I have to say that I admire Hitchens greatly, but on the Iraq war I believe he was wrong. If only because if you remove Saddam, for the reasons that were given, then you have to do the same with every other dictator and oppressive regime otherwise your argument falls down.
@MrSheffield8 Except that the US stupidly helped put Saddam's Ba'ath party into power in the first place and armed him (along with the French, Chilean businessmen, and others). It's pretty hard to justify propping up a dictator and then sitting idly by while he massacres any resistance and continually flouts UN weapons inspectors. Granted I think the war should've been prosecuted differently.
FUCKING US supported Saddam for 35 years then in courage him to invade IRAN , when they didn't need him anymore they destroyed him the war in IRAQ AFGHANISTAN was ONLY FOR OIL and nothing else
@rockermanmatt My facts were right. The comment I cited was made before the EDL was even in existence. So yeah, you just made an utter fabrication in order to defend one of the greatest traitors to the British left. But hey, if the whole "hurr durr, i love a war criminal that makes me c00l!" thing works for you, go with it. Just don't expect to be treated as a decent, compassionate human being by other leftists who, y'know, have a clue what they're talking about.
@rockermanmatt Of course not. Galloway is a ridiculous and offensive figure. Since his expulsion, he has made such ridiculous and hateful comments as "any politician that touches the hair on a Muslim man's chin or the hijab on a Muslim woman's head shall have to wade through the bodies of 10,000 Muslims!" No bill infringing the right of any Muslim to grow facial hair or wear any garment had been admitted to the HoC. He invented this "threat" to British Muslims to further is own political career.
Galloway is the most ridiculous and offensive figure in British politics. He's a washed-up former-labour MP who desperately tries to cling on to some form of significance by making outrageous statements and stirring up religious hatred.
@Seigu007 The crowd reaction was pretty evenly split, from what I heard. Of course, that doesn't really matter, since you're using an ad populum argument, which is fallacious. Do you know what that means?
I do not have enough knowledge about the issue of the war in Iraq to have an informed discussion with you about it. I know one thing for sure: my country, the Islamic fascist republic (of Iran unfortunately), spend a lot of money in Iraq and is very open about it as well. Please do not ignore their role in all the violence. Was America right to attack Iraq? that I couldn't say.
@Byron10301 If you think something is not good in Iran, wait to see what will happen when the foreign invaders come to bomb your cities. Be prepared, Iran is the next OPEC country on their list.
@apresesco well, right now Iranian citizens are disappearing off the streets one by one, taken to unknown places, raped and murdered. I think being bombed will BY FAR more welcome. At least it will be in the open. Nothing is worse than an Islamic army of barbarics, ravaging a country
@Byron10301 You're really living in Iran? I doubt it. Nobody in their right mind wants to be bombed by foreign invaders.
They will not get one by one. They will massively kill your people just like in Iraq.
watch?v=3aEvzuA4f0c
Oh, and the new puppet regime of Iraq is a Theocracy. So be careful what you wish for...though it does not make any difference since they will invade Iran no matter what.
Top 10 companies squeezing the most profit from the Iraq War(BusinessPunditcom): 1. Halliburton 2. Veritas Capital Fund/DynCorp 3. Washington Group International 4. Environmental Chemical 5. Aegis 6. International American Products 7. Erinys 8. Fluor 9. Perini 10. URS Corporation All these companies are from Jupiter. Oh no, wait. They are from USA&UK, the same guys who attacked Iraq unilaterally against international treaties. Such a surprise!
Galloway is PAID by the Islamic republic of Iran - he also appears more than frequently on the Islamic Republic's TV channel, PRESS TV which is the Islamic version of Foxnews. Islamic propaganda and Jew-hate.
I'm a big fan of both these guys. I could listen to Hitchens all day about religion and history; and Galloway is a clever and passionate opponent of the war, even if he does talk a little too loudly at times;o)
I would say that Galloway won this debate by a narrow margin. I agree with everything he said about the war, and also the comments he made about Hitchens' political u-turn.
It was simply to control the oil market. Oh, and the U.S. never gave a shit for democracy. Btw they HELPED Saddam in the past. Extremely hypocritical.
@apresesco Lmao are you really that naive as to think in 2010 people need to hear that the US governments main interest in the middle east is oil? Why would we care about a barren landscape filled with depraved savages and religious funadmentalists (Sounds like texas). Anyway who cares if it was for oil or not whats wrong with securing oil I mean give me a break. If there is a god he has a great sense of humour giving the most depraved part of the world the means to power the most advanced
@Seaworldexists Of course it was just about oil, everyone knows that. but incredibly, there are Americans who STILL do not admit it.
The motherfuckers insist that was to "liberate" the people from a dictator that they helped in the past. I'm here because I think it's fun annoying brain washed American... those fat bastards.
1. Oil is a finite resource, it will someday run out.
2. There isn't a real viable means of alternate energy to run the world when all the oil is gone. (Not to the extent of the energy supplied by fossil fuels.)
3. If the US runs out of oil then our economy and our very lives will be in real trouble.
4. There's an overabundance of oil in Iraq.
5. We should secure the oil in Iraq before one of our main competitors does.
The justification for the war in Iraq in 5 simple steps.
@bigdrm8404 hmm, or we could just drill in ANWAR, which has enough oil to last us up to 400 years. but i guess having our boys killed for oil is ok too
I agree with you, Britain's oil will have run out in a few decades too. I think once our governments had the moral highground (Hussein murdering his own people, not complying with UN, not co-operating with weapons inspections) then it was right to occupy Iraq to secure the long term wealth and prosperity of our own countries.
@MrJST87 I don't see what sort of long term wealth and prosperity either the UK or the USA is getting out of this war. They're burning money over there. The oil supply remains insecure. The government is unstable and the current ruling party is tied to the Iranian regime. In effect, the West is propping up an Iranian proxy. There is no conceivable benefit to either the UK or the US that I can see.
Because in a few decades time the world is gonna be a fuckin Mad Max movie. Do you realise how important oil will be? Countries are running out. The supply of oil in the world is decreasing while the demand that countries have for foreign oil is increasing. Whoever owns the Middle Eastern oil will be extremely powerful. There is no viable alternative that is anywhere near as effective at producing energy as oil. The US/UK will be able to bully other countries through the oil trade.
@MrJST87 Right. Even if this whole 'peak oil' hypothesis plays out the way you seem to think it will, I don't think the US/UK will be in any position to bully any more. This financial meltdown is going to change the power structures drastically. It's not over yet, despite people speaking of a recovery. Unilateralism will be much more difficult going forward. Iraq was the last free war they could run. The party is over for these washed up super powers.
I agree, the power structures are changing, and the UK needs to do what we have to do to stay afloat and to give ourselves some bargaining power with other countries. Oil lets us do that. We can sit and deteriorate into a third world country or we can be active in the world as we always have done to ensure our survival. Britain has achieved a lot for such a small island and it's mainly down to our military intervention around the world. That's why I support the Iraq war.
@MrJST87 You seemed to have missed my point. The UK has been tagging along on US adventures for the last 50 years. When the trillions of dollars in defaulted loans finally hit the market (they haven't yet), both the US and the UK's adventures will be over, lest they risk becoming third world. Realistically, they won't become third world. But if you keep trying to occupy faraway lands, then you might. It is in your interest to cut spending and to bring your expensive military home.
