Was the Iraq War morally right? No. Did it help shape the Middle East and foster other revolutions, Tunisa, Egypt, Lybia, Syria? Yes!! Morality is not the only reason for doing something.
@rockermanmatt Nope. Gaddafi was a special case. He was the most erratic of the autocrats and the most caring of his people. That's why NATO decided to pick sides in the Libyan Civil war.
@shonpistoll There was no slaughter. Nor was there anything instutitionalized on any large scale. Whereas in Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, 100's of thousands of Kurds & Shia were actually slaughtered in genocide. And a couple years later in 1991 180,000 innocent Iraqi people at a minimum were CRUSHED for revolting and calling for regime change while the United States looked on indifferently like you would have done.
@shonpistoll Also; the Coalition is responsible for 12% of civilian deaths in Iraq. It is the Jihadists and the remaining Baathists who are indiscriminately murdering women and children, other Muslims, etc. Wit suicide tactics, too...and you think he's defending this? Come on. Get real.
@slantyrock North Korea has the 3rd largest army IN THE WORLD. In order to have the kind of victory which is expected from US forces, america needs a 10:1 ratio of troops and considering north Korea has nearly twice the number of soldiers and the US would be an invading army, liberation is a little tricky.
@ajrnagy100 What about rolling into countries like Uganda and Sudan and wiping out the LRA and other groups? They could do that easily. America is afterall the Policeman of the world and the U.N. have proven they don't know there arse from their elbow.
@ajrnagy100 That sounds like something Obama would say.
I'd rather go with, they don't give a shit about human rights, and they have nothing to gain from getting rid of militias/terrorists who are in countries that they cannot profit from.
It was a little do about sixty years ago where the UN with the Americans tried to repel the tyrannous, communist regime of the North from advancing into the democratic South Korea. Over two million people died and that was just trying to get the North get out of the south. Imagine how many would die in an invasion of the North, keep in mind North Korea is today the MOST MILITARISED NATION IN THE ENTIRE WORLD.
@ajrnagy100 Yes, you have a fair point. But I still don't agree with human rights being ignored just because it does not benefit the U.S.A's pocket, and I also don't agree with starting wars built on lies. It sets the precedent for deeper corruption, also Iraq and Afghanistan is a much more unstable place than it was under saddam, and i believe Libya will be too.
Iraq and Afghanistan may be unstable however, stability through oppression and murder can hardly be considered beneficial for a population. As well as this I can't see how you oppose the Libyan people attempting to gain democracy. Just because it may be a little hard does not mean that it is wrong.
@ajrnagy100 the libyan people were just fine. The 10% of his people and invading arabs were not. Trading in Gold Dinars for oil is not something Saudi's or the West wanted. I could go on, but...there's more to Khadaffy than what our media usually reports. I find it strange that every time we invade a country we are "liberating" a country from a brutal despotic dictator, this whole neoconservative foreign policy is strikingly opportunist and by proxy.
@mikejpete It has been the arab spring. Do I really need to remind you that it was the Libyan people not the West which kicked out Gaddafi? His people rose up and took back control. Meanwhile the west ummed and ahhed until it was sure that civilians would have been massacred if they didn't step in.
@ajrnagy100 well we don't know quite enough yet to be perfectly precise. But I'm pretty sure NATO staged false flag village raids in Libya with weapons purchases from Moldova and painted with the Libyan flag. I'm 100% sure the man was about to start an international incident by only trading in gold dinars. A s well the CIA and NATO had a hand in arming the "freedom fighting" Mujahadeen and other minute internal detractors. I'm sure Khadaffi had free healthcare and advanced water irrigation.
@ajrnagy100 also, our moves usually fly in tow with Saudi will. There's more to this story than main stream press is willing to cover. There would have been a third world empire if Khadaffy wasn't eliminated. America's foreign policy once again continues the imperialist extraction of Africa, under our first black president just to strike the irony home. There's much more I could list and link here, but youtube isn't built for this.
and some of the "atrocities" committed by the Libyan government were manufactured in order to get a U.N go-ahead. It reminds me of the Niger documents, only in this instance genocide over paperwork. Fascism creeps in incrementally, it's usually voted in...through sound bites. Just like Anwar Awlaki who while he preached violence against the American state, never has been proven to spearhead or lead any terrorist insurgency planning. The government just says so, no charges. Just thoughtcrime.
@ajrnagy100 Do you believe you have the observable authority to generalize the sentiments of an entire population or say that they are all celebrating?
@mikejpete You have dodged my question, how did the US brainwash a population (granted not the entire population) to walk into the streets knowing that they could die?
@ajrnagy100 furthermore Kermit Roosevelt did a pretty good job starting a skirmish in the 50s...Look, I'm not coming from a moral standpoint of who'se "right and wrong". We had every reasonable reason to back them for our strategic interests. It's just becoming an imperial burnout...about 50% of what the Ron Paul apostles say has a lot of truth. In ancient time empires were more forthcoming about their entitlement to other people's resources...now it's the illusory boogeyman. We can't evolve if
@ajrnagy100 Payment, promise of armament. It's not like I'm saying Khadaffi didn't have a lot of detractors and individuals who rightfully hated his guts. My main point is that it wasn't an altruistic military campaign or an effort to "aid" the libyan people. It was calculated effort to protect our fragile economy and to improve arab relations between the U.S and the middle east. A dictator is a dictator, if even 10% of a population is being oppressed that is more than enough reason for revolt.
@mikejpete Well thank you for that most concise summary which more artfully described your argument and I do agree with much of what you are saying however, it has to be acknowledged that the LIbyan revolt was not the doing of US government or Corporations and I am afraid I still genuinely think that the decision to aid the rebels was almost entirely due to humanitarian purposes. Feel free to show proof contrary to this idea.
@ajrnagy100 but in the long term it merely adds a bandaid to an almost irreparable wound (that being our debt and continued support of Israel). The Republican chickenhawks create problems by spending and then say we can't spend our way out of a recession...their lobbying military contractors get the buck, and our empire becomes even more overspent and bloated. When the Fed is audited heads will roll, these nation building projects are getting tiresome. Great for PR though.
C.H. can go into details of how nasty Saddam was. I can go into details about how equally nasty, psychopathic, genocidal and evil Suharto was. Yet the U.S. supported Suharto and opposed Saddam. On this point Christopher's argument, that the the U.S. shall be the benevolent World Police, falls.
for such an intelligent man (Christopher) it is something that transcends astonishing to hear the sheer stupidy, illogicality and immorality of his argument
@TheNamezor I couldnt agree more with you. CH seems to be so logical in his thinking on almost all subjects, but his war mongering almost apologist attitude to war is disheartening.
