1. Comment #64031 by 82abhilash on August 17, 2007 at 11:18 am

This guy verifes facts doesnot take things just because everybody agrees. I like that.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

2. Comment #64032 by USA_Limey on August 17, 2007 at 11:23 am

Nothing new here but always good to see Hitchy.

Other Comments by USA_Limey

3. Comment #64034 by Oliver Leif on August 17, 2007 at 11:36 am

Hitchy is a good speaker and makes very good points.

But does anyone know why he supported the War in Iraq?

Other Comments by Oliver Leif

4. Comment #64037 by steve99 on August 17, 2007 at 11:43 am

But does anyone know why he supported the War in Iraq?

My understanding is that his reasons where quite complex, and included well-established and long-term links between Iraqi government ministers and international terrorists, the sheer awfulness of the Iraqi regime, past use of chemical weapons by Saddam and so on. Hitchens is not the simple 'neocon supporter' that many try and make him out to be. He is someone of independent (and often controversial) thought.

Other Comments by steve99

5. Comment #64038 by USA_Limey on August 17, 2007 at 11:45 am

Comment #64034 by Oliver Leif :

"

But does anyone know why he supported the War in Iraq?

.... Oh Oliver pleeeese! That one has been trolled so many times on here it is getting boring. And, there are enough Hitchens interviews available both on this site and elsewhere to satisfy that question in Hitchens own words.

But I think you know that.

Other Comments by USA_Limey

6. Comment #64039 by USA_Limey on August 17, 2007 at 11:46 am

Steve99 I can't believe you fell for Olivers trolling!

Other Comments by USA_Limey

7. Comment #64042 by Oliver Leif on August 17, 2007 at 11:57 am

"Steve99 I can't believe you fell for Olivers trolling!"


I just jonied this site this week and haven't found anythign about his reasons for supporting the war...lol.

Don't get me wrong, I think Hitchens is great, I was just curious about his supporting the war, afetr all he 'used' to be a Trotskyist..

Sorry for trolling?

Other Comments by Oliver Leif

8. Comment #64044 by Riley on August 17, 2007 at 12:02 pm

Even though I agree with most of his conclusions, I resent that he so frequently exploits half truths and untruths to make his arguments. For just one example, read here: My problem with Christopher Hitchens

He's really no friend of people who feel that championing the truth is as important as championing a cause.

Other Comments by Riley

9. Comment #64046 by Oliver Leif on August 17, 2007 at 12:06 pm

"He's really no friend of people who feel that championing the truth is as important as championing a cause."

I'm assuming you're refering to his support of the war? Or his book?

..I'm confused.

Other Comments by Oliver Leif

10. Comment #64047 by USA_Limey on August 17, 2007 at 12:07 pm

Oliver,

Well you have my almost sincere apology; still just a bit suspicious that was the first thing you could think to come up with.

But I am very prickly in my defence of the Hitch; great god that he is to me.

:-)

Other Comments by USA_Limey

11. Comment #64048 by steve99 on August 17, 2007 at 12:09 pm

Steve99 I can't believe you fell for Olivers trolling!

Trolling or not, I felt it needed explanation. I find it depressing the frequency with with simplistic opinions are expressed by supposedly rational people, such as "Hitchens fully supported the Iraq war, therefore he is just as bad as the neo-conservatives and we should not listen to him on anything". We even see it here with an association between being Trotskyist and not supporting military action in Iraq. This is a very complex world, and believe or not, some very right wing people were against the 'War', and some left wing people were for it. Personally, I find it a great relief that there are people like Hitchens who don't conform to the stereotypes, with the usual set of 'tick off on the list' views.

Other Comments by steve99

12. Comment #64049 by Riley on August 17, 2007 at 12:12 pm

I'm referring to all the causes he supports Oliver -- again and again you will find him latching on to common misconceptions in order to support his own positioins. Even when I share his conclusions I resent his tactics.

I can think of good reasons to support the war in Iraq even though I myself don't think there are sufficiently good reasons to do so. I can respect someone who has a difference of opinion based on the facts and arguments. The problem with Hitchens is that he plays fast and lose with the facts and seems to intentionally exploit common misconceptions about the facts in order to support his positions --- and for that I consider him a media whore, and nothing more. What a waste of talent.

Other Comments by Riley

13. Comment #64052 by Oliver Leif on August 17, 2007 at 12:16 pm

Limey,

I've read his book and have seen nearly all his interviews, I respect the man for his no-nonesense approach to arguing, it's something that is greatly needed and he does not bow down to 'let's respect everyone's views' etc.

steve99, thanks for answering my question, I know many liberals who did support the war and many conservatives who did not.

