HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » This message was self-del...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 02:05 PM

 

This message was self-deleted by its author

This message was self-deleted by its author (DeathToTheOil) on Tue Dec 20, 2011, 10:14 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

234 replies, 19309 views

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 234 replies Author Time Post
Reply This message was self-deleted by its author (Original post)
DeathToTheOil Dec 2011 OP
gratuitous Dec 2011 #1
inademv Dec 2011 #3
SidDithers Dec 2011 #13
gratuitous Dec 2011 #58
SidDithers Dec 2011 #62
TalkingDog Dec 2011 #72
gratuitous Dec 2011 #73
Lunacee2012 Dec 2011 #88
inademv Dec 2011 #94
gratuitous Dec 2011 #112
inademv Dec 2011 #134
gratuitous Dec 2011 #136
inademv Dec 2011 #137
Shoe Horn Dec 2011 #213
gratuitous Dec 2011 #231
liberalhistorian Dec 2011 #193
dotymed Dec 2011 #218
12AngryBorneoWildmen Dec 2011 #223
AlbertCat Dec 2011 #160
UnrepentantLiberal Dec 2011 #66
SidDithers Dec 2011 #68
sarcasmo Dec 2011 #152
caseymoz Dec 2011 #203
demosincebirth Dec 2011 #5
Peregrine Took Dec 2011 #85
gratuitous Dec 2011 #86
inademv Dec 2011 #2
DeathToTheOil Dec 2011 #18
inademv Dec 2011 #46
aquart Dec 2011 #63
Hissyspit Dec 2011 #156
Posteritatis Dec 2011 #22
inademv Dec 2011 #41
ForgoTheConsequence Dec 2011 #37
inademv Dec 2011 #48
UnrepentantLiberal Dec 2011 #69
inademv Dec 2011 #75
LynneSin Dec 2011 #4
roguevalley Dec 2011 #23
LynneSin Dec 2011 #38
July Dec 2011 #101
Bucky Dec 2011 #108
Lost-in-FL Dec 2011 #131
JVS Dec 2011 #39
RebelOne Dec 2011 #64
JVS Dec 2011 #151
Critters2 Dec 2011 #182
truebrit71 Dec 2011 #219
CrawlingChaos Dec 2011 #172
LynneSin Dec 2011 #183
AngryOldDem Dec 2011 #210
phleshdef Dec 2011 #6
roguevalley Dec 2011 #24
inademv Dec 2011 #50
Johonny Dec 2011 #54
phleshdef Dec 2011 #61
paparush Dec 2011 #148
CrawlingChaos Dec 2011 #140
thucythucy Dec 2011 #181
kag Dec 2011 #162
kentuck Dec 2011 #7
Romulox Dec 2011 #8
inademv Dec 2011 #51
cpwm17 Dec 2011 #166
inademv Dec 2011 #169
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #9
roguevalley Dec 2011 #27
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #34
deutsey Dec 2011 #45
Sarah Ibarruri Dec 2011 #49
inademv Dec 2011 #52
deutsey Dec 2011 #71
inademv Dec 2011 #81
deutsey Dec 2011 #82
rurallib Dec 2011 #10
DFab420 Dec 2011 #11
phleshdef Dec 2011 #15
eridani Dec 2011 #125
AlbertCat Dec 2011 #163
quinnox Dec 2011 #12
Lunacee2012 Dec 2011 #90
tblue37 Dec 2011 #173
MNBrewer Dec 2011 #14
phleshdef Dec 2011 #17
roguevalley Dec 2011 #30
phleshdef Dec 2011 #59
AtheistCrusader Dec 2011 #189
inademv Dec 2011 #53
phleshdef Dec 2011 #65
inademv Dec 2011 #70
phleshdef Dec 2011 #77
inademv Dec 2011 #78
phleshdef Dec 2011 #83
inademv Dec 2011 #89
phleshdef Dec 2011 #92
inademv Dec 2011 #96
phleshdef Dec 2011 #106
inademv Dec 2011 #109
Rozlee Dec 2011 #124
polly7 Dec 2011 #129
inademv Dec 2011 #130
Rozlee Dec 2011 #153
inademv Dec 2011 #165
eridani Dec 2011 #126
inademv Dec 2011 #132
eridani Dec 2011 #155
inademv Dec 2011 #164
eridani Dec 2011 #168
eridani Dec 2011 #123
phleshdef Dec 2011 #147
MNBrewer Dec 2011 #104
inademv Dec 2011 #107
MNBrewer Dec 2011 #111
inademv Dec 2011 #135
stevenleser Dec 2011 #55
inademv Dec 2011 #74
stevenleser Dec 2011 #87
inademv Dec 2011 #91
stevenleser Dec 2011 #114
inademv Dec 2011 #133
stevenleser Dec 2011 #197
MNBrewer Dec 2011 #105
stevenleser Dec 2011 #115
MNBrewer Dec 2011 #120
stevenleser Dec 2011 #122
SOS Dec 2011 #194
stevenleser Dec 2011 #200
SOS Dec 2011 #228
Lunacee2012 Dec 2011 #192
hlthe2b Dec 2011 #16
sharp_stick Dec 2011 #19
immoderate Dec 2011 #20
stevenleser Dec 2011 #57
immoderate Dec 2011 #80
MineralMan Dec 2011 #21
DeathToTheOil Dec 2011 #25
quinnox Dec 2011 #28
DeathToTheOil Dec 2011 #31
quinnox Dec 2011 #33
MADem Dec 2011 #44
spanone Dec 2011 #26
fishwax Dec 2011 #29
Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #32
trumad Dec 2011 #35
JVS Dec 2011 #36
surfdog Dec 2011 #40
DeathToTheOil Dec 2011 #42
frazzled Dec 2011 #56
Spazito Dec 2011 #43
dmallind Dec 2011 #47
Dreamer Tatum Dec 2011 #60
lunatica Dec 2011 #67
Ian David Dec 2011 #76
spirit of wine Dec 2011 #79
inademv Dec 2011 #93
LadyHawkAZ Dec 2011 #84
Burma Jones Dec 2011 #95
GoneOffShore Dec 2011 #97
Throd Dec 2011 #98
LeftishBrit Dec 2011 #99
certainot Dec 2011 #119
LeftishBrit Dec 2011 #100
Deep13 Dec 2011 #102
Ohio Joe Dec 2011 #103
Ms. Toad Dec 2011 #113
ChadwickHenryWard Dec 2011 #110
certainot Dec 2011 #116
RZM Dec 2011 #117
djean111 Dec 2011 #118
CrawlingChaos Dec 2011 #143
djean111 Dec 2011 #158
CrawlingChaos Dec 2011 #178
RZM Dec 2011 #199
Logical Dec 2011 #121
great white snark Dec 2011 #127
cemaphonic Dec 2011 #128
Lost-in-FL Dec 2011 #138
Taverner Dec 2011 #139
Pisces Dec 2011 #141
and-justice-for-all Dec 2011 #146
AlBratt Dec 2011 #142
REP Dec 2011 #144
and-justice-for-all Dec 2011 #145
laconicsax Dec 2011 #149
Iggo Dec 2011 #150
knocklindquist Dec 2011 #154
SOS Dec 2011 #196
stockholmer Dec 2011 #211
Jack Rabbit Dec 2011 #157
ButterflyBlood Dec 2011 #159
AlbertCat Dec 2011 #161
spooked911 Dec 2011 #167
Ms. Toad Dec 2011 #170
questforpatriots Dec 2011 #171
Make7 Dec 2011 #174
SleeplessinSoCal Dec 2011 #175
skepticscott Dec 2011 #176
CrawlingChaos Dec 2011 #179
skepticscott Dec 2011 #184
CrawlingChaos Dec 2011 #187
questforpatriots Dec 2011 #177
Mojambo Dec 2011 #180
Survivoreesta Dec 2011 #185
beardown Dec 2011 #186
shoutinfreud Dec 2011 #188
Jester Messiah Dec 2011 #190
AtheistCrusader Dec 2011 #191
AmericaIsGreat Dec 2011 #195
Enrique Dec 2011 #198
BootinUp Dec 2011 #201
Lost-in-FL Dec 2011 #202
caseymoz Dec 2011 #204
intaglio Dec 2011 #205
caseymoz Dec 2011 #227
HowHeThinks Dec 2011 #206
madrchsod Dec 2011 #208
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2011 #207
AngryOldDem Dec 2011 #209
RetroLounge Dec 2011 #212
TZ Dec 2011 #214
Stuckinthebush Dec 2011 #222
sulphurdunn Dec 2011 #215
deacon_sephiroth Dec 2011 #216
sarchasm Dec 2011 #217
Stuckinthebush Dec 2011 #220
truebrit71 Dec 2011 #221
ZombieHorde Dec 2011 #224
LanternWaste Dec 2011 #232
ZombieHorde Dec 2011 #233
LanternWaste Dec 2011 #234
redqueen Dec 2011 #225
Chan790 Dec 2011 #226
kentuck Dec 2011 #229
ingac70 Dec 2011 #230

Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 02:07 PM

1. But the gin-soaked former Trotskyist popinjay was really sorry later

Besides, he subscribed to a very acceptable prejudice, so all is forgiven (in a manner of speaking).

