Christopher Hitchens versus Ritter: Iraq war debate part 2

[smithy2306]

How Hitchens even got onto this debate is beyond me. His views on this are pure bullshit as is typical of the right wing mentality.

[Meowwithanh]

@smithy2306 would you like to specify some of his views which are not reflective of iraq?

[jeboshifru]

what on earth is he talking on 1:53? Milošević invaded Bosnia? Wtf? He cannot not know what happened, so he obviously lies. Militaristic motherfucker. NATO has it's Goering. His name is Christopher Hitchens.

[smujismuj]

Saddam was NO THREAT to the United States, period.

Even IF he'd had weapons, he never threatened the U.S.

Israel is a much bigger threat to peace than Saddam ever was.

Israel has WMD's and lies about it.

Israel has occupied and bullied it's neighbors for decades.

Why don't we invade Israel?

Bottom line, HE DID NOT POSSESS WMD.

And even if he'd had WMD, we still had no right to invade.

The U.S. is far and away the world's leading terrorist nation.

Chile, Philippines, Vietnam, El Salvador...etc.

[moh490234890238490]

@smujismuj No threat? he funded, harbored, trained and gave medical assistance to terrorist.

''And even if he'd had WMD, we still had no right to invade.'' yes we did, we have every right to stop psychotic dictators from using WMD's. you just showed the depths of your dishonesty by saying that.

[smujismuj]

@moh490234890238490

You sound like Cheney's parrot.

[moh490234890238490]

@smujismuj that's the best you could do huh? Your nothing more than a jihadi apologist.

[smujismuj]

@moh490234890238490

And you're a brainwashed, consumer of corporate/commercial news.

I do not support any religion, certainly not Islam.

So come up with another ridiculous name to call me, I'm ignoring you from now on, because you're boring.

[moh490234890238490]

@smujismuj your the one who said we had no right to defend ourselves and invade Iraq even if he had WMD's. Your the brainwashed jiahdi apologist.

[smujismuj]

@moh490234890238490

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz­zzzzzzzz

[NorthCitySider]

@moh490234890238490

How is he a "jihadi apologist" if Saddam Hussein was a secular leader?

[moh490234890238490]

@NorthCitySider Saddam was not a secular leader. He had connections to terrorist. He funded, shelterd and had a training camp 15 miles of Baghdad for terrorist. That's just a big fat lie by dishonest ppl such as yourself.

[NorthCitySider]

@moh490234890238490

Considering that the only people who think Saddam had connections to terrorists are morons who can't spell correctly or pathological LIARS, I won't take that at face value.

Give me some evidence of that.

[moh490234890238490]

@NorthCitySider husseinandterror(dot)com

Go read and learn something dumbass.

[NorthCitySider]

@moh490234890238490

I have heard no reasonable person to this day saying that there were any links.

Go back to watching Naruto you pathetic kid.

[moh490234890238490]

@NorthCitySider Guess you didn't read anything you little bitch. All the evidence is there and Hitchens argued all the points, but what can i expect from a leftist masochist.

[NorthCitySider]

I can't wrap my mind around how stupid you are.

You gave me a website that was adopted from a 2004 presentation, and last edited on 2006.OUTDATED.

There may be connections to Palestinian terror groups but not Al-Qaeda. It seems to me that it was more or less about Arab nationalism than Islamic Jihad. Plus,Yassir Arafat was secular.

I can give you plenty of videos and websites debunking the claim of AQ links.And why is it that Bush and Cheney hide like cowards when confronted about this?

[moh490234890238490]

@NorthCitySider The information in there is accurate. what difference does it make if it was in 2006? As for Yassir Arafat being secular is just as bullshit as Saddam being Secular. The connection of Saddam and Terrorist organizations is clearly shown.

[NorthCitySider]

@moh490234890238490

That clearly explains why Bush and Cheney hide like dogs when confronted by people about their claims of AQ-Iraq links. Look at his god damn country for once. There was no sharia law, women had arguably the best rights & education in the Arab world, you could purchase a beer in Baghdad and so on.

Understand Itachi wannabe?

