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
Interesting debate. However, I think many of the commenters have followed the speakers into forgetting the issues at hand and focussing instead on argumentative ability.
Making a good case for something does not necessarily mean you are right.
five years later and it much harder to argue the war was a blunder. just because the war should be been conducted more strategically doesn't say anything about the fundamental justness of the war
Of course it was to steal the natural resources of weaker countries. Frankly there is no problem with that. It's always been that way in the history of humankind and always will be. In the end of the day, it's all about who has the best weapons.
Hitchens is confused with the iraq war and liberating iraq as if they were the same thing ignoring history. Is he this ignorant of the fact he admits he doesn't support the war strategy, but does support taking advantage of the aftermath and doing some good in the mist of corruption. Like a religious fanatic he stubbornly confuses the 2 agendas.
@ghadnaz I think the people who should be most humiliated in that hall are the jeering liberal anti-war non thinkers who seem to have forgotten the first hour of substantive debate, and made fools of themselves by booing any noise that came out of Hitchens mouth after that worm Galloway won them over with Ad hominum attacks. You should learn a little something about Galloway's true character, and true agenda. Because only one man on that stage was lying through his teeth.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@adraim69 please explain to me the true character of GG, lets see if you can stay consistent and i'm a fan of hitch,let me guess? that he's for the muslim's? as if hitch is not? don't be a fool. or maybe a warmonger around the world? haha or maybe hes a terrorist who's actually picked up a weapon and used it, or lying about hitches inconsistency he himself admits, or making a case for liberation after the world exposes the iraq war fabrication. did i miss something, anti-war is a bad thing!
@ghadnaz more importantly, instead of just saying mean things about Galloway, I can back it up with CITATION. Don't take it from me, take it from the windbags mouth himself.
@ghadnaz I'd like to remind you that when Hitchens brought up Galloway's meeting with Saddam, GG promptly said Hitchens was lying, and nothing but a liar! If you want to talk about humiliation, lets talk about the people who actually fell for GGs demagoguery and pseudo-logical rhetoric.
@weejockpoopongmcplop abso-fucking-lutely........they both love the fact that they can craft responses. Nothing more. I even get the feeling Hitchens' mind-changing (1991-2003) was just a game to see if he could pull it off convincingly.
Both Hitchens and Galloway have given me a lot to consider.
For those who have half a brain (like Soloman and 1peoplesun above), who comments before any critical thinking just to praise Hitchens, you would do well to save yourself the embarrassment by not commenting.
As far as I see it, the only people who think we should still be in Iraq are people who believe that the flag of their country means more than another human life. I picture a lot of patriotic fools prior to the war; reassuring themselves, "Our boys will go over there, kick some ass, and everything will go back to normal." Wrong, the death toll still mounts. Since the U.S has denied various arab countries democracy ever since the Cold War, it is hardly suprising that they are a little cheesed off
people forget that the alternative to Galloway's proposition is to continue sending American troops into Iraq, continue to fuel anti-american sentiment in the arab world, and NO PEACE.
Stop fighting over who is a better speaker. Think of the potential lives and devastation at stake.
I cannot take seriously anyone blasting Galloway. This is one of the best debates I've seen in a while, despite how pitifully it fell victim to too many ad hominem attacks (committed on both sides). I simply love Hitchens, but I have to admit that Galloway is a very compelling speaker. Anyone here who says that one side won easily or that either one of these men are "dumb" is nothing else but an ideologue and a fool and don't deserve any respect accordingly.
Like Hitchens said in this debate: "Sometimes your own words are so discrediting, that nothing more needs to be said by me." So true.
Galloway is a hypocrite, as illustrated in this debate several times. There are enough video's on YT of George descrediting himself, that no objective person should take him seriously.
George Galloway is an embarrassment to Western civilizaton.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
people of america . if some other country invaded YOUR COUNTRY you would be fucked .your goverment, over the past 30 years ,has already brought you down to a level where the rest of the world ,see america, as the biggest threat to the planet.why do no american politicians talk this way,on your election debates its because, they are all backed by big buck companies , who want steal the wealth of any country that cant defend itself but beware, the tide is turning AT LAST
Hitchens is scraping the barrel for arguments and avoiding the main issues which are the unleashing of an illegal, imperialistic war benefiting the private armies of Cheney and his gang. Why not justify the British Empire for its building of railways in India? In this debate I think Galloway won on points.
My god Galloway loves the sound of his own voice and really comes over as a professional bullshitter. Whilst Hutchens can be a bit arrogant, he comes over far more honest in my view.
Great debate. Witnessing Hitchens' brilliance when confronted by a tough customer like Galloway is a pleasure. More worthy opponents vindicate both his craft and intelligence.
My first post somehow didn't work, here it is again:
Galloway wins this one. I would like to note that his rhetorical style is terrible; his shouting and hand gestures make him come off as a cross between a communist dictator and the schoolmaster from The Wall. Still, he won because he was consistent and forceful. He resorted to many ad hominem attacks, but Hitchen employed a comparable amount of logical fallacies. The quality of his arguments were generally marginally better.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Hitch, on the other hand, got flustered and was nearly in tears at times. I have never seen him lose his composure like this. He loses it by the end.
I've rarely seen Hitchens lose a debate, but I'd chalk his failure here more to an uncharacteristic breakdown than skill on Galloway's part. Neither of them put on an exceptionally great performance.
Punjabshere is a total moron dont pay attention to him, he seems to think that because the US doesn't have aperfectly clean slate that Saddam is totally innocent, and Hugo Chavez is his hero. Hes probably between 15 and 20 and thinks he's some sort of coffee-shop revolutionary. Still what can you expect, britain has really been sliding on its ass for the last century (should have kept its empire).
And you dont think so? Britain went from being the most powerful economy in the world to being so so. Especially with the stupid move of giving them all passports. Every country they left has went to shit. Keep your nonsensical wannabe socialist revolutionary garbage to yourself, it isn't impressing anyone.
"Britain went from being the most powerful economy in the world to being so so" so so what? giving who passports?what countries went to shit? your not making any sense at all. but what can i expect from some one who is probably a support of the crazed neocon fundementalists who are now contemplating a war with iran
How am i a neocon? I havent voted for a republican yet (to be fair i've only voted once and it wasn't for prez). It seems you're just some useless coffee-shop marxist who has nothing more constructive to do then attack western civilization. Im not here to give you an education. Since you apparently dont pay any attention to what goes on outside of britain and america and their legion of horrifying atrocities its what i expect. You sound like the kind of putz who thinks michael moore is right.
its you who needs to stop fox news and CNN. rather than watching hollywood movies where america is popular in the world u need to get out in the real world. i heard that 75% of americans dont own passport
I wasn't even born in america you wretch, perhaps you should think before you just swallow your pseudo-marxist koolaid. Chances are i have been in more countries then you ever will in your meaningless existence. Maybe if you stopped trying to appease murdering thugs and terrorists others might take you seriously.
well your from america, and im not a marxist koolaid as u say. i dont appease any murderes, but when a palestinian suicide bomber decides to blow him or her self up, i condemn it but i ask the most important question which is 'why?' this question is something the majority of americans shy away from. the biggest murdering thugs you can find in your won government
I actually think the palestinians have a legit grievance, but they are a special case. If you think the US government is as bad as saddams iraq or afghanistan under the taliban then you're just a stupid fanatic who has probably never been in a country less cushy then your own.
THE US government caused great misery in iraq and afghanistan.if u wanted 2 help the iraqi people then y impose sanctions 2 punish them.On June19,1992,columnist Charles Krauthammer, mentioned: almost a year and a half of the most severe sanctions in history, applied to a country devastated by war, U.S. intelligence agencies report that Hussein is stronger today than he was a year ago. in afghanistan b4 u helped the taliban take power there were many women in government and education.
Actually we didn't help the taliban the taliban formed after we took our fingers out of the pie. We did the same thing in afghanistan the communists did to us in vietnam.
before the taliban the PDPA moved 2 permit freedom of religion & carried out an ambitious land reform, waiving farmers' debts countrywide. They also made a number of statements on women's rights.However,the secular nature of the government made it unpopular with religiously conservative Afghans in the villages & the countryside, who favoured 'Islamic' restrictions on women rights & in daily life.The U.S. saw the situation as a prime opportunity 2weaken the USSR.
Exactly, we did it to weaken the soviet empire not to give afghanistan to the religious fanatics. I suppose even you have heard "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". By the way the russians started that fucking mess we just helped the natives fight against them. It seems you didn't consider the future taliban "freedom fighters" even though the soviet invasion of afghanistan was much more of an imperial venture than iraq. You abandon your own logic.
"Exactly, we did it to weaken the soviet empire not to give afghanistan to the religious fanatics" but ur were funding and training these extremist groups before the soiet union invaded. and yes i have heard of thhat stupid phrase. it was ur goernment that were lauding the Mujahideen as freedom fighter while people like george galloway denounced them , in fact in parliment he told thatcher that u are letting the barbarians enter the gates.
