@DrCruel hitchens has never changed his stance and do no group him in with "Leftists" as they denounce him now hitchens has been a pillar of honesty and logic
Agreed. All one really needs to do to discredit the case for war in Iraq is point out that the four conditions under which a state may be deemed to have forfeited it's sovereignty, which Hitchens uses as his legal justification, is fallacious and hypocritical. The US has violated all four conditions, repeatedly.
@DrCruel I should hope that no one would try and argue that the removal of Saddam was a bad thing in itself, as he was a tyrant. But the method by which it was done did indeed leave very many innocent people dead. Also by the reasoning that 'he was bad' you should surley expect the U.S to remove tens of other dictators, e.g Kim Jong Ill, an even worse dictator. It was in fact an internatinally illegal war, why should the U.S and Britain be above the law....
@Feldkahl I agree - and I also had many problems with the way the war was prosecuted. Hitches has said that himself. But Leftists were opposed to Saddam Hussein's deposing - I went to see them say so, at ISO events at Washington University in DC - and before he lost power, they were keen to present him as a nice guy. The fact remains that taking Saddam Hussein out of power was a good thing, and not "illegal". If Leftists could feel shame, they should be ashamed for their support of the man.
That moustache is hhilarious. War was present within Iraq constantly for decades, and thousands of people died over this time. Invading Iraq and establishing democracy stops this.
(Incidentally, and I'm just noting this as an aside - if one takes the entirety of the whole Left-aligned "anti-war" faction into perspective, it would seem they are not "anti-war" at all, but rather favor as much freedom and leeway for Left-aligned despots to do whatsoever they like. Thus, I assert that the Left's main objection to Saddam Hussein's deposing and subsequent execution had more to do with his alignment with Left-wing factions in the Middle East than with any resulting loss of life)
@Gnoo 1) It wasn't an "illegal" war - in fact it was the result of repeated violations of the 1991 peace treaty by Saddam Hussein. 2) I would not be adverse to Kim Jong Il being deposed, but this would entail war with the communist Chinese. We already tried that route in 1950-52. 3) "Anti-war protestors" didn't seem to mind a US war in Haiti that reinstated the Marxist Aristide into power. Why then is the deposing of a Marxist leader to be treated differently? C'mon now. Be serious.
@whysers I was neither responding to Hitchens in my comment, nor implying that Hitchens is a Leftist in the sense I describe. Hitchens honestly believes in the principles that Leftists pretend to believe in, and so he has received the same abusive treatment by the Left that George Orwell got - despite the fact that Hitchens himself is a self-proclaimed Leftist. My comment was to address how the Left has tried to justify being against deposing a fascist tyrant (and on "legal grounds" no less).
@QwidgyboMan I can safely say that there are no elected officials in the West, "terrorists" or otherwise, that have used sarin and tabun as a means of "stabilizing their popularity". As for elected officials in the West who, like Saddam, were similarly guilty of filling shallow trenches with the bodies of their own murdered peoples, they should be deposed as well. I even got to participate, actually, when we helped remove Milosevic from power. So again I ask. What distinction do you speak of?
@Triploblast1 That however is not an argument at all. Whether or not you would be willing to fight or send people you know to fight a war does not speak of the necessity or justice of it. Suppose we didn't invade. Would those who support the war ask "Would you be willing to live your life or have your children live their lives under Saddam?" come on this is the stupidest line of "argumentation"
@bigjstokes Being well educated and knowledgeable in history may make your points more coherent and rational, but it will never win you friends amongst the scatalogical. I'm afraid Mr. Yatter is a lost cause. But kudos for a valiant attempt.
@yatter1 I read newspapers and books. I also look into history. You should familiarize yourself with WWI and II, Korea, Vietnam, the Russian and Chinese revolutions, and Cambodia to name a few. The violence experienced in the early and mid 20th century dwarfs anything we see going on today. It was the bloodiest time in human history. The 19th century was no good either. Napoleon, the Civil War. Gettysburg over 40,000 dead in ONE day. NOTHING like this happening today, thank god.
@yatter1 It is indisputable that we are enjoying the most peaceful time in human history. Familiarize yourself with the 20th century before you make inane comments such as the one you just made.
"One minute!? Very well. Prepare for a rhetorical acceleration." ...I heart the Hitch, so, so much.
@DrCruel hitchens has never changed his stance and do no group him in with "Leftists" as they denounce him now hitchens has been a pillar of honesty and logic
@DrCruel
You didn't answer my second question. What is the distinction?
I don't know, but you can bet that the number is WELL under the number of millions slaughtered in the previous 50.
