General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThis 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.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)Besides, he subscribed to a very acceptable prejudice, so all is forgiven (in a manner of speaking).
inademv
(791 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)It's an insult, but only a subtle one directed at a much-insulted minority, so it's OK.
Sid
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)The truth, it hoits!
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
TalkingDog
(9,001 posts)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.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)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.
Lunacee2012
(172 posts)but what did he say about women?
inademv
(791 posts)Where the hell are you pulling that drivel from.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)But I'll let Katha Pollitt tell it:
http://www.thenation.com/blog/165222/regarding-christopher
It wasnt 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 didnt 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.
inademv
(791 posts)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.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)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.
Response to gratuitous (Reply #136)
Post removed
Shoe Horn
(302 posts)Wall o' Text, then you run.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)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!
liberalhistorian
(20,844 posts)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.
dotymed
(5,610 posts)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.
Response to dotymed (Reply #218)
12AngryBorneoWildmen This message was self-deleted by its author.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Is that why Christians (and other theists) avoid it at all cost?
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)We're not supposed to say which play book that is out of so...
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Christians are the majority.
The comment from the poster in post #1 was about atheists, not christians.
Sid
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)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.
demosincebirth
(12,730 posts)Peregrine Took
(7,493 posts)gratuitous
(82,849 posts)George Galloway said it right to Hitchens' misogynist face.
inademv
(791 posts)since you clearly don't know the details of either.
Response to inademv (Reply #2)
Post removed
inademv
(791 posts)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.
aquart
(69,014 posts)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.
Hissyspit
(45,790 posts)Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)Guy was a bigoted would-be genocidaire; I can't respect that.
inademv
(791 posts)ForgoTheConsequence
(4,916 posts)We were never, if we are honest with ourselves, "lied into war".
-Christopher Hitchens 2008
inademv
(791 posts)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.
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)He got scared after 9/11 and sided with the neo-cons. You can't rewrite that history.
inademv
(791 posts)You're provably ignorant of Hitchens' reasons for supporting the Iraq war and they had nothing at all to do with 9/11.
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)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.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)LynneSin
(95,337 posts)Said it was a horrible thing to do.
July
(4,765 posts)Can you provide a source?
Response to July (Reply #101)
Bucky This message was self-deleted by its author.
Lost-in-FL
(7,093 posts)From a Vanity Fair interview.
Video from Vanity Fair during Hitch's waterboarding
JVS
(61,935 posts)RebelOne
(30,947 posts)JVS
(61,935 posts)Critters2
(30,889 posts)Come on, JVS! You're not a newbie here.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)CrawlingChaos
(1,893 posts)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.
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)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.
AngryOldDem
(14,165 posts)He was in literal fear for his life.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)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.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)inademv
(791 posts)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.
Johonny
(21,839 posts)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.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)paparush
(7,966 posts)Yelling "MUSHROOM CLOUD! MUSHROOM CLOUD!" for weeks on end.
CrawlingChaos
(1,893 posts)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/
thucythucy
(8,720 posts)it was quite informative.
Best wishes.
kag
(4,100 posts)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."
kentuck
(112,526 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)I was flabbergasted by Hitchen's bloodlust. I became repulsed by his very voice, after hearing him advocate so passionately for war in Iraq.
inademv
(791 posts)and of which bloodlust do you speak?
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)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
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.
inademv
(791 posts)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.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)deutsey
(20,166 posts)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.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)inademv
(791 posts)deutsey
(20,166 posts)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.
inademv
(791 posts)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.
deutsey
(20,166 posts)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.
rurallib
(63,085 posts)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.
DFab420
(2,951 posts)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.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)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.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Really!
Why does "deathtotheoil" hate North Koreans so much? What a bigot!
quinnox
(20,600 posts)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.
Lunacee2012
(172 posts)wasn't it? I actually respected him a little before that.
tblue37
(66,035 posts)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 countrys 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.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)phleshdef
(11,936 posts)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.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)phleshdef
(11,936 posts)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.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)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.
inademv
(791 posts)If you don't mind the debate.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)... 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.
inademv
(791 posts)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.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)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.
inademv
(791 posts)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?
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)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.
inademv
(791 posts)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.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)But we didn't owe anyone a war. Fuck that.
inademv
(791 posts)and if you feel that it was the right move to remove him, how do you suggest it ought to have been done.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)But, look, I really don't owe anyone at THIS site an explanation as to why I don't agree with neocon bullshit.
inademv
(791 posts)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.
Rozlee
(2,529 posts)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.
polly7
(20,582 posts)inademv
(791 posts)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.
Rozlee
(2,529 posts)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.
inademv
(791 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)--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.
inademv
(791 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)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!
inademv
(791 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)But Emperor Little Boots, who had no clue about the difference between Shi'ites and Sunnis wanted to do it, so it was done.
eridani
(51,907 posts)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.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)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.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)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.
inademv
(791 posts)MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)inademv
(791 posts)A despotic dictator brutalizing his people that was removed from power via armed intervention by the United States and other outside nations.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)inademv
(791 posts)Or does article 6 not matter anymore?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)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.
inademv
(791 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)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.
inademv
(791 posts)the United States.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)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.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)fig leaves make poor cover in a war.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)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.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)SOS
(7,048 posts)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
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Thus, no blank check. IWR was violated by the war.
