I love it how ppl love Hitchens when he's taking down religious ppl, and right wing ppl but as soon as this comes out. All of a sudden NOW hes a bigot. Not that he merely has an OPINION that may be different than what you have. Just accept that the man can maintain his individuality and intellect despite that he disagrees with you. But apparently ppl can not. The world bigot = ppl who can't stand another opinion but their own. That's the group thinking mentality that the gov wants. GJ.
Who gives a fuck about Iraq!? I care about my own country not rebuilding a country that is utterly hopeless to rebuild. Mark my words folks, once we leave the Iraqis will resort back to their old ways. Stop interfering in other nations affairs America and you won't create more people like Bin Laden.
I disagree quite a bit with Hitchens on Iraq, but I disagree with his conclusions, not his formidable knowledge of facts. That's what's wrong with politics- nobody knows facts. Personally, I'm okay with the hypothetical conclusion that Iran and the Saudis would divvy up Iraq. It's a horrible state of affairs, I don't want that to happen, but that's the reality of that part of the world. I find it much worse that we're holding a gun to Iraq's head and telling them they must be democratic.
the comparison with yugoslavia is incongruous at any rate, because most of its successor states already existed in some form previously and simply reverted to their independence.
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.]
usa are there for two reasons.1 control of the oil 2.eliminate one the of threats towards israel. both understandable from a geopolitical stand ofpoint. no need for this "political stability" and "protection of local freedoms" flat out rubish.hitchens is of jewish decent so we understand chris.enough with this weak moral justification of the occupation of a country
@PlanetOfTheAtheist The conflict taking place today in the middle east isnt only SHia vs sunni, its primarily secular western backed dictators vs Muslims. I think youve seen many of USA's friends toppled recently like Mubarak of Egypt, ben ali of tunisia-puppet of france, saleh of Yemen soon to go... saudi King as well
chek out this 2 minute cartoon explain how USA conquered and controls the 3rd world
@PlanetOfTheAtheist Fuck hitchens, USA has created a huge mess. As a Muslim and taking History into account of British and French colonialism fallowed by British and USA puppets that forced secularism upon Muslims... Islam is our natural disposition, if USA continues to fund secular war lords then wars will continue. USA sponsoring of dictators of saudi, yemen, paksitan, egypt and so on has created much hatred towards USA... Best for USA to get out so we can take out these rulers
We have to protect "our" oil, oil pipeline, and poppy fields. How dare some other dictators try to take what we could steal or have already been stealing. They are all NaziTerroristCommiePeacehaters and must all die. I would almost bet this could have been uttered word for word by several key members of our fkn gov't.
@xn117 Hitchens is a is full of shit , 100,000 Iraqis dead since the invasion, a million displaced complete anarchy out side the green zone. Even if this was not an illegal war it was still an abject failure in military terms. Troops home these guys have been fucked up enough for Haliburton. Hitchens is talking through his rear end needs to go back to drinking gin and tonics in his Manhattan penthouse, he has no idea what goes on in the real world. Neither do you by all accounts.
@xn117 Oh so there is 100, 000 dead because of Iraqi on Iraqi violence - I thought the official reason the US had 50,000 troops in Iraq was to prevent them slaughtering one other? Okay so if US troops are doing nothing useful then why not bring them home?
@DJSpinoza You think everything goes as plan and just because troops are there means everything will be okay?
I don't know - I think the troops did a heroic job and it will be remembered for years to come. I hope you're not painting the coalition as war criminals and mass murders, right?
@xn117 you think 100,000 deaths are "not everything going to plan" ? I'm not painting them them as anything they do that to themselves by being in breach of the The Nuremberg Principles list “Crimes against peace” punishable under international law as...
@DJSpinoza Under international law it is illegal to wage a war of aggression (which saddam did), commit genocide (which saddam did), harbor international terrorists (which saddam did) and violate the sovereignty of other counties (which saddam did, iran, kuwait, etc).
@xn117 Donald Rumsfeld visit Hussein in1983 and 1984 and make the Iraq the third-largest recipient of US military hardware in the world. So why in 1990 in a meeting with US ambassador April Glaspie, a week before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait dis she say this " have a direct instruction from the President to seek better relations with Iraq. I know you need funds. .... But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.""
Respond to this video... (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; (ii) Participation of a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).”
@DJSpinoza He acts oh so intelligent. However if he was so smart why did he go along with one of the biggest and most transparent lies of the last few decades. Hes either foolish enough to go along with master Bush or he was paid to go along with it.
"And it has a leader — Saddam Hussain — who has sprung from being an underground revolutionary gunman to perhaps the first visionary Arab statesman since Nasser."
Osama Bin Ladem attacked the US because of the US Federal State occupying the Arabian Peninsula and funding Israel, not because of jihadism/islamism.
It is so sadly predictable. The reign of the dollar is falling apart. The USA wants to force the OPEC countries to keep oil trading in U.S. dollar. After Iraq, they will invade Iran.
And after Iran, they will invade Venezuela (but only if they can't remove the current government through coups).
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 Woah. That is some hysterical ranting if I've ever read it! If you think that the liberation of the Iraqi people from their WMD using totalitarian dictator was a "massacre" I can only say that the level of disconnect from you and reality (and morality) is SO LARGE that I hope you don't have children, own guns, or drive automobiles - I don't think you have the proper level of rationality or ethics. That being said, your number of causalities is way off - no big surprise there.
Oh now I see...you run around copying the same tired old nonsensical copypasta on every video of hitchens that exists on youtube.
I now realize the kind of boring, repetitive, attention-seeking, anti-intellectual drone I'm dealing with. Try harder next time. Hint: Read a book first.
@AndroidPolitician , I don't profess to be an expert but I'm not sure the UN could handle it. It would have more legitimacy for sure but how would you persuade other countries to commit troops and resources to clean up a mess created by a coalition which had blatantly circumvented UN resolutions and protocol and invaded illegally. It's such a mess. Would it have been such a greater evil to allow Saddam to continue until we had at least formulated a better plan with international support?
I never said I was for overthrowing Saddam in the first place (I'm not) I'm saying now that we're in this mess we might as well try to get the UN to take care of it (which it's capable of doing).
Although I see what you mean, a vote to authorize the UN army might get struck down because China and Russia might just vote it down.
@AndroidPolitician right and we should have let a theocratic facistic dictator subject his people to daily torture rape and oppresion.. if you dont stand for these folks who may hate us now but in 100 years will be much better for what weve done then your a pathetic excuse for a human being
@AndroidPolitician not at all war crimes are war crimes no matter who commits them and anyone who does should be brought to justice...just dont say the invasion of iraq was unjustified
@AndroidPolitician: "The only reason why the Baathists controlled Iraq was because of the CIA assisted in the 60s coup. Therefore, we should not have intervened". This logic does not follow. Just because we are responsible for Saddam's brutal rule, does not mean we cannot remove him from power. On the contrary, it seems to me a US responsibility means that removing Saddam would be a moral obligation on our part, to end the cruelty and fascism we created.
It just reinforces the idea that the US has a right to intervene even against the UN charter. Most times we intervened it wasn't for the benefit of the people.
@AndroidPolitician: I think the UN was wrong to be against the intervention, the UN really lat the people of Iraq down. I wish we could have done this without a single tragic death, but it appears our enemies were not going to let us.
@AndroidPolitician: I do think the UN was wrong on the issue. If the UN cannot free people from the sort of tyranny that was defeated in WW2, what is the point of it?
I'm not sure why cancer rates would be higher in Fallujah than Hiroshina. I didnt say i believe the US had the most moral policy of liberating Iraq.
The US was wrong in opposing the Shiites. I support democracy, and self determination of peoples.
