Only a REAL FOOL would claim there is no God! Man creates awesome skyscrapers, fake hearts, tunnels, vehicles etc.. If we are very imperfect then what more can God create THE UNIVERSE! You must accept Jesus Christ as your Savior to receive eternal rest in heaven! Simple! John 3:16 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him! Repent & accept Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ or HELL?!? Visit cbn. com
@Lulzalutioners Well i guess i agree with that, but i was think in terms of what america should do and in this world america is the most fascist major country. imo
It's arguable if we actually did the right thing. Sadam was taken out relative early, and the United States barely exited the country. The quality of life we left behind may not be higher, either. It was reported that at least under Sadam there was electricity in Bagdad all hours of the day. Now, it just comes in spurts for a few times a day. Still, many are grateful we deposed the dictator. But yes, the *debatable* right end is not necessarily justified by the wrong means.
@elrynx2 Yes electricity 24/7! What's that compared to the murdering of thousands of your fellow countrymen at the hands of a fascist dictator. There was no way to take him out of power in total good. The means to the end were certainly not perfect (Not at all and Hitchens agrees in the video) but you couldn't Gandhi, Saddam out of power. Peace wouldn't have worked and to disagree is to be as deluded as the people who blindly followed Bush.
@elrynx2 Its the other way around, the ends (in this case) justify the means not the means justify the ends.Just out of curiosity do you have any idea what would have happend to iraq if it wasn't for entervention?
Did I say that the means justified the ends? Or vice versa? I don't think I did. Any war, included any intervention in Iraq, should be done under clear pretenses. The war in Iraq was not waged with any shred of integrity. The public was fed lies. That's no way to conduct a government or a civilian military.
Its not that easy, Saddam was on of worst dictators of the last century...but the US didnt go in iraq to "liberate" the iraqis!! they had their own agenda and did some horrible things to stay in iraq as long as possible and caused the death of a lot of people!
@MrJs1G I've mainly just heard him speak about religion, which I've always been a fan of. I suppose I just presumptuously had the preconceived idea that he would be against the Iraq War, which is something I've always found myself opposed to, considering how costly it's been and because no evidence has been found to validate the pivotal reasons for the war (WMDs and Hussein's connections to Al-Qaeda)
@kazoorocketman54 Of course crimes against humanity wouldnt be a reason to go in right? by the way, if you need to to feel like your in danger to give a fuck about people in other countries hows this, zarkawi went into iraq, set up terrorist training camps and started killing saddam husseins enemys in northern iraq. Nobady gets in or out of iraq without saddam knowing. Is that or is it not an obvious connection with Al-Qaeda and iraq?
@ojdidit92 Crimes against humanity is the only thing I can really agree with; however, it wasn't the pivotal reason America invaded in the first place. Furthermore, I think it's ironic how we're supposed to be the "international humanity police", but just look at how many innocent Iraqi civilians have died because of US occupation.
@kazoorocketman54 Is that it? is that the lynchpin,that we were lied to that the american government went because of oil? And as far as deaths at least 180,000 kurds and at least 200,000 iranians died painfull deaths from saddams poison chemicals alone not to mention the marsh arabs and saddams own citizens. You have to understand that we had an obligation to go.
@kazoorocketman54wasnt me... look all attitude aside, is this really the reason you are against going into iraq? because the us government is full of hypocracy and lies, because if it is im sorry thats simply not good enough. It would have been unacceptable to leave saddam in power.
-- What about the cost of tens of thousands more Iraqis and even more deaths of innocent US civilians due to terrorists harbored by Hussein (e.g. Abu Nidal, Abu Rahman Yasin)?
As for the point on evidence:
Linking al-Qaeda and Hussein: I agree, at this point in time.
WMD: intelligence communities of the US, the UK, France, Germany, and even the UN concluded that Iraq was indeed aspiring to acquire WMD. Even if WMD weren't found, at the...
very least, it's unequivocal that Hussein was ducking all possible investigations to the UNESCO and inspectors. See Rolf Ekeus on this for more depth.
Another significant point which gets condoned in these types of conversations, IMHO, is military intelligence. This type of intelligence at its absolute best -- is a best guess. There aren't any guarantees in this community. Please take that into consideration as perhaps a general theme in this discourse.
@degree7Did you not hear him mention that saddam broke all four of the international laws that would allow a country to keep its sovereignty including crimes against humanity and fooling around with weapons of mass destruction.
There is no international law that allows a country to lose its sovereignty if broken.
First, there are protocols that must be taken. First, the threat must be identified (this was never done). Second, sanctions are to be placed. Third, if a country is a clear and present threat that is attacking the states around it, then force may be necessary. Unfortunately, the US couldn't even accomplish step one.
And he gased the Kurds with WMDs the US sold to him back in the 90s
@degree7 Is the fact that the us gave the weapons to saddam a point against the iraq invasion?And what do you mean he wasnt a threat he murdered thousands of people, but then again they werent americans so you, like the rest of the democrats probably dont care. After all sand niggers dont understand democracy right?
@degree7 There absolutely is a law that states a country will lose its sovereignty if broken, it's called the "Treaty on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide". Secondly, of all the hundreds of conflicts that occurred in the twentieth century, only two or three followed the course you outlined. Protocol>Sanctions>Threat, etc. Thirdly, Saddam gassed the Kurds in the 1980s, not 1990s. Fourthly, the Baathist army used AK47s and weapons purchased from Russia and China, not the US.
First, the "Convention on Genocide" does not allow a country to lose its sovereignty, but only "such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction". There are dozens of dictators out there that commit genocide every damn day, what made Saddam special? And that outline is UNITED NATIONS LAW, it's how the system works, the US had to circumvent that method in order to start their illegal war.
A UN security council statement condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons in the war was issued in 1986, but the US and other western governments continued supporting Baghdad militarily and politically into the closing stages of the war.
What evidence do you have of the US providing such substantial material support, as you claim? Afaik, it supplied Iraq with $200 million worth of un-armed helicopters.
Furthermore, this decision was based on the situation at the time (in the Iran-Iraq war). What would you have done *instead*?
Hah, the only reason that the US supported the war was because the Iranians had overthrown the US appointed "Shah" in the 1979 revolution after years of tyranny. Please, the US has made a living off of toppling democratically elected governments and replacing them.
I also find it painfully ironic how Hitchens railed against the "advanced interrogation methods", and yet these techniques were adopted full force by the Bush admin in this war. What a hypocrite.
I asked you politely to provide evidence to corroborate your initial claim of "but the US and other western governments continued supporting Baghdad militarily and politically into the closing stages of the war."
Furthermore, if you're not going to acknowledge the points I made (I consider concession an acknowledgement), then I'm afraid you might being dishonest (and thus, I'm not sure if I want to continue).
The Shah was overthrown -- yes. But you tell me how Iranians fare now under theocracy than secularism.
And that's how foreign policy works; it's called "realpolitik". You seem well-read, so I'm sure you're aware of this principle.
There are so many factors which influence policy and so many difficult predicaments -- so I would be wary of painting such a black-and-white picture. What would you have done, as head of state, when a nation which held hostages engaged in war?
There is my source. And to answer your other point, perhaps Iranians wouldn't be living under a theocracy if they hadn't been forced to utilize a religious revolution against what was an oppressive regime. What allows the Islamic Republic to retain support is their (rightful) animosity of the West and its foreign policy.
"perhaps Iranians wouldn't be living under a theocracy if they hadn't been forced to utilize a religious revolution against what was an oppressive regime."
-- I find this a bit contradictory. If you believe that the conditions which those who took action were under directly caused the result (in this case, the Ayatollah), then where else do you shift the onus from those who *caused* something to its conditions?
Furthermore, the Shah was liked by those who were more secular and those who appreciated human rights. Women were free from oppressive religious rule (compared to today's official explanation of earthquakes divinely attributed to women), etc.
And sure -- the US has committed atrocities in its past -- but according to your reasoning, the US *today* has no right to speak out against human rights because slavery was once a vibrant institution within its borders in the past.
It's not that I think that the US has no right to speak out, they have as much authority as other nations to call out on and aid in targeting governments and individuals for warcrimes. The US provides nearly 45% of the UN. I just think that Western powers shouldn't impose their foreign, political views should work onto another nation governing cultures that are thousands of years older.
So, toppling the democratically elected government of a nation, a MUSLIM nation no less, and then complaining about how they hated it so much they overthrew it in favour of a radical Islamic Republic, is rather hypocritical of the US. But of course, they have a long history of being hypocrites. Animosity feeds reactionism, so hardlines in Iran will be endlessly pressed to oppose the West in an endless cycle of antagonism shared both sides.
@degree7 You have to understand the difference between people and governments, most of the people in iraq wanted us there in 2003, most of the people in afghanistan wanted us there when they were being attacked by russia,most of the people in iran love americans and hate the iatola. Non enterventionalists like ron paul and yourself dont seem realize this. When we went into iraq i heard most democrats saying people in the mid east dont understand democracy or freedom, wich is a lie.