I don't doubt the good will of Chris' reasoning for the war in Iraq. It's just a shame his motives are far purer than those of the people who actually orchestrated and executed the invasion.
@mtlson Indeed, and I'm a huge Hitchens fan...but correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he became too much of a Bush apologists, and didn't distinguish himself enough from the 'neo-cons'.
It's a pretty conspicuous matter, that most of the people whom I've ever encountered who show vitriol for Hitchens do so - out of pure disingenuity.
Christopher Hitchens repeatedly criticized the Bush Presidency, as well as all of its components. To take one of these criticisms as an example, he criticized Bush for not having gone into Iraq.
He has repeatedly stated that he is ''Not a Conservative of any-kind'' as well as explicity stating he wasn't a Neo-Con, various times.
I like Christophers work but defending the war is inexcusable, espicially considering the free-fire rules of engagement applied, particularily in Falluj. Estimations of casualties put civilian loss at 90%, compared to 40% for WW2. Saddam was supported by the USA until he stopped obeying them, not when he became a dictator
I admire Hitchens and his stand against religion but regarding Iraq war he falls way short of any tangible logic. He id dead wrong and his argument is easily refuted by the simple fact that Saddam didn't nearly kill as many Iraqis in 30 years as the devastating carnage American and British soldiers left behind in their wake in 4 years.
Beside by now every one knows that Shell got exclusive monopoly over extracting oil from world largest and untaped oil field in Iraq. Happy Queen and Bush.
I always enjoy Christopher's rhetoric, but he's dead wrong on Iraq, and he always has been: it doesn't matter one BIT that Saddam was an evil man. There has to be an eminent threat to us or our allies to launch such a full-scale attack. The evidence was fabricated, and there is none left that supported any connection between 9/11 and Saddam. Hitchens misses the point of the war: we can't invade every country where we don't care for it's ruler, it would ruin us.
@SmogHouseTradingCo It might be because he's a Limey; it may be because he's got cancer. Or it might just be an education. By the way, which Hitchens are you referring to? .
We want to see an independent Kurdistan, comprising parts of Iraq, Turkey and Iran. These people have the right of self determination, like the Bosnians.
@lye54 Why? Look at israel, lot of fucking good that did ? and Bosnia ? countrys in the former Yugoslavia are just as bad as they were before, people need to understand that Ehtnicity does not matter
what's worse - being killed for breaking a harsh, totalitarian law, or for being kurdish, by saddam. or, post-invasion, being killed at random by people fanatcised by american invasion, or by paranoid us soldiers simply for being iraqi, in a few cases. theyre both terrible options.
Perhaps it helps to recall from whom Hussein acquired the poison gas used to "ethnically cleanse" the Kurds. That would be the United States. It seems somewhat paradoxical to argue that we should invade a country because its leader used weapons we sold to him against the wrong people, or in other words, not the people who we wanted to get gassed by Saddam Hussein. Is it more moral to gas one people than another?
Is Hitchens really giving this argument? "We have the right to do this. We have a right to insist on oil". Uh, what? What if there's uranium is Iran, Mr. Hitchens? Do we have the a right to insist on uranaium? Do we have a right to "recuperate" Iran in that case? Pretty scary reasoning there, Htichens.
Do we have a right to topple other cruel regimes? Want to make a list? He's actually making a case for our enemies in this speech...
@l3lip Excuse me? I've seen dozens of videos of him here on YouTube. I even got the debate they made into a movie. You know, the one that's him vs. Douglas Wilson?
People against the war are completely naive (like children who only understand that wars are bad because they kill people) - they are not understanding the true implications of a cowardly cop out like they seem to prefer!
@luarionte Exactly, so we should start preemptive wars and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians based on COOKED intel (which is no longer controversial). Brilliant! But Sadaam was evil!!! Nevermind the US propped him up during his worst atrocities. Never mind we told him we would stay out of his way to Kuwait. But forget that, EVEN IF THE INTEL WAS CORRECT, preemptive war is wrong. War may be necessary but you gotta be on crack to support this one. You, sir, are an unamerican nazi.
@luarionte So I'm unamerican? Because I think the rule of law matters, because I think the constitution is and should be the basis of American policy? Actually, my positions (libertarian) are not fashionable. Taliban scare you? Try reading "The Grand Chessboard" or the PNAC document or just try reading in general. Of course americans didn't start it. The unamerican nazis on the right AND the left n the neocon retards like u did. "don't know what preemptive war means..." *sigh* u r not smart.
@luarionte You know that people read this stuff right? Do you like making an ass out of yourself? I'm a conspiracy theorist? What? Because I like the constitution and civil liberties which are the basis of America? Obama campaigned on getting us out, can you remember that far back? Bush campaigned on non-intervention "no nation-building". I KNOW u can't remember that far back. Your stupidity scares me infinitely more than a few arabs with sticks and stones. Take OFF the asshat!
@luarionte Hmmm, this is a simple matter of arithmetic. So far there are close to a million casualties in Iraq alone. That's more than in Saddam's entire rule. Still want to push that point? I KNOW the world would be better off, not to mention America. Saddam being evil doesn't give us the right to be. But u must be a child or a childlike adult to believe this crap. Any one who did even a day of INDEPENDENT research would find your beliefs infantile. Keep letting the media spoon-feed u.
@luarionte Us vs Them huh? Equal rights for those who deserve them huh? What do you propose on "The Arab Question" then??? You are the dumbest person I've ever debated! Mazel Tov! I had fun slapping u around but I should pick on someone my own size.
@luarionte U R calling ME a moral relativist? Because I say there should be consistent principles esp where war-making is concerned? Fascinating! U call me paranoid while making comments like: with us or against us, us or them, we must wipe out the arabs first! Amazing! You want to fight for civil liberties by discarding them! u want to stop tyranny by being tyranical! u're a fool and it's ur ideology, held by a few morons of all camps that is the threat and which can only be fought with reason
@luarionte U used to think like me? ROFLOL Before u had ur brain amputated? it's the same bs u attribute to the phantom menace ie the arabs. Sorry, Im against genocide. Sorry, we don't have the authority to "secularize" a people! As u can c, it doesn't work and makes the world a dangerous place. Trade, mutual interest, and moral consistency IS the answer. All arabs r evil? U want to wipe them all out? Ur ideas r evil and the real threat. Is the same thing Hitler said about the Jews, psycho.
