It can't be so difficult: If an action has a positive consequence it doesn't mean necessarily that the action was good. If an action has a negative consequence it doesn't mean necessarily that the action was bad (I'm sure I'm doing injustice to many of you but sometimes I think only McGrath has an understanding of that in his argumentation).

I've been reading this morning for the first time how glad Iraqi sportsmen (especially footballers) are that they are not tortured anymore after a bad performance. That is a result of this war I thoroughly approve of. Should I therefore in retrospect approve of the war? I see not the slightest reason for that.

Those who have been for the war now try to demonstrate the others all positive consequences of it like that the Iraqis are better off without Saddam. That's completely pointless for it was known before the war that this would be one of the positive outcomes. Those who have been against the war are in not the slightest need to revise that position when one expected positive outcome has turned up.

Those who have been against the war now try to point to all possible negative outcomes like the looting of the museums or the killing of civilians. That's pointless too for those who have been for the war have been for it despite knowing that there would be destruction and civilian deaths and injuries (knowing the press, you could also foresee that one particular incident would be given a face like in this case the young boy who lost family and limbs). If that happens it was to be expected and poses no need for a change of opinion.

Sorry, but too many arguments I see in these threads are not arguments meant to warrant a change of position but merely arguments to try to make the opponents feel uncomfortable: "Tell that to the young boy who..." "Don't you agree that getting rid of Saddam..."

I personally only consider arguments worthwhile that could, at least in principle, lead to a change of position like "If I would have know that before, I might have developed a different position." I think a tremendously high number of casualties, much higher than all expectations, could be an argument for someone who was for the war to reconsider. Similarly, the detection that a very grave imminent danger that was not know before the war was prevented could lead to a change of position in someone who was against the war.

I see neither the possible detection of WMDs nor the lack of finding them a convincing reason for a change of opinion. However, finding out for sure that country leaders have lied in full knowledge of the facts about reasons for a war, would be worth reconsidering an opinion about the necessity of war. As by now, that is still hypothetical, but we'll see in the years to come.

Wolfgang