I think where Saddam Hussein was concerned, most Americans didn't even have reasons for the war, just a strong belief he was bad, and that they would only rationalize the war from his badness after the fact. If one had the opportunity to give people Socratic grillings about the war and the reasons for it, they'd probably have to concede that the war was pointless, except as a naked grab for power in the region.
One of the goofiest rationalizations came from some liberal hawks prior to the war: it was that since we'd built up to the war, we had to carry it through or else we'd look weak. Duh. Everyone knows what the American military can do, and that we've been a destablizing force more often than not. Exactly what threat was supposed to rise up if we stood down? Beats me; I don't recall anyone ever saying.
Curtiss
>
> Figuring out most Americans' reasoning is like analyzing a Monty Python
> sketch. I believe the thinking goes like this: Saddam wasn't responsible
> for the 9/11 attacks, but the attacks were just the type of thing he would
> have done if he'd had the opportunity. Also, Saddam didn't have weapons of
> mass destruction, but they're just the type of thing he would have developed
> if he'd had the opportunity. So, Saddam was never at any time a threat to
> the US and could not be a threat to the US, but there is every reason to
> believe he did not wish us well -- hence, he had to be wiped off the face of
> the earth. Oh and BTW, any Iraqi civilians killed by the US during this
> process would doubtless have been slaughtered at some point by
> murdering-bastard Saddam, so what the hell.
>
> Carl
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>