I hate how people say that Hitchens went crazy for supporting the Iraq War and that he betrayed the left. On the contrary, he was just being himself. This is the same gentleman who went on Real Time and insulted Bill Maher's audience and gave them the finger. Hitchens doesn't belong to either left or right. He is who he is an is unapologetic about it.
Those of chemical weapon he used on his own people, came from Maryland USA as well as the military inteligence and logistic to use them in the 80's. Glad this war appologist is dead!
@sacopenapa and as well, as he used the chemicals on his own people the american soldiers were told to sit back and watch, the kurds thought the americans were there to rescue them!! sick eh!!
Hitchen's views are condtioned by a certain sense of realism. He knows American Foreign Policy is partly based on idealism, partly realism. The case for removing Saddam Hussein from power was quite strong and no one should feel they have to apologise for it.
@90talisten He was part of a Trotskyist party for most of his life. His arguement for the invasion of Iraq comes from his lifetime of experiences as an anti-totalitarian leftist.
"Shamefully", i`m not at all convinced by that wording. Is it meant to imply, that maybe Washington wasn`t quite aware what they were supporting? Their benevolence was warped by Saddam? I was simply stating a fact that Saddam had US military, diplomatic, economic backing for most of his reign, he was "their kind of guy". A lot goes into this, but it is by no means insignificant to omit it from the foreground of the matter at hand.
Hitchens is well aware of this, but its interesting to note his omission of the fact that saddam had complete US backing while comitting his attrocities (which hitchens eloquently lists)
@KaelKara2 Stalin had allied backing when comitting his polish massacres .. To back a country with resources when you fight a common enemy is not a rarity.. It does not change anything.
@richter75 I`m not sure about the analogy you used. Who`s the common enemy (compareble to Nazi germany, which i think you referring to)? And to end with: "it does not change anything", in this context is to say that; the crimes committed by Saddam are meaningless. Since they could have been avoided (to a large extent) by not supporting him. On a sidenote; words like "accessory to genocide" (Kurdistan case)... would be more appropriate, instead of "support" or "aid".
@Mezey5 that's exactly what the venerable Thomas Sowell always says. Victor Davis Hanson (another Hoover Institute Fellow, along with Sowell and Hitchens) had this great article recently about the moral preeners like the Sheriff in Tucson telling the U.S. how their public character writ large was flawed, meanwhile, his department knew of Loughner's insanity and threats and did nothing. People like Chomsky have every reason to speak beyond their expertise. The willing will just lap it up.
"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."
Osama Bin Ladem attacked the US because of the US Federal State occupying the Arabian Peninsula and funding Israel, not because of jihadism/islamism.
9-11 happened because of the US State(which Hitchens worships) occupying the Arabian Peninsula and funding Israel. That is what Osama Bin Laden said in 2001-October, 1998, AND 1996! The attack on the African Embassy was on the ANNIVERSARY of the US State occupying the Arabian Peninsula!!!
And either way the US State has no legitimacy committing larceny to pay for any US massacre anyway.
9-11 happened because of the US State(which Hitchens worships) occupying the Arabian Peninsula and funding Israel. That is what Osama Bin Laden said in 2001-October, 1998, AND 1996! The attack on the African Embassy was on the ANNIVERSARY of the US State occupying the Arabian Peninsula!!!
And either way the US State has no legitimacy committing larceny to pay for any US massacre anyway.
Christopher Hitchens is brilliant when it comes to defending Atheism and destroying any religious argument, however, as his contemporaries and fellow intellectuals have noted and demonstrated, his logic is flawed when it comes to the Iraq war. The US is the country that armed Saddam and brought him into power in the first place, and now they want to make right by it? Please. If anything this is all about nurturing another puppet government until it goes astray and the people need to be 'saved'.
So the argument goes that because past govrnments made a mistake, we now have to stand idly by and not correct it? How does that make sense?
And, straying off topic here, I'm sorry to say that I disagree about Hitchens destroying religious argument. I have yet to see him do that. He criticizes organized religion like no one else, and does a good job doing it, but nothing more.
@playthefield21 his argument definitely has holes, but you should read up on the history of iraq. saying that the US armed him and used him as a puppet govt is a huge oversimplification and in many ways flawed assessment of the situation.
says Hitch, as a govt you lose your sovereignty when
1. Invade/Occupy neighbors
2. Perform genocide
3. Harbor terrorists
4. Violate non-proliferation
US supported Iraq when they invaded Iran, US allowed Saddam to stay in power after Gulf war, US neutral when Saddam defeated a Shite uprising and did genocide on the Kurds, proven that Saddam was not harboring terrorists in Iraq, proven that Iraq does not have nukes and the US supports the nuclear weapons in India, Pakistan, and Israel.
The US wasn't neutral on the Kurds and Shite uprisings. The US and the UK had heavily protected no-fly zones over the North and South of the Iraq (60%) and supported by uprisings. Iraq did not have nukes in 2003 but it had the knowledge, resources, and laboratories to re-create them from 1991. The US' greatest mistake was not removing Saddam in 1991 and Hitchens point is that even if the US is guilty of everything you say above, that is more reason to go and atone for their past.
None of these points really matter, and certainly the question he poses only obscures the matter (would it have mattered if Hussein had been elected?). None of the four points matter because, it seems to me, they are infinitely more justifiable than the excuse of WMDs. The US, even with Hussein not elected, could have cited these points (violation of int'l law, threat to state sovereignty, etc.) but chose not to do so.
i admire chomsky, he remains a foremidable thinker but his position is compromised somewhat by his leftist postion, hitchens is a realist in this debate.
Funny. Chomsky has openly stated that he will not debate Hitchens on the issue. Why? Because the moron is afraid he might actually lose. And with good reason, too.
@soapfiction Funny how you didnt bother to read a written exchange between Chomsky and Hitchens in which Chomsky just destroyed Hitchens. Chomsky didnt want to further waste his precious time with Hitchens.
Chomsky: A real dissident and serious moral scholar of our times.
Hitchens: Sound debater, semi serious scholarship, more obsessed with prime time television fame and silly antics.
Do not even dare to compare the two, Hitchens will never be in Chomsky;s league.
@AllOurWisdom What "exchange" are you talking about? The only ones I can find are the letters immediately following 9/11, almost a decade ago. Chomsky did not "just" do anything to Hitch. As far as anyone knows, they haven't conversed since then. And Noam merely backed into a corner and called Hitch a lunatic when Hitch raised very important points. "Destroyed", my ass.
@AllOurWisdom Chomsky said, in a later interview, that Hitch was stupid for disagreeing with him, and that he "wouldn't get involved" in the debates Hitch was a part of. Translation: "I'm too scared to debate him". So, worship Chomsky and his cult all you want. Hitchens is a great dissident and iconoclast of our times, and no whining Chomskyite thugs are going to change that. I'll compare them all I want, and rightly so. If Chomsky really can beat Hitch in a real debate, he'll prove it.
Calling Chomsky a moron precludes you from judging who would win if such a debate were ever to occur. Hitchens has no answer for Chomsky's applying of the same standards, from legality, to the US or Britain. Why? Because there cannot be one. The US has violated all 4 of the conditions under which a state may be deemed to have forfeited it's sovereignty. Is Hitchens in favour of a Vietnamese or Nicaraguan invasion of Washington or New York?
@QwidgyboMan "The US has violated all 4 of the conditions under which a state may be deemed to have forfeited it's sovereignty."
Um, no they haven't. The US never invaded Nicaragua. And as for Vietnam, you could use the same analogy for Germany, Japan and Korea. The US has never committed genocide, isn't aiding international criminals, and never violated any weapons treaty (all our nukes were made before we signed any such treaty). The last time the US invaded a neighboring state was 1845.
They organised the Contra armies to overthrow the democratically elected government of Nicaragua. Both the World Court and the Security Council agree it was unlawful use of force and ordered the US the halt it.
Secondly, I don't understand you point about Germany, Japan and Korea. How does that change or sanctify the US destruction of Vietnam?