Actually the UK's military spending isn't all that expensive. I agree that my country needs to make a lot of drastic cuts after the last Labour government. Thankfully the Conservatives will be doing that. But military spending isn't actually a big % of the UK's GDP. Ours is 2.5% while France spends 2.3%. India isn't involved in any major conflict and spends 2.6% of their GDP on military.
So the UK is not breaking the bank to wage this war. I believe in the long run it will pay off.
@MrJST87 I guess you're right. Same with Canada's military budget, we're not breaking the bank with our troops in Afghanistan. But that is because we are riding on the backs of the US military who puts in most of the troops, money and effort. The same with the UK. If the USA weren't in Iraq or Afghanistan, your military budget would have to be a lot bigger to continue with the war effort. The USA can't stay much longer.
@MrJST87 i may have misunderstood this, but you support the war so the uk can acquire oil in order to stay a powerful nation? who really cares about killing innocent people for it, doing business in the 20th century is out of the question. at least survival of the strongest is honestly admitted here. problem is force has kept humanity down repeating history, isn't it time to do with the advancing the human race perhaps with cooperation and education for all?
Obviously it would be wrong to declare war on a peaceful country for their resources. But Iraq was governed by a man who killed thousands of his own people every year. And without Western intervention Iraq would have remained an extremely volatile country for decades, maybe even centuries into the future. The quality of peoples life from now on will be vastly better than what it would have been. So oil was the reason but removing a dictator was a decent justification IMO.
@MrJST87 Check out Noam Chomsky regarding this thing you believe is liberation? NOTHING is worse then war IMO, nothing is worth war except to prevent it. Have you signed up to liberate Iraqis? Read up Chomsky, Hitchens is right about barbarian cultures and religious retardation, but he neglect's the political aspects in favor to fix the monotheistic problem while initiating another one, much more scary naming imperialism responsible for all of it in the first place! History repeating itself...
@MrJST87 hussein being provided weapons by US who are currently occupying iraq, most iraqi oil under foreign control, Valerie Plame ( a CIA operations officer) as well as her husband,Joseph Wilson ('what i didn't find in africa), long before the illegal occupation of iraq, released evidence that there were no 'weapons of mass destruction'. 1 million civilians murdered, no link to al quaeda, haliburton contracts, dispossession of four million Iraqis. moral highground?
@bigdrm8404 hopefully this is a joke, if not, perhaps you forgot the human race possesses weapons of mass destruction. you actually think the world is going to avoid nuclear ww3 if energy resources are not met in the future and the situation falls into that kind of chaos! there's unlimited sources of "hard" oil, merely more expensive to extract and process, the real problem is the environment and it's future effects on the human race. the future is science not theft!
iraq not the biggest threat.....iraq not only country that might have had weapons.....nor the only muslim country that might have had weapons.....deomcracy hasnt spread from india, the worlds largest democracy so willl it sppread from iraq.........our own weapons inspectors said it was to early to know if iraq has weapons then.....and it seems like most americans, make it seem like we shouldnt have gone there.....so then....should we still have sent men and women to the iraq war
so here we are years later, still tehre, muslims stil fucking with us, were still fucking with them, democracy hasnt spread throughout the middl e east much, some iraqius dont like us, and most important, innocent people, and the army, still have people dying and / or and / or getting injured getting injured
It is stupid to argue about these things, because that sort of argument won't go anywhere, no one will compromise their opinions for even a second to consider the other person's point of view.
"IF CERTAINS ACTS AND VIOLATIONS OF TREATIES ARE CRIMES, THEY ARE CRIMES WHETHER THE UNITED STATES DOES THEM OR WHETHER GERMANY DOES THEM. WE ARE NOT PREPARED TO LAY DOWN A RULE OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT AGAINST OTHERS WHICH WE WOULD NOT BE WILLING TO HAVE INVOKED AGAINST US."
— Justice Robert H. Jackson, Chief Prosecutor, Nuremberg War Crimes Trials
/
The US has used all sorts of WMD in Viet Nam on innocent civilians. 10 million people died.
Like any Iraq War supporter, Hitchens assiduously ignores the long history of US-supported brutality in Iraq and around the world. We cannot hope to claim the moral high ground when we are the very same country that allowed Saddam to acquire WMDs in the first place.
This is disappointing from someone who is usually somewhat intellectually honest.
He does acknowledge that. Actually if you listen to his arguements he uses it as a reason that we should have invaded Iraq. Since as you just said it's out fault in many ways, and he thinks as a result it's our responsibility.
I looked up iraqbodycount dot org and the range of deaths by violence was from 94,356 to 99,743. Of this range, most were killed by fellow Muslims, the very ones GG calls freedom fighters. I don't see how you can claim the U.S. killed hundreds of thousands and counting.? It's just wrong.
My post was a comment on the debate, not the conduct of the war. And I maintain that Hitchens won by a wide margin. I've seen several posts from GG supporters who admit he lost.
To anyone with an ounce of objectivity, there is no possible way to say that Galloway won - or was even close in this debate. Hitchens cites facts, stays on point and made a much better case for the war than any member of the Bush administration ever did.
Galloway makes cheap emotional appeals to his mindless followers, and smears his foes and Hitchens, and of course, he yells. I'm glad to not be so stupid as to buy into the crap that this con man demagogue spews daily. You lose George.
Don't impose your own opinion on everyone else. You say this fatso talks facts? What fact could be more horrific than the fact that the US went in to a country thousands of miles away, that had never harmed a single US citizen, had nothing to do with 9/11 and yet the US killed hundreds of thousands of its citizens which continues till this day?
Hitchens DESTROYED Galloway in this debate. GG challenged very few of Hitchens' points, while Hitchens addressed GG's points - although GG offered very few points. By the time this was over, GG looked like a damn fool.
To win a debate, don't you need to challenge/refute your adversary's assertions? GG just gave the same speeches he's been reciting since '02.
And the U.S. did not "kill hundreds of thousands of its (Iraq's) citizens". If you want to be taken seriously, be accurate.
I need to be "more accurate"? "The US didn't kill hudreds of thousands of Iraq's citizens"? "GG looked like a damn fool"? "Hitchens DESTROYED Galloway in this debate"? Dude, are you high or something or living on a different planet altogether? If you have even an iota of intelligence left in what's known as your cerebrum, I suggest you seriously re-address those points ESPECIALLY the 2nd one cos, as I said, this point is so strong that I thing it'll be incredibly counter-productive to....
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I genuinely don't see how anyone could think Hitchens won this debate. Even if you agree with him on his points, when a speaker has to insult the audience surely that suggests he's losing the room, which is surely the point of a debate. In a room.
"Galloway who demand human rights and anti-racist policies in the UK, but don't mind evil genocide abroad because their xenophobic hatred of 'the west' (particularly the US) is greatest of all"
Galloway was opposing Saddam well before the U.S had any interest in it.
Thank God Saddam was removed and brought to justice. Well done to all our service men and women for liberating Iraq from this particularly nasty tyrannt.
hitchens can take his scenarios and shove them up his arse. We can go back and say what would have happened had we not installed the shah of Iran, or created the state of Israel.
clearvision - you poor deluded right wing apologist - run dont walk to the nearest reseach materials on the subject - in fact look all around you in the news - your sad little right wing militarist global hegemony is in tatters
Galloway is nothing but a vile self-publicist. And a fool. The man has no integrity. Don't be taken in by his bombast. He is regarded as a joke over here. He is a man of very little charm. A crass boor.
