> He also wrote countless essays justifying the war. Yes, that's part of him supporting it. He was a DC correspondent, who else would he meet with but the cur

> He also wrote countless essays justifying the war. Yes, that's part of him supporting it. He was a DC correspondent, who else would he meet with but the current administration? > What is your definition of combative to the whole region? Hussein invaded Iran, Kurdistan, and Kuwait, three neighbors. Was probably active elsewhere westward. Saudis were certainly scared. > Are you including Iran, Russia, or China ... global war? Russia probably fits that right now. I think you know the answer but seem to be unsure for some reason, but no—no one is invading a gigantic country with a huge army and nukes. No one influential is even contemplating expanding the war with Russia that I know of. So, let's keep this to the realm of possibility and not start imagining new world wars we could get into, please. > was nearly common sense that the war was a bad decision. This is the kind of lazy, comfortable "2000-era liberal opinion", for lack of a better term, I was writing about earlier and was Hitchens' main point. You've forgotten how unfathomable Hussein was; tried to minimize it. Erased his genocide and chemical warfare from your mind. But if you're truly a liberal you should be willing to fight against these things, really f'ing hard. Again, imagine its 1942. The holocaust is off to a fine start. You say, "well due to geopolitical realities, (nudge, nudge) starting a war would be a bad decision. Just give them Nazis a little lebensraum, that's all they want!" We had a word for that not long ago, it was called "appeasement" and history does not look kindly on those folks. If we had lost WWII, I bet those appeasement folks would be feeling comfortable too.