@QwidgyboMan Fair enough, but the "Contras" were made up of people who were fed up with the Sandinista govt. I think the name they received was unfairly given to them. Plus, if I rememeber correctly, the Sandinistas were defeated in another democratic election in 1990. They weren't overthrown.
I mention 1845 because that was the last time the US invaded and occupied a neighboring state only to absorb part of it (which is what Saddam did). That's what Hitchens is talking about.
I'm fed up with my government; that doesn't give me the right to kill innocent people. Whether the Contras successfully overthrew the Sandinistas or not is irrelevant. The US funded a terrorist militia which lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands.
Invading or occupying foreign territory against UN, security council and World Court orders suffices and the US has certainly done that.
Thirdly, you don't have to commit the genocide yourself, as a state. Any violation of the convention is enough. I refer you to the US providing 80% of the arms to Suharto and Indonesia in their genocide of East Timor. Hell, even Hitchens acknowledges this. Kissinger and Ford met with Suharto, gave him the go ahead and you can easily look up the transcript.
Isn't/wasn't aiding international criminals or terrorists? Spare me. Emmanuel Constant? Ronald Reagan? Henry Kissinger?
@QwidgyboMan Again, the administration that aided Indonesia is long gone, and we began repairing the damage, helping East Timor (one of the reasons why bin Laden says we must die, by the way. And Chomsky acts as if he speaks for the downtrodden). If Kissinger is responsible for this, he should be tried. He doesn't have power in the govt. anymore, unlike Saddam, who was still in power.
You keep bringing up topics that are very debatable. You seem to be nothing more than a mouthpiece for Chomsky.
Oh I see, so if it's in the past, it doesn't matter any more? Fact is, US and British support for Suharto continued right up until 1998 so don't give me this shit about the administration being long gone. It was less than 15 years ago, but I'm sure your voice could be heard calling for the prosecution of Clinton and Bush Snr for aiding a known mass murderer and genocidal maniac, right?
I keep bringing up topics that are very debatable? Isn't that the point? Debate away.
@QwidgyboMan You bring up topics that are up to debate, yet you present them as solid facts. Just because Chomsky says it, that doesn't make it true. For instance, in one interview, he claims that, if the US had halted the arms race in the 1960's, the USSR would've ceased to be within a decade or so. That's a very big "if", and I'm not sure I believe it, no matter how stimulating the thought is.
@QwidgyboMan Last time I checked, Clinton was in power in 1998, not Bush. I'm sorry, but that makes all the difference. And I'm well aware of the frivolous "Dirty Hands" argument. By all means prosecute Clinton for the negligence on Al-Shifa. That doesn't negate the good he did in Kosovo. And you can't exactly tell George Bush that he can't move Iraq into a post-Saddam era because his daddy once worked with Saddam. It doesn't work that way.
Firstly, I said Bush Snr. He continued support for the genocidal Suharto. Secondly, by your own standards, if we didn't punish Clinton, which we obviously didn't, you should've been in favour of the Sudanese invading the US. Were you, at the time? No, didn't think so.
It doesn't negate the good he did in Kosovo - Are you fucking kidding me? Even if I grant that what he did was noble or just, how the fuck does that absolve him for Al-Shifa? Honestly, the lengths some of you clowns will go to, to defend US atrocities is remarkable. A person who murders thousands doesn't get to go on living freely (and being praised) because at another time he carried out a noble action. FMD.
Fourthly, the US aided Hussein in the manufacture of WMD's which was a clear violation of the non-proliferation treaty, for him to use in the war against Iran.
And finally, I have no idea why you point to 1845. That's irrelevant. The US have invaded foreign territories more than any other nation over the last 100 years.
@QwidgyboMan The US only dealt about 1% of the arms used by Saddam against Iran. The rest were given by the USSR, France and China. So the WMD part is debatable. Also, the administration that did that is long gone. A different one got rid of Saddam.
Simply invading a country does not violate international law. If it did, fighting Hitler was the biggest crime we ever committed. I agree that Vietnam was a bad move, but ti doesn't mean we can't take a stand against people like Saddam.
If you don't like the Iraq example, take Pakistan. The US backed it's nuclear plan.
Repeated aggressions against neighbouring states, is the term. The US has repeatedly attacked central American nations like Cuba and Nicaragua and Colombia.
@QwidgyboMan Has Pakistan been caught trying to deal their arms to terrorist groups? Was Pakistan even close to the thesaurus of international law violations that Iraq was? No. Did Pakistan agree to expel all international criminals within their borders at the request of the US govt. after 9/11? Yes. Did Iraq? No. Instead, they welcomed in many of those the others had cast out.
This entire post is immaterial. My claim was not that Pakistan should be invaded by your standards. My claim was that the US should be, given the 4 conditions under which...that you and Hitchens seem to maintain as the warrant for the intervention in Mesopotamia.
I say again, has the US violated the non-proliferation treaty? Absolutely.
@QwidgyboMan I don't like our relationship with Pakistan, but they're nothing like Iraq was. You might as well say allying with Stalin during WWII was no different than allying with Hitler.
@QwidgyboMan "He cried foul when Chomsky compared the bombing of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan, to 9/11."
As he damn well should have. That was one of the most pathetic analogies ever written, and it highlighted the utter stupidity of Chomsky's "moral equivalence" tirades. The two events don't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath.
It's high time you started thinking for yourself instead of worshipping Chomsky's every breath.
@QwidgyboMan Are you serious? You can't differentiate between terrorism and collateral damage? You don't think about intent? Hitchens explains just how pathetic it is in his letter and rejoinder to Chomsky. Read it again if you simply must find out.
You seem to follow Chomsky's belief that the US can never be mad about anything going on in the world, because the US has supposedly done all the worst things that can ever be done. Well, you're both wrong. And I'm glad Hitch called him out on it.
It's not up to me to prove there wasn't an intelligence failure. It's up to you and those who make apologetics for the atrocity to show there was legitimate cause to suspect the plant was making or involved in illegal activity. The supposed nerve gas story is complete bullshit as the chemical "Empta" had known, legitimate uses. And the supposed connection of funding from Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden was also shown to be a falsehood. You're the one who has to show it was a legit mistake.
@QwidgyboMan Um, yes it is. There's absolutely no reason to believe that Clinton would want to terrorize a small group of people in Sudan. You seem to be implying that he did it just because he wanted to see them suffer. He did it because he wanted to distract the public from his affair, took the intelligence he was given (LATER proved to be false), and went ahead without an inspection. A war crime, but not terrorism. He did not try to cause widespread destruction and suffering, as Al Queda did.
@boxingaddict25 Of course they are. I have no problem with those who admire Chomsky. My problem comes from those who worship his every word, and act like he can say or do no wrong. I don't feel that way about Hitchens, so there's no reason for people to feel that way about Chomsky. There's also no reason for Chomsky to refuse a debate with Hitchens.
@Narwal88 Nice words, you are just underlining what we all know you are .. You try so hard and yet everyone here see right through you. You have no social skills.
There are some people on this planet who are so stupid, they don't realize how dumb they are. You are a card-carrying member of that ignoble group.
To say that Chomsky is a moron is tantamount to saying that Mozart was a bad musician, or Shakespeare was a horrible writer. You merely proclaim your ignorance. (cont'd)
Just a friendly advice: never say what you just said about Chomsky. You come across as someone who never reads anything. Your puerile ad hominems only bespeak of the bonsai size of your cerebellum. Instead, I recommend you read Chomsky's works (which you are obviously unfamilar with). Start with Necessary Illusions, Manufacturing Consent, Deterring Democracy.... etc.
(P.S. You have no idea how easy it is for me to denigrate an inchoate, cerebrally unstructured child like you).
@Narwal88 "Your puerile ad hominems only bespeak of the bonsai size of your cerebellum"
Wow, you really are worse and dumber than i thought. You may read everything but understand nothing. You are like a 12 year old with the grammar as a grown up. Maybe you know.
@Narwal88 Yes, but when Chomsky says the US empire gonna fall every year he really is just another commie not worth listening too.. He is a fifth columnist to every western country and he despises western society. He pisses on everything worth having like all leftists do, he praises third world dictators and their way of life and he gets the anarchists and scumbags of the world to follow his bullshit.