But your missing the point, the US went in for "regime change" and had protests not happened, it would of continued to be a US puppet state. The US wasn't interested in freedom either, and the rational given was then known to be knowingly false (WMDs etc.).
If you were for Iraqi freedom, having another country invade it wasn't the way to go.
I wouldn't be so sure (if you recall Saddam got his chemical weapons from the US), and plus saying that your for freedom but are willing to settle for a US puppet state isn't very solid.
At any rate, it extends US control and leads into the US gaining enough power until it overthrows democratic states.
its a very hard thing for me to choose a side on. They stay in the middle east, we keep the terrorists on the run, but the world community hates us for sticking our nose where it doesnt belong. Then if we leave, terrorists come back and citizens start vanishing in the middle of the night and poverty hits hard but we look better to the world community
Hitchens is a fool. He just babbles on about religion to make foolish progressives(Maher) think Thug Militarism is a Progressive, Atheist position. Focus on the Pope, get your eyes off of the State. Focus on the Pope, get your eyes off of Bush and O-bomb-a.
As someone who has spent a year over there, I have seen first hand why we cant just pull out of Iraq. It would be an absolute blood bath, the issue is how many generations are we going to have to wait for before their culture changes? Muslims live and die by the sword over there. It is part of their culture. The kurdish people are amazing. They want and are ready for change, its the southern part of the country that is fighting amoungst themselves.
Hithcnes is dead on. No one stays isolated in that part of the world, everything is run by the sword. Conquering and spreading one's own sect of Islamism is what Arabia is all about. Fucking lunatics, the U.S. must stay there for a million more reasons as well as the ones Hitchnes gives.
@nasri1011 Imperialist mindset??? What country has the U.S. imperialised in the near past??? The U.S, is actually the fist country in the world to drop imperialism and realized that diplomacy is better than imperialism. Or else why is Japan still Japan, and Germany still Germany?
@nasri1011 Most Iraqi's are ignorant Islamic peasants who couldn't figure a tiny percantage of the amazing advances in humanity and technology that the U.S., and Israel for that matter, has discovered and developed. Would a country full of KKK members deserve credibility with any of their opinions if they don't disavow or reform their insane and harmful creed???
@nasri1011 You Leftists/Arabs just don't get it. Morality and altruism does exist within human beings and nation states that do not provide citizens individual liberties do not deserve the title of a free nation that has as much opinion and sway as other more developed nation states in the world. You're very wrong and mistaken Nasri1011, Islam is the most brutal and horrific form of imperialism that exists, or perhaps that ever existed.
@pAbedaNSK since when being good at chess automatically equates to being smart? I know it does, but since when? i'm sorry i guess that's neither here nor there.
Spurious points made by Hitchens.The Saudis wouldn't get involved in any war.The royal family(30,000 strong)are too busy having a great life ,to ever contemplate a war..Iran wouldn't think of invading Iraq,as its government is 2 fragile,and its population + armed forces traumatised by the earlier war against iraq. .AS for Syria invading?The Kurds would prove too strong for them and the terrain impassable for any syrian invasion force.Hitchen's hypothetical scenario doesnt hold water.,
ultimately, Hitchens is an asshole for supporting the war. 20 year olds have died or have come back with no legs, (my opinion worse) they will never have the oppurtunity to reach the age he did or even attempt to gather the knowledge or enjoy the life that he did for many years
@dwbryant3: When you reject someone's argument because of the words they're using to make it, you discredit yourself from any sense of intellectual capacity.
@patrick112590 The word you are looking for is "credability" not credulousness. I'm saying that when someone chooses to use curse words in their argument, it makes them sound like they really don't have an argument because it seems as if they are counting on those words to have a negative impact on their opponent. It doesn't matter if the person is highly intelligent; those words make it seem like they are trying to "cover up" the inadequacy of their argument with harsh language.
@dwbryant3 No, I used the proper word. You might want to read my comment again. You're probably right about people who constantly use curse words, but that doesn't mean the occasional swear makes someone's argument fatuous.
@drwptl786 I very much enjoyed that video and stephen fry is definitely a legend. But what I'm saying is the curse word can't be the focal point of the argument. It simply has to supplement the argument and make it more persuasive and more colorful. Just my opinion...
Why? Swearing is used by most people, including those of high intellect. Ad hominem attacks obviously hurt an argument, by just saying "asshole" does not in any way show low intellect.
@hockeyman92 I should have been more clear. If the main point of your argument is you calling your opponent an "asshole," then it lacks any intellectual substance. Yes, colorful words can be used to enhance your argument, but they cannot be the focal point.
I like HItchens' views on religion, but I really disagree with him here. What are we going to do? Continue to occupy Iraq indefintley? Perhaps, as Cindy Sheehan would say, "If he had some skin in the game", he'd view things differently.
This war has obviously been a con, and now we're supposed to continue this war indefinitly in order to prevent "violence and bloodshed"....ridiculous.
I have been looking closely at this Hitchens guy and I am not going to say he tells a lie But I thought I saw a fork tongue poking out when Hannity pressed him he started to spout Look I know he's British and all that stuff speaking so nicely but its just guff I could listen to him till the cows come home What a nice voice such a great tone He could be sticking a knife in my gizzard and get me to beieve that I was only a lizzard Hey buyer you beware don't you give this guy your ear
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Who else is with me that Hitchens' shiny forehead (don't worry, there is precious little contained in that Oxford-trained skull of his) makes an excellent example of a dangerous and radical, not to metion potentially violent, threat against mankind?
au contraire. Radical Christians and radical Islamists are the threat against humanity. Violence towards people who kill and murder in the name of god is a social mandate that me and Christopher Hitchens are willing to serve. The people of Iraq and Afghanistan deserve more than the neglect you'd give them.
I'm sure that you, Hitchens, and all other cowardly apologists for American imperialism and nation-building would prefer to sip martinis and read the New Yorker than defend your warmongering by actually going overseas to fight for what you allegedly believe in. Put up or shut up scumbag.
I've been talking to recruiters and am going to enlist in 2010 you presumptuous asswipe. Why else would I make such a claim? I'm either going to join as a US Army Calvary Scout, or see if I got what it takes to become a US Army Ranger. And no, I'm not an apologist for American imperialism for the simple fact that American imperialism straight fucking doesn't exist (save perhaps in Puerto Rico, but they really aren't bitching too much now are they?) I like that 'Put up or shut up' phrase btw
The USA has (officially) over 700 military bases in around 130 different countries and territories, it currently continues an illegal military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and conducts illegal military operations in Pakistan, it has overthrown countless democratically elected governments, and it has meddled in the affairs of almost every single country in the Western Hemisphere and Middle East. And let's not forget Guam, American Samoa, and Hawaii in addition to PR. Empire? What empire?
hmm 700 military bases in 130 different countries.... Do we have sovereignty over any single one of these countries? Are there American parliaments in any of them? We aren't an Imperialist power, you could argue we're an 'Economic Imperialist power' but even that's a pretty big stretch. If you understood what Imperialism truly entails, you wouldn't so foolishly call us that. So I return your question, What Empire? over whom do we have domain?
OK, forget the military bases. We have domain over Iraq and Afghanistan because we control their countries through the force of arms, and we prop up puppet leaders like Hamid Karzai through rigged elections. We illegally annexed Hawaii and we have domain over Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands and many other inhabited islands. Covert operations, destabilization and installation of puppet leaders also constitute dominion over other countries.
@omgitsfed No parliaments but they are obsolete anyway. Money and political pressure is all you need now. And I agree with him, you have imperialist tendencies. I know you love your country, but sometimes you have to look with different eyes. Ask Mosadeq. ;)
@omgitsfed I use hegemony instead of Imperial. Imperial suggests we have an Emperor or an Empress. If we decide to go that route, I'll vote for Palin and Palpetine ehem .. I mean McCain.
