They, like me, honestly thought the war might do some good, and they had good reasons for thinking that way. -- rocket999

This, to put it as kindly as I can, is a terrible mistake. What's more, it's a mistake which you might easily have avoided making. Before the war, there were any number of sources, starting with Homer, which you could have consulted. Given what's happened since, and what these people have said about it themselves, there really is no excuse now to persist in such a mistake, unless you're absolutely determined to.

What a concept. I'm going to bed and think about that.

I'm gonna pray that we don't start any new wars tonight. Maybe the reason Cheney's over in that neighborhood is because he has this terrible urge to see the fireball and mushroom cloud IN PERSON!

... of archival material shows that blank is in fact RealName (aka (~~~~) and doubtless many other things) who has apparently been driven out from underneath his anonymous rock by the recent change in Salon policy. RealName can not use his real name, but he can't hide his style ("be still my heart")

Yes, Hussein really was THAT bad. Maybe worse. Kinda like Stalin in the 1930's.

-- rocket999

Your entire post was a fugging mess but maybe someone else will bother to take the time to take it apart piece by piece. In the meantime, do you know that Stalin was responsible for millons of deaths where as Hussein has been tagged by some arbitrary number of 300,000?

But since I did have some hope that the war would work,

Good news. The war worked out fine and ended five years ago.

Its the occupation and everything that's happened since then that has put paid to whatever might have been accomplished.

I can understand the "liberal hawks" (the focus of GG's post), and I can tell you that they they aren't bad people, or intellectually lazy, or unable to learn from their mistakes (as implied by GG).

The issue isn't what these cheerleaders thought back in 2003. Its whether or not they've actually learned anything from the disaster that they've invoked.

Going by the tone and content of the various 'mea culpas' (which should have been accompanied by public flogging of each of them), they haven't actually changed their views or advocacy. If anything, they sound even more committed to the vague notions of empire and manifest destiny that drove them in the first place.

They, like me, honestly thought the war might do some good, and they had good reasons for thinking that way.

Perhaps. Perhaps they should have considered Murphy's Law is a universal constant as well. One can hope for all manner of things; its whether or not one deals with the reality of events that is at issue.

They, like me, honestly thought the war might do some good, and they had good reasons for thinking that way.

Correction: "[T]hey had reasons". Apparently not very good ones. Perhaps "well-intentioned". But not "good".

I, for one, would be very sceptical of any claim that "[a] war might do some good", even as an abstract proposition. Tends not to work that way. Given the circumstances, that scepticism should have reached a certainty. Amongst other things, pre-emptive invasions of other countries to "help" them is simply a "bad" idea in the first instance, no matter how much you want to "help".

Cheers,

...the liberal hawks like you are not the ones getting all the press, not to mention increases in salary and career status.

Nope. The ones getting all of the recognition are the ones without any inclination for self-reflection.

Even monkeys don't use typewriters anymore. Maybe that's your problem, you need to switch to a computer...

This makes about as much sense as... something typed by a monkey.

That was my impression as well. Good, we have a consensus.

Cheers,

This mutual admiration society where 99% of the readers all say and repeat the same things to one another over and over and over and where one can look at each day's front page for maybe 10 seconds know exactly what every article is going to say and what every letter writer is going to respond.

(detects distinct odor of rancid Cheetohs and stale Red Bull)

(looks around for the three billy goats Gruff)

Just wondering, does your handle describe your resume, your mind or what comes out when you onanize?

I suspect a three-fer..

Yeah, I guess my opinions run contrary to the mainstream here, and that's ok. To those of you posting quality opinions, my comment wasn't aimed at you, there are some gems in here, and I've gotten some good feedback. There's also a lot of chatter about...ummm..high school diplomas and trolls??

Anyway, Castanea, to respond to your point, if Hussein had WMD or links to terrorists, then it would have been a war of self defence. Lacking those things, it could still have been a just war, if the purpose was to remove Saddam Hussein to protect the Iraqi people. Kind of like the NATO intervention in Serbia/Bosnia, or what we failed to do in Rwanda and Darfur. Yes, Hussein really was THAT bad. Maybe worse. Kinda like Stalin in the 1930's.

The WMD's and terrorists just never seemed that important to me, even if they had existed. What is important are human rights and individual freedoms, which were non-existent under Hussein. Sadly, they are likely to be non-existent under the next government too.

Just to be clear, I didn't support this war, and I protested against it. (And yes, Dclaw1, I was conflicted. It's hard to both hate Hussein and hate the war at the same time). Personally I would have preferred quiet assissination or funding the opposition.

But since I did have some hope that the war would work, I can understand the "liberal hawks" (the focus of GG's post), and I can tell you that they they aren't bad people, or intellectually lazy, or unable to learn from their mistakes (as implied by GG). They, like me, honestly thought the war might do some good, and they had good reasons for thinking that way.