And yet he praised saddam? Unless you're just fucking stupid that should be sending off big red flags complete with air raid alarms. The fact that he didn't even bother apologizing about praising someone who made a hobby out of torturing people by the bushel then has the gall to lie about it ranks him somewhere between a cockroach and smegma. Maybe if brits should concern themselves with their own politics (for a change). Galloway is just playing the vulgar mob to gain popularity
i despise saddam and bin laden but i also equally despise people like bush. and like america doesent torture people too. and can u tell me what u meant by "Britain went from being the most powerful economy in the world to being so so. Especially with the stupid move of giving them all passports. Every country they left has went to shit"
Comparing Bush (who we can both agree is a fool) to Saddam or Bin Laden is a bit of a grotesque stretch even for an ultra leftist clown. America might torture the odd prisoner at gitmo or abu ghraib and in certain cases torture should be used (revealing locations, gaining info on other terrorists and their activities) but we arent torturing people just for amusement the way saddam did. Torture in the case of coercing confessions is wrong since they will eventually confess guilty or not.
"but we arent torturing people just for amusement the way saddam did" WHAT? keeping prisoners on a leash, stripping prisoners naked and piling them on top of each other-making them do obcene things nd then videotaping it for entertainment for the soldiers in thier barracks to watch isnt for amusement, again this shows u have a really twisted mind. torture often leads to false confessions. in guantanamo, many have benn jailed without trial including may i say british citizens
Again a several instances of humiliating terrorist thugs isn't a big deal, we arent beating their feet until they are broken and forcing them to walk. We arent making people applaud at gunpoint the public torture and murder of family, we arent electrocuting people for saying shit about the leader. If the people who run around with picket signs saying "bush sucks" or "out of iraq now" had done things like that under saddam they would be dead. You comparing gitmo to Saddam is ridiculous.
"Again a several instances of humiliating terrorist thugs isn't a big deal" wow, u really are twisted, we are talking here about sexual abuse, homicide, forced sodomy, even rape. this callous comment just shows u have no human decency. Janis Karpinski, the commander of Abu Ghraib, demoted for her lack of oversight regarding the abuse, estimated later that 90% of detainees in the prison were innocent
Yeah she said so. I didn't advocate or support it you moron but if you think that we're as bad as saddam then you're either willfully ignorant, stupid, or both. Now you're just fishing in an attempt to jab at america so that your islamic buddies wont look so bad. If this is the best you can do then i think im finished with you.
"I didn't advocate or support it you moron" no u didnt, u disgustingly justified it on the grounds that they are "terrorist thugs" even though the vast majority of the prisoners were completely innocent, and even if they were as u claim "terrorist thugs" it is still unjustifiable.
What evidence do you have to support their innocence, the word of someone who is bashing the govt that demoted them? How convenient. Im not advocating it im just saying im not going to shed tears over terrorist vermin. I'll pose a question to you: You capture a lackey of an insurgent leader who has planned and will continue to plan bombings, the thug will not reveal his location is it accpetable to torture him to save lives? I think it does.
Children as young as 11 years old were held at Abu Ghraib,official documents reveal. the prisoners wer just suspects charged with no crimes. you seem to think that it is ok to sexually abuse suspects because u would probably do the same. Many of the prisoners abused at the Abu Ghraib prison were innocent Iraqis picked up at random by US troops, and incarcerated by under-qualified intelligence officers, a former US interrogator from the notorious jail told the Guardian
Because i would probably do the same? Fuck you asshole. If you think america is anywhere in the league of the Hussein regime regarding torture then you're spitting in the face of the iraqi people. What are you 16? By the way you didn't answer the torture question. I have to be at work by 5am but i'll be back to address your nonsense in a few hours.
the fact that u have to swear at me, just shows how weak ur argument is. the iraqi people dont need u to be in thier country, thier civilisation is older than uors and mine,they can sort themselves out. im 19 but my age is irrelevent.
The "fact" that i "have" to swear at you? If you are 19 and are bothered by profanity then you probably need to do some growing up. Profanity doesn't validate or invalidate an argument, it just adds emphasis. If it bothers your virgin ears then i wont use it. The point being that you're 19 you dont know shit except what you're fed on TV. Their civilization is older??? What the hell does that have to do with anything? You have no point you're just whining for the sake of being a contrarian.
once you swore u lost the debate. i know more than u think, im a student in politics and history and have extensively about US interventiions and imperialism. i dont really belive what i see and hear on tv anymore after the iraq invasion and the wiping out israel myth. the iraqis dont need u pretendind that u r some moral force, they can fix thier own country. so what country do you want invade next, iran? syria? does ur blood lust never end
When did i swear i lost the debate? This isn't a debate its me cutting through your preaching. The iraqis can fix their own country? Are you fucking serious lol? I dont give a rats ass about a "moral force" what we find moral they might not or vice versa. If you think its about "blood lust" then you probably should be in a hospital and not allowed access to a computer. What a juvenile statement. You cant even spell or form a sentence, and i thought american education was in the shitter.
ur army generals as they shout say "kick ass, and to kick ass anywhere", u have a war plan carefully worked out, if u attack iran, iran will retaliate ferociously.
I dont think we're going to attack iran, i would be against it. Iran does have every right to defend itself unlike iraq which was no longer a sovereign nation thanks to Saddams violations.
the iraqi people have every right to fight foreign armies on thier soil. scott ritter wrote that the "Iraqi resistance" is a "genuine grassroots national liberation movement," and "History will eventually depict as legitimate the efforts of the Iraqi resistance to destabilise and defeat the American occupation forces and their imposed Iraqi collaborationist government."
Actually wrong, Saddam violated pretty much every rule as far as being a sovereign nation. Now the religious fanatics want to take over. It isn't waiters, clerks, farmers, barbers, janitors, etc its terrorist cronies and saddams old cronies. This flimsy myth that its some kind of valiant resistance movement is beyond delusional.
lol, i wouldent believe anything your media tells you, its not just religious fanatics that are attacking foreign armies, its the ordinary iraqi too, when u were at war with vietnam(the other country u decimated), your media was telling u every day 54 vietcong killed or something but in the later stages of the war, we found out they werent vietcong but ordinary vietnemese, so when the media tells us 67 "terrorists" killed, how do we know there terrorists.
What? No it isn't fool. Lol in vietnam ordinary people WERE the vietcong, ask a nam vet. Besides i know all the bedwetting whiners who know nothing about this conflict love to compare it to vietnam. There might be the odd normal iraqi, but by and large it's not. People who call them freedom fighters are deluding themselves and have ulterior motives. I'm sure you get your news off of some ultra leftist news site or something silly. By the way we didn't start vietnam. Read.
"Lol in vietnam ordinary people WERE the vietcong, ask a nam vet" this is a very idiotic statement, this is the propaganda america uses that killed millions of innocent vietnemese, i suppose u think that the my lai massacre was justiefied because they were vietcong, this is neo-con bulshit propaganda. u wanted to go to war with vietnam, the golf of tonkin resolution was drafted before the golf of tonkin incident. the vietnemese gave america a bloody good hiding
This is pure nonsense. I'll take the word of people who served in vietnam over some teenage wannabe communist who probably doesn't even know where vietnam is. Its like you dont read history, vietnam was a french problem long before it was an american one. Lol do you really think we just join these wars for the hell of it? It wouldn't surprise me in the least.
u absurdly claim that every north vietnemese-mand, women and child were part of the vietcong so u can justify the killing of millions of civilion by years of saturation and chemical bombings. u r one twisted individual, to u those millions of vietnemese were just 'collateral dammage'. i wouldent trust the word of most vietnam veterans who probably participated in the atrocities. and im not a wannabe communist, ur a wannabe crazed right wing ne-con harbinger.
Sigh this is the problem with mindless fanatics like yourself, i didn't say ALL learn to read. In vietnam kids would run up to american jeeps and pitch a grenade in, women would smuggle weapons in their rice sacks, in vietnam most of the enemy WERE normal people, not the case in iraq. I would take the word over a soldier that went there and experienced it, over a pseudocommunist teenage moron who probably doesn't know the slightest thing about the conflict.
well u said in ur own words that the ordinary vietnemese were the vietcong, they were seen as terrorists but history as absolved them as legitimate resistance against invasion and occupation. u justify the killing of innocent women and children. give me evidence kids throwing grenades or women smuggling guns. u talk about saddam gassing the kurds what about america using chemical wepons against the vietnemese, and no one was held accountable for that war crimes.
You mean you think of them that way, history isn't a good guy/bad guy arrangement most of the time. As i have said, it doesn't matter if we are the nazis, doesn't excuse what saddam did. What about the brits giving the thumbs up for the firebombing of dresden?
the firebombing of dresden was appaling, jut as your terror bombings in guetemala and destruction of faluja, and of course your mass terror chemical bombings in vietnam. children are still being with no limbs or without eyes in vietnam.
