Christopher Hitchens versus Ritter: Iraq War debate PART 8

[Tsnore]

It is ironic but life under an oligarchy or dictatoriship needn't be so bad, as bad as that sounds. Indonesia could be fun in the 1990s as was Laos and China and even Saudi Arabia or Egypt. Democracy was not the key arguing point here - it was the abuse of power by Bush Jr. and the exploitation of 9/11 for narrow vested US and otherwise moneyed interests.

[Tsnore]

Lord Mush's mind was incapable of fathoming the ramifications of his invasion of Iraq. Rove convinced him it would be good for his '04 chances and in his Wild Turkey-addled brain he wanted to be a two-term Resident unlike his Poppy. The whole thing was catapulted by the neocons who the nationalist/power stud, Dick Insaney, had placed in positions of power. Ritter's point about living under a dictator is sound - the sanctions and war killed far more people.

[batvette]

Former chief U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter said Iraq is capable of reconstituting a chemical weapons program within a matter of weeks.

"I believe Iraq will seek to reconstitute a militarized nerve agent that will be used in a last ditch defense of Baghdad, and I think the Iraqi government's efforts to acquire significant stockpiles of atropine are an indication that this is the direction that Saddam Hussein is heading," Ritter said on CNN's "Crossfire."

CNN Nov. 2002

[sinistar99]

If Hitchens is so offended by Ritter's comment "better to live under Saddam..." I would ask what Hitchens thinks the answer of the Iraqi people would be if they in their new found "democratic freedom" were allowed to vote the American soldiers out of Iraq. The fact that we can't know that because they're not and have not been free to vote for that --so apparently they're not that "democratic" now after all.

[moh490234890238490]

@ejohnwright It's sad to so what the left has become. Selective interventionism coupled with apologetics for jihadist.

[sinistar99]

@moh490234890238490 Of course interventionism has to be selective! What should it be random? It has to be based on wisdom and the rule of law. and I've not heard a single apology for any jihadist certainly not in this debate. The more nonsense I hear from the other side the more proud I am to be a member of the so called "Left" I hear the fanatically partisan disbarrage.

[moh490234890238490]

@sinistar99 What i mean by selective interventionism is this. When the US goes into any nation the ant war types reply with ''why dont you go here,here,here and here''. As if to say since you can't do anything you have no right to do anything. As for Jihadist apologetics. Did you miss the part where he said he would rather live in an iraq with Saddam as the leader. That's one of the silliest things that they say. pretending like Saddam Husein's Iraq was an oasis of peace instead full of graves.

[NorthCitySider]

@moh490234890238490

Once again, stupid right wing propoganda. That's bullshit. Just shut your mouth until you can stop being a pathalogical liar.

[manonthemount]

There's something to be said that Ritter's moral compass in defending Saddam is the same he used to pursue 15 year old girls...

[sinistar99]

@manonthemount Clever. 1. Ritter never defended Saddam at all ever. 2. So if we were to find out at some point that Hitchens went after 12 year old boys then would you swich sides with Ritter at that point --clearly 15 year old girls is more defensible for a normal straight male so he would have the stronger moral compass. Ridiculous arguments.

[TheDanielWooi]

Scott Ritter;

*Defends Saddam's Regime*

"I'm not defending Saddam's Regime."

[moh490234890238490]

@TheDanielWooi I don't know the the anti war movement keep on saying that Saddam's Iraq was an oasis of peace.

[sinistar99]

@moh490234890238490 I've never heard a single anti-war spokesperson say that Saddam's Iraq was an oasis of peace. Do you have a link or anything?

[moh490234890238490]

@sinistar99 Many ppl on the left make the argument that Saddam althoigh a dictator kept things in order and the Iraqi's was far better off with him. Scott ritter just tried to argue this point. You don't really pay attention do you.

[sinistar99]

@moh490234890238490 It was a good point and the point stands: The invasion and occupation of Iraq has been responsible for more deaths and suffering of the Iraqi people than Saddam. That's the point Ritter was trying to make and it was a good point if YOU were paying attention. The cure was worse than the disease. (not to mention that NOW women can't drive and have to wear burkahs and are more likely to be raped or stonded to death). It's not Left or Right it's just math.