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gratuitous (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 02:08 PM

3. He never changed his position, and what prejudice?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inademv (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 02:14 PM

13. Hitchens was an outspoken atheist. Atheists are prejudiced, apparently...

It's an insult, but only a subtle one directed at a much-insulted minority, so it's OK.

Sid

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #13)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 03:31 PM

58. Poor baby

The truth, it hoits!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gratuitous (Reply #58)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 03:33 PM

62. There's that Christian spirit we all know and love...nt

Sid

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #62)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 03:59 PM

72. I'm not a Christian... well not for 45 years now, but I agree with those upthread. He was a bigot.

That doesn't mean I believe Christian's are immune to such failings. Nor does it mean that some don't thrash around with persecution complexes the size of Newt Gingrich's ego.

It means he lumped Christians into an indistinguishable mass and counted the failings of a few as the hallmark of the lot.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TalkingDog (Reply #72)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 04:02 PM

73. Don't confuse the issue with facts

You're going to upset some folks.

Mr. Hitchens was also not much of a friend to women, but there's no reason to mention that to his devoted followers either. Puts them right off their nourishment.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gratuitous (Reply #73)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 04:52 PM

88. I really hate to ask,

but what did he say about women?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gratuitous (Reply #73)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 05:13 PM

94. He spoke quite vehemently about the importance of empowering women

Where the hell are you pulling that drivel from.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inademv (Reply #94)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 05:56 PM

112. Mostly from his own mouth

But I'll let Katha Pollitt tell it:

http://www.thenation.com/blog/165222/regarding-christopher

So far, most of the eulogies of Christopher have come from men, and there’s a reason for that. He moved in a masculine world, and for someone who prided himself on his wide-ranging interests, he had virtually no interest in women’s writing or women’s lives or perspectives. I never got the impression from anything he wrote about women that he had bothered to do the most basic kinds of reading and thinking, let alone interviewing or reporting—the sort of workup he would do before writing about, say, G.K. Chesterton, or Scientology or Kurdistan. It all came off the top of his head, or the depths of his id. Women aren’t funny. Women shouldn’t need to/want to/get to have a job. The Dixie Chicks were “fucking fat slags” (not “sluts,” as he misremembered later). And then of course there was his 1989 column in which he attacked legal abortion and his cartoon version of feminism as “possessive individualism.” I don’t suppose I ever really forgave Christopher for that.

It wasn’t just the position itself, it was his lordly condescending assumption that he could sort this whole thing out for the ladies in 1,000 words that probably took him twenty minutes to write. “Anyone who has ever seen a sonogram or has spent even an hour with a textbook on embryology knows” that pro-life women are on to something when they recoil at the idea of the “disposable fetus.” Hmmmm… that must be why most OB-GYNs are pro-choice and why most women who have abortions are mothers. Those doctors just need to spend an hour with a medical textbook; those mothers must never have seen a sonogram. Interestingly, although he promised to address the counterarguments made by the many women who wrote in to the magazine, including those on the staff, he never did. For a man with a reputation for courage, it certainly failed him then. (Years later, when he took up the question of abortion again in Vanity Fair, he said basically the exact same things, using the same straw-women arguments. Time taught him nothing, because he didn’t want to learn.)


The last sentence is, admittedly, a bit presumptive, but since Ms. Pollitt had the pleasure of working with Mr. Hitchens for a number of years, I'll credit it as far as it goes.

Or, as Echidne-of-the-Snakes, keying off of Ms. Pollitt, explains it:

http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com/2011_12_18_archive.html#5024541002693519104

You're entitled to think Hitchens' misogyny is drivel; take it up with Katha Pollitt or Echidne. I promise to say nice things at your memorial service.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gratuitous (Reply #112)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 06:41 PM

134. What misogynist divel?

You've still yet to produce a quote or anything from him that supports that point of view and the opinion of a writer from The Nation hardly has any bearing on that fact since she herself is basing it entirely on how she felt about him.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inademv (Reply #134)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 06:48 PM

136. Sorry, I gave you too much credit

Anyone who described the Dixie Chicks as "fucking fat slags" is a champion of women's rights in some people's world.

In any event, I invite you to do your own research.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gratuitous (Reply #136)


Response to gratuitous (Reply #136)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 08:05 AM

213. Typical.

Wall o' Text, then you run.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shoe Horn (Reply #213)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 11:03 AM

231. Really?

Sorry I don't have time to post on your schedule, but I await with great anticipation your explanation (or anyone's for that matter) how calling the Dixie Chicks "fucking fat slags" over their mild comment about George W. Bush equates to being a champion of women, their rights and their status as equals.

Ready, steady, go!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TalkingDog (Reply #72)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 11:52 PM

193. Thank you, he made the same mistake with Christians

that many Christians make with atheists, and that is, as you say, "lump them into an indistinguishable mass and count the failings of a few as the hallmark of the lot." Christians are wide and varied, just like atheists.

He had many flaws, but his worst was, as the OP says, his relentless drumbeating for the Iraq war and his refusal to recognize the illegality and wrongfulness of it. Not to mention his denigrating of all Muslims in the same way he denigrated all Christians.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TalkingDog (Reply #72)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:28 AM

218. Real Christians are great.

Unfortunately, there are none that I am aware of "in the spotlight." IMO, everyone who "leans to the left" is embracing many of the teachings of J.C.
The "Christians" who (usually) are well known are NOT Christians. Wealth is something to be shunned according to J.C., yet in our society, only the wealthy have a platform. What a fucked up world and getting worse.
The same can be said for most "religions" and universally accepted philosophies. If the accepted "great" philosophers were alive today (J.C., Plato, etc...) they would (if they survived) probably live in abject poverty. What a statement about modern society.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dotymed (Reply #218)


Response to gratuitous (Reply #58)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 08:12 PM

160. The truth, it hoits!

Is that why Christians (and other theists) avoid it at all cost?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #13)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 03:40 PM

66. Christians are a much-insulted minority?

 

We're not supposed to say which play book that is out of so...

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Reply #66)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 03:42 PM

68. No, atheists are a much-insulted minority...

Christians are the majority.

The comment from the poster in post #1 was about atheists, not christians.

Sid

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #68)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 07:34 PM

152. +1

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #13)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 02:48 AM

203. Let's face it. Theists and atheists insult each other all the time


And each side mostly thinks they're the only victim of it. However, Christians are in the majority, and popular for them to say that they're being persecuted, that they're the only ones for which persecution is socially acceptable.

As a minority, atheists have a lot more to lose if insults are get escalated to persecution.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gratuitous (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 02:09 PM

5. I guess it's like forgivng Osama bin Laden

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gratuitous (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 04:50 PM

85. Popinjay? Good one! n/t

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peregrine Took (Reply #85)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 04:51 PM

86. Steal from the best, I say

George Galloway said it right to Hitchens' misogynist face.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 02:07 PM

2. Maybe you should learn more about Hitchens' actual position and his actual works in his life

since you clearly don't know the details of either.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inademv (Reply #2)


Response to DeathToTheOil (Reply #18)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 02:56 PM

46. Because he was cognizant of history

the fact that the US were the ones who armed and trained Saddam's regime in the brutal tactics he used to murder thousands of Iraqis. The fact that his position, on whether or not Saddam should be removed from power, happened to be the same as the neo-cons who started the war and turned it into a quagmire has no bearing on his reasons for having the position in the first place; as he expressed countless times over his life his dislike and disapproval of the fascist regimes around the world.

And I share his contempt for the new left in their cowardice to stand up against a situation that is self evidently wrong and say as much.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inademv (Reply #46)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 03:37 PM

63. Right. Wrong for Saddam to kill Iraqis when we could do it instead.

Puhleeze. He didn't know a thing about history if he didn't realize our best position was to wait for the inevitable civil war at Saddam's death when we could enter as the honest broker.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inademv (Reply #46)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 07:56 PM

156. Yes, and that's utter nonsense.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inademv (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 02:26 PM

22. You mean like in '07 where he was whining that we weren't killing enough Muslims?

Guy was a bigoted would-be genocidaire; I can't respect that.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Posteritatis (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 02:49 PM

41. How about a quote instead of pulling things from your arse n/t

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inademv (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 02:38 PM

37. Tell us please.

We were never, if we are honest with ourselves, "lied into war".
-Christopher Hitchens 2008

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ForgoTheConsequence (Reply #37)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 02:59 PM

48. What are you trying to use that quote to say?

Hitchens was well aware of his own reasons for having supported the Iraq war (though not its outcome) and that it had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al-Qaeda.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inademv (Reply #48)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 03:50 PM

69. Apologize for him all you want.

 

He got scared after 9/11 and sided with the neo-cons. You can't rewrite that history.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Reply #69)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 04:07 PM

75. Not re-writting what you don't know

You're provably ignorant of Hitchens' reasons for supporting the Iraq war and they had nothing at all to do with 9/11.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 02:09 PM

4. Hitch was one of the few people who volunteered to be waterboarded

When other right-wing screeds were cheerleading it's use.

Afterwards Hitchens realized that waterboarding is indeed a serious form of torture. He also said that he would have given any answer possible in order to make the waterboarding stop.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 02:27 PM

23. did he renounce its use? i heard he didn't.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roguevalley (Reply #23)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 02:39 PM

38. Oh he wrote about it in Vanity Fair

Said it was a horrible thing to do.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roguevalley (Reply #23)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 05:37 PM

101. You heard that?

Can you provide a source?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to July (Reply #101)


Response to July (Reply #101)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 06:37 PM

131. A simple google search gave me this...

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808
From a Vanity Fair interview.



