So, has anyone changed their minds about the war now that it's over?

Predictably, no change in my thoughts on this subject.

Personally, I think "pre-emptive strikes" are not all that bad.

Let me quote former ACC Commander General Hawley, if I may:

'Cuz book learnin' makes ya real dumb. This guy should know that anti-intellectualism is a good way to make an argument look even worse.

He seems fixated on the small picture. Even "effective" violence (and I'm not so sure how one judges such a thing) leads to more violence in the long run. Sure, our quick victory over Iraq's ruling regime will stop Saddam Hussein and company from attacking us. But couldn't the consequences of this pre-emptive strike have consequences elsewhere?

Furthermore, who's to say whether there was even the foggiest notion on Iraq's part to attack us at all?

His point is not about "book learning", it's about the liberal attitude that seems to permeate the "Ivy League" crowd.

What kind of school was Bush and his father educated at?

I forget...

Book learning may not make a person dumb, but in many people's views, the educated elite are out of touch with every day reality. A lot of people have trouble identifying with the "ivory towers," as it were, and this statement played to that fact. Also, academia tends towards liberalism, which the good general, and his audience, would tend to have issues with.

As an aside, I would likely believe stupidity was at issue if a person was telling you it is "unenlightened" to take violent action against a man that is doing his best to shoot you. That is the mindset the general brings to the debate. He isn't concerned with global politics or ethnic relations; few soldiers are. What he is concerned with is that guy over there trying to kill him, and the best way to stop him. Usually, that translates to "kill him first."

And for the record, I wrote this before I saw Grifter's "liberal Ivy Tower" post... scary.

I'm just explaining his worldview. I only ascribe to it in part. Neither India or Pakistan are innocent victims here; they have worked together to create a violent situation, one that could bring disaster to the entire region.

Interestingly enough, I just created a <a href="http://chud.com/board/ubbhtml/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=58;t=000123" target="_blank">thread</a> to talk about that. Have at.

Mikah, according to the good General, he mentions that "you usually have to the PRESIDENT of an Iny League University to say that........."

To the best of my limited knowledge neither Bush was president of a college.

Apparently, YOU believe the author is referring to more than just the Presidents of these institutions. Simple logic would dictate that an "Ivy Leage Crowd" include anybody associated with an Ivy League school from alumni to facult to students like The Bushes. Therefore, my point stands.

I guess with the Bushes you have at least two cases that prove his point about stupidity.

Damn Mikah, THAT WAS GOOD!!!!!

I would venture to guess that I could be walking through the subway and find myself in the middle of a "Love in" crowd, yet not "be a part of it".

"Crowd" was perhaps a poor choice of words, as you have pointed out. Perhaps that should have read "a large percentage of people associted with Ivy League, and their usually liberal way of thinking".

I should point out that Hawley didn't say "liberal" or "isolated" or "out of touch." He said "stupid."

And, regardless of the spin you put on it, it's anti-intellectualism. Whether or not a lot of people have trouble "identifying with" the highly educated, I'd think they might hesitate to call them "stupid."

I think it's dangerous when we deride education for the sake of making any argument.

Yeah, I agree with that. I did 3 years of college, then joined the military, then finished when I was out.

Different views before and after. No doubt.

Of all the liberal institutions in this country, are the Ivy League schools part of it?

If you consider the Ivy League liberal, you are too far right. Get some help.

Yeah, I attend an Ivy League school, and it's not liberal.

I'm liberal, and there are lots of demonstrations and such, but generally, it's filled with conservatives who don't care to speak up on matters.

I haven't changed my mind one damned bit. All of Bush's other fiascos have just been practice for the main event that is this war.

I'm totally disgusted with the way this war was about terrorism, then Iraq's arsenal, then freedom. That the media didn't jump up and down about it surprises me, although maybe it shouldn't have. Nice logos, though.

That so many bought into that bullshit line just makes me sad. I really thought propaganda only worked on people in grainy old newsreels. To see otherwise is disappointing.

Not enough people asked questions.

At first I thought Grifter was annoying. Now I think he's retarded.

Damn, usually you have to pay someone tons of money for that medical opinion. Thanks for saving me some cash.

Thats ok Grifter at least he didn't tell you to go kill yourself.

I pretty much echo Nordling's view. Legitimizing the doctrine of pre-emption was and remains a really fucking BAD idea.

But it's tough to be upset about Hussein being deposed, if for no other reason than the fact the Iraqis are now out from under his thumb.

I also LOVE the fact that conservative pundits seem to think the war is "legitimized" because the US won; I mean, come fucking on, there was really approximately ZERO chance of Iraq winning this war.

*SCORCH*

I can assure you, that was only due to a momentary lapse in thought. Kind of like forgetting to use a comma in hastily-contrived sentence. Just a poor execution, losing it in that rush to spit something caustic in the face of whomever's spurring you on.

No, my opinion on this war hasn't changed any more, other than to the extent that it's no longer an opinion of what might be, rather, it is an opinion of what is. And the natural ebb of my views, as they shift with the gravity of new information; my opinion might not change, but then, its structure isn't solid.

Changed my mind? Not in the slightest.

I remain convinced that any "good" to come out of this war will be incredibly exaggerated and overplayed, and that this inevitable "good" accompanying the fall of Saddam was always only a cover for the true motivations behind the drive for war.

Meanwhile, the very real negative costs and impacts of the war will remain downplayed, or completely ignored (for as long as they can be, at least), and covered up by all the "good" things to come from the war, such as the release of the POWs, or the new Playstation 2 that Rupert Murdoch purchased for the little boy whose arms were blown off.

If anything, I find this war, and the media complicity with the movement behind it, more reprehensible than ever.

Oh, yeah. "The Ali Story" has been a HUGE media event for the fucking Murdoch press, the whole rescue of this lucky little media darlin' to a well-stocked, hygienic hospital in Kuwait. Every Murdoch paper has been beating up on it for weeks, trying to turn Ali's "success story" into some sort of symbol for, I dunno, humanitarian democratic Christian values or somethin'.

In truth, Ali provides an ideal propaganda coup for Murdoch--by focusing on this single little victim's sensational story, Murdoch's right-wing press has an excuse for denying coverage to the untold numbers of other Iraqi child casualties whose stories of survival and suffering don't have such a rosy outlook. Meanwhile, I think Murdoch himself, or at least some of his senior staffers, are using Ali as a means to assuage their sublimated guilt over their role in helping push the war agenda through disseminating propaganda.

And yep, they chipped in and picked up a brand spankin' new Playstation 2 for the newly orphaned and armless Ali. I guess they figure, once he gets kitted out with some Robocop-style prosthetics, he'll want to have a shot at playing that new "Shock & Awe" game.