You know along with John Ritter, George Galloway and Noam Chomsky, Arato displays classic left wing niavitity. He should be 100% disgusted with himself calling Sadame 'a poor guy'. He thinks a resistance (this argument originated from his Bosnia views) should evolve 'naturally' from the people being oppressed? WHAT THE FUCK IS HE TALKING ABOUT? What, do we just sit back and watch poor people get fucked over by these monsters and expect them to do something about it? Didn't work in Rwanda!
Hitchen’s is an intellectual colossus. The other guy waffles too much, and is naive. Islamic extremism *is* a form of fascism. We on the left must have the stomach to face this simple fact - we should be, by definition, committed to resisting fascism in all of its forms. The left is eating itself in this regards, we are too busy fighting amongst ourselves. Too many on the left indulge in popularist Islamic sycophancy. I think it's time to grow up and be a little more objective.
Christ' Hitchens, the "intellectual," places blind faith in the chemi-co-/radio- “therapies” utilized to frustrate (or thwart) the placental onslaught of crab cancer, even though they are serologically worthless. Admire him for his pig-headedness.]
Christopher Hitchen's view on foreign policy = fail
Old guy on the right needs to cut to the chase and stop beating around the bush with rhetoric "playing it cute and smart" type of manner. Man up and say it pussy. 1. Hitchens your a dumbass. 2. There were no WMDs, 3. Opium smuggling from Afghanistan is unethical. 4. 9-11 was an inside job. 5. Bin Laden was CIA operative gone rogue. 6. War budget bad!.
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: Nowhere near the amount of the one million were killed by Coalition forces, but by the religious killers. 1 million died, and 50 million were freed. Hitchens isnt dying because he supported the war, he is dying because everybody dies.
@qwertypoiu4321: We do not occupy the Arab Peninsula. The Saudi Arabian government allow us to have bases there, and we built bases there so that we could enforce the no fly zones over Iraq to prevent genocide. In other words, it was a good policy and mutual agreement with the Saudi government. Bin Ladin and al Qaeda believe that Saudi Arabia is "holy land". In other words, it is because of religious fanaticism, not because of imperialism.
You sadists seem to forget that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. The US caused the death of OVER 1 million Iraqi's and put the remaining 27 million Iraqi's in a more dangerous, chaotic State than before. That is more Iraqi's than Saddam Hussein EVER murdered. And either way, the Ba'athist party would have NEVER come to power if it were not for Kennedy and the CIA supporting Abdul Arif's Ba'athist coup in 1963.
It is called Operation Desert Shield, look it up.
"The Saudi Arabian government allow us to have bases there,"
The Saudi State 'allowed' the US to occupy the AP against the wishes of the whole middle eastern world so their oil reserves would be protected against any possible conflict with Iraq.
"we built bases there so that we could enforce the no fly zones over Iraq"
No, they were built there ONLY so oil reserves would be protected against any possible conflict with Iraq. The US had no legitimacy being involved with the airspace of Iraq(and committing larceny for this big thug experiment) either way.
"to prevent genocide."
To protect oil reserves and domination of the middle east, and indifferent to any 'genocide.'
@qwertypoiu4321: The US state has bases in many countries, it is always a voluntary agreement with the governmentst themselves. And in the case of the Gulf War, the US state did a good thing: overthrowing a dictator that terrorized his people. I would not call that imperalism. The US has no interest in creating new territories or states for itself.
@qwertypoiu4321: The Saudi State has jurisdiction over its land, and it was a voluntary agreement with that state to build US military bases. It was against the wishes of the whole middle east. Yes, every pious tribal religious fanatical killer was pissed off, because the Saudi land is "holy".Bullshit, you are siding with the most irrational right wing force in the world. Is it not an occupation if it is a voluntary agreement.
@qwertypoiu4321: Actually, Saddam was a sadist, and those who wish he was still in power are sadists, and those who blame western civilization for the evils of radical right wing tribal religious fanatics are masochists. If the US government is responsible fpr the Ba'athist coup in 1963, thats all the most reason we are responsible to remove that party from power. The US did not cause the deaths. Most of the deaths were caused by religious killers killing each other.
@qwertypoiu4321: The US is not resonsible for the in-fighting between religious sects. You might as well say what you mean: that the horrific dictatorship kept these groups from killing each other, in other words, you believe Saddam was a good thing, and that you reject the Western ideal of universal human liberty.
"The US has no interest in creating new territories or states for itself."
The US State had an interest in the oil of Saudi Arabia. Militarily dominating an area, extending beyond your borders, is imperialism. A State does not have to commit colonialism to be an imperialist State.
"The Saudi State has jurisdiction over its land, and it was a voluntary agreement with that state to build US military bases."
The Saudi State is a dictatorship that has no legitimate jurisdiction over the society it initiates itself over. Illegitimate States do not create 'voluntary' agreements for any military occupation.
"every pious tribal religious fanatical killer was pissed off, because the Saudi land is "holy"."
The US State should not have been showing signs of imperializing the middle east by occupying the Arabian Peninsula and funding Israel. If the US State did not occupy the AP and fund Israel there would have been no 1993 WTC attack, 1996 Khobar Tower attack, 1998 African embassy attack(on the anniversary of the US State occupation of the AP), no 2000 attack on the USS Cole, and no 9/11.
"Is it not an occupation if it is a voluntary agreement."
States do not create 'voluntary agreements'.
"Saddam was a sadist,"
1. Saddam Hussein would have never achieved power in the late seventies(when Hitchens SUPPORTED Saddam Hussein) if not for the policy of Kennedy and the CIA in 1963.
2. NONE of the reasons the US State invaded and occupied Iraq over involved any policy Saddam Hussein committed against the people of Iraq. In fact, Bush only gave the 48-hour deadline of the invasion when Saddam Hussein would not allow inspectors into Iraq under UNSCR 1441. That is irrelated to Saddam Hussein's policies towards the Iraqi society.
"and those who wish he was still in power are sadists,"
We would not even know who Saddam Hussein is if it were not for US policies in the 1960's. And anyone who supports committing larceny to go invade a country for reasons that have nothing to do with the US or Saddam Hussein's sadism--making the whole society unhinged and chaotic while causing the murder of more Iraqi's than Saddam Huessin had murdered in 20 years as a masochist dictator--is a sadist.
"thats all the most reason we are responsible to remove that party from power."
The US did not invade to 'remove that party' from power, it had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein's policies in regard to the citizens of Iraq. And that does not justify committing more larceny to go try another sadist experiment overseas.
No, that is what Hitchens believed in the 1970's when Saddam Hussein came to power. That is not something, unlike Hitchens, I would ever believe for the same reasons I could not support the masochistic US State invasion.
"reject the Western ideal of universal human liberty."
The US State invasion had NOTHING to do with human liberty. It had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein's policies against the society in Iraq. It only had to do with military dominance of the middle east, a policy in regard to the US State and indifferent in regard to the Iraqi society.
"Many of us argued that there was no need for a war in the first place, and if there was one it would be a disaster, and there were alternatives to it. All those three thing remain true. ... And we are obliged, not least of which for the sake of those who's warm bodies are being used for a failed policy, to keep the argument going" - Christopher Hitchens speaking about the 1991 Gulf war with Iraq.
"Many of us argued that there was no need for a war in the first place, and if there was one it would be a disaster, and there were alternatives to it. All those three thing remain true. ... And we are obliged, not least of which for the sake of those who's warm bodies are being used for a failed policy, to keep the argument going" - Christopher Hitchens speaking about the 1991 Gulf war with Iraq.
"Many of us argued that there was no need for a war in the first place, and if there was one it would be a disaster, and there were alternatives to it. All those three thing remain true. ... And we are obliged, not least of which for the sake of those who's warm bodies are being used for a failed policy, to keep the argument going" - Christopher Hitchens speaking about the 1991 Gulf war with Iraq.
When I was younger I used to play "Risk" with firends, the strategic war game. I am Irish. Hitchens is a laughing stock in Britain, no one of any importance takes him seriously. He imagines himself as the ultimate Risk commander, ordering young American and European men and women on military adventures and coldly shrugs as they return home in body bags, and in wheelchairs. He exemplifies all that was corrupt and sickening in the 19th Century British imperialist mentality.
@theyasin33 Science has proven that you don't "grow into" your frontal lobe until your mid twenties. You, young sir, are a fine example. Your channel proudly wears politics like a trendy sweater, and you yourself proliferate some of the same ideas Hitchens is all about. You know not what you speak, and therefore should not speak, little pimple.
@theinfernalhess I assume you are referring to Erikson's theory of psychological development? The reason I have a passion for political philosophy is because I question the aspects of life: our society, the huge disparity, etc., not because as you quoted, "I haven't grown into my frontal lobe." Hitchens was once a proliferate, but he unfortunately changed his views which is evident through his political works and ideas.