Video from Vanity Fair during Hitch's waterboarding

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 02:39 PM

39. So what? He was still dogshit.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JVS (Reply #39)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 03:37 PM

64. Is your comment because he was an atheist? n/t

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RebelOne (Reply #64)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 07:33 PM

151. No, does being an atheist excuse him for being dogshit?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JVS (Reply #151)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 09:36 PM

182. Of course it does.

Come on, JVS! You're not a newbie here.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JVS (Reply #39)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:41 AM

219. Do you piss on everyone's graves or just those that knew how to use the English language properly?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 08:42 PM

172. You can't compare that silly stunt to actual waterboarding

First off, no serious person ever doubted it was torture. The whole "is it or isn't it" faux-debate was a smokescreen of sorts.

Hitchens was "waterboarded" in a completely safe environment, where HE was in control and could stop the exercise at any time and no harm would come to him. The brave man lasted something like 1 second.

I recall reading the VF article and being flabbergasted by the incredible snobbery of it. He talked about how he, Hitchens, was descended from swarthy, seafaring conquerors and it bothered him that he couldn't last anywhere near as long as his perceived inferior, KSM (who reportedly endured a huge amount of REAL waterboarding without breaking).

And how perverse is it to say it's perfectly reasonable to slaughter Muslims, but we shouldn't waterboard them? Ugh, I am truly mystified as to why anyone would want to prop up this awful, awful man, in life or in death.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrawlingChaos (Reply #172)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 09:49 PM

183. No you can't, even I know that

But even with that 'little stunt' he still said it was torture

Not saying anyone should be a fan of his, I know I'm not.

But I have a bit more respect for him than alot of the right-wing screeds out there.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #4)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 05:30 AM

210. I remember reading that column.

He was in literal fear for his life.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 02:09 PM

6. Thats absurd. Hitchens had no political power or significant influence.

Christopher Hitchens, like a lot of people, was wrong about Iraq. But the most he is guilty of is having a bad opinion and daring to share it. The Iraq war would've happened had Christopher Hitchens never existed. He had no power to make the Iraq war happen.

If you are gonna blame Christopher Hitchens on an absurd level like that, you might as well blame everyone else that supported the war as well, which includes a large majority of the American public when it first went down.

I'm not even a big fan of the guy myself. But this kind of hysterical bullshit has to be tamped down. It makes all of us look bad.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 02:29 PM

24. an internationally known writer has no influence? really?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roguevalley (Reply #24)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 03:02 PM

50. Not if you're talking about the Iraq war

He basically jumped sides on that subject and did nothing to try convincing the left (whom he had already become disillusioned with) to support the war.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roguevalley (Reply #24)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 03:14 PM

54. IDK let's look at his life

Just looking at his wiki page

The man was an atheist, socialist, oppose to the death penalty, oppose to intelligent design...
basically the man was on the side of a lot of issues that have lost a lot of ground during his lifetime.

So sure when he agreed with a conservative administration, that administration might have name dropped him for support, but clearly when he was on the opposite side of an issue he was ignored. All of which makes it doubtful he was highly influential. At least in the US because his policy stance and the US policy stance aren't very similar.

The reason for this is obvious. Many people seek out opinions and news that coincides with their beliefs and thus are willing to filter ignore people when their opinions don't match theirs. Thus people watch FOX because they know FOX will tell them the news they want to hear. Reading can be highly influential, but in the modern era with so much material available, society at large has a tendency towards affirmation rather than influence when choosing what to read.

On the other hand if a dictator says you wear White on Sunday or you die. You wear White on Sunday and fuck what some writer says.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roguevalley (Reply #24)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 03:33 PM

61. Yea, friggin really. I didn't stutter.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roguevalley (Reply #24)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 07:25 PM

148. His voice could barely be heard over Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al

Yelling "MUSHROOM CLOUD! MUSHROOM CLOUD!" for weeks on end.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 07:03 PM

140. Sorry, but that is just wrong

Hitchens constructed arguments and justifications that were used by the administration. He is guilty of so much more than bad judgment.

Glenn Greenwald wrote a very good piece about it here:

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/17/christohper_hitchens_and_the_protocol_for_public_figure_deaths/

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrawlingChaos (Reply #140)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 09:30 PM

181. Thank you for that read,

it was quite informative.

Best wishes.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 08:17 PM

162. Not sure I really want to jump into this fray, but...

I respectfully disagree. Christopher Hitchens had a much louder mouthpiece than us mere mortals, and I believe that that comes with some responsibility. He may not have solely been responsible for the Iraq war, but if enough Hitchenses had opposed it--vocally and enthusiastically--it's possible that W and Cheney wouldn't have been able to go through with it.

Also, I DO blame Hitchens for supporting the war, and I DO blame "everyone else that supported the war as well, which includes a large majority of the American public," including our current Secretary of State. If enough people--including my friends and even family members, but especially those who help shape public opinion, like Hitchens, and those who were in position to try to stop it, like Hillary Clinton--had opposed the war, we could be living in a very different, likely much better, world today.

And lastly, I don't think any of this rises to the level of "hysterical bullshit" that needs to be "tamped down." We're all entitled to opinions and we're all entitled to defend them--that's WHAT WE DO on DU. Far from making us "look bad" I think it makes us look like involved, inquisitive, passionate and intelligent Americans who enjoy a good political debate and aren't afraid to confront people of opposing views.

But...In the words of Dennis Miller...

"But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong."

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 02:10 PM

7. Pitiful.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 02:10 PM

8. In the end, he became a neo-con, many of whom claimed to be converts from the Left.

I was flabbergasted by Hitchen's bloodlust. I became repulsed by his very voice, after hearing him advocate so passionately for war in Iraq.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 03:02 PM

51. How exactly was he a neo-con

and of which bloodlust do you speak?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inademv (Reply #51)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 08:32 PM

166. Here's some extreme bloodlust from Hitchens

Here's an example of Hitchen's bloodlust at the Freedom From Religion Convention as reported by Professor PZ Myers: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/10/ffrf_recap.php

Then it was Hitchens at his most bellicose. He told us what the most serious threat to the West was (and you know this line already): it was Islam. Then he accused the audience of being soft on Islam, of being the kind of vague atheists who refuse to see the threat for what it was, a clash of civilizations, and of being too weak to do what was necessary, which was to spill blood to defeat the enemy. Along the way he told us who his choice for president was right now — Rudy Giuliani — and that Obama was a fool, Clinton was a pandering closet fundamentalist, and that he was less than thrilled about all the support among the FFRF for the Democratic party. We cannot afford to allow the Iranian theocracy to arm itself with nuclear weapons (something I entirely sympathize with), and that the only solution is to go in there with bombs and marines and blow it all up. The way to win the war is to kill so many Moslems that they begin to question whether they can bear the mounting casualties.

It was simplistic us-vs.-them thinking at its worst, and the only solution he had to offer was death and destruction of the enemy.

This was made even more clear in the Q&A. He was asked to consider the possibility that bombing and killing was only going to accomplish an increase in the number of people opposing us. Hitchens accused the questioner of being incredibly stupid (the question was not well-phrased, I'll agree, but it was clear what he meant), and said that it was obvious that every Moslem you kill means there is one less Moslem to fight you … which is only true if you assume that every Moslem already wants to kill Americans and is armed and willing to do so. I think that what is obvious is that most Moslems are primarily interested in living a life of contentment with their families and their work, and that an America committed to slaughter is a tactic that will only convince more of them to join in opposition to us.

Basically, what Hitchens was proposing is genocide. Or, at least, wholesale execution of the population of the Moslem world until they are sufficiently cowed and frightened and depleted that they are unable to resist us in any way, ever again.


Hitchens was essentially an extreme religious fundamentalist, with atheism as his religion. I know atheism isn't a religion, but Hitchens treated atheism like it was a religion. Hitchens wanted a crusade against Muslims. He was out of his mind.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #166)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 08:36 PM

169. I can see how you would get that impression from reading an evaluation by someone who listen to him

But how about you find some direct quotes that support that position instead of the summary of someone who obviously isn't moderate or objective.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 02:10 PM

9. He was. He had my attention until he turned right wing. That pissed me off. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 02:31 PM

27. he is like too many idiots. he lived at the extremes of left and right and mocked nuance

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roguevalley (Reply #27)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 02:37 PM

34. I sometimes think he switched because it allowed him to make more money. I don't know. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #34)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 02:53 PM

45. That's what someone who had been close friends with him said

His former friend said Hitchens believed he deserved the kind of life the upper classes had, or something like that, and that he knew he was never going to get that as a lefty. It was on KPFA radio's "Letters and Politics" last week.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deutsey (Reply #45)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 03:01 PM

49. Wouldn't surprise me at all. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deutsey (Reply #45)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 03:04 PM

52. Quote/link? Which friend, I'm genuinely curious n/t

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inademv (Reply #52)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 03:56 PM

71. As I say, it was on KPFA's "Letters and Politics"

Here's the link:

http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/76091

It's toward the end of the show. Sorry, but I don't remember the guest's name. He works for KPFA, I believe. I'm unable to listen to the show at the moment.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deutsey (Reply #71)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 04:30 PM

81. Ah, Bob Baldock

I'm vaguely familiar with his place in things but his characterization of Hitchens' shift in position is myopic and egocentric at best and takes no account of his expressed reasons for dissatisfaction with what the left had/has become.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inademv (Reply #81)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 04:36 PM

82. I only know him as a voice in between shows, honestly

Whoever he is, he apparently was close to Hitchens at one time and encountered him afterward at that Hedges/Hitchens debate, so in that regard I think what he had to say has merit. If I remember the show accurately, it seemed to me he was giving his personal impressions as a former friend and as someone who still admired Hitchens' talent in many ways.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 02:12 PM

10. looks like someone is itching for a fight.

frankly, not me.
and to ascribe that kind of power to Hitchens - as though he led us into that war.
I'd give Bush, Cheney, Rummy and thousands upon thousands of others more credit than Hitchens for that war.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 02:13 PM

11. And Kim Jon Ill did vastly more damage to the entirety of the North Korean peoples.

one was an author who wrote in support of a war.