As i have said, it is not my problem. Had i been alive during that period i would have opposed that war. Despite the manic glee of the unclean ultraleftist horde gets from comparing this situation to vietnam. I personally dont care about the moral whimpering of a person who calls brutal terrorist thugs "freedom fighters". You dont give a shit about people, just about playing your side of politics. A maximum of 2million vietnamese died, again with the marxists and their number fudging.
no, u wouldent have opposed war, u would of called the vietcong 'terrorist thugs' and that we should be proud of trying to defeat the vietcong. and i did not include the 200,000 killed in camodia by US secret bombings- read the book the trial of henry kissenger by none other than christopher hitchens.
torture often leads to false confessions, there is a story about how stalin once lost his glasses, he told his officer to find who took his glasses, the officer than tortured a suspect, then the officere told stalin that someone admitted to taking his glasses but stalin said he found them! you seem to think its ok to sodomise prisoners
Ahhh but thats the difference, if you hurt someone long enough then they'll say anything. Torture is useless for ascertaining ones guilt, but you dodged the question. If the prisoner had information that would save innocent lives would you torture him to get it?
u may like to think that guantanamo and abu grahib are just isolated incidents, but its not have u ever heard of the school of the americas, its a torture school run by ur government and CIA in latin amerca after u overthrown a decent leader for a right wing dictatorship, the school of the americas was responsible for many of the death squads in which the opposition was rounded up and killed and tortured. i think u should close down guantanamo base and leave cuban territory
As i have said torture is used by all nations, certain military personnel use it on occasion. So if a captured terrorist knew the location of his leader who plans the bombing of a hospital you wouldn't torture him so that he'd reveal his location? I wouldn't want you as a leader.
most of the islamic extremism in the middle east is ur county fault, in afghanistan u allowed them to create a hellhole, in iraq now sectarianism and extremism is rampant, in iran it was your fault for the regime there too, there was a secular democratic government there but was overthrown by the USA & my country because he nationalised his oil reserves. when ur interests are concerned, democracy isnt worth a penny
Bitch say what?!?!So you think afghanistan would have turned out fine otherwise? Get the fuck out of here. You keep on with the same tired debunked michael moore crap, americas wrongs do not excuse saddam's, bin laden's, or any other worthless religious zealots'. Your lack of morals is repulsive. Attack us so that the guilty can be innocent, what weak garbage. If the best you can do is "its an oil war" then dont bother debating.
no need to swear, afghanistan would of turned out fine, it was implementing social reforms which would of modernised it. when i told u aqbout the genocidal sanctions, it was ur moral callousness that was shocking. all those religious zealots are the mosnters created by ur rubbish foreign policy.
Wha..? Afghanistan was torn to shreds during the soviet invasion, they werent going to come out of that situation well in any way. MY moral callousness? Nevermind that your freedom fighting hero Saddam in his stubborn arrogance refused to cooperate and thus let the sanctions to continue. You keep saying the same thing over and over, repetition doesn't make it correct. Performing the same action repeatedly and expecting different results is a defining criterion of the insane.
i mean before the soviet invasion, when u were funding the Mujaheedan who u labelled as freedom fighters. the american govermnet were given warnings about the situation in iraq under the sanctions, all they had 2 do was relax the sanctions and let baby food in which u refused giving a ridiculous that it might be eaten by adults. i despise saddam hussein and binladen equally withe people who help them become powerful.
Do you have proof that we funded them before the soviet invasion? Again the result of the sanctions are saddams fault not ours his arrogance allowed it to happen. You can try and make the weak case that the blood is on our hands but people see the hook sticking out of the bait. Here's how the sanction works: We say "nothing goes in to iraq until saddam cooperates". Saddam says "fuck you let em die, not my problem". He turned the deaf ear to their needs not us.
"Do you have proof that we funded them before the soviet invasion?" in 1979 the United States government(under President Jimmy Carter and National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski) began to covertly fund and train anti-government Mujahideen forces
the sanctions with the oil for food program was a cover for stealing billions of iraq's wealth. Documentary evidence was available that the Bush administration was made aware of illegal oil sales and kickbacks paid to the Saddam Hussein regime but did nothing to stop them; US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil — more than the rest of the world put together;On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales
Here we go with the conspiracy twaddle it always involves a "cover" doesn't it. You're saying the same shit over and over, im done with your nonsense if you hate the west so much then why do you live here? Selling illegal oil? How very dreadful. We need oil so we got it, doesn't make saddam a good guy. If this was a court case you would have been laughed out by now.
yeh became, when u were sending bin laden and his henchmen, u very well knew about thier facist ideology but when ur interests are concerned u dont give a damn about democracy
"And you dont think so? Britain went from being the most powerful economy in the world to being so so. Especially with the stupid move of giving them all passports. Every country they left has went to shit. Keep your nonsensical wannabe socialist revolutionary garbage to yourself, it isn't impressing anyone. " why arent u explaining this comment , is it because u would reveal that u r a bigoted halfwit
"Britain went from being the most powerful economy in the world to being so so." so so what? given who passports? do u mean immigrants from the former colonies, is that it that u dont like them. "Every country they left has went to shit" who r u talking about, britain or the people we gave passports too. u said that britain should of kept its empire and u r all for the american imperialism because i guess u think that the world is some kind of white man's burden, dont you?
No i dont care where someone comes from, the fact that britain went from being a worldwide superpower to being a withering nation is because it abandoned imperialism. The british and their crappy abandonment of india caused a division and those two nations are still the most likely to enter a nuclear war. South africa went from being a racist british possession (albeit an orderly one) to being a pseudo nazi state to being a mess of AIDS and crime run by black racists. White mans burden, no why?
britains powerful economy was the result of mass robery of the its colonies, before the british arrived in bengal it was the richest place on the earth, when the british arrived in bengal it became one the poorest places. and if you think that the iraqi people will allow u to loot thier oil again, then u have got another thing coming, the iraqi people will not allow the theft of thier wealth
Theft of their wealth? The iraqis arent in a position to make demands. I'm sure they were just dandy under saddam, but what does that matter we're the oil-addicted fourth reich right? WTF? Bengal the richest? Do you mean resource wise or standard of living, because if you mean standard of living then you're full of shit.
"The iraqis arent in a position to make demands" thats exactly what u want. Brigadier General Mohammad-Baqer Zolqadr said ""If Iraq is to become secure,there will be no room for the occupiers".
thats why america doesent want iraq to be secure as there will be no reason for u being there. while the irqis are killing each other it will make ur job easier
That doesn't even make any sense, there isnt enough oil over there to make the amount we're pissing away on the war worth our while. You act like every american is there just to shoot some "ragheads" and party, but with the quality of your opinions i expect that you really DO believe that.
Iraq possesses proven reserves of 112.5 billion barrels, more than any other country except Saudi Arabia, and it is thought to possess another 200 billion barrels in undeveloped fields that are waiting to be dug up.Iraq could become a leading oil supplier in the decades ahead exploited by U.S. firms.
Thats nice and all but "the decades ahead" isn't really worth shit when the country is already going broke. The people who run corporations arent stupid, the best way to run an economy isn't to thouroughly fuck it up then make alot of money its to be consistent. Lol "exploited" we use tons of the shit what do you expect. If this was just about oil we would have dug up some shit on the saudis and attacked them a long time ago, find a better ruse.
the oil corporation will make a huge profit. u dont need to attack saudi arabia, as u have a slave puppet king power there, thats why u never invade the country, nor do u want to see democracy in the country
So now you just blunder through the point, you clearly cant argue a point. The profits the oil companies are making are drops in the bucket compared to the amount of money that has been pissed away on the war. If you are trying to make the uneducated case that the war is about oil then perhaps you should find a kindergartener to bandy words with. A slave puppet king? Your stupidity never ceases to exceed my expectations.
The only people who will benefit from the war on Iraq are the elite wealthy oil men who finance Bush's election campaigns, and people like Bush who have huge personal investments in the oil industry. "A slave puppet king? Your stupidity never ceases to exceed my expectations." its true, thats why u will never invade saudi arabia or egypt because they are subservient to ur interests
You mean we wont invade them because they arent gassing and torturing people en masse. Lol once you no longer have an argument you just say "its all about oil because some ultra leftist said so". Lol this sounds like some michael moore level shit.
your goverment didnt give a damn when he was gassing them, so dont use that as a justification for going to war with iraq. in late 2000 Bush said: "We should not send our troops to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide outside our strategic interests. . . . I would not send the United States troops into Rwanda." so its bit dubious how bush and the other crazed neo-cons use the kurds as an excuse. u country loves the saudi puppet king because he loots his country & then sends that loot to you
Thats because bush is an idiot. Lets keep in mind that we hadn't been attacked yet either. We didn't go into WWII until we were attacked either, even though it was the correct thing to do. Crazed pseudocommunists like yourself will find any reason to attack your own country in order to vindicate terrorists. Why shouldn't we love the saudi leadership if its beneficial to us? Does this have to be written in crayon for you to get it. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing.
"Why shouldn't we love the saudi leadership if its beneficial to us?" because u criticise iran, iraq, and syria on thier human rights but at the same time u r in bed with the corrupt tyrant saudi king. increasingly not alot of people believe your sermons on democracy and freedom anymore, you want slave governments.
Lol comparing the Saudi govt to Saddam's Iraq is pointless and stupid and you know it. When you have to grasp at such weak straws you should probably abandon the arguement. Life isn't Disney bullshit. I'm sure you're into some kind of deranged pseudo-marxism which is fine, but dont expect adults to take you seriously.
when saddam was committing the most serious atrocities, he was americas best friend. the saudi government is a brutal theocracy, everything u claim ur fighting in afghanistan. you seem to attack me rather than my points whereas im attacking ur points rather than u, it just shows u dont know much.
