>>>The difference is those U.S. troops are not engaged in combat and are not being killed on an almost daily basis. That's a pretty significant difference, I'd say.
>>
>>
>>Well of course. We are not at war with Germany and Japan. Lets hope Iraq turns out the same way soon. Then it wouldn't matter whether if we're there or not. But if I was a bet'n man I'd say U.S. will always have troops there to keep it "stable".... just a hunch. That area is just too important, economically, not just for us, but for the whole world.
>
>We may need to look into definition of "stable" (as an adjective, not as the building where cattle is kept). Stability is, IMO, a property of something that isn't prone to falling, crashing or vanishing. "Stable" is pretty much equal to "not changing, at least not much and not fast".
>
>In that sense, situation in Iraq is already stable.


Then I guess you can say that an abused/neglected child is from a stable environment if the abuse was constant.