What struck me about Hitchens, was when I first heard about him a few months ago and wiki-ed his bio. Wikipedia is notorious for giving you the 'gist' information, if you will, so antrually when I learned that he was a former Marxist and then had supported the War, I was curious as to what had caused the 'shift'. Nevertheless I'm greatful and glad that he's decided to join the fight against religious dogma.

Other Comments by Oliver Leif

14. Comment #64053 by Oliver Leif on August 17, 2007 at 12:20 pm

"The problem with Hitchens is that he plays fast and lose with the facts, especially common misconceptions about the facts in order to support his positions --- and for that I consider him a media whore, and nothing more. What a waste of talent."

Ah, I see exactly what you mean. Although I do think that any rational person will soon realize that Hitchens does not give all the facts to an argument, and because of that it is up to the individual to make up his/her own mind about what he says.

If every speaker gave equal weight to an argument, their point wouldn't come across well. I may be wrong about that though, just a thought.

Other Comments by Oliver Leif

15. Comment #64054 by Riley on August 17, 2007 at 12:36 pm

I don't expect anyone to present "all the facts" ---
What I expect is that the facts be honestly represented.

Hitchens is not a reliable source if you care about getting your facts straight.

Other Comments by Riley

16. Comment #64055 by Oliver Leif on August 17, 2007 at 12:39 pm

"What I expect is that the facts be honestly represented and that the argument not include logical fallacy."

As do I.

Other Comments by Oliver Leif

17. Comment #64057 by debaser71 on August 17, 2007 at 12:48 pm

I am a liberal democrat and I think the United States should have taken military action in the Middle East a long time ago. I also think that it's a disgrace that Bush hasn't been impeached yet.

Other Comments by debaser71

18. Comment #64058 by USA_Limey on August 17, 2007 at 12:56 pm

Comment #64057 by debaser71

I also think that it's a disgrace that Bush hasn't been impeached yet.

Hey you forget this:

http://www.impeachbush.org

Other Comments by USA_Limey

19. Comment #64062 by N. Fidel on August 17, 2007 at 1:18 pm

Anyone who has read Hitchens' book and essays on the Iraq war will - or should - recognize that Hitchens' opinions are based on his utter hatred of tyrannical dictatorships. Did the corrupt Bush administration create a fiasco that defies the possibility of terse description? Certainly. But, Hitchens never - nor should he be required to - clears his throat about his sharing opinions with neo-conservatives.

The principle of this war and the war itself are anything but conservative: they are boundlessly radical. And Hitchens is and has always been radical. (And so was the Left . . . once). Most people on the left, however, have the nonplussing inability to separate their hatred of Bushies from the ethical principle of liberating a people to whom we have broken so many promises, direct or implied. Today's liberals seem to say, "Well Bush wants to do this, so I'm against it," no matter what the issue is. So, when Hitchens sides with these political nincompoops on Iraq it is because few of his erstwhile comrades are capable of making a temporary alliance with those they might disagree with on other issues.

I can only recommend that if you have read "A Long Short War" once, read it again, and do your very best to rebut Hitchens' findings without resorting to the same old platitudes about how this was a war for oil, or a grand conspiracy to gain control of the middle east and its resources. You'll find it challenging, to say the least.

The point is, even if the war were all of these things, even if the war has been bungled beyond belief and despair, the PRINCIPLE of regime change and liberation in Iraq was just and necessary in Hitchens' view. Try getting a liberal to admit even that much.

Best,
Jared

Other Comments by N. Fidel

20. Comment #64063 by USA_Limey on August 17, 2007 at 1:24 pm

Comment #64062 by N. Fidel

... nicely said Fidel, that about sums it up for me too.

But dammit, I still wish the thread hadn't gone down this road.

Must put a mention in for the Kafkaesque joke which I thought was pretty good.

Other Comments by USA_Limey

21. Comment #64068 by howtoplayalone on August 17, 2007 at 1:40 pm

I noticed knee-jerk hatred this when Hitchens was first mentioned on this website (go back and read the comments, they're amusing); most of the comments were something like "he supported the war in Iraq, therefore I'm not going to listen to him about religion."

And yet, as people heard what he had to say and how well he said it, they stopped judging everything he said in light of his stance on the war in Iraq, and many of them in fact came to see some of his points, not to say they agreed with him.