You want respect because u say a sentence in 30 words instead of 5 ? Lol,you ppl amaze me.
@Narwal88 His support of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, support for Milosovic and stupid comparisons between Al`Quida and NATO, the list is long. He is just a mad anti-american, and only respected by other mad leftists with contempt for western society, in particular the US and Israel.
Drinking a beer in 30 seconds is also pointless, but still done and enjoyed everywhere.
@Narwal88 Its from his debates and discussions; not from any book. There is many examples available for all who wants to see, to see. I bet you already have found the references im talking about, you are just a vacuum where the initial structure never changes. Like all leftists.
@Narwal88 I have the links, you are a search away. If u dont want to find out you dont want the facts.
I have many intellectual limitations, you implying that you have none is quite underlining for what i initially thought of you; and i bet most agree with my stand on that.
Leftists never agree, like not supporting the removal of Iraqi forces in Kuwait was a support for Iraqi occupation of Kuwait thus ultimately a support for Saddams will. This can be used for many wars and interventions..
I've seen many, many, many videos with Chomsky. He has NEVER supported Pol Pot. Feel free to disprove that. So far, all you have is hot air... Nothing.
I'll give you one last chance, then I have to move on.
So far all you've only proven that you're a silly man with lots of opinions and no evidence.
And for you to talk of Iraq simply means you have no understanding of facts. I guess you've missed the memo showing the devastation caused in Iraq by the invasion. Oops...
@Narwal88 Why you want me to say to you that you can google "chomsky on milosovic" and "chomsky on pol pot" tells me more than i wanna know about you.
Now i bet u have something better to do, like pissing on everything western society has to offer. Go away.
@Narwal88 Oh the Fox news slogan.. haha! You damn leftist clones!. Im Norwegian, never seen or heard Fox news on the telly. I bet Fox news tells a lot of truths though, cause whatever gets the leftists angry are truths, western freedom, middle-class, rich and happy people. Like it should be.
In 50 years people will laugh at the leftist ideas just as we on the right does today. South-America is the next failed experiment.. Continue protocols of zion and think u are so clever.
@Narwal88 You really have no feeling of the ground beneath you, and no social skills. You think Leslie Nielsen has anything to do with responding to leftists gibberish as well.. Haha. Go protest your neighbors bonus or something, looser.
@Narwal88 Last word addict. But to be serious (not that you deserve it, but for the audience) my beef with Chomsky started at their discussion in the Nation and his response to 9/11. Then i read about chomskys views on a variety of international events, as all leftists he speaks one thing and does another (ref Noam Chomsky, Closet Capitalist by Peter Schweizer).
If you search about Chomskys views on anti-western tyrants you will realize he is carrying water for everyone except the west..
Well, now that you've been exposed as a liar, a fraud and a buffoon, I'll try to have pity and enlighten you, because I am merciful and benign. Unlike you, I don't get my information on Chomsky from third parties. I go straight to the source. Try reading "Manufacturing Consent," "Necessary Illusions" or "9/11" or many books of interviews with Barsamian. Of course, that requires time and dedication. So much easier to just spew some paranoid nonsense someone else has told you.
@Narwal88 Lol, like u dont rely on third parties. Hitchens and Chomsky where once friends and they both praised each other. Where Hitchens and ppl like my self went "right-wing" where on 9/11. You can read necessary illusions and use your time and dedication to chop off the branch you are sitting on as much as u want.
History will judge us, History has judged all leftists as fools and we are at the end of the story..
As to Hitchens vs. Chomsky, you can find a video right here on YT called "Hitchens on Noam Chomsky" where Hitch lavishes copious praise on the MIT professor. Chomsky's views have never changed or wavered on these issues. Hitchens' have. I'll leave it up to you to decide who is more consistent.
@Narwal88 To be consistent have never impressed me, to be a pragmatist and realist does. Life is an everlasting journey of learning, Hitchens knows this, you know this, i know this. Who is the hypocrite?
There are some ways in which people are misunderstood when referring to the war. I have been guilty of saying that I am against the war. It is simply, and perhaps wrongly, an abbreviation of a larger opinion. In my opinion, Saddam Hussein's life itself was an offense to humanity.
I'll put more in a second post the adjust for character constraints.
When I say that I am against the war, I mean I am against its poor implementation, against the shoddy evidence used in an attempt to convince the UN when more compelling evidence existed, I was against the deviation of troops from Afghanistan where the most immediate threat was, and I am against the president's unwillingness to ask congress for an official declaration of war.
I do agree that the world is by great lengths a better place now that Saddam is gone.
Humanitarian intervention, to the extent that I'm aware, is not provided for, period, in the UN Charter and the United States had absolutely no legal authority to conduct an intervention.
Moreover, no intervention is humanitarian, as they ALL cause human and capital loss, as well as a great deal of suffering. This war in particular, given how greatly it was botched (Hitchens is still locked up in pre-war mythology, totally unable to reconcile with wartime realities) resulted in untold destruct..
Hitchens tries to say that the United States was obligated under international law to invade Iraq....this is absolutely untrue. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter forbids any nation from using force against another. The two exceptions are self-defence or a Security Council authorization, both being absent, this act of intervention, no matter how justified, was totally illegal under the UN Charter, which, according to the Constitution is binding as an extension of the Supreme Law of the land.
Soapfiction, we didn't save Iraq, what the fuck. We dissolved it. There is no more Iraq. Riddle me this: what would happened if we left tomorrow?
Would the Iraqi state be there in a month?
COME. THE. FUCK. ON. Strong-arm dictators can do one thing REALLY damn well, and that's to oppress dissidents, and I'll be damned if I allow you to sit here and honestly express that this man couldn't have squelched a paltry civil war.
Look up the dissolution of military, the history of looting, government etc
As an atheist: Do you know a goddamn thing about the history of Islam? Do you not know of the Muslim Golden Age, during which they were the center of reason, science, and education the world over? The problem is that absolute idiots under the veil of religion took reigns. The theologians who decided that the primary purpose of government was to lobotomize the population.
It is not the religion of these people that destroys them, it is the theology.
Yes many terrorists and non-terrorists were killed in Iraq.
But it does not matter because the families and loved ones that seen the terrorists die and/or the innocent people die are now potential terrorists themselves with a special hatred for the people that killed their loved ones.
That is an unaccpetable attitude. If we take that stance then we may as well surrender now because they are undefeatable.
Believe me the number of those bombed will decline. Already the Jihad side is starting ask if God is really on their side. It is only a matter of time.
Then what should we do? its too late to brake the circle. If we withdraw now it will be considered a sign of weakness. When Bin Laden attacked the twin towers we did not have any forces in the middle east. Pulling out now will not stop terrorism, end of my friend.
Get our plate in order first, our Govt is really screwed up, the Iraq war made us weak. Check our national debt.
World politics should not be concerned with matters of pride.
"we did not have any forces in the middle east"
Are you serious, hello Saudi Arabia, Israel?
Inst that the reason Bin Ladin attacked us.
So why dont we remove all our troops from the middle east, recover our stength, give our army a rest (they need it) and see what happens. (worked with Veitnam)
Withdrawing now my friend will result in a the middle east breading terrorists faster than ever before. It will also allow middle eastern countries a chance to gain nuclear weapons which we cannot have.
Also what do you think will happen to Iraq if we walk out now? they will destroy themsleves, and then destroy the Kurds. No, whether or not you agree with the war the fact is it is too late now. We are totally committed, pulling out would be a disaster for us and for them.
I saying give it go (withdraw), the main reason (they say) for attacking us is becuase we are over there.
The Iraq Govt will not do anything until we start to withdraw, thier salaries are being paid by our tax dollars. This Iraq Govt offcials are making more $ now then ever before. They are take our $ and they will do anyhting to keep it that way.
I know there are strong arguments either side but Im sorry I just think the case for staying in Iraq is stronger to that of leaving. I guess only history will tell. One of us will be very right and the other very wrong.