@theyasin33 No. Although Erikson's theory's are interesting, his analysis is of human growth, not politics and econ. This particular writing depicts the psychological growth of a person, citing numerous examples of field examinations to support his ideas.
@cheeseandbabys I think invading other countries because we suspect terrorists there is a very barbaric way of trying to solve an old systemic problem. Not all terrorist are evil and crazy, just like not all Americans are hopelessly nationalistic and live in a bubble. There are angry and fearful people on both sides. I don't have a solution, but one way to minimize terrorism is to stop treating the world like our personal piggy bank and start respecting other countries.
@jst1998 Not suspect but know. We know that they are there. And what do you mean not all terrorist are not evil and crazy, by there very nature they "terrorize" people. I think you meant to say not every person there is a terrorist. Start respecting other countries? I will never respect a country that oppresses woman. Never. In the country America is in now that is a reality. My country respect civilized countries with just laws and rational citizens. That is simply just not the case.
@cheeseandbabys You should consider reading before you make such broad statements, because uninformed people like you are easy bait for corrupt politicians, corrupt corporations and corrupt media. Here is what is real: social injustice all over the world, hard working people slaving away while the rich get richer and a planet that we are destroying every day. So called "terrorists" are a sideshow. And your country, which is also mine, had a big part in creating all of this, including terrorists.
@jst1998 WTF are you saying. That did not even make sense. Broad statements? Everything i said is the truth, and on point. We did not create terrorist, we made a country with rights, people disagreed because they are crazy, it is not Americas fault they are crazy. "Slaving away". LMFAO, it is the persons choice to work for a company. Why should the "rich" not be able to build something, Bill Gates who made Microsoft from scratch, by your logic, does not deserve to be rich. Fuck you, Learn more.
@cheeseandbabys Like I said, you have to catch up on your reading. Start with John Perkins, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man and work your way from there. Good luck.
@cheeseandbabys if you want to make a contest out of it, I'd say you failed. Miserably. Quite honestly, youtube is a depressing source of info because it exposes the horrifying number of brainless urbanites that inhabit our country, and are allowed to vote. Why don't you start with the basics first. Learn to read and write: it's a big part of politics, and it's hard to express your ideas if you don't know the rules. Our nation is not, as you said, crazy; just ignorant.
@theinfernalhess ...... I think you responded to the wrong person? Well if you didn't you should take your own advice and read the argument, i frankly destroyed him on every point......
and the taliban were set up by the cia and pakistan isi(cia run) - look into it yourself why would you believe me? And everything that pnac advocated has been opposite bla bla you on drugs?
Well, you're right - I wouldn't believe you because I HAVE looked into it. The Taliban wasn't "set up by the CIA", although they were indirectly funded by the CIA through Pakistan. As for Al Qaeda, they were neither created nor funded by any branch of the US government - they were funded primarily by the Saudis and other Islamic states. Nobody has ever shown any kind of link between Al Qaeda and the US - you're just repeating a myth.
my point was that al qaeda doesnt exist - in the way the U.S. would have us believe - fuded by Saudis? i believe you and it makes it better - Bush and Saudis arent connected at all
and we only need to look at the world to see pnac unfolding - go usa - lets nuke iran and give them democracy like when gw got voted in - hail to the thief - repeating a myth? your opinion - but if i repeat it often enough you'll believe it
Adverbs qualify - perhaps you missed that in class -' failed you so miseraBLY' is more correct - and my university years were in the u.s. so it's all your fault. And don't be sad be happy. :-) turn that frown upside down
Hitchens gets down to it. You either feel that we can ignore these people and their barbarism, hope it doesn't come back to north america... or we can stand up to them and say enough.
But that's such a tragically false dichotomy: the choice when dealing with terrorism is not between complete inaction and attacking an unrelated country with an insufficient force.
There are plenty of steps short of war in Iraq, like finishing the engagement in Afghanistan or dealing with terrorists in a criminal context, that would have gone much further towards dealing with the problem than going after Iraq.
We must needs harken back to the 1947-48 Arab-Isreali War because that is the grand daddy of them all, 1948, 1956, 1967, Black September at Munich, 1973. Then we had the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the 1981 destruction of Iraq's nuclear reactor.
Swith to the Rooskies and their terrible Afghan Adventure, paving the way for Charlie Wilson's misguided idiocy ala Ronald Reagan.
Thus, the Iraq-Iran War gave us Saddam's grab of Kuwait and Bin Laden, Mullah Muhammed Omar.
Holy fuck are you ever stupid. Everything that's happened after 9/11 has been the complete opposite of what PNAC advocated. I'm sick and tired of morons like you, who have clearly never read the fucking report, waving it around as if it were some plan for global domination. At least READ THE FUCKING THING before you start criticizing it!!!
yes. Two major theathre wars. Two countries permanently occupied. Massively supersized military. More permanent presence in the middle-east, just as advocated. Krauthammer, Bolton, Kristol etc still in media. Obama supposedly asking neocons for advice..
Yes exactly. Completely the opposite of what they wanted. Its almost as if people are for "liberating" Iran again. Another major blow to the PNAC agenda.
Way to start of with ad hominem too. Great debate skills.
Ok, so you're agreeing with me, right? Because, of the 7 claims you make, 4 simply aren't in the document, 2 are irrelevant, and 1 is simply a consequence of ANY mid-east policy other than isolation. So, if you're actually disagreeing with what I said, I suggest you try again.
Believe what you like - anyone who's actually read their roadmap would realize that the majority of their goals were either not fulfilled, or were accomplished by means which were completely different than those they advocated.
For instance, how are those US Space Forces coming along? And how about the nuclear arsenal? Got any plans for building new nukes, and conducting new tests? How about canceling the F-35 and the new carriers? Relocating the European and Asian bases?
I never said they were all fullfilled. But that is what they worked for.
They didn't succeed with regime change in iran either..but they sure as damn hell worked for it. They met obstacles in form of the bad economy, non-public support (not as gullible this time), china and russia, didn't kick out inspection people (bolton said this would be good for us) plenty of voices saying usa should be attacked again. since the US mentality doesn't exist for permanent warfare...
The PNAC crowd didn't succeed with Clinton either. But once they had the power (through Bush who surrounded himself with people from PNAC) they certainly worked hard to expand the US empire.
What in the world does temper have to do with anything?
I've done my time with the army, thanks. Seeing it first-hand helped add balance to the left-wing brainwashing which most children in first-world nations seem to go through. That means that, unlike you, I've got a balanced perspective based on information and viewpoints from both sides of the political spectrum. So yeah, I guess you could say I have a few things in common with Hitch, including little respect for ignoramuses and fools.
Yes. Because we all know that in the military is where one receives good objective information.
I have quotes where Hitch says Saddam shows promise. He was also a hardcore marxist once. I've never made either mistake. For having such a great mind Hitch certainly has supported many bad ideas.
You do realize, don't you, that the vast majority of your views are based on ignorance? hat you espouse them only because you've never had the experience, or been presented with the information, which would allow you to make an informed decision?
No. I'm not interested in the Tillman treatment. Or being involved in J. Lynch bogus story lies or being served unclean water. I have no wish to come home in a body bag, or with PTSD, brain injuries etc.. and the possible homelessness as many US soldiers face coming home.
I'll not contribute to spreading of western imperialism who speaks about peace in one hand and is busy arming to world with the other. Nor "spreading democracies" while being closely supporting non-democratic regimes.
Did you by any chance read polls on for instance why US soldiers thought they were in Iraq? Or the ignorance in believing that Saddam had something to do with 9/11?
Soldiers are hardly the most informed people in the world. One needs to lie so that people are willing to put their lives on the risk. Seldom there is such thing as a real threat today..
bigoted libel? Informed humanity. Get back on that gun, gunner. bet you like the noises and purdy explosions like a video game. Seems education didnt fail you, it just didnt happen.
I'm subsribed to the hitchenschannel for instance. Few people make the case for wars as well as he does.. he is never dull even if I disagree with him on times.
Hitch talked about Saddam like that in 1976, long before Saddam actually did anything. But you wouldn't deliberately leave that fact out in order to mislead people, right?
Yes, but the context by which you brought it up seems like you were trying to portray Hitch as a flip-flopper, or inconsistent in his views. I pointed out that it was totally irrelevant. There were many who thought Hitler was a decent leader after seeing Germany get back on its feet. Once they learned the awful truth, they immediately recanted. I wouldn't consider them flip-floppers. So, that little episode of Hitchen's life means diddly-squat.
Well, he has flip flopped. He left marxism to become almost a neocon. Many would say that with 9/11 he partly lost his mind. Personally I have huge disagreements on foreign policy. I haven't seen him mention Rand's study on terrorism for instance. Wonder why?
Anyway, if you're on facebook add yourself to Hitchens channel. Sometimes there are debates in the comments field...I'm there as well.