[moh490234890238490]

@NorthCitySider Andhere i thought you said no one would argue that Saddam's Iraq was an oasis of peace, but here you are lol. As for the AQ link it's clearly shown that Saddam was in bed with extremists.

[NorthCitySider]

@moh490234890238490

No it wasn't you god damn moron. Even your stupid fucking website, whose credibility I have yet to see, doesn't give any evidence of AQ-Saddam links. That bullshit has been refuted hundreds of times on YouTube alone.

Let me turn this around. The US is in bed with extremists. Let's see, is it Iraq or the US that supports the Saudi Wahabbist extremists? Tell me you hypocrite.

It was an oasis of peace compared to the war, that's for sure.

[moh490234890238490]

@NorthCitySider ''It was an oasis of peace compared to the war, that's for sure.'' ah you finally admit it. AQ Saddam link is ample, srry you don't want to see it. As for the US being allied with Wahhabist they shouldn't be and i wont defend that, but that doesn't not mean that Saddam wasn't. You seem to be saying it's ok for that Saddam was in bed with Jihadist while also denying that he was and saying its ok because the US does as well.

[NorthCitySider]

@moh490234890238490

Politics isn't your thing kid. Go back to watching Naruto and shut your mouth. Watch Bin Laden's documentaries or read his biographies. In 1990, he was in fact willing to fight Iraq.

So much for them being buddies. You just keep puking the same shit at me and I'm actually coming up with new arguments.

[Territomauvais]

@NorthCitySider Onward and onward Saddam became more and more allied with religious fanatics and his regime became exceptionally less secular (as compared to before). While his connections with other terrorists and international gangsters is undeniable, the Al-Qaeda link is tenuous. Nonetheless, I wouldn't be caught dead giving Mr. Hussein the benefit of the doubt.

Since 1990 onward Saddam became warmer and warmer to Al-Qaeda and their causes. How warm they became, we don't know. Nonetheless.

[NorthCitySider]

@Territomauvais

Can you give me any evidence of that?

[batvette]

@NorthCitySider husseinandterror d o t c o m all you need to know about saddams links to terrorism. the joint resolution made no claim of saddam linked to al qaeda, so none need be produced to justify the war. saddam was deeply offended by the saudi royals alliance with us and allowing us to attack him from there.

What did OBL seek? having the saudi royal family gone. Al Qaeda's 1998 fatwa justifying 9/11, 2 of the 3 grievances were about Iraq- Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11 on behalf of Iraq!

[Territomauvais]

@NorthCitySider Evidence of what? Also, in the second brief paragraph I accidentally retyped Al-Qaeda. I meant to write Ansar al-Islam. Apologies if that's what you were referring to; but I did say prior to that the Al-Qaeda link was tenuous.

[NorthCitySider]

@Territomauvais

Ansar al-islam and Saddam Hussein were enemies.

[nocturnezero]

@moh490234890238490 The US engaged in the Bay of Pigs terrorist invasion and harbors numerous international terrorists, so, logically, all civilized nations should immediately bomb Washington and install a client regime. Israel engaged in the terrorist invasion of Lebanon and Operation Cast Lead, so the US should bomb Israel.

[nocturnezero]

@moh490234890238490 If we have the right to stop others from using WMDs, did other countries have the right to bomb Washington to prevent the terrorist atrocities by the US against Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Hitchens even says here (I've never heard evidence for this claim, but using his logic) that if states commit occupation of neighboring states they are subject to regime change. By his logic, the US should be bombing and invading Israel and replacing the Israeli government. Why aren't we?

[nocturnezero]

@moh490234890238490 Why aren't we trying Bush I for genocide by the sanctions on Iraq which killed so many Iraqis? Why didn't we invade Indonesia when it engaged in genocide in East Timor? Hitchen's implicit assertion that the US can rule the world by force because we are somehow exempt from the laws we enforce is dangerous and harmful. I wished to see Hussein overthrown, but not an American flag and ten years of brutal occupation in his place.

[smujismuj]

Hitchens is so right about so many things, it's sad to see him embrace this clearly unjustified aggression.

[Jmsadv]

@smujismuj Considering all of the unjustified aggression that Saddam did, why would you say such a thing? Stopping a Dictator is justifed and dam straight or would you just be content with Saddam and his sons doing what they did so well?