I also must say if we try my we can always fall back to your way. Trying it the other way around is much harder.
I think that further war at least for now is not possible. After the last 8 years with Bush and his moronic policies on climate change, heath-care, exaggerating evidence, handling of the war, neglect of the Taliban, torture, rendition, wiretaps, economics etc. The US people will now do the opposite of what ever Bush wanted.
Bullshit. Islamic extremism and jihadism existed in the Middle East long before a US soldier ever set foot there. All it takes for religious extremism is religion itself.
The extremist groups are not in Iraq because we are, people. Zarqawi was in Iraq before 2003, and the bombers are acting in the name of God, not out of revenge. Get over it.
But the question is what do we do about within other countries. Attacking these poeple will only make more extremists, aka stir up the hornets nest. Our involvment with Iraq confirms this.
The 'Hornet's Nest' you speak of was already heading towards chaos long before we arrived. If we hadn't gotten involved, Saddam would eventually have fallen, and the Shia and Sunni groups would be fighting a full-fledged civil war (far worse than anything we've seen thus far), with the Saudis(Sunni) and Iranians(Shia) backing their respective ethnic groups, fighting for power and influence. The Kurds would have been finished. Face it: we saved Iraq(to the extent that it could be saved).Go Hitch!
And is he drinking Scotch while debating? I LOVE this guy!
holdenc96 2 weeks ago
I hate how people say that Hitchens went crazy for supporting the Iraq War and that he betrayed the left. On the contrary, he was just being himself. This is the same gentleman who went on Real Time and insulted Bill Maher's audience and gave them the finger. Hitchens doesn't belong to either left or right. He is who he is an is unapologetic about it.
holdenc96 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Starting a seasonal meme - Merry Hitchmas!
tdp1909 2 months ago
Those of chemical weapon he used on his own people, came from Maryland USA as well as the military inteligence and logistic to use them in the 80's. Glad this war appologist is dead!
sacopenapa 2 months ago
@sacopenapa and as well, as he used the chemicals on his own people the american soldiers were told to sit back and watch, the kurds thought the americans were there to rescue them!! sick eh!!
chillytoes1 2 months ago
I'm glad this pro-iraq invasion, pro-endless war, is dead! May this arrogant bastard rotten in hell!
sacopenapa 2 months ago
@sacopenapa "pro-endless war"? If anyone is pro-endless war it was Saddam..
fjollornaz 1 month ago
Hitchen's views are condtioned by a certain sense of realism. He knows American Foreign Policy is partly based on idealism, partly realism. The case for removing Saddam Hussein from power was quite strong and no one should feel they have to apologise for it.
CharlesDickens99 3 months ago
Hitchens claim himself to be a leftist?
I lol'd.
90talisten 3 months ago
@90talisten He was part of a Trotskyist party for most of his life. His arguement for the invasion of Iraq comes from his lifetime of experiences as an anti-totalitarian leftist.
Mulholland107 2 months ago
@Mulholland107
Really? That makes me laugh even harder.
90talisten 2 months ago
@90talisten there's more to the political spectrum than war.
detahdomo 1 month 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
"Shamefully", i`m not at all convinced by that wording. Is it meant to imply, that maybe Washington wasn`t quite aware what they were supporting? Their benevolence was warped by Saddam? I was simply stating a fact that Saddam had US military, diplomatic, economic backing for most of his reign, he was "their kind of guy". A lot goes into this, but it is by no means insignificant to omit it from the foreground of the matter at hand.
KaelKara2 10 months ago
Hitchens is well aware of this, but its interesting to note his omission of the fact that saddam had complete US backing while comitting his attrocities (which hitchens eloquently lists)
KaelKara2 10 months ago
@KaelKara2 at 7.50 mins he admits that the US armed him and that these weapons were subsequently used against Kurds shamefully
pugpugpugable 10 months ago 5
@KaelKara2 Stalin had allied backing when comitting his polish massacres .. To back a country with resources when you fight a common enemy is not a rarity.. It does not change anything.
richter75 7 months ago
@richter75 I`m not sure about the analogy you used. Who`s the common enemy (compareble to Nazi germany, which i think you referring to)? And to end with: "it does not change anything", in this context is to say that; the crimes committed by Saddam are meaningless. Since they could have been avoided (to a large extent) by not supporting him. On a sidenote; words like "accessory to genocide" (Kurdistan case)... would be more appropriate, instead of "support" or "aid".
KaelKara2 7 months ago
@KaelKara2 ... If you`re not able to chop your neighbours head off with an axe without my help, at minumum my help can be said to "change something".
KaelKara2 7 months ago
Chomsky is a fool, He tried to get into economics which is not his field of study and ridiculed himself. Should of stuck with Linguistics .
Mezey5 11 months ago
@Mezey5 that's exactly what the venerable Thomas Sowell always says. Victor Davis Hanson (another Hoover Institute Fellow, along with Sowell and Hitchens) had this great article recently about the moral preeners like the Sheriff in Tucson telling the U.S. how their public character writ large was flawed, meanwhile, his department knew of Loughner's insanity and threats and did nothing. People like Chomsky have every reason to speak beyond their expertise. The willing will just lap it up.
heyzeusful 11 months ago
Chomsky would get anihilated by Hitchens and they both know it.
LowleyUK 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hitchens is such 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."
Osama Bin Ladem attacked the US because of the US Federal State occupying the Arabian Peninsula and funding Israel, not because of jihadism/islamism.
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hitchens is a fool.
9-11 happened because of the US State(which Hitchens worships) occupying the Arabian Peninsula and funding Israel. That is what Osama Bin Laden said in 2001-October, 1998, AND 1996! The attack on the African Embassy was on the ANNIVERSARY of the US State occupying the Arabian Peninsula!!!
And either way the US State has no legitimacy committing larceny to pay for any US massacre anyway.
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hitchens is a fool.
9-11 happened because of the US State(which Hitchens worships) occupying the Arabian Peninsula and funding Israel. That is what Osama Bin Laden said in 2001-October, 1998, AND 1996! The attack on the African Embassy was on the ANNIVERSARY of the US State occupying the Arabian Peninsula!!!
And either way the US State has no legitimacy committing larceny to pay for any US massacre anyway.
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
Christopher Hitchens is brilliant when it comes to defending Atheism and destroying any religious argument, however, as his contemporaries and fellow intellectuals have noted and demonstrated, his logic is flawed when it comes to the Iraq war. The US is the country that armed Saddam and brought him into power in the first place, and now they want to make right by it? Please. If anything this is all about nurturing another puppet government until it goes astray and the people need to be 'saved'.
playthefield21 1 year ago
@playthefield21
So the argument goes that because past govrnments made a mistake, we now have to stand idly by and not correct it? How does that make sense?
And, straying off topic here, I'm sorry to say that I disagree about Hitchens destroying religious argument. I have yet to see him do that. He criticizes organized religion like no one else, and does a good job doing it, but nothing more.
Just my opinion.
regelemihai 1 year ago
@playthefield21 his argument definitely has holes, but you should read up on the history of iraq. saying that the US armed him and used him as a puppet govt is a huge oversimplification and in many ways flawed assessment of the situation.
ktrigg2 10 months ago
what an asshole, let hitchens speak and stop interrupting.
TomValedro 1 year ago
Get wll soon Hitchens !
bfoaliali 1 year ago
If only I could debate like Hitch then I could rule the English language.
Jmsadv 1 year ago 8
@Jmsadv you have it ass backwards..... You must rule the English language to debate like the Hitch.
noogetful 5 months ago 7
With regard to the Chomsky/Hitchens fancy, it is seems to me that Mr Chomsky has paid his dues and done so with aplomb.
coolioto 1 year ago
says Hitch, as a govt you lose your sovereignty when
1. Invade/Occupy neighbors
2. Perform genocide
3. Harbor terrorists
4. Violate non-proliferation
US supported Iraq when they invaded Iran, US allowed Saddam to stay in power after Gulf war, US neutral when Saddam defeated a Shite uprising and did genocide on the Kurds, proven that Saddam was not harboring terrorists in Iraq, proven that Iraq does not have nukes and the US supports the nuclear weapons in India, Pakistan, and Israel.