The other a megalomaniacal dictator with authority over the lives of 24,000,000 people.

How about some perspective.

It's not always about us.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFab420 (Reply #11)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 02:17 PM

15. Yea and what kind of liberals accuse writers of crimes against humanity over writing about opinions?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFab420 (Reply #11)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 06:23 PM

125. True, but the OP was about consequences for America

It's an unfortunate fact of life that for any outsider to attempt to do something about Kim Jong Il would have caused far more damage than the dictator himself.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFab420 (Reply #11)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 08:26 PM

163. And Kim Jon Ill did vastly more damage to the entirety of the North Korean peoples.

Really!

Why does "deathtotheoil" hate North Koreans so much? What a bigot!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 02:14 PM

12. Colin Powell did it almost all on his own

 

That is who I blame for selling the Iraq war. Will never forget that UN stunt he did with the stupid false diagrams he held up as if it was the gospel.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #12)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 05:08 PM

90. Yeah, that was ...something...

wasn't it? I actually respected him a little before that.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lunacee2012 (Reply #90)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 08:44 PM

173. I never did. He was always a careerist/opportunitst. His role in

helping to cover up the My Lai massacre was already unforgivable in my book.

The fact that he has an attractive public persona just makes it worse, because he has always used that facade to further his own success by furthering evil policies. They weren't "his" policies, because he was always more of a "middle manager" type, but he was certainly a facilitator of evil--and not just in the matter of the invasion of Iraq. His own success depended on never rocking the boat by questioning the terrible policies of terrible people, and not only did he not challenge them--throughout his career he actively assisted in carrying out such policies.

I look at the careerist/opportunist behavior of his son Michael--especially as Cheney/Bush's FCC Chairman--and I can see that the son learned his father's values well. It is no surprise that both Colin and his son decided that they were Republicans at a time when the party no longer consisted of moderate, principled Republicans.

If they had been Republicans in an earlier era, when one could be a Republican without automatically supporting evil policies that destroyed vulnerable people and countries, as well as our own country’s social safety net policies every decent value the US is supposedly built on, I would not hold their party affiliation against them. But to choose to be Republicans when that party had long since given itself over to become the party of Reagan, Cheney, W, GHWB, Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, and others equally reprehensible strongly suggests that their main--or, more likely, their only--concern is with their own wealth, power, and status.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 02:15 PM

14. I think the 29 Senate Democrats who voted to allow Bush to go to war deserve greater condemnation.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #14)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 02:20 PM

17. Christopher Hitchens doesn't deserve any condemnation over it at all.

I mean, outside of just saying that he was wrong. Thats fine, because he was.

But no one should be condemned for writing about their support, for or against, military action, in and of itself. Hitchens had humanitarian reasoning behind his support for the war. He was misguided and wrong. But he didn't kill anyone or play any tangible role in authorizing killing.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #17)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 02:32 PM

30. humanitarian reasoning for war??

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roguevalley (Reply #30)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 03:32 PM

59. Yea. I also said he was very misguided about that.

I'm not sure what part of misguided is hard for you to understand.

Hitchens felt taking out Saddam Hussein was a humanitarian act. He was misguided because doing so sparked off events that led to a lot of unnecessary death.

I never said I agreed with him. Of course I don't. But I'm not such a bigot that I'm not willing to consider how people arrive to certain conclusions.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roguevalley (Reply #30)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 11:17 PM

189. Ending the sanctions.

Which starved millions of iraqi's to death. Bringing our troops home, that were in place at the regime in charge of Saudi Arabia to contain Iraq, which had obvious negative consequences for all of us.

Etc.

I think letting him be would have been better, he was hardly more dangerous than Quadaffi, we could have just ended the sanctions with proper diplomatic ground rules.

But this was an option more appealing, including to some democrats, than simply 'letting him go' so to speak.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #17)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 03:05 PM

53. How exactly do you feel that he was wrong on his area of support for the war?

If you don't mind the debate.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inademv (Reply #53)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 03:39 PM

65. He believed it was a fight worth having for various reasons. I see his reasons, but I don't believe

... that it was ultimately worth it.

But his biggest reason was that he thought Hussein was evil and needed to be taken down. The place where I think he was wrong is that I don't think it was a fight worth having, at least not the occupation part that came after the fall of Saddam.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #65)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 03:54 PM

70. His support for the war was for the removal of Saddam, not the occupation

And pretty much any area where one can point to something that went wrong following the initial invasion, Hitchens was critical of what was wrong.

I agree with his position that it was a fight worth having for two reasons:
1) Saddam's regime of torture and murder was a blight to the human race, not just those directly subject to it (and I feel this way about the things happening in Africa as well).
2) Saddam would not have been in the position he was in, with the weapons he had, if the United States had not provided both.

I think you would be hard pressed to find a reason to leave Hussein in power (this point also applies to many countries in the Middle East but especially Syria and Libya).

The issue here, I think, is where do we draw the line between the removal of Saddam's regime and when we became occupiers. I'm not solid on the dates but I think that point came following the capture of Baghdad and the complete failures in maintaining the infrastructure there (that fiasco with the generators they brought in) and the failure in enabling the Iraqis to fill the void created by Saddam's removal by themselves.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inademv (Reply #70)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 04:11 PM

77. No. I heard and read Hitchens argue in favor of continued fighting in Iraq post saddam.

He definately believed that we should have continued fighting the insurgents after Saddam was taken down.

My view is that you can't go around upheaving governments without at least trying to rebuild said country.

To me, we have a moral responsibility to help rebuild a country like Iraq after we went in and threw everything into disarray. You break it, you buy it.

Because I feel that moral responsibility comes with such an action, I don't believe it was worth it to take it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #77)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 04:17 PM

78. So do you find it more morally acceptable

to have left the sadist (that we put there by the way) in power over Iraq and to a rather lesser extent lashing at nearby countries like he did in Kuwait?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inademv (Reply #78)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 04:45 PM

83. Yes. I do.

We don't have a moral obligation to commit American lives and resources to decade long wars in order to police the world. But if we are going to police the world, we have a moral obligation to do right by the societies we upheave. So, in my view, we can't go into a place like Iraq and take out their government without committing to American lives and resources to the long war to try and get it put back together (at least not morally). So because that commitment comes with such military actions, we are better not to indulge such military actions.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #83)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 05:06 PM

89. "we have a moral obligation to do right by the societies we upheave"

When the United States backed/supported the Ba'ath party takeover of Iraq we, as a country, became directly responsible for the following atrocities carried out by them. When we went in an trained their army and provided them with, among other things, the chemical weapons which Saddam later used against the Kurds, we became doubly responsible.

So I still do not understand how you can view the war as one we ought to have fought.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inademv (Reply #89)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 05:10 PM

92. I never said we didn't have a responsibility to do something.

But we didn't owe anyone a war. Fuck that.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #92)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 05:15 PM

96. So how is it morally acceptable to have left Saddam in power?

and if you feel that it was the right move to remove him, how do you suggest it ought to have been done.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inademv (Reply #96)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 05:49 PM

106. Wait for something like an Arab Spring to occur and treat it with a similar fashion as we did Egypt.

But, look, I really don't owe anyone at THIS site an explanation as to why I don't agree with neocon bullshit.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #106)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 05:53 PM

109. Well we were having a debate about it, if you don't care to continue that then that is unfortunate

Egypt's situation was MASSIVELY different from that of Iraq in terms of the level of oppression and the methods used to carry it out. And uprising like what happened in Egypt doesn't happen in a country where the leader has already demonstrated his willingness to use chemical weapons against his own people.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inademv (Reply #78)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 06:22 PM

124. Does that mean we should take out Saudi Arabia?

We've coddled the Saudis since the 50s. We've sold them military hardware. They are one of the most brutal regimes in the world. They are the beheading capital of the planet. They use capital punishment against married women for merely talking to men who aren't their husbands. The royals live lavishly, one of the princes spending 25 million dollars on his daughter's birthday party while the common people struggle. 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis. Women accused by their husbands of adultery, sometimes even without proof, are sentenced to death. Other capital crimes are apostasy and homosexuality. Methods of execution are beheading, stoning and cruxifiction.