[smujismuj]

@Jmsadv So why haven't we invaded North Korea? or Libya or China or Somalia or Chechnya ... The point is, this isn't how you change a regime or keep them from coming to power in the first place. Saddam was in power because the CIA brought him to power. The u.s. govt. had no problem with him abusing his own people or anyone else as long as he didn't fuck with 'our' oil. You have a very distorted notion of why this happened. It had NOTHING to do with helping Iraqis.

[Jmsadv]

@smujismuj Evil will prosper while good people do nothing and your statement of the CIA aiding Saddam just supports Hitchens main theme of "the debt we owe the Iraqi people". I don't think that we should be invaiding every Dictator for that is the responsibilty of the entire global community. Sadly most of the World like China doesn't give a fuck about North Korea. Shame on us and the world for allowing these dictators to prosper.

[pbrlimit]

@smujismuj - while I would argue that if we could that we should get rid of the brutal dictators of the world, aside from North Korea I believe Saddam's Iraq was the most brutal and oppressive. And that North Korea has nukes makes things even more difficult - imagine if Saddam were allowed to have continued power and had actually acquired them. I don't buy Bush's argument that Saddam had WMDs, but getting rid of Saddam was something many Iraqis never thought they would live to see.

[swampdonkey152000]

@ramr23 Actually the civilian body count is now over 500 billion people. US forces don't even try to kill terrorists! They just drive around the street shooting wildly at women and children. How do they get away with it?!

[moh490234890238490]

@swampdonkey152000 most of the violence in iraq are done by muslims to other muslims.

[swampdonkey152000]

@moh490234890238490 I know. I was hoping that when you saw that I said the body count was over 500 billion people, you would assume I was being sarcastic.

[qwertypoiu4321]

Hitchens is such a death-mongering fool.

1. NO State can commit larceny against the people it initiates itself over to go murder people that have nothing to do with the people that are coercively invading.

2. The invasion and massacre of Iraq NEVER had anything to do with Iraqi society, and ONLY was initiated for the US State.

It is worth remembering Hitchens supported Hussein in the 1970's. That can not be said for most people opposed to the larcenic, sadist massacre in Iraq.

[lesnem]

@qwertypoiu4321 "It is worth remembering Hitchens supported Hussein in the 1970's. That can not be said for most people opposed to the larcenic, sadist massacre in Iraq."

Bullshit. Hitchens has been a consistent supporter of the kurdish socialists against Saddam, which cannot be said of people who would rather leave him in power.

[qwertypoiu4321]

@lesnem You are a fool.

Hitchens, 1976:

"And it has a leader — Saddam Hussain — who has sprung from being an underground revolutionary gunman to perhaps the first visionary Arab statesman since Nasser."

[lesnem]

@qwertypoiu4321 you should notice that this quote was only two years before hussein went to war with the shah and massacred the kurds. I'm pretty sure he reworked his assessment after that. Imagine if he hadn't, indeed he could have been foaming at the mouth in defense of Saddam Hussein's regime just like you if he were that consistently stupid.

[qwertypoiu4321]

@lesnem I am opposed to Saddam--unlike Hitchens--for the same reasons I am opposed to the US massacre in Iraq that has caused the death of more people than the US-Supported Saddam ever did in 20 years.

[lesnem]

@qwertypoiu4321 So your "opposition" to Saddam consists of claiming he wasn't all that bad? And Hitchens is somehow supporting him by calling for the destruction of his regime after realizing he was mistaken in saying a good word for saddam in 1976? Your logic is about as iron clad as a wet back of rice. Saddam killed a great deal more than the amount who died post 2003, and the majority of iraqis who died after the US invasion were killed by the jihadists who saddam invited in beforehand.

[qwertypoiu4321]

@lesnem "claiming he wasn't all that bad?"

This is the full time job of filthy militarists. You promote stealing money and invading countries upheld by lies then say if you are against the stealing, lying and invading you are pro-whatever. You have no say in stealing money to invade a country that wants the US out of their country. Go travel their and fund opposition campaign's yourself, it has nothing to do with my security or livelihood.