"I also find it painfully ironic how Hitchens railed against the "advanced interrogation methods", and yet these techniques were adopted full force by the Bush admin in this war. What a hypocrite."
-- I think you answered your own question here. He's for the Iraq War in principle (he acknowledges incompetence and etc), and he's a named plaintiff in a case rallying against such interrogation.
Im wondering, for the general population in Iraq, do they have it better or worse now then when saddam was in power? Hope someone can help, and sources would be awsome too :) It's for a school thingy :)
damn you Hitchens i was happy being against iraq. I can't remember the last time i watched a you-tube video and walked away from it with my closely held views in such tatters. I'm not pro-bush but I am admittedly convinced that what i thought was wrong or misunderstood. Had Bush been so erudite then he might of got on a bit better...i'm so conflicted Hitchens you legend.
I think hitchens has an overly optimistic view of the american government as the rescuing hero, lets not forget they like most other countries are provided with cheap labour and matireals from countries that are a lot worse than iraq
Scott Ritter reported there were no WMDS and Saddam was put in charge of the Iraq by the US only to betray their agent. I heavily disagree with Hitchens on his issue.
@826zaheer1993 I can point to two proofs to contradict your assertion that no WMDs were found in Iraq. Firstly, Hitchens mentions in his memoir that WMDs were found beneath a Sunni mosque and I think the Bush administration thought that making this discovery available to the public would inflame the sectarian civil war. Secondly, based on documents leaked by Wikileaks in 2010, it was discovered that chemicals used for making WMDs were found in Iraq (search "Wikileaks WMD" in google).
@karangmail15 you know, America gave those chemical weapons to Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war. Iraq had no factories for producing WMDs and those that may have been found are remains of those weapons used during that war. besides even if Saddam ever did make a so called WMD, who gave us the right to attack his country when we are the only nation to drop the atomic bomb. I admire Hitchens for most of his work but i dont take everything he says as pure truth, he can be wrong sometimes.
@826zaheer1993 You first said there were no WMDs and now you bring the issue of who provided the nuclear weapons to Iraq. Very well then. If the US government did provide chemical weapons to the Saddam Hussein regime, don't they bear greater responsibility than if they hadn't done so. You can find documents stating that the US did sell conventional weapons to Iraq and if you ask me, the Reagan administration should have been impeached for that.
@826zaheer1993 The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki meets the definition of mass extirpation and the entire US administration should have been tried at the Hague. My argument is since there were stockpiles of chemicals and it is the same regime that used them, one has to assume that they will use it again. But, please try to keep the topic to Iraq. I can bring up many crimes committed by the US from slavery, massacres of Native Americans to Vietnam, Chile, El-Salvador and Guatemala.
@karangmail15 so? USA gave it to them and Saddam being the dog of the US used it against Iran and used it against the kurds, i dont deny that. However, the US knew there were WMDs during the first gulf war and they didnt go after Saddam. They only went after his ass when he was gonna change the currency of oil form dollar to gold. Bush encouraged Sectarian warfare to destabilize Iraq further and the WMDs were already used anyways.
@826zaheer1993 President Bush did not encourage Sectarian warfare. In the Iraqi Intifada that you mentioned thousands of Sunni muslims (not necessarily Baathists) were murdered by Shia gangs, and thus, a sectarian Iraq was in the future in any case. The documents leaked by Wikileaks claim that chemicals for WMDs were found and not the factories.
@karangmail15 The sanctions on Iraq killed more than the WMDs used by Saddam so pretty much Iraq war and the idea that US was there to free the people was bullshit as the damage was done and the reason iraqis didn't give a warm welcome was cause in the first gulf war they betrayed them by trying to start a uprising then left them to be killed by Saddam. Saddam had no factories of WMDs, it was given to him on a silver platter and so what? Saddam left a couple behind in case of emergencies.
@826zaheer1993 To your point of US betrayal, I can also add that the Kurds were also betrayed after the Algiers agreement in 1975 when the Shah and the Nixon administration decided to resolve the border dispute with Iraq. To the point of warm welcome, there were plenty of them throughout the country and the majority of fighting against the US was carried out by the Baathists and Zarqawi.
@826zaheer1993 Since you like me were against the sanctions and the arms dealings, may I ask what you would have done? A coalition of French and Russian troops would never have proposed the removal of Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein's regime was stronger than Egypt, Libya and Syria's regimes and a similar uprising would not have toppled it. If sanctions were not imposed, the entire Kurdish population would have been ethnically cleansed. None of the Arab nations proposed anything.
@karangmail15 the CIA should have never installed Saddam in the first place, that is what i would have done. In fact i would hope have abolished the CIA for fucking up rest of the world if i was president and had the chance. The purpose of the sanctions was to stop Saddam but it backfired in part with also the assholes in Turkey who wanted to kill the kurds as well. I believe in creation of kurdistan for the kurds but none of the arab dictatorships want the western created borders redrawn.
@826zaheer1993 Iraqi Kurdistan at the very least is possible now after the discovery of oil in Anbar province by which I mean the Arab population in Iraq don't need oil revenues from Kurdistan. But as you said it correctly, Turkish, Iranian or Syrian Kurdistan is not possible until the power of military institutions is greatly diminished.
@lebronjamesXD How do you work that one out? ORB survey was flawed. It's generally been found that the amount of CIVILIANS killed (you say Iraqi's so persumably you're against killing jihadists too) at a maximum was 200,000 which is just a mere factors of the ammount Hussien had killed and was in the process of killing (and he would have killed a hell of a lot more).
@Ceres108 Oh? shall we talk about Horashima? Nakasaki? Vietnam? Afaganastan? i think you get it. You should take a trip to iarq and see if the pople there want your murderers there. When i say iraqis, im also talking about the rebels that lost loved ones to your soilders. Check out what some soilders have done in the war. Search them explaining there evil deeds. Look up Steven Green. He raped and killed an entire Iraqi family. A 12 year old girl got raped while she watched her family get killed.
@lebronjamesXD Actually, no, I don't get it. There aren't Iraqi's in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Vietnam or Afghanistan so your number of one million dead iraq's is still indefensible. The nuke on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war thus saving potentially millions of lives including Japanese soldiers. I can't comment on Vietnam as I don't know much about it. Afghanistan was a just war as was Iraq. Perhaps YOU should search 'Saddam Hussein,' 'Taliban' and 'Al Qaeda'.
@Ceres108 Clearly your missing the point. American soilders killed millions of civilains around the world. Also, you clearly need a lesson in history. They dropped the bombs to save more AMERICAN lives. Perhaps you should go back to commenting on videos were your soilders make iraqi kids say "FUCK IRAQ". How very heroic.
@lebronjamesXD Well, the second part of your comment is futile and ineffective.
Now, uou seem to have misunderstood me: the bombs on Japan ENDED the war saving the lives of millions who would have died otherwise, INCLUDING Japanese soldiers.
THIS video is about the Iraq War. You've presented absolutely no argument against the Iraq war whatsoever other than saying that it cost one million lives. Which you were wrong about. You've now turned it into a childish rant of I-hate-America
@Ceres108 What are you talking about? Does Steven Green ring a bell? Let me repeat this since you want to ignore it. Hes in jail with his buddies for rapeing a 12 year old girl and killing her family. Lets not forget about the leaks Bradly Manning sent to Wikileaks on your soilders killing civilains. Also lets not forget your soilders inhuman kill tatics, they place weapons on the street to see who picks it up then kills anyone who touches it. Try looking up "fuck Iraq". Very mature.
@lebronjamesXD I'm glad we invaded Iraq. It was just, necessary and over-due. I hope we bomb Iran's nuclear installations. I hope we join Kenya in their fight against Shabaab so that we can get aid to those suffering in Somalia. I hope we defeat the LRA. I hope we attack and defeat Assad in Syria. I hope we attack and defeat Mugabe. I hope we liberate the people of N Korea. And I wish you people who defend these monsters would keep your nonsense to yourself.
@Ceres108 You say monsters as if they all are savages. You want to bomb and tangle in the affairs of these countries and expect them to make peace with you? If another country bombs America, its inhuman, sick, and calls for war. If America bombs buildings with women and children, there heroic. Irony at its finest. I hope we treat other contries how we would like to be treated. I hope there is no need for war. I hope we can make more friends through peace and understanding.
It seems now that Christopher is dead the same sort of strawman arguments and misrepresentations are starting / continuing to pop up as we have seen with other great minds.
I`m talking about "Darwin said evolution was bullshit on his deathbed"-kind of misrepresentations.
People who cannot refute Hitchens arguments either knowingly lie about his positions which makes them dishonest or are too lazy to check their sources which makes them unreliable and voids their point as well.