Actually, he hasn't left Marx entirely. Read his article "Marx's Revenge". I would not say he partly lost his mind; rather, he partly woke up (I say partly, because he was already more awake to the threat than most). His views are fairly consistent, because he supported the efforts in the Balkans before 9/11. And he's already made the case that Vietnam and Iraq don't belong in the same breath. And just because you haven't seen him talk about something doesn't mean he hasn't.
You are absolutely wrong hitch is NOT a necon...he has stated publicly that he still resonates with socialist ideals...the only really right wing position he can be said to have taken up with is the War. Am I wrong on this?
@soapfiction The best way to convince someone of a lie is to take facts out of context to make it appear that the prove the lie.
Its classic propaganda, dictators past and present would approve of the way he took Hitchens past statements out of context to attack him. Were Saddam alive I'm sure he'd appreciate such a cynical defense of his rapine and torture.
@c6gunner Keep in mind when slating "left-wing brainwashing"... Christopher Hitchens is very-much a left-wing thinker. He stepped away from the left in the UK because of their excessive benefit-mentality but he is still far left of center. In fact, his defense of the Iraq war is out-of-character for him and is because he understands the true horror of terrorism and the effect of 9-11. Of those I meet, the left-wing are far more informed and intelligent than the right-wing.
The comment you were responding to was written back when I knew relatively little about Hitch. Since then I've become rather more familiar with his views/background, and his approach to life in general. If you see him as a "left wing thinker", you need to read "Hitch 22".
As for left vs. right, I'd say both sides of the political spectrum are packed with simpletons. If you see the left as "more intelligent" it's probably because they share more of your personal delusions.
We've had on average, half a million troops stationed in over 50 countries for the last 50 years. That is going to cause blow back, no question.
Hitchen's tries to dance around this by saying that the claim is that counter terrorism is the cause of blow back. And that claim is silly and easy for Mr Hitchen's to refute.
Hitchens is loyal to his Kurdish nationalist friends, and so he is prepared to overlook the blatant corruption and strategic failure of the Bush administration. America engaged in nation-building successfully in postwar Europe and Japan, but nowhere else. We have a long history of hundreds of disastrous interventions in the middle east and Latin America. No one is arguing that we deserve terrorism.
Hitchens actually believed that the there would be no full invasion of Iraq.
And he fell for the WMD myth which was used to sell the war. Hitchens is brilliant on a lot of things, especially religion but he doesn't get everything right (like any person) either.
He wants to solve old problems with more of the same. Won't work.
There was no threat, it was "sexed up" as downing street minutes show. Plus we have cheney's energy task force mapping Iraqi oil fields pre 9/11 plus office of special plans..people like K Kwiatkowski who have spoken on intelligence was fixed to suit the agenda. They knew he had nothing, but that was how it was sold. All he had was expired weapons which US and others sold him.
"This will be no war -- there will be a fairly brief and ruthless military intervention.... The president will give an order. [The attack] will be rapid, accurate and dazzling.... It will be greeted by the majority of the Iraqi people as an emancipation. And I say, bring it on."
Hitchens, in a 1/28/03 debate-- cited in the Observer, 3/30/03
I dont disagree idealogically with the iraq war, in practice i do. Saddam Hussein was a prick who deserved to die, in my mind it is the duty of the good to seek out and destroy the evil. That said the iraq "war" is not being waged efficiently, and not effectively enough. Hitchens was dead on, the terrorists should learn that their shit will not be tolerated, period. Sure we shouldn't go looking for trouble but clearly in iraq and afghanistan, something had to be done.
Iraq was not a needed battle, Saddam had been desamated by a decade of both war-desert storm- and 3yrs of bombing campains with Clinton. we knew very well that he wasn't a threat in the way that the Neo-Cons would like to paint him.
the war in Iraq was a engineered aspect of Neo-Con philosophy, they are advocates of pre-emptive war(like the Nazi's) and they are advocates of changing the middle eastern powers, and inflating governments size and power.
Ideally i agree with you, Saddam should have been taken care of the first time round. And you wont find me kissing the asses of the "neo-cons" wherever the hell they got that asinine term. Still were the people not happy when we ousted him? I think that we arent making any progress the way we're going now, and should probably make our plans to be leaving.
Islamo-Fascism is the greatest threat to the world. Checkout what is going on in Somalia, Nigeria, and East Timor. Go to Britain and France. I couldn't beleive how bad it was there now with their muslim populations. Scary.
islamo-facism is a threat more to the countries of Europe than to us.
Christo-facism is now a greater threat to our freedoms as it is home grown.
the same homeland terrorist who blew up clinics in the 80's-90's are now a active force in the Republican party and strong allies of the Neo-Con agenda.
they wish to topple the american secular nation and raise up a theocratic totalitarian nation.
this is real it is expounded in their basic tenets and goals for their movement.
Lol you dont need to bother saying islamofascism or christofascism, fascism is generally a religious enterprise or at least backed by religion. No doubt that the evangelical bumpkins and loons want to live in a christian version of Iran or pre-invasion Afghanistan. Never forget how the religious behave when they are allowed free reign.
As an atheist with no sympathy for evangelical influence on politics, science curriculums, et al, I must echo John McEnroe's courtside lament: You can't be serious.
Invading a country illegally,with no NATO backing,using lies about WMD's and biological weapons, to cause fear among Americans so they could validate their reasons for war,Slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis,destroying and ripping apart their country,Profiting off the oil revenue,the immense privatization of Iraq. History will deem us nothing more than like the citizens of nazi germany,scared and brainwashed by media propaganda while our leaders wage their power hungy wars.
I'm still not clear on why the pro-war left and independent thinkers like Hitchens think the administration's reasons for going to war line up with their own idealistic motives. Why should we believe the political class has grown a conscience all of a sudden? What are the four reasons Hitchens was gonna give for thinking the US has wound up 'on the right side of history'? If anyone could point me to where the Hitch gives a comprehensive explanation I'd really appreciate it.
wow look at these long paragraphs...lets break them up with a joke; What did the penis say to the condom? Cover me im going in! ...ok that was a little lame
meh what a poor debate, the problem is that you accept and stick with this analogous debate of war yes/no and thereby never get to the much more important of how and why! in questions of war hitchins seems to block out that today america is more of a fascist militaristic empire which does not bring peace and liberty but much rather exploitation, disorder and cultural destruction, he should know better but i guess its army-daddy speaking out of him in these cases
You are so right. The US is a destroyer of culture around the world. The US ended the culture of endless European wars. The US ended the culuture of Japanese Empiralism. The US was involved in the end of Stalinist Communist culture. I hope we also end the culture of Islamic Fascism.
only its own imperialism it could not end ^^, these merits are debatable to say the least and there more examples to the contrary, vietnam, korea, cambodia, iran-contra, mozambique, latin-america, iraq, afghanistan..., hit and miss on the extend of millions of lifes and the cultures of the country, "fascism" is a political strategy to paralyse democracies, it was developed in europe and is used in the usa since the war (spoiler: giant symbols next to the flag in the senate ;) )
Leftist=blind. Look at the 2 Koreas at night. N. Korea is in the dark. All of Korea would be in the dark starving if not for the US. What would Europe look like if the US would have let Stalin swallow it! The Taliban in Afghan. kill over religion, deny women, girls education and rights. The communists in Cambodia killed millions. The US spent more in lives and treasure freeing more then any society in human history. Activist Bono "The US has done more to fight AIDS in Africa then any nation"
yeah pop-stars are always a reliable source of information ^^, the us may have spend more in treasure (not per capita though), but the real expenses in lives is always with those who get "liberated", who do you think payed the higher price for "freedom": the americans or the iraqis? ameicans or vietnamese (+cambodians, the genocide was a result of the american retreat)? americans or timonese? america doesn't really know what it means to pay the price..
glorify if you need it but its an ideology of forcing ends no matter the means, america wants to be the heroic liberator no matter the costs, if it doesn't work it's the others who really have to pay the price, im all for intervention and even an american empire, but it has to be under democratic control, in the interest of human rights and guided by sound politics, but it is just not the case
Urgh i like Hitchens on many thing he speaks about but he shames himself on this issue attempting to dilute the real issues with other things that were never cited as a reason to invade iraq, maybe sadam should have been removed but the issue is that we were lied to about the reasons for war, its the manipulation of perception that people hate so much, no one claims sadam was in any way good.
Hitchens is not distorting anything, the issue was that it looked like Sadam was developing WMDs, and might sell these to terrorists who would use them against the US
Im sure he desired them but in fact if you watch interviews with condoliza rice and other whitehouse officials pre war you will see them saying things like "we have been able to keep WMDs from him" and let us not forget the famous downing street memo showing that the intel was fixed regarding iraq to make a stronger case for war and lastly lets not forget that no WMDs were found pretty much confirming my previous statments.
it was imperative to invade Iraq because we are a Superpower. I hope to God we remain one or else this world will be cast into the Stone Age. " Live Free or Die". That's what it boils down to....