@luarionte HAHAHAHAHA. Hitchens supported the war but he would spit on your ideology. U R (by definition) the relativist here and its abundantly clear for all to c. Hitler said the same thing about the jews, schmuck! u r saying the only difference is that he was wrong and u r right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH. This is the last one. No more. I feel a little dumber after talking with you. Shooh, go away.
@luarionte sorry, no one believes that dipshit propaganda. Yes, a very few r like that but every single people has a few bad apples. READ HISTORY. I hope u r young, under 18 and maybe u will wake up someday. The middle-east is about geostrategic interests dealing with the major powers, NOT freedom or religion or any of that other bullshit propaganda. 9/11 was 10 years and 14 Trillion dollars ago. Americans don't buy (they're broke) the "They hate us for our freedoms bullshit anymore." GFY
@3nigma08 Iran has powerful friends: Russia and China. North Korea has China. A war with China or Russia would be bad. To say the least. Somalia is just too full of guys with AK-47s and RPGs and innocents and blind alleys and no laws to do anything without sacrificing countless American and/or Somali lives.
We didn't go to Iraq with the *primary* objective of liberating the Iraqis. We went there to unseat a regime thought to possess WMD's.
They turned out not to have any. In any case, Saddam & co. really were a mafia family; just read about his two wicked sons, or about how Saddam took power.
The thug needed to be put out of the picture, and YES - to secure American (and other nation's) interests. That means oil. The region is more secure for us having done so.
@xSolraccarloSx You know, more civilian deaths have occured under this quasi short war than under all of Saddam's reign...Both regimes engaged in torture. Why not just assassinate Saddam as a 'lesson' to iraqis and if another goes into power who is equally f**** up, assassinate him to. Eventually its leaders would have gotten the message.
@danielfochtman That's total bullshit Saddam's regime killed far more civilians than. the war has, and we aren't even counting the Iran Iraq war that he STARTED! That war was unbelievably brutal with over 1 million casualties.
@stuart7034 Yes I was rather puzzled about that myself. Most Americans (everyone else knows its a dead cause by this point) who are in favor of our occupation of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, or wherever it may be are crassly conservative. I.e. they're simply ignorant fucks. Many Americans believe that the so called war is necessary on the premise that there are scary people in towels burning flags. It would take but a fraction of the war budget to feed the entire world. Lefitism is where it's at.
@jacobob321 I'm a liberal and I support the war. What do you think the liberals in Iraq felt about Saddam? I find every word of your nonsensical screed to be both insulting and laughable, never mind the hilarious allegation that the USA is "occupying" Iran. Burning flags? How about starving and torturing and dumping into mass graves, and then installing macabre statues across Baghdad to enshrine state genocide and to force the complicity of working Iraqis? What do you think of that?
@jacobob321 While you are chewing on that bit of reality, why don't you consider the progress made in Iraq: establishment of a multi-ethnic parliament that includes women and secular groups, the vindication of the Kurds and Marsh Arabs, the latter of which endured one of the worst intentional environmental catastrophes in the modern era. The freeing of Iraqi oil for the Iraqi people, who can now use the money to finance domestic reconstruction. How is this not a victory for liberalism?
@jacobob321 Or the repairing of airfields in Iraq and Afghanistan so that Hajj pilgrims can make the journey to Mecca? Or the tremendous assistance that India, a fellow multiethnic secular democracy, gives to Afghanistan? I suppose that Afghanistan was much better off when its ancient landmarks were being demolished by the Taliban and women were being executed in Kabul Stadium? I also suppose the USA is to blame for the suicide-bombing of the Golden Dome of Samarra?
@jacobob321 To paraphrase Hitchens himself, there is supreme Irony in members of the left defending a fascist and totallitarian regime - that of Suddam.
@qqs764 I'm not supporting any form of authoritarianism whatsoever. I merely see that we are not in Iraq, or Afghanistan, to 'free', the people from tyranny. Millions still die from both tyranny and immense famine. There are dozens of militant regimes that we do nothing to dismantle, not that we should with an army in every single situation. The fall of the Soviet Empire showed that an economic war can be just as, if not more effective then 'liberating' a nation with physical conflict; agree?
the atheist is not for war, christopher hitchens is for war, not alle atheist or anti-theists are for the Iraq war. I'm a anti-theist and I don't want the Iraq war.
Atheism is not a dogma nor a ideologie that tells someone how to act, think. Atheism only says about a person that he doesn't believe in got.
again It doesn't say how to thing, how to act. That is al upon yourself to choose.
ok chris, i'm an atheist myself, but YOU don't know what fascism feels like either, and having to scrape up family members body parts is no better than them being forced at gunpoint to worship a terrible tyrant.
@IrelandRave Excuse me, what? Have you even read a word of Christopher's articles reporting from Iraq? No? Not even when he visits Halabja while the massacred victims' skin were still burning?
Word of advice: just because you are atheist doesn't give you a monopoly on truth.
Also, maybe read a word of Hitchens' material from places like Cyprus, Romania, Diyarbakir, Sarajevo, Kurdistan and Darfur before you assume he doesn't know what fascism is like. Okay?
C.H. is fucking phenomenal. Peter must have died inside when Christopher corrected him on the Kipling quote. And yes, he looks especially inebriated in this encounter.
@tiocfaidharla1 your name makes me sad that you agree with chris on the war. im a huge chris hitchens fan, but who the fuck does he think he's kidding, he's said himself that the reason he supported the war was because he sees it as a front for a war against organised religion.
Apparently you and me both live in Ireland, you should know the suffering that caused when the line between religion and politics is blurred.
Imagine the troubles x1000, mix in genocide, xenophobia, homophobia, gynophobia and public stonings..oh also; Imagine the terrorists doing these vile things are doing do in the name of the church and alongside the police.
You don't seem to grasp the horror religion has caused / is causing in the Middle East.
Yes mister Christopher H., but we did stood by and watched as millions of people were killed in Germany, in Soviet Union, in Sudan, and and... further more "we've" gave to that evil Saddam gas and money, as "we" often do with the dictators that accommodate as momentarily!
these 2 are a couple of tory toffs who granted have conquered the english language. but theyre intelect and intelegence could, and should have been put to helping deliver fairness in society. IE a little socialism to up wages for the poorly payed. instead theyre heads are up theyre own back sides, waisted on protecting the rich and powerful, most probably theyre friends. SHAME ON THEM BOTH. come the revolution theyre properties should be trashed
Was the Iraq War morally right? No. Did it help shape the Middle East and foster other revolutions, Tunisa, Egypt, Lybia, Syria? Yes!! Morality is not the only reason for doing something.