It's wonderful that he was stopped, however, the total FAILURE of preparation for occupation of Iraq didn't as much save these people as it treated them. Those people are still living in pain ever single day. It still is divided, it still is under the rule of oppressive rulers, and the people continue to die every single day. It's as if you were a Doctor sent to help a man with shrapnel wounds and only did work to stop the bleeding. The underlying problem is still there.
Hm, I agree with his premise.. but I also think that these dictatorships have been supported over decades by western powers - with the intention in mind, to eventually overthrow.. when the time is right.
his whole point revolves around Saddam and his family. He doesn't address the actual product of what the war has brought, which is more violence than there ever has been under Hussein. It's easy to be idealistic and claim the best intentions, but like it or not, Saddam kept all the religious groups under control, and now these same groups are running rampant to a point where every Iraqi family in the world has a member that has died or has been injured as a result (my own family included).
@khazal12 The only difference in violence is that now it isn't the government perpetrating it. Though you make a valid point, and probably the point which has most weight behind it. What is the acceptableness human cost of getting rid of tyranny? And I suppose that question is entirely subjective which makes it a really gray area, so I for one think it's good that it's over with so the Iraqis can hopefully live peacefully from now on out, hopefully.
@Lulzalutioners Iraqi's don't have the means, structure or mentality to live peacefully at the moment. The south's biggest enemy is the Kurds and the Sunni's biggest enemies are the Shi'ites. The only way they would keep to themselves was through a dictatorial iron fist, or a military occupation. Which leaves the allied forces in a bit of a stalemate to when to withdraw, because the very goal they hoped to achieve would crumble if they decide to leave.
@khazal12 I see, well I admit that I am very ignorant of the current situation of Iraq. Anyway I think the solution to this problem is proper education for people and they will eventually, as we see in the west and particularly in Scandinavia that people will start taking faith less seriously. So in reality it all depends on the standard of living which affects education which affects religion which lessens differences. This would be hard to achieve. Tell me if I'm wrong though.
@Lulzalutioners Not wrong, but quite idealistic. It's a big ask to change the minds of an entire nation. Scandinavia wasn't built upon a religious foundation. The vikings and norse were primarily pagan/atheistic so it wasn't exactly hard to take religion less seriously in those countries. But in terms of Iraq and the Middle East you're talking about the cradle of all modern monotheistic religion. Islam, Judaism and Christianity have all come from that area. It's firmly strapped on like a tumor
@khazal12: Hitchens addressed your point in the video. The attempt to federalize Iraqi differences was an attempt to solve the problems that had only been suppressed by dictatorship and murder. It isn't a moral position to say "the hardship of doing that should have been avoided indefinitely" when we know dictatorship was not the only solution. I've never seen so many "liberals' arguing for a dictatorship to keep people in line.
@athabascka yes but the problem is that it is near impossible to do that in Iraq. It was an occupation that went ahead hideously under-planned and I don't know if you've been up on your recent news, but is failing publicly at the cost of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives, hundreds of which have happened just this month, 7 years after this attempt. There's a reason why liberals were for an Iraqi dictatorship, and that is that it actually worked. In theory it's not great, but in practice, it works
@khazal12: Well it sure is easy to say millions of people should live under a dictatorship when you have the benefit of living in a democratic and secular country. This disaster was not inevitable. It was the former Baathist and Jihadist "insurgents" who had done everything they could to prevent the liberalization of Iraq. And no, dictatorship did not work for Iraq. While the Kurds in the north had a vibrant society, the rest of Iraq was in the gutter because of dictatorship.
@athabascka yeah exactly Baathist and Jihadists. Its worse off now than before. And I'm talking about the south, 'Kurdistan' has always been somewhat separated from Iraq anyway. The reason I was born in a democratic and secular country was because of the gulf war, my mother was pregnant with me whilst Iraq was attacking, I was born with uncontrollable shakes for 3 weeks attributed to the stress that she was under. Most of my family are still in Iraq so I know whats actually happening.
@khazal12: I'm well aware. What we do know is that Saddam Hussein is not going to invade anyone ever again and that Qusay and Uday will never rule Iraq. It was a wager, and things turned out poorly. But still, Saddam Hussein had to go. Iraq has a chance for a future now. But the Iraqis are blowing it.
@athabascka Fair enough. But Iraq needs a strong government to govern. I'm not saying a dictatorship was good, but it did provide that control. The notion that the US and it's allies could just come in and 'kill the bad men' without losing control of the people (knowing the fragility of the 'peace' between the various groups at the time) is probably the biggest oversight they could have made and they need to put all their effort into rectifying it with a governing system thats worth something.
I don't think any serious people argued that Saddam Hussein should not be overthrown; the real question is where we really the right people to do it? The west always clips conditions onto its assistance, enforcing sinister neoliberalist policies on newly formed governments. In the minds of many middle easteners we are the embodiment of oppression, so would they ever trust us?
Against the ignorance of the left, Hitchens combated them all, and left them staggering. He brought a side that no one else did, he is a unique voice with no parallel.
Why was saddam hussein allowed into power in the first place? Why did it take so long before any intervention? Why has it taken 10 years and the lives of: 150,000 iraqi civilians, 5,000 service men and women and the the 3,000 that died in 9/11? And what happens if it all descends into chaos again? Another 10+ war? So many questions.
@RedRoosterRoad 9/11 didn't have anything to do with Iraq...
Anyway I agree, I think they should have stormed into Iraq the second they had destroyed the Iraqi army and had toppled the tyranny of Saddam and gotten it over with. But obviously we have the luxury of hindsight.
@escortmk112 Was he doing so? He was defending the invasion of Iraq and even if it was Bush who was solely responsible for it would not matter if it was bush or anyone else, saying that nobody should ever defend Bush even if they can demonstrate that Bush was in the right is simply stupid. Forget the faces and focus on the actions and draw conclusions from them, not the persons.
Another problem: the war was sold as a response to 9/11. If politicians had said "this is a humanitarian mission", the effect on public opinion would not have been as favorable.
@qtzlctl2012 But you've framed the question to give a false impression. It is not everyone that "helps," it is overwhelmingly the US. What about my other objections.
@SkepticThink As for the other objections, we are more than able to help others. But that's in the same sense that we are "able" to balance the budget. Politicians and lobbyists simply don't allow it.
As for 3, I'm sure it's a mix of both helping and harming.
I won't make a claim as bold as "the United States military has never killed anyone innocent" or anything like that but I will admit that I do believe the United States interference with Iraq was justified, at least to a large degree.
@warmongerpro: Thats how small you are. You insist that those who disagree with you have no decency and no conscience, and you still maintain a position of superior morality when this video made a strong case for an alternative view. My opinion is that the right thing to do is to hold criminals like Saddam Hussein responsible and accountable. And I'll not have fools like you, promoting fashionable lies, tell me I'm the problem.
@athabascka Christopher is the one promoting fashionable lies. To give one small example, he insists that Saddam Hussein collaborated with/protected with Al-Zarqawi, a claim which the 2006 Senate report on Prewar Intelligence found utterly baseless. I've watched tons of his Iraq videos because I like his arguments against religion, but his arguments are the same old neo-conservative garbage, with pretty language and a charming smile. BTW, calling people "fools" makes you sound like a teenager.
@warmongerpro: I would defend the use of the word fool in this instance - when you have a person insisting that those who disagree with them have no decency or conscience. As Hitchens says, those who wished to leave Saddam Hussein in power are the ones who have all the explaining to do. It sounds like you don't even want to argue the merits of his position, citing the weakest of his arguments, in an attempt to refute the strongest ones, after claiming that those who agree with him are immoral.
@WeLikeDanceMusic I don't have a moral responsibility towards the problems in Iraq because I didn't cause any of the problems in the first place.When the UK has problems do we go crying to Iraq and ask them to sort out our problems? No we don't ,what is it about the middle east that it can never find peace? Answer,religion, and I want no part of it.,and because of the money spent, I and millions of british taxpayers won't get a state pension for continually sorting out other countries problems.
@vashna3799 When the UK was getting bombed the fuck out by germany and the allies were getting hammered who did you cry to? the USA of course, now for that exact view that you just expressed, the USA decided they would have no part of the war, and they realised when pearl habor happened that they had no choice, war was inevitable. Same shit here, you cant avoid war with these people, evne if they are religious nutjobs, they need to be destroyed.
@WeLikeDanceMusic I wasn't around during world war II but ok, I'll give you that the two things that defeated nazi germany was american money and russian blood but would you be prepared to put on an army uniform and have a go at defeating these religious nutjobs, I'm honest enough to say no I wouldn't and couldn't.
The idea that someone living in London has some special responsibility to someone (whom they will never meet) living in Belfast or Glasgow that they don't have to someone living in Baghdad, or that I have some special obligation to someone living in texas that I don't have to someone in Tikrit, is ridiculous.