[lesnem]

@qwertypoiu4321 This is the full time job of casuistical fools. You assert that militarists were for this war, and you ignore, (or don't know because you were too stupid to learn) that the CIA, the state department, Gen. Brent Scowcroft, Scott Ritter, George H. W. Bush, in other words the old cold war military industrial establishment, were all against the war, as were the european oil-for-food politicians who were fleecing and raping iraq even as they were organizing the anti-war movement.

[qwertypoiu4321]

And they really listened to Ritter. There is a fundemental principle, the Non-Aggression Principle. You can not coerce(especially based on lies) people to doing something you want them to, no matter what the issue. There is no dictatorship on earth, or has ever been, based on a more false premise than that. If you are opposed to Kim Jong-Il, Raul Castro, Saddam Hussein, etc, go fund and fight the opposition yourself. Hitchens is a coercive, rotund, Trotskyite tool, whom does not understand this.

[lesnem]

@qwertypoiu4321 No Ritter is the propaganda bullhorn of Bush Sr., Gen. Scowcroft, Eagleburger, and the other oil lobby and imperialist elements in the ruling class who had a vested interest in the continued existence of the Baath dictatorship. This fundamental principle of non-agression does not actually exist in a dialectical universe, but then you sound as if you're a Stalinist, so one can only expect such crude distortions of the truth.

[qwertypoiu4321]

@lesnem Lol, the "imperialist elements" of non-interventionism? Talk about an oxymoron. You have no place to coercively make anyone do anything against their will. You are a Stalinist, since you expouse the only principle it ever claimed to uphold its ideology. Violating the Non-Aggression Principle is immoral, as you and Hitchens are. There has never been a dictatorship on earth, from Ghengis Khan to Saddam Hussein, based on a more false premise than that which you support.

[lesnem]

@qwertypoiu4321 It only sounds like an oxymoron if you are a moron. The CIA and the State department are the imperial arms of the US that created and sustained Saddam Hussein, and they are the one's who were against the invasion (Tenet, Bush Sr., Eagleberger, Powel). The same conservative faction was against intervention in the balkans and afghanistan, because they have material interests in maintaining the status quo. Stalinism has no principles, thats why it spearheads the anti-war movement.

[lesnem]

@qwertypoiu4321 BTW hitchens cannot be a trotskyist and a stalinist at the same time. That's an oxymoron on you're part.

[NotAG4yName]

@qwertypoiu4321 learn history and context..i know it difficult for some people to understand that some people are not cookie cut democrats or republicans but please dont be such a tool the world is not black and white

[qwertypoiu4321]

@NotAG4yName Hitchens supported Saddam when it looked promising, then he supported Bush when that looked promising, now he supports Obama because that looks promising. He is a tool, period.

[nykytne13]

Hitchens got stomped into mush. 

[AndrewTally]

@nykytne13 You and I must have been watching a different debate

[UnknownSaxophone]

You can't liberate a people by slaughtering them.

[LowleyUK]

@UnknownSaxophone true but you can by removing the dictator, no?

[TheGrubStreetHack]

Does the Israeli state not support non-state actors in the West Bank who repeatedly carry out acts of indiscriminate violence against civilians? And does Israel not stand in blatant violation of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty?

[Poisonshady313]

@TheGrubStreetHack

Israel does not support any such thing.  If you disagree, I'll ask you to provide examples.

[TheGrubStreetHack]

3 if it violates the nuclear non-proliferation treaty then why is Hitchens not advocating that the United States invade and overthrow the Jewish State of Israel? Was Operation Cast Lead, accompanied by a crippling economic blockade that still persists, not an attempt, at least in part, to destroy a national group?

[Poisonshady313]

@TheGrubStreetHack

Israel is not signed onto the NPT... therefore Israel cannot be in violation of it. And Hamas is not a national group. It is a terrorist organization dedicated to destroying a nation, not creating one.

[AntonBatey]

@Poisonshady313

Israel is in violation of Resolution 687, Article 14. Also, Hamas is nothing more than a reactionary organization (created by Israel directly).

[lesnem]

@AntonBatey Resolution 687 is the "Iraq War Resolution" so how is Israel in violation of it, and what does that have to do with their nuclear weapons? I've looked over the resolution and there is no "Article 14." Are you sure its not something else?

