pithy, seems to fall apart on closer inspection.

As a liberal, I believe that Iraqis will be better off if Americans leave.

Well, when you get older, hopefully you'll become less delusional.

As a liberal, I believe that Iraqis...

You've unwittingly defined the problem with modern liberalism. You're saying you decide the best course of action by starting with your philosophy and then deducing what it tells you to believe about real actions and people. This lends credence to Ann Coulter's assertion that modern liberalism is in essence a religion.

See, practical, empirical people go at it the other way around. They would say: "Because such and such is happening in Iraq, I believe this and not that." Facts and observations lead to belief, not the converse.

As a liberal, I believe that Iraqis will be better off if Americans leave.

100% spot on correct, except you forgot the most important benchmark...when?

Iraqis will be better off without us there, when we're done doing what we're doing and helping them to become a self-governed nation. After we can be assured that they will not knuckle under to opression post US, then we can leave. But to think Iraqis would be better off if we left now is stupid. Somalia all over again.

I'm old enough to remember when the left claimed they should be in power, because they would be better at promoting industrialization and delivering consumer goods to the masses. Now they claim they should be in power because they'd be better at preventing industrialization and consumer goods. Of course, that last part has been demonstrated empirically.

Ashley I happen to know a few who were interned in serbian concentration/death camps. They were refugees who have since become permanent norwegian residents, one of them was a colleague when I worked as an ICT teacher. Would you tell them it was wrong to save them?

I am immensly grateful that the US intervened when the EU shamefully just kept playing their morbid paperpushing games (just like Iraq!). The US got the ball rolling and didn't just save lives but stopped a war that was ripe for expansion. Would it make any sense for the US to wait until it expanded to NATO allies like Greece? It's not like the EU or UN would ever have managed to prevent it.

I'm fairly confident the majority of serbians agree, in retrospect, that the US intervention was a good thing.

Ashley, it's ALWAYS easy to say someone would have been better off without us, until you actually GO THERE and see for yourself.

For instance, in the last 100 years:

The Europeans (excluding Germans) were happy to see us.
Then they were happy to see us again (excluding Nazis).
At the same time, the Filipinos and Chinese were ecstatic to see us.
Then the South Koreans welcomed us.
Even the Vietnamese were eager for us to help them, until we lost our nerve and left them for dead (literally).
The students in Grenada were desperate for us to get there, and the aforementioned Serbians wanted our help.
And don't forget our friends in Kuwait.

In ALL these cases, the folks under the gun wanted us to stay and help secure their situation. In most cases, we're STILL welcome.

But, then I remember: Liberals such as yourself don't want to LEARN from history, they just want to RE-WRITE it. Kind of like:

Dan Rather
Al Gore
The NY Times
CNN

So, you just go on deluding yourself. The rest of us will fight the fight for you, so you can keep on living in your alternate reality.