And we're a lot worse for having removed Saddam. Saddam was a secular leader for all his brutality. Women served in his cabinet, his Prime Minister, Tariq Azziz, was a Christian, women were allowed to attend colleges. They were allowed to wear Western clothes and, in the Baghdad club district, even wore miniskirts. Baghdad even had gay clubs. The Chaldean Christian community had lived for almost 1,500 years undisturbed in Iraq and they were a protected minority under Hussein.

Now, with the Shiites in control, Sharia law holds sway over all. The Chaldean Christians have been driven out. Estimates are that maybe only under 50,000 of the former 700,000 of them now remain. Few women are seen wearing Western clothes. Homosexuals are persecuted. There are horror stories of suspected gay men having their genitals burned off and their anuses glued shut. One father invited neighbors to witness him eviserating his gay son to cheers and clapping. An estimated three million Iraqis have fled the country and two million are displaced within it. It's considered the greatest humanitarian refugee crisis on the planet.

Add to that the horror of the poisoning of the country with depleted uranium. Before the Gulf Wars, childhood Leukemia was rare in Iraq. By 2006, after 4,000 tons of DU was dropped on the country, Iraq ranked #One in the incidence of childhood Leukemia. Add to the scenario is the fact that Iran, once counterbalanced by Hussein, is now closely allied with the Shiite government there. Our leaders have to sneak into Iraq under cover of darkness and heavy guard with President Talabani smiling frostily by their side. Compare that with visits from Iran president Ahmedinajed, who's greeted like a rock star.

I served for six months in the beginning of the war and my daughter has gone on five tours of Iraq. She tells me she definitely doesn't feel the love. I'm sure many women, gays and displaced Christians and refugees don't either.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rozlee (Reply #124)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 06:35 PM

129. Thank you, Rozlee

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rozlee (Reply #124)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 06:37 PM

130. "Saddam was a secular leader for all his brutality"

horse shit.
He AND his Ba'ath party used their religious bent, being a minority of the Sunni minority, as justification for their oppression and torture of everyone else in the country. Casting it as anything else is on the same level of claiming that the Bosnian Genocide was not religiously motivated.

The religious oppression of the Saudi people is reprehensible but is nowhere near the level of brutality that was wielded by Saddam (if you think otherwise then I invite you to do some reading on the subject).

You can argue from the position of hindsight but you ought to take it to another point in this discussion because it has no relevance in this series.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inademv (Reply #130)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 07:37 PM

153. Saddam was considered secular by the west

for not imposing Sharia law and promoting modern westernized institutions and lifestyles. Yes, he was religious and promoted Islam, for his own purposes much like our own fundamentalist demogogues, but, he was our fair haired boy until he wasn't. When he gassed the Kurds in Halabja, the U.S. rushed to his defense when the U.N. was voting to press sanctions on him. We insisted that there might have been Iran involvment instead and refused to sanction him. But, in the lead up to the Iraq War, we sure changed our tune. "He gassed his own people!" Bush and his cronies fumed. Well, who gave him the gas and who defended him when he used it?

Several agents in the CIA stepped forward to say that Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction, but they were drowned out by the Bush propaganda machine and FOIA now show that Bush officials promoted this lie while they knew it was untrue. And it wasn't hindsight that proved the outcome of the Iraq War. Political analysts told the Bush Administration over and over again that a power vacuum left by the removal of Hussein would allow a fundamentalist regime to take over that would be closely allied with Iran and that would spark a civil war. They refused to listen.

There are and have been far worse dictators than Saddam Hussein that we've allowed to run rampant over the world and people that needed rescuing a great deal more than the Iraqis. We did nothing while almost a million Rwandans were slaughtered. If we really wanted to rid the world of a dictator that made Hussein look like a choir boy, we should have gone after Omar al-Bashir of Sudan, who's been responsible for mind-boggling genocide. But, the truth remains that if we send troops to topple every brutal dictatorship on the planet, we'll run out of resources to care for our own. We've already got a military that is exhausted from multiple tours with 45,000 casualties and who knows how many others suffering from PTSD. The cakewalk wasn't such a cakewalk.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rozlee (Reply #153)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 08:31 PM

165. Yeah Hitler was totally secular too man </sarcasm>

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inademv (Reply #78)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 06:25 PM

126. Yes. If you've noticed Egypt and Tunisia lately, you'd easily see--

--that oppressed people are perfectly capable of taking out dictators all by their lonesome. We supported their dictators every bit as much as we supported Saddam.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #126)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 06:37 PM

132. Halabja poison gas attack

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inademv (Reply #132)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 07:55 PM

155. Nowhere near as many casualties as the US invasion

A couple hundred thousand, just counting people shot or blown up. Lancet was of the opinion that those who die of contaminated water because of the destruction of treatment plants, or those dying of treatable diseases because their hospital gets blown up, or has no electricity, are just as dead. They estimate 600K to more than a million.

And then there are the millions of refugees, internal and external.

The nearly complete obliteration of women's opportunities for public activity.

The nearly complete elimination of of a Chaldean Christian community that had lived in Iraq for 1500 years.

The elimination of a major chunk of the professional middle class of doctors, lawyers and engineers.

Huge increases in the number of deformed babies due to depleted uranium contamination.

The destruction of a great deal of infrastructure, still not replaced after nine years, including the university system.

You must be so proud!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #155)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 08:30 PM

164. Arguing from hindsight doesn't make or support your case n/t

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inademv (Reply #164)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 08:35 PM

168. It certainly does, as most of the consequences were predicted in advance

But Emperor Little Boots, who had no clue about the difference between Shi'ites and Sunnis wanted to do it, so it was done.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #77)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 06:21 PM

123. If someone trashed your house, would you want to hire them to rebuild?

I'll bet not. You'd just want to sue the hell out of them to get money to do it yourself, and them have them get permanently out of your face.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #123)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 07:23 PM

147. Sort of, yes. I'd expect them to supply the resources one way or another.

Of course, thats a false equivalency to some degree as well. But all in all, if some wealthy neighbor trashed my house, I'd expect the law to make them pay for all the resources needed to rebuild it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inademv (Reply #70)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 05:45 PM

104. It was not possible to remove Saddam without becoming an occupier

so trying to separate the moral aspects of the two is likewise, not possible. The one comes with the other. It was never possible to do the moral good without the moral evil following on its heels.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #104)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 05:50 PM

107. So we're doing the wrong thing in Libya? n/t

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inademv (Reply #107)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 05:55 PM

111. The two situations are nothing alike.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #111)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 06:43 PM

135. They are very analygous

A despotic dictator brutalizing his people that was removed from power via armed intervention by the United States and other outside nations.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #14)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 03:25 PM

55. No, they dont deserve ANY condemnation. There was nothing wrong with that vote as I explained here

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #55)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 04:02 PM

74. Actually I'm pretty sure they do

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg-Briand_Pact
Or does article 6 not matter anymore?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inademv (Reply #74)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 04:52 PM

87. Nope, they don't. The IWR authorized war only if UN Resolutions were not followed. At the time IWR

was voted on, we didnt have Weapons inspectors in Iraq. It is as a result of IWR and UN Resolution 1441 that the weapons inspectors were sent back in. It was not until March 7, 2003 that there was irrefutable truth that there were no WMD in IRaq. At THAT point, proceeding to war became in contravention of the Iraq War Resolution, in contravention of UN Resolutions, and in fact, a war crime. I lay that all out in the article.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #87)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 05:09 PM

91. So wait, because they voted to go to war before the inspection was complete they get a pass? n/t

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inademv (Reply #91)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 06:01 PM

114. Which makes sense if you remember the conditions under which the IWR was created

Everyone on both sides of the aisle thought there was a strong chance that Iraq still had them, and Iraq was not allowing weapons inspectors into the country. IWR was created as a threat to force weapons inspectors back into Iraq. Incidentally, UN REsolution 1441 was created for the same reason at close to the same time, so it was not only the US that had the concerns.

The problem wasnt IWR, the problem was what happened afterwards. Again, I lay it all out in the article.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #114)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 06:39 PM

133. No level of weapontry they had or could get in a small timeframe would have been a threat to

the United States.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inademv (Reply #133)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 01:21 AM

197. That was my guess in 2002 too, but it was a guess. It was the UN

Weapons inspectors that confirmed it in March 2003 two to three weeks before the war started. It is irrefutably true that to go to war after that violated the IWR and international law.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #55)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 05:46 PM

105. They knew they were giving Bush the green light to invade

fig leaves make poor cover in a war.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #105)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 06:01 PM

115. Nope, they didnt and the IWR was not written as a green light. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #115)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 06:09 PM

120. yes, they did

and it sure became one, didn't it? The Democrats who voted for IWR are as guilty as Bush for the war. They, too, were caught up in the war fever sweeping the nation. Not even the remotest permission to invade Iraq should have been given to Bush, yet it was. And hundreds of thousands are now dead because those Democrats voted to allow Bush to go to war.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #120)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 06:17 PM

122. The wording is right in the resolution. You ignore it because it proves you incorrect. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #122)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 11:58 PM

194. IWR text Section 3:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

Bush was authorized by the IWR to invade Iraq.
Section 3 authorizes the use of the Armed Forces as the President
determines to be necessary.

Senator Byrd was right.
From the NYT, October 10, 2002

"Why are we being hounded into action on a resolution that turns over to President Bush the Congress's Constitutional power to declare war? This resolution would authorize the president to use the military forces of this nation wherever, whenever and however he determines, and for as long as he determines, if he can somehow make a connection to Iraq. It is a blank check for the president to take whatever action he feels "is necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq."