[AntonBatey]

@lesnem

Article 14 of 687 says that steps should be taken to have a nuclear free zone in the Middle East......that would obviously include Israel.

[lesnem]

@AntonBatey Now that I've found it, it says that action toward Iraq are the first step to a nuclear free zone in the middle east. Israel has not interfered with that process so it can't be in violation. Israel may be implied in the overall goal, but the resolution specifies Iraq, because they, unlike israel, are NPT signatories.

[AntonBatey]

@lesnem

I know.

[TheGrubStreetHack]

If it is the case that a state is to lose its sovereignty if it simultaneously violates the four -- though he only puts forth three -- conditions that Hitchens sets out by 1 violating the genocide convention in 'attempting to destroy in whole or in part a national or ethnic group'; 2 harbouring non-state actors that 'engage in indiscriminate violence against civilians';

[GaiusIuliusTaberna]

I find it amusing how people have been so brainwahsed by the dogmatic seperation between proper liberal and proper conservative traditions.

I may be the only one around here who agrees with Hitchens both on religion, social liberalism, secularism and anti conservative positions, and on a firm interventionist stance against tyrants, fascists, and terrorists.

Which just shows that double think is the order of the day. So called liberals who support fascists, quite funny.

[MrLewey10]

Excellent analysis. How very noble of western liberals to have been willing to condemn the people of Iraq to perpetual distatorship under the Ba'ath party eh!

[GaiusIuliusTaberna]

I'm not sure they believe in the concept of nobility, after all they'd argue that the difference between noble and disgraceful is not an issue of good vs bad but of different points of view that we have to respect equally.

Kind of like the idea that freedom equals slavery.

[MrLewey10]

Yes, moral relativism has been one of the most disgraceful strands of international leftist thought over Iraq. Have you ever read Hitchens' "Why Orwell Matters"? It's excellent on this issue. It's this kind of thinking from the international left over the war which has led to the grotesque spectacle of liberals siding with isolotionaist conservative demagogues in opposition to the war.

[GaiusIuliusTaberna]

I'm still looking for his "a long short war" I'm reading Blood class and empire now. But I'll defiantly read that one when I come to it.

I've noticed that whenever I point out the fact that so called liberals are defending fascism they stop trying to argue and just heap on abuse like some kind of enraged child. I think its because it exposes their cognitive dissonance.

[myroseaccount]

The facts show that Hitchens is not "anti-conservative", Hitchens' view on the war on terror is a souped up version of Huntingdon's "clash of civilisations" essay. He supports military action against "uncivilised" cultures that is straight out of conservative, imperialist and orientalist textbooks. Hitchens is simply showing his reactionary views where his earlier leftism is actually an aberration. And his claim to be contrarian takes self-regard to the level of a martial art.

[MrLewey10]

Nonsense, and those elements of the left which were willing to leave the people of Iraq out to dry under the Ba'athis regime are a disgrace to the socialist tradition. Unless you think only westerners are good enough to enjoy the values of freedom and justice the left traditionally classed as universal?

[myroseaccount]

The Ba'ath party has long been supported by UK/US and left Iraqis to their tender mercies as deliberate policy for decades. The 2003 invasion removed Saddam controlled Ba'ath party because it had long stopped serving US/UK interests in the region. However, Ba'ath is being re-habilitated with US support, to the annoyance of Iraqis. The Ba'ath if they get back will be reliant on the US, so will be compliant, and one knows what that means in an oil rich region, as they once were before 1990.

[MrLewey10]

Well, I don't entirely agree with the idea that the Ba'ath party is being rehabilitated, but you are right to point out that forces within western governments would be happy to restore some sort of status quo that is sympathetic to the US, regardless of whether this status quo is just. This doesn't mean that the entire motivation for the war is Machiavellian. We must tackle these forces as well as the fascistic Salafi Jihadists to secure peace and justice for Iraqis.

[GaiusIuliusTaberna]

That just shows you haven't been listening to or reading Hitchens at all. He's said repeatedly that this isn't a war between civilizations, its a war between civilization and no civilization. A civil war within the Islamic world, that the extremist faction has decided to involve the west in.

