1. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64185 by sparkie_t on August 18, 2007 at 12:20 pm

Human rights law covers the internal peoples of a country.

The debated points when a case is taken to the UN council are not justification for war itself.

And there have been calls for a UN resolution about Zim, based on human rights violations.

2. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64181 by sparkie_t on August 18, 2007 at 11:37 am

'I feel that you are playing with words. You were the one who stated, unqualified, that the public was 'against the war'. Your own link showed otherwise.'

No you are wrong. The majority of people didnt support the war. The war which happened is the one in which the US and UK and a small number of other countries invaded Iraq AGAINST the UN council votes. In some other world were they did get UN approval you would be right! but the poll clearly shows that if there wasnt UN approval (which their WASNT) then the majority of people in the UK were against the war. Thus the majority of people in the UK were against the war that actually occurred.

You still havent supplied a link to a poll that supports your position that the majority of the UK population supported the war (the real war not some 'well if only the UN ... then the people would have...')

I believe that in terms of the current legal foundation of international law about invading another country, I fail to see how it could be any more just. You can attack out of self-defence or you have to go to the international arena and put your case forward. I can see no problem with this. It serves to ensure that no one country can attack another for selfish reasons (such as land, profit, revenge, etc). Can you please put forward your concerns regarding this aspect of international law, I am happy to consider them.

3. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64176 by sparkie_t on August 18, 2007 at 10:42 am

in your last point you say the problem was the mismanagement. now that really is unfair. I say that people predicted the results, but you say those consequences were the result of the aftermath not of the invasion. Can you see how dishonest this is? The mismanagement is a result of the invasion (which was predicted). There is a direct line of causation here.

The poll results support my view that the majority of the UK public where against the war (if they had of had UN approval, yes, the poll would support your position, but they didnt!). Please supply me with the link as previously requested.

Finally as hightrekker's link shows the war has been declared illegal. Since you have previously stated that certain peoples opinions are more informed than others, is it fair to say that the opinion of Kofi Annan is ok to cite?

4. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64166 by sparkie_t on August 18, 2007 at 8:54 am

Just a quick follow-up to the last note steve99:

You said that the majority supported the war, please see:

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/2002/itv-iraq.shtml

for a link to a polling company and their figures (there are others). If you could send me a link to where you get your stats I'm happy to look at them.

I think that this international law dispute is prob not going to go much further. Would just like to end by saying that all law is clearly set down and the implementation of that law is based on previous cases. The only case that I can think of that has went as far as trial was the Nazis after WWII (in the specific case of invasion, genocide is another matter and there are other prrecidents to look at).

Finally the 20/20 hindsight thing is unfair. Many people predicted the consequences of the invasion (including white house and downing st. aids) and its unfortunate that they were correct. I was not opposed to removal of Saddam I just believe that its important to do thing the correct way with the least amount of harm to others. That has not been whats happened.

your responses are welcome

5. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

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/

6. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

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.

7. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

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?

8. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

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

9. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

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.

10. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

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.

11. Hitchens and Prager Debate

Comment #47490 by sparkie_t on June 4, 2007 at 5:20 pm

Comment #46106 by Keith

I agree that 'stop the war' signs are simplistic, however what I (and other anti-war campaigners) want is international standards of moral/political practices, not one standard for the some and another for others. We also question the use of military intervention in these cases, not because we know the future, but because we have historical precedents to compare against.

I know this comment may be out of place, but I felt I needed to respond to your analysis of the anti-war movement.

12. The Moral Necessity of Atheism

Comment #27344 by sparkie_t on March 24, 2007 at 6:59 am

Mind rebel: will have to take issue with your statement about the value of people from the 'softer sciences' in the attack against religion. There are many proofs that 'god is man made, not the other way round'. Not all these proofs come from the great 3 mono-sciences, and nor should the podium be reserved for scientists. I am a memeber of the health care professions and should able to bring my experiences and studies to the table as well, as should everyone. I understand that this was your statement, but it seems so obvious to me I wonder why you felt the need to point it out at all?

13. Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #20152 by sparkie_t on January 31, 2007 at 3:48 pm

In case anyone hasn't seen the short film 'Submission' by Theo Van Gogh, there is a link for google video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7106648073888697427

or the letter pined to Van Gogh's body after he was murdered:

http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/312

14. Sam Harris at Idea City '05

Comment #17971 by sparkie_t on January 17, 2007 at 7:03 pm

Re: harryh28

you can also watch this talk at youtube (its in8 parts). just search for sam harris CSPAN and it should come up straight away. Runtime ~1hr20

(how do you suggest videos, articles etc to the community?)