"answer, religion"
Saddam Hussein wasn't a theocrat, he was a secular mafioso
@vashna3799 You actually do have a responsibility to protect the populations of other nations when a genocide is being committed against them because your country is a signatory of the universal declaration of human rights which mandates immediate action to end such behavior if being perpetuated against a population by a government. So either Britain should withdrawal from the UN or your point is completely invalid. Cheers!
@blueshirttail like Mr Hitchens your obviously a lot richer than me and don't have to worry about not getting a state pension because theres no money left in the kitty from sorting out other countries problems ."Work till You Drop" is the mantra for the british working class.
@vashna3799 I'm sorry I said the 'universal declaration of human rights' and meant the "convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide"
@hurley1 I compiled this ages ago so I don't have all my original sources but I'm almost certain it is from the question and answer session at the Guardian's Hay Festival, either in 2005, 06, or 07.
I'm a great admirer of Hitchens, but I still believe his opinion on Iraq War was horribly misguided. He neglects the fact that the Bush administration lied to Congress and the American people. Congress has the right to decide whether to deploy troops in a moral engagement that doesn't threaten US security. The Iraq War has led to long-term destabilization. In fact, our position in the Middle East is now weakened by removing a counter to Iran, and allowing their regional hegemony.
HItchens always stated that the fear mongering and most of the reasons the Bush administration used to convince people the Iraq war is justified were ridiculous. I think the various reasons in this video sums up his justifications for the Iraq war. Maybe if Bush hired Hitchens to convince the American people that the war was justified, we wouldn't have been so divided on this issue.
@phoenixdef I agree that liying to Congress and through fear force the war upon the American people was not only a misstake but also criminal. However I do support the liberation of Iraq, and do belive the war will at the long term stabilize the region. Though not without problems, it has made great progress to transform Iraq into a working state, that will not be taken advantage of by other countries that are using the ethical divide of Iraq ot sieze control of it.
A question for atheists. In a world where there's no proof of God's existence or of life after death; how will you explain to your children why you brought them into the world and why they should die?
Thank you USA for killing Saddam Hussein. That tyrant had done the most environmental damage to our planet that any other single person in the history of our planet IMHO. He destroyed Tigris-Euphrates marshland and set all those oil wells in Kuwait on fire that polluted the area with oil. Good riddance!
Not to mention of course all the crimes, rapes and human rights violations committed by the "liberating" forces, which are the scum of the scum and the lowest of the low in America. Most Iraqis today, some of them are even Shia, say that Iraq during Saddam was a much better place than Iraq under American colonial rule. That war will always be a black spot on the US and this Hitchens guy.
Funny how after few years all Iraqis are greeting the Americans with stones, not with flowers and sweets. That war was illegal, it was launched based on forged "evidence", and it violated international law. America descended Iraq into all kinds of chaos and disorder. Corruption and terrorism are rampant throughout the country. They can hardly form a government for God's sake.
Though I guess he can list reasons why we should have went over, we could also list another 10 countries even worse off than Iraq. Liberation is wanted by all, but should America be the watchdogs for the entire world? And once we do liberate these countries, are we then responsible for it's future?
There's the principle, and then there's the reality.
It's a good principle to remove dictators and liberate the oppressed. But it's no use just having good intentions. If you start a war, or support a war, you must accept the joint responsibility of any human rights abuse that results from it. Sorry, but if you are proud of the war, you must also be proud of the civilian deaths as well.
War may be a required solution but requires more thought and afterthought than just "we had good intentions"
This has been flagged as spam show
Only a REAL FOOL would claim there is no God! Man creates awesome skyscrapers, fake hearts, tunnels, vehicles etc.. If we are very imperfect then what more can God create THE UNIVERSE! You must accept Jesus Christ as your Savior to receive eternal rest in heaven! Simple! John 3:16 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him! Repent & accept Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ or HELL?!? Visit cbn. com
tigersforchrist 1 week ago
Hitchens used atheism and rationalism to hide his faith with the state, and his warmongering.
bboschboi 1 week ago
@bboschboi Do you think that the only just war is a war of defense or what?
Lulzalutioners 1 week ago
@Lulzalutioners It depends on the situation but in almost all cases there is no real just for war.
bboschboi 1 week ago
@bboschboi There I disagree with you, my stance is with the old lefts slogan "Fascism means war".
Lulzalutioners 1 week ago
@Lulzalutioners Well i guess i agree with that, but i was think in terms of what america should do and in this world america is the most fascist major country. imo
bboschboi 1 week ago
The fact is that, even if a war against Sadam was justified, we were not lead into such a war on truthful premises.
elrynx2 1 week ago
@elrynx2 And what if you werent but hurt about being lied to, then would you be for doing the right thing?
ojdidit92 1 week ago
@ojdidit92
It's arguable if we actually did the right thing. Sadam was taken out relative early, and the United States barely exited the country. The quality of life we left behind may not be higher, either. It was reported that at least under Sadam there was electricity in Bagdad all hours of the day. Now, it just comes in spurts for a few times a day. Still, many are grateful we deposed the dictator. But yes, the *debatable* right end is not necessarily justified by the wrong means.
elrynx2 1 week ago
@elrynx2 Yes electricity 24/7! What's that compared to the murdering of thousands of your fellow countrymen at the hands of a fascist dictator. There was no way to take him out of power in total good. The means to the end were certainly not perfect (Not at all and Hitchens agrees in the video) but you couldn't Gandhi, Saddam out of power. Peace wouldn't have worked and to disagree is to be as deluded as the people who blindly followed Bush.
verybloodybaron 1 week ago
@elrynx2 Its the other way around, the ends (in this case) justify the means not the means justify the ends.Just out of curiosity do you have any idea what would have happend to iraq if it wasn't for entervention?
ojdidit92 1 week ago
@ojdidit92
Did I say that the means justified the ends? Or vice versa? I don't think I did. Any war, included any intervention in Iraq, should be done under clear pretenses. The war in Iraq was not waged with any shred of integrity. The public was fed lies. That's no way to conduct a government or a civilian military.
elrynx2 1 week ago
Its not that easy, Saddam was on of worst dictators of the last century...but the US didnt go in iraq to "liberate" the iraqis!! they had their own agenda and did some horrible things to stay in iraq as long as possible and caused the death of a lot of people!
AhmedHasan1984 3 weeks ago
@AhmedHasan1984 They did some horrible things and they stayed in iraq but i dont see how you can connect the two.
ojdidit92 3 weeks ago
@ojdidit92 How can u not? they are talking about the "iraq war" 2003-2012...
AhmedHasan1984 3 weeks ago
Wow..Hitchens was for the Iraq War? I find this kind of depressing :/
kazoorocketman54 1 month ago
@kazoorocketman54
Perhaps I could put your mind at rest (not that way!).
What troubles you with his support of the Iraq War? Looking forward to a civil discussion :-)
MrJs1G 1 month ago
@MrJs1G I've mainly just heard him speak about religion, which I've always been a fan of. I suppose I just presumptuously had the preconceived idea that he would be against the Iraq War, which is something I've always found myself opposed to, considering how costly it's been and because no evidence has been found to validate the pivotal reasons for the war (WMDs and Hussein's connections to Al-Qaeda)
kazoorocketman54 1 month ago
@kazoorocketman54 Of course crimes against humanity wouldnt be a reason to go in right? by the way, if you need to to feel like your in danger to give a fuck about people in other countries hows this, zarkawi went into iraq, set up terrorist training camps and started killing saddam husseins enemys in northern iraq. Nobady gets in or out of iraq without saddam knowing. Is that or is it not an obvious connection with Al-Qaeda and iraq?
ojdidit92 4 weeks ago
@ojdidit92 Crimes against humanity is the only thing I can really agree with; however, it wasn't the pivotal reason America invaded in the first place. Furthermore, I think it's ironic how we're supposed to be the "international humanity police", but just look at how many innocent Iraqi civilians have died because of US occupation.
kazoorocketman54 4 weeks ago
@kazoorocketman54 Is that it? is that the lynchpin,that we were lied to that the american government went because of oil? And as far as deaths at least 180,000 kurds and at least 200,000 iranians died painfull deaths from saddams poison chemicals alone not to mention the marsh arabs and saddams own citizens. You have to understand that we had an obligation to go.
ojdidit92 4 weeks ago
@kazoorocketman54And If you dont mind me asking are you a liberal?
ojdidit92 4 weeks ago
@ojdidit92 No, I'm not.
kazoorocketman54 4 weeks ago
@ojdidit92 "And as far as deaths at least 180,000 kurds and at least 200,000 iranians died painfull deaths from saddams poison chemicals"
...and who armed Saddam with these chemical weapons and gave him billions of dollars?
kazoorocketman54 3 weeks ago
@kazoorocketman54wasnt me... look all attitude aside, is this really the reason you are against going into iraq? because the us government is full of hypocracy and lies, because if it is im sorry thats simply not good enough. It would have been unacceptable to leave saddam in power.
ojdidit92 3 weeks ago
@kazoorocketman54
"considering how costly it's been"
-- What about the cost of tens of thousands more Iraqis and even more deaths of innocent US civilians due to terrorists harbored by Hussein (e.g. Abu Nidal, Abu Rahman Yasin)?