JayGatsbyOdysseus 1 month ago
@rockermanmatt Nope. Gaddafi was a special case. He was the most erratic of the autocrats and the most caring of his people. That's why NATO decided to pick sides in the Libyan Civil war.
normalkuriboh 2 months ago
3:23 hitchens does not simply express his opinion he gives birth to it
idealsAREisomorphic 2 months ago 4
hitchens got so tired of hitchslapping everybody he hitchslapped himself
idealsAREisomorphic 2 months ago
I agree with Hitchens' views on gods and religion. But he's wrong on defending the slaughter of 100,000's of innocents.
shonpistoll 3 months ago
@shonpistoll Tell that to Sadamm.
normalkuriboh 3 months ago
@normalkuriboh I can't. He's dead. Which is a good thing.
shonpistoll 3 months ago
@shonpistoll There was no slaughter. Nor was there anything instutitionalized on any large scale. Whereas in Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, 100's of thousands of Kurds & Shia were actually slaughtered in genocide. And a couple years later in 1991 180,000 innocent Iraqi people at a minimum were CRUSHED for revolting and calling for regime change while the United States looked on indifferently like you would have done.
Territomauvais 2 months ago
@shonpistoll Also; the Coalition is responsible for 12% of civilian deaths in Iraq. It is the Jihadists and the remaining Baathists who are indiscriminately murdering women and children, other Muslims, etc. Wit suicide tactics, too...and you think he's defending this? Come on. Get real.
Territomauvais 2 months ago
@theCuno100 I love the way you said "that's just my opinion" as though it makes your bewilderingly racist, ignorant and fucked up argument valid.
Sorry that's total bullshit, but don't be mean because that's just my opinion.
ajrnagy100 5 months ago
@theCuno100 Why can't an ultraliberal support the war? Who told you that they have to be separate?
gandlebot 5 months ago
Ok......so......when is America going to liberate the slave nation that is North Korea?
slantyrock 6 months ago
@slantyrock North Korea has the 3rd largest army IN THE WORLD. In order to have the kind of victory which is expected from US forces, america needs a 10:1 ratio of troops and considering north Korea has nearly twice the number of soldiers and the US would be an invading army, liberation is a little tricky.
ajrnagy100 5 months ago
@ajrnagy100 What about rolling into countries like Uganda and Sudan and wiping out the LRA and other groups? They could do that easily. America is afterall the Policeman of the world and the U.N. have proven they don't know there arse from their elbow.
slantyrock 5 months ago
@slantyrock They are totally different circumstances. Completely incomparable.
ajrnagy100 5 months ago
@ajrnagy100 That sounds like something Obama would say.
I'd rather go with, they don't give a shit about human rights, and they have nothing to gain from getting rid of militias/terrorists who are in countries that they cannot profit from.
slantyrock 5 months ago
@slantyrock It was called the KOREAN WAR.
It was a little do about sixty years ago where the UN with the Americans tried to repel the tyrannous, communist regime of the North from advancing into the democratic South Korea. Over two million people died and that was just trying to get the North get out of the south. Imagine how many would die in an invasion of the North, keep in mind North Korea is today the MOST MILITARISED NATION IN THE ENTIRE WORLD.
ajrnagy100 5 months ago
@ajrnagy100 Yes, you have a fair point. But I still don't agree with human rights being ignored just because it does not benefit the U.S.A's pocket, and I also don't agree with starting wars built on lies. It sets the precedent for deeper corruption, also Iraq and Afghanistan is a much more unstable place than it was under saddam, and i believe Libya will be too.
slantyrock 5 months ago
Iraq and Afghanistan may be unstable however, stability through oppression and murder can hardly be considered beneficial for a population. As well as this I can't see how you oppose the Libyan people attempting to gain democracy. Just because it may be a little hard does not mean that it is wrong.
ajrnagy100 5 months ago
@ajrnagy100 the libyan people were just fine. The 10% of his people and invading arabs were not. Trading in Gold Dinars for oil is not something Saudi's or the West wanted. I could go on, but...there's more to Khadaffy than what our media usually reports. I find it strange that every time we invade a country we are "liberating" a country from a brutal despotic dictator, this whole neoconservative foreign policy is strikingly opportunist and by proxy.
mikejpete 4 months ago
@mikejpete It has been the arab spring. Do I really need to remind you that it was the Libyan people not the West which kicked out Gaddafi? His people rose up and took back control. Meanwhile the west ummed and ahhed until it was sure that civilians would have been massacred if they didn't step in.
ajrnagy100 4 months ago
@ajrnagy100 well we don't know quite enough yet to be perfectly precise. But I'm pretty sure NATO staged false flag village raids in Libya with weapons purchases from Moldova and painted with the Libyan flag. I'm 100% sure the man was about to start an international incident by only trading in gold dinars. A s well the CIA and NATO had a hand in arming the "freedom fighting" Mujahadeen and other minute internal detractors. I'm sure Khadaffi had free healthcare and advanced water irrigation.
mikejpete 4 months ago
@ajrnagy100 also, our moves usually fly in tow with Saudi will. There's more to this story than main stream press is willing to cover. There would have been a third world empire if Khadaffy wasn't eliminated. America's foreign policy once again continues the imperialist extraction of Africa, under our first black president just to strike the irony home. There's much more I could list and link here, but youtube isn't built for this.
mikejpete 4 months ago
and some of the "atrocities" committed by the Libyan government were manufactured in order to get a U.N go-ahead. It reminds me of the Niger documents, only in this instance genocide over paperwork. Fascism creeps in incrementally, it's usually voted in...through sound bites. Just like Anwar Awlaki who while he preached violence against the American state, never has been proven to spearhead or lead any terrorist insurgency planning. The government just says so, no charges. Just thoughtcrime.
mikejpete 4 months ago
@mikejpete Do you really think that the US has the power to brainwash an entire population to walk into the streets knowing that they might die?
ajrnagy100 4 months ago
@ajrnagy100 Do you believe you have the observable authority to generalize the sentiments of an entire population or say that they are all celebrating?
mikejpete 4 months ago
@mikejpete You have dodged my question, how did the US brainwash a population (granted not the entire population) to walk into the streets knowing that they could die?