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/10/opinion/congress-must-resist-the-rush-to-war.html

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SOS (Reply #194)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 01:37 AM

200. keep bolding. "in order to... defend the us.. and enforce UN resolutions

Thus, no blank check. IWR was violated by the war.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #200)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 10:25 AM

228. Will gladly continue bolding

IWR was not violated by war, IWR authorized use of US Armed Forces
against Iraq at the President's sole determination.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President
to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Section 2 "supports the efforts" of Bush to enforce UN resolutions.
Section 3 authorizes Bush to attack based solely on his determination as to whether
those theatrical "efforts" were successful.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #14)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 11:45 PM

192. I didn't know about the

My Lai massacre until later.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 02:19 PM

16. we hardly needed Hitchen's war cheerleading to get us mired in Iraq...

Cheney, Bush,* Rumsfeld, and all their lying enablers were quite enough--including Powell. Not to mention all the neocon press. Bill Kristol did far more on that score, IMO

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 02:24 PM

19. Talk about over the top

alignments. Comparing Christopher Hitchens to Kim Jong Il has got to be on the list of all time stupid comparisons.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 02:24 PM

20. I don't think he would take credit for that war. And it wouldn't be false modesty.

I cannot explain his neocon leanings; it might be some nationalistic impulse that coincided with his becoming a citizen. I remember Democrats lining up to support this war. They had more power than Hitchins.

--imm

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to immoderate (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 03:29 PM

57. On the one hand, I understand it, he hated religious zealotry particularly as the ruling order of a

state. The Islamic republics were particular sources of ire for him. But he also hated the Vatican, he hated the Christian right here in the US, etc.

That doesnt change the fact that he was wrong and I always thought someone of his intellect should have been able to figure it out.
I've read his pronouncements on the subject and I cannot to this day understand why he never recanted.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #57)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 04:24 PM

80. Agreed. He was zealously anti-theocratic. But it's not an excuse.

A weird blind spot for Hitchins.

--imm

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 02:25 PM

21. Weak. Very weak.

In fact, vanishingly weak. Jesus doesn't like weak arguments, you know. Never mind, though.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 02:30 PM

25. You are BENDING OVER BACKWARDS TO MISS THE GODDAMN POINT!

 

Did Kim Jong Il vehemently argue for your invasion of Iraq? Yes or no?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Reply #25)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 02:31 PM

28. ok, that just shows your comparison is even dumber

 

Unfucking believable

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #28)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 02:34 PM

31. Dumber? How does one get any dumber than the Hitchensia?

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Reply #31)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 02:36 PM

33. "Did Kim Jong Il vehemently argue for your invasion of Iraq?"

 

No, but neither did Charles Manson. Why don't you compare Hitchens with him unfavorably then?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Reply #25)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 02:52 PM

44. Yeah, well...welcome to DU to YOU, too....

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 02:31 PM

26. i blame bu$h* and cheney.....hitchens is just a reporters opinion.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 02:32 PM

29. lol -- I don't think Hitchens support was a deciding factor



Though certainly his position on the war was wrong.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 02:35 PM

32. North Korea's role in nuclear proliferation (and thus global destablization)

far outweighs anything Christopher Hitchens ever did cheerleading the Iraq war.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 02:37 PM

35. Most Americans have no clue who Hitchens was..

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 02:37 PM

36. Kim was also a better golfer.

And much more witty.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 02:41 PM

40. I agree

 

Some things simply cannot be forgiven

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)


Response to DeathToTheOil (Reply #42)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 03:25 PM

56. Yeah, ya think?

I hope you're not hit with a barrage of posts saying how "insensitive" you are to call someone stupid. I got the full court press for simply calling someone's decision to switch from Obama 2008 to Ron Paul 2012 "feeble-minded" thinking. Go figure.

Back to the subject however: it's posts like this that want to make you smash your head against the wall. And I'm sure the poster thinks she/he is truly progressive. That's the sad part.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 02:51 PM

43. Wow!

So, by your take, if Christopher Hitchens had not been "the #1 cheerleading chickenhawk for the Iraq War" there wouldn't have been an Iraq War? Really, that's your take?

Oh, as to the comparison to Kim Jong-il, with your conclusion being more favorable to a dictator whose actions have killed untold thousands of his own people than to a writer with very limited influence in the big picture, all I can say to that is

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 02:56 PM

47. None whatsoever is vastly more?

Exactly what impact did a Brit infotainment writer have on Iraq policy? I don't give a shit of Hitchens was writing/speaking "death to all Iraqis" 24/7, he had zero influence on Bush's decision to go to and maintain war. Kim on the other hand ACTUALLY MADE GEOPOLITICAL DECISIONS, unlike a writer however much he pissed you off personally.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 03:33 PM

60. Sheer, bloodcurdling FAIL. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 03:41 PM

67. Hitchens went after Kissinger which no one else did

Like a lot of brilliant people, Hitchens was a mixed bag.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 04:09 PM

76. “Sometimes people are good, and they do just what they should. But the very same people...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=11HOw5oorDc


“Sometimes people are good, and they do just what they should. But the very same people who are good sometimes are the very same people who are bad sometimes. It's funny but it's true. Its the same isn't it, for me and . . .” -- Fred Rogers
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show/29225

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 04:19 PM

79. One more Book

Christopher Hitchens will publish one more book in a couple of weeks about his health battle with cancer, something he was writing on the side as only he knew when things were becoming worse off. It should prove useful to see if he can answer any of your questions in a posthumous way, in the very least I look forward to reading it for the sake of having one more Hitchens' book to consume.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spirit of wine (Reply #79)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 05:12 PM

93. I thought he covered it well enough in Hitch-22 n/t

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 04:45 PM

84. So much fail I don't even know where to start. Both death tallies are zero,

for one. Hitchens is responsible for zero American military deaths- that's right, zero. Hitchens not only had no control or effect on the actions of the American military, he wasn't even American. He was not the #1 cheerleading chickenhawk, there were many other cheerleaders who were not only more vocal but were actually American. Also, your comparison fails to take into account the prisons, detention camps, military, food supply and other trifling controls that Hitchens totally failed to exercise over millions of people (Google North Korean Famine, although apparently those dead millions don't count?).

On the other hand, Hitchens was an atheist who didn't like Islam and said so out loud in public. To some people that really is worse than actually killing other human beings.

Your post shows some interesting priorities.

Welcome to DU.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 05:14 PM

95. Whether Hitchens was for or against the Iraq war made no fucking difference

He had no power and nobody with ANY say-so gave a shit what he thought.

He had absolutely NO capacity for doing damage to this country, NONE.

Now, when Colin Powell made an argument for this war - THAT made a difference.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 05:16 PM

97. Always good to read opinions that have null value here.

He made an intellectual decision in his support of the Iraq war, one that many didn't agree with.

We all make mistakes.

He never killed anyone with his writing and he made enormous numbers of people consider their positions more carefully.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 05:23 PM

98. Christopher Hitchens worked for The Pentagon?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 05:27 PM

99. The No. 1 cheerleading chickenhawk?

Never was a fan of Hitchens or his views on Iraq; but if he'd never existed, the war would still have happened. As No. 1 cheerleading chickenhawk - what about Rupert Murdoch? Or our own dear Tony Blair?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftishBrit (Reply #99)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 06:08 PM

119. limbaugh and sons, with 1000 coordinated radio stations and paid callers, endorsed by our universiti

ties with their sports broadcasting.

that's where the lies and shouts of 'traitor!' got the most widespread unchallenged repetition.

those are the blowhards who shouted over the protestors without the protestors knowing, because they had music in their ears.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 05:35 PM

100. And by the way..

it may be true that Kim didn't do much harm to Americans. But he, like his father, did plenty of harm to North Koreans. N. Korea is regarded as one of the worst countries for human rights.

Hitchens may have expressed some unpleasant opinions. But he never imprisoned or tortured or executed anyone. Nor did he allow them to die of hunger, because he preferred to spend his country's resources on nuclear weapons.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 05:39 PM

102. What a load of crap.

Hitch was a writer expressing his views. He made his case based on information available to civilians. He was by no means the most influential person expressing that opinion. And he had no authority to make it happen. On the other hand, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle could have stopped the authorization before it happened. Hitch was motivated the horrible cruelty of the Hussein regime. Just as he had not authority over if the government went to war, he also had no say over how the war was conducted. Most of its advocates, Bill Clinton for example, expected the military to be in and out in a month. Hitch certainly did not intend the US government to repeat the crimes of the Hussein era by embezzling a fortune or committing acts of torture.

