And cut to the chase. Can this war be won? Well, if the criteria for victory are George W. Bush's--a democratic, secular Iraq, in thrall to the rule of law and at peace with itself and its neighbors--no. And I defy any war supporter to explain any way in which it could be. Can the US establish an acceptable (to Washington) quasi-functioning state in Iraq were, as in parts of Afghanistan, local warlords largely keep the peace, human rights don't exist, women are back in the stone age, but our desert mega-bases are retained? Yes, I think they can, with a few more years of bloodshed, another trillion dollars, and a little luck. Sorry my fellow Lefties, but in that way the war in Iraq can, at a horrible cost, be "won". Is such a "victory" worth the effort? No, I would say not. Better to get out and let the local people work out their own solution. Since thousands will die in the process either way, better that they kill each other rather than the blood be on our hands from this point forward (like MacBeth, even great Neptune's oceans can't wash the blood of the last five years off our hands).

The bigger issue, which most people don't want to face, is: do we have any conceivable right to win this war? After invading a country that never attacked us, and had no ability to do so, does the aggressor deserve to win? Of course not! But this truth must never raise its ugly head. That is why go 'round the mulberry bush discussing, can we win this war, and how can we win this war, rather than declare: "We had no right to start this war. We have no right to continue it. We must end it."

How come when people who have been making six and seven figure salaries for years finally take one too many risks, we are supposed to feel oh so sorry for them, but if some guy or gal who works for a company for years and then gets cut, or company runs to some other country to increase profits, we're all supposed to say "that's life!" as Thomas Friedman and his ilk always do? The Bear Stearns money-men are going to walk away from this with plenty of assets and dough in their pockets, unless they've been profligate enough to spend every dime they made over the last ten years of largely unregulated markets.

As for the debtor's prisons--no, we shouldn't have any, but they are not the problem. If you noticve the details of the Backruptcy Bill Congress passed a few years back, they gave us something else for the benefit of the banks and credit card companies: virtual indentured servitude for those who can no longer fork up 26% interest on their loans. But I guess, unlike the Wall Street speculators, such mistkaes were all their own individual fault, and they deserve whatever punishment they get.

Other than putting words in peoples' mouths and launching ad hominen attacks, I'm still waiting for a substantive answer to some serious questions that were raised here. Are you for or against government bailouts of failing markets? When? If we can all agree that letting the electric company fail is bad, does that then apply to Wall Street speculators? Does it apply to mom and pop stores wiped out by Wall-Mart? Does it apply to workers losing their jobs in the manufacturing sector? How do we judge? How do you judge? Why?

We know who profitted by the repeal of all that banking and securities regulation. Do they have to pay now that they bet wrong? Should I pay for their mistakes via my tax money and via inflation? These are serious questions. You are obviously a bright person, although you lash out when you should be making a serious point. Rather than tell us how stupid and moralistic we are, maybe you should tell us who's going to pay for this mess and where the money is coming from.

I use the term "socialist" the way the folks at the Wall Street Journal and the Rupublican National Committee and the National Review use it: any government intervention in the "free' market they endlessly decry as "socialist." And I stand by what I said. The folks in the Investor Class will be demanding government interventions in the market in the form of non-Friedmanite Fed actions, changes is rules and regulations, and direct bailouts if necessary to save themselves from their own stupid financial products markets. They will demand that the government "do something" about their slumping stock values, in a way that when workers demand the government "do something" about the offshoring of their jobs, these same people mock and deride. Again, they always want to privatize thier gains, and switch the pain of their losses to somebody else, while preaching the need for tightened belts to workers who make a fraction of what they do and Third World countries swiming in poverty, disease, and ignorance.

but you will be hard pressed visiting Wall Street today and finding anyone who's not a Socialist. They are going to collectivley scream for government bailouts, massive infusions of governmental and quasi-governmental (i.e. Fed) money and all kinds of government tinkering with rules and regulations. If you say to them, "we should just let the market deal with fuck-ups like BSC" they'll look at you like you have three heads! As the old Left-Wing saying goes, what all those good Wall Street free marketeers really believe is "privatize profits, socialize losses." Our glorious Fed Chair will oblige them as best he can.