ajrnagy100 4 months ago
Comment removed
mikejpete 4 months ago
@ajrnagy100 furthermore Kermit Roosevelt did a pretty good job starting a skirmish in the 50s...Look, I'm not coming from a moral standpoint of who'se "right and wrong". We had every reasonable reason to back them for our strategic interests. It's just becoming an imperial burnout...about 50% of what the Ron Paul apostles say has a lot of truth. In ancient time empires were more forthcoming about their entitlement to other people's resources...now it's the illusory boogeyman. We can't evolve if
mikejpete 4 months ago
@ajrnagy100 we don't identify the root causes.
mikejpete 4 months ago
@ajrnagy100 Payment, promise of armament. It's not like I'm saying Khadaffi didn't have a lot of detractors and individuals who rightfully hated his guts. My main point is that it wasn't an altruistic military campaign or an effort to "aid" the libyan people. It was calculated effort to protect our fragile economy and to improve arab relations between the U.S and the middle east. A dictator is a dictator, if even 10% of a population is being oppressed that is more than enough reason for revolt.
mikejpete 4 months ago
@mikejpete Well thank you for that most concise summary which more artfully described your argument and I do agree with much of what you are saying however, it has to be acknowledged that the LIbyan revolt was not the doing of US government or Corporations and I am afraid I still genuinely think that the decision to aid the rebels was almost entirely due to humanitarian purposes. Feel free to show proof contrary to this idea.
ajrnagy100 4 months ago
@ajrnagy100 but in the long term it merely adds a bandaid to an almost irreparable wound (that being our debt and continued support of Israel). The Republican chickenhawks create problems by spending and then say we can't spend our way out of a recession...their lobbying military contractors get the buck, and our empire becomes even more overspent and bloated. When the Fed is audited heads will roll, these nation building projects are getting tiresome. Great for PR though.
mikejpete 4 months ago
C.H. can go into details of how nasty Saddam was. I can go into details about how equally nasty, psychopathic, genocidal and evil Suharto was. Yet the U.S. supported Suharto and opposed Saddam. On this point Christopher's argument, that the the U.S. shall be the benevolent World Police, falls.
caseyspaos 6 months ago
I don't agree with Christopher Hitchens about the Iraq war... that's how I know I'm wrong.
runryrorun 7 months ago 3
@runryrorun Meh...he's not infallible and, unlike some of his ecclesiastical counterparts, would certainly never claim to be.
writersblock26 6 months ago
for such an intelligent man (Christopher) it is something that transcends astonishing to hear the sheer stupidy, illogicality and immorality of his argument
Luke43168 7 months ago
@Luke43168 specifically?
randymullen511 7 months ago
Why doesn't Christopher read the taped Harry Potter books?
ChickenFaeces 8 months ago
@jantiification hahahahaha
Dodo251 8 months ago in playlist Christopher Hitchens vs. Peter Hitchens Debate
@jantiification LMAO!!
angryafghan 8 months ago
Dawkins is more logical than Hitchens if you want a persuasive secular humanist argument...on war, Hitchens fails completely.
LuvLesha 8 months ago
The wrong brother got cancer
angryafghan 9 months ago
@angryafghan You're an asshole
darylemhenry 8 months ago
@darylemhenry I was expecting much worse tbh
angryafghan 8 months ago
@TheNamezor I couldnt agree more with you. CH seems to be so logical in his thinking on almost all subjects, but his war mongering almost apologist attitude to war is disheartening.
maffey100 9 months ago
Let me get this straight, the CIA puts that monster Saddam in power and armes him.
And now they're "liberating" Iraq from him?
In terms of Imperialism, we call this "divide and conquer"...
As for Christopher, I love his work against religion, but this Neocon hypocritic fearmongering side of him is really disgusting...
TheNamezor 9 months ago
I admire Christopher but he really appears hungover, sad to see with what we have learned regarding his current health status.
johneamer 10 months ago
4 dislikes? Just whose side are you on?
SmogHouseTradingCo 10 months ago
I don't doubt the good will of Chris' reasoning for the war in Iraq. It's just a shame his motives are far purer than those of the people who actually orchestrated and executed the invasion.
mtlson 11 months ago 7
@mtlson Was just about to write more or less the same comment. Well put.
Feargface 11 months ago
@mtlson Indeed, and I'm a huge Hitchens fan...but correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he became too much of a Bush apologists, and didn't distinguish himself enough from the 'neo-cons'.
comanchio1976 10 months ago
@comanchio1976
It's a pretty conspicuous matter, that most of the people whom I've ever encountered who show vitriol for Hitchens do so - out of pure disingenuity.
Christopher Hitchens repeatedly criticized the Bush Presidency, as well as all of its components. To take one of these criticisms as an example, he criticized Bush for not having gone into Iraq.
He has repeatedly stated that he is ''Not a Conservative of any-kind'' as well as explicity stating he wasn't a Neo-Con, various times.
BelfastAtheist 9 months ago
I like Christophers work but defending the war is inexcusable, espicially considering the free-fire rules of engagement applied, particularily in Falluj. Estimations of casualties put civilian loss at 90%, compared to 40% for WW2. Saddam was supported by the USA until he stopped obeying them, not when he became a dictator
GBfuryattacks 11 months ago
I admire Hitchens and his stand against religion but regarding Iraq war he falls way short of any tangible logic. He id dead wrong and his argument is easily refuted by the simple fact that Saddam didn't nearly kill as many Iraqis in 30 years as the devastating carnage American and British soldiers left behind in their wake in 4 years.
Beside by now every one knows that Shell got exclusive monopoly over extracting oil from world largest and untaped oil field in Iraq. Happy Queen and Bush.
Aliof 11 months ago 2
I always enjoy Christopher's rhetoric, but he's dead wrong on Iraq, and he always has been: it doesn't matter one BIT that Saddam was an evil man. There has to be an eminent threat to us or our allies to launch such a full-scale attack. The evidence was fabricated, and there is none left that supported any connection between 9/11 and Saddam. Hitchens misses the point of the war: we can't invade every country where we don't care for it's ruler, it would ruin us.
bernlin2000 1 year ago 5
@bernlin2000
"Evil flourishe when good men do nothing"
Jim1905 1 year ago
hitchslapped
A2thedouble 1 year ago
always doomed to failure with chris as a brother.... poor guy
haz020190 1 year ago 43
@haz020190 Christopher!;)
comanchio1976 10 months ago
@comanchio1976 lol im sure hed correct me too =P
haz020190 10 months ago
@haz020190 Haha I know, couldn't help myself. I've watched so many of his vids that it was almost a reflex reaction.
comanchio1976 10 months ago
@haz020190 Christopher.
undisputedgreatest 3 months ago
@haz020190 Christopher - he'd kill you for calling him Chris. :P
MisterAlexGabriel 2 months ago
3:23 WTF is that sound hitchens makes? Sounds like a boats hull is giving way.