Imperative to invade Iraq? Wow, if you can be brainwashed by Moron Bush, what does that say about you? The invasion of Iraq was a huge mistake and so is the continuation of this perpetual war. Trying to establish democracy by force in that region of the world is like building a sand castle next to the waves. It won't last long (if it ever takes at all). Democracy must come from within, not forced from outside, especially in the Middle East.
The U.S. did not invade Iraq to spread democracy. They established a military prensence in the middle east to ensure power remains where the vast majority of American believe it should be, the USA. What has America lost in this war? A few thousand soldiers? That's nothing compared to what they have gained. Its a clear message to the world. "Don't cross us, or we will dismantle you."
Excuse me, but those are hypocritical and short-sighted comments. Israel has been a U.S.- style military presence in the Middle East for a long time. What has that accomplished? Also the military presence is supposedly temporary. Beyond the "few thousand U.S. soldiers" killed (and tens of thousands injured), we are now spending $12 billion per month to stay in Iraq. We are bankrupting our nation. The dollar is very weak. The price of gas is climbing higher and higher. (continued)
On top of this, U.S. bullying is not respected by our very important European allies. We have disrespected the U.N. and it will take decades to repair that damage. Of the industrialized nations, the U.S. is now last in many categories, such as health care. In other words, we can ill-afford to be throwing away billions on this war. You say we gained a lot. Please tell me, what? That last comment: "Don't cross us, or we will dismantle you." sounds like something Stalin might have said.
Arato has the benefit of taking the position actually supported by FACTS, but he is a TERRIBLE speaker("I, uh...think, uh...that, uh..."). Hitchens wins hands down, even though the Iraq war is asinine.
A subtext to Arato's argument seems to be that we can whip ourselves into a lather about "fundamentalist terrorists" in an ad hoc way to justify the invasion of virtually ANY country. We lose our credibility when we lose our ability to distinguish between the various levels of threat. The same Christopher Hitchens who bashes the CIA and FBI as inept bumpkins relies on their analysis come time to justify invasion.
Iraq HAD to be invaded. That Sick Despot MADDASS Hussein. He harbored terrorists, defied numerous UN sanctions and wouldnt let inspectors into certain buildings.. WHO WANTED TO TAKE THE CHANCE THAT HE WAS BLUFFING??? NOT ME! NOT BUSH. NOT THE UN (26 countries went into Iraq not just the US).
I think if we attack Iraq, we can win, but certainly I dislike the orinal rational and doubt the motives of USA government, and certainly their tactics and strategy failed disastrously. Perhaps only incapapable liars who can both lie the public, and the approval of congress will result the fiasco in Iraq war.
You know along with John Ritter, George Galloway and Noam Chomsky, Arato displays classic left wing niavitity. He should be 100% disgusted with himself calling Sadame 'a poor guy'. He thinks a resistance (this argument originated from his Bosnia views) should evolve 'naturally' from the people being oppressed? WHAT THE FUCK IS HE TALKING ABOUT? What, do we just sit back and watch poor people get fucked over by these monsters and expect them to do something about it? Didn't work in Rwanda!
deluxmatty01 6 months ago
Hitchen’s is an intellectual colossus. The other guy waffles too much, and is naive. Islamic extremism *is* a form of fascism. We on the left must have the stomach to face this simple fact - we should be, by definition, committed to resisting fascism in all of its forms. The left is eating itself in this regards, we are too busy fighting amongst ourselves. Too many on the left indulge in popularist Islamic sycophancy. I think it's time to grow up and be a little more objective.
garlicluva 7 months ago
Christ' Hitchens, the "intellectual," places blind faith in the chemi-co-/radio- “therapies” utilized to frustrate (or thwart) the placental onslaught of crab cancer, even though they are serologically worthless. Admire him for his pig-headedness.]
ThePregnancySlaves 9 months ago
is that whiskey on the side????? (hitchens)
invictorium 9 months ago
The douchbag on the right is saying , don't fight back , or they will hate you more. -FAIL
foamulator 11 months ago
@TheJovanist I'm sorry man but you're not only mistaken but you're also fucking insane
alihandromontoya 1 year ago
Christopher Hitchen's view on religion = win
Christopher Hitchen's view on foreign policy = fail
Old guy on the right needs to cut to the chase and stop beating around the bush with rhetoric "playing it cute and smart" type of manner. Man up and say it pussy. 1. Hitchens your a dumbass. 2. There were no WMDs, 3. Opium smuggling from Afghanistan is unethical. 4. 9-11 was an inside job. 5. Bin Laden was CIA operative gone rogue. 6. War budget bad!.
I saved you 11:00 minutes of your time.
TheJovanist 1 year ago
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
Hitchens is a fool. While he is dying he should think about the ONE MILLION Iraqi's that died because of the US massacre he supported.
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
@qwertypoiu4321: Nowhere near the amount of the one million were killed by Coalition forces, but by the religious killers. 1 million died, and 50 million were freed. Hitchens isnt dying because he supported the war, he is dying because everybody dies.
athabascka 1 year ago
@qwertypoiu4321: We do not occupy the Arab Peninsula. The Saudi Arabian government allow us to have bases there, and we built bases there so that we could enforce the no fly zones over Iraq to prevent genocide. In other words, it was a good policy and mutual agreement with the Saudi government. Bin Ladin and al Qaeda believe that Saudi Arabia is "holy land". In other words, it is because of religious fanaticism, not because of imperialism.
athabascka 1 year ago
@athabascka
"Nowhere near the amount of the one million were killed by Coalition forces,"
The US invasion of Iraq caused the death of OVER one million Iraqi's, and also drove 4+ million from their country and/or homes.
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
"1 million died, and 50 million were freed."
You sadists seem to forget that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. The US caused the death of OVER 1 million Iraqi's and put the remaining 27 million Iraqi's in a more dangerous, chaotic State than before. That is more Iraqi's than Saddam Hussein EVER murdered. And either way, the Ba'athist party would have NEVER come to power if it were not for Kennedy and the CIA supporting Abdul Arif's Ba'athist coup in 1963.
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
"We do not occupy the Arab Peninsula."
It is called Operation Desert Shield, look it up.
"The Saudi Arabian government allow us to have bases there,"
The Saudi State 'allowed' the US to occupy the AP against the wishes of the whole middle eastern world so their oil reserves would be protected against any possible conflict with Iraq.
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
"we built bases there so that we could enforce the no fly zones over Iraq"
No, they were built there ONLY so oil reserves would be protected against any possible conflict with Iraq. The US had no legitimacy being involved with the airspace of Iraq(and committing larceny for this big thug experiment) either way.
"to prevent genocide."
To protect oil reserves and domination of the middle east, and indifferent to any 'genocide.'
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
"not because of imperialism."
That is the US State extending beyond US borders, the DEFINITION of Imperialism.
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
@qwertypoiu4321: The US state has bases in many countries, it is always a voluntary agreement with the governmentst themselves. And in the case of the Gulf War, the US state did a good thing: overthrowing a dictator that terrorized his people. I would not call that imperalism. The US has no interest in creating new territories or states for itself.
athabascka 1 year ago
@qwertypoiu4321: The Saudi State has jurisdiction over its land, and it was a voluntary agreement with that state to build US military bases. It was against the wishes of the whole middle east. Yes, every pious tribal religious fanatical killer was pissed off, because the Saudi land is "holy".Bullshit, you are siding with the most irrational right wing force in the world. Is it not an occupation if it is a voluntary agreement.
athabascka 1 year ago
@qwertypoiu4321: Actually, Saddam was a sadist, and those who wish he was still in power are sadists, and those who blame western civilization for the evils of radical right wing tribal religious fanatics are masochists. If the US government is responsible fpr the Ba'athist coup in 1963, thats all the most reason we are responsible to remove that party from power. The US did not cause the deaths. Most of the deaths were caused by religious killers killing each other.
athabascka 1 year ago
@qwertypoiu4321: The US is not resonsible for the in-fighting between religious sects. You might as well say what you mean: that the horrific dictatorship kept these groups from killing each other, in other words, you believe Saddam was a good thing, and that you reject the Western ideal of universal human liberty.
athabascka 1 year ago
@athabascka
"The US state has bases in many countries,"
Which the US State should not.
"it is always a voluntary agreement with the governmentst themselves."
1. Neither State is Voluntary.
2. Neither State have a voluntary agreement with the society they initiate themselves over.
3. Two occupying States coming up with military occupations of the land they initiate themselves over IS a form of occupation.
....
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
"the Gulf War, the US state did a good thing: overthrowing a dictator that terrorized his people."
The Gulf War did not overthrow anyone. And the Gulf War was irrelated to any dictator doing anything to the society the Iraqi State occupied.
"I would not call that imperalism."
That is expanding beyond your borders, the definition of Imperialism.
....
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
"The US has no interest in creating new territories or states for itself."