I think what the political left, such as it is, really dislikes about Hitch is that he refused to play by their rules. Like many people, he was repelled by its moral relativism and unwillingness to take a stand against evil if even the SUGGESTION of racism or colonial mentality can be made. I did not always agree with him. I found his criticism of Michael Moore to be pretty weak tea. Likewise, I remain puzzled at how he could find Bill Clinton so "loathsome" while giving people like Paul Wolfowitz a free pass. Further, Hitchens never bought into ecumenical bullshit and specifically rejected the idea that all religious beliefs are equally valid except to assert that they are all equally invalid. That rubs a lot of people the wrong way. Ultimately Hitchens wrote from his own perspective and was unapologetic when he slaughtered sacred cows of the left or the right. While urging an invasion of Iraq, he also castigated Bush for his ties to Evangelical religion. He characterized Obama as overrated (a charitable characterization as it turns out) but still urged people to vote for him since the alternative was so grossly unacceptable. Whatever "damage" Hitch did, it has to be weighed against the great good he did by politicizing an alternative to a life subservient to religious belief. Others were writing on the same topic of course, but Hitch's literary mind and command of linguistic expression made his arguments particularly persuasive.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 05:44 PM

103. So... Only American lives matter?

One writer did more damage then a dictator? I'd love to see the resoning that draws you to this conclusion. Please... Go on.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ohio Joe (Reply #103)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 05:59 PM

113. He can't.

He's had two posts hidden in this thread...

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 05:55 PM

110. The US government chose to go to war without any input from Hitchens.

Sure, his stance on the war was wholly odious. But it's not as though they were minding their own business and he convinced them to go. They had their minds made up before even entering office. Sure, maybe he convinced a few Americans that it was a good idea, but it's not as though there was a democratic vote over it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 06:02 PM

116. no one heard hitchens compared to team limbaugh, the real chickenhawk cheerleaders for iraq attack

since you're in canada you may not know of a guy named limbaugh

he and team limbaugh with hannity and beck and others did the real sales job for cheney bush.

and if you were in the US there's a good chance your favorite hockey team might have endorsed limbaugh and that sales job by broadcasting on those stations

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 06:03 PM

117. RIP unrec

 

You won't be missed that much. But occasionally you will be.

This is one of those occasions.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 06:08 PM

118. Hitchens did NO damage, he just talked.....

Bush and Cheney and Powell and all the congressmen who voted for the war did the damage. And Kim Jong Il actually had, you know, nasty weapons to use to kill people. As far as I know, Hitchens did not have any say in American policy. Or any nukes or whatever. Just his opinions, which you did not have to read.
So saying he harmed America is sort of, um, ridiculous. And ridiculous to think Dick & Company were influenced by him.
The people who make the laws and take huge bailouts and charge Americans up the wazoo for meager access to health care are vastly hurting America. All the rest is just talk.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #118)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 07:16 PM

143. wrong, wrong, wrong

As I said upthread, Hitchens manufactured arguments that were used by the Bushies. He did a LOT of damage.

Glenn Greenwald covers it pretty well here:

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/17/christohper_hitchens_and_the_protocol_for_public_figure_deaths/

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrawlingChaos (Reply #143)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 07:58 PM

158. I read that yesterday......

I think Greenwald is pissed because his own passing will likely not be worthy of a breaking news report. Greenwald is VERY upset with all the notice taking of Hitchens' passing. Tempest in a teapot, really.
Greenwald hates Hitchens so much that I cannot consider Greenwald's vitriol much of a source. If you think we would not have gone into Iraq if not for Hitchens, then you are mistaken.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #158)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 09:09 PM

178. I could have posted a number of other links

From serious, credible, thoughtful sources objecting to the the rose-colored hagiography following Hitchens demise. Would you use the same silly excuse to dismiss all of them?

NO ONE said the U.S. wouldn't have gone into Iraq if not for Hitchens. Hitchens, in a very real way, assisted those with the most direct responsibility. He was not blameless.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrawlingChaos (Reply #143)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 01:25 AM

199. And if Obama loses because enough people on the left stay home next year

 

How much subsequent damage will Greenwald take the blame for?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 06:14 PM

121. LOL....one of the least informed OPs I have seen this month. n-t

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #121)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 06:32 PM

127. I agree up to the "this month" part.

I have to stop reading DU with a tablet...too easy to throw it in the toilet because of posts like this.

Uh oh...did I just give away where I am sitting?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 06:33 PM

128. Where does Dan Savage fall on this scale?

He was pro-Iraq War too, at least initially, and yet most people around here like him just fine.

Place the blame on Bush's foreign policy people and their allies instead of media figures of limited influence.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 06:56 PM

138. With all due respect, your statement is utterly absurd.



Ironically, you are showing well how hyperbolic reasoning works. Just the same way Hitchens miscalculated his reasons into going to Iraq perhaps due to deeply rooted motives we do not know about, you are making a biased opinion blinded perhaps by your dislike of Hitchens. Just say you hate the guy or that you don't understand how he was so utterly ignorant about Iraq but don't blow your opinions out of proportion. You are making Colin Powell look like an expectator.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 07:02 PM

139. Oh god, here we go again...

 

I don't think the throngs of neanderthals who supported the IWR all did so because Christopher Hitchens said they should

Yes, like any drunken ex-imperialist, he spouted off nonsense

Americans are going to be like that some day

Just wait until WE lose our empire

But he was awesome on a number of other things....

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 07:06 PM

141. Hitchens was wrong like so many in his assessment of the Iraq war, however, he did not vote or make

the decision to go to war. His intellect and contribution to society was not limited to his opinion of the Iraq war. What tripe to compare the 2 deaths.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pisces (Reply #141)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 07:21 PM

146. indeed...nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 07:10 PM

142. I Would Forget About Christopher Hitchens' Iraq War Comments.

Hitchens was very much an advocate of Separation of Church and State who was not afraid to speak out against the Religious Righters that have constantly tried to remove the wall of separation, to tare it down. His contributions were so great I am willing to forget his Iraq War comments.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 07:17 PM

144. Hitchens had a tart tongue and was 100% wrong about the war, but was often right on issues

He was very, very wrong about the war. And as I much as I hated his position and disagreed with it, it was still entertaining to read.

The Missionary Positon: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice and everything he wrote on St Princess should be read as an antidote to hagiographies (bonus points to the OP for correctly using that word).

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 07:20 PM

145. I disagree with the OP title, what a pile of shit that is...

Nothing is or has been more dangerous to this country then republicans and their followers, the ones who started all this shit to begin with. I am pretty sure those in congress who voted to invade Iraq have far more to bare then CH.

To say that CH was worse then KJI is just out of line and well over the top. I am not much of a fan of his politics but I am a fan of his Atheist writings and his debates.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 07:29 PM

149. So *, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc. played no part in taking us to war?

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 07:32 PM

150. Actually, Dick Cheney was the #1 chickenhawk.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 07:50 PM

154. Hitch was wrong on many things...but got this one right

 

Hitch recognized the simple fact that had Clinton or Obama been President in 02, the Iraq war would have been lauded in this forum.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to knocklindquist (Reply #154)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 12:16 AM

196. 72% of Americans opposed Bush's idiotic invasion,

including 60% of Republicans, in December 2002.

Support for such an unbelievably stupid, unprovoked attack on Iraq would never have risen above 5% on this forum.

http://articles.latimes.com/2002/dec/17/nation/na-iraqpoll17

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SOS (Reply #196)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 05:56 AM

211. support on DU for the horrid Libya invasion refutes you

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 07:56 PM

157. Before that, he was a notable spokesman for left

There are at least some nice thing to remember about Christopher Hitchens.

You're right, Kim Jong Il didn't do much harm to the United States. In fact, the best thing that can be said about Kim Jong Il is that, for all his bluster, he seldom did harm any one outside of North Korea. Inside North Korea, he did immense harm and leaves behind a nation beset by famine.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 08:04 PM

159. Yeah Hitchens was a useless fascist, neocon warmongering piece of shit

Fuck him. If he was wrong and there's a hell that he's burning in now he completely deserves. That fuck deserves as much sympathy as Henry Kissinger deserves once he kicks it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 08:16 PM

161. "Hitch" was the #1 cheerleading chickenhawk for the Iraq War.

No

That would be Cheney, Bush, Rummy, Wolfy, Condie, Rove and a whole host of people with REAL power to start war, unlike Hitchens, who must come before him.

Your post is asinine. And your "I hate outspoken atheists" slip is showing.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 08:35 PM

167. Hitchens was an ass

 

I never had such a problem with Kim Jong Il... but Iraq was a travesty

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 08:37 PM

170. Let it die, folks, DTTO has been evicted from the thread by virtue of two hidden posts. n/t

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 08:39 PM

171. Hitch chose Obama

So if Hitch is to blame for more damage to America, in the same thought, he did more good for America.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2008/10/vote_for_obama.html

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 08:49 PM

174. It almost makes me regret voting for him... ( n/t )

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 08:50 PM

175. I like Hitchens the same way I like Trey Parker and Matt Stone......

..... and the three of them couldn't care a wit about me or any of us.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 08:51 PM

176. Are you saying that if there had been no Hitchens

that we wouldn't have gone to war with Iraq? That the damage was all done by him? Oh Please.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #176)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 09:11 PM

179. Nonsense post. Where did anyone say that? (n/t)

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrawlingChaos (Reply #179)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 10:21 PM

184. The war was inevitable, whether Hitchens had said a word about it

or not. Neither his opinions nor his actions were a tipping point in any way, shape or form that could justify blaming him for ANY damage to America whatsoever.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #184)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 10:48 PM

187. re-worded nonsense is still nonsense

You seem to be suggesting that unless the war would not have happened without a specific individual's involvement, they are not to be blamed. That lets almost everyone off the hook!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 09:21 PM

180. This thread is going to inspire a lot of jury duty... n/t

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 10:25 PM

185. How many legions had Hitchens?

 

And he's dead. Whatever "harm" he did, he won't be doing anymore. Why bash?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 10:42 PM

186. More than Bush, Cheney, or Powell?

Wow. You'd think with all that power that old Hitch would have gotten "In God We Trust" off of the dollar bill.