Its a war between secular liberalism and religious conservatism, one that for some absurd reason isn't being met on both sides.

[myroseaccount]

The US/UK support the most reactionary fundamentalists in the Islamic world. Saudi Arabia, our ally, makes Iran, an enemy, look like the Netherlands. These conflicts have little to do with secular liberalism. Iran since 79 no longer subjected itself to US/UK regional influence and that makes it a target regardless of the composition of its government. Saudi elites, a truly appalling regime, are supportive of US/UK goals. Hitchens knows this which makes his war-mongering all the more egregious.

[MrLewey10]

You've made the usual mistake of assuming anyone who disagrees with you must agree with everything the West has ever done. Yes, due to accidents of history and Western opportunisim, the US/UK cosies up to Saudi Arabia, and Jimmy Carter precipitated the Iran/Iraq war in 1980 for geopolitical gain. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean that the removal of Saddam was wrong, belated as it was, and distasteful as the Bush administration was.

[MrLewey10]

This is true, but it has aften be twisted but the anti-war movement to suggest that Hitchens believes we are at war with Islam. As he as said, the current threat to the West emerged from a civil war between moderate Islam and the Wahhabi/Salafi Jihadists intent on death and destruction, who are hell-bent on destroying non-muslims. In this sense, it is a clash of civilisations, but not in the sense often suggested. The whole situation poses questions for western relations with Saudi Arabia.

[Dougca1985]

i also agree with hitchens stance on "religion" lol...but yea, i dont think hes terribly well spoken either, i feel that his has a broad knowledge of the war in iraq. I dont necessarily agree with him 100% nor i disagree

[myroseaccount]

Hitchens is terribly well spoken, but here he really shows that he knows very little about anything

[MrLewey10]

That comment only shows how little you know about anything. Its possible to be well spoken and intelligent. Even those who vehemently disagree with Hitchens have acknowledged his undoubted intellect and vast knowledge of the issues.

[myroseaccount]

I disagree. He is a wilful liar regularly overlooking historical facts to advocate for military action that killed over 1 million people. His arguments are deployed in a knowing and bullying manner that are generally full of errors, omissions and straw. He has an awesome responsibility for using his undoubted Oxfordian eloquence and self-regarding contrariness to support and buttress the US and UK military asasault on defenceless people. He is quite appalling. And that is fact!

[MrLewey10]

No, he isn't lying, and his facts are correct. You just don't like the fact that all the evidence contradicts your simplistic, blinkered view of the world. So the Ba'ath party were "defenceless people" were they? What about the defenceless people of Kurdistan they butchered and murdered, or the Shia who lived in fear every day under Saddam? You're a disgrace, there is no sewer you won't swim in or tyrant you won't side with, providing they too adhere to the idea of the US as "The Great Satan".

[myroseaccount]

The Ba'ath was funded by UK/US since 1958. The Ba'ath's worst atrocities against Kurds were committed in the 80s when in receipt of direct support from the US. More Kurds were killed by Turks in SE Turkey in the 90s when it was the largest recipient of military aid. US/UK increased aid to Turkey as the atrocities against the Kurds got worse. The Shia in 1991 were discarded as the coalition allowed Saddam to re-establish control. And today UK/US policy is to re-habiliate Ba'ath in 2010 election.

[oystersdobleed]

hitchens comes across as naive, or at least uninformed, and at worst, willfully ignorant. i completely agree with his stance on religeon, but he has knowledge of the middle east that could be trumped by a teenager.

[ultraviolet99]

Read a bit more of his stuff and you might have to reconsider that.

The fact that you just spelled the word 'religeon' doesn't make your taunt about him seeming teenage any more effective, either.

[8DX]

No! More youtube typo bashing!

Please don't bash typos people.. or bad spelling or bad grammar!

[ultraviolet99]

Yes, heaven forbid people actually correct themselves the next time. If one wants people to take one seriously, best to learn how to type a simple fucking sentence.

[billhicks8]

Regardless of your opinion on the Iraq conflict, your statement is ridiculous. It is in fact, one of the most absurd comments I've ever read about Hitchens. Idiotic.

[Obversity]

Hitchens is very persuasive.