The US State had an interest in the oil of Saudi Arabia. Militarily dominating an area, extending beyond your borders, is imperialism. A State does not have to commit colonialism to be an imperialist State.
....
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
"The Saudi State has jurisdiction over its land, and it was a voluntary agreement with that state to build US military bases."
The Saudi State is a dictatorship that has no legitimate jurisdiction over the society it initiates itself over. Illegitimate States do not create 'voluntary' agreements for any military occupation.
....
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
"every pious tribal religious fanatical killer was pissed off, because the Saudi land is "holy"."
The US State should not have been showing signs of imperializing the middle east by occupying the Arabian Peninsula and funding Israel. If the US State did not occupy the AP and fund Israel there would have been no 1993 WTC attack, 1996 Khobar Tower attack, 1998 African embassy attack(on the anniversary of the US State occupation of the AP), no 2000 attack on the USS Cole, and no 9/11.
....
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
"Is it not an occupation if it is a voluntary agreement."
States do not create 'voluntary agreements'.
"Saddam was a sadist,"
1. Saddam Hussein would have never achieved power in the late seventies(when Hitchens SUPPORTED Saddam Hussein) if not for the policy of Kennedy and the CIA in 1963.
....
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
2. NONE of the reasons the US State invaded and occupied Iraq over involved any policy Saddam Hussein committed against the people of Iraq. In fact, Bush only gave the 48-hour deadline of the invasion when Saddam Hussein would not allow inspectors into Iraq under UNSCR 1441. That is irrelated to Saddam Hussein's policies towards the Iraqi society.
....
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
"and those who wish he was still in power are sadists,"
We would not even know who Saddam Hussein is if it were not for US policies in the 1960's. And anyone who supports committing larceny to go invade a country for reasons that have nothing to do with the US or Saddam Hussein's sadism--making the whole society unhinged and chaotic while causing the murder of more Iraqi's than Saddam Huessin had murdered in 20 years as a masochist dictator--is a sadist.
....
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
"those who blame western civilization for the evils of radical right wing tribal religious fanatics"
What does western society have to do with US State military imperialism?
"If the US government is responsible fpr the Ba'athist coup in 1963,"
They are, which shows how well the last imperialist experiment worked(of couse committing larceny to do it in the first place).
....
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
"thats all the most reason we are responsible to remove that party from power."
The US did not invade to 'remove that party' from power, it had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein's policies in regard to the citizens of Iraq. And that does not justify committing more larceny to go try another sadist experiment overseas.
....
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
"The US did not cause the deaths. Most of the deaths were caused by religious killers killing each other."
The US State invasion caused the civil conflict in Iraq. The US State invasion caused Iraq to become an unhinged, chaotic nightmare.
"The US is not resonsible for the in-fighting between religious sects."
The invasion CAUSED the civil conflict in Iraq.
"the horrific dictatorship kept these groups from killing each other,"
No, the imperialist invasion caused the civil conflict.
...
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
"you believe Saddam was a good thing,"
No, that is what Hitchens believed in the 1970's when Saddam Hussein came to power. That is not something, unlike Hitchens, I would ever believe for the same reasons I could not support the masochistic US State invasion.
....
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
"reject the Western ideal of universal human liberty."
The US State invasion had NOTHING to do with human liberty. It had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein's policies against the society in Iraq. It only had to do with military dominance of the middle east, a policy in regard to the US State and indifferent in regard to the Iraqi society.
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
Hitchens has a really important intellectual role imo; I wish he was less offensive and combative as he comes off as a right wing nut.
junkie1044 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Many of us argued that there was no need for a war in the first place, and if there was one it would be a disaster, and there were alternatives to it. All those three thing remain true. ... And we are obliged, not least of which for the sake of those who's warm bodies are being used for a failed policy, to keep the argument going" - Christopher Hitchens speaking about the 1991 Gulf war with Iraq.
zimtran007 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Many of us argued that there was no need for a war in the first place, and if there was one it would be a disaster, and there were alternatives to it. All those three thing remain true. ... And we are obliged, not least of which for the sake of those who's warm bodies are being used for a failed policy, to keep the argument going" - Christopher Hitchens speaking about the 1991 Gulf war with Iraq.
zimtran007 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Many of us argued that there was no need for a war in the first place, and if there was one it would be a disaster, and there were alternatives to it. All those three thing remain true. ... And we are obliged, not least of which for the sake of those who's warm bodies are being used for a failed policy, to keep the argument going" - Christopher Hitchens speaking about the 1991 Gulf war with Iraq.
zimtran007 1 year ago
Comment removed
zimtran007 1 year ago
i have this guy next semester..
shud i be worried? lol
ssips720 1 year ago
When I was younger I used to play "Risk" with firends, the strategic war game. I am Irish. Hitchens is a laughing stock in Britain, no one of any importance takes him seriously. He imagines himself as the ultimate Risk commander, ordering young American and European men and women on military adventures and coldly shrugs as they return home in body bags, and in wheelchairs. He exemplifies all that was corrupt and sickening in the 19th Century British imperialist mentality.
Nadnerb765 1 year ago
6:17 HAHAHAHAHA HE PWNED THAT BITCH!!! Get em Hitch : )
anikinippon 1 year ago
Christopher Hitchens needs to stick to evolution; his political views are atrocious.
theyasin33 1 year ago
@theyasin33 Science has proven that you don't "grow into" your frontal lobe until your mid twenties. You, young sir, are a fine example. Your channel proudly wears politics like a trendy sweater, and you yourself proliferate some of the same ideas Hitchens is all about. You know not what you speak, and therefore should not speak, little pimple.
theinfernalhess 1 year ago
@theinfernalhess I assume you are referring to Erikson's theory of psychological development? The reason I have a passion for political philosophy is because I question the aspects of life: our society, the huge disparity, etc., not because as you quoted, "I haven't grown into my frontal lobe." Hitchens was once a proliferate, but he unfortunately changed his views which is evident through his political works and ideas.
theyasin33 1 year ago
@theyasin33 No. Although Erikson's theory's are interesting, his analysis is of human growth, not politics and econ. This particular writing depicts the psychological growth of a person, citing numerous examples of field examinations to support his ideas.
theinfernalhess 1 year ago
You know, I would like to see Hitchens go up against Noam Chomsky on this.
On another note, I may not agree with Hitchens, but even I can see that Andrew Arato is terrible on this issue.
oystersdontbleed 1 year ago
I like Hitchens but he's dead wrong on this one. I hear his feelings talking, not his reason. I expected better from Hitchens.
jst1998 1 year ago
@jst1998 Why should of America not invaded Afghanistan.
cheeseandbabys 1 year ago
@cheeseandbabys I think invading other countries because we suspect terrorists there is a very barbaric way of trying to solve an old systemic problem. Not all terrorist are evil and crazy, just like not all Americans are hopelessly nationalistic and live in a bubble. There are angry and fearful people on both sides. I don't have a solution, but one way to minimize terrorism is to stop treating the world like our personal piggy bank and start respecting other countries.
jst1998 1 year ago
@jst1998 Not suspect but know. We know that they are there. And what do you mean not all terrorist are not evil and crazy, by there very nature they "terrorize" people. I think you meant to say not every person there is a terrorist. Start respecting other countries? I will never respect a country that oppresses woman. Never. In the country America is in now that is a reality. My country respect civilized countries with just laws and rational citizens. That is simply just not the case.
cheeseandbabys 1 year ago
@cheeseandbabys You should consider reading before you make such broad statements, because uninformed people like you are easy bait for corrupt politicians, corrupt corporations and corrupt media. Here is what is real: social injustice all over the world, hard working people slaving away while the rich get richer and a planet that we are destroying every day. So called "terrorists" are a sideshow. And your country, which is also mine, had a big part in creating all of this, including terrorists.
jst1998 1 year ago
@jst1998 WTF are you saying. That did not even make sense. Broad statements? Everything i said is the truth, and on point. We did not create terrorist, we made a country with rights, people disagreed because they are crazy, it is not Americas fault they are crazy. "Slaving away". LMFAO, it is the persons choice to work for a company. Why should the "rich" not be able to build something, Bill Gates who made Microsoft from scratch, by your logic, does not deserve to be rich. Fuck you, Learn more.
cheeseandbabys 1 year ago
@cheeseandbabys Like I said, you have to catch up on your reading. Start with John Perkins, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man and work your way from there. Good luck.
jst1998 1 year ago
@jst1998 You fail
cheeseandbabys 1 year ago
@cheeseandbabys if you want to make a contest out of it, I'd say you failed. Miserably. Quite honestly, youtube is a depressing source of info because it exposes the horrifying number of brainless urbanites that inhabit our country, and are allowed to vote. Why don't you start with the basics first. Learn to read and write: it's a big part of politics, and it's hard to express your ideas if you don't know the rules. Our nation is not, as you said, crazy; just ignorant.
theinfernalhess 1 year ago
@theinfernalhess ...... I think you responded to the wrong person? Well if you didn't you should take your own advice and read the argument, i frankly destroyed him on every point......
cheeseandbabys 1 year ago
Hitch is a professional babbler
mixxmexx 1 year ago
@mixxmexx and your a cunt
TheAntinode 1 year ago
@TheAntinode no I'm not. My wife would have complained then.
mixxmexx 1 year ago
Of course Iraq was harboring terrorists, fuck this appeasement.