SmogHouseTradingCo 1 year ago 39
@SmogHouseTradingCo What?
jen221 11 months ago
@SmogHouseTradingCo I read this before I saw the clip, and I couldnt get the image out of my mind lol.
kardentyrell 10 months ago
@SmogHouseTradingCo It might be because he's a Limey; it may be because he's got cancer. Or it might just be an education. By the way, which Hitchens are you referring to? .
neighbour666 10 months ago
@neighbour666 the one that is speaking during the time I stated? Was just a joke.
SmogHouseTradingCo 10 months ago
@SmogHouseTradingCo I think that's an English noise. That's what I would write if I were a subtitle writer :)
yurismir1 8 months ago
@SmogHouseTradingCo Bloody hell I pissed myself reading your comment had to keep looping 3:23 it lol.
arniemazmax 2 months ago
@SmogHouseTradingCo hee! :P
Sascopa 2 months ago
@SmogHouseTradingCo hahahaha
JustTomm1st 2 weeks ago
@SmogHouseTradingCo bravo
goonlagoon 2 weeks ago
Holy crap, Chris. I would be shaking in my pants if I went up against him. Ruthless.
b1azers2002 1 year ago
'Thought it was going to be easy, didn't you? Bye now.'
Subtitles:
'I'm drunk and prissy and bit pissed off. And I'm still smarter than all of you put together.'
AlexGabrielYT 1 year ago 4
he is drunk but as brilliant as ever. Even when I disagree with him (only in this issue of the Iraq war really), he is brilliant.
amatorynumber 1 year ago
@amatorynumber I agree. Drunk, yet utterly coherent and sharp
DanielMcDrtcomposer 1 year ago
We want to see an independent Kurdistan, comprising parts of Iraq, Turkey and Iran. These people have the right of self determination, like the Bosnians.
lye54 1 year ago 2
@lye54 Why? Look at israel, lot of fucking good that did ? and Bosnia ? countrys in the former Yugoslavia are just as bad as they were before, people need to understand that Ehtnicity does not matter
legaliseme 1 year ago
what's worse - being killed for breaking a harsh, totalitarian law, or for being kurdish, by saddam. or, post-invasion, being killed at random by people fanatcised by american invasion, or by paranoid us soldiers simply for being iraqi, in a few cases. theyre both terrible options.
musicbox2345 1 year ago
Perhaps it helps to recall from whom Hussein acquired the poison gas used to "ethnically cleanse" the Kurds. That would be the United States. It seems somewhat paradoxical to argue that we should invade a country because its leader used weapons we sold to him against the wrong people, or in other words, not the people who we wanted to get gassed by Saddam Hussein. Is it more moral to gas one people than another?
DRok112 1 year ago 2
Is Hitchens really giving this argument? "We have the right to do this. We have a right to insist on oil". Uh, what? What if there's uranium is Iran, Mr. Hitchens? Do we have the a right to insist on uranaium? Do we have a right to "recuperate" Iran in that case? Pretty scary reasoning there, Htichens.
Do we have a right to topple other cruel regimes? Want to make a list? He's actually making a case for our enemies in this speech...
JonDavidson 1 year ago
"Bye now" haha so cocky. This looks like its gonna be good...
alanswindoll 1 year ago
@alanswindoll
You've really no idea, do you?
l3lip 1 year ago
@l3lip Excuse me? I've seen dozens of videos of him here on YouTube. I even got the debate they made into a movie. You know, the one that's him vs. Douglas Wilson?
alanswindoll 1 year ago
@alanswindoll
Wow, I'd thought you know more. Never mind then, my expectations were too high.
l3lip 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@l3lip Nice try, troll.
alanswindoll 1 year ago
Chris is more nervous than Peter.
jaysonvalentine 1 year ago
all religious people are deluded. all of them.
DNRvideos 1 year ago
@DNRvideos indeed...doesn't matter how smart you are but religion deludes people.
supersmash43 1 year ago
Hitchens is shitfaced here, but is still as brilliant and eloquent as ever.
TheDerekdub 1 year ago
People against the war are completely naive (like children who only understand that wars are bad because they kill people) - they are not understanding the true implications of a cowardly cop out like they seem to prefer!
luarionte 1 year ago
@luarionte Exactly, so we should start preemptive wars and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians based on COOKED intel (which is no longer controversial). Brilliant! But Sadaam was evil!!! Nevermind the US propped him up during his worst atrocities. Never mind we told him we would stay out of his way to Kuwait. But forget that, EVEN IF THE INTEL WAS CORRECT, preemptive war is wrong. War may be necessary but you gotta be on crack to support this one. You, sir, are an unamerican nazi.
rgs11 1 year ago
Comment removed
luarionte 1 year ago
@luarionte So I'm unamerican? Because I think the rule of law matters, because I think the constitution is and should be the basis of American policy? Actually, my positions (libertarian) are not fashionable. Taliban scare you? Try reading "The Grand Chessboard" or the PNAC document or just try reading in general. Of course americans didn't start it. The unamerican nazis on the right AND the left n the neocon retards like u did. "don't know what preemptive war means..." *sigh* u r not smart.
rgs11 1 year ago
Comment removed
luarionte 1 year ago
@luarionte You know that people read this stuff right? Do you like making an ass out of yourself? I'm a conspiracy theorist? What? Because I like the constitution and civil liberties which are the basis of America? Obama campaigned on getting us out, can you remember that far back? Bush campaigned on non-intervention "no nation-building". I KNOW u can't remember that far back. Your stupidity scares me infinitely more than a few arabs with sticks and stones. Take OFF the asshat!
rgs11 1 year ago
Comment removed
luarionte 1 year ago
Comment removed
luarionte 1 year ago
Comment removed
luarionte 1 year ago
Comment removed
luarionte 1 year ago
Comment removed
luarionte 1 year ago
Comment removed
luarionte 1 year ago
@luarionte Hmmm, this is a simple matter of arithmetic. So far there are close to a million casualties in Iraq alone. That's more than in Saddam's entire rule. Still want to push that point? I KNOW the world would be better off, not to mention America. Saddam being evil doesn't give us the right to be. But u must be a child or a childlike adult to believe this crap. Any one who did even a day of INDEPENDENT research would find your beliefs infantile. Keep letting the media spoon-feed u.
rgs11 1 year ago
@luarionte And while we're at it. R u American? I only ask because your English, no offense just wondering what ur stake in this is.
rgs11 1 year ago
Comment removed
luarionte 1 year ago
@luarionte Us vs Them huh? Equal rights for those who deserve them huh? What do you propose on "The Arab Question" then??? You are the dumbest person I've ever debated! Mazel Tov! I had fun slapping u around but I should pick on someone my own size.
rgs11 1 year ago
Comment removed
luarionte 1 year ago
Comment removed
luarionte 1 year ago
Comment removed
luarionte 1 year ago
@luarionte U R calling ME a moral relativist? Because I say there should be consistent principles esp where war-making is concerned? Fascinating! U call me paranoid while making comments like: with us or against us, us or them, we must wipe out the arabs first! Amazing! You want to fight for civil liberties by discarding them! u want to stop tyranny by being tyranical! u're a fool and it's ur ideology, held by a few morons of all camps that is the threat and which can only be fought with reason
rgs11 1 year ago
Comment removed
luarionte 1 year ago
Comment removed
luarionte 1 year ago
Comment removed
luarionte 1 year ago
Comment removed
luarionte 1 year ago
@luarionte No... It isn't. Not even close to close but good try, putz.
rgs11 1 year ago
Comment removed
luarionte 1 year ago
Comment removed
luarionte 1 year ago
@luarionte Hitchen's would spit on you.
rgs11 1 year ago
@rgs11
No it would spit on moral relativists like you!!!!!
In case you are wondering is is in FAVOR of the war you fucking moron!
I was demonstrating ALL his points in my comments!
HAHAH you really have no idea what you are talking about!
Its people like you, that dont want to do anything, that he is fighting against!
luarionte 1 year ago
@luarionte U used to think like me? ROFLOL Before u had ur brain amputated? it's the same bs u attribute to the phantom menace ie the arabs. Sorry, Im against genocide. Sorry, we don't have the authority to "secularize" a people! As u can c, it doesn't work and makes the world a dangerous place. Trade, mutual interest, and moral consistency IS the answer. All arabs r evil? U want to wipe them all out? Ur ideas r evil and the real threat. Is the same thing Hitler said about the Jews, psycho.
rgs11 1 year ago
Comment removed
luarionte 1 year ago
@luarionte HAHAHAHAHA. Hitchens supported the war but he would spit on your ideology. U R (by definition) the relativist here and its abundantly clear for all to c. Hitler said the same thing about the jews, schmuck! u r saying the only difference is that he was wrong and u r right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH. This is the last one. No more. I feel a little dumber after talking with you. Shooh, go away.
rgs11 1 year ago
Comment removed
luarionte 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rgs11 "Trade, mutual interest, and moral consistency IS the answer"
You don't understand ANYTHING!
They DON'T want to trade!
They DON'T want mutual interests (they only have their own)!
They DON'T want moral consistency!
That was my point ALL ALONG!
They only obey the Koran, that's all they see and understand! And they are prepared to sacrifice themselves in the name of that irrational faith!
But you don't seem to understand this
luarionte 1 year ago
@luarionte sorry, no one believes that dipshit propaganda. Yes, a very few r like that but every single people has a few bad apples. READ HISTORY. I hope u r young, under 18 and maybe u will wake up someday. The middle-east is about geostrategic interests dealing with the major powers, NOT freedom or religion or any of that other bullshit propaganda. 9/11 was 10 years and 14 Trillion dollars ago. Americans don't buy (they're broke) the "They hate us for our freedoms bullshit anymore." GFY
rgs11 1 year ago
"The middle-east is about geostrategic interests"
And i'm the conspiracy theorist!!!!That's the BAD reason that Americans were criticized for! And thats the reason i don't support!
READ HISTORY should apply to you!
Grow up!!!
luarionte 1 year ago
@rgs11 "no one believes that dipshit propaganda"
Hitchens belives!!!!!
And so do all rational people!
luarionte 1 year ago
Comment removed
luarionte 1 year ago
Comment removed
luarionte 1 year ago
why not liberate, North Korea and Iran and Somalia....??? Why just Iraq....?
3nigma08 1 year ago
@3nigma08 Iran has powerful friends: Russia and China. North Korea has China. A war with China or Russia would be bad. To say the least. Somalia is just too full of guys with AK-47s and RPGs and innocents and blind alleys and no laws to do anything without sacrificing countless American and/or Somali lives.
LordOfOrangutangs 1 year ago
@3nigma08
We didn't go to Iraq to liberate people. We went there to destroy the enemies of America (and humanity, more generally).
Politicimo 1 year ago
@Politicimo Did you mean this statement to be crushingly ironic?
F33bs 1 year ago
@F33bs No. I'll repeat.
We didn't go to Iraq with the *primary* objective of liberating the Iraqis. We went there to unseat a regime thought to possess WMD's.
They turned out not to have any. In any case, Saddam & co. really were a mafia family; just read about his two wicked sons, or about how Saddam took power.
The thug needed to be put out of the picture, and YES - to secure American (and other nation's) interests. That means oil. The region is more secure for us having done so.
Politicimo 1 year ago
@Politicimo, yes, that means oil. Thanks for being honest about the real reasons we went into a sovereign country.
"They turned out not to have any". Pretty easy dismissal there.
But, we secured the oil, so it was ok.
Not to the 120,000 Iraqi civilians (that's civilians, not including the military) that died, and to the thousands of dead American soldiers.
This is the only time I've ever seen Hitchens be completely (and smugly) wrong.
JonDavidson 1 year ago
@JonDavidson You know what really sucks. While it's bad (as is all war), it was so much worse under Hussein.
xSolraccarloSx 1 year ago
@xSolraccarloSx You know, more civilian deaths have occured under this quasi short war than under all of Saddam's reign...Both regimes engaged in torture. Why not just assassinate Saddam as a 'lesson' to iraqis and if another goes into power who is equally f**** up, assassinate him to. Eventually its leaders would have gotten the message.
danielfochtman 1 year ago
@danielfochtman That's total bullshit Saddam's regime killed far more civilians than. the war has, and we aren't even counting the Iran Iraq war that he STARTED! That war was unbelievably brutal with over 1 million casualties.
TheDavid2222 1 year ago
@TheDavid2222 .nonsense.The sanctions and the war on iraq 2003 killed and resulted in more deaths than under saddam.
laudrup90 8 months ago
@3nigma08 One thing at a time. The US is already bankrupt.
HippieGuitarBoy 1 year ago
Peter pwnd RE the Kipling quote.
gillianorley 1 year ago
That looks like the boy-chat logo on the lecturn!
GoldenLegends 1 year ago
why is the athiest 4 war and the beliver against war?
stuart7034 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stuart7034 "The believers against war".
What planet do you live on?
Honestathiest 1 year ago
@stuart7034
Because stereotypes don't always fit perfectly.
BelfastAtheist 1 year ago
@stuart7034 Yes I was rather puzzled about that myself. Most Americans (everyone else knows its a dead cause by this point) who are in favor of our occupation of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, or wherever it may be are crassly conservative. I.e. they're simply ignorant fucks. Many Americans believe that the so called war is necessary on the premise that there are scary people in towels burning flags. It would take but a fraction of the war budget to feed the entire world. Lefitism is where it's at.
jacobob321 1 year ago
@jacobob321 I'm a liberal and I support the war. What do you think the liberals in Iraq felt about Saddam? I find every word of your nonsensical screed to be both insulting and laughable, never mind the hilarious allegation that the USA is "occupying" Iran. Burning flags? How about starving and torturing and dumping into mass graves, and then installing macabre statues across Baghdad to enshrine state genocide and to force the complicity of working Iraqis? What do you think of that?
F33bs 1 year ago
@jacobob321 While you are chewing on that bit of reality, why don't you consider the progress made in Iraq: establishment of a multi-ethnic parliament that includes women and secular groups, the vindication of the Kurds and Marsh Arabs, the latter of which endured one of the worst intentional environmental catastrophes in the modern era. The freeing of Iraqi oil for the Iraqi people, who can now use the money to finance domestic reconstruction. How is this not a victory for liberalism?
F33bs 1 year ago
@jacobob321 Or the repairing of airfields in Iraq and Afghanistan so that Hajj pilgrims can make the journey to Mecca? Or the tremendous assistance that India, a fellow multiethnic secular democracy, gives to Afghanistan? I suppose that Afghanistan was much better off when its ancient landmarks were being demolished by the Taliban and women were being executed in Kabul Stadium? I also suppose the USA is to blame for the suicide-bombing of the Golden Dome of Samarra?
F33bs 1 year ago
@jacobob321 To paraphrase Hitchens himself, there is supreme Irony in members of the left defending a fascist and totallitarian regime - that of Suddam.
qqs764 1 year ago
@qqs764 I'm not supporting any form of authoritarianism whatsoever. I merely see that we are not in Iraq, or Afghanistan, to 'free', the people from tyranny. Millions still die from both tyranny and immense famine. There are dozens of militant regimes that we do nothing to dismantle, not that we should with an army in every single situation. The fall of the Soviet Empire showed that an economic war can be just as, if not more effective then 'liberating' a nation with physical conflict; agree?
jacobob321 1 year ago
@stuart7034
the atheist is not for war, christopher hitchens is for war, not alle atheist or anti-theists are for the Iraq war. I'm a anti-theist and I don't want the Iraq war.
Atheism is not a dogma nor a ideologie that tells someone how to act, think. Atheism only says about a person that he doesn't believe in got.
again It doesn't say how to thing, how to act. That is al upon yourself to choose.
SseBb 1 year ago
Yes, Christopher definetly had a snootful. His slurring throughout the evening is entertaining.
SkepticBrig 1 year ago
ok chris, i'm an atheist myself, but YOU don't know what fascism feels like either, and having to scrape up family members body parts is no better than them being forced at gunpoint to worship a terrible tyrant.
IrelandRaven 1 year ago
@IrelandRave Excuse me, what? Have you even read a word of Christopher's articles reporting from Iraq? No? Not even when he visits Halabja while the massacred victims' skin were still burning?
Word of advice: just because you are atheist doesn't give you a monopoly on truth.
Also, maybe read a word of Hitchens' material from places like Cyprus, Romania, Diyarbakir, Sarajevo, Kurdistan and Darfur before you assume he doesn't know what fascism is like. Okay?
F33bs 1 year ago
strange how I agree with peter on the war but with hitchens on religion.... or perhaps it isnt strange at all but good.
IrelandRaven 1 year ago
i hope you love eachother unconditionally!! :)
DaAlphaOmega 1 year ago
C.H. is fucking phenomenal. Peter must have died inside when Christopher corrected him on the Kipling quote. And yes, he looks especially inebriated in this encounter.
tiocfaidharla1 1 year ago
@tiocfaidharla1 your name makes me sad that you agree with chris on the war. im a huge chris hitchens fan, but who the fuck does he think he's kidding, he's said himself that the reason he supported the war was because he sees it as a front for a war against organised religion.
IrelandRaven 1 year ago
@IrelandRaven
What the fuck is wrong with that?
Apparently you and me both live in Ireland, you should know the suffering that caused when the line between religion and politics is blurred.
Imagine the troubles x1000, mix in genocide, xenophobia, homophobia, gynophobia and public stonings..oh also; Imagine the terrorists doing these vile things are doing do in the name of the church and alongside the police.
You don't seem to grasp the horror religion has caused / is causing in the Middle East.
BelfastAtheist 1 year ago
Yes mister Christopher H., but we did stood by and watched as millions of people were killed in Germany, in Soviet Union, in Sudan, and and... further more "we've" gave to that evil Saddam gas and money, as "we" often do with the dictators that accommodate as momentarily!
zg76 1 year ago
i disagree with hitchens on a lot of things, but the man has style and charm all while being shitfaced.
themasterplan23 1 year ago
@themasterplan23
Whiskey anyone? I'll have a double. Another one.
timboslayer 1 year ago
It is very difficult to like Christopher Hitchens but his stance as a pro lifer and support for the eradication of Sadam is to be admired
outbackcafe 1 year ago
Good lord, Christopher is impressively pissed. I have nothing but admiration for the man.
webbtje 1 year ago
these 2 are a couple of tory toffs who granted have conquered the english language. but theyre intelect and intelegence could, and should have been put to helping deliver fairness in society. IE a little socialism to up wages for the poorly payed. instead theyre heads are up theyre own back sides, waisted on protecting the rich and powerful, most probably theyre friends. SHAME ON THEM BOTH. come the revolution theyre properties should be trashed
kaypaxian1 1 year ago