You arent attacking any points you dont have one. Lol its like you dont care what saddam does, just us even if its miniscule by comparison. I dont care if you hate america and the western world, just dont expect me to side with you. The Saudi government isn't even comparable to Saddam's Iraq or the Taliban's Afghanistan, not even as bad as Iran under the current moron who runs the place. You are really scraping desperately to justify your insipid hate of western culture arent you.
you seem to concentrate on my supposed political ideology, my age. ive destroyed most of your absurd points so far. saddam was a monster. but he committed the worst atrocities when he was americas friend, when he gassing kurds the reagan administration didnt do or say nothing. i didnt expect a crazed neo-con fundementalist like u to side with me.
You havent destroyed nor made any points, you cant even get dates right. You are desperately scraping the bottom of the barrel for dirt on america to protect your terrorist buddies. How am i a neocon? I havent voted conservative any time that i recall, still ultra leftist bums like yourself give the rest a bad name. So it makes US the bad guy because we were buying oil from saddam while he was gassing kurds? How stupid, and it makes us worse when we stop him? Its like im talking to a cow.
what dates? u r a neoncon pro war hawk. "So it makes US the bad guy because we were buying oil from saddam while he was gassing kurds? How stupid, and it makes us worse when we stop him? Its like im talking to a cow. " no its the hypocracy and the double standards, he was killing kurds at the time of the reagan administration, he did not do nothing, so its a bit dubious how u justify this disaster of a war on saddams crimes against the kurds, u ddnt go in there for the wmd's either.
How am i pro war? I have said numerous times that i think we should leave. You're an empty headed ultra leftist who doesn't have the foggiest idea of the way the world works or about history. How so? We removed a brutal dictator from power (although you seem to sing the praises of him) and people were glad, now they want us out.
in your first post on this video u said we should be prould that we removed saddam and the taliban, these two regimes were made pwerfull by america in the first place. dont expect the world to give gratitude when ur cleaning up your own mess. u were funding the Mujahideen to topple the progressive afghan goverment then.
I have already thrown this sniveling nonsense in the trash. We aided the mujahadeen AFTER the soviets had invaded. We didn't do it, just to ruin afghanistan you wretched harlequin. I dont expect your gratitude, nor do i care if some sniveling ultra leftist dreg cant read a history book. We hardly encouraged saddams actiona and didn't supply him with the intention of terrorizing his own populace or slaughtering kurds and you know it. You are really trying desperately (and vainly) to bash america.
no u stupid idiot, u funded them six months before the soviets invaded in its sole purpose to topple the afghan left-wing progressive goverment. during the iran-iraq war in which our goverments encouraged, we gave him chemical weapons, in which he used against iran, u dont give a dictator chemical weapons and then say we dont intend them to use it
Yeah im the idiot (thats rich coming from someone who cant spell). We've already been through this, the soviets had been in afghanistan for over a year before we even lifted a finger. Left wing progressive lol?!?! You mean the communist bootlick govt who destroyed the homes of middle and upper class afghans, seized their possessions and imprisoned them. Selling someone a gun does not make you guilty of his murder. We didn't intend for him to gas the kurds, are you that dumb?
no the soviets invaded afghanistan on december 1979, america funded the Mujahideen on july 3rd 1979. we encouraged iraq to attck iran, and we gave hime the arms, giving conventional weapons to saddam is one thing, but giving chemical weapons is a whole different matter, because u did intend for him to use it, otherwise why give it in the first place
Too easy, the deployment of the soviet 40th army into afghanistan began in august of 78. I already laughed your bullshit out of here, guess again. I dunno what your slow witted standards are for counting something as an "invasion", but sending an army group into anothers country seems like it to me. The soviets had made incursions into afghan territory before that. Sigh i guess you arent developed enough to understand. chemical weapons werent meant to be used on the kurds, iran is irrelevant.
And while were talking about it, over a million afghans (including civilians) died just because the soviets wanted it. So you would be calling the mujahideen freedom fighters had you been alive at the time. What a double standard.
its different, u armed the mujahideen to tople a decent goverment. the afghans then requested soviet help. if u hadent trained and armed the them, they would never have gained any power.
You mean the "decent" communist puppets that terrorized and impoverished afghanistans middle class? Your entire argument is weak, we armed rebels who were fighting the communist scum. The idiot afghan government "accepted" soviet help which the soviets used to gain intel of the country before invading it in summer 1978. We didn't have anything to do with the rebels until after the soviets invaded. You arent even making points you're just trying to find some dirt to throw at the hated west.
"You mean the "decent" communist puppets that terrorized and impoverished afghanistans middle class? Your entire argument is weak" well if u look at what was before that afghan goverment and then what coame afterwards i will say that they were decent. and america funded the mujahideen six months before the initial soviet invasion
Not to forget, the Mujahideen were NOT necessarily the Taliban, even if there was SOME overlap because of ever shifting tribal alliances. But facts simply do not matter to SOME people, just "anti-imperial" and "anti-war" conjecture. Believe what you will, but it changes nothing about the facts of the matter. The bottom line to your incomplete story is that Russia did indeed want full access to the Arabian Sea, and their "friendly invasion", or whatever you are calling it, was inevitable.
He's too dumb to care, he's desperate to find some reason to hate america. The soviets INVADED before the americans bothered caring, he thinks that if he repeats a lie enough it will come true. Performing the same action and expecting different results is one of the signs of an unhealthy mind
"The soviets INVADED before the americans bothered caring,"
PJS's facts and interpretations are all jumbled, that is all there is to it. Problem is, people read this jumbled nonsense on places like YouTube and take it for fact, without any serious study and reflection. READ MORE PEOPLE! And Chomsky's books do not count! Try something a little more objective, and a little less OBVIOUSLY politically biased.
I think the fact that he actively seeks to distort the facts or interpret them to fit his beliefs is rather telling. Since america bashing is common in britain right now he's doing it to sound clever and revolutionary. This dumbass praises Castro then shits on Saudi becasue they dont have elections i guess he fails to see the irony. What can you expect from someone who calls murdering terrorists freedom fighters?
well, looks like hitchens got his butt handed to him ..LOL
914light 1 month ago
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
Iraq war is indeed a true blunder. An international crime led by the big 3, US, BRITAIN AND ISRAEL AGAINST HUMANITY.
westernise 4 months ago
Interesting debate. However, I think many of the commenters have followed the speakers into forgetting the issues at hand and focussing instead on argumentative ability.
Making a good case for something does not necessarily mean you are right.
adcashmo 5 months ago
five years later and it much harder to argue the war was a blunder. just because the war should be been conducted more strategically doesn't say anything about the fundamental justness of the war
nubbs 1 year ago
Of course it was to steal the natural resources of weaker countries. Frankly there is no problem with that. It's always been that way in the history of humankind and always will be. In the end of the day, it's all about who has the best weapons.
WarmongerWW3 1 year ago
Hitchens is confused with the iraq war and liberating iraq as if they were the same thing ignoring history. Is he this ignorant of the fact he admits he doesn't support the war strategy, but does support taking advantage of the aftermath and doing some good in the mist of corruption. Like a religious fanatic he stubbornly confuses the 2 agendas.
architect333 1 year ago
hitchens was humiliated.nice
ghadnaz 1 year ago
@ghadnaz I think the people who should be most humiliated in that hall are the jeering liberal anti-war non thinkers who seem to have forgotten the first hour of substantive debate, and made fools of themselves by booing any noise that came out of Hitchens mouth after that worm Galloway won them over with Ad hominum attacks. You should learn a little something about Galloway's true character, and true agenda. Because only one man on that stage was lying through his teeth.
adraim69 1 year ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@adraim69 please explain to me the true character of GG, lets see if you can stay consistent and i'm a fan of hitch,let me guess? that he's for the muslim's? as if hitch is not? don't be a fool. or maybe a warmonger around the world? haha or maybe hes a terrorist who's actually picked up a weapon and used it, or lying about hitches inconsistency he himself admits, or making a case for liberation after the world exposes the iraq war fabrication. did i miss something, anti-war is a bad thing!
architect333 1 year ago
@ghadnaz more importantly, instead of just saying mean things about Galloway, I can back it up with CITATION. Don't take it from me, take it from the windbags mouth himself.
watch?v=IIy_GmvUElE&feature=related
adraim69 1 year ago 10
@ghadnaz I'd like to remind you that when Hitchens brought up Galloway's meeting with Saddam, GG promptly said Hitchens was lying, and nothing but a liar! If you want to talk about humiliation, lets talk about the people who actually fell for GGs demagoguery and pseudo-logical rhetoric.
adraim69 1 year ago 12
@ghadnaz Agreed!
architect333 1 year ago
Anyone else suspect that neither of them really give two shits about anything other than lining their own coffers?
weejockpoopongmcplop 1 year ago
@weejockpoopongmcplop abso-fucking-lutely........they both love the fact that they can craft responses. Nothing more. I even get the feeling Hitchens' mind-changing (1991-2003) was just a game to see if he could pull it off convincingly.
adcashmo 5 months ago
Both Hitchens and Galloway have given me a lot to consider.