321lawc 1 year ago
Comment removed
thegreatestbak 2 years ago
Ο Ιησούς Χριστός νικά
τα πασά κακά σκορπά
και η κυρά η Παναγία
και το πνεύμα το αγαθό
σκορπάει το κακό
drekas2005 2 years ago
al qaeda is the database of cia mujahadeen fighters cia backed and created
mooners40 2 years ago
no. stop repeating that idiotic lie.
c6gunner 2 years ago
fact
mooners40 2 years ago
prove it.
c6gunner 2 years ago
and the taliban were set up by the cia and pakistan isi(cia run) - look into it yourself why would you believe me? And everything that pnac advocated has been opposite bla bla you on drugs?
mooners40 2 years ago
Well, you're right - I wouldn't believe you because I HAVE looked into it. The Taliban wasn't "set up by the CIA", although they were indirectly funded by the CIA through Pakistan. As for Al Qaeda, they were neither created nor funded by any branch of the US government - they were funded primarily by the Saudis and other Islamic states. Nobody has ever shown any kind of link between Al Qaeda and the US - you're just repeating a myth.
As for the last bit - read the fucking document.
c6gunner 2 years ago
my point was that al qaeda doesnt exist - in the way the U.S. would have us believe - fuded by Saudis? i believe you and it makes it better - Bush and Saudis arent connected at all
and we only need to look at the world to see pnac unfolding - go usa - lets nuke iran and give them democracy like when gw got voted in - hail to the thief - repeating a myth? your opinion - but if i repeat it often enough you'll believe it
mooners40 2 years ago
Al Qaeda doesn't exist? Wow. You're an even bigger fool than I though. Let me guess - you also think the Jews were behind 9/11, right?
Please, sell your computer - your very presence makes the internet a stupider place.
c6gunner 2 years ago
The internet is a place? whereabouts? Jews? Shalom Einstein!
mooners40 2 years ago
You got it.
Place - 2 a: an indefinite region or expanse - all over the place
I'm sad to see that the UK's educational institutions have failed you so miserable. You take care of yourself, "Einstein".
c6gunner 2 years ago
Adverbs qualify - perhaps you missed that in class -' failed you so miseraBLY' is more correct - and my university years were in the u.s. so it's all your fault. And don't be sad be happy. :-) turn that frown upside down
mooners40 2 years ago
Ah, yes, a Brit blaming a Canadian for a shitty education he received in America. Makes as much sense as anything else you've said.
c6gunner 2 years ago
Hey i love Canadia hey
mooners40 2 years ago
I would love to see Hitch drink two bottles of scotch and then debate someone. He would quadruple destroy them. It's the fuel for his superpower....
robotwookie 2 years ago 16
an atheist that supports Iraq god we all need to start a political party or at least a think tank
ak47523 2 years ago 2
Hitchens gets down to it. You either feel that we can ignore these people and their barbarism, hope it doesn't come back to north america... or we can stand up to them and say enough.
hammer231984 2 years ago 2
But that's such a tragically false dichotomy: the choice when dealing with terrorism is not between complete inaction and attacking an unrelated country with an insufficient force.
There are plenty of steps short of war in Iraq, like finishing the engagement in Afghanistan or dealing with terrorists in a criminal context, that would have gone much further towards dealing with the problem than going after Iraq.
TBlake34 2 years ago
why is hitch always dehydrated?
splendorfulguris 2 years ago
cause alcohol makes you dehydrated, Hitchens is slammed if you can't tell
ICameFromApes 2 years ago 2
LOL - he always seems that way...
splendorfulguris 2 years ago
Even if he's drunk (he does admittedly enjoy the drink) he still tears his opponents to shreds.
jhohcable 2 years ago 3
probably because of drinking lots he always looks hungover
mw18g 2 years ago
Because he is a serious boozer
grengd 2 years ago
I'd be a boozer too if I had to argue with the same morons on a daily basis. Same with the packs of cigs he takes down.
SlyStonedFunkyMonk 2 years ago 7
Brits like to drink lots. I know I'm one of them.
Ps I dig your username. Very good.
grengd 2 years ago
Aha, that's why I get along with them so well. Thanks, I tried to see how many references to things I do/like I could fit, ahaha.
SlyStonedFunkyMonk 2 years ago
We must needs harken back to the 1947-48 Arab-Isreali War because that is the grand daddy of them all, 1948, 1956, 1967, Black September at Munich, 1973. Then we had the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the 1981 destruction of Iraq's nuclear reactor.
Swith to the Rooskies and their terrible Afghan Adventure, paving the way for Charlie Wilson's misguided idiocy ala Ronald Reagan.
Thus, the Iraq-Iran War gave us Saddam's grab of Kuwait and Bin Laden, Mullah Muhammed Omar.
lumpagogo 3 years ago
The point is a riddle: How can we alter the past in order to accomodate Islam and the U.S.'s brand of "Onward Christian Soldiers"?
We can't; today's Moslems are not going to the back of the bus. We are stuck with them.
We would have to nuke Iran and the House of Saud in order to choke off the sources of the aggression. Shall we?
We better would!
lumpagogo 3 years ago
Bin Laden rescued Bush?! Aratos' an a**hole.
bebeinpa 3 years ago
Obviously you missed his point. Watch it again. None of these men are assholes. The people they are discussing could be described as such though.
prebenfisk 3 years ago
Pardon my French. Aratos is philosophizing about what HE SEES-not about what is KNOWN.
bebeinpa 3 years ago 4
Bin Laden very much helped the neocon PNAC agenda. Without 9/11 / the new Pearl Harbor their plans could not have begun.
You can also google: "Bush: Bin laden helped me"
Hirnlego999 3 years ago
Holy fuck are you ever stupid. Everything that's happened after 9/11 has been the complete opposite of what PNAC advocated. I'm sick and tired of morons like you, who have clearly never read the fucking report, waving it around as if it were some plan for global domination. At least READ THE FUCKING THING before you start criticizing it!!!
c6gunner 2 years ago
yes. Two major theathre wars. Two countries permanently occupied. Massively supersized military. More permanent presence in the middle-east, just as advocated. Krauthammer, Bolton, Kristol etc still in media. Obama supposedly asking neocons for advice..
Yes exactly. Completely the opposite of what they wanted. Its almost as if people are for "liberating" Iran again. Another major blow to the PNAC agenda.
Way to start of with ad hominem too. Great debate skills.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
Ok, so you're agreeing with me, right? Because, of the 7 claims you make, 4 simply aren't in the document, 2 are irrelevant, and 1 is simply a consequence of ANY mid-east policy other than isolation. So, if you're actually disagreeing with what I said, I suggest you try again.
c6gunner 2 years ago
No I'm not agreeing. And I don't really believe you have actually bothered to read it.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
Believe what you like - anyone who's actually read their roadmap would realize that the majority of their goals were either not fulfilled, or were accomplished by means which were completely different than those they advocated.
For instance, how are those US Space Forces coming along? And how about the nuclear arsenal? Got any plans for building new nukes, and conducting new tests? How about canceling the F-35 and the new carriers? Relocating the European and Asian bases?
Well??
c6gunner 2 years ago
I never said they were all fullfilled. But that is what they worked for.
They didn't succeed with regime change in iran either..but they sure as damn hell worked for it. They met obstacles in form of the bad economy, non-public support (not as gullible this time), china and russia, didn't kick out inspection people (bolton said this would be good for us) plenty of voices saying usa should be attacked again. since the US mentality doesn't exist for permanent warfare...
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
The PNAC crowd didn't succeed with Clinton either. But once they had the power (through Bush who surrounded himself with people from PNAC) they certainly worked hard to expand the US empire.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
Yeah. And?
c6gunner 2 years ago
Yeah. And what?
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
Just curious if you were planning on making a coherent point, or if you're just using this comments section as an opportunity to bitch.
c6gunner 2 years ago
You're the one with the bad temper.
Do like Hitchens. Have a drink.
Or join the crusades if they let you into the army.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
What in the world does temper have to do with anything?
I've done my time with the army, thanks. Seeing it first-hand helped add balance to the left-wing brainwashing which most children in first-world nations seem to go through. That means that, unlike you, I've got a balanced perspective based on information and viewpoints from both sides of the political spectrum. So yeah, I guess you could say I have a few things in common with Hitch, including little respect for ignoramuses and fools.
c6gunner 2 years ago 6
Yes. Because we all know that in the military is where one receives good objective information.