I'm sure it's the same on the right (although I couldn't say), but I notice that people on the 'left' who disagree strongly with someone's (a writer, usually) stance on something, extend that dislike to anything the person writes about. "This Hitchens video about religion is might be OK, but I'm not gonna pay attention because he supported the war in Iraq." Or "This Dershowitz article (or book) on the separation of church and state is insightful, but he wrote a book in defense of Israel, so the hell with him."

His stance on Iraq might be / may have been detestable, but is it necessary to bring it up when he talks about other subjects?

Actually I'm curious. What do people here think? If someone makes a bad (in some people's opinion) call about Iraq or Israel (see the comments here:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,1529,Church-and-State-Divided-we-stand,Alan-Dershowitz )
does that make everything he or she says not to be trusted?

Or, did anyone think similar things about Hitchens, for example, and then change their mind when they heard or read other things he had to say?

Other Comments by howtoplayalone

22. Comment #64073 by ICONIC FREEDOM on August 17, 2007 at 2:01 pm

#64068 - I've always liked Hitchens, I've admired his work for some time now and first heard him on the Hugh Hewitt show(which I find difficult to listen to at times but Hugh has a good grasp of things involving Law which is important to me here in the U.S.)

The questioner on the video who asked what would replace religion and the difficulty having to make your own decisions, being responsible, being accountable – the short answer from Hitch could've been:

Grow up!

Truly, this is the one thing that people of ANY religion refuse to do. They feign that they are adults but the mere fact that they pray, etc. to their "father" is the revelation of a parental figure to whom they are placing the same responsibility from childhood. (Remember the guy on Mike Dickin's show with RD who said, "I must have a guaradian" - surreal)

"But god gives us free will"

Rubbish. There is no such thing.

No one has anymore free will then the flower who leans toward the sun in order to bath itself in the usefulness of doing such an act for which it knows no free will it just does as it should based on its deterministic life.

Such is the case for the species known as human. The idea that you have free will is rooted in religious mythology. Nevertheless, the hard fact is that you behave as you behave because you are hard-wired to do so. Even when you change the behavior, it's because you are hard-wired to make the change as you evolve.

The Free Will charge is humorous. If one needs to say it, then they truly don't have free will as they would have naturally made the choice.

Other Comments by ICONIC FREEDOM

23. Comment #64076 by steve99 on August 17, 2007 at 2:13 pm

The point is, even if the war were all of these things, even if the war has been bungled beyond belief and despair, the PRINCIPLE of regime change and liberation in Iraq was just and necessary in Hitchens' view. Try getting a liberal to admit even that much.

Hey, yet another generalisation :) I am certainly a 'liberal' according to the American meaning of the term, and you have expressed precisely my view. There are many left-wingers in the UK who were also in favour of regime change. The Labour MP Anne Clwd is a well-known example.

Other Comments by steve99

24. Comment #64080 by sparkie_t on August 17, 2007 at 2:48 pm

About the whole war thing, Chomsky put it well:

'Since Hitchens evidently does not take what he is writing seriously, there is no reason for anyone else to do so. The fair and sensible reaction is to treat all of this as some aberration, and to await the return of the author to the important work that he has often done in the past'

As much as I love his work on God, he fails very badly in his analysis of the war. Often he simply sets up a strawman and sets about putting it on fire. He talks about the senerios in which a country can lose its sovernity, but never mentions the only legal reasons for going to war under international law. I cant watch him anymore when he speaks about the war.

Other Comments by sparkie_t

25. Comment #64081 by N. Fidel on August 17, 2007 at 2:54 pm

RE: Comment #64076 by steve99

Point taken, Steve; I'm afraid I resorted to the generality in my attempt for concision. You are correct, however, that many "liberals" - myself included - were in favor of regime change from the start. My point was that the liberals who do oppose the war, typically not only criticize the Bush administration's handling of the engagement, but also deny that the war was just at all. Sorry to have lumped you and others into the barrel with our comrades who will allow their justified comtempt for the Bush administration to becloud their judgement on the broader issue of justice.

Further, I beg the pardon of those tired of this topic muddling an unrelated thread. But it seems that Hitchens cannot escape the issue. It was my very first post on this forum, and I was tired of seeing (and hearing) the question: "Hitch is right about religion, but what's with his supporting the invasion of Iraq?" This comes up during just about every interview and television appearance, so I thought I'd throw in a couple of reddish portraits of Licoln for my ingress into this community of open debate and freethought.

Other Comments by N. Fidel

26. Comment #64082 by sparkie_t on August 17, 2007 at 3:04 pm

Comment 17:

I am a liberal democrat and I think the United States should have taken military action in the Middle East a long time ago.'

I was going to mark this comment as offensive but dont think that's what the button is for.