For those who have half a brain (like Soloman and 1peoplesun above), who comments before any critical thinking just to praise Hitchens, you would do well to save yourself the embarrassment by not commenting.
mooogles 1 year ago
As far as I see it, the only people who think we should still be in Iraq are people who believe that the flag of their country means more than another human life. I picture a lot of patriotic fools prior to the war; reassuring themselves, "Our boys will go over there, kick some ass, and everything will go back to normal." Wrong, the death toll still mounts. Since the U.S has denied various arab countries democracy ever since the Cold War, it is hardly suprising that they are a little cheesed off
reddwarfa 2 years ago
people forget that the alternative to Galloway's proposition is to continue sending American troops into Iraq, continue to fuel anti-american sentiment in the arab world, and NO PEACE.
Stop fighting over who is a better speaker. Think of the potential lives and devastation at stake.
MoolahMogul1 2 years ago
I cannot take seriously anyone blasting Galloway. This is one of the best debates I've seen in a while, despite how pitifully it fell victim to too many ad hominem attacks (committed on both sides). I simply love Hitchens, but I have to admit that Galloway is a very compelling speaker. Anyone here who says that one side won easily or that either one of these men are "dumb" is nothing else but an ideologue and a fool and don't deserve any respect accordingly.
cmortell1 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Galloway simple demolished the other bigot !
am1984ine 2 years ago
Wrong
rudenoodle 2 years ago
Galloway DID mop the floor with the other bigot !
am1984ine 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
There is no God but Marx, and Chomsky is his messenger
rachelgolem 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Galloway is a Hero.
arturohd 2 years ago
your hero is a friend of genocidal dictators and praises islamic terrorists on syrian telivision.
deathstar367 2 years ago 5
"Galloway is a Hero."
Perhaps for idiots. Naive, masochistic idiots.
cfibb 2 years ago 3
Comment removed
asahmed1980 2 years ago
Like Hitchens said in this debate: "Sometimes your own words are so discrediting, that nothing more needs to be said by me." So true.
Galloway is a hypocrite, as illustrated in this debate several times. There are enough video's on YT of George descrediting himself, that no objective person should take him seriously.
George Galloway is an embarrassment to Western civilizaton.
klrdotorg 3 years ago 5
GG is a maverick and courageous.
glamfakir 2 years ago
Oh Great! One Big Book Signing Debate?
Champaigne Socialists
LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
Soloman1001 3 years ago
Hitchens is not ignorant he makes Galloway look like an Evil Mongrel Traitor.
Soloman1001 3 years ago 4
Galloway just talks Diatrible Nonsense.
Soloman1001 3 years ago 5
galloway shouts to hide his ugly truths.
1peoplesun 3 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
galloway owned him completely.
zero1955 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
people of america . if some other country invaded YOUR COUNTRY you would be fucked .your goverment, over the past 30 years ,has already brought you down to a level where the rest of the world ,see america, as the biggest threat to the planet.why do no american politicians talk this way,on your election debates its because, they are all backed by big buck companies , who want steal the wealth of any country that cant defend itself but beware, the tide is turning AT LAST
meechee00 3 years ago
Hitchens is scraping the barrel for arguments and avoiding the main issues which are the unleashing of an illegal, imperialistic war benefiting the private armies of Cheney and his gang. Why not justify the British Empire for its building of railways in India? In this debate I think Galloway won on points.
YourSpaceInvader 3 years ago
My god Galloway loves the sound of his own voice and really comes over as a professional bullshitter. Whilst Hutchens can be a bit arrogant, he comes over far more honest in my view.
ghayklan 3 years ago 5
What a danm good debate! very refreshing
peppermintjohn666 3 years ago 3
"multiplied our enemies" doesn't he mean his allies?
FlagellatingFlagger 3 years ago
Great debate. Witnessing Hitchens' brilliance when confronted by a tough customer like Galloway is a pleasure. More worthy opponents vindicate both his craft and intelligence.
fuferito 3 years ago 2
I listened to the whole debate and it's a hard one to call.
But I think the killer comment was from Hitchen in response to the charge of his inconsistency in the past.
"Thugs & criminals" Galloway looked a bit stubbed at that one!
DarkPigeon21 3 years ago 3
"Fucking thing sucks!"..
..oh, er, wrong video.
o8QWERTYo8 3 years ago
What a fucking finish!
Croscros72 3 years ago
My first post somehow didn't work, here it is again:
Galloway wins this one. I would like to note that his rhetorical style is terrible; his shouting and hand gestures make him come off as a cross between a communist dictator and the schoolmaster from The Wall. Still, he won because he was consistent and forceful. He resorted to many ad hominem attacks, but Hitchen employed a comparable amount of logical fallacies. The quality of his arguments were generally marginally better.
uncreativejackass 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hitch, on the other hand, got flustered and was nearly in tears at times. I have never seen him lose his composure like this. He loses it by the end.
I've rarely seen Hitchens lose a debate, but I'd chalk his failure here more to an uncharacteristic breakdown than skill on Galloway's part. Neither of them put on an exceptionally great performance.
uncreativejackass 3 years ago
definetly a win for george. hutchins lacked the intellectual stamina and resorted to unfounded personal attacks and verbosity!
turbocharged1786 3 years ago
robin coox-resignation- best house of commons speech in history
8data 3 years ago
This debate is little more than Baboon's ass stubble.
ludachris475 3 years ago
That George W. Bush is a good bowler though.
His specialty is Preemptive Strikes. What a guy.
ludachris475 3 years ago
if this was a boxing match, hitchens wins by KO. but since its a debate he wins a 12 round decision on all scorecards
robertk2007 3 years ago 3
was u watching the same thing as i was, because in the aftermath of the debate, it was galloway who won
punjabshere123 3 years ago
yes i was and hitchens destroyed the sheepfucker
robertk2007 3 years ago 2
Punjabshere is a total moron dont pay attention to him, he seems to think that because the US doesn't have aperfectly clean slate that Saddam is totally innocent, and Hugo Chavez is his hero. Hes probably between 15 and 20 and thinks he's some sort of coffee-shop revolutionary. Still what can you expect, britain has really been sliding on its ass for the last century (should have kept its empire).
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago 3
"should have kept its empire" exactly what i thought, you are all for empires arent u.
punjabshere123 3 years ago
And you dont think so? Britain went from being the most powerful economy in the world to being so so. Especially with the stupid move of giving them all passports. Every country they left has went to shit. Keep your nonsensical wannabe socialist revolutionary garbage to yourself, it isn't impressing anyone.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
"Britain went from being the most powerful economy in the world to being so so" so so what? giving who passports?what countries went to shit? your not making any sense at all. but what can i expect from some one who is probably a support of the crazed neocon fundementalists who are now contemplating a war with iran
punjabshere123 3 years ago
How am i a neocon? I havent voted for a republican yet (to be fair i've only voted once and it wasn't for prez). It seems you're just some useless coffee-shop marxist who has nothing more constructive to do then attack western civilization. Im not here to give you an education. Since you apparently dont pay any attention to what goes on outside of britain and america and their legion of horrifying atrocities its what i expect. You sound like the kind of putz who thinks michael moore is right.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
its you who needs to stop fox news and CNN. rather than watching hollywood movies where america is popular in the world u need to get out in the real world. i heard that 75% of americans dont own passport
punjabshere123 3 years ago
I wasn't even born in america you wretch, perhaps you should think before you just swallow your pseudo-marxist koolaid. Chances are i have been in more countries then you ever will in your meaningless existence. Maybe if you stopped trying to appease murdering thugs and terrorists others might take you seriously.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
well your from america, and im not a marxist koolaid as u say. i dont appease any murderes, but when a palestinian suicide bomber decides to blow him or her self up, i condemn it but i ask the most important question which is 'why?' this question is something the majority of americans shy away from. the biggest murdering thugs you can find in your won government
punjabshere123 3 years ago
I actually think the palestinians have a legit grievance, but they are a special case. If you think the US government is as bad as saddams iraq or afghanistan under the taliban then you're just a stupid fanatic who has probably never been in a country less cushy then your own.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
THE US government caused great misery in iraq and afghanistan.if u wanted 2 help the iraqi people then y impose sanctions 2 punish them.On June19,1992,columnist Charles Krauthammer, mentioned: almost a year and a half of the most severe sanctions in history, applied to a country devastated by war, U.S. intelligence agencies report that Hussein is stronger today than he was a year ago. in afghanistan b4 u helped the taliban take power there were many women in government and education.
punjabshere123 3 years ago
Actually we didn't help the taliban the taliban formed after we took our fingers out of the pie. We did the same thing in afghanistan the communists did to us in vietnam.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
before the taliban the PDPA moved 2 permit freedom of religion & carried out an ambitious land reform, waiving farmers' debts countrywide. They also made a number of statements on women's rights.However,the secular nature of the government made it unpopular with religiously conservative Afghans in the villages & the countryside, who favoured 'Islamic' restrictions on women rights & in daily life.The U.S. saw the situation as a prime opportunity 2weaken the USSR.
punjabshere123 3 years ago
Exactly, we did it to weaken the soviet empire not to give afghanistan to the religious fanatics. I suppose even you have heard "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". By the way the russians started that fucking mess we just helped the natives fight against them. It seems you didn't consider the future taliban "freedom fighters" even though the soviet invasion of afghanistan was much more of an imperial venture than iraq. You abandon your own logic.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
"Exactly, we did it to weaken the soviet empire not to give afghanistan to the religious fanatics" but ur were funding and training these extremist groups before the soiet union invaded. and yes i have heard of thhat stupid phrase. it was ur goernment that were lauding the Mujahideen as freedom fighter while people like george galloway denounced them , in fact in parliment he told thatcher that u are letting the barbarians enter the gates.