I have quotes where Hitch says Saddam shows promise. He was also a hardcore marxist once. I've never made either mistake. For having such a great mind Hitch certainly has supported many bad ideas.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
Oh, so you've served in the military, have you?
You do realize, don't you, that the vast majority of your views are based on ignorance? hat you espouse them only because you've never had the experience, or been presented with the information, which would allow you to make an informed decision?
c6gunner 2 years ago
No. I'm not interested in the Tillman treatment. Or being involved in J. Lynch bogus story lies or being served unclean water. I have no wish to come home in a body bag, or with PTSD, brain injuries etc.. and the possible homelessness as many US soldiers face coming home.
I'll not contribute to spreading of western imperialism who speaks about peace in one hand and is busy arming to world with the other. Nor "spreading democracies" while being closely supporting non-democratic regimes.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
Did you by any chance read polls on for instance why US soldiers thought they were in Iraq? Or the ignorance in believing that Saddam had something to do with 9/11?
Soldiers are hardly the most informed people in the world. One needs to lie so that people are willing to put their lives on the risk. Seldom there is such thing as a real threat today..
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
Wow. Just .... wow. I don't think anything more needs be said on this issue. I'll let your bigoted libel speak for itself.
c6gunner 2 years ago
Hitch is right. Orwell still matters. Its too bad that he is often part of the problem.
"we're an empire now and when we act we create our own reality"
And a lot of soldiers at least were uninformed when it comes to the war. I fail to see how it makes me bigoted for pointing it out.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
bigoted libel? Informed humanity. Get back on that gun, gunner. bet you like the noises and purdy explosions like a video game. Seems education didnt fail you, it just didnt happen.
mooners40 2 years ago
He very well may have supported bad ideas at some point, but I'd prefer to address his current points than to assassinate his character.
mwtillotson 2 years ago
I do partially agree actually.
I'm subsribed to the hitchenschannel for instance. Few people make the case for wars as well as he does.. he is never dull even if I disagree with him on times.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
Hitch talked about Saddam like that in 1976, long before Saddam actually did anything. But you wouldn't deliberately leave that fact out in order to mislead people, right?
soapfiction 2 years ago
Way to bring back an old topic.
Of course it was a long time ago...I haven't claimed otherwise either.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
Yes, but the context by which you brought it up seems like you were trying to portray Hitch as a flip-flopper, or inconsistent in his views. I pointed out that it was totally irrelevant. There were many who thought Hitler was a decent leader after seeing Germany get back on its feet. Once they learned the awful truth, they immediately recanted. I wouldn't consider them flip-floppers. So, that little episode of Hitchen's life means diddly-squat.
soapfiction 2 years ago
@soapfiction
Well, he has flip flopped. He left marxism to become almost a neocon. Many would say that with 9/11 he partly lost his mind. Personally I have huge disagreements on foreign policy. I haven't seen him mention Rand's study on terrorism for instance. Wonder why?
Anyway, if you're on facebook add yourself to Hitchens channel. Sometimes there are debates in the comments field...I'm there as well.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
Actually, he hasn't left Marx entirely. Read his article "Marx's Revenge". I would not say he partly lost his mind; rather, he partly woke up (I say partly, because he was already more awake to the threat than most). His views are fairly consistent, because he supported the efforts in the Balkans before 9/11. And he's already made the case that Vietnam and Iraq don't belong in the same breath. And just because you haven't seen him talk about something doesn't mean he hasn't.
soapfiction 2 years ago
You are absolutely wrong hitch is NOT a necon...he has stated publicly that he still resonates with socialist ideals...the only really right wing position he can be said to have taken up with is the War. Am I wrong on this?
thegreatestbak 2 years ago
I think you're spot on.
lector0003 1 year ago
@soapfiction The best way to convince someone of a lie is to take facts out of context to make it appear that the prove the lie.
Its classic propaganda, dictators past and present would approve of the way he took Hitchens past statements out of context to attack him. Were Saddam alive I'm sure he'd appreciate such a cynical defense of his rapine and torture.
GaiusIuliusTaberna 2 years ago
@c6gunner Keep in mind when slating "left-wing brainwashing"... Christopher Hitchens is very-much a left-wing thinker. He stepped away from the left in the UK because of their excessive benefit-mentality but he is still far left of center. In fact, his defense of the Iraq war is out-of-character for him and is because he understands the true horror of terrorism and the effect of 9-11. Of those I meet, the left-wing are far more informed and intelligent than the right-wing.
OrthodoxAtheist 3 months ago
@OrthodoxAtheist
The comment you were responding to was written back when I knew relatively little about Hitch. Since then I've become rather more familiar with his views/background, and his approach to life in general. If you see him as a "left wing thinker", you need to read "Hitch 22".
As for left vs. right, I'd say both sides of the political spectrum are packed with simpletons. If you see the left as "more intelligent" it's probably because they share more of your personal delusions.
c6gunner 3 months ago
We've had on average, half a million troops stationed in over 50 countries for the last 50 years. That is going to cause blow back, no question.
Hitchen's tries to dance around this by saying that the claim is that counter terrorism is the cause of blow back. And that claim is silly and easy for Mr Hitchen's to refute.
rlkay001 3 years ago
Hitchens destroys the left on this issue. His knowledge of history and his reasoned assessment of it is simply unmatched.
Christopher refuses to just fall into lockstep on "the issues." He actually does his research on everything before ever opening his mouth.
DogmaFight 3 years ago 23
Hitchens is loyal to his Kurdish nationalist friends, and so he is prepared to overlook the blatant corruption and strategic failure of the Bush administration. America engaged in nation-building successfully in postwar Europe and Japan, but nowhere else. We have a long history of hundreds of disastrous interventions in the middle east and Latin America. No one is arguing that we deserve terrorism.
hymnofashes 3 years ago
Hitchens actually believed that the there would be no full invasion of Iraq.
And he fell for the WMD myth which was used to sell the war. Hitchens is brilliant on a lot of things, especially religion but he doesn't get everything right (like any person) either.
He wants to solve old problems with more of the same. Won't work.
Hirnlego999 3 years ago
I'd say the opposite: on religion he seems to be eloquent but misinformed, and on historical/geo-political matters he is a beast.
The WMDs while no present in Iraq at the time doesn't negate the fact that there was a threat.
regelemihai 2 years ago
Google: Rice Powell 2001 Iraq no threat
There was no threat, it was "sexed up" as downing street minutes show. Plus we have cheney's energy task force mapping Iraqi oil fields pre 9/11 plus office of special plans..people like K Kwiatkowski who have spoken on intelligence was fixed to suit the agenda. They knew he had nothing, but that was how it was sold. All he had was expired weapons which US and others sold him.
Plus we have the PNAC, full spectrum dominance...
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
"This will be no war -- there will be a fairly brief and ruthless military intervention.... The president will give an order. [The attack] will be rapid, accurate and dazzling.... It will be greeted by the majority of the Iraqi people as an emancipation. And I say, bring it on."
Hitchens, in a 1/28/03 debate-- cited in the Observer, 3/30/03
Still gonna vote down? He was way wrong.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
Is Hitchens the bastard child of JT Walsh and Alan Ladd?
Shazzerman121 3 years ago
I dont disagree idealogically with the iraq war, in practice i do. Saddam Hussein was a prick who deserved to die, in my mind it is the duty of the good to seek out and destroy the evil. That said the iraq "war" is not being waged efficiently, and not effectively enough. Hitchens was dead on, the terrorists should learn that their shit will not be tolerated, period. Sure we shouldn't go looking for trouble but clearly in iraq and afghanistan, something had to be done.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago 2
Afgan yes needed to be taken care of
Iraq was not a needed battle, Saddam had been desamated by a decade of both war-desert storm- and 3yrs of bombing campains with Clinton. we knew very well that he wasn't a threat in the way that the Neo-Cons would like to paint him.
the war in Iraq was a engineered aspect of Neo-Con philosophy, they are advocates of pre-emptive war(like the Nazi's) and they are advocates of changing the middle eastern powers, and inflating governments size and power.
amazingjames311 3 years ago
Ideally i agree with you, Saddam should have been taken care of the first time round. And you wont find me kissing the asses of the "neo-cons" wherever the hell they got that asinine term. Still were the people not happy when we ousted him? I think that we arent making any progress the way we're going now, and should probably make our plans to be leaving.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
Arato made Hitchens look pretty dumb
Wikimedian 3 years ago
The number one secret of the CIA is the UFO situation. Nothing else matters.
They have a tiger by the tail but UFO disclosure will destroy fundamentalism. Can't the intelligence agencies see this?
Its the idea that will do it. Just as Hitchens said Darwin was the greatest emancipator (born the same year as Lincoln) because of his ideas.
The next great emancipator will reveal with absolute proof the UFO reality in all its wonder/horror. Who will it be? When will it happen?
alienmoonbase 3 years ago
LOL.
jermd1990 3 years ago
The CIA had two chances to kill OBL, but were not given the go ahead by top white house officials. ???
