http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021014;s=hitchens Hitchens, in his final “Minority Report” column, wearily argues for war with Iraq.
Plus: “Moreover, it’s obvious to me that the ‘antiwar’ side would not be convinced even if all the allegations made against Saddam Hussein were proven, and even if the true views of the Iraqi people could be expressed.” I have this problem too: neither the pro- nor anti-war sides make clear the limits to their support. If it is right to wage war against Iraq, how would the circumstances have to change for this to be wrong? (If it were demonstrated that Iraq is not trying to acquire nuclear weapons? What would constitute evidence of this?) Contrariwise, if it is wrong to wage war against Iraq, under what circumstances would it be right?
This applies to any issue: if you cannot imagine a situation in which the opposite action to that which you advocate is warranted, then you lack sufficient imagination to make your argument in the first place. You have an irresponsible argument if you can only bound it on one side. 10:39