Thank you for posting this, rabidbear8.
can someone explain the paradox thing that everyone laughed at...sorry i didn't get it
@DrCruel
What were you doing when Reagan was terrorising Nicaragua?
Agreed. All one really needs to do to discredit the case for war in Iraq is point out that the four conditions under which a state may be deemed to have forfeited it's sovereignty, which Hitchens uses as his legal justification, is fallacious and hypocritical. The US has violated all four conditions, repeatedly.
i like the fu man chu moustache appearing over hitchens when he looks up LOL
@DrCruel I should hope that no one would try and argue that the removal of Saddam was a bad thing in itself, as he was a tyrant. But the method by which it was done did indeed leave very many innocent people dead. Also by the reasoning that 'he was bad' you should surley expect the U.S to remove tens of other dictators, e.g Kim Jong Ill, an even worse dictator. It was in fact an internatinally illegal war, why should the U.S and Britain be above the law....
@Feldkahl I agree - and I also had many problems with the way the war was prosecuted. Hitches has said that himself. But Leftists were opposed to Saddam Hussein's deposing - I went to see them say so, at ISO events at Washington University in DC - and before he lost power, they were keen to present him as a nice guy.
The fact remains that taking Saddam Hussein out of power was a good thing, and not "illegal". If Leftists could feel shame, they should be ashamed for their support of the man.
Alas, we have in Hitchens a replacement for the late William F. Buckley.
@DrCruel
If you agree Hussein should've been removed then why not countless other states? What is your distinction?
That moustache is hhilarious.
War was present within Iraq constantly for decades, and thousands of people died over this time. Invading Iraq and establishing democracy stops this.
(Incidentally, and I'm just noting this as an aside - if one takes the entirety of the whole Left-aligned "anti-war" faction into perspective, it would seem they are not "anti-war" at all, but rather favor as much freedom and leeway for Left-aligned despots to do whatsoever they like. Thus, I assert that the Left's main objection to Saddam Hussein's deposing and subsequent execution had more to do with his alignment with Left-wing factions in the Middle East than with any resulting loss of life)
@Gnoo
1) It wasn't an "illegal" war - in fact it was the result of repeated violations of the 1991 peace treaty by Saddam Hussein.
2) I would not be adverse to Kim Jong Il being deposed, but this would entail war with the communist Chinese. We already tried that route in 1950-52.
3) "Anti-war protestors" didn't seem to mind a US war in Haiti that reinstated the Marxist Aristide into power. Why then is the deposing of a Marxist leader to be treated differently?
C'mon now. Be serious.
@whysers I was neither responding to Hitchens in my comment, nor implying that Hitchens is a Leftist in the sense I describe. Hitchens honestly believes in the principles that Leftists pretend to believe in, and so he has received the same abusive treatment by the Left that George Orwell got - despite the fact that Hitchens himself is a self-proclaimed Leftist.
My comment was to address how the Left has tried to justify being against deposing a fascist tyrant (and on "legal grounds" no less).
@QwidgyboMan I can safely say that there are no elected officials in the West, "terrorists" or otherwise, that have used sarin and tabun as a means of "stabilizing their popularity". As for elected officials in the West who, like Saddam, were similarly guilty of filling shallow trenches with the bodies of their own murdered peoples, they should be deposed as well. I even got to participate, actually, when we helped remove Milosevic from power.
So again I ask. What distinction do you speak of?
I hate you guys. I wouldn't have noticed his shadow mustache if I hadn't read the comments, now I can't look away :(
i respect Hitchens but i don't agree with him on this point.
@Triploblast1
That however is not an argument at all. Whether or not you would be willing to fight or send people you know to fight a war does not speak of the necessity or justice of it. Suppose we didn't invade. Would those who support the war ask "Would you be willing to live your life or have your children live their lives under Saddam?" come on this is the stupidest line of "argumentation"
@bigjstokes Being well educated and knowledgeable in history may make your points more coherent and rational, but it will never win you friends amongst the scatalogical.
I'm afraid Mr. Yatter is a lost cause. But kudos for a valiant attempt.
@yatter1 I read newspapers and books. I also look into history. You should familiarize yourself with WWI and II, Korea, Vietnam, the Russian and Chinese revolutions, and Cambodia to name a few. The violence experienced in the early and mid 20th century dwarfs anything we see going on today. It was the bloodiest time in human history. The 19th century was no good either. Napoleon, the Civil War. Gettysburg over 40,000 dead in ONE day. NOTHING like this happening today, thank god.
@yatter1 It is indisputable that we are enjoying the most peaceful time in human history. Familiarize yourself with the 20th century before you make inane comments such as the one you just made.
Da sachste was.
The world is largely not at war. The world has enjoyed more peace in the last fifty years than at any time in history.