88WalkDog 2 years ago
@88WalkDog The US as a country never supported genocide. For that to happen congress would have to approve it.
GaiusIuliusTaberna 2 years ago
@88WalkDog yup.
and for #2 - do you see any Native Americans around? GENOCIDE.
PapGripDezi 1 year ago
@88WalkDog
The US wasn't neutral on the Kurds and Shite uprisings. The US and the UK had heavily protected no-fly zones over the North and South of the Iraq (60%) and supported by uprisings. Iraq did not have nukes in 2003 but it had the knowledge, resources, and laboratories to re-create them from 1991. The US' greatest mistake was not removing Saddam in 1991 and Hitchens point is that even if the US is guilty of everything you say above, that is more reason to go and atone for their past.
JP2times2007 1 year ago
None of these points really matter, and certainly the question he poses only obscures the matter (would it have mattered if Hussein had been elected?). None of the four points matter because, it seems to me, they are infinitely more justifiable than the excuse of WMDs. The US, even with Hussein not elected, could have cited these points (violation of int'l law, threat to state sovereignty, etc.) but chose not to do so.
sqharawa 2 years ago
christopher hitchens and albert einstein are great in this
bukakkeguy 3 years ago 15
God, I wish Chrisopher Hitchens had gone into academia- He'd be a superb professor.
TitanicTarn1968 3 years ago
He has served as professor at New School and some others I believe
meiitbe 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I would like to see a debate on this issue between Noam Chomsky and Hitchens. Chomsky would tear Hitchens to peices, though.
I respect Hitchens stance on religion, but here I comes on as a naive wishful thinker, and that's somewhat dubious for him.
Chyrre 3 years ago
...*HE* comes on... sigh
Chyrre 3 years ago
i admire chomsky, he remains a foremidable thinker but his position is compromised somewhat by his leftist postion, hitchens is a realist in this debate.
jamichelash 3 years ago
"Chomsky would tear Hitchens to pieces, though."
Funny. Chomsky has openly stated that he will not debate Hitchens on the issue. Why? Because the moron is afraid he might actually lose. And with good reason, too.
soapfiction 3 years ago 26
agreed. rightly or wrongly, christopher hitchens often *wins* every public debate he participates. rightly or wrongly, chomsky would probably fry.
c0rt0m4ltese 2 years ago
Chomsky a moron? You are all silly people...
mojo972 2 years ago
@soapfiction I agree, plus you need subtitles to understand anything that Mumbles says these days.
12AX74Life 1 year ago
@soapfiction
Yeah, that's definitely the reason. Pancakes anyone?
Voctron 1 year ago
@soapfiction Funny how you didnt bother to read a written exchange between Chomsky and Hitchens in which Chomsky just destroyed Hitchens. Chomsky didnt want to further waste his precious time with Hitchens.
Chomsky: A real dissident and serious moral scholar of our times.
Hitchens: Sound debater, semi serious scholarship, more obsessed with prime time television fame and silly antics.
Do not even dare to compare the two, Hitchens will never be in Chomsky;s league.
AllOurWisdom 1 year ago
@AllOurWisdom What "exchange" are you talking about? The only ones I can find are the letters immediately following 9/11, almost a decade ago. Chomsky did not "just" do anything to Hitch. As far as anyone knows, they haven't conversed since then. And Noam merely backed into a corner and called Hitch a lunatic when Hitch raised very important points. "Destroyed", my ass.
soapfiction 1 year ago
@AllOurWisdom Chomsky said, in a later interview, that Hitch was stupid for disagreeing with him, and that he "wouldn't get involved" in the debates Hitch was a part of. Translation: "I'm too scared to debate him". So, worship Chomsky and his cult all you want. Hitchens is a great dissident and iconoclast of our times, and no whining Chomskyite thugs are going to change that. I'll compare them all I want, and rightly so. If Chomsky really can beat Hitch in a real debate, he'll prove it.
soapfiction 1 year ago
@soapfiction
Calling Chomsky a moron precludes you from judging who would win if such a debate were ever to occur. Hitchens has no answer for Chomsky's applying of the same standards, from legality, to the US or Britain. Why? Because there cannot be one. The US has violated all 4 of the conditions under which a state may be deemed to have forfeited it's sovereignty. Is Hitchens in favour of a Vietnamese or Nicaraguan invasion of Washington or New York?
QwidgyboMan 1 year ago
@QwidgyboMan "The US has violated all 4 of the conditions under which a state may be deemed to have forfeited it's sovereignty."
Um, no they haven't. The US never invaded Nicaragua. And as for Vietnam, you could use the same analogy for Germany, Japan and Korea. The US has never committed genocide, isn't aiding international criminals, and never violated any weapons treaty (all our nukes were made before we signed any such treaty). The last time the US invaded a neighboring state was 1845.
soapfiction 1 year ago
@soapfiction
They organised the Contra armies to overthrow the democratically elected government of Nicaragua. Both the World Court and the Security Council agree it was unlawful use of force and ordered the US the halt it.
Secondly, I don't understand you point about Germany, Japan and Korea. How does that change or sanctify the US destruction of Vietnam?
QwidgyboMan 1 year ago
Comment removed
soapfiction 1 year ago
@QwidgyboMan Fair enough, but the "Contras" were made up of people who were fed up with the Sandinista govt. I think the name they received was unfairly given to them. Plus, if I rememeber correctly, the Sandinistas were defeated in another democratic election in 1990. They weren't overthrown.
I mention 1845 because that was the last time the US invaded and occupied a neighboring state only to absorb part of it (which is what Saddam did). That's what Hitchens is talking about.
soapfiction 1 year ago
@soapfiction
I'm fed up with my government; that doesn't give me the right to kill innocent people. Whether the Contras successfully overthrew the Sandinistas or not is irrelevant. The US funded a terrorist militia which lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands.
Invading or occupying foreign territory against UN, security council and World Court orders suffices and the US has certainly done that.
QwidgyboMan 1 year ago
@soapfiction
Thirdly, you don't have to commit the genocide yourself, as a state. Any violation of the convention is enough. I refer you to the US providing 80% of the arms to Suharto and Indonesia in their genocide of East Timor. Hell, even Hitchens acknowledges this. Kissinger and Ford met with Suharto, gave him the go ahead and you can easily look up the transcript.
Isn't/wasn't aiding international criminals or terrorists? Spare me. Emmanuel Constant? Ronald Reagan? Henry Kissinger?
QwidgyboMan 1 year ago
@QwidgyboMan Again, the administration that aided Indonesia is long gone, and we began repairing the damage, helping East Timor (one of the reasons why bin Laden says we must die, by the way. And Chomsky acts as if he speaks for the downtrodden). If Kissinger is responsible for this, he should be tried. He doesn't have power in the govt. anymore, unlike Saddam, who was still in power.
You keep bringing up topics that are very debatable. You seem to be nothing more than a mouthpiece for Chomsky.
soapfiction 1 year ago
@soapfiction
Oh I see, so if it's in the past, it doesn't matter any more? Fact is, US and British support for Suharto continued right up until 1998 so don't give me this shit about the administration being long gone. It was less than 15 years ago, but I'm sure your voice could be heard calling for the prosecution of Clinton and Bush Snr for aiding a known mass murderer and genocidal maniac, right?
I keep bringing up topics that are very debatable? Isn't that the point? Debate away.
QwidgyboMan 1 year ago
@QwidgyboMan You bring up topics that are up to debate, yet you present them as solid facts. Just because Chomsky says it, that doesn't make it true. For instance, in one interview, he claims that, if the US had halted the arms race in the 1960's, the USSR would've ceased to be within a decade or so. That's a very big "if", and I'm not sure I believe it, no matter how stimulating the thought is.
soapfiction 1 year ago
@QwidgyboMan Last time I checked, Clinton was in power in 1998, not Bush. I'm sorry, but that makes all the difference. And I'm well aware of the frivolous "Dirty Hands" argument. By all means prosecute Clinton for the negligence on Al-Shifa. That doesn't negate the good he did in Kosovo. And you can't exactly tell George Bush that he can't move Iraq into a post-Saddam era because his daddy once worked with Saddam. It doesn't work that way.
soapfiction 1 year ago
@soapfiction
Firstly, I said Bush Snr. He continued support for the genocidal Suharto. Secondly, by your own standards, if we didn't punish Clinton, which we obviously didn't, you should've been in favour of the Sudanese invading the US. Were you, at the time? No, didn't think so.