Don't look now, but your hyperbole is showing.

And I didn't even like Hitchens, but I've had my fill of over hyped claims to make a non-point ever since the horrid lead up to the Iraq Invasion.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 11:01 PM

188. What point could you possibly be trying to make with this thread?

Honestly?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 11:20 PM

190. He got that one wrong.

In the aggregate though, he was right about a lot more than he was wrong. I'd sooner associate with him than with someone who can't stand to see a great man spoken well of after his death.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 11:20 PM

191. So he was wrong.

Ok. He was wrong on this issue. He had just as much 'vote' on it as you or I, so pardon me if I hold some others a bit more accountable.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 12:06 AM

195. Shitty thread; stupid premise; non-sensical comparison.

 

What, did Hitchens give the declaration to go to war? How did his support do any damage to America at all? He was wrong but his overall work as an author and out-spoken atheist did a lot of good, gave rise to a movement and breathed new life to the discussion about the damage that blind faith, even in moderation, does to the world.

And what is the comparison to Kim Jong Il? When did he do any damage to America?

I don't think you have any idea what the hell you're talking about, so the next time you get the urge to start a thread, please fight it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 01:25 AM

198. bon Jovi did more damage than both of them put together

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 02:16 AM

201. Has anyone made a comparison to the Nazi's yet?

Just curious.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Reply #201)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 02:38 AM

202. +1000!! nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 03:04 AM

204. Why would it occur to you to compare those two?


It's a bit like saying Ben Franklin was better than Catherine the Great. Two different people, in totally different fields, in totally different countries. And of course, Franklin is going to have greater effect on his country than Catherine the Great does.

There are better ways of saying Hitchens was a douche, which is what I say that even though I'm an atheist. Atheists shouldn't admire him just because he was an outspoken unbeliever. He was despicable human being, who shamelessly contributed to so much death and suffering, and reveled in it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 03:43 AM

205. This thread belongs on Jim Robinson's MB

Hitchens was a human being who could write well and had a good line in vituperation.

He drank

He smoked

He was a flirt, possibly a womaniser although I have yet to see any evidence of that ... yet

He believed that Saddam deserved to be deposed as should Gaddhafi, Kim Jong Il and Mugabe.

But he saw through that pious fraud, Mother Teresa and was a wonderful defender of the freedom of speech. He knew the idiocies of hard line socialism/communism as well as the noxious stupidities of those who were part of a "flock" or supported a conservative party line. He knew he could be wrong and never objected to opposition that had been thought through although you could expect him to defend his position vigorously.

He loathed the sort of knee-jerk hatred and nasty sound-bite argument that the OP of this thread has indulged in.

He was a human being who lived his life to the full and did not vegetate in front of a keyboard.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #205)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 10:24 AM

227. Yes, he knew he could be wrong . . .


. . . but never admitted he was wrong about Iraq, long after there were no WMD's, long after our invasion, which he cheered with effusive jingoism, clearly turned Iraq into a catastrophe. He was unapologetic about that. His reveling in war and bloodshed and embrace of the Neocons was cut & paste Nietzsche: nihilism and savagery, barely socialized. Oh, no, he didn't vegetate in front of the keyboard. His warmongering influenced people to commit widespread crimes, and he put himself in the same boat with secular, intellectually formidable, George W. Bush, and we all know how Dubya and his cohort hated sound-bite argument. He set Iraq and the US back generations. And like any chickenhawk, he never had to take responsibility, never shouldered any of the risk, never sacrificed anything for the abomination he aided and abetted.

So what he saw through Mother Teresa? So what he hated soundbite argument? For me, an atheist, he will always be defined by his mean-spirited, mindless, unaccountable support for the Iraq invasion, from which he did far more damage than he did good-- even if he did it eloquently.

I hope I put this better than the OP did.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 04:55 AM

206. Wow!

I can't believe the expressions of hate I'm reading here.

"For whom the bell tolls", and all that. Get off your high-horses, people. Hate is so unbecoming. He wasn't the only person who bought the lies of the Bush administration and his lap-dog, Tony Blair. He just expressed himself far more eloquently than most. I think the majority are more disturbed at his unabashed atheism. The wicked "Hitch" is dead, and won't abrade your delicate sensibilities any longer. Get over it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HowHeThinks (Reply #206)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 05:25 AM

208. interesting is`t it.

who really cares what the hell he wrote or spoke about anything. he was one man with an opinion no better or no worse than you or i. that`s the nice thing about a democracy....we are all entitled to speak or write our opinion.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 05:22 AM

207. Obviously, there's no factual support for the claim. None whatsoever.

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 05:28 AM

209. Just a wee bit over the top.

Hitchens had his opinions, and was entitled to them. Same goes for everyone else on the planet. But to say that he alone did VASTLY more damage to America than Kim is just ridiculous hyperbole. He had about as much influence on U.S. foreign policy as I do.

More to the point: How many people have died on behalf of North Korea's sick fixation on military toys and "superiority," and how many have starved to death because Kim literally favored guns over butter? At the end of the day, that makes Hitchens and his opinions pretty trivial stuff.

I once heard the chief of staff of a former congressperson talk about his and the congressman's fact-finding trip to North Korea. He told of seeing people on their hands and knees, literally scavenging the ground for seeds to eat.

Sorry, but compared to that, whatever Hitchens had to say doesn't mean squat to me.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 07:31 AM

212. What a fucking joke






RL

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RetroLounge (Reply #212)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 08:21 AM

214. indeed.

I expect next a thread about how Hitchens was WORSE THAN HITLER!!!11!!!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RetroLounge (Reply #212)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:43 AM

222. Amen...a fucking joke

DU is a silly place sometimes.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:03 AM

215. Has Hitchens even been buried yet?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:03 AM

216. That's it? That's all you've got?

So you disagreed with him... you're not even trying.

Pathetic

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:27 AM

217. Religion and our thirst for oil have done VASTLY more damage ...

... to America, and the world, than anything Christopher Hitchens or Kim Jong Il combined have done. The only reason we're even using them in the same sentence is the proximity of their deaths.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:43 AM

220. This post hurts my head

Hyperbole at best and pure crap at worst.

Hitchens was a total idiot when it came to Iraq but if you think his "cheerleading" had any effect on the administration one way or the other then you are fooling yourself.

I forgive him for that idiocy. 90% of Americans were idiots with that damn war - I forgive them too. Hitchens did a lot of good when it came to getting people to critically analyze their belief systems which can be very damaging. One drunken Brit saying he was for the invasion of Iraq just added one more voice to the cacophony screaming for it. All fools (even some here on DU). But aren't we all fools about something or another?



Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:43 AM

221. He was the #1 cheerleader? Do you not get Fox news where you live?

He supported the war no doubt, but he was far from the "#1 cheerleading chickenhawk for the Iraq War"...but don't let that get in the way of your totally unbalanced rant...

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 10:04 AM

224. These threads are handy since we can see the recs.

Nice having a list of those who hate atheists so much, they think Hitchens is actually responsible for the Iraq war.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #224)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 11:10 AM

232. And a list of those whose own rigid dogma

And via unrec, a list of those whose own rigid dogma leads them to rationalize war.

Six of one, half a dozen of other in its absolute interpretation, as the lists illustrate to ourselves only what we want them to illustrate-- for anyone who feels compelled to make a list of people who disagree with them, that is...

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #232)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 11:20 AM

233. No one in this thread is rationalizing war.

Your own dogma is making up facts.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #233)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 11:29 AM

234. I imagine we all of us see what we want to...

"No one in this thread is rationalizing war..."
I imagine we all of us see what we want to, and dismiss or deny those things which we'd rather not see.

"Your own dogma is making up facts..."
And apply only to others that which we are all guilty of in one form or another.




But of course we will continue to maintain that hate come only from one direction.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 10:06 AM

225. Welcome to DU.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 10:24 AM

226. Is it opposites day?

Because that is so far out there in the weeds of delusion that I'm uncertain of how to respond to it.

First-of-all, I consider myself a globalist more than an American, but one would have to be flat fucking barmy to think Hitchens (who really was a drunkard and a lout sometimes according to his closest friends) could ever do as much damage to humanity, his country or civilization as Kim Jung Il even if gin turned Hitchens into the Hulk and he pissed weaponized smallpox.

No matter how many evil deeds you ascribe to Hitch; I can, coming from a knowledge-base of the Kim regime in DPRK, ascribe more committed more directly to Kim. No matter how many deaths, how much misery, you assign to Hitchens, Kim eclipses Hitchens. One was a human-rights-violating megalomaniac dictator who killed hundreds of thousands if not millions of his own people; the other a writer whose opinions on a war you don't agree with. There is no comparison.

The notion of hell is too good for Kim. I'd never say that about Hitchens and I wasn't even a fan.

I'm guessing you're upset nobody ever wrote funerary odes to Pol Pot either.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 10:26 AM

229. No one is 100% right all the time...

Otherwise, they would be perfect. I have yet to see the perfect man.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 10:35 AM

230. This is the most ridiculous post I have ever seen on DU...

Most people don't even know who Christopher Hitchens is.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink