Christopher Hitchens on Charlie Rose 13-Dec-02 (Part 2)

[MostlyReading]

David Rieff is such an excuse for a humanitarian or even a pundit. "What even gives us the right?" is a focusing question, but when you receive in reply (from both others and your own investigation of the obvious) the following principles of sovereignty: The Genocide Act, Non-Proliferation, Expansionism - and then casually continue to repeat the question like non of those things were mentioned is to prove yourself a poser.

[test123ok]

Hitchens makes some valid points, but my main objection to him was his reason to vote for Bush because of his policy on the war. Bush's intentions of the war were quite different from Hitchen's and Bush got away with it even without a concrete deadline/exit strategy. Cheney and Co. need to be prosecuted as war criminals.

[managarm1349]

the hitch should stick to religion :)

[St37One]

Look closely at the body language and tone of Rieff, and you can see how insecure he is about the validity of most of the statements that he makes. He avoids eye contact and relies on a whiney tone of voice meant to inspire extra sympathy for himself. Rieff looks and acts like he is lying/hiding something, hitchens looks and acts like he is confident and believes what he is saying.

I think that ought to count for something. Rieff probably couldn't be direct and honest if he tried.

[roberthennecke]

@St37One Body language being the determining factor as to whether one is to be believed even if they are making valid claims ? 1 to 3 trillion dollars wasted, 4500 US forces killed, thousands others wounded, 125 000 Irakis killed and the almost certainty that the iraki people themselves would have overthrown Saddam on their own makes your statement utterly staggering. Hitchens is making the claim here that Al quaida and Irak had a pact, that happened AFTER Irak was invaded. THINK, don't feel.

[berettam92s]

asians have some eyes

[nyomythus]

If it was a mess that the West helped create, I don't give a good holy fuck what Saddam believed he could do, by that logic Jeffrey Dahmer's deeds were justifiable. And yes there were terrorist gathering in Iraq before the intervention.

[tharnax]

Christopher Hitchens is awesome, even when he's wrong! You have to admit though, he stands on the side of democracy over dictatorship every time. He is consistent.

[artyfarty2]

"Christopher Hitchens is awesome, even when he's wrong! "

I like that. LOL.

What ever Iraq was, it was a poor tactical move politically and militarily. Bush squandered every drop of sympathy the world had regarding 9/11.

[GiantSandles]

@tharnax This. He might be wrong, but for the right reasons.

[thorsgade26]

Christopher Hitchens is a fairly intellectual child, although I have to admit, he spits flames.

[bongoloid77]

@thorsgade26 Fairly? lets see you engage him!

[nyomythus]

Defeating monsters is what you can get when to stand with your friends. What made the Baathist monsters? Genocide, proliferation, harboring terrorist, invading and annexing your neighbors. Good post.

[KarenDances999]

nyomythus: The USA supported Iraq against Iran, the USA let Saddam believe he could reclaim Kuwait (it belonged to Iraq until the 60s) there were no terrorists in Iraq BEFORE the Usa brought anarchy there and as for proliferation ... well the USA got paid for those weapons it sold Iraq. So, get informed THEN you can have some facts to debate