15. Sam Harris at Idea City '05

Comment #17969 by sparkie_t on January 17, 2007 at 6:50 pm

Watched some of the other interviews on Sam's website. The bias in the media is unreal. Sam is cut off and not given the same air time as a republican spin doctor! Its a horrible interview to watch. Think it was the MSNBC interview

16. Sam Harris at Idea City '05

Comment #17927 by sparkie_t on January 17, 2007 at 3:08 pm

He really is a very good public speaker. He should do more, or maybe just tape the ones he is doing.

Does anyone have any links to other talks he gives? All I can find on youtube is the beyond belief stuff!

17. Lil' Markie live, part 2

Comment #17605 by sparkie_t on January 15, 2007 at 5:23 am

I'm going to my happy place
I'm going to my happy place
I'm going to my happy place
I'm going to my happy place
I'm going to my happy place

Whats with the YMCA gang @ 7mins?

18. General Synod's Life of Christ

Comment #16563 by sparkie_t on January 7, 2007 at 10:45 am

oh by the way, the original was from an old BBC2 series called 'Friday night, Saturday Morning' aired 9/11/79 - Tim Rice hosts with John Cleese, Michael Palin, Malcolm Muggeridge and Arthur Mervyn Stockwood (the Bishop of Southwark).

yeah so if anyone can post it that would be great

19. General Synod's Life of Christ

Comment #16562 by sparkie_t on January 7, 2007 at 10:40 am

Have tried to find the original full lenght debate (its not on youtube or google video). If anyone can find it that would be great. In the mean time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friday_Night%2C_Saturday_Morning

gives a good run down of what happened and some interesting back stage stuff.

20. CBC Segment on Evangelist Christians

Comment #14005 by sparkie_t on December 20, 2006 at 4:12 pm

HI folks
This is really sad. Today I have seen this clip and 'Jesus Camp'. In 'Jesus Camp' you have a young 9 year old saying that to dance for pleasure is against god. Here you have a 19 year old man saying he has never kissed a girl because he has made a pledge to god. Poor people are missing out on some of the best moments of life. In other areas of the world we have kids giving up their lives for an imagined afterlife. I really feel for these poor kids, its not their fault.

21. Beyond Belief 2006 Videos

Comment #11839 by sparkie_t on December 7, 2006 at 3:46 pm

Hi there, just a heads up:

check out ann drydon's(?spelling) comment at the end about sciences role in spirituality.

prob the most moving thing i've heard in a long time. makes me (as a novice scientist - currently undertaking an undergrad research study) feel very connected with a community, more so than i have ever felt before in my life.


run time ~1hr 44mins (video 4) if you cant watch it all

22. Science vs religion

Comment #11776 by sparkie_t on December 7, 2006 at 8:56 am

Hi Vardu
Thanks for the reply, I will have to claim ignorance on this Vermes character, but will check it out soon (added to the long list of things I would like to look into).

However I would like to point out that my last comment doesn't say (or imply - you might disagree) that people/societies set out to invent a god or 'create a savior by name'. And as such I am in complete agreement with you, with one added inquiry. Why do the vast majority of societies throughout history (regardless of geographical location, size, ethics, or politics) need to identify with a creator god? I think this is an interesting (maybe even important) question.

Of course even I, a novice in this field, can recognise possible reasons: The need to personify the natural world, or god as a gap in the scientific literature.

'As an atheist, I have never claimed that God does not exist, I simply have never been convinced by any of the theistic arguments for the supposed entity's existence.'

I am curious about this statement, and would like you to expand if you can. Firstly recognizing the inability of both science and theology to ever completely prove/disprove anything, how do you believe in anything? The scientific method, logic, mathematics are all products of humanity, and therefore open to scrutiny, but that doesn't stop us believing certain things as true.

While I think you may be being pragmatic I don't want to put words in your mouth. I hope you will comment on this, as I am interested on this subject and seem to have come to a halt in my head!

23. Science vs religion

Comment #11720 by sparkie_t on December 6, 2006 at 10:03 pm

Hi Joad

Mark here (user name changed after reg)

A couple of points:

Of course a Christian biblical god doesn't look specifically for these traits in humanity for entry into heaven. However just a basic understanding of different faiths and theologies will show that many different requirements are cited as necessary by religious faithful. For example while one faith requires you just to be compassionate and loving, another requires you to blow yourself up, or not wear a condom in an AIDS ridden society. My point was to use a (tongue in cheek) method to show how ludicrous the idea of heaven is in the face of the evidence of an expanding universe and our position in it.

Secondly the very fact that you took what I said literally (that I really thought the bible teaches you to be cool), shows me the inflexibility of your analytical processes. I suggest you develop your critical analysis skills, as you will find this helps you in matters of spirituality, science, culture, politics, and many other walks of life.

Hope that clears things up.

Sparkie_t (formally known as Mark – well actually still known as Mark, just not here)