punjabshere123 3 years ago
And yet he praised saddam? Unless you're just fucking stupid that should be sending off big red flags complete with air raid alarms. The fact that he didn't even bother apologizing about praising someone who made a hobby out of torturing people by the bushel then has the gall to lie about it ranks him somewhere between a cockroach and smegma. Maybe if brits should concern themselves with their own politics (for a change). Galloway is just playing the vulgar mob to gain popularity
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
i despise saddam and bin laden but i also equally despise people like bush. and like america doesent torture people too. and can u tell me what u meant by "Britain went from being the most powerful economy in the world to being so so. Especially with the stupid move of giving them all passports. Every country they left has went to shit"
punjabshere123 3 years ago
Comparing Bush (who we can both agree is a fool) to Saddam or Bin Laden is a bit of a grotesque stretch even for an ultra leftist clown. America might torture the odd prisoner at gitmo or abu ghraib and in certain cases torture should be used (revealing locations, gaining info on other terrorists and their activities) but we arent torturing people just for amusement the way saddam did. Torture in the case of coercing confessions is wrong since they will eventually confess guilty or not.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago 2
"but we arent torturing people just for amusement the way saddam did" WHAT? keeping prisoners on a leash, stripping prisoners naked and piling them on top of each other-making them do obcene things nd then videotaping it for entertainment for the soldiers in thier barracks to watch isnt for amusement, again this shows u have a really twisted mind. torture often leads to false confessions. in guantanamo, many have benn jailed without trial including may i say british citizens
punjabshere123 3 years ago
Again a several instances of humiliating terrorist thugs isn't a big deal, we arent beating their feet until they are broken and forcing them to walk. We arent making people applaud at gunpoint the public torture and murder of family, we arent electrocuting people for saying shit about the leader. If the people who run around with picket signs saying "bush sucks" or "out of iraq now" had done things like that under saddam they would be dead. You comparing gitmo to Saddam is ridiculous.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
"Again a several instances of humiliating terrorist thugs isn't a big deal" wow, u really are twisted, we are talking here about sexual abuse, homicide, forced sodomy, even rape. this callous comment just shows u have no human decency. Janis Karpinski, the commander of Abu Ghraib, demoted for her lack of oversight regarding the abuse, estimated later that 90% of detainees in the prison were innocent
punjabshere123 3 years ago
Yeah she said so. I didn't advocate or support it you moron but if you think that we're as bad as saddam then you're either willfully ignorant, stupid, or both. Now you're just fishing in an attempt to jab at america so that your islamic buddies wont look so bad. If this is the best you can do then i think im finished with you.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
"I didn't advocate or support it you moron" no u didnt, u disgustingly justified it on the grounds that they are "terrorist thugs" even though the vast majority of the prisoners were completely innocent, and even if they were as u claim "terrorist thugs" it is still unjustifiable.
punjabshere123 3 years ago
What evidence do you have to support their innocence, the word of someone who is bashing the govt that demoted them? How convenient. Im not advocating it im just saying im not going to shed tears over terrorist vermin. I'll pose a question to you: You capture a lackey of an insurgent leader who has planned and will continue to plan bombings, the thug will not reveal his location is it accpetable to torture him to save lives? I think it does.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
Children as young as 11 years old were held at Abu Ghraib,official documents reveal. the prisoners wer just suspects charged with no crimes. you seem to think that it is ok to sexually abuse suspects because u would probably do the same. Many of the prisoners abused at the Abu Ghraib prison were innocent Iraqis picked up at random by US troops, and incarcerated by under-qualified intelligence officers, a former US interrogator from the notorious jail told the Guardian
punjabshere123 3 years ago
Because i would probably do the same? Fuck you asshole. If you think america is anywhere in the league of the Hussein regime regarding torture then you're spitting in the face of the iraqi people. What are you 16? By the way you didn't answer the torture question. I have to be at work by 5am but i'll be back to address your nonsense in a few hours.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
the fact that u have to swear at me, just shows how weak ur argument is. the iraqi people dont need u to be in thier country, thier civilisation is older than uors and mine,they can sort themselves out. im 19 but my age is irrelevent.
punjabshere123 3 years ago
The "fact" that i "have" to swear at you? If you are 19 and are bothered by profanity then you probably need to do some growing up. Profanity doesn't validate or invalidate an argument, it just adds emphasis. If it bothers your virgin ears then i wont use it. The point being that you're 19 you dont know shit except what you're fed on TV. Their civilization is older??? What the hell does that have to do with anything? You have no point you're just whining for the sake of being a contrarian.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
once you swore u lost the debate. i know more than u think, im a student in politics and history and have extensively about US interventiions and imperialism. i dont really belive what i see and hear on tv anymore after the iraq invasion and the wiping out israel myth. the iraqis dont need u pretendind that u r some moral force, they can fix thier own country. so what country do you want invade next, iran? syria? does ur blood lust never end
punjabshere123 3 years ago
When did i swear i lost the debate? This isn't a debate its me cutting through your preaching. The iraqis can fix their own country? Are you fucking serious lol? I dont give a rats ass about a "moral force" what we find moral they might not or vice versa. If you think its about "blood lust" then you probably should be in a hospital and not allowed access to a computer. What a juvenile statement. You cant even spell or form a sentence, and i thought american education was in the shitter.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
ur army generals as they shout say "kick ass, and to kick ass anywhere", u have a war plan carefully worked out, if u attack iran, iran will retaliate ferociously.
punjabshere123 3 years ago
What you said isn't even a coherent thought. I'm sure you would be rooting for the iranian fanatics though.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
im against any strike at iran, but if america does have a crazy plan to attck iran then iran has every right to defend itself
punjabshere123 3 years ago
I dont think we're going to attack iran, i would be against it. Iran does have every right to defend itself unlike iraq which was no longer a sovereign nation thanks to Saddams violations.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
the iraqi people have every right to fight foreign armies on thier soil. scott ritter wrote that the "Iraqi resistance" is a "genuine grassroots national liberation movement," and "History will eventually depict as legitimate the efforts of the Iraqi resistance to destabilise and defeat the American occupation forces and their imposed Iraqi collaborationist government."
punjabshere123 3 years ago
Actually wrong, Saddam violated pretty much every rule as far as being a sovereign nation. Now the religious fanatics want to take over. It isn't waiters, clerks, farmers, barbers, janitors, etc its terrorist cronies and saddams old cronies. This flimsy myth that its some kind of valiant resistance movement is beyond delusional.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
lol, i wouldent believe anything your media tells you, its not just religious fanatics that are attacking foreign armies, its the ordinary iraqi too, when u were at war with vietnam(the other country u decimated), your media was telling u every day 54 vietcong killed or something but in the later stages of the war, we found out they werent vietcong but ordinary vietnemese, so when the media tells us 67 "terrorists" killed, how do we know there terrorists.
punjabshere123 3 years ago
What? No it isn't fool. Lol in vietnam ordinary people WERE the vietcong, ask a nam vet. Besides i know all the bedwetting whiners who know nothing about this conflict love to compare it to vietnam. There might be the odd normal iraqi, but by and large it's not. People who call them freedom fighters are deluding themselves and have ulterior motives. I'm sure you get your news off of some ultra leftist news site or something silly. By the way we didn't start vietnam. Read.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
"Lol in vietnam ordinary people WERE the vietcong, ask a nam vet" this is a very idiotic statement, this is the propaganda america uses that killed millions of innocent vietnemese, i suppose u think that the my lai massacre was justiefied because they were vietcong, this is neo-con bulshit propaganda. u wanted to go to war with vietnam, the golf of tonkin resolution was drafted before the golf of tonkin incident. the vietnemese gave america a bloody good hiding
punjabshere123 3 years ago
This is pure nonsense. I'll take the word of people who served in vietnam over some teenage wannabe communist who probably doesn't even know where vietnam is. Its like you dont read history, vietnam was a french problem long before it was an american one. Lol do you really think we just join these wars for the hell of it? It wouldn't surprise me in the least.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
u absurdly claim that every north vietnemese-mand, women and child were part of the vietcong so u can justify the killing of millions of civilion by years of saturation and chemical bombings. u r one twisted individual, to u those millions of vietnemese were just 'collateral dammage'. i wouldent trust the word of most vietnam veterans who probably participated in the atrocities. and im not a wannabe communist, ur a wannabe crazed right wing ne-con harbinger.
punjabshere123 3 years ago
Sigh this is the problem with mindless fanatics like yourself, i didn't say ALL learn to read. In vietnam kids would run up to american jeeps and pitch a grenade in, women would smuggle weapons in their rice sacks, in vietnam most of the enemy WERE normal people, not the case in iraq. I would take the word over a soldier that went there and experienced it, over a pseudocommunist teenage moron who probably doesn't know the slightest thing about the conflict.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
well u said in ur own words that the ordinary vietnemese were the vietcong, they were seen as terrorists but history as absolved them as legitimate resistance against invasion and occupation. u justify the killing of innocent women and children. give me evidence kids throwing grenades or women smuggling guns. u talk about saddam gassing the kurds what about america using chemical wepons against the vietnemese, and no one was held accountable for that war crimes.
punjabshere123 3 years ago
You mean you think of them that way, history isn't a good guy/bad guy arrangement most of the time. As i have said, it doesn't matter if we are the nazis, doesn't excuse what saddam did. What about the brits giving the thumbs up for the firebombing of dresden?
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
the firebombing of dresden was appaling, jut as your terror bombings in guetemala and destruction of faluja, and of course your mass terror chemical bombings in vietnam. children are still being with no limbs or without eyes in vietnam.
punjabshere123 3 years ago
I didn't agree with vietnam and wasn't even born at the end of it. Still none of this ays much to vindicate our current enemies.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
3 million vietnemese died u heartless git, america poisoning the earth, the water and the gene pool for generations.
punjabshere123 3 years ago
As i have said, it is not my problem. Had i been alive during that period i would have opposed that war. Despite the manic glee of the unclean ultraleftist horde gets from comparing this situation to vietnam. I personally dont care about the moral whimpering of a person who calls brutal terrorist thugs "freedom fighters". You dont give a shit about people, just about playing your side of politics. A maximum of 2million vietnamese died, again with the marxists and their number fudging.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
no, u wouldent have opposed war, u would of called the vietcong 'terrorist thugs' and that we should be proud of trying to defeat the vietcong. and i did not include the 200,000 killed in camodia by US secret bombings- read the book the trial of henry kissenger by none other than christopher hitchens.
punjabshere123 3 years ago
I dont think thats your call to make skippy, im not interested in what you think i'll do.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
torture often leads to false confessions, there is a story about how stalin once lost his glasses, he told his officer to find who took his glasses, the officer than tortured a suspect, then the officere told stalin that someone admitted to taking his glasses but stalin said he found them! you seem to think its ok to sodomise prisoners
punjabshere123 3 years ago
Ahhh but thats the difference, if you hurt someone long enough then they'll say anything. Torture is useless for ascertaining ones guilt, but you dodged the question. If the prisoner had information that would save innocent lives would you torture him to get it?
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
u may like to think that guantanamo and abu grahib are just isolated incidents, but its not have u ever heard of the school of the americas, its a torture school run by ur government and CIA in latin amerca after u overthrown a decent leader for a right wing dictatorship, the school of the americas was responsible for many of the death squads in which the opposition was rounded up and killed and tortured. i think u should close down guantanamo base and leave cuban territory
punjabshere123 3 years ago
As i have said torture is used by all nations, certain military personnel use it on occasion. So if a captured terrorist knew the location of his leader who plans the bombing of a hospital you wouldn't torture him so that he'd reveal his location? I wouldn't want you as a leader.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
not by all nations. switzerland dont do it, nor does sweden or denmark.
punjabshere123 3 years ago
That you know of fool.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
most of the islamic extremism in the middle east is ur county fault, in afghanistan u allowed them to create a hellhole, in iraq now sectarianism and extremism is rampant, in iran it was your fault for the regime there too, there was a secular democratic government there but was overthrown by the USA & my country because he nationalised his oil reserves. when ur interests are concerned, democracy isnt worth a penny
punjabshere123 3 years ago
Bitch say what?!?!So you think afghanistan would have turned out fine otherwise? Get the fuck out of here. You keep on with the same tired debunked michael moore crap, americas wrongs do not excuse saddam's, bin laden's, or any other worthless religious zealots'. Your lack of morals is repulsive. Attack us so that the guilty can be innocent, what weak garbage. If the best you can do is "its an oil war" then dont bother debating.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
no need to swear, afghanistan would of turned out fine, it was implementing social reforms which would of modernised it. when i told u aqbout the genocidal sanctions, it was ur moral callousness that was shocking. all those religious zealots are the mosnters created by ur rubbish foreign policy.
punjabshere123 3 years ago
Wha..? Afghanistan was torn to shreds during the soviet invasion, they werent going to come out of that situation well in any way. MY moral callousness? Nevermind that your freedom fighting hero Saddam in his stubborn arrogance refused to cooperate and thus let the sanctions to continue. You keep saying the same thing over and over, repetition doesn't make it correct. Performing the same action repeatedly and expecting different results is a defining criterion of the insane.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
i mean before the soviet invasion, when u were funding the Mujaheedan who u labelled as freedom fighters. the american govermnet were given warnings about the situation in iraq under the sanctions, all they had 2 do was relax the sanctions and let baby food in which u refused giving a ridiculous that it might be eaten by adults. i despise saddam hussein and binladen equally withe people who help them become powerful.
punjabshere123 3 years ago
Do you have proof that we funded them before the soviet invasion? Again the result of the sanctions are saddams fault not ours his arrogance allowed it to happen. You can try and make the weak case that the blood is on our hands but people see the hook sticking out of the bait. Here's how the sanction works: We say "nothing goes in to iraq until saddam cooperates". Saddam says "fuck you let em die, not my problem". He turned the deaf ear to their needs not us.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
"Do you have proof that we funded them before the soviet invasion?" in 1979 the United States government(under President Jimmy Carter and National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski) began to covertly fund and train anti-government Mujahideen forces
punjabshere123 3 years ago
the sanctions with the oil for food program was a cover for stealing billions of iraq's wealth. Documentary evidence was available that the Bush administration was made aware of illegal oil sales and kickbacks paid to the Saddam Hussein regime but did nothing to stop them; US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil — more than the rest of the world put together;On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales
punjabshere123 3 years ago
Here we go with the conspiracy twaddle it always involves a "cover" doesn't it. You're saying the same shit over and over, im done with your nonsense if you hate the west so much then why do you live here? Selling illegal oil? How very dreadful. We need oil so we got it, doesn't make saddam a good guy. If this was a court case you would have been laughed out by now.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
im anti-imperialist that doesent make me anti-western.
punjabshere123 3 years ago
Yeah and you try desperately to label everything from the hated capitalist west as being "imperialist".
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
well overthrowing goverments including elected goverments is imperialist. invading countries and stealing thier wealth is also imperialist.
punjabshere123 3 years ago
u did,u funded and trained Mujahideen forces who became the taliban.
punjabshere123 3 years ago
Keyword: BECAME.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
yeh became, when u were sending bin laden and his henchmen, u very well knew about thier facist ideology but when ur interests are concerned u dont give a damn about democracy
punjabshere123 3 years ago
ive been 2 india and pakistan which are not exactly cushy.
punjabshere123 3 years ago
could u clarify please, because i dont understand what u saying
punjabshere123 3 years ago
"And you dont think so? Britain went from being the most powerful economy in the world to being so so. Especially with the stupid move of giving them all passports. Every country they left has went to shit. Keep your nonsensical wannabe socialist revolutionary garbage to yourself, it isn't impressing anyone. " why arent u explaining this comment , is it because u would reveal that u r a bigoted halfwit
punjabshere123 3 years ago
What is there to explain it would seem that it explains itself. Bigoted how? Get off your soapbox retard.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
"Britain went from being the most powerful economy in the world to being so so." so so what? given who passports? do u mean immigrants from the former colonies, is that it that u dont like them. "Every country they left has went to shit" who r u talking about, britain or the people we gave passports too. u said that britain should of kept its empire and u r all for the american imperialism because i guess u think that the world is some kind of white man's burden, dont you?
punjabshere123 3 years ago
No i dont care where someone comes from, the fact that britain went from being a worldwide superpower to being a withering nation is because it abandoned imperialism. The british and their crappy abandonment of india caused a division and those two nations are still the most likely to enter a nuclear war. South africa went from being a racist british possession (albeit an orderly one) to being a pseudo nazi state to being a mess of AIDS and crime run by black racists. White mans burden, no why?
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
britains powerful economy was the result of mass robery of the its colonies, before the british arrived in bengal it was the richest place on the earth, when the british arrived in bengal it became one the poorest places. and if you think that the iraqi people will allow u to loot thier oil again, then u have got another thing coming, the iraqi people will not allow the theft of thier wealth
punjabshere123 3 years ago
Theft of their wealth? The iraqis arent in a position to make demands. I'm sure they were just dandy under saddam, but what does that matter we're the oil-addicted fourth reich right? WTF? Bengal the richest? Do you mean resource wise or standard of living, because if you mean standard of living then you're full of shit.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
"The iraqis arent in a position to make demands" thats exactly what u want. Brigadier General Mohammad-Baqer Zolqadr said ""If Iraq is to become secure,there will be no room for the occupiers".
thats why america doesent want iraq to be secure as there will be no reason for u being there. while the irqis are killing each other it will make ur job easier
punjabshere123 3 years ago
That doesn't even make any sense, there isnt enough oil over there to make the amount we're pissing away on the war worth our while. You act like every american is there just to shoot some "ragheads" and party, but with the quality of your opinions i expect that you really DO believe that.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
Iraq possesses proven reserves of 112.5 billion barrels, more than any other country except Saudi Arabia, and it is thought to possess another 200 billion barrels in undeveloped fields that are waiting to be dug up.Iraq could become a leading oil supplier in the decades ahead exploited by U.S. firms.
punjabshere123 3 years ago
Thats nice and all but "the decades ahead" isn't really worth shit when the country is already going broke. The people who run corporations arent stupid, the best way to run an economy isn't to thouroughly fuck it up then make alot of money its to be consistent. Lol "exploited" we use tons of the shit what do you expect. If this was just about oil we would have dug up some shit on the saudis and attacked them a long time ago, find a better ruse.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
the oil corporation will make a huge profit. u dont need to attack saudi arabia, as u have a slave puppet king power there, thats why u never invade the country, nor do u want to see democracy in the country
punjabshere123 3 years ago
So now you just blunder through the point, you clearly cant argue a point. The profits the oil companies are making are drops in the bucket compared to the amount of money that has been pissed away on the war. If you are trying to make the uneducated case that the war is about oil then perhaps you should find a kindergartener to bandy words with. A slave puppet king? Your stupidity never ceases to exceed my expectations.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
The only people who will benefit from the war on Iraq are the elite wealthy oil men who finance Bush's election campaigns, and people like Bush who have huge personal investments in the oil industry. "A slave puppet king? Your stupidity never ceases to exceed my expectations." its true, thats why u will never invade saudi arabia or egypt because they are subservient to ur interests
punjabshere123 3 years ago
You mean we wont invade them because they arent gassing and torturing people en masse. Lol once you no longer have an argument you just say "its all about oil because some ultra leftist said so". Lol this sounds like some michael moore level shit.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
your goverment didnt give a damn when he was gassing them, so dont use that as a justification for going to war with iraq. in late 2000 Bush said: "We should not send our troops to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide outside our strategic interests. . . . I would not send the United States troops into Rwanda." so its bit dubious how bush and the other crazed neo-cons use the kurds as an excuse. u country loves the saudi puppet king because he loots his country & then sends that loot to you
punjabshere123 3 years ago
Thats because bush is an idiot. Lets keep in mind that we hadn't been attacked yet either. We didn't go into WWII until we were attacked either, even though it was the correct thing to do. Crazed pseudocommunists like yourself will find any reason to attack your own country in order to vindicate terrorists. Why shouldn't we love the saudi leadership if its beneficial to us? Does this have to be written in crayon for you to get it. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
"Why shouldn't we love the saudi leadership if its beneficial to us?" because u criticise iran, iraq, and syria on thier human rights but at the same time u r in bed with the corrupt tyrant saudi king. increasingly not alot of people believe your sermons on democracy and freedom anymore, you want slave governments.
punjabshere123 3 years ago
Lol comparing the Saudi govt to Saddam's Iraq is pointless and stupid and you know it. When you have to grasp at such weak straws you should probably abandon the arguement. Life isn't Disney bullshit. I'm sure you're into some kind of deranged pseudo-marxism which is fine, but dont expect adults to take you seriously.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
when saddam was committing the most serious atrocities, he was americas best friend. the saudi government is a brutal theocracy, everything u claim ur fighting in afghanistan. you seem to attack me rather than my points whereas im attacking ur points rather than u, it just shows u dont know much.
punjabshere123 3 years ago
You arent attacking any points you dont have one. Lol its like you dont care what saddam does, just us even if its miniscule by comparison. I dont care if you hate america and the western world, just dont expect me to side with you. The Saudi government isn't even comparable to Saddam's Iraq or the Taliban's Afghanistan, not even as bad as Iran under the current moron who runs the place. You are really scraping desperately to justify your insipid hate of western culture arent you.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
you seem to concentrate on my supposed political ideology, my age. ive destroyed most of your absurd points so far. saddam was a monster. but he committed the worst atrocities when he was americas friend, when he gassing kurds the reagan administration didnt do or say nothing. i didnt expect a crazed neo-con fundementalist like u to side with me.
punjabshere123 3 years ago
You havent destroyed nor made any points, you cant even get dates right. You are desperately scraping the bottom of the barrel for dirt on america to protect your terrorist buddies. How am i a neocon? I havent voted conservative any time that i recall, still ultra leftist bums like yourself give the rest a bad name. So it makes US the bad guy because we were buying oil from saddam while he was gassing kurds? How stupid, and it makes us worse when we stop him? Its like im talking to a cow.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
what dates? u r a neoncon pro war hawk. "So it makes US the bad guy because we were buying oil from saddam while he was gassing kurds? How stupid, and it makes us worse when we stop him? Its like im talking to a cow. " no its the hypocracy and the double standards, he was killing kurds at the time of the reagan administration, he did not do nothing, so its a bit dubious how u justify this disaster of a war on saddams crimes against the kurds, u ddnt go in there for the wmd's either.
punjabshere123 3 years ago
How am i pro war? I have said numerous times that i think we should leave. You're an empty headed ultra leftist who doesn't have the foggiest idea of the way the world works or about history. How so? We removed a brutal dictator from power (although you seem to sing the praises of him) and people were glad, now they want us out.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
in your first post on this video u said we should be prould that we removed saddam and the taliban, these two regimes were made pwerfull by america in the first place. dont expect the world to give gratitude when ur cleaning up your own mess. u were funding the Mujahideen to topple the progressive afghan goverment then.
punjabshere123 3 years ago
I have already thrown this sniveling nonsense in the trash. We aided the mujahadeen AFTER the soviets had invaded. We didn't do it, just to ruin afghanistan you wretched harlequin. I dont expect your gratitude, nor do i care if some sniveling ultra leftist dreg cant read a history book. We hardly encouraged saddams actiona and didn't supply him with the intention of terrorizing his own populace or slaughtering kurds and you know it. You are really trying desperately (and vainly) to bash america.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
no u stupid idiot, u funded them six months before the soviets invaded in its sole purpose to topple the afghan left-wing progressive goverment. during the iran-iraq war in which our goverments encouraged, we gave him chemical weapons, in which he used against iran, u dont give a dictator chemical weapons and then say we dont intend them to use it
punjabshere123 3 years ago
Yeah im the idiot (thats rich coming from someone who cant spell). We've already been through this, the soviets had been in afghanistan for over a year before we even lifted a finger. Left wing progressive lol?!?! You mean the communist bootlick govt who destroyed the homes of middle and upper class afghans, seized their possessions and imprisoned them. Selling someone a gun does not make you guilty of his murder. We didn't intend for him to gas the kurds, are you that dumb?
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
no the soviets invaded afghanistan on december 1979, america funded the Mujahideen on july 3rd 1979. we encouraged iraq to attck iran, and we gave hime the arms, giving conventional weapons to saddam is one thing, but giving chemical weapons is a whole different matter, because u did intend for him to use it, otherwise why give it in the first place
punjabshere123 3 years ago
Too easy, the deployment of the soviet 40th army into afghanistan began in august of 78. I already laughed your bullshit out of here, guess again. I dunno what your slow witted standards are for counting something as an "invasion", but sending an army group into anothers country seems like it to me. The soviets had made incursions into afghan territory before that. Sigh i guess you arent developed enough to understand. chemical weapons werent meant to be used on the kurds, iran is irrelevant.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
And while were talking about it, over a million afghans (including civilians) died just because the soviets wanted it. So you would be calling the mujahideen freedom fighters had you been alive at the time. What a double standard.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
its different, u armed the mujahideen to tople a decent goverment. the afghans then requested soviet help. if u hadent trained and armed the them, they would never have gained any power.
punjabshere123 3 years ago
You mean the "decent" communist puppets that terrorized and impoverished afghanistans middle class? Your entire argument is weak, we armed rebels who were fighting the communist scum. The idiot afghan government "accepted" soviet help which the soviets used to gain intel of the country before invading it in summer 1978. We didn't have anything to do with the rebels until after the soviets invaded. You arent even making points you're just trying to find some dirt to throw at the hated west.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
"You mean the "decent" communist puppets that terrorized and impoverished afghanistans middle class? Your entire argument is weak" well if u look at what was before that afghan goverment and then what coame afterwards i will say that they were decent. and america funded the mujahideen six months before the initial soviet invasion
punjabshere123 3 years ago
so you suppport the soviet union invading afghanistan, ur a communist
robertk2007 3 years ago
Not to forget, the Mujahideen were NOT necessarily the Taliban, even if there was SOME overlap because of ever shifting tribal alliances. But facts simply do not matter to SOME people, just "anti-imperial" and "anti-war" conjecture. Believe what you will, but it changes nothing about the facts of the matter. The bottom line to your incomplete story is that Russia did indeed want full access to the Arabian Sea, and their "friendly invasion", or whatever you are calling it, was inevitable.
rawREN 3 years ago
He's too dumb to care, he's desperate to find some reason to hate america. The soviets INVADED before the americans bothered caring, he thinks that if he repeats a lie enough it will come true. Performing the same action and expecting different results is one of the signs of an unhealthy mind
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
"The soviets INVADED before the americans bothered caring,"
PJS's facts and interpretations are all jumbled, that is all there is to it. Problem is, people read this jumbled nonsense on places like YouTube and take it for fact, without any serious study and reflection. READ MORE PEOPLE! And Chomsky's books do not count! Try something a little more objective, and a little less OBVIOUSLY politically biased.
rawREN 3 years ago
I think the fact that he actively seeks to distort the facts or interpret them to fit his beliefs is rather telling. Since america bashing is common in britain right now he's doing it to sound clever and revolutionary. This dumbass praises Castro then shits on Saudi becasue they dont have elections i guess he fails to see the irony. What can you expect from someone who calls murdering terrorists freedom fighters?
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago