Although I guess once again, since my opinions and experiences are only one and not a huge number of opinions represented in some way, everything I think must be disregarded again. Right?
On the face of it, you can make a list of things like:Good:
Removing Saddam from power, providing a framework for democracy, ending hurtful embargosBad:
Entering the war without plans to establish an immediate legal framework and a means to enforce it, disruptions in services and utilities, the moral crisis that the war itself presents, etc.
When you add up the total of the latter - hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, the dead American troops, the monetary cost of the war - for both the US and Iraq - people are going to consider "We did good" with some skepticism. A lot of skepticism. Keep in mind, again, that a lot of the suffering that occurred beforehand was due to U.S. policy.
Veksied, the memo in question was released May 1st of 2005. Troops were deployed to Iraq in Spring of 2003. That said, the memo cant really be evidence of (Im paraphrasing here) "something to prove the Bush administration was up to no good before the war began." since it hadnt been released to the public yet. Since this was the only piece of evidence people gave me, thats the only thing I analyzed. The political responses both from the UK and the US are just weird.
There are two avenues of response, here.
One is the administration's point of view - that in hindsight, we now know that the only evidence they had was gained through a torture confession. We all know how reliable (ie, not at all) torture is.
The second is that there was a mass of public perception that did not feel there was enough evidence to go to war against Iraq. There were mass protests before the War even began - marches larger than any protest the right wing in this country has ever held, period. The left and libertarians were not a large enough segment of the population at the time to stop much of anything, however.
Normally I would be willing to look at other pieces of evidence and analyze them for myself but after years of going back and forth with this I dont think were ever going to come to an agreement on what is or isnt the truth (I tend to disregard a lot of theories because I often cant tell where they originated from or do find out where they came from but find the source less then credible or I find other reason s that suggest evidence is fabricated). Can we simply agree to disagree and drop it from here on out?
When you say things like
Also try to remember that hindsight is 20/20. Its easy for us to say "oh we shouldnt have gone there because there we didnt find any WMDs" because we know thats a fact now. I doubt anyone would have that same opinion if they were in President Bush's shoes and given the same evidence he was.
When you include people like me in 'us', you are bearing false witness - worse than lying - because you are declaring something about me - and others who opposed the war for a great many reasons before it began - that simply is not true.
That is my major objection to what you said. The debate over whether or not that good was done for Iraq is a separate issue, and one that may be up in the air - but conviction alone does not convince people.