There's no argument really. Hitchens has so much more class.
A) He used to be a Trotskyite pseudo-Communist who was thrown out of the left-wing Labour Party and was a correspondent for "International Socialism". He vociferously opposed the Vietnam war, Reagan and also Bush Snr.
B) He's now a supporter of the Iraq war, almost every neo-Conservative ideology and especially George W. Bush.
As a Brit journalist put it: "Hitchens changes position so often that to agree with him today is to disagree with him tomorrow"
I don't care about his past as much as I care about the fact that he opposes the torture and oppression of humanity worldwide, unlike the hypocritical lefties in the UK like Galloway who demand human rights and anti-racist policies in the UK, but don't mind evil genocide abroad because their xenophobic hatred of 'the west' (particularly the US) is greatest of all.
he certainly didnt wipe the floor with him.I dont know why you would say that. its meaningless rhetoric. its tiring watching anti-gay/anti-female people so happy to allow areas to suffer under primitive religious wackos or tyrants as long as its not in their neck of the woods.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
As intelligent as Hitchens is, Galloway wiped the floor with him in this debate. Hitchens came off as an ill informed ideologue who has abandoned all logic in favor of a Neoconservative point of view(who he himself now knows was premature of him).
That's because he's honest and thoughtful, so his opinions will change as he learns, as it will for anyone who actually thinks. Of course an idiotic, dogmatic blowhard will never change his opinion; he never thinks objectively.
That's a good point, but if someone explains their thought process and how they arrived at their conclusions, I think you can discern for yourself whether it's genuine learning or indecision.
Hitchens is an alcoholic blowhard - just because of his plummy accent you Yanks take him seriously?! Notice how he drops in a pretentious long word to sound superior - such as cerebellum - it's pathetic. 3 years on Galloway's analysis has been borne out.
Thanks for you ad-hominem assessment, jumbly. It's the height of hypocrisy to assail the validity of Hitchens' arguement based on nothing but your superficial prejudices.
I think you're pathetic, and that's actually based on the content -- not the presentation -- of your commentary.
Hitch articulates his argument better and therefore wins the debate. Galloway simply can't speak like a civilized man. He rants and screams, uses ad hominid attacks, "Devil," "slug," and stick that finger somewhere else. His comment about the Twin Towers was disgusting! Now don't get me wrong, I am not necessarily for the war. I am a USAF physician who has been to Iraq and Afghanistan and am not real pleased we are there. Wars are always easier to support when someone else does the dirty work.
I agree. I am opposed to the war itself, but I just... I despise George Galloway. He thinks he can win debates through ranting and attacking his opponenents.
George Galloway calls himself anti-war and pro-peace, yet he still supports one side of the war. One can do a YT search and see him praising "freedom fighters" who shoot at Americans. I don't support Americans shooting at others (unless it's self-defense, etc.).
Opposing both sides of a war is anti war. George does not meet these standards.
Lads, we're about to run out of oil so get real! Who controls the oil supplies and the guys with guns who control the oil supplies will prevail. The removal of Saddam- which I incidentally marched against- will soon be seen as a very mild incident compared to the everyday bloodbath that will characterise future squabbles!
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 has mentioned elsewhere 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.
If you read Bush's 2002 speech at the UN, you'll see that his stated justifications for the removal of Saddam are not far from Hitchens'. The problem might not have been motive so much as ineptitude (allowing the looting of cultural institutions, disbanding the Iraqi army), ignorance (Bush didn't know the difference between Shia and Sunni), & ideology (insistance on putting right-wingers in high positions in Iraq at the expense of knowledge/experience).
I used to support galloway, then I did my research on Islam. It's a religion that is powered by the oil industry, it encites hatred. It does not deserve any sympathy.
do some more research, i think you will finf it is countries and governments not islam that is powered by the oil industry. oh and what is the west powered by?
"i think you will finf it is countries and governments not islam that is powered by the oil industry"
The majority of these countries and governments base their entire judicial system and politics on shariah law. So it's exactly the same to say that Islam is powered by oil.
well actually the west is powered by exploitation in the 3rd world. the governments base their laws on the koran, but with the intention of suiting themselves. interpretation is everything. religion has always been a tool for exploitation its who is behind the tool that counts
The war is an unmitigated disaster, the reasons for war have no credibility and the people that supported the war are left with nothing but blood on their hands.
How about a silence for the million dead Iraqi's since the start of the war. How about the millions that have died (mostly woman and children) due to sanctions.
The debate topic was not the success or failure of the war. It was about whether it was necessary & just. Saying it was a disaster does not contribute anything to the discussion.
Don't be ridiculous, it's wholly relevant to the outcome of the debate.
To answer 'was it just', of course it wasn't just. It's a proven fact that it wasn't just. They tried to justify the war with the 'weapons of mass destruction' lie, that's proven to be unjustifiable.
Was killing a million Iraqi's in the name of war necessary? Of course it's wasn't!
Don't get me wrong, I'm a life long opponent of Saddam, but this was clearly unjust.
That's hardly the point. I don't believe a million needed to die to remove (the US empowered) Saddam, however. If he was still alive and sitting in my living room, I'd kill him myself. Nobody denies he was a horrific tyrant. That doesn't make going to war on a pack of lies justified.
"And you further believe [...] who die in it?"
No, I explained this in my last post. It wasn't just or necessary, nor was it legal.
I don't follow... are you in favor of Saddam's removal but just not in favor of the way Bush carried it out? If Bush had made the humanitarian arguments Hitchens makes rather than simple-minded appeals to fear, would you have stood behind him?
How about we got honest here, is Saddam the worst man on the planet in regards to humanitaritism? No. Did the US take any action in Rwanda? No. Do they have any intention of getting involved in Zimbabwee? Hmmm... No.
So whats different about Iraq? Why have they stuck their nose in here in the past, first on one side, and now on the other?... Hmmm, I wonder....
Can anyone spell O-I-L?
Do yourself a favour, stop trying to convince/justify to the world all your BS and hang your heads in shame.
So because we didn't stop a humanitarian disaster in Rwanda, then we have no business trying to stop any others?
And once we've involved ourself in any wrong foreign policy (like arming Saddam in the 80's), we have no business ever changing to the a better one (like removing him)?
Listen to your own arguments... If taken as a rule, they'd be more heartless than anything you accuse Bush of.
So its just a coincidence that the US has chosen to intervene multiple times around the oil supplying nations and not in Africa?
If YOU (US) are to then take on your new 'rule' of removing dictators, we should be able to set a date for your intervention in Zimbabwee. When can we expect that good sir?
Well, if the "rule" merely held to Saddam's criteria (invasion of neighboring state, illegal pursuit of weapons, collusion with terrorists & gross human rights atrocities or acts of genocide) then who else would qualify?
But I will say that I hope that UN forces do intervene in Zimbabwe before a civil war or mass civilian slaughter occurs.
Well, invasion of neighbouring state was last time (Kuwait), and there would be others that qualify for that if that was your penchant. Illegal pursuit of weapons; I assume you're still talking about last time as we didn't find any this time (the worlds 'leading intelligence organisation' got it wrong apparently, they were THAT confident they had it right that they were willing to start a war, but astoundingly they were completely and utterly wrong... Whatdoyouknow... (Out of room on this post)
But if you are really nervous about weapons I know I haven't got the sophisticated resources of the CIA but I've got a 'hunch' you might find some in Korea... Gross human rights atrocities you already have in Zimbabwee.
The hypocrisy is beyond belief isn't it? The US is damned if it does, damned if it doesn't. Destroying Saddam was the moral thing to do, even though we did it 12 years after we should have.
Not at all ... stop meddling in people's lives, hearts, and existences all in the name of the ever expansive CAPITAL, the sole intent of which is to VAMP all form of energy for the accumulation and creation of ELITE over others justifying the illusion of superiority.
The only reason why you have to intervene in a country, is to fix the interminable mistakes you make. GO HOME. LEAVE US ALONE. let us BE and STOP LOOTING our countries and saying you're bringing us 'freedom'.
Are you from Iraq? Because I think if you ask (non-baathist) people in Iraq whether they wished Saddam was back, I think I know what the answer would be.
The blood of the women and children who died as a result of the sanctions IS on America's hands. As Saddam manipulated the sanctions and allowed people to starve, we watched and did nothing. But would you really have advocated removing the sanctions and not removing Saddam?
When I first viewed this debate about 2 years ago, I'd never before seen/read Hitchens nor did I think I could ever be convinced that the war in Iraq was justified. Despite my resistance, I've since come around on the latter point and as a result become an avid follower of Hitchens' work. The current state of blind consensus on the American left (and joined now by some on the right) about the war is rather sickening.
Aye same. I was on the other side of the fence as well. I knew some indian immigrants and they told me about getting hassled thinking they were muslims etc. Now that I look back this is the one time in history where our political correctness overwrote our paranoia at our peril. The muslim people continue to push even the most tolerant to the edge. There are daily reports of muslim threatened violence in first world countries where they are immigrants and guests. They annoy us at their peril.
dito, he makes the best case. i think he appeals to the best in people rather than scaring, making them feel guilt and making sloppy moral equivalences. i nearly didn't listen to him because i perceived rudeness but something demanded that i face his arguments and i couldn't, im convinced.
I have to say that I admire Hitchens greatly, but on the Iraq war I believe he was wrong. If only because if you remove Saddam, for the reasons that were given, then you have to do the same with every other dictator and oppressive regime otherwise your argument falls down.
MrSheffield8 2 months ago
@MrSheffield8 Except that the US stupidly helped put Saddam's Ba'ath party into power in the first place and armed him (along with the French, Chilean businessmen, and others). It's pretty hard to justify propping up a dictator and then sitting idly by while he massacres any resistance and continually flouts UN weapons inspectors. Granted I think the war should've been prosecuted differently.
schwarzblatt 2 months ago in playlist Debate on the War in Iraq - Hitchens v. Galloway
This has been flagged as spam show
FUCKING US supported Saddam for 35 years then in courage him to invade IRAN , when they didn't need him anymore they destroyed him the war in IRAQ AFGHANISTAN was ONLY FOR OIL and nothing else
yamoulaali8 2 months ago
Comment removed
yamoulaali8 2 months ago
@rockermanmatt My facts were right. The comment I cited was made before the EDL was even in existence. So yeah, you just made an utter fabrication in order to defend one of the greatest traitors to the British left. But hey, if the whole "hurr durr, i love a war criminal that makes me c00l!" thing works for you, go with it. Just don't expect to be treated as a decent, compassionate human being by other leftists who, y'know, have a clue what they're talking about.
vulnerabledonkey 4 months ago
@rockermanmatt Of course not. Galloway is a ridiculous and offensive figure. Since his expulsion, he has made such ridiculous and hateful comments as "any politician that touches the hair on a Muslim man's chin or the hijab on a Muslim woman's head shall have to wade through the bodies of 10,000 Muslims!" No bill infringing the right of any Muslim to grow facial hair or wear any garment had been admitted to the HoC. He invented this "threat" to British Muslims to further is own political career.
vulnerabledonkey 4 months ago
saddam hussein was a part of the CIA before the president of Iraq.
gyco7 5 months ago
Every argument Hitchens uses contains a fallacy, even the ones i agree with
d3p3ch3mod3 7 months ago
Galloway is the most ridiculous and offensive figure in British politics. He's a washed-up former-labour MP who desperately tries to cling on to some form of significance by making outrageous statements and stirring up religious hatred.
vulnerabledonkey 8 months ago
Right there, 6:40 Hitchens outlined how the U.S. has lost its sovereignty under international law
voodoohamsterdoll 9 months ago
Ill sum up this debate: Hitchens got slaughtered.
Seigu007 9 months ago
@Seigu007 Please tell me you're on drugs.
bahdahdoop 7 months ago
@bahdahdoop Perhaps you didnt hear the audience cheering Galloway and booing Hitchens? Hitchens got Hitchslapped.
Seigu007 6 months ago
@Seigu007 The crowd reaction was pretty evenly split, from what I heard. Of course, that doesn't really matter, since you're using an ad populum argument, which is fallacious. Do you know what that means?
bahdahdoop 6 months ago
@bahdahdoop i thought you had something intelligent to say.
Seigu007 6 months ago
I do not have enough knowledge about the issue of the war in Iraq to have an informed discussion with you about it. I know one thing for sure: my country, the Islamic fascist republic (of Iran unfortunately), spend a lot of money in Iraq and is very open about it as well. Please do not ignore their role in all the violence. Was America right to attack Iraq? that I couldn't say.
Byron10301 11 months ago
@Byron10301 If you think something is not good in Iran, wait to see what will happen when the foreign invaders come to bomb your cities. Be prepared, Iran is the next OPEC country on their list.
apresesco 11 months ago
@apresesco well, right now Iranian citizens are disappearing off the streets one by one, taken to unknown places, raped and murdered. I think being bombed will BY FAR more welcome. At least it will be in the open. Nothing is worse than an Islamic army of barbarics, ravaging a country
Byron10301 11 months ago
@Byron10301 You're really living in Iran? I doubt it. Nobody in their right mind wants to be bombed by foreign invaders.
They will not get one by one. They will massively kill your people just like in Iraq.
watch?v=3aEvzuA4f0c
Oh, and the new puppet regime of Iraq is a Theocracy. So be careful what you wish for...though it does not make any difference since they will invade Iran no matter what.
apresesco 11 months ago
@apresesco
Iraq is not a theocracy... Theocracy was abolished, which was under Saddam.
The current party is a social-democracy. Founded by two people one of whom is a socialist.
ElDuorPaso 10 months ago
@ElDuorPaso under Saddam Hussein, Iraq wasn't a democracy but it was secular. Now is a THEOCRACY
apresesco 10 months ago
@ElDuorPaso The new constitution Iraq have enshrined Islam as the official religion and source of legislation.
apresesco 10 months ago
No, it was the Islamic republic of Iran tha made it happen
Byron10301 11 months ago
apresesco 1 year ago
Galloway is PAID by the Islamic republic of Iran - he also appears more than frequently on the Islamic Republic's TV channel, PRESS TV which is the Islamic version of Foxnews. Islamic propaganda and Jew-hate.
Byron10301 1 year ago
I'm a big fan of both these guys. I could listen to Hitchens all day about religion and history; and Galloway is a clever and passionate opponent of the war, even if he does talk a little too loudly at times;o)
I would say that Galloway won this debate by a narrow margin. I agree with everything he said about the war, and also the comments he made about Hitchens' political u-turn.
richbar78 1 year ago
hitchens is a such a pompus faggot
SirDavidTank 1 year ago
Go and watch Robert Newman's "History of Oil", will give you an idea of what the UK and US government and really all about.
elkrobber 1 year ago
It was simply to control the oil market. Oh, and the U.S. never gave a shit for democracy. Btw they HELPED Saddam in the past. Extremely hypocritical.
apresesco 1 year ago
@apresesco Lmao are you really that naive as to think in 2010 people need to hear that the US governments main interest in the middle east is oil? Why would we care about a barren landscape filled with depraved savages and religious funadmentalists (Sounds like texas). Anyway who cares if it was for oil or not whats wrong with securing oil I mean give me a break. If there is a god he has a great sense of humour giving the most depraved part of the world the means to power the most advanced
Seaworldexists 1 year ago
@Seaworldexists Of course it was just about oil, everyone knows that. but incredibly, there are Americans who STILL do not admit it.
The motherfuckers insist that was to "liberate" the people from a dictator that they helped in the past. I'm here because I think it's fun annoying brain washed American... those fat bastards.
apresesco 1 year ago
@apresesco The Iraq oil law hasn't even been passed yet. You're an idiot.
F33bs 1 year ago
@F33bs Get out of Iraq, foreign invader terrorists
apresesco 1 year ago
@apresesco what do you know about it kid
claton95 11 months ago
Checkout the new song 'Spilling Our Blood For War' on Youtube.
katproductionsinc 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
According to Hitch a state sacrifices it's sovereignty under these circumstances!
1.Regular aggressions worldwide or occupations of other states past 50 years. CHECK!
2.Fools around with the non proliferation treaties by supporting proliferation to allies in NFWZ. CHECK!
3.Genocide convention for international community to act upon! MIRROR CHECK!
4.Host to Rich Gangster's, Oppressive dictators (puppets), and the very definition of terrorist activities. CHECK!
American hypocrisy? lol
architect333 1 year ago
1. Oil is a finite resource, it will someday run out.
2. There isn't a real viable means of alternate energy to run the world when all the oil is gone. (Not to the extent of the energy supplied by fossil fuels.)
3. If the US runs out of oil then our economy and our very lives will be in real trouble.
4. There's an overabundance of oil in Iraq.
5. We should secure the oil in Iraq before one of our main competitors does.
The justification for the war in Iraq in 5 simple steps.
bigdrm8404 1 year ago
@bigdrm8404 hmm, or we could just drill in ANWAR, which has enough oil to last us up to 400 years. but i guess having our boys killed for oil is ok too
bgsdfhugvufbgv 1 year ago
@bigdrm8404
I agree with you, Britain's oil will have run out in a few decades too. I think once our governments had the moral highground (Hussein murdering his own people, not complying with UN, not co-operating with weapons inspections) then it was right to occupy Iraq to secure the long term wealth and prosperity of our own countries.
MrJST87 1 year ago 4
It's a cold world.
MrJST87 1 year ago
@MrJST87 I don't see what sort of long term wealth and prosperity either the UK or the USA is getting out of this war. They're burning money over there. The oil supply remains insecure. The government is unstable and the current ruling party is tied to the Iranian regime. In effect, the West is propping up an Iranian proxy. There is no conceivable benefit to either the UK or the US that I can see.
reefpirate 1 year ago
@reefpirate
Because in a few decades time the world is gonna be a fuckin Mad Max movie. Do you realise how important oil will be? Countries are running out. The supply of oil in the world is decreasing while the demand that countries have for foreign oil is increasing. Whoever owns the Middle Eastern oil will be extremely powerful. There is no viable alternative that is anywhere near as effective at producing energy as oil. The US/UK will be able to bully other countries through the oil trade.
MrJST87 1 year ago 2
@MrJST87 Right. Even if this whole 'peak oil' hypothesis plays out the way you seem to think it will, I don't think the US/UK will be in any position to bully any more. This financial meltdown is going to change the power structures drastically. It's not over yet, despite people speaking of a recovery. Unilateralism will be much more difficult going forward. Iraq was the last free war they could run. The party is over for these washed up super powers.
reefpirate 1 year ago
@reefpirate
I agree, the power structures are changing, and the UK needs to do what we have to do to stay afloat and to give ourselves some bargaining power with other countries. Oil lets us do that. We can sit and deteriorate into a third world country or we can be active in the world as we always have done to ensure our survival. Britain has achieved a lot for such a small island and it's mainly down to our military intervention around the world. That's why I support the Iraq war.
MrJST87 1 year ago 2
@MrJST87 You seemed to have missed my point. The UK has been tagging along on US adventures for the last 50 years. When the trillions of dollars in defaulted loans finally hit the market (they haven't yet), both the US and the UK's adventures will be over, lest they risk becoming third world. Realistically, they won't become third world. But if you keep trying to occupy faraway lands, then you might. It is in your interest to cut spending and to bring your expensive military home.
reefpirate 1 year ago
@reefpirate
Actually the UK's military spending isn't all that expensive. I agree that my country needs to make a lot of drastic cuts after the last Labour government. Thankfully the Conservatives will be doing that. But military spending isn't actually a big % of the UK's GDP. Ours is 2.5% while France spends 2.3%. India isn't involved in any major conflict and spends 2.6% of their GDP on military.
So the UK is not breaking the bank to wage this war. I believe in the long run it will pay off.
MrJST87 1 year ago
@MrJST87 I guess you're right. Same with Canada's military budget, we're not breaking the bank with our troops in Afghanistan. But that is because we are riding on the backs of the US military who puts in most of the troops, money and effort. The same with the UK. If the USA weren't in Iraq or Afghanistan, your military budget would have to be a lot bigger to continue with the war effort. The USA can't stay much longer.
reefpirate 1 year ago
@MrJST87 i may have misunderstood this, but you support the war so the uk can acquire oil in order to stay a powerful nation? who really cares about killing innocent people for it, doing business in the 20th century is out of the question. at least survival of the strongest is honestly admitted here. problem is force has kept humanity down repeating history, isn't it time to do with the advancing the human race perhaps with cooperation and education for all?
architect333 1 year ago
@architect333
Obviously it would be wrong to declare war on a peaceful country for their resources. But Iraq was governed by a man who killed thousands of his own people every year. And without Western intervention Iraq would have remained an extremely volatile country for decades, maybe even centuries into the future. The quality of peoples life from now on will be vastly better than what it would have been. So oil was the reason but removing a dictator was a decent justification IMO.
MrJST87 1 year ago
@MrJST87 Check out Noam Chomsky regarding this thing you believe is liberation? NOTHING is worse then war IMO, nothing is worth war except to prevent it. Have you signed up to liberate Iraqis? Read up Chomsky, Hitchens is right about barbarian cultures and religious retardation, but he neglect's the political aspects in favor to fix the monotheistic problem while initiating another one, much more scary naming imperialism responsible for all of it in the first place! History repeating itself...
architect333 1 year ago
@MrJST87 hussein being provided weapons by US who are currently occupying iraq, most iraqi oil under foreign control, Valerie Plame ( a CIA operations officer) as well as her husband,Joseph Wilson ('what i didn't find in africa), long before the illegal occupation of iraq, released evidence that there were no 'weapons of mass destruction'. 1 million civilians murdered, no link to al quaeda, haliburton contracts, dispossession of four million Iraqis. moral highground?
jummacob 3 months ago
@MrJST87 your colonial mentality makes me sick
jummacob 3 months ago
@bigdrm8404 hopefully this is a joke, if not, perhaps you forgot the human race possesses weapons of mass destruction. you actually think the world is going to avoid nuclear ww3 if energy resources are not met in the future and the situation falls into that kind of chaos! there's unlimited sources of "hard" oil, merely more expensive to extract and process, the real problem is the environment and it's future effects on the human race. the future is science not theft!
architect333 1 year ago
Galloway is scum
waldoistwisted 1 year ago
iraq not the biggest threat.....iraq not only country that might have had weapons.....nor the only muslim country that might have had weapons.....deomcracy hasnt spread from india, the worlds largest democracy so willl it sppread from iraq.........our own weapons inspectors said it was to early to know if iraq has weapons then.....and it seems like most americans, make it seem like we shouldnt have gone there.....so then....should we still have sent men and women to the iraq war
radiolaugh 1 year ago
so here we are years later, still tehre, muslims stil fucking with us, were still fucking with them, democracy hasnt spread throughout the middl e east much, some iraqius dont like us, and most important, innocent people, and the army, still have people dying and / or and / or getting injured getting injured
radiolaugh 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It is stupid to argue about these things, because that sort of argument won't go anywhere, no one will compromise their opinions for even a second to consider the other person's point of view.
harduproberto 1 year ago
With Hitchens' definition for a country to lose sovereignty, Israel would qualify for that with flying colours
FlyingDutchman65 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
God bless george galloway,& if that other dude likes war well why doesnt he go himself? or better still send his son.
core1976scotland 2 years ago
Galloway needs to be executed for the common good.
MrMalavon 2 years ago
@MrMalavon why because he is against war in iraq? against innocents being killed? against ilegal occupation. Please read up on your history.
sezeddin 1 year ago
/
"IF CERTAINS ACTS AND VIOLATIONS OF TREATIES ARE CRIMES, THEY ARE CRIMES WHETHER THE UNITED STATES DOES THEM OR WHETHER GERMANY DOES THEM. WE ARE NOT PREPARED TO LAY DOWN A RULE OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT AGAINST OTHERS WHICH WE WOULD NOT BE WILLING TO HAVE INVOKED AGAINST US."
— Justice Robert H. Jackson, Chief Prosecutor, Nuremberg War Crimes Trials
/
The US has used all sorts of WMD in Viet Nam on innocent civilians. 10 million people died.
Same elsewhere since 1945.
shillyshallyz 2 years ago
Like any Iraq War supporter, Hitchens assiduously ignores the long history of US-supported brutality in Iraq and around the world. We cannot hope to claim the moral high ground when we are the very same country that allowed Saddam to acquire WMDs in the first place.
This is disappointing from someone who is usually somewhat intellectually honest.
uberllama42 2 years ago
He does acknowledge that. Actually if you listen to his arguements he uses it as a reason that we should have invaded Iraq. Since as you just said it's out fault in many ways, and he thinks as a result it's our responsibility.
Indieringer 2 years ago 3
.....even attempt to argue it as it's a fact and you don't argue with facts!
rizhaq7 2 years ago
Testing. My last 3 attempts did not post.
klrdotorg 2 years ago
Comment removed
klrdotorg 2 years ago
I looked up iraqbodycount dot org and the range of deaths by violence was from 94,356 to 99,743. Of this range, most were killed by fellow Muslims, the very ones GG calls freedom fighters. I don't see how you can claim the U.S. killed hundreds of thousands and counting.? It's just wrong.
My post was a comment on the debate, not the conduct of the war. And I maintain that Hitchens won by a wide margin. I've seen several posts from GG supporters who admit he lost.
klrdotorg 2 years ago 3
To anyone with an ounce of objectivity, there is no possible way to say that Galloway won - or was even close in this debate. Hitchens cites facts, stays on point and made a much better case for the war than any member of the Bush administration ever did.
Galloway makes cheap emotional appeals to his mindless followers, and smears his foes and Hitchens, and of course, he yells. I'm glad to not be so stupid as to buy into the crap that this con man demagogue spews daily. You lose George.
klrdotorg 3 years ago 4
Don't impose your own opinion on everyone else. You say this fatso talks facts? What fact could be more horrific than the fact that the US went in to a country thousands of miles away, that had never harmed a single US citizen, had nothing to do with 9/11 and yet the US killed hundreds of thousands of its citizens which continues till this day?
rizhaq7 2 years ago
Hitchens DESTROYED Galloway in this debate. GG challenged very few of Hitchens' points, while Hitchens addressed GG's points - although GG offered very few points. By the time this was over, GG looked like a damn fool.
To win a debate, don't you need to challenge/refute your adversary's assertions? GG just gave the same speeches he's been reciting since '02.
And the U.S. did not "kill hundreds of thousands of its (Iraq's) citizens". If you want to be taken seriously, be accurate.
klrdotorg 2 years ago 2
I need to be "more accurate"? "The US didn't kill hudreds of thousands of Iraq's citizens"? "GG looked like a damn fool"? "Hitchens DESTROYED Galloway in this debate"? Dude, are you high or something or living on a different planet altogether? If you have even an iota of intelligence left in what's known as your cerebrum, I suggest you seriously re-address those points ESPECIALLY the 2nd one cos, as I said, this point is so strong that I thing it'll be incredibly counter-productive to....
rizhaq7 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hichens gets a spanking from Galloway !
scobbiebhoy 3 years ago
Galloway you CUNT, I'd kick your fucking head in if I meet you!!!!
Poetic right?
HitchensFavorite 3 years ago 3
"we knew it was a weighty one and we knew it was a dangerous one"
NO SHIT! and 70% of american thaught the war was necessary at the beggining of the war. now 65% are against it.
that shows how naive people are and they should not be taken seriously!
Anyone who thaught supporting a democracy IN THAT PART OF THE WORLD would take only 5 years is simply DUMB.
all im saying is please dont be an oppertunist and have an opinion on some thing because simply because MOST people dissagree.
JeffBeck13 3 years ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I genuinely don't see how anyone could think Hitchens won this debate. Even if you agree with him on his points, when a speaker has to insult the audience surely that suggests he's losing the room, which is surely the point of a debate. In a room.
thedavidstrikesagain 3 years ago
I like Hitchens but I thought Galloway won the debate.
Oblivionisathand101 3 years ago
Galloway is a complete moron and a supporter of terrorism, whilst Hitchens is a little eccentric but a clear thinker!
ghayklan 3 years ago 5
"Galloway who demand human rights and anti-racist policies in the UK, but don't mind evil genocide abroad because their xenophobic hatred of 'the west' (particularly the US) is greatest of all"
Galloway was opposing Saddam well before the U.S had any interest in it.
Poorglands 3 years ago
A really good debate. Cheers!
EldritchMask 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hitchins is a massive twat
paulclargo 3 years ago
People appear to believe the same of you.
EWKing08 3 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Galloway is a legend the other geeza is a twat
AVFC911 3 years ago
Beats being a moron.
EWKing08 3 years ago 6
Thank God Saddam was removed and brought to justice. Well done to all our service men and women for liberating Iraq from this particularly nasty tyrannt.
McCain 08.
richardrichard07 3 years ago
Galloway is clearly outclassed
ProcyonAlpha 3 years ago 5
hitchens can take his scenarios and shove them up his arse. We can go back and say what would have happened had we not installed the shah of Iran, or created the state of Israel.
RenneDanjoule 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
hats off to galloway
lolz298 3 years ago
clearvision - you poor deluded right wing apologist - run dont walk to the nearest reseach materials on the subject - in fact look all around you in the news - your sad little right wing militarist global hegemony is in tatters
madmanyoulike 3 years ago
what is wrong with right wing mate?
Oceanica22 3 years ago 3
Galloway is nothing but a vile self-publicist. And a fool. The man has no integrity. Don't be taken in by his bombast. He is regarded as a joke over here. He is a man of very little charm. A crass boor.
There's no argument really. Hitchens has so much more class.
clearvision12 3 years ago 5
Hitchens.
A) He used to be a Trotskyite pseudo-Communist who was thrown out of the left-wing Labour Party and was a correspondent for "International Socialism". He vociferously opposed the Vietnam war, Reagan and also Bush Snr.
B) He's now a supporter of the Iraq war, almost every neo-Conservative ideology and especially George W. Bush.
As a Brit journalist put it: "Hitchens changes position so often that to agree with him today is to disagree with him tomorrow"
JanineRobin 3 years ago
"He used to be a Trotskyite pseudo-Communist"
while galloway still IS a trotskyite pseudo communist who was thrown out of the labour party
axiomizer 3 years ago 4
I don't care about his past as much as I care about the fact that he opposes the torture and oppression of humanity worldwide, unlike the hypocritical lefties in the UK like Galloway who demand human rights and anti-racist policies in the UK, but don't mind evil genocide abroad because their xenophobic hatred of 'the west' (particularly the US) is greatest of all.
grayabc1234 3 years ago 4
he certainly didnt wipe the floor with him.I dont know why you would say that. its meaningless rhetoric. its tiring watching anti-gay/anti-female people so happy to allow areas to suffer under primitive religious wackos or tyrants as long as its not in their neck of the woods.
glennjridge 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
As intelligent as Hitchens is, Galloway wiped the floor with him in this debate. Hitchens came off as an ill informed ideologue who has abandoned all logic in favor of a Neoconservative point of view(who he himself now knows was premature of him).
Sorry Hitchens, you lost this whole thing.
zedek3147 3 years ago
Isn't that your interpretation?
I don't interprete it that way.
Who would you have liked to win this "battle"?
1000 to 1 it is Galloway. Which is cool but it is obvious you are very biased as well when you state it like that.
Oceanica22 3 years ago 3
That's because he's honest and thoughtful, so his opinions will change as he learns, as it will for anyone who actually thinks. Of course an idiotic, dogmatic blowhard will never change his opinion; he never thinks objectively.
wattaaa 3 years ago 3
"His opinions will change as he learns" ?
I wonder if you'd have said the same about John Kerry or you'd have used the term "flip-flopper", wattaaa.
JanineRobin 3 years ago
That's a good point, but if someone explains their thought process and how they arrived at their conclusions, I think you can discern for yourself whether it's genuine learning or indecision.
wattaaa 3 years ago
Hitchens is an alcoholic blowhard - just because of his plummy accent you Yanks take him seriously?! Notice how he drops in a pretentious long word to sound superior - such as cerebellum - it's pathetic. 3 years on Galloway's analysis has been borne out.
jumblyman 3 years ago
Thanks for you ad-hominem assessment, jumbly. It's the height of hypocrisy to assail the validity of Hitchens' arguement based on nothing but your superficial prejudices.
I think you're pathetic, and that's actually based on the content -- not the presentation -- of your commentary.
chromanin 3 years ago 4
chromanin you beat me to the point!
ajmvice 3 years ago 3
kiss it butt munch
allteesup1 3 years ago
Goodman is a harlot, Galloway a Stalinist, Hitchens a sluggard-- I say we lynch them all for being traitors, faggots and dullards.
deadlyvengeance222 3 years ago
Traitors to whom?
rassberrytoggle 3 years ago
Traitors to us
deadlyvengeance222 3 years ago
Us, as in you and I? Or as in the larger global society? Or an indavidual country?
rassberrytoggle 3 years ago
All of us
deadlyvengeance222 3 years ago
What a shock that Amy Goodman does not seem to like Hitchens? I wish she would retire early
WonderWomanUS 3 years ago 2
I think I can say that without being a gun toting redneck that the war in Iraq is a just thing
firesteel1 3 years ago 2
Did you watch all 12 parts to this video? I certainly hope so.
keylime2555 3 years ago
sorry but hitchs first 3 mins are full of assumptions....
lumpfish99 3 years ago
Hitch articulates his argument better and therefore wins the debate. Galloway simply can't speak like a civilized man. He rants and screams, uses ad hominid attacks, "Devil," "slug," and stick that finger somewhere else. His comment about the Twin Towers was disgusting! Now don't get me wrong, I am not necessarily for the war. I am a USAF physician who has been to Iraq and Afghanistan and am not real pleased we are there. Wars are always easier to support when someone else does the dirty work.
shanewendi 3 years ago 4
I agree. I am opposed to the war itself, but I just... I despise George Galloway. He thinks he can win debates through ranting and attacking his opponenents.
George Galloway calls himself anti-war and pro-peace, yet he still supports one side of the war. One can do a YT search and see him praising "freedom fighters" who shoot at Americans. I don't support Americans shooting at others (unless it's self-defense, etc.).
Opposing both sides of a war is anti war. George does not meet these standards.
CrumblyButGood 3 years ago 5
Plus, the man affiliates himself with the likes of Alex Jones. That gives me a headache.
The hypocrite, and the pseudo-skeptic fanatic who believes 9/11 was an inside job. What a pair.
I oppose the present gov. but I hold a scientific world view. The 9/11 Truth movement is unscientific and hostile.
CrumblyButGood 3 years ago 5
Amy Goodman is profoundly incompetent.
cromicus 3 years ago
she does seem somewhat dull
meiitbe 3 years ago
This debate was the first time I saw Amy Goodman. I'm so glad I happened to see it.
t0kt0k 3 years ago
my bad i see the date at the corner now lol
kakahass 3 years ago
how old is this debate?
kakahass 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I love this debate. The debate where Hitchens the ex Marxist Neo Capitalist war monger cries like a baby! :D
*BIG SMILE* Good post.
gbcharlie 3 years ago
Lads, we're about to run out of oil so get real! Who controls the oil supplies and the guys with guns who control the oil supplies will prevail. The removal of Saddam- which I incidentally marched against- will soon be seen as a very mild incident compared to the everyday bloodbath that will characterise future squabbles!
oxfordeddie 3 years ago
We have acheived success in Iraq as their gvmt is as useless and corrupt as do nothing as "ours" .
ArizonaMtKingsnake 3 years ago
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 has mentioned elsewhere 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
If you read Bush's 2002 speech at the UN, you'll see that his stated justifications for the removal of Saddam are not far from Hitchens'. The problem might not have been motive so much as ineptitude (allowing the looting of cultural institutions, disbanding the Iraqi army), ignorance (Bush didn't know the difference between Shia and Sunni), & ideology (insistance on putting right-wingers in high positions in Iraq at the expense of knowledge/experience).
tbonealex 3 years ago 3
Thanks for this, the demagogue Galloway was dressed naked together with his logical fallacies and the illiterates that follow his rantings.
richter75 3 years ago 5
I used to support galloway, then I did my research on Islam. It's a religion that is powered by the oil industry, it encites hatred. It does not deserve any sympathy.
2metube4 3 years ago 3
lol...what?
PinkoPapist89 3 years ago
It wants to destroy all of the western world.
dubzy81 3 years ago 2
there is no it
krish108 3 years ago
do some more research, i think you will finf it is countries and governments not islam that is powered by the oil industry. oh and what is the west powered by?
krish108 3 years ago
"i think you will finf it is countries and governments not islam that is powered by the oil industry"
The majority of these countries and governments base their entire judicial system and politics on shariah law. So it's exactly the same to say that Islam is powered by oil.
The west isn't powered by oil, we just need it.
2metube4 3 years ago 5
well actually the west is powered by exploitation in the 3rd world. the governments base their laws on the koran, but with the intention of suiting themselves. interpretation is everything. religion has always been a tool for exploitation its who is behind the tool that counts
krish108 3 years ago
de hitchmaster. ok that was a bad nickname. but hitch is a badass by whatever name.
desiiii420 3 years ago 3
I was at this debate and seeing it again now almost three years later must agree that Hitchens clearly made the better case.
redmarylebone 3 years ago 6
You've got to be joking, haven't you?
The war is an unmitigated disaster, the reasons for war have no credibility and the people that supported the war are left with nothing but blood on their hands.
How about a silence for the million dead Iraqi's since the start of the war. How about the millions that have died (mostly woman and children) due to sanctions.
NuevoNumeroNueve 3 years ago
Absolutely correct. It is a disaster.
5StarRafa 3 years ago
The debate topic was not the success or failure of the war. It was about whether it was necessary & just. Saying it was a disaster does not contribute anything to the discussion.
tbonealex 3 years ago 5
Don't be ridiculous, it's wholly relevant to the outcome of the debate.
To answer 'was it just', of course it wasn't just. It's a proven fact that it wasn't just. They tried to justify the war with the 'weapons of mass destruction' lie, that's proven to be unjustifiable.
Was killing a million Iraqi's in the name of war necessary? Of course it's wasn't!
Don't get me wrong, I'm a life long opponent of Saddam, but this was clearly unjust.
NuevoNumeroNueve 3 years ago
So you believe that if Saddam didn't have weapons there was NO reason to remove him?
And you further believe that the necessity and justness of any war is determined by the number of people who die in it?
tbonealex 3 years ago 4
"So you believe [...] him?"
That's hardly the point. I don't believe a million needed to die to remove (the US empowered) Saddam, however. If he was still alive and sitting in my living room, I'd kill him myself. Nobody denies he was a horrific tyrant. That doesn't make going to war on a pack of lies justified.
"And you further believe [...] who die in it?"
No, I explained this in my last post. It wasn't just or necessary, nor was it legal.
NuevoNumeroNueve 3 years ago
I don't follow... are you in favor of Saddam's removal but just not in favor of the way Bush carried it out? If Bush had made the humanitarian arguments Hitchens makes rather than simple-minded appeals to fear, would you have stood behind him?
tbonealex 3 years ago 2
How about we got honest here, is Saddam the worst man on the planet in regards to humanitaritism? No. Did the US take any action in Rwanda? No. Do they have any intention of getting involved in Zimbabwee? Hmmm... No.
So whats different about Iraq? Why have they stuck their nose in here in the past, first on one side, and now on the other?... Hmmm, I wonder....
Can anyone spell O-I-L?
Do yourself a favour, stop trying to convince/justify to the world all your BS and hang your heads in shame.
coldjet2 3 years ago
So because we didn't stop a humanitarian disaster in Rwanda, then we have no business trying to stop any others?
And once we've involved ourself in any wrong foreign policy (like arming Saddam in the 80's), we have no business ever changing to the a better one (like removing him)?
Listen to your own arguments... If taken as a rule, they'd be more heartless than anything you accuse Bush of.
tbonealex 3 years ago 4
So its just a coincidence that the US has chosen to intervene multiple times around the oil supplying nations and not in Africa?
If YOU (US) are to then take on your new 'rule' of removing dictators, we should be able to set a date for your intervention in Zimbabwee. When can we expect that good sir?
coldjet2 3 years ago
Well, if the "rule" merely held to Saddam's criteria (invasion of neighboring state, illegal pursuit of weapons, collusion with terrorists & gross human rights atrocities or acts of genocide) then who else would qualify?
But I will say that I hope that UN forces do intervene in Zimbabwe before a civil war or mass civilian slaughter occurs.
tbonealex 3 years ago 3
Well, invasion of neighbouring state was last time (Kuwait), and there would be others that qualify for that if that was your penchant. Illegal pursuit of weapons; I assume you're still talking about last time as we didn't find any this time (the worlds 'leading intelligence organisation' got it wrong apparently, they were THAT confident they had it right that they were willing to start a war, but astoundingly they were completely and utterly wrong... Whatdoyouknow... (Out of room on this post)
coldjet2 3 years ago
But if you are really nervous about weapons I know I haven't got the sophisticated resources of the CIA but I've got a 'hunch' you might find some in Korea... Gross human rights atrocities you already have in Zimbabwee.
So theres a couple of suggestions for you.
coldjet2 3 years ago
Again, anyone with all 4 criteria? Anyone? North Korea, maybe 3... Zimbabwe, possibly 2...
tbonealex 3 years ago 3
The hypocrisy is beyond belief isn't it? The US is damned if it does, damned if it doesn't. Destroying Saddam was the moral thing to do, even though we did it 12 years after we should have.
thricebannedatheist 3 years ago 4
Not at all ... stop meddling in people's lives, hearts, and existences all in the name of the ever expansive CAPITAL, the sole intent of which is to VAMP all form of energy for the accumulation and creation of ELITE over others justifying the illusion of superiority.
The only reason why you have to intervene in a country, is to fix the interminable mistakes you make. GO HOME. LEAVE US ALONE. let us BE and STOP LOOTING our countries and saying you're bringing us 'freedom'.
iamjesstar 3 years ago
Are you from Iraq? Because I think if you ask (non-baathist) people in Iraq whether they wished Saddam was back, I think I know what the answer would be.
tbonealex 3 years ago 2
The blood of the women and children who died as a result of the sanctions IS on America's hands. As Saddam manipulated the sanctions and allowed people to starve, we watched and did nothing. But would you really have advocated removing the sanctions and not removing Saddam?
tbonealex 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What about the soldiers of our western countries that died and the civilians executed? Fucking liberal cunts! Fuck off to Iraq.
dubzy81 3 years ago
When I first viewed this debate about 2 years ago, I'd never before seen/read Hitchens nor did I think I could ever be convinced that the war in Iraq was justified. Despite my resistance, I've since come around on the latter point and as a result become an avid follower of Hitchens' work. The current state of blind consensus on the American left (and joined now by some on the right) about the war is rather sickening.
tbonealex 3 years ago 7
Aye same. I was on the other side of the fence as well. I knew some indian immigrants and they told me about getting hassled thinking they were muslims etc. Now that I look back this is the one time in history where our political correctness overwrote our paranoia at our peril. The muslim people continue to push even the most tolerant to the edge. There are daily reports of muslim threatened violence in first world countries where they are immigrants and guests. They annoy us at their peril.
Mahoivlich 3 years ago 6
dito, he makes the best case. i think he appeals to the best in people rather than scaring, making them feel guilt and making sloppy moral equivalences. i nearly didn't listen to him because i perceived rudeness but something demanded that i face his arguments and i couldn't, im convinced.
kat1989 3 years ago 5