As for the point on evidence:
Linking al-Qaeda and Hussein: I agree, at this point in time.
WMD: intelligence communities of the US, the UK, France, Germany, and even the UN concluded that Iraq was indeed aspiring to acquire WMD. Even if WMD weren't found, at the...
MrJs1G 3 weeks ago
@kazoorocketman54
very least, it's unequivocal that Hussein was ducking all possible investigations to the UNESCO and inspectors. See Rolf Ekeus on this for more depth.
Another significant point which gets condoned in these types of conversations, IMHO, is military intelligence. This type of intelligence at its absolute best -- is a best guess. There aren't any guarantees in this community. Please take that into consideration as perhaps a general theme in this discourse.
Any other concerns?
MrJs1G 3 weeks ago
How the Hell could Hitchens support the terrible decision to invade Iraq....
degree7 1 month ago
@degree7 you sound kind of stupid saying that on a 12 minute video of him explaining why he supported the war...
ojdidit92 4 weeks ago
@ojdidit92
He never brought up one valid point.
What's the point if I can never empathize with the decision?
degree7 4 weeks ago
@degree7Did you not hear him mention that saddam broke all four of the international laws that would allow a country to keep its sovereignty including crimes against humanity and fooling around with weapons of mass destruction.
ojdidit92 4 weeks ago
@ojdidit92
There is no international law that allows a country to lose its sovereignty if broken.
First, there are protocols that must be taken. First, the threat must be identified (this was never done). Second, sanctions are to be placed. Third, if a country is a clear and present threat that is attacking the states around it, then force may be necessary. Unfortunately, the US couldn't even accomplish step one.
And he gased the Kurds with WMDs the US sold to him back in the 90s
degree7 4 weeks ago
@degree7 Is the fact that the us gave the weapons to saddam a point against the iraq invasion?And what do you mean he wasnt a threat he murdered thousands of people, but then again they werent americans so you, like the rest of the democrats probably dont care. After all sand niggers dont understand democracy right?
ojdidit92 4 weeks ago
@degree7 There absolutely is a law that states a country will lose its sovereignty if broken, it's called the "Treaty on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide". Secondly, of all the hundreds of conflicts that occurred in the twentieth century, only two or three followed the course you outlined. Protocol>Sanctions>Threat, etc. Thirdly, Saddam gassed the Kurds in the 1980s, not 1990s. Fourthly, the Baathist army used AK47s and weapons purchased from Russia and China, not the US.
blueshirttail 4 weeks ago
@blueshirttail
First, the "Convention on Genocide" does not allow a country to lose its sovereignty, but only "such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction". There are dozens of dictators out there that commit genocide every damn day, what made Saddam special? And that outline is UNITED NATIONS LAW, it's how the system works, the US had to circumvent that method in order to start their illegal war.
degree7 3 weeks ago
@blueshirttail
A UN security council statement condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons in the war was issued in 1986, but the US and other western governments continued supporting Baghdad militarily and politically into the closing stages of the war.
degree7 3 weeks ago
@degree7
What evidence do you have of the US providing such substantial material support, as you claim? Afaik, it supplied Iraq with $200 million worth of un-armed helicopters.
Furthermore, this decision was based on the situation at the time (in the Iran-Iraq war). What would you have done *instead*?
MrJs1G 3 weeks ago
@MrJs1G
Hah, the only reason that the US supported the war was because the Iranians had overthrown the US appointed "Shah" in the 1979 revolution after years of tyranny. Please, the US has made a living off of toppling democratically elected governments and replacing them.
I also find it painfully ironic how Hitchens railed against the "advanced interrogation methods", and yet these techniques were adopted full force by the Bush admin in this war. What a hypocrite.
degree7 3 weeks ago
@degree7
I asked you politely to provide evidence to corroborate your initial claim of "but the US and other western governments continued supporting Baghdad militarily and politically into the closing stages of the war."
Furthermore, if you're not going to acknowledge the points I made (I consider concession an acknowledgement), then I'm afraid you might being dishonest (and thus, I'm not sure if I want to continue).
MrJs1G 3 weeks ago
@degree7
The Shah was overthrown -- yes. But you tell me how Iranians fare now under theocracy than secularism.
And that's how foreign policy works; it's called "realpolitik". You seem well-read, so I'm sure you're aware of this principle.
There are so many factors which influence policy and so many difficult predicaments -- so I would be wary of painting such a black-and-white picture. What would you have done, as head of state, when a nation which held hostages engaged in war?
MrJs1G 3 weeks ago
@MrJs1G
There is my source. And to answer your other point, perhaps Iranians wouldn't be living under a theocracy if they hadn't been forced to utilize a religious revolution against what was an oppressive regime. What allows the Islamic Republic to retain support is their (rightful) animosity of the West and its foreign policy.
degree7 3 weeks ago
@degree7
"perhaps Iranians wouldn't be living under a theocracy if they hadn't been forced to utilize a religious revolution against what was an oppressive regime."
-- I find this a bit contradictory. If you believe that the conditions which those who took action were under directly caused the result (in this case, the Ayatollah), then where else do you shift the onus from those who *caused* something to its conditions?
MrJs1G 3 weeks ago
@degree7
Furthermore, the Shah was liked by those who were more secular and those who appreciated human rights. Women were free from oppressive religious rule (compared to today's official explanation of earthquakes divinely attributed to women), etc.
And sure -- the US has committed atrocities in its past -- but according to your reasoning, the US *today* has no right to speak out against human rights because slavery was once a vibrant institution within its borders in the past.
MrJs1G 3 weeks ago
@MrJs1G
It's not that I think that the US has no right to speak out, they have as much authority as other nations to call out on and aid in targeting governments and individuals for warcrimes. The US provides nearly 45% of the UN. I just think that Western powers shouldn't impose their foreign, political views should work onto another nation governing cultures that are thousands of years older.
degree7 3 weeks ago
@degree7
Replied via message, degree7.
MrJs1G 2 weeks ago
@MrJs1G
I know, I got your message, but I can't reply to it because my account isn't letting me.
degree7 2 weeks ago
@MrJs1G
So, toppling the democratically elected government of a nation, a MUSLIM nation no less, and then complaining about how they hated it so much they overthrew it in favour of a radical Islamic Republic, is rather hypocritical of the US. But of course, they have a long history of being hypocrites. Animosity feeds reactionism, so hardlines in Iran will be endlessly pressed to oppose the West in an endless cycle of antagonism shared both sides.
degree7 3 weeks ago
@degree7 You have to understand the difference between people and governments, most of the people in iraq wanted us there in 2003, most of the people in afghanistan wanted us there when they were being attacked by russia,most of the people in iran love americans and hate the iatola. Non enterventionalists like ron paul and yourself dont seem realize this. When we went into iraq i heard most democrats saying people in the mid east dont understand democracy or freedom, wich is a lie.
ojdidit92 2 weeks ago
@ojdidit92
I guarantee most Iraqis and Afghans did not want the US to invade and bomb their country.
degree7 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@degree7
"I also find it painfully ironic how Hitchens railed against the "advanced interrogation methods", and yet these techniques were adopted full force by the Bush admin in this war. What a hypocrite."
-- I think you answered your own question here. He's for the Iraq War in principle (he acknowledges incompetence and etc), and he's a named plaintiff in a case rallying against such interrogation.
MrJs1G 3 weeks ago
@MrJs1G
I got your message but I can't reply, my Youtube account's being retarded.
degree7 2 weeks ago
Im wondering, for the general population in Iraq, do they have it better or worse now then when saddam was in power? Hope someone can help, and sources would be awsome too :) It's for a school thingy :)
IneffableLifestyle 1 month ago
damn you Hitchens i was happy being against iraq. I can't remember the last time i watched a you-tube video and walked away from it with my closely held views in such tatters. I'm not pro-bush but I am admittedly convinced that what i thought was wrong or misunderstood. Had Bush been so erudite then he might of got on a bit better...i'm so conflicted Hitchens you legend.
kingofthebarstool 1 month ago
Eighteen dictators and/or BBC journalists disliked this video.
richard20bris 1 month ago
I think hitchens has an overly optimistic view of the american government as the rescuing hero, lets not forget they like most other countries are provided with cheap labour and matireals from countries that are a lot worse than iraq
dalektaliban 1 month ago
Never been a fan of hitchens but now yeah guy was good on politics.
onebadgs400 1 month ago
Scott Ritter reported there were no WMDS and Saddam was put in charge of the Iraq by the US only to betray their agent. I heavily disagree with Hitchens on his issue.
