Funny, when a liberal says that about American citizens suffering from hunger when conservatives talk about the glories of living in the Land of the Free, he is brushed off.

[T]hings like protecting the environment, building nice museums, cleaning the air, hugging the trees, saving cultural heritages, caring for the cute wild animals, and pretty much every other liberal hobbyhorse you can think of, are luxuries reserved to nations that are rich enough to afford them.

Protecting the environment and cleaning the air come under the perview of public health. Breathing soot and drinking sewage is generally just as bad as malnutrition, and sometimes worse.

Hugging trees: is this, perhaps, a reference to forest conservation? This "luxury" helps to prevent erosion of topsoil. Try farming dust, rock or sand, and see how much hunger you stave off. Some hobbyhorse.

Building nice museums: well, you've got me there. Iraq was evidently quite wealthy, since it had such a fine one.

Saving the cultural heritage doesn't require wealth. In fact, it's often just the opposite: homespun cloth, native pottery, ornaments made from little rocks that're hanging around, the soup/stew menu made from indigenous foods. You know, folkways. Culture is dirt cheap in the place it comes from. It only becomes expensive when it's displayed in galleries in San Francisco or served as exotic cuisine in Manhattan.

Oh, btw: What do you suppose will happen if the Iraqi people decide that what they really want is to triple the price of the oil they pump with the facilities Americans are now protecting? Will we protect them from those Iraqis too?

Regards--
Mary Anne