Does this military action you think the US should have taken in the middle East begin before the 1953 coup and final overthrow of a democraticaly elected secular government in Iran? After which the publicaly owned oil fields were privitised.

What about Israel? Is $2.5 billion a year enough to count it as involvement.

1980s Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria

Personally I think its about time the US stopped taking military action in the middle east.

Other Comments by sparkie_t

27. Comment #64083 by N. Fidel on August 17, 2007 at 3:08 pm

The "offensive" button should be removed altogether. I would qualify that statement, but I'm certain I don't have to here.

Jared

Other Comments by N. Fidel

28. Comment #64085 by steve99 on August 17, 2007 at 3:12 pm

sparkie: International law is a very tricky thing. According to Hitchens (and many others) Iraq was already in contravention of many international laws before the resolutions regarding the invasion. There is also the question of whether international law as currently framed is appropriate... what does 'sovereignty' mean when a country is ruled by a dictator? International law implies that the country is effectively owned by that dictator, and we have to forget about the population unless there is a very specific form of mass murder (genocide), or unless they threaten us. To me, this seems hopelessly inadequate, inhumane and outdated - look what international law is allowing in Zimbabwe, for example.

I guess I just have difficulty with anyone who puts forward 'soundbite' views on such matters, such as 'Hitchens wrong, war bad'. Things are very, very complex, and Hitchens is an extremely bright fellow who knows a lot about that area of the world. I am not saying he is right about all this; just that I know I don't know enough to have a view either way about a lot of what he says. I just wish that more fellow liberals took a similar attitude.

Other Comments by steve99

29. Comment #64087 by ICONIC FREEDOM on August 17, 2007 at 3:36 pm

Hitchens continued to point out:

1) Iraq had invaded neighboring country

2) Performed genocide on his own people

3) Broke the non-proliferation treaty

4) Aid to terrorists

Hitch would not have made these comments or would have corrected them, if needed.

What I can't understand from anyone's point of view is how anyone could condone a dictator performing genocide on his own people and not be disgusted by that behavior and insist that their government stop it. You'd think that Nazi Germany would have been enough but apparently as a global people we don't seem to get it yet.

Yes, I know there are other places that are doing this behavior, but does it not send a message, on this issue alone, that if or when the Iraq situation concludes at some point, that success would send the message to other nations - "get your house in order or the rest of the responsible nations in the world are coming after you".

I wondered why Clinton signed Public Law 105-338 and then never did anything about it. He signed it in 1998 and still had 2 years of action that could have supported the ending of this brutal dictator.

Other Comments by ICONIC FREEDOM

30. Comment #64088 by ICONIC FREEDOM on August 17, 2007 at 3:40 pm

One other point:

It would be nice if people stopped reacting emotionally to their hatred for Bush or Blair, or whomever and reasonably think about the responsibility each of us holds when it comes to a dictator bullying and killing people as was such with Saddam and other dictators.

How many times would you allow the woman whose husband beats her, to run and fall into the street before you and your neighbors band together and let the bully husband know - enough! Get it together or you'll be the one beaten.

Other Comments by ICONIC FREEDOM

31. Comment #64089 by bockman on August 17, 2007 at 4:05 pm

If anyone rips this to mp3 format I'd be quite grateful-- I have a 5 hour drive to The Outer Banks tomorrow and this lecture would certainly be welcome along the way. I tried to do the conversion myself at vixy.net but it's not having any of it for some reason.

Dave

Other Comments by bockman

32. Comment #64090 by debaser71 on August 17, 2007 at 4:07 pm

Seems to me that most liberals are for the invasion of Afghanistan, isn't that military action in the middle east? Anyway I was considering sugar coating my phrase "military action" to be something like "aggressive foreign policy" but why bother?

So basically it might be that Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time, but if so then where and when? I wish we would have "dealt" with some issues before the more radical folk have access to true weapons of mass destruction.

Other Comments by debaser71

33. Comment #64092 by magetoo on August 17, 2007 at 4:32 pm

Josh: "Adding comments has been disabled for this video." implies that "Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE" isn't entirely correct.

And perhaps the James Randi video from A@G might be worth posting if it haven't been already?

And as always, feel free to fix the link mangling that the comment-posting script thingy always does. (Editing works fine, but it's a pain having to go back and do that for every link.)


bockman: You could try the tools over at 1024k.de; it's what I use to download and watch YouTube videos. I could take a look at converting, but I'm not sure it would work.

Other Comments by magetoo

34. Comment #64099 by Kinobe on August 17, 2007 at 5:57 pm

Needless to say, the vices and virtues of the war in Iraq are not really the subject matter that is supposed to be debated on this website, but since everyone else is going down that path...