826zaheer1993 1 month ago
@826zaheer1993 I can point to two proofs to contradict your assertion that no WMDs were found in Iraq. Firstly, Hitchens mentions in his memoir that WMDs were found beneath a Sunni mosque and I think the Bush administration thought that making this discovery available to the public would inflame the sectarian civil war. Secondly, based on documents leaked by Wikileaks in 2010, it was discovered that chemicals used for making WMDs were found in Iraq (search "Wikileaks WMD" in google).
karangmail15 1 month ago
@karangmail15 you know, America gave those chemical weapons to Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war. Iraq had no factories for producing WMDs and those that may have been found are remains of those weapons used during that war. besides even if Saddam ever did make a so called WMD, who gave us the right to attack his country when we are the only nation to drop the atomic bomb. I admire Hitchens for most of his work but i dont take everything he says as pure truth, he can be wrong sometimes.
826zaheer1993 1 month ago
@826zaheer1993 You first said there were no WMDs and now you bring the issue of who provided the nuclear weapons to Iraq. Very well then. If the US government did provide chemical weapons to the Saddam Hussein regime, don't they bear greater responsibility than if they hadn't done so. You can find documents stating that the US did sell conventional weapons to Iraq and if you ask me, the Reagan administration should have been impeached for that.
karangmail15 1 month ago
@826zaheer1993 The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki meets the definition of mass extirpation and the entire US administration should have been tried at the Hague. My argument is since there were stockpiles of chemicals and it is the same regime that used them, one has to assume that they will use it again. But, please try to keep the topic to Iraq. I can bring up many crimes committed by the US from slavery, massacres of Native Americans to Vietnam, Chile, El-Salvador and Guatemala.
karangmail15 1 month ago
@karangmail15 so? USA gave it to them and Saddam being the dog of the US used it against Iran and used it against the kurds, i dont deny that. However, the US knew there were WMDs during the first gulf war and they didnt go after Saddam. They only went after his ass when he was gonna change the currency of oil form dollar to gold. Bush encouraged Sectarian warfare to destabilize Iraq further and the WMDs were already used anyways.
826zaheer1993 1 month ago
@826zaheer1993 President Bush did not encourage Sectarian warfare. In the Iraqi Intifada that you mentioned thousands of Sunni muslims (not necessarily Baathists) were murdered by Shia gangs, and thus, a sectarian Iraq was in the future in any case. The documents leaked by Wikileaks claim that chemicals for WMDs were found and not the factories.
karangmail15 1 month ago
@karangmail15 The sanctions on Iraq killed more than the WMDs used by Saddam so pretty much Iraq war and the idea that US was there to free the people was bullshit as the damage was done and the reason iraqis didn't give a warm welcome was cause in the first gulf war they betrayed them by trying to start a uprising then left them to be killed by Saddam. Saddam had no factories of WMDs, it was given to him on a silver platter and so what? Saddam left a couple behind in case of emergencies.
826zaheer1993 1 month ago
@826zaheer1993 To your point of US betrayal, I can also add that the Kurds were also betrayed after the Algiers agreement in 1975 when the Shah and the Nixon administration decided to resolve the border dispute with Iraq. To the point of warm welcome, there were plenty of them throughout the country and the majority of fighting against the US was carried out by the Baathists and Zarqawi.
karangmail15 1 month ago
@karangmail15 the charge was producing WMDs against Saddam, not having some.
826zaheer1993 1 month ago
@826zaheer1993 Since you like me were against the sanctions and the arms dealings, may I ask what you would have done? A coalition of French and Russian troops would never have proposed the removal of Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein's regime was stronger than Egypt, Libya and Syria's regimes and a similar uprising would not have toppled it. If sanctions were not imposed, the entire Kurdish population would have been ethnically cleansed. None of the Arab nations proposed anything.
karangmail15 1 month ago
@karangmail15 the CIA should have never installed Saddam in the first place, that is what i would have done. In fact i would hope have abolished the CIA for fucking up rest of the world if i was president and had the chance. The purpose of the sanctions was to stop Saddam but it backfired in part with also the assholes in Turkey who wanted to kill the kurds as well. I believe in creation of kurdistan for the kurds but none of the arab dictatorships want the western created borders redrawn.
826zaheer1993 1 month ago
@826zaheer1993 Iraqi Kurdistan at the very least is possible now after the discovery of oil in Anbar province by which I mean the Arab population in Iraq don't need oil revenues from Kurdistan. But as you said it correctly, Turkish, Iranian or Syrian Kurdistan is not possible until the power of military institutions is greatly diminished.
karangmail15 1 month ago
7:35 This is one of THOSE moments. Pure Hitch. I'm still so upset that the number of these moments is now finite.
ubernaffa 1 month ago 2
I wish i could make all Ron Paul supporters see this.
TheKidLiam 1 month ago
@TheKidLiam Ronbots can't "see" that which Ron Paul does not tell them to see. Don't waste your time.
CarlosMonteiro1985 1 month ago
Sorry about the spelling, my computer skips letters sometims.
lebronjamesXD 1 month ago
1 million iraqis killed thanks to America. Wow.
lebronjamesXD 2 months ago
@lebronjamesXD How do you work that one out? ORB survey was flawed. It's generally been found that the amount of CIVILIANS killed (you say Iraqi's so persumably you're against killing jihadists too) at a maximum was 200,000 which is just a mere factors of the ammount Hussien had killed and was in the process of killing (and he would have killed a hell of a lot more).
Ceres108 1 month ago
@Ceres108 Oh? shall we talk about Horashima? Nakasaki? Vietnam? Afaganastan? i think you get it. You should take a trip to iarq and see if the pople there want your murderers there. When i say iraqis, im also talking about the rebels that lost loved ones to your soilders. Check out what some soilders have done in the war. Search them explaining there evil deeds. Look up Steven Green. He raped and killed an entire Iraqi family. A 12 year old girl got raped while she watched her family get killed.
lebronjamesXD 1 month ago
@lebronjamesXD
You don't know how to spell Afghanistan and we're supposed to take you seriously?
l3lip 1 month ago
@l3lip like i said, my computer messes up my spelling, plus i couldn't spell it again because it types over the words after it. Anything eles?
lebronjamesXD 1 month ago
@lebronjamesXD
Yes -- that your logic is flawed. There are differences between extremists following their religion and one rogue soldier in an institution.
Learn them.
l3lip 1 month ago
@lebronjamesXD Actually, no, I don't get it. There aren't Iraqi's in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Vietnam or Afghanistan so your number of one million dead iraq's is still indefensible. The nuke on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war thus saving potentially millions of lives including Japanese soldiers. I can't comment on Vietnam as I don't know much about it. Afghanistan was a just war as was Iraq. Perhaps YOU should search 'Saddam Hussein,' 'Taliban' and 'Al Qaeda'.
Ceres108 1 month ago
@Ceres108 Clearly your missing the point. American soilders killed millions of civilains around the world. Also, you clearly need a lesson in history. They dropped the bombs to save more AMERICAN lives. Perhaps you should go back to commenting on videos were your soilders make iraqi kids say "FUCK IRAQ". How very heroic.
lebronjamesXD 1 month ago
@lebronjamesXD Well, the second part of your comment is futile and ineffective.
Now, uou seem to have misunderstood me: the bombs on Japan ENDED the war saving the lives of millions who would have died otherwise, INCLUDING Japanese soldiers.
THIS video is about the Iraq War. You've presented absolutely no argument against the Iraq war whatsoever other than saying that it cost one million lives. Which you were wrong about. You've now turned it into a childish rant of I-hate-America
Ceres108 1 month ago
@Ceres108 What are you talking about? Does Steven Green ring a bell? Let me repeat this since you want to ignore it. Hes in jail with his buddies for rapeing a 12 year old girl and killing her family. Lets not forget about the leaks Bradly Manning sent to Wikileaks on your soilders killing civilains. Also lets not forget your soilders inhuman kill tatics, they place weapons on the street to see who picks it up then kills anyone who touches it. Try looking up "fuck Iraq". Very mature.
lebronjamesXD 1 month ago
@lebronjamesXD I'm glad we invaded Iraq. It was just, necessary and over-due. I hope we bomb Iran's nuclear installations. I hope we join Kenya in their fight against Shabaab so that we can get aid to those suffering in Somalia. I hope we defeat the LRA. I hope we attack and defeat Assad in Syria. I hope we attack and defeat Mugabe. I hope we liberate the people of N Korea. And I wish you people who defend these monsters would keep your nonsense to yourself.
Ceres108 1 month ago
@Ceres108 You say monsters as if they all are savages. You want to bomb and tangle in the affairs of these countries and expect them to make peace with you? If another country bombs America, its inhuman, sick, and calls for war. If America bombs buildings with women and children, there heroic. Irony at its finest. I hope we treat other contries how we would like to be treated. I hope there is no need for war. I hope we can make more friends through peace and understanding.
lebronjamesXD 1 month ago
War is not always unjustified.