QwidgyboMan 1 year ago
@soapfiction
It doesn't negate the good he did in Kosovo - Are you fucking kidding me? Even if I grant that what he did was noble or just, how the fuck does that absolve him for Al-Shifa? Honestly, the lengths some of you clowns will go to, to defend US atrocities is remarkable. A person who murders thousands doesn't get to go on living freely (and being praised) because at another time he carried out a noble action. FMD.
QwidgyboMan 1 year ago
@soapfiction
Fourthly, the US aided Hussein in the manufacture of WMD's which was a clear violation of the non-proliferation treaty, for him to use in the war against Iran.
And finally, I have no idea why you point to 1845. That's irrelevant. The US have invaded foreign territories more than any other nation over the last 100 years.
QwidgyboMan 1 year ago
@QwidgyboMan The US only dealt about 1% of the arms used by Saddam against Iran. The rest were given by the USSR, France and China. So the WMD part is debatable. Also, the administration that did that is long gone. A different one got rid of Saddam.
Simply invading a country does not violate international law. If it did, fighting Hitler was the biggest crime we ever committed. I agree that Vietnam was a bad move, but ti doesn't mean we can't take a stand against people like Saddam.
soapfiction 1 year ago
@soapfiction
If you don't like the Iraq example, take Pakistan. The US backed it's nuclear plan.
Repeated aggressions against neighbouring states, is the term. The US has repeatedly attacked central American nations like Cuba and Nicaragua and Colombia.
QwidgyboMan 1 year ago
@QwidgyboMan Has Pakistan been caught trying to deal their arms to terrorist groups? Was Pakistan even close to the thesaurus of international law violations that Iraq was? No. Did Pakistan agree to expel all international criminals within their borders at the request of the US govt. after 9/11? Yes. Did Iraq? No. Instead, they welcomed in many of those the others had cast out.
soapfiction 1 year ago
@soapfiction
This entire post is immaterial. My claim was not that Pakistan should be invaded by your standards. My claim was that the US should be, given the 4 conditions under which...that you and Hitchens seem to maintain as the warrant for the intervention in Mesopotamia.
I say again, has the US violated the non-proliferation treaty? Absolutely.
QwidgyboMan 1 year ago
@QwidgyboMan I don't like our relationship with Pakistan, but they're nothing like Iraq was. You might as well say allying with Stalin during WWII was no different than allying with Hitler.
soapfiction 1 year ago
@soapfiction
Wtf are you talking about?
QwidgyboMan 1 year ago
@soapfiction
Furthermore, one need only read the debate, in print, that they had to see Hitchens hasn't got a leg to stand on.
He cried foul when Chomsky compared the bombing of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan, to 9/11.
QwidgyboMan 1 year ago
@QwidgyboMan "He cried foul when Chomsky compared the bombing of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan, to 9/11."
As he damn well should have. That was one of the most pathetic analogies ever written, and it highlighted the utter stupidity of Chomsky's "moral equivalence" tirades. The two events don't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath.
It's high time you started thinking for yourself instead of worshipping Chomsky's every breath.
soapfiction 1 year ago
@soapfiction
How is it a pathetic analogy?
QwidgyboMan 1 year ago
@QwidgyboMan Are you serious? You can't differentiate between terrorism and collateral damage? You don't think about intent? Hitchens explains just how pathetic it is in his letter and rejoinder to Chomsky. Read it again if you simply must find out.
You seem to follow Chomsky's belief that the US can never be mad about anything going on in the world, because the US has supposedly done all the worst things that can ever be done. Well, you're both wrong. And I'm glad Hitch called him out on it.
soapfiction 1 year ago
@soapfiction
Collateral damage? There was no intelligence failure. It was calculated terrorism.
QwidgyboMan 1 year ago
@QwidgyboMan I see. And your proof of this is what?
soapfiction 1 year ago
@soapfiction
It's not up to me to prove there wasn't an intelligence failure. It's up to you and those who make apologetics for the atrocity to show there was legitimate cause to suspect the plant was making or involved in illegal activity. The supposed nerve gas story is complete bullshit as the chemical "Empta" had known, legitimate uses. And the supposed connection of funding from Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden was also shown to be a falsehood. You're the one who has to show it was a legit mistake.
QwidgyboMan 1 year ago
@QwidgyboMan Um, yes it is. There's absolutely no reason to believe that Clinton would want to terrorize a small group of people in Sudan. You seem to be implying that he did it just because he wanted to see them suffer. He did it because he wanted to distract the public from his affair, took the intelligence he was given (LATER proved to be false), and went ahead without an inspection. A war crime, but not terrorism. He did not try to cause widespread destruction and suffering, as Al Queda did.
soapfiction 1 year ago
@soapfiction - I admire both men, but I love this comment. They are both intellectual heavyweights though.
boxingaddict25 1 year ago
@boxingaddict25 Of course they are. I have no problem with those who admire Chomsky. My problem comes from those who worship his every word, and act like he can say or do no wrong. I don't feel that way about Hitchens, so there's no reason for people to feel that way about Chomsky. There's also no reason for Chomsky to refuse a debate with Hitchens.
soapfiction 1 year ago
@soapfiction - Chomsky vs. Hitchens for the Intellectual Heavyweight Championship of the World. Live on PPV. March 5, 2011....I wish.
boxingaddict25 1 year ago
@soapfiction
To call Chomsky a moron means one is merely proclaiming one's ignorance, stupidity and arrogance.
Congratulations on the trifecta...
Narwal88 1 year ago
@Narwal88 Nah, im sure even u know chomsky is a mooron. It doesnt take skill,.. it takes a childish innocence.
richter75 1 year ago
@richter75
Your unlettered, uncouth, anacoluthon-filled tirade is indicative of your crystalline idiocy. Only an imbecile would disparage Chomsky.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Chomsky is regarded as one of the greatest thinkers of all time. You, on the other hand, are a pointless ignoramus spewing spleen online.
Do the math....
Narwal88 1 year ago
@Narwal88 Nice words, you are just underlining what we all know you are .. You try so hard and yet everyone here see right through you. You have no social skills.
richter75 1 year ago
@richter75
There are some people on this planet who are so stupid, they don't realize how dumb they are. You are a card-carrying member of that ignoble group.
To say that Chomsky is a moron is tantamount to saying that Mozart was a bad musician, or Shakespeare was a horrible writer. You merely proclaim your ignorance. (cont'd)
Narwal88 1 year ago
@richter75
Just a friendly advice: never say what you just said about Chomsky. You come across as someone who never reads anything. Your puerile ad hominems only bespeak of the bonsai size of your cerebellum. Instead, I recommend you read Chomsky's works (which you are obviously unfamilar with). Start with Necessary Illusions, Manufacturing Consent, Deterring Democracy.... etc.
(P.S. You have no idea how easy it is for me to denigrate an inchoate, cerebrally unstructured child like you).
Narwal88 1 year ago
@Narwal88
Oh, and search the video here called "Christopher Hitchens on Noam Chomsky" and you'll see what Hitchens thought of Chomsky in 1993.
Narwal88 1 year ago
@Narwal88 "Your puerile ad hominems only bespeak of the bonsai size of your cerebellum"
Wow, you really are worse and dumber than i thought. You may read everything but understand nothing. You are like a 12 year old with the grammar as a grown up. Maybe you know.
richter75 1 year ago
@richter75
Ok, you got that out of your chest. Obviously you have no arguments. Good luck to you. This is pointless.