I think we need to deal with a very simplistic argument that is being made here. Just because people oppose the invasion of Iraq (me included), does not mean to say that they condone the actions of a brutal dictator. Those who cite this as a reason for invading need to remember that this (or the spreading of "freedom" or democracy) was self-evidently not the Bush administration's reason for invading. Nor was the risk that the regime had weapons of mass destruction (this has been shown to be a fabrication) and nor was the threat of terrorism (most of the al-Qaeda fighters are not from Iraq).

There are plenty of other countries with brutal dictators (or without democracy) that the US (and its allies) is not invading. Indeed, the US supported the Iraqi regime while it was convenient. And scooternyc: It is hard to see how the shambolic outcome of the Iraq invasion could serve as any kind of a warning to other dictatorships - even if the distant end-result of the invasion is the extremely unlikely scenario of a stable democracy.

Quite simply, invading a country (and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and provoking a civil war while you're going about it) is not the way to change the way it is governed - at least if we are purporting to be members of a civilised, 21st century society.

To be honest, I would not have expected so many free-thinkers on this website to have been in favour of (or even ambivalent towards) the invasion - even if the great orator Hitchens is in favour. I can only hope the posters to this article are not representative.

Other Comments by Kinobe

35. Comment #64106 by Oliver Leif on August 17, 2007 at 6:43 pm

I guess I'm to blame for posing a simple question about Hitchens..

"Quite simply, invading a country (and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and provoking a civil war while you're going about it) is not the way to change the way it is governed - at least if we are purporting to be members of a civilised, 21st century society.

To be honest, I would not have expected so many free-thinkers on this website to have been in favour of (or even ambivalent towards) the invasion - even if the great orator Hitchens is in favour. I can only hope the posters to this article are not representative."

Kinobe I agree with you 100%.

Other Comments by Oliver Leif

36. Comment #64110 by Rational_G on August 17, 2007 at 6:49 pm

Mr. Kinobe:

Well said. I also agree with you 100%.

And I agree with Hitchen's anti-religious views 100%.

Other Comments by Rational_G

37. Comment #64111 by Oliver Leif on August 17, 2007 at 6:52 pm

Rational_G,

I share your views. I may not agree with Hitchens on the invasion of Iraq, however that's irrelevant where the issue about god and religion is concerned.

Other Comments by Oliver Leif

38. Comment #64113 by Henri Bergson on August 17, 2007 at 7:09 pm

"That's offensive" - yeah good! Feckin' pvssy

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

39. Comment #64114 by swoffy on August 17, 2007 at 7:16 pm

anyone know where i can find out where christopher hitchens is? because i cant find his website and i'm afraid im gonna see a video of him somewhere that i could have gone and seen him in person!

Other Comments by swoffy

40. Comment #64117 by Dr Benway on August 17, 2007 at 7:39 pm

Well, I was anxiously supportive of the war initially, when Rumsfeld, Bush, Powell, et al, said we can't tell you everything, but trust us, the WMDs are there.

When the 4th Army couldn't get into the theater, then when the mass looting of antiquities happened, and then when those WMD failed to materialize, I realized my mistake.

You can't impose democracy from outside a country. The people within the country need to find the will and means to revolt. When that's happening, you can help, so long as the insiders retain power over their own country and resources.

Iraq is complicated, because it's three countries in one. The Kurds and Shiites in exile clearly wanted Saddam out, but there was no clear plan for how to include Sunni interests before the invasion. Breaking up the Ba'ath power structure immediately after the invasion was likely a huge mistake, making civil war inevitable.

Early on if there had been enough men on the ground to insure security and order, there might have been a chance to make a new government work.

What an awful clusterfuck. If we could roll back the clock, I think we'd not be there now.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

41. Comment #64131 by sparkie_t on August 18, 2007 at 1:07 am

steve99
'I guess I just have difficulty with anyone who puts forward 'soundbite' views on such matters, such as 'Hitchens wrong, war bad'. Things are very, very complex, and Hitchens is an extremely bright fellow who knows a lot about that area of the world. I am not saying he is right about all this; just that I know I don't know enough to have a view either way about a lot of what he says. I just wish that more fellow liberals took a similar attitude.'

I agree with this however I think its a two way street: on the one hand you have the fox news 'you're either with us or against us' point of view, and then there is the (liberal? - hate that word) 'evil doers of the west'. Things are more complex than that, and just because I would traditionally lean more to the left doesnt mean that I am opposed to war; it just has to be framed in a very careful manor.