OhmgrownCron 2 months ago
It seems now that Christopher is dead the same sort of strawman arguments and misrepresentations are starting / continuing to pop up as we have seen with other great minds.
I`m talking about "Darwin said evolution was bullshit on his deathbed"-kind of misrepresentations.
People who cannot refute Hitchens arguments either knowingly lie about his positions which makes them dishonest or are too lazy to check their sources which makes them unreliable and voids their point as well.
HaploidCell 2 months ago
It's wonderful that he was stopped, however, the total FAILURE of preparation for occupation of Iraq didn't as much save these people as it treated them. Those people are still living in pain ever single day. It still is divided, it still is under the rule of oppressive rulers, and the people continue to die every single day. It's as if you were a Doctor sent to help a man with shrapnel wounds and only did work to stop the bleeding. The underlying problem is still there.
Jamez377 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Check out the facts. /watch?v=crsz6_8fJ68&feature=channel_video_title
JesusChristDaily 2 months ago
Hm, I agree with his premise.. but I also think that these dictatorships have been supported over decades by western powers - with the intention in mind, to eventually overthrow.. when the time is right.
zemlamusic 2 months ago
I dont really get it... So he says invading Iraq and Afghanistan was a good idea. But things did not change for the better. To all sides!
eleminatus 2 months ago
his whole point revolves around Saddam and his family. He doesn't address the actual product of what the war has brought, which is more violence than there ever has been under Hussein. It's easy to be idealistic and claim the best intentions, but like it or not, Saddam kept all the religious groups under control, and now these same groups are running rampant to a point where every Iraqi family in the world has a member that has died or has been injured as a result (my own family included).
khazal12 2 months ago
@khazal12 The only difference in violence is that now it isn't the government perpetrating it. Though you make a valid point, and probably the point which has most weight behind it. What is the acceptableness human cost of getting rid of tyranny? And I suppose that question is entirely subjective which makes it a really gray area, so I for one think it's good that it's over with so the Iraqis can hopefully live peacefully from now on out, hopefully.
Lulzalutioners 2 months ago
@Lulzalutioners Iraqi's don't have the means, structure or mentality to live peacefully at the moment. The south's biggest enemy is the Kurds and the Sunni's biggest enemies are the Shi'ites. The only way they would keep to themselves was through a dictatorial iron fist, or a military occupation. Which leaves the allied forces in a bit of a stalemate to when to withdraw, because the very goal they hoped to achieve would crumble if they decide to leave.
khazal12 2 months ago
@khazal12 I see, well I admit that I am very ignorant of the current situation of Iraq. Anyway I think the solution to this problem is proper education for people and they will eventually, as we see in the west and particularly in Scandinavia that people will start taking faith less seriously. So in reality it all depends on the standard of living which affects education which affects religion which lessens differences. This would be hard to achieve. Tell me if I'm wrong though.
Lulzalutioners 2 months ago
@Lulzalutioners Not wrong, but quite idealistic. It's a big ask to change the minds of an entire nation. Scandinavia wasn't built upon a religious foundation. The vikings and norse were primarily pagan/atheistic so it wasn't exactly hard to take religion less seriously in those countries. But in terms of Iraq and the Middle East you're talking about the cradle of all modern monotheistic religion. Islam, Judaism and Christianity have all come from that area. It's firmly strapped on like a tumor
khazal12 2 months ago
@khazal12 Could very well be true. It's going to be a struggle to remove that tumor as you very well put it and let us hope that time does.
Thanks for the conversation/slight debate.
Lulzalutioners 2 months ago
@khazal12: Hitchens addressed your point in the video. The attempt to federalize Iraqi differences was an attempt to solve the problems that had only been suppressed by dictatorship and murder. It isn't a moral position to say "the hardship of doing that should have been avoided indefinitely" when we know dictatorship was not the only solution. I've never seen so many "liberals' arguing for a dictatorship to keep people in line.
athabascka 2 months ago
@athabascka yes but the problem is that it is near impossible to do that in Iraq. It was an occupation that went ahead hideously under-planned and I don't know if you've been up on your recent news, but is failing publicly at the cost of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives, hundreds of which have happened just this month, 7 years after this attempt. There's a reason why liberals were for an Iraqi dictatorship, and that is that it actually worked. In theory it's not great, but in practice, it works
khazal12 2 months ago
@khazal12: Well it sure is easy to say millions of people should live under a dictatorship when you have the benefit of living in a democratic and secular country. This disaster was not inevitable. It was the former Baathist and Jihadist "insurgents" who had done everything they could to prevent the liberalization of Iraq. And no, dictatorship did not work for Iraq. While the Kurds in the north had a vibrant society, the rest of Iraq was in the gutter because of dictatorship.
athabascka 2 months ago 7
@athabascka yeah exactly Baathist and Jihadists. Its worse off now than before. And I'm talking about the south, 'Kurdistan' has always been somewhat separated from Iraq anyway. The reason I was born in a democratic and secular country was because of the gulf war, my mother was pregnant with me whilst Iraq was attacking, I was born with uncontrollable shakes for 3 weeks attributed to the stress that she was under. Most of my family are still in Iraq so I know whats actually happening.
khazal12 2 months ago
@khazal12: I'm well aware. What we do know is that Saddam Hussein is not going to invade anyone ever again and that Qusay and Uday will never rule Iraq. It was a wager, and things turned out poorly. But still, Saddam Hussein had to go. Iraq has a chance for a future now. But the Iraqis are blowing it.
athabascka 2 months ago
@athabascka Fair enough. But Iraq needs a strong government to govern. I'm not saying a dictatorship was good, but it did provide that control. The notion that the US and it's allies could just come in and 'kill the bad men' without losing control of the people (knowing the fragility of the 'peace' between the various groups at the time) is probably the biggest oversight they could have made and they need to put all their effort into rectifying it with a governing system thats worth something.
khazal12 2 months ago
I don't think any serious people argued that Saddam Hussein should not be overthrown; the real question is where we really the right people to do it? The west always clips conditions onto its assistance, enforcing sinister neoliberalist policies on newly formed governments. In the minds of many middle easteners we are the embodiment of oppression, so would they ever trust us?
multitudinal 2 months ago
@multitudinal If not us, then whom? Who had the means to do so, if not a Western power?
gummybrain 2 months ago
Against the ignorance of the left, Hitchens combated them all, and left them staggering. He brought a side that no one else did, he is a unique voice with no parallel.
HSAdestroy 2 months ago
Why was saddam hussein allowed into power in the first place? Why did it take so long before any intervention? Why has it taken 10 years and the lives of: 150,000 iraqi civilians, 5,000 service men and women and the the 3,000 that died in 9/11? And what happens if it all descends into chaos again? Another 10+ war? So many questions.
RedRoosterRoad 2 months ago
@RedRoosterRoad 9/11 didn't have anything to do with Iraq...
Anyway I agree, I think they should have stormed into Iraq the second they had destroyed the Iraqi army and had toppled the tyranny of Saddam and gotten it over with. But obviously we have the luxury of hindsight.
Lulzalutioners 2 months ago
How can this man ever defend Bush
escortmk112 2 months ago
@escortmk112 Was he doing so? He was defending the invasion of Iraq and even if it was Bush who was solely responsible for it would not matter if it was bush or anyone else, saying that nobody should ever defend Bush even if they can demonstrate that Bush was in the right is simply stupid. Forget the faces and focus on the actions and draw conclusions from them, not the persons.
Lulzalutioners 2 months ago
@Lulzalutioners What a load of rubbish
escortmk112 2 months ago
an honest, intelligent, thoughtful, courageous, humorous man...an inspiration
lafontaine13 2 months ago
Mr. Hitchens you will always be an inspiration to me
UnitedWorld88 2 months ago
Christopher Hitchens had a strong since of right vs. wrong, of good vs. evil. He was a good man with good morals.
rsflutterby 2 months ago
love hitch
lafontaine13 2 months ago
RIP Christopher Hitchens 1949-2011
migkillertwo 2 months ago
@blueshirttail thank you very much :)
frikkiladi 3 months ago
does anybody know from wich video the 07:15-07:58 part is from?
frikkiladi 3 months ago
@frikkiladi That clip is from a debate with Playthell Benjamin in The Great Hall at Cooper Union.
blueshirttail 3 months ago 3
I know the regime was terribl, but how is it linked to 9/11 at all?
moroney1 4 months ago
Another problem: the war was sold as a response to 9/11. If politicians had said "this is a humanitarian mission", the effect on public opinion would not have been as favorable.
SkepticThink 4 months ago
The problem here is that he assumes a few things:
1. It's our responsibility to help other countries
2. We can help other countries
3. When we go into those countries, we actually help
SkepticThink 4 months ago
@SkepticThink If it's not our (everyone's, not just USA) responsibility to help others, whose is it?
qtzlctl2012 3 months ago
@qtzlctl2012 But you've framed the question to give a false impression. It is not everyone that "helps," it is overwhelmingly the US. What about my other objections.