Narwal88 1 year ago
@Narwal88 Yes, but when Chomsky says the US empire gonna fall every year he really is just another commie not worth listening too.. He is a fifth columnist to every western country and he despises western society. He pisses on everything worth having like all leftists do, he praises third world dictators and their way of life and he gets the anarchists and scumbags of the world to follow his bullshit.
You want respect because u say a sentence in 30 words instead of 5 ? Lol,you ppl amaze me.
richter75 1 year ago
@richter75
Your comments are so silly. When did Chomsky ever praise a dictator?
Narwal88 1 year ago
@Narwal88 His support of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, support for Milosovic and stupid comparisons between Al`Quida and NATO, the list is long. He is just a mad anti-american, and only respected by other mad leftists with contempt for western society, in particular the US and Israel.
Drinking a beer in 30 seconds is also pointless, but still done and enjoyed everywhere.
richter75 1 year ago
@richter75
Okay, now tell me where did Chomsky support Pol Pot? Book title and page, please....
Narwal88 1 year ago
@richter75
I'm still waiting for your references...
... can you actually back up your statements, or are you just full of hot air?
Narwal88 1 year ago
@Narwal88 Its from his debates and discussions; not from any book. There is many examples available for all who wants to see, to see. I bet you already have found the references im talking about, you are just a vacuum where the initial structure never changes. Like all leftists.
richter75 11 months ago
@richter75
Okay, so you have NO REFERENCES. That's what you're saying. Just hot air.
Unlike you, I have read many of his books and I can tell you exactly what Chomsky said about Pol Pot.
I'm still waiting for those references.... your insults only show your intellectual limitations.
"Many examples"? Give me ONE!
You can't, can you?
Narwal88 11 months ago
@Narwal88 I have the links, you are a search away. If u dont want to find out you dont want the facts.
I have many intellectual limitations, you implying that you have none is quite underlining for what i initially thought of you; and i bet most agree with my stand on that.
Leftists never agree, like not supporting the removal of Iraqi forces in Kuwait was a support for Iraqi occupation of Kuwait thus ultimately a support for Saddams will. This can be used for many wars and interventions..
richter75 11 months ago
@richter75
I've seen many, many, many videos with Chomsky. He has NEVER supported Pol Pot. Feel free to disprove that. So far, all you have is hot air... Nothing.
I'll give you one last chance, then I have to move on.
So far all you've only proven that you're a silly man with lots of opinions and no evidence.
And for you to talk of Iraq simply means you have no understanding of facts. I guess you've missed the memo showing the devastation caused in Iraq by the invasion. Oops...
Narwal88 11 months ago
@Narwal88 Lol, you are one of those blaming religious violence on the invasion as well!? Haha. You are a piece of work, like a religious nutcase.
richter75 11 months ago
@richter75
Let's deal with one point at a time. Don't change the subject.
Where is your evidence for Chomsky?
Nothing..... zero... nada.. zilch.
Pathetic.
Narwal88 11 months ago
@Narwal88 Why you want me to say to you that you can google "chomsky on milosovic" and "chomsky on pol pot" tells me more than i wanna know about you.
Now i bet u have something better to do, like pissing on everything western society has to offer. Go away.
richter75 11 months ago
@richter75
Unlike you, I have read Chomsky and I know exactly what he said about Pol Pot. He called Pol Pot a mass murderer.
I've no idea where the micturation reference comes from. I guess you read a lot of right wing propaganda.
I suggest you read your original sources more, instead of getting your "facts" from some lunatic website. Like "Fox news"...
You're a complete fool and you have no evidence to support your position. You go away. You're nothing but hot air and a buffoon.
Narwal88 11 months ago
@Narwal88 Oh the Fox news slogan.. haha! You damn leftist clones!. Im Norwegian, never seen or heard Fox news on the telly. I bet Fox news tells a lot of truths though, cause whatever gets the leftists angry are truths, western freedom, middle-class, rich and happy people. Like it should be.
In 50 years people will laugh at the leftist ideas just as we on the right does today. South-America is the next failed experiment.. Continue protocols of zion and think u are so clever.
richter75 11 months ago
@richter75
Protocols of Zion???
I knew you were a lunatic. I didn't realize you were a rabid anti-semitic conspiracy nut.
I'm done.
Narwal88 11 months ago
@Narwal88 Im pro-Israel, pro west. The anti-semitics are on the left and the brown right.
richter75 11 months ago
@richter75
You're pro-nothing. You're merely a complete fool.
You can't even quote ONE SENTENCE that Chomsky said in support of your opinion.
NOT ONE. Unlike you, I care about facts. I check what I say. You have nothing.
Narwal88 11 months ago
@Narwal88 watch?v=-m34GUn0QqA
richter75 11 months ago
@richter75
And...?
Narwal88 11 months ago
@Narwal88 You really love me dont you? watch?v=FgAowBnSMvg
richter75 11 months ago
@richter75
Just as I thought. That's a statement from Hitchens. Not a quote from Chomsky.
You have NOTHING. Zero. You've never read Chomsky.
I just love making anti-Chomskyites look like complete fools. Thank you for proving my point. Good luck.
Narwal88 11 months ago
@Narwal88 You really have no feeling of the ground beneath you, and no social skills. You think Leslie Nielsen has anything to do with responding to leftists gibberish as well.. Haha. Go protest your neighbors bonus or something, looser.
richter75 11 months ago
@richter75
Quod Erat Demonstrandum. What a dumb ass!!!
Narwal88 11 months ago
@Narwal88 Last word addict. But to be serious (not that you deserve it, but for the audience) my beef with Chomsky started at their discussion in the Nation and his response to 9/11. Then i read about chomskys views on a variety of international events, as all leftists he speaks one thing and does another (ref Noam Chomsky, Closet Capitalist by Peter Schweizer).
If you search about Chomskys views on anti-western tyrants you will realize he is carrying water for everyone except the west..
richter75 11 months ago
@richter75
Well, now that you've been exposed as a liar, a fraud and a buffoon, I'll try to have pity and enlighten you, because I am merciful and benign. Unlike you, I don't get my information on Chomsky from third parties. I go straight to the source. Try reading "Manufacturing Consent," "Necessary Illusions" or "9/11" or many books of interviews with Barsamian. Of course, that requires time and dedication. So much easier to just spew some paranoid nonsense someone else has told you.
Narwal88 11 months ago
@Narwal88 Lol, like u dont rely on third parties. Hitchens and Chomsky where once friends and they both praised each other. Where Hitchens and ppl like my self went "right-wing" where on 9/11. You can read necessary illusions and use your time and dedication to chop off the branch you are sitting on as much as u want.
History will judge us, History has judged all leftists as fools and we are at the end of the story..
richter75 11 months ago
@richter75
As to Hitchens vs. Chomsky, you can find a video right here on YT called "Hitchens on Noam Chomsky" where Hitch lavishes copious praise on the MIT professor. Chomsky's views have never changed or wavered on these issues. Hitchens' have. I'll leave it up to you to decide who is more consistent.
Narwal88 11 months ago
@Narwal88 To be consistent have never impressed me, to be a pragmatist and realist does. Life is an everlasting journey of learning, Hitchens knows this, you know this, i know this. Who is the hypocrite?
richter75 11 months ago
@richter75
Here is what Chomsky said about Pol Pot. It starts with: "The original claim that the Khmer Rouge had "boasted" of having killed 2 million...."
Google it and read it. Then stop being a fool.
Narwal88 11 months ago
I cannot believe Artato was mumbling beneath his breath while Hitchens was speaking. Debate like a gentleman.
HarryPHarding 3 years ago 15
I totally agree, but when your position is slowly, methodically and hopelessly shown to be a load of shit, thats what you do.
tobasco123456 3 years ago
@HarryPHarding lol, I love C Hitchens, but he mutters VERY loud during other speakers in some debates
deadgoblin86 1 year ago
Saddam Hussein is getting butt-banged by satan in hell. Like in South Park.
Domzdream 3 years ago 2
If hell existed :) Thumbs up anyway
Einstein2119 3 years ago 2
Why thank you, ha ha. To anyone out there who thinks hell exists though--- Grow a brain. Grow logic. Read some books...nay, Evolve for Zeus's sake!