SOS
(7,048 posts)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.
Lunacee2012
(172 posts)My Lai massacre until later.
hlthe2b
(105,833 posts)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
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)alignments. Comparing Christopher Hitchens to Kim Jong Il has got to be on the list of all time stupid comparisons.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)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
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)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.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)A weird blind spot for Hitchins.
--imm
MineralMan
(147,299 posts)In fact, vanishingly weak. Jesus doesn't like weak arguments, you know. Never mind, though.
DeathToTheOil
(1,124 posts)Did Kim Jong Il vehemently argue for your invasion of Iraq? Yes or no?
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Unfucking believable
DeathToTheOil
(1,124 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)No, but neither did Charles Manson. Why don't you compare Hitchens with him unfavorably then?
MADem
(135,425 posts)spanone
(137,448 posts)fishwax
(29,307 posts)Though certainly his position on the war was wrong.
Bolo Boffin
(23,872 posts)far outweighs anything Christopher Hitchens ever did cheerleading the Iraq war.
trumad
(41,692 posts)JVS
(61,935 posts)And much more witty.
surfdog
(624 posts)Some things simply cannot be forgiven
Response to DeathToTheOil (Original post)
Post removed
frazzled
(18,402 posts)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.
Spazito
(53,765 posts)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
dmallind
(10,437 posts)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.
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)lunatica
(53,410 posts)Like a lot of brilliant people, Hitchens was a mixed bag.
Ian David
(69,059 posts)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
spirit of wine
(229 posts)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.
inademv
(791 posts)LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)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.
Burma Jones
(11,760 posts)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.
GoneOffShore
(17,578 posts)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.
Throd
(7,208 posts)LeftishBrit
(41,302 posts)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?
certainot
(9,090 posts)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.
LeftishBrit
(41,302 posts)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.
Deep13
(39,156 posts)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.
Ohio Joe
(21,894 posts)One writer did more damage then a dictator? I'd love to see the resoning that draws you to this conclusion. Please... Go on.
Ms. Toad
(35,335 posts)He's had two posts hidden in this thread...
ChadwickHenryWard
(862 posts)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.
certainot
(9,090 posts)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
RZM
(8,556 posts)You won't be missed that much. But occasionally you will be.
This is one of those occasions.
djean111
(14,255 posts)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.
CrawlingChaos
(1,893 posts)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/
djean111
(14,255 posts)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.
CrawlingChaos
(1,893 posts)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.
RZM
(8,556 posts)How much subsequent damage will Greenwald take the blame for?
Logical
(22,457 posts)great white snark
(2,646 posts)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?
cemaphonic
(4,138 posts)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.
Lost-in-FL
(7,093 posts)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.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)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....
Pisces
(5,783 posts)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.
and-justice-for-all
(14,765 posts)AlBratt
(14 posts)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.
REP
(21,691 posts)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).
and-justice-for-all
(14,765 posts)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.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)Iggo
(48,195 posts)knocklindquist
(5 posts)Hitch recognized the simple fact that had Clinton or Obama been President in 02, the Iraq war would have been lauded in this forum.
SOS
(7,048 posts)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
stockholmer
(3,751 posts)Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)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.
ButterflyBlood
(12,644 posts)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.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)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.
spooked911
(8,194 posts)I never had such a problem with Kim Jong Il... but Iraq was a travesty
Ms. Toad
(35,335 posts)questforpatriots
(2 posts)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
Make7
(8,546 posts)SleeplessinSoCal
(9,596 posts)..... and the three of them couldn't care a wit about me or any of us.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that we wouldn't have gone to war with Iraq? That the damage was all done by him? Oh Please.
CrawlingChaos
(1,893 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)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.
CrawlingChaos
(1,893 posts)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!
questforpatriots
(2 posts)Mojambo
(17,422 posts)Survivoreesta
(221 posts)And he's dead. Whatever "harm" he did, he won't be doing anymore. Why bash?
beardown
(363 posts)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.
shoutinfreud
(159 posts)Honestly?
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)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.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)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.
AmericaIsGreat
(630 posts)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.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)BootinUp
(48,679 posts)Just curious.
Lost-in-FL
(7,093 posts)caseymoz
(5,763 posts)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.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)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.
caseymoz
(5,763 posts). . . 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.
HowHeThinks
(92 posts)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.
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)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.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)AngryOldDem
(14,165 posts)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.
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)RL
TZ
(42,998 posts)I expect next a thread about how Hitchens was WORSE THAN HITLER!!!11!!!
Stuckinthebush
(11,001 posts)DU is a silly place sometimes.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)deacon_sephiroth
(731 posts)So you disagreed with him... you're not even trying.
Pathetic
sarchasm
(1,211 posts)... 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.
Stuckinthebush
(11,001 posts)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?
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)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...
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Nice having a list of those who hate atheists so much, they think Hitchens is actually responsible for the Iraq war.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)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...
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Your own dogma is making up facts.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"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.
redqueen
(115,164 posts)Chan790
(20,176 posts)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.
kentuck
(112,526 posts)Otherwise, they would be perfect. I have yet to see the perfect man.
ingac70
(7,947 posts)Most people don't even know who Christopher Hitchens is.