SkepticThink 3 months ago
@SkepticThink I framed the question perfectly. The fact that not everyone steps up is irrelevant.
qtzlctl2012 3 months ago
@SkepticThink As for the other objections, we are more than able to help others. But that's in the same sense that we are "able" to balance the budget. Politicians and lobbyists simply don't allow it.
As for 3, I'm sure it's a mix of both helping and harming.
qtzlctl2012 3 months ago
I won't make a claim as bold as "the United States military has never killed anyone innocent" or anything like that but I will admit that I do believe the United States interference with Iraq was justified, at least to a large degree.
mynameisjonas45 5 months ago
@ReviveLiberalism
VERY GOOD COMMENT :)
hitchens most smart, honest human to live in 21th century so far.
Thastorcyclone 5 months ago
7 people have some semblance of decency and a conscience
warmongerpro 5 months ago
@warmongerpro: Thats how small you are. You insist that those who disagree with you have no decency and no conscience, and you still maintain a position of superior morality when this video made a strong case for an alternative view. My opinion is that the right thing to do is to hold criminals like Saddam Hussein responsible and accountable. And I'll not have fools like you, promoting fashionable lies, tell me I'm the problem.
athabascka 4 months ago
@athabascka Christopher is the one promoting fashionable lies. To give one small example, he insists that Saddam Hussein collaborated with/protected with Al-Zarqawi, a claim which the 2006 Senate report on Prewar Intelligence found utterly baseless. I've watched tons of his Iraq videos because I like his arguments against religion, but his arguments are the same old neo-conservative garbage, with pretty language and a charming smile. BTW, calling people "fools" makes you sound like a teenager.
warmongerpro 4 months ago
@warmongerpro: I would defend the use of the word fool in this instance - when you have a person insisting that those who disagree with them have no decency or conscience. As Hitchens says, those who wished to leave Saddam Hussein in power are the ones who have all the explaining to do. It sounds like you don't even want to argue the merits of his position, citing the weakest of his arguments, in an attempt to refute the strongest ones, after claiming that those who agree with him are immoral.
athabascka 4 months ago
the only reason I didn't support the war was that its cost UK taxpayers over 3 billion pounds fighting someone else's fight .
vashna3799 6 months ago
@vashna3799 I would consider moral responsibility over tax payers money, but hey thats just me.
WeLikeDanceMusic 5 months ago
@WeLikeDanceMusic I don't have a moral responsibility towards the problems in Iraq because I didn't cause any of the problems in the first place.When the UK has problems do we go crying to Iraq and ask them to sort out our problems? No we don't ,what is it about the middle east that it can never find peace? Answer,religion, and I want no part of it.,and because of the money spent, I and millions of british taxpayers won't get a state pension for continually sorting out other countries problems.
vashna3799 5 months ago
@vashna3799 When the UK was getting bombed the fuck out by germany and the allies were getting hammered who did you cry to? the USA of course, now for that exact view that you just expressed, the USA decided they would have no part of the war, and they realised when pearl habor happened that they had no choice, war was inevitable. Same shit here, you cant avoid war with these people, evne if they are religious nutjobs, they need to be destroyed.
WeLikeDanceMusic 5 months ago
@WeLikeDanceMusic I wasn't around during world war II but ok, I'll give you that the two things that defeated nazi germany was american money and russian blood but would you be prepared to put on an army uniform and have a go at defeating these religious nutjobs, I'm honest enough to say no I wouldn't and couldn't.
vashna3799 5 months ago
@vashna3799 Yes, and partly inspired by Christopher Hitchens hopefully i can one day go to afghanistan and battle the taliban
WeLikeDanceMusic 5 months ago
@WeLikeDanceMusic Well then,best of luck.
vashna3799 5 months ago
@vashna3799
The idea that someone living in London has some special responsibility to someone (whom they will never meet) living in Belfast or Glasgow that they don't have to someone living in Baghdad, or that I have some special obligation to someone living in texas that I don't have to someone in Tikrit, is ridiculous.
"answer, religion"
Saddam Hussein wasn't a theocrat, he was a secular mafioso
migkillertwo 5 months ago
@vashna3799 You actually do have a responsibility to protect the populations of other nations when a genocide is being committed against them because your country is a signatory of the universal declaration of human rights which mandates immediate action to end such behavior if being perpetuated against a population by a government. So either Britain should withdrawal from the UN or your point is completely invalid. Cheers!
blueshirttail 5 months ago
@blueshirttail like Mr Hitchens your obviously a lot richer than me and don't have to worry about not getting a state pension because theres no money left in the kitty from sorting out other countries problems ."Work till You Drop" is the mantra for the british working class.
vashna3799 5 months ago
@vashna3799 I'm sorry I said the 'universal declaration of human rights' and meant the "convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide"
blueshirttail 5 months ago
Why do people have purple paint on their fingers?
ilovenarwhales 6 months ago
@ilovenarwhales It was so they couldn't vote twice in the elections for the Iraqi government.
blueshirttail 6 months ago 7
Brilliant video, very well put together and much appreciated. Cheers
tboladave 6 months ago
What clip does the "I'm through with all their jingles" but come from. Id like to hear it in full.
hurley1 6 months ago
@hurley1 I compiled this ages ago so I don't have all my original sources but I'm almost certain it is from the question and answer session at the Guardian's Hay Festival, either in 2005, 06, or 07.
blueshirttail 6 months ago
I'm a great admirer of Hitchens, but I still believe his opinion on Iraq War was horribly misguided. He neglects the fact that the Bush administration lied to Congress and the American people. Congress has the right to decide whether to deploy troops in a moral engagement that doesn't threaten US security. The Iraq War has led to long-term destabilization. In fact, our position in the Middle East is now weakened by removing a counter to Iran, and allowing their regional hegemony.
phoenixdef 6 months ago
@phoenixdef
HItchens always stated that the fear mongering and most of the reasons the Bush administration used to convince people the Iraq war is justified were ridiculous. I think the various reasons in this video sums up his justifications for the Iraq war. Maybe if Bush hired Hitchens to convince the American people that the war was justified, we wouldn't have been so divided on this issue.
EliteKiller07 6 months ago
@phoenixdef I agree that liying to Congress and through fear force the war upon the American people was not only a misstake but also criminal. However I do support the liberation of Iraq, and do belive the war will at the long term stabilize the region. Though not without problems, it has made great progress to transform Iraq into a working state, that will not be taken advantage of by other countries that are using the ethical divide of Iraq ot sieze control of it.
Ultimatevilperson1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A question for atheists. In a world where there's no proof of God's existence or of life after death; how will you explain to your children why you brought them into the world and why they should die?
QuestionForAtheists 7 months ago
Thank you for posting this, blueshirttail.
writersblock26 7 months ago
Thank you USA for killing Saddam Hussein. That tyrant had done the most environmental damage to our planet that any other single person in the history of our planet IMHO. He destroyed Tigris-Euphrates marshland and set all those oil wells in Kuwait on fire that polluted the area with oil. Good riddance!
staanism 7 months ago
hssss hssss lol I guess they're some snakes in dis house.
OhmgrownCron 7 months ago
Not to mention of course all the crimes, rapes and human rights violations committed by the "liberating" forces, which are the scum of the scum and the lowest of the low in America. Most Iraqis today, some of them are even Shia, say that Iraq during Saddam was a much better place than Iraq under American colonial rule. That war will always be a black spot on the US and this Hitchens guy.
SCSA11 7 months ago
@SCSA11 Tell that to my friend Ziyad. His family escaped from Iraq under Saddam Hussein and now live here in the US. God bless the United States.
ilisbaani 7 months ago 8
@ilisbaani Tell your friend ziyad that it was your govt who supported saddam then trained iraqi nuclear engineers in advance WMD in 1989 ..
StopTheElite 4 months ago
@ilisbaani while the rest of his family gets killed by American troops. Blessings must really be a good thing :)
lebronjamesXD 2 months ago
Funny how after few years all Iraqis are greeting the Americans with stones, not with flowers and sweets. That war was illegal, it was launched based on forged "evidence", and it violated international law. America descended Iraq into all kinds of chaos and disorder. Corruption and terrorism are rampant throughout the country. They can hardly form a government for God's sake.
SCSA11 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 7 months ago
Though I guess he can list reasons why we should have went over, we could also list another 10 countries even worse off than Iraq. Liberation is wanted by all, but should America be the watchdogs for the entire world? And once we do liberate these countries, are we then responsible for it's future?
spp41 7 months ago
There's the principle, and then there's the reality.
It's a good principle to remove dictators and liberate the oppressed. But it's no use just having good intentions. If you start a war, or support a war, you must accept the joint responsibility of any human rights abuse that results from it. Sorry, but if you are proud of the war, you must also be proud of the civilian deaths as well.
War may be a required solution but requires more thought and afterthought than just "we had good intentions"
kwanarchive 8 months ago