Moral: is there anything else we could do? Are we the right people to do it? What rights do we have after the 'intervention' and how far should we go? What will be the overall cost to the people affected by our actions?

Legal: is this a legally sound action? Are we going to break, or have to create, laws to jusitify the action?

Historical: How have these interventions turned out in the past? What has been our role in creating the situation - and does that put us in a good position to 'fix' it?

I reciently had a debate with a friend over a pint about these issues. His main points were: 1. if you arent an expert in this field then your point of view is less valuable. 2. those who were against the war are for Sadam. I am sorry to say that some comments here are coming quite close to this

Other Comments by sparkie_t

42. Comment #64134 by sparkie_t on August 18, 2007 at 1:14 am

Comment 30
'How many times would you allow the woman whose husband beats her, to run and fall into the street before you and your neighbors band together and let the bully husband know - enough! Get it together or you'll be the one beaten.
'

Erm, what? you thing that is comparable to the invasion of iraq? What about if you (the neighbour) bought the husband the belt that he used to beat his wife. Then only sold him food from your store when he let you drive his car. And once the beating had died down a bit you then decided to get your friends from the other neighbourhood to go in and kick the shit out of the other people living in the house as well. Would that be a little bit closer than your analogy?

Other Comments by sparkie_t

43. Comment #64143 by steve99 on August 18, 2007 at 3:11 am

His main points were: 1. if you arent an expert in this field then your point of view is less valuable.

That is the point I am trying to make. Hitchens IS an expert in this field.

2. those who were against the war are for Sadam.

This is, again, wildly simplistic. There were all kinds of possible 'war' and intervention, and many, many choices about how things could have been handled afterwards. I think it is now realised that the worst mistake was to disband the existing security and police forces and try and manage things ourselves. If that had not happened, Iraq could be in a very different state, and you (and I) might not be complaining about the outcome.

Legal: is this a legally sound action? Are we going to break, or have to create, laws to jusitify the action?

As I explained, the legal position is unclear. As I also explained, current interpretations of international law seem inhumane.

What about if you (the neighbour) bought the husband the belt that he used to beat his wife.

This is a good example of a rather puzzling and I think rather thoughtless argument that is often put forward: "we gave them weapons and money in the past, therefore we should keep out of things."

I find the logic of this bizarre. If a country has intervened in the past to make things worse in a place like Iraq, surely it has more responsibility to try and sort out the consequences.

There are many examples of successful interventions. The USA and UK in Bosnia is one. The UK in Somalia for a while (if I remember rightly). There are also situations where we should have intervened, like Rwanda.

Other Comments by steve99

44. Comment #64144 by ICONIC FREEDOM on August 18, 2007 at 3:12 am

"Erm, what? you thing that is comparable to the invasion of iraq?"

It's an analogy about humanity and responsibility, that seems fairly clear.

Certainly lack of success in the past should not hinder the responsibility in the future; things change - aren't we glad science doesn't take that approach.

Anyone can get on the soapbox of the "whys" etc. but frankly it all comes down to the evolution of our humanity and the responsibility we hold as we evolve. Past indiscretions on the U.S. side of providing weapons doesn't negate responsibility in the future of taking responsibility and correcting a situation.

Getting fixated on the "whys" is a distraction - frankly, I don't care why, I'm just glad we did and I desire the best outcome for that nation.

Additionally, I desire the strong message it carries to other dictatorial nations who behave in this manner.

If this is one difficult step toward eliminating the rule of other places like North Korea, certainly we can understand the importance of first steps.

Much like science and the world we live in - the steps are imperfect.

Finally, we can criticize the U.S. for taking action, for standing up for this, but then you must ask yourself: "where were the other nations of our world taking responsibility and leading this issue, then?"

For better or worse whatever your opinion of the U.S., I'm much more inclined to look past certain things when something of such a horrendous magnitude existed and needed to be addressed.

Other Comments by ICONIC FREEDOM

45. Comment #64145 by steve99 on August 18, 2007 at 3:19 am

Kinobe: Whatever your intention, I believe your post is packed full of straw-men arguments:

I think we need to deal with a very simplistic argument that is being made here. Just because people oppose the invasion of Iraq (me included), does not mean to say that they condone the actions of a brutal dictator.

I see no-one making that argument here.

There are plenty of other countries with brutal dictators (or without democracy) that the US (and its allies) is not invading.

That is no reason to object to removal of a brutal dictator when it does happen.

Indeed, the US supported the Iraqi regime while it was convenient.

See previous comment.