Domzdream 3 years ago
I seem to remember Sadam doing the butt-banging in South Park.
bettySwollox 3 years ago
Ha ha ha. I love south park!
Domzdream 3 years ago
The no-fly zones were illegal.
Bellator656 3 years ago
Nope, they were never condemned by the UN. Never declared illegal.
EvanCooper182 3 years ago
But they were nevertheless illegal.
Bellator656 3 years ago 2
Subjectively illegal then... under whose laws?
EvanCooper182 3 years ago 2
International Law. The four laws he stated at 5:00/9:33.
J2897 3 years ago
Yes but he eludes to the fact that they were never contested = no issue of legality, ergo, not illegal.
mfpclassics 3 years ago
If you had to decide, what would you have done regarding Saddam?
J2897 3 years ago
And the regime.
J2897 3 years ago
If I had to decide I would install him as president of the USA because Islamic jihad is better than hurting palestians!
weversonman 3 years ago
or ours... most of the world agreed to a proposition that would have limited free speech that threatened religions. Fuck the rest of the world.
aweiss 2 years ago
There are some ways in which people are misunderstood when referring to the war. I have been guilty of saying that I am against the war. It is simply, and perhaps wrongly, an abbreviation of a larger opinion. In my opinion, Saddam Hussein's life itself was an offense to humanity.
I'll put more in a second post the adjust for character constraints.
AnunC8 4 years ago
Continuing from my last post:
When I say that I am against the war, I mean I am against its poor implementation, against the shoddy evidence used in an attempt to convince the UN when more compelling evidence existed, I was against the deviation of troops from Afghanistan where the most immediate threat was, and I am against the president's unwillingness to ask congress for an official declaration of war.
I do agree that the world is by great lengths a better place now that Saddam is gone.
AnunC8 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
G W Bush's life itself is an offence to humanity. The world would be a better place if he had never been born. He is just as bad as Saddam was.
PaineLover 3 years ago
I hate Bush just as much as the next guy, I think he's a criminal, but he is nowhere as bad as Saddam. Just look up what he did to the Kurds.
AnunC8 3 years ago 2
Humanitarian intervention, to the extent that I'm aware, is not provided for, period, in the UN Charter and the United States had absolutely no legal authority to conduct an intervention.
Moreover, no intervention is humanitarian, as they ALL cause human and capital loss, as well as a great deal of suffering. This war in particular, given how greatly it was botched (Hitchens is still locked up in pre-war mythology, totally unable to reconcile with wartime realities) resulted in untold destruct..
Redfingers 4 years ago
Hitchens tries to say that the United States was obligated under international law to invade Iraq....this is absolutely untrue. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter forbids any nation from using force against another. The two exceptions are self-defence or a Security Council authorization, both being absent, this act of intervention, no matter how justified, was totally illegal under the UN Charter, which, according to the Constitution is binding as an extension of the Supreme Law of the land.
Redfingers 4 years ago
Soapfiction, we didn't save Iraq, what the fuck. We dissolved it. There is no more Iraq. Riddle me this: what would happened if we left tomorrow?
Would the Iraqi state be there in a month?
COME. THE. FUCK. ON. Strong-arm dictators can do one thing REALLY damn well, and that's to oppress dissidents, and I'll be damned if I allow you to sit here and honestly express that this man couldn't have squelched a paltry civil war.
Look up the dissolution of military, the history of looting, government etc
Redfingers 4 years ago
As an atheist: Do you know a goddamn thing about the history of Islam? Do you not know of the Muslim Golden Age, during which they were the center of reason, science, and education the world over? The problem is that absolute idiots under the veil of religion took reigns. The theologians who decided that the primary purpose of government was to lobotomize the population.
It is not the religion of these people that destroys them, it is the theology.
Redfingers 4 years ago
OK hitchens we have to attack Sryia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, Chad, Marocco, Israel, China, Russia.
That sound like a wonderful world to live in.
TheNextTurn 4 years ago
war was necessary
firesteel1 4 years ago
War creates extremists.
TheNextTurn 4 years ago
war destroys extremists
firesteel1 4 years ago
Yes many terrorists and non-terrorists were killed in Iraq.
But it does not matter because the families and loved ones that seen the terrorists die and/or the innocent people die are now potential terrorists themselves with a special hatred for the people that killed their loved ones.
TheNextTurn 4 years ago
That is an unaccpetable attitude. If we take that stance then we may as well surrender now because they are undefeatable.
Believe me the number of those bombed will decline. Already the Jihad side is starting ask if God is really on their side. It is only a matter of time.
firesteel1 4 years ago
Ok I am sinerly curious,
what countries need to be taken out?
From my discovery of history those religious extremist groups never existed before the US started fucking around in that area.
Dawkins remarked that terrorism of any kind deos not happen without the occupation of a country.
TheNextTurn 4 years ago
Then what should we do? its too late to brake the circle. If we withdraw now it will be considered a sign of weakness. When Bin Laden attacked the twin towers we did not have any forces in the middle east. Pulling out now will not stop terrorism, end of my friend.
firesteel1 4 years ago
Get our plate in order first, our Govt is really screwed up, the Iraq war made us weak. Check our national debt.
World politics should not be concerned with matters of pride.
"we did not have any forces in the middle east"
Are you serious, hello Saudi Arabia, Israel?
Inst that the reason Bin Ladin attacked us.
So why dont we remove all our troops from the middle east, recover our stength, give our army a rest (they need it) and see what happens. (worked with Veitnam)
TheNextTurn 4 years ago
Withdrawing now my friend will result in a the middle east breading terrorists faster than ever before. It will also allow middle eastern countries a chance to gain nuclear weapons which we cannot have.
Also what do you think will happen to Iraq if we walk out now? they will destroy themsleves, and then destroy the Kurds. No, whether or not you agree with the war the fact is it is too late now. We are totally committed, pulling out would be a disaster for us and for them.
firesteel1 4 years ago
"Withdrawing"
You say that like you KNOW it.
I saying give it go (withdraw), the main reason (they say) for attacking us is becuase we are over there.
The Iraq Govt will not do anything until we start to withdraw, thier salaries are being paid by our tax dollars. This Iraq Govt offcials are making more $ now then ever before. They are take our $ and they will do anyhting to keep it that way.
How much money is unaccounted for in Iraq?
TheNextTurn 4 years ago
I know there are strong arguments either side but Im sorry I just think the case for staying in Iraq is stronger to that of leaving. I guess only history will tell. One of us will be very right and the other very wrong.
firesteel1 4 years ago
Yes thats true.
I had lots of fun debating you. Thanks
I also must say if we try my we can always fall back to your way. Trying it the other way around is much harder.
I think that further war at least for now is not possible. After the last 8 years with Bush and his moronic policies on climate change, heath-care, exaggerating evidence, handling of the war, neglect of the Taliban, torture, rendition, wiretaps, economics etc. The US people will now do the opposite of what ever Bush wanted.
TheNextTurn 4 years ago
Yes the debate has been interesting. Ultimately only history will tell. Good luck
firesteel1 4 years ago
Bullshit. Islamic extremism and jihadism existed in the Middle East long before a US soldier ever set foot there. All it takes for religious extremism is religion itself.
The extremist groups are not in Iraq because we are, people. Zarqawi was in Iraq before 2003, and the bombers are acting in the name of God, not out of revenge. Get over it.
soapfiction 4 years ago
I agree with you... religion is a sickness.
But the question is what do we do about within other countries. Attacking these poeple will only make more extremists, aka stir up the hornets nest. Our involvment with Iraq confirms this.
TheNextTurn 4 years ago
The 'Hornet's Nest' you speak of was already heading towards chaos long before we arrived. If we hadn't gotten involved, Saddam would eventually have fallen, and the Shia and Sunni groups would be fighting a full-fledged civil war (far worse than anything we've seen thus far), with the Saudis(Sunni) and Iranians(Shia) backing their respective ethnic groups, fighting for power and influence. The Kurds would have been finished. Face it: we saved Iraq(to the extent that it could be saved).Go Hitch!
soapfiction 4 years ago