Is it about continuing the perpetual orwellian war to keep ppl in fear in order to control them more?
YuwTuwb 3 years ago 3
Islamo-Fascism is the greatest threat to the world. Checkout what is going on in Somalia, Nigeria, and East Timor. Go to Britain and France. I couldn't beleive how bad it was there now with their muslim populations. Scary.
bennyh12345 3 years ago
islamo-facism is a threat more to the countries of Europe than to us.
Christo-facism is now a greater threat to our freedoms as it is home grown.
the same homeland terrorist who blew up clinics in the 80's-90's are now a active force in the Republican party and strong allies of the Neo-Con agenda.
they wish to topple the american secular nation and raise up a theocratic totalitarian nation.
this is real it is expounded in their basic tenets and goals for their movement.
amazingjames311 3 years ago 4
Lol you dont need to bother saying islamofascism or christofascism, fascism is generally a religious enterprise or at least backed by religion. No doubt that the evangelical bumpkins and loons want to live in a christian version of Iran or pre-invasion Afghanistan. Never forget how the religious behave when they are allowed free reign.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago 5
As an atheist with no sympathy for evangelical influence on politics, science curriculums, et al, I must echo John McEnroe's courtside lament: You can't be serious.
dadabuk123 3 years ago
Invading a country illegally,with no NATO backing,using lies about WMD's and biological weapons, to cause fear among Americans so they could validate their reasons for war,Slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis,destroying and ripping apart their country,Profiting off the oil revenue,the immense privatization of Iraq. History will deem us nothing more than like the citizens of nazi germany,scared and brainwashed by media propaganda while our leaders wage their power hungy wars.
Cinulia 3 years ago 3
I'm still not clear on why the pro-war left and independent thinkers like Hitchens think the administration's reasons for going to war line up with their own idealistic motives. Why should we believe the political class has grown a conscience all of a sudden? What are the four reasons Hitchens was gonna give for thinking the US has wound up 'on the right side of history'? If anyone could point me to where the Hitch gives a comprehensive explanation I'd really appreciate it.
papagumption 3 years ago 4
pro-war left...
amazingjames311 3 years ago
wow look at these long paragraphs...lets break them up with a joke; What did the penis say to the condom? Cover me im going in! ...ok that was a little lame
itstherevolution 3 years ago
meh what a poor debate, the problem is that you accept and stick with this analogous debate of war yes/no and thereby never get to the much more important of how and why! in questions of war hitchins seems to block out that today america is more of a fascist militaristic empire which does not bring peace and liberty but much rather exploitation, disorder and cultural destruction, he should know better but i guess its army-daddy speaking out of him in these cases
random0815 3 years ago
You are so right. The US is a destroyer of culture around the world. The US ended the culture of endless European wars. The US ended the culuture of Japanese Empiralism. The US was involved in the end of Stalinist Communist culture. I hope we also end the culture of Islamic Fascism.
cyrusdurden 3 years ago 5
only its own imperialism it could not end ^^, these merits are debatable to say the least and there more examples to the contrary, vietnam, korea, cambodia, iran-contra, mozambique, latin-america, iraq, afghanistan..., hit and miss on the extend of millions of lifes and the cultures of the country, "fascism" is a political strategy to paralyse democracies, it was developed in europe and is used in the usa since the war (spoiler: giant symbols next to the flag in the senate ;) )
random0815 3 years ago
Leftist=blind. Look at the 2 Koreas at night. N. Korea is in the dark. All of Korea would be in the dark starving if not for the US. What would Europe look like if the US would have let Stalin swallow it! The Taliban in Afghan. kill over religion, deny women, girls education and rights. The communists in Cambodia killed millions. The US spent more in lives and treasure freeing more then any society in human history. Activist Bono "The US has done more to fight AIDS in Africa then any nation"
cyrusdurden 3 years ago
yeah pop-stars are always a reliable source of information ^^, the us may have spend more in treasure (not per capita though), but the real expenses in lives is always with those who get "liberated", who do you think payed the higher price for "freedom": the americans or the iraqis? ameicans or vietnamese (+cambodians, the genocide was a result of the american retreat)? americans or timonese? america doesn't really know what it means to pay the price..
random0815 3 years ago
glorify if you need it but its an ideology of forcing ends no matter the means, america wants to be the heroic liberator no matter the costs, if it doesn't work it's the others who really have to pay the price, im all for intervention and even an american empire, but it has to be under democratic control, in the interest of human rights and guided by sound politics, but it is just not the case
random0815 3 years ago
Urgh i like Hitchens on many thing he speaks about but he shames himself on this issue attempting to dilute the real issues with other things that were never cited as a reason to invade iraq, maybe sadam should have been removed but the issue is that we were lied to about the reasons for war, its the manipulation of perception that people hate so much, no one claims sadam was in any way good.
andyk369 3 years ago
Hitchens is not distorting anything, the issue was that it looked like Sadam was developing WMDs, and might sell these to terrorists who would use them against the US
TranceDevotee 3 years ago
Im sure he desired them but in fact if you watch interviews with condoliza rice and other whitehouse officials pre war you will see them saying things like "we have been able to keep WMDs from him" and let us not forget the famous downing street memo showing that the intel was fixed regarding iraq to make a stronger case for war and lastly lets not forget that no WMDs were found pretty much confirming my previous statments.
andyk369 3 years ago
it was imperative to invade Iraq because we are a Superpower. I hope to God we remain one or else this world will be cast into the Stone Age. " Live Free or Die". That's what it boils down to....
Glenbo71 4 years ago
Imperative to invade Iraq? Wow, if you can be brainwashed by Moron Bush, what does that say about you? The invasion of Iraq was a huge mistake and so is the continuation of this perpetual war. Trying to establish democracy by force in that region of the world is like building a sand castle next to the waves. It won't last long (if it ever takes at all). Democracy must come from within, not forced from outside, especially in the Middle East.
kenotube 3 years ago
The U.S. did not invade Iraq to spread democracy. They established a military prensence in the middle east to ensure power remains where the vast majority of American believe it should be, the USA. What has America lost in this war? A few thousand soldiers? That's nothing compared to what they have gained. Its a clear message to the world. "Don't cross us, or we will dismantle you."
HugeMammal 3 years ago
Excuse me, but those are hypocritical and short-sighted comments. Israel has been a U.S.- style military presence in the Middle East for a long time. What has that accomplished? Also the military presence is supposedly temporary. Beyond the "few thousand U.S. soldiers" killed (and tens of thousands injured), we are now spending $12 billion per month to stay in Iraq. We are bankrupting our nation. The dollar is very weak. The price of gas is climbing higher and higher. (continued)
kenotube 3 years ago 2
On top of this, U.S. bullying is not respected by our very important European allies. We have disrespected the U.N. and it will take decades to repair that damage. Of the industrialized nations, the U.S. is now last in many categories, such as health care. In other words, we can ill-afford to be throwing away billions on this war. You say we gained a lot. Please tell me, what? That last comment: "Don't cross us, or we will dismantle you." sounds like something Stalin might have said.
kenotube 3 years ago
Arato has the benefit of taking the position actually supported by FACTS, but he is a TERRIBLE speaker("I, uh...think, uh...that, uh..."). Hitchens wins hands down, even though the Iraq war is asinine.
uncreativejackass 4 years ago
A subtext to Arato's argument seems to be that we can whip ourselves into a lather about "fundamentalist terrorists" in an ad hoc way to justify the invasion of virtually ANY country. We lose our credibility when we lose our ability to distinguish between the various levels of threat. The same Christopher Hitchens who bashes the CIA and FBI as inept bumpkins relies on their analysis come time to justify invasion.
bertinotti 4 years ago 2
well said
I agree with CH with many things but not his war policy.
TheNextTurn 4 years ago
Trouble with Aratos idea (of not attacking terrorists) is the same as the problem with negotiating with hostage takers.
You grant them indestructibilty. Is that no the most effective rallying cry for prospective terrorists? Open season...
marcotenshi 4 years ago
Iraq HAD to be invaded. That Sick Despot MADDASS Hussein. He harbored terrorists, defied numerous UN sanctions and wouldnt let inspectors into certain buildings.. WHO WANTED TO TAKE THE CHANCE THAT HE WAS BLUFFING??? NOT ME! NOT BUSH. NOT THE UN (26 countries went into Iraq not just the US).
Jakester1111 4 years ago 2
I think if we attack Iraq, we can win, but certainly I dislike the orinal rational and doubt the motives of USA government, and certainly their tactics and strategy failed disastrously. Perhaps only incapapable liars who can both lie the public, and the approval of congress will result the fiasco in Iraq war.
haobio 4 years ago
Well, we have to distinguish the terrorists and their sponsors and sympathizers.
haobio 4 years ago
I will not censor any comments made here--but please, can we raise our level of discourse just a little bit?
fingers1122 4 years ago
Well said, fingers.
haobio 4 years ago