It is hard to see how the shambolic outcome of the Iraq invasion could serve as any kind of a warning to other dictatorships - even if the distant end-result of the invasion is the extremely unlikely scenario of a stable democracy.
Quite simply, invading a country (and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and provoking a civil war while you're going about it) is not the way to change the way it is governed - at least if we are purporting to be members of a civilised, 21st century society.

Another straw man. I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that the USA invaded Iraq with the intention that hundreds of thousands would die, or that the outcome would be shambolic!

To be honest, I would not have expected so many free-thinkers on this website to have been in favour of (or even ambivalent towards) the invasion - even if the great orator Hitchens is in favour. I can only hope the posters to this article are not representative.

And I hope that they are. This kind of really independent thinking - not just 'for' or 'against' the war, but a range of views across the spectrum is just what is needed.

Other Comments by steve99

46. Comment #64149 by sparkie_t on August 18, 2007 at 4:10 am

I understand what your comments were about, my point is that it was a bad analogy as it didnt take into consideration all the factors at play.

As for your comment about not caring why Iraq ended up with a dictator, I find this simply to be an acknowledgement of responsability. Never worry about how Iraq got into this mess in the first place, why, thats just not important, what is important is that we act now. Forget history.

It is vital that we remember the actions of past years and analysis why we did those things then. Then we can look at today. From this we can begin to see patterns in our behaviour.

This, by the way, is actually a scientific way to look at the situation. It comes from the social/health sciences. You said:
'Certainly lack of success in the past should not hinder the responsibility in the future; things change - aren't we glad science doesn't take that approach'. The more I read this statement the less it means to me. Lack of success? Well US and UK were very successful in their objectives of installing dictatorships. In the first gulf war they didnt try to remove Sadam, so they were successful then in their objectives. Now we wanted to remove him and we were successful at that too. I am not questioning the success of the US in meeting its objectives, I'm saying that removal of Sadam and bring democracy to the Middle East is not its primary objective. History and current policy in other parts of the world support me on this claim.

In terms of the message it sends to other dictatorships, I agree. The message is clear. Unless you have a good defensive force or a deterant (the dreaded bomb) we might come into your country and kill people.

Why does it not seem to matter that the war was based on a lie? Why is the WAR CRIMES that are taking place in Iraq and elsewhere not the main topic of when discussing Iraq. Why is it that the arguement always has the self-rightous stink of our altruistic plans for other peoples lives. If the Lancet journal is correct and the trend continued we are creeping up on a death toll of 1 million. We have subsituted one evil for another.

Other Comments by sparkie_t

47. Comment #64153 by rokort on August 18, 2007 at 5:46 am

My apologies, but my contribution won't be only about the war in Iraq.

I was struck by a comment from a guy in the audience made roughly halfway the video (around '30 minutes to go'). It went something like this:

In the US we have the most advanced, wealthy, powerful nation in probably the history of the world and [we] have probably the most freedom-loving - almost inverting, no, not inverting but, like really, espousing - philosophy of freedom and individuality to, you know, propagate that throughout the world. Yet, [we] also have the most religious nation.

Or, to paraphrase Oprah Winfrey: "The USA is the only country in the world where you can be born poor and die rich. Now ain't that wonderful ladies and gentlemen in the audience and at home?!"

What a misconception. Isn't this look on reality that people in the US have not one of the problems itself? Not only is it an insult to every clan or nation ever wandering our planet, but whenever i'm in the US i'm always struck by the shallowness, poverty and backward mentality of the people, regardless which state (be it East, Central, or West) I'm in. And, to be honest, the philosophy of freedom and individuality aren't that espousing to me either, for the simple reason that you are accepted as long as you don't bully anyone, aka shut up or avoid issues related to religion and politics. So where's the wealth and freedom then? Of course there is, but not to the extent that is claimed over and over. My conclusion then is that this 'superiority' which is talked about simply isn't there. There's no ground for claiming such, otherwise could someone please explain me why there's such a mess both inside and outside the US because of the US?

'Audience guy' seems to think there's wealth and freedom in the US despite the influence of religion. I think there's not so much wealth and freedom because of religion and religion-based politics. Especially conservatives seem to think that because of religion or only with religion you (can) have the moral upper hand, and that this has lead to the US being such a wonderful and prosperous nation. Unfortunately this message about the US being great 'n all has been sold so many times that even bright people or freethinkers swallow it but can't always see it's false. When you say something many times enough people start believing it. Religious indoctrination obscures problems.

And to end with a comment on Iraq: if we (US AND Europe) would be really compassionate about the people in Iraq, that would have lead to different tactics, plus it would give us no excuse not to help people in North Korea, Congo, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Myanmar, or even Iran. Sadly so we seem to be stuck in our own prejudices.