@WorldAgainstUSA Puerto Rico is an American territory in which the great majority of people on the island want to remain part of the United States. It is also the most prosperous island in the Caribbean by far. Go there sometime and have a look for yourself.
@omgitsfed American imperialism doesn't exist? Wow.. you are just the type of person that the military is looking for.. dumbed down and ready to serve.
Of course we have an empire.. what else would you call 700 military bases in 130 different counties? It's definitely not a fucking country club that's for sure.
Read 6 comments down and you'll see why the Imperialism in the brutish sense that you think it is, doesn't actually exist. It takes an uneducated assumption to derive that 700 military bases in 130 different countries automatically equates to an empire. So I'll repeat my question to you... out of those 130 nations, over how many do we have ANY domain?
@omgitsfed we have economic domain over most countries out there.. we have been exporting our debt to other counties through our fiat money system for decades. we run up debt with countries, and then years later end up paying them off with devalued paper dollars. If countries don't accept our economic hegemony, then we bomb them. Just because it isn't an empire in the Roman sense doesn't mean that it isn't neo-imperialism. Don't call me uneducated when are the one joining the military.
If you actually read my reply more carefully, you'd notice that I never called you uneducated, but merely stated that your assumption was(perhaps I inadvertently struck a nerve?). Your other assumption about uneducated people joining the military is distasteful and (fortunately) inaccurate. I'd be the first to point out that some of my friends who have joined the military are as dumb as a rock, but that sweeping generalization doesn't give credit to the many capable men & women serving today.
Furthermore, it cannot be denied that Saddam threatening to switch the sale of his oil from the Dollar to the Euro was a major cause of the liberation of Iraq. But no war in the history of humanity has ever been waged without economic interest (usually outweighing the moral) except for the case of religious war. We should by every means also intervene in the genocide at Darfur, but alas there is no economic interest worth risking a few soldiers for the thousands of innocents being butchered.
@omgitsfed The causes of Darfur run deeper than just stopping the killing. There is much poverty in Africa partly because the west has been taking their resources from them for centuries. Intervening would not help, although changing our foreign policy would. It's our neo-imperialism that puts us in these countries with bases, trying to tell them how to live based on our economic concerns. The constitution doesn't give America the right to be the policeman of the world. Although neocons disagree
Africa is not in as bad of a position as the western media likes to make it out to be.
In fact Africa is very prosperous in certain areas.
Of the47 countries in sub-Saharan Africa only 5 have active conflicts, Sudan, Chad, Uganda, Congo and Somalia.
and according to many economists 2 yrs ago, Africa recorded its highest GDP in 20 yrs, and at least 16 African countries have sovereign credit ratings.
GDP isn't really connected to standard of living. The only reason these countries would have a high GDP is probably from resource export, since most of the material to make transistors, ect. for our laptops and cell phones come from Africa, not to mention the diamond trade.
So, as GDP might rise in these countries, more and more of the people will be dropping out of school to work in the mines, ect. so we can have our ipods, ect.
So the question is prosperous to who? not the Africans.
yes GDP isn't directly related to standard of living but it is an indicator of how good it is. the higher a nations gdp the better its standard of living, the lower down it goes the worse the standard gets
why dont you spend the rest of your life in iraq then? see how quickly youll start begging people to listen to hitchens. nobody wants a war, but sometimes we need the lesser of two evils.
Name one example of someone who actually thinks it's a good idea to continue the illegal occupation of Iraq. Now the en vogue position is to ignore Iraq and escalate in Afghanistan. The warmongering never ends. Remember how people forgot about Afghanistan for the past 6 years and focused on Iraq? Now we are bombarded (no pun intended) with incessant warmongering propaganda to send more troops to Afghanistan again. The charade never ends, the war party always wins, just ask Peace Laureate Obama.
I agree with Hitchins on most things, but not on Iraq. Let's get out and let the chaos begin. That will show the Muslim World a microcosm of their planned "unified" Caliphate -- which would disintigrate into waring fiefdoms, as did the first Caliphate. So maybe it's better to cut off an arm to save the body (and the world).
I don't know if I agree with you..or not. I think by saving Iraq we may be screwing ourselves..how ever I am optimistic in the goodness of each man...great I wont be able to sleep tonight...thanks haha
Consequences of leaving iraq: people will die and there will be chaos?
Oh, well hot shit. we had better stay there for another 30 years and try and prevent that from happening. For fuck's sake, iraq has already been through british imperial map slicing, decades of a dictator supported by the US government, and more recently sectarian violence and a foreign occupation.
for the benefit of iraq, we had better stay there and clean things up before they get out of hand.
wow, shut the fuck up you ignorant idiot. you say "deeply routed".. give me a break. our founding fathers were NOT christians, in fact, thomas jefferson was strongly against christianity, and benjamin franklin was a well known atheist at the time.
and what is your basis for which you rank the greatness of a country? if you base it on who owes china the most money, or who is the most laughed at country in the world for their arrogance (err, i mean patriotism) then im guessing you would be right
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Hitchens is an enigmatic contradiction of a man, atheist, marxist, Wilsonian, neo con, Jeffersonian, humanist, socialist, constitutionalist, post modernist, moral relativist, anti-jihadist, what will it be today Christopher? So many of these things are volatile to one another and utterly incompatible.
I wouldn't say he is inconsistent; his opinions on individual subjects rarely ever seem to change. If anything, his various stances are simply incongruous with one another.
He's not a republican, as he explicitely said, or marxist or whatever. Neither is him defending the constitution or biographing Jefferson reason to believe that he agrees with Jefferson on every issue and is to be called jeffersonian. If Hitchens supports intervention you may safely assume that he therefore is not. One's opinion is not bound by one's support for a party or political idea. You don't become republican and therefore oppose gay marriage ... wait. Well atleast you're not supposed to.
He explicitly considers himself a Troskyian Marxist, so these inconsistencies are nuances or cherry picking when expressed by Hitchens but intellectually indefensible in another/ Quite a double standard.
Not anymore. There is a video on youtube 'Why Christopher Hitchens Called Himself a Trotskyist' and an article on reason:com (Google 'free radical reason', first entry) that addresses this. Though, I must not give you the impression that I'm authoritative on this subject. However, I fail to see how inconsistency can be problematic concerning political opinion. For example, one may find democracy the best political system and oppose its initiation in, say, Russia or Iraq for practical reasons.
He released recently a book with another historian precisely debunking the myth of the "progressist, moderate and plural humanist Trotsky". They show him as another fanatic Stalin that simply was killed over a dark power dispute. Hitchens was in his youth a marxist and knew people of the comunist wing in England, but that belongs to his prehistory. I think Hitchens goes beyond these extreme left/right name callings and doesnt fit into it.
In an interview from 2008 he proclaimed himself a Trotsky adherent and spoke favorably of Marxism to the Hoover Institution at Stanford, i believe it can be google or youtubed effectively, if I'm not mistaken the publication National Review has it on their website.
I agree with Hitchens. My parents were from South-East Asia, after the U.S. withdrew from the Vietnam War, the people who supported the U.S. were persecuted and my parents had to flee. I'm with most of you, the war in Iraq was fuckin retarded, the U.S. took a bad action, they have to take responsibility.
Hitchens: "We could strike Al Quaeda force in Iran."
Al Quaeda? in Iran?! Did he get his political education from Jon McCain? Al Quaeda are Sunni Wahabiists, they have no place in Shi'a-ruled Iran other than staging terror attacks for the US. I'm not sure if Hitchens really knows what he's talking about...
you, sir, need to do some reading yourself. it is blatantly evident that the remaining al quaeda forces are indeed positioned on the borders of both pakistan AND iran. in fact, this is what has been so frustrating about this war against al quaeda; that we have been unable to completely root them out because of their locations. hitchens does know what he is talking about in this case and is correct about his views on this topic.
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
In Slovenia and Croatia muslim population never reached more than couple of percents. The majority was always christians, far from fundamentalists... In fact long years of communism / socialism made Yugoslavia pretty much secular.
Dashcan - the saints who converted Britain to Christianity were THEMSELVES threatened by the Viking raiders all along the Northumbrian coastline.
So to suggest St. Cuthbert, St. Aidan, St. Bede etc. threatened or coerced the British to convert is ridiculous. Cuthbert and his followers were forced from their home on Holy Island off the Northumberland coast by Scandinavian invaders. They were peaceful Christians, plain and simple.
Why were you guys even discussing this? Last I checked the possibility of Iraq splintering apart has little to no correlation to the spread of Christianity.
So FiachBuay87, you accept that you were wrong after all - the Celts DID accept the Christian God. You originally said they didn't, now you acknowledge that they did.
A Cultural Anthropology major who says:
"that one was even on the history channel".
Right.
Now, I live 200 yards from the tombs of St. Cuthbert and the Venerable Bede. They did not coerce people to convert - Bede was a scholar and a monk. You are a semi-literate American who lies about being an academic.
fucking ads, it was 4:00am in the morning over here and it woke the household up.
sstuddert 1 month ago
@sstuddert Install AdBlock Plus, it blocks all kinds of ads including YouTube ones. ;)
Task5003 1 month ago
Good. Filthy yankee terrorists, fuck off to your homeland.
OneProvidence 1 month ago
@OneProvidence Way to over misunderstand and over genearlise a major world issue
iseezapie 4 weeks ago
I love it how ppl love Hitchens when he's taking down religious ppl, and right wing ppl but as soon as this comes out. All of a sudden NOW hes a bigot. Not that he merely has an OPINION that may be different than what you have. Just accept that the man can maintain his individuality and intellect despite that he disagrees with you. But apparently ppl can not. The world bigot = ppl who can't stand another opinion but their own. That's the group thinking mentality that the gov wants. GJ.
Sumoto999 2 months ago
hitchens is a tool and a coward.
pAbedaNSK 5 months ago
@pAbedaNSK
A tool...well, that's you're call.
A coward however, he was most certainly not.
braydenbeautiful 1 month ago
Who gives a fuck about Iraq!? I care about my own country not rebuilding a country that is utterly hopeless to rebuild. Mark my words folks, once we leave the Iraqis will resort back to their old ways. Stop interfering in other nations affairs America and you won't create more people like Bin Laden.
Scjrd91 5 months ago
I disagree quite a bit with Hitchens on Iraq, but I disagree with his conclusions, not his formidable knowledge of facts. That's what's wrong with politics- nobody knows facts. Personally, I'm okay with the hypothetical conclusion that Iran and the Saudis would divvy up Iraq. It's a horrible state of affairs, I don't want that to happen, but that's the reality of that part of the world. I find it much worse that we're holding a gun to Iraq's head and telling them they must be democratic.
7j8i9m 6 months ago
Hoover rolls his eyes at 3:06 - what a bitch. You're interviewing the man, let him fucking finish his statement.
GiveMeClarity 8 months ago
the comparison with yugoslavia is incongruous at any rate, because most of its successor states already existed in some form previously and simply reverted to their independence.
ModernBabylon 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It can be clearlly seen that this is a dating site benaughtyman.info
niwanthiumara 9 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
usa are there for two reasons.1 control of the oil 2.eliminate one the of threats towards israel. both understandable from a geopolitical stand ofpoint. no need for this "political stability" and "protection of local freedoms" flat out rubish.hitchens is of jewish decent so we understand chris.enough with this weak moral justification of the occupation of a country
mskidi 9 months ago
@PlanetOfTheAtheist
and proud of it.
GreatImperium 10 months ago
@PlanetOfTheAtheist The conflict taking place today in the middle east isnt only SHia vs sunni, its primarily secular western backed dictators vs Muslims. I think youve seen many of USA's friends toppled recently like Mubarak of Egypt, ben ali of tunisia-puppet of france, saleh of Yemen soon to go... saudi King as well
chek out this 2 minute cartoon explain how USA conquered and controls the 3rd world
/watch?v=n7Fzm1hEiDQ
frozenimran 10 months ago
@PlanetOfTheAtheist Fuck hitchens, USA has created a huge mess. As a Muslim and taking History into account of British and French colonialism fallowed by British and USA puppets that forced secularism upon Muslims... Islam is our natural disposition, if USA continues to fund secular war lords then wars will continue. USA sponsoring of dictators of saudi, yemen, paksitan, egypt and so on has created much hatred towards USA... Best for USA to get out so we can take out these rulers
frozenimran 10 months ago
The Saudis, the Iranians, the factions within Iraq, don't you love how much the muslims under Islam love and support each other?
MaskedMarvyl 11 months ago
and still, not our problem
hempartist420 1 year ago
We have to protect "our" oil, oil pipeline, and poppy fields. How dare some other dictators try to take what we could steal or have already been stealing. They are all NaziTerroristCommiePeacehaters and must all die. I would almost bet this could have been uttered word for word by several key members of our fkn gov't.
ShaggyShagz13 1 year ago
Comment removed
DJSpinoza 1 year ago
@DJSpinoza moron you have no clue what he is saying. Go back and listen to what he has to say and analyze it.
Now fuck off
xn117 1 year ago
@xn117 Hitchens is a is full of shit , 100,000 Iraqis dead since the invasion, a million displaced complete anarchy out side the green zone. Even if this was not an illegal war it was still an abject failure in military terms. Troops home these guys have been fucked up enough for Haliburton. Hitchens is talking through his rear end needs to go back to drinking gin and tonics in his Manhattan penthouse, he has no idea what goes on in the real world. Neither do you by all accounts.
DJSpinoza 1 year ago
@DJSpinoza Those deaths are related to the Sunni vs Shia violence.
It is irresponsible to blame all those deaths on the US.
xn117 1 year ago
@xn117 Oh so there is 100, 000 dead because of Iraqi on Iraqi violence - I thought the official reason the US had 50,000 troops in Iraq was to prevent them slaughtering one other? Okay so if US troops are doing nothing useful then why not bring them home?
DJSpinoza 1 year ago
@DJSpinoza You think everything goes as plan and just because troops are there means everything will be okay?
I don't know - I think the troops did a heroic job and it will be remembered for years to come. I hope you're not painting the coalition as war criminals and mass murders, right?
xn117 1 year ago
@xn117 you think 100,000 deaths are "not everything going to plan" ? I'm not painting them them as anything they do that to themselves by being in breach of the The Nuremberg Principles list “Crimes against peace” punishable under international law as...
DJSpinoza 1 year ago
@DJSpinoza Under international law it is illegal to wage a war of aggression (which saddam did), commit genocide (which saddam did), harbor international terrorists (which saddam did) and violate the sovereignty of other counties (which saddam did, iran, kuwait, etc).
xn117 1 year ago
@xn117 Donald Rumsfeld visit Hussein in1983 and 1984 and make the Iraq the third-largest recipient of US military hardware in the world. So why in 1990 in a meeting with US ambassador April Glaspie, a week before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait dis she say this " have a direct instruction from the President to seek better relations with Iraq. I know you need funds. .... But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.""
DJSpinoza 1 year ago
@DJSpinoza Yes. It was a stain on our history. I'm not denying that. It was a HUGE mistake - we should of never armed saddam or given him any aide.
xn117 1 year ago
Respond to this video... (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; (ii) Participation of a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).”
DJSpinoza 1 year ago
@DJSpinoza He acts oh so intelligent. However if he was so smart why did he go along with one of the biggest and most transparent lies of the last few decades. Hes either foolish enough to go along with master Bush or he was paid to go along with it.
hsybcmpny 1 year ago
He's so drunk!
mntlPurple 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hitchens is such a fool.
Hitchens, 1976:
"And it has a leader — Saddam Hussain — who has sprung from being an underground revolutionary gunman to perhaps the first visionary Arab statesman since Nasser."
Osama Bin Ladem attacked the US because of the US Federal State occupying the Arabian Peninsula and funding Israel, not because of jihadism/islamism.
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
It is so sadly predictable. The reign of the dollar is falling apart. The USA wants to force the OPEC countries to keep oil trading in U.S. dollar. After Iraq, they will invade Iran.
And after Iran, they will invade Venezuela (but only if they can't remove the current government through coups).
WorldAgainstUSA 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 Woah. That is some hysterical ranting if I've ever read it! If you think that the liberation of the Iraqi people from their WMD using totalitarian dictator was a "massacre" I can only say that the level of disconnect from you and reality (and morality) is SO LARGE that I hope you don't have children, own guns, or drive automobiles - I don't think you have the proper level of rationality or ethics. That being said, your number of causalities is way off - no big surprise there.
1rstbreath 1 year ago
@qwertypoiu4321
Oh now I see...you run around copying the same tired old nonsensical copypasta on every video of hitchens that exists on youtube.
I now realize the kind of boring, repetitive, attention-seeking, anti-intellectual drone I'm dealing with. Try harder next time. Hint: Read a book first.
BelfastAtheist 1 year ago
When the Soviet Union left Afghanistan it also left it in shambles but that's not an argument for the Soviet Occupation.
What we should do is leave, let the UN army take care of it, and pay reparations fo illegally invading Iraq.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician What is an UN army?
RUBENSolol 1 year ago
@RUBENSolol
It's a multinational force of peackeepers which is controlled by the UN.
There were only two US wars where the UN voted to authorize the UN army, Korea and the Gulf War.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
@RUBENSolol Blue hats?
reinforcedpenisstem 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician , I don't profess to be an expert but I'm not sure the UN could handle it. It would have more legitimacy for sure but how would you persuade other countries to commit troops and resources to clean up a mess created by a coalition which had blatantly circumvented UN resolutions and protocol and invaded illegally. It's such a mess. Would it have been such a greater evil to allow Saddam to continue until we had at least formulated a better plan with international support?
jimbob1969 1 year ago
@jimbob1969
I never said I was for overthrowing Saddam in the first place (I'm not) I'm saying now that we're in this mess we might as well try to get the UN to take care of it (which it's capable of doing).
Although I see what you mean, a vote to authorize the UN army might get struck down because China and Russia might just vote it down.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician right and we should have let a theocratic facistic dictator subject his people to daily torture rape and oppresion.. if you dont stand for these folks who may hate us now but in 100 years will be much better for what weve done then your a pathetic excuse for a human being
NotAG4yName 1 year ago
@NotAG4yName
Hey remember when the US congress gave Saddam 70 shipments of anthrax in the 80s? Around the same time he was gassing the Kurds?
Something tells me you stand by those folks.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician not at all war crimes are war crimes no matter who commits them and anyone who does should be brought to justice...just dont say the invasion of iraq was unjustified
NotAG4yName 1 year ago
@NotAG4yName
lol so Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and basically the entire Bush white house should be tried?
It was completely unjustified, why don't we just invade Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia for war crimes while we're at it.
By your standard there would be like 20 countries who would need to be invaded.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician in my opinion even though i know its unrealistic they should be forced to have a regime change to a secular democracy
NotAG4yName 1 year ago
@NotAG4yName
I disagree and think we shouldn't be intervening to begin with.
The only reason why the Baathists controlled Iraq was because of the CIA assisted in the 60s coup.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician Agreed. People forget that the middle-east and its modern problems are a large product of Anglo-American intervention.
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician: "The only reason why the Baathists controlled Iraq was because of the CIA assisted in the 60s coup. Therefore, we should not have intervened". This logic does not follow. Just because we are responsible for Saddam's brutal rule, does not mean we cannot remove him from power. On the contrary, it seems to me a US responsibility means that removing Saddam would be a moral obligation on our part, to end the cruelty and fascism we created.
athabascka 1 year ago
@athabascka
It just reinforces the idea that the US has a right to intervene even against the UN charter. Most times we intervened it wasn't for the benefit of the people.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician: I think the UN was wrong to be against the intervention, the UN really lat the people of Iraq down. I wish we could have done this without a single tragic death, but it appears our enemies were not going to let us.
athabascka 1 year ago
@athabascka
Oh right, the UN was totally wrong on this issue and the US liberated Iraq?
Ignoring that cancer rates in Fallujah are higher in Hiroshima (and other atrocities), we were not the reason Iraq became a "democracy".
It was protests of 100,000 shiites in early 2004 (which the US was against) that prompted the war planners to hold elections.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician: I do think the UN was wrong on the issue. If the UN cannot free people from the sort of tyranny that was defeated in WW2, what is the point of it?
I'm not sure why cancer rates would be higher in Fallujah than Hiroshina. I didnt say i believe the US had the most moral policy of liberating Iraq.
The US was wrong in opposing the Shiites. I support democracy, and self determination of peoples.
athabascka 1 year ago
@athabascka
But your missing the point, the US went in for "regime change" and had protests not happened, it would of continued to be a US puppet state. The US wasn't interested in freedom either, and the rational given was then known to be knowingly false (WMDs etc.).
If you were for Iraqi freedom, having another country invade it wasn't the way to go.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician: A US puppet state is more free than the country Saddam was running.
athabascka 1 year ago
@athabascka
I wouldn't be so sure (if you recall Saddam got his chemical weapons from the US), and plus saying that your for freedom but are willing to settle for a US puppet state isn't very solid.
At any rate, it extends US control and leads into the US gaining enough power until it overthrows democratic states.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
its a very hard thing for me to choose a side on. They stay in the middle east, we keep the terrorists on the run, but the world community hates us for sticking our nose where it doesnt belong. Then if we leave, terrorists come back and citizens start vanishing in the middle of the night and poverty hits hard but we look better to the world community
Hitsulikeapunch 1 year ago
@Hitsulikeapunch Fuck what we "look like" do what's right.
FreneticArray 1 year ago
@FreneticArray ok but whats "right?"
Hitsulikeapunch 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hitchens is a fool. He just babbles on about religion to make foolish progressives(Maher) think Thug Militarism is a Progressive, Atheist position. Focus on the Pope, get your eyes off of the State. Focus on the Pope, get your eyes off of Bush and O-bomb-a.
randyguitarman13 1 year ago
As someone who has spent a year over there, I have seen first hand why we cant just pull out of Iraq. It would be an absolute blood bath, the issue is how many generations are we going to have to wait for before their culture changes? Muslims live and die by the sword over there. It is part of their culture. The kurdish people are amazing. They want and are ready for change, its the southern part of the country that is fighting amoungst themselves.
hitman1421 1 year ago
Does anybdoy know where Hitchens gets his 4 conditions for a state to lose its sovereignty from?
masudrules 1 year ago
@masudrules I think it´s no more than common sense rather than from some philosopher, to be fair, it seems like a reasonable set.
yatter1 1 year ago
@yatter1 It does, but I don't think those 4 conditions are considered legitimate for a state to lose its sovereignty in the eyes of, say, the UN.
masudrules 1 year ago
Hitchens fucking rocks
xn117 1 year ago
@xn117 Well the chances of him fucking anything human are low.
ZwolfZki 1 year ago
Hitchens for President!
321lawc 1 year ago 23
Hithcnes is dead on. No one stays isolated in that part of the world, everything is run by the sword. Conquering and spreading one's own sect of Islamism is what Arabia is all about. Fucking lunatics, the U.S. must stay there for a million more reasons as well as the ones Hitchnes gives.
moezephead 2 years ago
@moezephead
"the U.S. must stay there for a million more reasons as well as the ones Hitchnes gives"
too bad 71% of Iraqis say they would like US led forces to leave.
and only 14% say that US is having a positive influence on Iraq.
but what the hell does there opinion count!
imperialist mindset at its best.
nasri1011 1 year ago
@nasri1011 Imperialist mindset??? What country has the U.S. imperialised in the near past??? The U.S, is actually the fist country in the world to drop imperialism and realized that diplomacy is better than imperialism. Or else why is Japan still Japan, and Germany still Germany?
moezephead 1 year ago
@nasri1011 Most Iraqi's are ignorant Islamic peasants who couldn't figure a tiny percantage of the amazing advances in humanity and technology that the U.S., and Israel for that matter, has discovered and developed. Would a country full of KKK members deserve credibility with any of their opinions if they don't disavow or reform their insane and harmful creed???
moezephead 1 year ago
@nasri1011 You Leftists/Arabs just don't get it. Morality and altruism does exist within human beings and nation states that do not provide citizens individual liberties do not deserve the title of a free nation that has as much opinion and sway as other more developed nation states in the world. You're very wrong and mistaken Nasri1011, Islam is the most brutal and horrific form of imperialism that exists, or perhaps that ever existed.
moezephead 1 year ago
@moezephead
how am i supposed to respond to that level of stupidity...
can't you see the irony?
nasri1011 1 year ago
@nasri1011 ... what stupidity, what irony?? please explain yourself
moezephead 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
dwbryant3, u are a fukin tool. with a shitty iq, i highly suggest u shut ur nigger loving ass the fuck up
pAbedaNSK 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
debryant please, stfu, im the best chess player in the world, smart enough for you??? fgt.
pAbedaNSK 2 years ago
@pAbedaNSK since when being good at chess automatically equates to being smart? I know it does, but since when? i'm sorry i guess that's neither here nor there.
x2thay 1 year ago
Spurious points made by Hitchens.The Saudis wouldn't get involved in any war.The royal family(30,000 strong)are too busy having a great life ,to ever contemplate a war..Iran wouldn't think of invading Iraq,as its government is 2 fragile,and its population + armed forces traumatised by the earlier war against iraq. .AS for Syria invading?The Kurds would prove too strong for them and the terrain impassable for any syrian invasion force.Hitchen's hypothetical scenario doesnt hold water.,
peppermintpaddy 2 years ago
Yeah shame the Surge worked do you disagree
EasyEs 2 years ago
youre so full of shit-what are you doing now-stalking me -you sad twat?the surge has nothing on the surge of shite that comes out of your gob!
peppermintpaddy 2 years ago
ultimately, Hitchens is an asshole for supporting the war. 20 year olds have died or have come back with no legs, (my opinion worse) they will never have the oppurtunity to reach the age he did or even attempt to gather the knowledge or enjoy the life that he did for many years
pAbedaNSK 2 years ago
When you use words like "asshole" in your argument, you discredit yourself from any sense of intellectual capacity.
dwbryant3 2 years ago 16
@dwbryant3: When you reject someone's argument because of the words they're using to make it, you discredit yourself from any sense of intellectual capacity.
LordCustard 1 year ago 10
@dwbryant3 I don't know who you're talking about, but explain to me how, when someone uses a curse word, it indicates their own credulousness?
patrick112590 1 year ago
@patrick112590 The word you are looking for is "credability" not credulousness. I'm saying that when someone chooses to use curse words in their argument, it makes them sound like they really don't have an argument because it seems as if they are counting on those words to have a negative impact on their opponent. It doesn't matter if the person is highly intelligent; those words make it seem like they are trying to "cover up" the inadequacy of their argument with harsh language.
dwbryant3 1 year ago
@dwbryant3 No, I used the proper word. You might want to read my comment again. You're probably right about people who constantly use curse words, but that doesn't mean the occasional swear makes someone's argument fatuous.
patrick112590 1 year ago
@dwbryant3 Depends who you're arguing with!
reinforcedpenisstem 1 year ago
@dwbryant3 thank you
TheCage132 10 months ago
@dwbryant3 You asshole!
EllyMcCormack 10 months ago
@dwbryant3 I recommend that you watch the video called, "Stephen Fry on swearing" you might change your view.
drwptl786 9 months ago
@drwptl786 I very much enjoyed that video and stephen fry is definitely a legend. But what I'm saying is the curse word can't be the focal point of the argument. It simply has to supplement the argument and make it more persuasive and more colorful. Just my opinion...
dwbryant3 9 months ago
@dwbryant3
Why? Swearing is used by most people, including those of high intellect. Ad hominem attacks obviously hurt an argument, by just saying "asshole" does not in any way show low intellect.
hockeyman92 9 months ago
@hockeyman92 I should have been more clear. If the main point of your argument is you calling your opponent an "asshole," then it lacks any intellectual substance. Yes, colorful words can be used to enhance your argument, but they cannot be the focal point.
dwbryant3 9 months ago
@dwbryant3 Fair enough.
hockeyman92 9 months ago
I like HItchens' views on religion, but I really disagree with him here. What are we going to do? Continue to occupy Iraq indefintley? Perhaps, as Cindy Sheehan would say, "If he had some skin in the game", he'd view things differently.
This war has obviously been a con, and now we're supposed to continue this war indefinitly in order to prevent "violence and bloodshed"....ridiculous.
LambadLambadLambda 2 years ago
agree completely
surroundedbyfuckwads 2 years ago 4
Christopher Hitchens is the man!
JacoBass777 2 years ago
I'll believe anything coming from the mouth of an Oxford professor with an
English accent
MrAssbaron 2 years ago
lol. i hope youre being sarcastic
surroundedbyfuckwads 2 years ago
From Chris I'll buy swampland in Florida
or a vineyard on the moon. He's such
a smooth talker.
MrAssbaron 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
paulwilfridhunt 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Who else is with me that Hitchens' shiny forehead (don't worry, there is precious little contained in that Oxford-trained skull of his) makes an excellent example of a dangerous and radical, not to metion potentially violent, threat against mankind?
byron84 2 years ago
nope.
KCBLACKlung 2 years ago 2
au contraire. Radical Christians and radical Islamists are the threat against humanity. Violence towards people who kill and murder in the name of god is a social mandate that me and Christopher Hitchens are willing to serve. The people of Iraq and Afghanistan deserve more than the neglect you'd give them.
omgitsfed 2 years ago 2
I'm sure that you, Hitchens, and all other cowardly apologists for American imperialism and nation-building would prefer to sip martinis and read the New Yorker than defend your warmongering by actually going overseas to fight for what you allegedly believe in. Put up or shut up scumbag.
byron84 2 years ago
I've been talking to recruiters and am going to enlist in 2010 you presumptuous asswipe. Why else would I make such a claim? I'm either going to join as a US Army Calvary Scout, or see if I got what it takes to become a US Army Ranger. And no, I'm not an apologist for American imperialism for the simple fact that American imperialism straight fucking doesn't exist (save perhaps in Puerto Rico, but they really aren't bitching too much now are they?) I like that 'Put up or shut up' phrase btw
omgitsfed 2 years ago
The USA has (officially) over 700 military bases in around 130 different countries and territories, it currently continues an illegal military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and conducts illegal military operations in Pakistan, it has overthrown countless democratically elected governments, and it has meddled in the affairs of almost every single country in the Western Hemisphere and Middle East. And let's not forget Guam, American Samoa, and Hawaii in addition to PR. Empire? What empire?
byron84 2 years ago
hmm 700 military bases in 130 different countries.... Do we have sovereignty over any single one of these countries? Are there American parliaments in any of them? We aren't an Imperialist power, you could argue we're an 'Economic Imperialist power' but even that's a pretty big stretch. If you understood what Imperialism truly entails, you wouldn't so foolishly call us that. So I return your question, What Empire? over whom do we have domain?
omgitsfed 2 years ago 33
OK, forget the military bases. We have domain over Iraq and Afghanistan because we control their countries through the force of arms, and we prop up puppet leaders like Hamid Karzai through rigged elections. We illegally annexed Hawaii and we have domain over Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands and many other inhabited islands. Covert operations, destabilization and installation of puppet leaders also constitute dominion over other countries.
byron84 2 years ago
imperialism means you are trying to claim a nation for your own but america cant wait to get the hell out of iraq and afghanistan.
liber8me 2 years ago
@omgitsfed you are a fool. America is a Imperialist power
Orgyfan6 1 year ago
hows that?
eugdog106 1 year ago
@omgitsfed No parliaments but they are obsolete anyway. Money and political pressure is all you need now. And I agree with him, you have imperialist tendencies. I know you love your country, but sometimes you have to look with different eyes. Ask Mosadeq. ;)
nethoser 1 year ago
@omgitsfed They can ask us to go. It's not like we are there by force.
xn117 1 year ago
@omgitsfed However, one could make the argument that it's the start. Also, where did you get the 700 military bases in 130 countries figure?
playthefield21 1 year ago
@omgitsfed Over whom do we have dominion?
American Samoa (officially unorganized, although self-governing under authority of the U.S. Department of the Interior)
Guam (organized under Organic Act of 1950)
Northern Mariana Islands (commonwealth, organized under 1977 Covenant)
Puerto Rico (territory with commonwealth status, organized under terms of Puerto Rico-Federal Relations Act)
United States Virgin Islands (organized under Revised Organic Act of 1954)
But, I take it you didn't know that.
GaiusIuliusTaberna 1 year ago
@omgitsfed I use hegemony instead of Imperial. Imperial suggests we have an Emperor or an Empress. If we decide to go that route, I'll vote for Palin and Palpetine ehem .. I mean McCain.
kennegun 1 year ago
@omgitsfed Actually, you have. Puerto Rico is one example.
WorldAgainstUSA 1 year ago
@WorldAgainstUSA Puerto Rico is an American territory in which the great majority of people on the island want to remain part of the United States. It is also the most prosperous island in the Caribbean by far. Go there sometime and have a look for yourself.
Dominick629 1 year ago
dont forget the countless attemped coups against Hugo Chavez
Ilikenuman 2 years ago
@omgitsfed American imperialism doesn't exist? Wow.. you are just the type of person that the military is looking for.. dumbed down and ready to serve.
Of course we have an empire.. what else would you call 700 military bases in 130 different counties? It's definitely not a fucking country club that's for sure.
smokestackeroo 2 years ago
Read 6 comments down and you'll see why the Imperialism in the brutish sense that you think it is, doesn't actually exist. It takes an uneducated assumption to derive that 700 military bases in 130 different countries automatically equates to an empire. So I'll repeat my question to you... out of those 130 nations, over how many do we have ANY domain?
omgitsfed 2 years ago
@omgitsfed we have economic domain over most countries out there.. we have been exporting our debt to other counties through our fiat money system for decades. we run up debt with countries, and then years later end up paying them off with devalued paper dollars. If countries don't accept our economic hegemony, then we bomb them. Just because it isn't an empire in the Roman sense doesn't mean that it isn't neo-imperialism. Don't call me uneducated when are the one joining the military.
smokestackeroo 2 years ago
If you actually read my reply more carefully, you'd notice that I never called you uneducated, but merely stated that your assumption was(perhaps I inadvertently struck a nerve?). Your other assumption about uneducated people joining the military is distasteful and (fortunately) inaccurate. I'd be the first to point out that some of my friends who have joined the military are as dumb as a rock, but that sweeping generalization doesn't give credit to the many capable men & women serving today.
omgitsfed 2 years ago
Furthermore, it cannot be denied that Saddam threatening to switch the sale of his oil from the Dollar to the Euro was a major cause of the liberation of Iraq. But no war in the history of humanity has ever been waged without economic interest (usually outweighing the moral) except for the case of religious war. We should by every means also intervene in the genocide at Darfur, but alas there is no economic interest worth risking a few soldiers for the thousands of innocents being butchered.
omgitsfed 2 years ago
@omgitsfed The causes of Darfur run deeper than just stopping the killing. There is much poverty in Africa partly because the west has been taking their resources from them for centuries. Intervening would not help, although changing our foreign policy would. It's our neo-imperialism that puts us in these countries with bases, trying to tell them how to live based on our economic concerns. The constitution doesn't give America the right to be the policeman of the world. Although neocons disagree
smokestackeroo 2 years ago
Africa is not in as bad of a position as the western media likes to make it out to be.
In fact Africa is very prosperous in certain areas.
Of the47 countries in sub-Saharan Africa only 5 have active conflicts, Sudan, Chad, Uganda, Congo and Somalia.
and according to many economists 2 yrs ago, Africa recorded its highest GDP in 20 yrs, and at least 16 African countries have sovereign credit ratings.
LordMalice6d9 2 years ago
GDP isn't really connected to standard of living. The only reason these countries would have a high GDP is probably from resource export, since most of the material to make transistors, ect. for our laptops and cell phones come from Africa, not to mention the diamond trade.
So, as GDP might rise in these countries, more and more of the people will be dropping out of school to work in the mines, ect. so we can have our ipods, ect.
So the question is prosperous to who? not the Africans.
smokestackeroo 2 years ago
yes GDP isn't directly related to standard of living but it is an indicator of how good it is. the higher a nations gdp the better its standard of living, the lower down it goes the worse the standard gets
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
or north korea
pokerstaaars 2 years ago
why dont you spend the rest of your life in iraq then? see how quickly youll start begging people to listen to hitchens. nobody wants a war, but sometimes we need the lesser of two evils.
Ilikenuman 2 years ago
Name one example of someone who actually thinks it's a good idea to continue the illegal occupation of Iraq. Now the en vogue position is to ignore Iraq and escalate in Afghanistan. The warmongering never ends. Remember how people forgot about Afghanistan for the past 6 years and focused on Iraq? Now we are bombarded (no pun intended) with incessant warmongering propaganda to send more troops to Afghanistan again. The charade never ends, the war party always wins, just ask Peace Laureate Obama.
byron84 2 years ago
I agree with Hitchins on most things, but not on Iraq. Let's get out and let the chaos begin. That will show the Muslim World a microcosm of their planned "unified" Caliphate -- which would disintigrate into waring fiefdoms, as did the first Caliphate. So maybe it's better to cut off an arm to save the body (and the world).
polyglot8 2 years ago
I don't know if I agree with you..or not. I think by saving Iraq we may be screwing ourselves..how ever I am optimistic in the goodness of each man...great I wont be able to sleep tonight...thanks haha
EasyEs 2 years ago
Consequences of leaving iraq: people will die and there will be chaos?
Oh, well hot shit. we had better stay there for another 30 years and try and prevent that from happening. For fuck's sake, iraq has already been through british imperial map slicing, decades of a dictator supported by the US government, and more recently sectarian violence and a foreign occupation.
for the benefit of iraq, we had better stay there and clean things up before they get out of hand.
intercourseman69 2 years ago 3
i may be wrong here ,but are you not allowed to change your opinion, on any matter. with more info you surely are.?
juddy1108 2 years ago 3
It is written in the Bible (Galatians 6:7):
'Be not deceived; God is not mocked:
for whatsoever a man sow,
that shall he also reap.
Tancredo Neves (President of Brazil ):
During the Presidential campaign, he said if he got 500,000 votes from his party, not even God would remove him from Presidency.
Sure he got the votes, but he got sick a day before being made President, then he died.
john2000young 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This is a country deeply rooted in Christianity. It is still the strongest and best country in the world. Hitchen's "rationale" has no ground.
He should go back to England or immigrate to North Korea, a country ruled by a grounp of atheists. They will love to have him
john2000young 2 years ago
wow, shut the fuck up you ignorant idiot. you say "deeply routed".. give me a break. our founding fathers were NOT christians, in fact, thomas jefferson was strongly against christianity, and benjamin franklin was a well known atheist at the time.
and what is your basis for which you rank the greatness of a country? if you base it on who owes china the most money, or who is the most laughed at country in the world for their arrogance (err, i mean patriotism) then im guessing you would be right
shackelfrdace69 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hitchens is an enigmatic contradiction of a man, atheist, marxist, Wilsonian, neo con, Jeffersonian, humanist, socialist, constitutionalist, post modernist, moral relativist, anti-jihadist, what will it be today Christopher? So many of these things are volatile to one another and utterly incompatible.
Speegs23 2 years ago
He is simply eclectic and not bound by intellectual sectarianism.
XxxNuMbxxX0301 2 years ago 3
I see, "eclectic" because he's published instead of inconsistent, sort of how a rich man is "eccentric" and not mentally unstable.
Speegs23 2 years ago
I wouldn't say he is inconsistent; his opinions on individual subjects rarely ever seem to change. If anything, his various stances are simply incongruous with one another.
XxxNuMbxxX0301 2 years ago 2
Can you present us a quote or a passage from one of his writings where he openly contradicts himself?
smiledammit24 2 years ago
Well for one thing how can one be a marxist and a republican (small "r", I don't speak of partisanship)
A jeffersonian and a neo-con, Jefferson was a non-interventionalist and agrarian and while neo-cons are Wilsonian liberals in different packaging.
How can one tout pluralism and then go on a crusade against the religious?
He has some very apparent discrepancies at play.
Speegs23 2 years ago
He's not a republican, as he explicitely said, or marxist or whatever. Neither is him defending the constitution or biographing Jefferson reason to believe that he agrees with Jefferson on every issue and is to be called jeffersonian. If Hitchens supports intervention you may safely assume that he therefore is not. One's opinion is not bound by one's support for a party or political idea. You don't become republican and therefore oppose gay marriage ... wait. Well atleast you're not supposed to.
uuaschbaer 2 years ago
He explicitly considers himself a Troskyian Marxist, so these inconsistencies are nuances or cherry picking when expressed by Hitchens but intellectually indefensible in another/ Quite a double standard.
Speegs23 2 years ago
Not anymore. There is a video on youtube 'Why Christopher Hitchens Called Himself a Trotskyist' and an article on reason:com (Google 'free radical reason', first entry) that addresses this. Though, I must not give you the impression that I'm authoritative on this subject. However, I fail to see how inconsistency can be problematic concerning political opinion. For example, one may find democracy the best political system and oppose its initiation in, say, Russia or Iraq for practical reasons.
uuaschbaer 2 years ago
He released recently a book with another historian precisely debunking the myth of the "progressist, moderate and plural humanist Trotsky". They show him as another fanatic Stalin that simply was killed over a dark power dispute. Hitchens was in his youth a marxist and knew people of the comunist wing in England, but that belongs to his prehistory. I think Hitchens goes beyond these extreme left/right name callings and doesnt fit into it.
danielrep 2 years ago
In an interview from 2008 he proclaimed himself a Trotsky adherent and spoke favorably of Marxism to the Hoover Institution at Stanford, i believe it can be google or youtubed effectively, if I'm not mistaken the publication National Review has it on their website.
Speegs23 2 years ago
Yes, precisely at interview with the guy of Hoover Inst. Peter Robertson is where I saw it. I f you want, paste this exact phrase at Google:
"Trotsky with Hitchens and Service: Chapter 5 of 5"
danielrep 2 years ago
it's really refreshing to hear some intelligent conversation on the issue. Hitchens is great
MosulRapist 2 years ago
I agree with Hitchens. My parents were from South-East Asia, after the U.S. withdrew from the Vietnam War, the people who supported the U.S. were persecuted and my parents had to flee. I'm with most of you, the war in Iraq was fuckin retarded, the U.S. took a bad action, they have to take responsibility.
zombieiscool 2 years ago
Hitchens was one of the most vocal supporters of the war and in fact believes they waited too long ans should've been in there many years earlier.
QwidgyboMan 2 years ago
Hitchens = Lying sellout.
TheInsaneGoon 2 years ago
isnt this guy a queer?
burnthermit 2 years ago
Hitchens: "We could strike Al Quaeda force in Iran."
Al Quaeda? in Iran?! Did he get his political education from Jon McCain? Al Quaeda are Sunni Wahabiists, they have no place in Shi'a-ruled Iran other than staging terror attacks for the US. I'm not sure if Hitchens really knows what he's talking about...
Hohlmackenreiter 2 years ago
you, sir, need to do some reading yourself. it is blatantly evident that the remaining al quaeda forces are indeed positioned on the borders of both pakistan AND iran. in fact, this is what has been so frustrating about this war against al quaeda; that we have been unable to completely root them out because of their locations. hitchens does know what he is talking about in this case and is correct about his views on this topic.
wolfman2431 2 years ago 2
Listen...he said Iraq not Iran
harryhaul 2 years ago
i respect hitchens
eugdog106 2 years ago 4
Hitchens is such an oppurtunistic sellout when he pushes the Neo-Con/Lib Imperialist nonsense.
IrminC 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
markpianoman 2 years ago
In Slovenia and Croatia muslim population never reached more than couple of percents. The majority was always christians, far from fundamentalists... In fact long years of communism / socialism made Yugoslavia pretty much secular.
marjan15 2 years ago 4
Good.
FightDPower 2 years ago
Dashcan - the saints who converted Britain to Christianity were THEMSELVES threatened by the Viking raiders all along the Northumbrian coastline.
So to suggest St. Cuthbert, St. Aidan, St. Bede etc. threatened or coerced the British to convert is ridiculous. Cuthbert and his followers were forced from their home on Holy Island off the Northumberland coast by Scandinavian invaders. They were peaceful Christians, plain and simple.
joelhowells 3 years ago
Why were you guys even discussing this? Last I checked the possibility of Iraq splintering apart has little to no correlation to the spread of Christianity.
Smaug84 3 years ago
So FiachBuay87, you accept that you were wrong after all - the Celts DID accept the Christian God. You originally said they didn't, now you acknowledge that they did.
A Cultural Anthropology major who says:
"that one was even on the history channel".
Right.
Now, I live 200 yards from the tombs of St. Cuthbert and the Venerable Bede. They did not coerce people to convert - Bede was a scholar and a monk. You are a semi-literate American who lies about being an academic.
And must you write lol?
joelhowells 3 years ago 2