What intrigues me is that Rorschach condemns Veidt, but praises Truman.
Surely there's a lot of parallel between Truman's use of the bomb and Veidt's plan. Without the shades of gray that are inherent in the differences of both situation, Rorschach seems to be conflicted against his own morality in his attempt to inform the world of the truth.
I noticed that too. I think it could be that he felt much different when it actually happened than when he was looking at it from years later, probably largely with a viewpoint given to him (daddy thought this, so I should think this. Even if I never met him, and he was probably a loser). Or possibly he changed his viewpoint over the several decades between his essay and Veidt's plan happening.
The point of view thing also makes it difficult to debate who was in the less wrong, as the cold war ended without the nukes blowing everyone to hell, (though that might have gone differently with manhattan) but we still didn't get world peace. When it was written, nobody knew if they were going to wake up and find out that DC was gone and a big cloud of radiation had just rolled into town.
So, I was in Barnes and Noble yesterday, and saw a table full of Watchmen stuff. One of the books was musing and philosophy based off of watchmen, but unfortunately I didn't see anything good on the big issue at the end. Closest it came was an essay on whether it was ever all right to lie, and that guy said that we were supposed to think that Veidt's side was the right one, which I disagree with completely. I tend to side more with Rorschach, but I think Moore wanted it to be something that people would argue over, and that there was no definitive right answer.
