Christopher Hitchens comes out against the Iraq War!!!!!! pt 02

PSYCH!!! here Christopher Hitchens debates Morton Kondracke on the first Gulf War.
Hitchens is here in an older, anti-imperialist mode, a la Noam Chomsky, Edward Said, Howard Zinn etc...
Interestingly, the sense of outrage/horror at the state of Iraq and at the Baath Party dictatorship is just as palpable as in the post 9-11 debates.... One doesn't get the sense that he's simply jumped ship in the latest fight. He's take the evidence in full and decided that it's better to partner with American power (and all it's baggage) against an aggressive genocidal fascist dictatorship, than to partner with left-wing anti-imperialist movements and leave said regime in place.
Kondracke comes out on top in this debate IMO. Hitchens sounds especially outdated with his boilerplate anti-globalization/anti-capitalism rhetoric, more so than Kondracke does with his boilerplate Christian poltics. There is a weird break in the recording while Hitchens is talking at some point (I forget where), but I don't think that much is missing.

Please rate. thanks.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Christopher
• Hitchens
• Kondracke
• Gulf War
• Iraq
• terrorism
• War on terror
• George Bush
• Saddam Hussein
• bin Laden
• foreign policy
• military intervention
• chomsky
• edward said
• Kanan
• Makiya

[GaiusIuliusTaberna]

@QwidgyboMan Vulgar propaganda? What would you call a position that pits one against the policy of war with a fascistic totalitarian entity? I don't follow the conspiracy theorist view of events, the policy of war with the cesspit the cia has produced in the middle east comes out of desperation. It was the realization that 9-11 did not come out of a clear blue sky, but out of a cesspit that we had created, and that we have to destroy. Which is what we should be doing. Iraq was just the 1st step.

[QwidgyboMan]

@GaiusIuliusTaberna

Britain and the US are the states that allowed him to commit his crimes. Your comment about supporting Hussein is vulgar propaganda. You ought to retract it.

Blood for oil is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the wealth that the West accumulates (often through terrorism) and gives to fascistic, murderous, criminals like those in Israel and the other places I mentioned. It's sources are vast and diverse but mainly from tax payers.

[GaiusIuliusTaberna]

@QwidgyboMan Yes because being against dictators like Saddam Hussein is a perfectly logical reason to attack the US and Britain when they try to remove them...

Blood for oil was all the years where the UN supported Saddam's sadism through the corrupt oil for food program, the war in Iraq ended that.

[QwidgyboMan]

@GaiusIuliusTaberna

That is utter nonsense. Non-support for one side does not equate to support for the other.

Perhaps if the US, Britain and the West provided support to internal, democratic forces rather than to dictators and mass murderer's (ironically, like Hussein), we wouldn't need to invade and all the waste that goes with it. Imagine what could have been done to help Iraq and Afghanistan with the blood money that pours into Israel and Turkey and Saudi Arabia and etc.

[eugdog106]

morton kondracke owns this debate! I am growing quite fond of morton kondracke.

[quantumhed]

you can't fight these kinds of monsters without taking casualties. If you say otherwise, your irresponsible, your a-historical. Just lay down and hide while we do the very dirty work of providing room so secular national democrats can arise. shame on you.

[GaiusIuliusTaberna]

@llandshark If you voted against this war you support a totalitarian dictatorship that has and would have continued to kill a lot more than one civilian.

War

[PinkoPapist89]

I thinks he's pretty good myself. No Hitchens, of course.

[OrthodoxSteel]

Fuck me I wasted two time sessions waiting for this cunt to stop speaking and Hitchens to start speaking.

[llandshark]

If you voted for this war you belong in jail.

One civilian is inexcusable!

Peace