[sinistar99]

@moh490234890238490 Though you're right there are 2 different things here My problem with Hitchens on both counts is that 1 To admit that anything at all was good in Iraq during Saddam's regime is "defending Saddam" and treated as religious herisy (which is no way to make a logical judgement) 2. we're not allowed to talk about the cost of the war in terms of human lives and injury.

[moh490234890238490]

@moh490234890238490 husseinandterror(dot)com

I'm not right wing. That's the problem with leftist. They think that anyone who's on ''their side'' would never disagree with them. I've never been a right winger and never will be. I'm just not a masochist like you. I just provided you with a website that lists all of Saddamn's crimes, but i doubt you'll read it. You've already made up your mind and no amount of evidence is gonna change that.

[sinistar99]

@TheDanielWooi

Hitchens;

*Defends Bush Administration

"Im not here to defend the Bush Administration"

[TheDavid2222]

Rwanda may have lost 800,000, but the Iraq-Iran war killed millions and that was begun by Saddam. Saddam was a potential threat towards the international community. That is why he should be removed. Not to mention the fact that he kept the chilldren of his political enemies locked in prison cells. He killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. Ritter talks like a morally defunct isolationist at a time when our world is as connected as ever.

[sinistar99]

@TheDavid2222 NO he wan't a potential threat. He had and I'm quoting not only our chief weapons inspector there but the inspectors in general and the findings of the progam itself "had been deprived of the capacity to threaten other countries..." He was defanged. Period. And Ritter is not in any way isolationist either in his arguments here or in general --unlike Hitchens Ritter actually himself faught for his country.

[CytherLynx]

Scott Ritter is morally reprehensible (charged with masturbating to underage girls via webcam) but also with his view on Iraq, and what he thinks is best for Iraqis.

[sinistar99]

@CytherLynx So morally reprehensible he fought for our country unlike the fat armchair chickenhawks who are so brave with other peoples lives. BTW 15 year old girls are physically indistinguishible from their 18 year old counterparts really big deal.

[equsnarnd]

It's interesting to me that the reason against the war for some, ie, our prior involvement is the very reason that Hitchens sites for our moral obligation to be there. We owe them for our screwing things up so badly. It's a good argument. Don't know if it's sufficient but it's a damn good point.

[eugdog106]

Even if the war was built on lies that still doesn't diminish its humanatarian value. In my view what we exported to iraq was not some subjective morality but rather freedom and liberty and democracy which i believe is the universal perogative of all human beings.

[sinistar99]

@eugdog106 What they have now is Shira Law and 10 years of a foreign army walking up and down their streets with Machine guns. tens if not hundreds of thousands more killed, bombed tortured and imprisoned. Now women can't drive cars or go to school or go outside without burkahs (they could do all these things before the invasion). With that kind of "liberty" who needs oppression!

[sinistar99]

@eugdog106 --which proves the age old lesson if you have to do something "based on lies" it's probably not a good idea to do." But Exxon Cheveron and BP got thier oil sharing aggreements and Cheney's Halliburton stock options went up what 450% so not all bad...

[modestryan16]

ughm just because hitchens asks glib, doesnt mean that he is correct.

[DuctTapeMyFace]

Glad Hitchens finally pulled Ritter over his continual appeals to his service in the Marines.

[billhicks8]

I can understand why Ritter would do this though, since his experiences are his most potent ally on his side of the fence...

[slantythecamel]

The more Ritter argues the more he makes the case for the invasion... and I find this typical for these debates.

[breakerofbigots]

@slantythecamel That's because you're hearing what you want to hear. He shot down Hitchens' bullshit claim about an imminent "confrontation" with Saddam's Iraq and rightly points out that it is not the US' job to fix all the humanitarian problems in the world, and that the proposition is in and of itself dangerous. He fully recognizes the behavior of Saddam's regime and the humanitarian crisis in Iraq. That just makes his destruction of Hitchens' position - and yours - that much stronger.

[CytherLynx]

@breakerofbigots you dont listen.

[sinistar99]

@breakerofbigots The Chickenhawks hear what they want to hear. Hitchens makes  the most coherant pro-war argument I've ever heard, but it still falls short because it relies on 2 counts of intellectual dishonesty. 1. We can't "speak for the dead" --we are not allowed to talk about the cost of the war in terms of human lives etc.. 2. We dare not mentiion anything good at all in Iraq before the invasion. So as long as all data that is inconvenient is removed, Hitchens has a good argument.