Other Comments by rokort

48. Comment #64155 by gcdavis on August 18, 2007 at 6:02 am

I am interested by CH's response to the penultimate question about art, his comment was somewhat unsatisfactory. For most of history the majority of art was undoubtedly inspired by religious belief and "genuine" devotion. In addition to their skill and practical talents what separates great artists from the rest of the pack, or indeed us, is the intensity of their feelings and their ability to harness this emotional energy and use it to inspire their art, this is particularly the case with the most abstract of all art, music.

I am a hardened old atheist but I can listen to Bach's St Mathews passion and I get goose bumps, it is a beautiful piece of music totally steeped in religious devotion. What translates to me is the devotion, it doesn't matter that I don't share the faith that inspired the composer, just like if I read a novel written by a woman I can empathise with a woman's feelings although I will never feel them as they were felt by her.

For the last couple of hundred years art has not just relied so much on religious devotion to inspire it and I hope that eventually the world will grow up and discard all vestiges of religious belief. In that future world I am sure great art will shine just a brightly, but the inspiration will be love and devotion for our fellow human beings, the natural world and the wonderful planet in which we live.

Other Comments by gcdavis

49. Comment #64156 by sparkie_t on August 18, 2007 at 6:08 am

Steve99:

'As I explained, the legal position is unclear. As I also explained, current interpretations of international law seem inhumane.'

The legal position is not unclear. It is very simple. Post WWII it was decided that there were only two legal reasons for going to war (remember the nazis were put to death for a war of aggression). They are:
1. There is an immediate threat to the safety of your country (bombers in the sky type thing). That was why the US and UK fabricated all that stuff about the 45 minute Iraq missle launching time. If they could prove that there was an immediate treat to the safety of others they would have the legal right to invade. This was not the case. Not to mention the moral questions that arise when you consider the fact that the US and UK (as well as some other global powers) have many missle sites operational and ready for launch in much less time than 45 minutes (I have heard the description 'hair-trigger' before).

2. You are allowed to attack another country if you have the suuport of the UN security council. Repeatedly during the run up to war in Iraq the allied countries failled to gain support for the war. In cases when actual resoultions were framed they were vetoed by the invading countries - basically saying that we dont care of we dont have the support of the international community (or law) we're going in anyway.

The second point I think is the most important. Not only did the invading countries not have the support of the international community, many of them didnt even have the support of their own populations. In the UK polls showed that there was a large scale majority opposition to the war. (I'm not sure about the US pre-invasion, but think post-invasion there is also a majority opposed). This is show by the mass popular demostrations against the war PRIOR to the invasion. It is interesting to note that two countries so worried about bring democracy to other parts of the world, cant even govern their own ountries in accordance to the wishes of their populations.

In response to the inhumane point, there were other non-military options which would have been much more humane. For example stop supporting and proping up dictatorships in parts of the world. Stop the inhumane Oil for Food program which resulted in an estimated 1 million deaths during the 1990s and turn of the century. One senator to the UN actually said that she believed the increasing death toll as a result of the sanctions was worth the price of punishing Sadam for the 1990s invasion. Theres some humane words for you!

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/2520/

Other Comments by sparkie_t

50. Comment #64159 by steve99 on August 18, 2007 at 6:49 am

The legal position is not unclear. It is very simple.

No, you are wrong here, as on several points.

Just to deal with a couple: In terms of justification, There is also another legal cause, which is genocide. Many think that the treatment of the marsh Arabs was precisely that.

In the UK polls showed that there was a large scale majority opposition to the war

This seems to be a common myth, and I don't know how it got started. At the the start of the war, there was a clear majority in favour, which remained for some time. Of course, when things went wrong, opinion justifiably changed.

This is show by the mass popular demostrations against the war PRIOR to the invasion.

It is hard to know what such demonstrations actually mean. Often they bear no relationship to general opinion. A good recent example of that was a large demonstration in the UK 'for the countryside', in advance of the bill to ban fox-hunting. In spite of propaganda spread by those supporting blood sports, the population of the UK was against fox-hunting by a large majority. You rarely get a true measure of general opinion based on demonstrations.

Look - I don't disagree with you that things are now in a mess in Iraq. I don't disagree with you that the decision to invade was highly questionable. What I do disagree with you about is your sureness about interpretation of international law (greater minds than ours have problems with it) and your 20/20 hindsight about what would happen after the invasion.

I am a member of Amnesty International - I actively support human rights. I am glad to see the back of Saddam, whatever the justification.

Other Comments by steve99