babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » international peace movement   » George Galloway vs. Christopher Hitchens

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: George Galloway vs. Christopher Hitchens
Publius
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8829

posted 16 September 2005 10:24 AM      Profile for Publius     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Just wanted to let everyone know about an excellent debate that took place between British MP and war-opponent George Galloway and writer and war-supporter Christopher Hitchens. You can go to www.democracynow.org and click on the photo at the right. It's really one of the msot spirited and interesting debates I've heard in some time. Enjoy.
From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 17 September 2005 07:10 PM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
Thanks, very interesting. I think Hitchens came across very well.
From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 17 September 2005 07:49 PM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You would.
From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 17 September 2005 08:51 PM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
Well, I certainly see little to like in a disingenious, self-serving blowhard like Galloway. If only half of the crimes and offences he's accused of were true . . .

The war has happened, I didn't like it, but there's no "undoing" it. Hitchens raises a good point - why aren't more people supporting the secular, socialist left in Iraq, the one's who are in charge right now? They're doomed without western assistance to secure the country.


From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 17 September 2005 09:13 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Hitchens raises a good point - why aren't more people supporting the secular, socialist left in Iraq, the one's who are in charge right now? They're doomed without western assistance to secure the country.

Wasn't Saddam also considered part of the "secular, socialist left"?

That question is a false one, designed as usual by the right to attempt to send the truth down the memory hole.

The real left, as Galloway pointed out, protested every time the right wingers stuck their noses into the region and swapped out the current "corrupt" government (which they had put in in the first place) for the next puppet government.

In another 10 years you right wingers will once again forget how you installed the government that you will be claiming is corrupt and evil (as you are doing now with Saddam,) and will once again be trying to spin the truth to make it seem like those who are protesting your continued fucking up of a country, a country that you should stay the hell out of, are the ones who can't see how the US must one more time kill 10's or 100's of thousands of Iraqis and install a new "good US puppet government" in order to save the Iraqi people.

My only consolation is that in all likelihood the US will implode in another couple of years.

[ 17 September 2005: Message edited by: No Yards ]


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 17 September 2005 09:15 PM      Profile for radiorahim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
They're doomed without western assistance to secure the country.

Saw Galloway last night in Toronto. While I don't agree with everything he has to say, I have a real problem with the "west is best" mentality.

Its clear to me that the various occupation armies...chiefly American and British...have to leave. The sooner the better.

In the interim...there should be a UN force made up of folks from countries that all of the factions can trust so that the situation can be stabilized. There's so much mistrust now that these kinds of negotiations will take a very long time. A UN force would have to be adequately funded and equipped.

The west's role should pretty much be left to providing cash for reconstruction. They made the mess, they should pay for cleaning it up.


From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 17 September 2005 09:58 PM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
That's one thing that I think people are misconstruing with my views - I'm not saying that American forces need to stay in Iraq, I'd be perfectly happy to see them replaced with Indian, German, Brazilian, etc. forces. The fact of the matter is that there needs to be a continued presence in the country and a commitment to providing security, and yes, it is mostly the west that is best equipped to do this.
quote:
Wasn't Saddam also considered part of the "secular, socialist left"?
Try "secular, fascist right"
quote:
In another 10 years you right wingers . . .

From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 17 September 2005 11:44 PM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I didn't see the debate, so I can't comment either way. Just thought people might be interested to read this:

http://www.juancole.com/

Apparently, Hitchens trashed Juan Cole's credentials during the debate. Cole responded in his blog. You have to scroll down a notch to read it. It's the second item under Friday, Sept. 16 2005.


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 18 September 2005 12:12 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
why aren't more people supporting the secular, socialist left in Iraq, the one's who are in charge right now? They're doomed without western assistance to secure the country.

I don't believe for a second that the people "in charge right now" are secular, or socialist.

But even if they were, anyone who is "doomed" without Western assistance is, by that very fact, illegitimate in Iraq.

As long as they need colonial powers propping them up, they have zero legitimacy.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
sgm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5468

posted 18 September 2005 12:25 AM      Profile for sgm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks for the link to the Juan Cole blog: interesting.

To judge from this piece Cole quotes, a statement by Iraqi petroleum workers, the current administration is certainly not very 'socialist':

quote:

Friends, I wish to convey to you the greetings of your friends the members of the Executive Board of the Union, and we wish to clarify to you our view on privatisation, an issue of major concern for us as workers' movement leaders in this most important of work venues, i.e. oil. Our stance on this intricate issue is clear and explicit.

The privatisation of the oil and industrial sectors is the objective of all in the Iraqi state [Government], and we must state that we will stand firm against this imperialist plan that would hand over Iraq's wealth to international capitalism such that the deprived Iraqi people would not benefit from it.

We reaffirm our unshakeable position on this basic issue for the future of the new Iraq, for we cannot build our country unless its wealth is in its own possession, and we need your assistance and support as we are fighting our enemies on the inside and you are our support outside.


Link.


From: I have welcomed the dawn from the fields of Saskatchewan | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 18 September 2005 12:36 AM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But even if they were, anyone who is "doomed" without Western assistance is, by that very fact, illegitimate in Iraq.
Even if the people trying to bring them down are terrorists representing a minority of a minority in the country, hoping to re-impose the oppressive Ba'athist regime, or worse?

You don't see a democratic government in Iraq as worth fighting for? You don't mind if the Shi'ites are terrorised and marginalised again? It would be OK if we just packed up and let the people of Iraq fall prey to a new Hussein, or a pack of religious fundamentalists?

This isn't a war of national liberation, it's a small, narrow, group hoping to impose its will on the rest of the country. But hey, I guess that's not important next to making George Bush look bad

quote:
I don't believe for a second that the people "in charge right now" are secular, or socialist.
President Talabani has been a life long opponent of the Hussein regime, and comes from the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, a Social Democratic party which is a member of the socialist international. There are no less than 86 women holding seats in parliament. They have a very good chance at a good government over there, it just needs some help.

From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 18 September 2005 01:04 AM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
You don't see a democratic government in Iraq as worth fighting for? You don't mind if the Shi'ites are terrorised and marginalised again? It would be OK if we just packed up and let the people of Iraq fall prey to a new Hussein, or a pack of religious fundamentalists?

Andrew, wake up, that's happening right now! When one country invades another country, the invading counrty always has in mind to control the invaded country, not to help it. And American soldiers are abusing Iraqis the same way Saddam did.


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 18 September 2005 01:14 AM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
Andrew, wake up, that's happening right now!
Ah, I see, if it's hard to do (restoring peace and stability to Iraq), it's not worth trying in the first place

It's about time for a lot of people here to "wake up" to what would happen if Iraq were abandoned tomorrow or in the near future.

Hate the war? Hate the invasion? Hate the occupation? Just plain hate the U.S.? Fine, why not try to find a silver lining out of all of this and insist that the people of Iraq are left with a safe, peaceful, stable country governed by a decent democratic government. That's precisely what will not happen if it's abandoned.

As despicable as Abu Ghraib was/is, it's going to take a lot to convince me that they're anywhere close to matching Hussein's depravities.


From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 18 September 2005 01:18 AM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Ah, I see, if it's hard to do (restoring peace and stability to Iraq), it's not worth trying in the first place

By almost any measure, there was a lot more peace and stability in Iraq before the invasion. So it's a bit odd to hear you say that the invaders are going to be the ones to restore peace and stability.


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 18 September 2005 01:20 AM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
Hate the war? Hate the invasion? Hate the occupation? Just plain hate the U.S.? Fine, why not try to find a silver lining out of all of this and insist that the people of Iraq are left with a safe, peaceful, stable country governed by a decent democratic government. That's precisely what will not happen if it's abandoned.

The British and American governments do not want a stable and democratically elected government in Iraq, that's just a facade to justify their actions to their people. As long as Britain and the US call the shots, chaos in Iraq will continue.


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 18 September 2005 01:32 AM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by voice of the damned:
By almost any measure, there was a lot more peace and stability in Iraq before the invasion. So it's a bit odd to hear you say that the invaders are going to be the ones to restore peace and stability.
I see, it's a "you broke it, you're not allowed to fix it" policy.
quote:
Originally posted by Aristotleded24The British and American governments do not want a stable and democratically elected government in Iraq, that's just a facade to justify their actions to their people. As long as Britain and the US call the shots, chaos in Iraq will continue.
Not true. There are far too many people working on the ground in Iraq who really want this to work. Election observers, journalists, academics. They've also made a lot of progress. While you have your cynical, defeatist attitude (not to mention a view of the situation that's not even logically sound), I am optimistic. The west has (mostly) learned it's lesson in the past four years, it has seen that supporting Hussein, continuing to prop up Saudi Arabia, etc. has gotten it nothing but trouble.

From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 18 September 2005 01:40 AM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
Not true. There are far too many people working on the ground in Iraq who really want this to work. Election observers, journalists, academics. They've also made a lot of progress. While you have your cynical, defeatist attitude (not to mention a view of the situation that's not even logically sound), I am optimistic. The west has (mostly) learned it's lesson in the past four years, it has seen that supporting Hussein, continuing to prop up Saudi Arabia, etc. has gotten it nothing but trouble.

What evidence of this progress do you have? Betlov previously demonstrated that previous Iraqi elections were fraudulent.

In case you missed this before, here it is again: when a Western country invades another (ie Iraq 1991, Iraq 2003, Yugoslavia 1999) it is always for the advancement of its own elite, and never motivated by the altruistic reasons the governments give to sell the campaign to their citizens. The US didn't stop supporting Hussein because the US "learned from its mistakes," it did so because where it was once beneficial to support Hussein, things changed so it was not.

[ 18 September 2005: Message edited by: Aristotleded24 ]


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 18 September 2005 02:03 AM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
Betlov produced one source. Everything else points to a remarkably orderly election, presided over by a strong election monitoring team supported by Canada and the United Nations, with 36,000 partisan and 21,000 non-partisan scrutineers on the ground in Iraq.

Final Report of the International Mission for Iraqi Elections (IMIE)

quote:
At the close of the polls, Kingsley stated that "the Iraqi elections generally meet international standards," while a preliminary assessment released after polling closed said that areas needing improvement included "transparency regarding financial contributions and expenditures, improvements to the voter registration process and reviewing the criteria for candidate eligibility."
quote:
when a Western country invades another (ie Iraq 1991, Iraq 2003, Yugoslavia 1999) it is always for the advancement of its own elite, and never motivated by the altruistic reasons the governments give to sell the campaign to their citizens.
I'd be careful about throwing those kinds of insubstantiated absolutes around. Tell me, what great, misgotten riches did we gain from bombing Yugoslavia in 1999? Surely we evil westerns had something else in mind rather then stopping the ethnic cleansing of Albanians and prevening the possible destabilisation of the Balkans and southern Europe.

[ 18 September 2005: Message edited by: Andrew_Jay ]


From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 18 September 2005 02:18 AM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
I'd be careful about throwing those kinds of insubstantiated absolutes around. Tell me, what great, misgotten riches did we gain from bombing Yugoslavia in 1999? Surely we evil westerns had something else in mind rather then stopping the ethnic cleansing of Albanians and prevening the possible destabilisation of the Balkans and southern Europe.

So you prevent destabalisation by bombing a country and causing it to destabalise? I don't follow your logic at all.

Evidence that NATO had plans for bombing Yugoslavia and that the stated reasoning of stopping ethnic cleansing was a cover:

quote:
The war in Kosovo, cynically referred to as "Madeleine’s War," remains painted as a NATO— and U.S.—backed humanitarian crusade to put down the "evil" Milosevic. Although it is unarguable that ethnic cleansing took place on both sides, until recently, media statistics reflected NATO-fed propaganda. Finally, "real" numbers began to appear in the U.S. press (long ago known throughout Europe). The massacres used as a springboard for NATO intervention in spring 2000 turned out to be grossly exaggerated, or even staged, as at Racak (see Censored 2000, Censored # 12, "Evidence Indicates No Pre-War Genocide in Kosovo and Possible U.S./KLA Plot to Create Disinformation"), and ethnic cleansing took on a whole new meaning as Albanians began to retaliate against the Serbs. As early as fall 2000, the media’s honeymoon with NATO and Albright’s cronies seemed over. Still, most of the U.S. media supported–and still supports–NATO’s "humanitarian" efforts.

Evidence that the World Bank and the IMF had much to gain from the destruction of Yugoslavia:

quote:
One of the key participants in the G-17 group is Veselin Vukotic. It was Vukotic who in 1989–90 orchestrated the breakup of more than 50 percent of Yugoslavia’s industry, some 1,100 firms, resulting in the layoff of more than 614,000 workers.

Three of the G-17 members, Dusan Vujovic, Zeliko Bogetic, and Branko Milanovic are Washington-based staff members of the IMF and World Bank. Dusan Vujovic, a senior economist at the World Bank is the key link between the G-17 and Western institutions. From 1994–96, Vujovic played a key role in forcing structural adjustments programs in Bulgaria. Social services, including price controls, subsidized food, housing, and medical care, were stripped away. The World Bank now admits that more than 90 percent of Bulgarians live below extreme poverty level.

On its website the G-17 states that its aim is to establish, "…a network of experts in all Serbian towns able to create and practically implement necessary changes in all fields of social life. With Kostunica in power in Yugoslavia, the G-17 will try to implement market reforms. They are not simply a group of economists, but rather a network supported by the IMF and the World Bank.

Other former Socialist/communist countries have followed IMF and World Bank recommendations. Their first activity is to do away with social service protections. Second, they use economic manipulation and new laws to force business—public and private—into bankruptcy. These businesses are then purchased at rock bottom prices by multinational corporations. In Hungary, market reforms led to the closing of the only light bulb manufacturing firm, forcing everyone in Hungary to now buy light bulbs manufactured by General Electric.


[ 18 September 2005: Message edited by: Aristotleded24 ]


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 18 September 2005 02:32 AM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
So you prevent destabalisation by bombing a country and causing it to destabalise? I don't follow your logic at all.
No, I don't suppose you do. Refugees were fleeing Kosovo, bringing the conflict into neighbouring countries. The ethnic cleansing was prompting more KLA retaliation, which necessitated the movement of arms and rebels across borders, also expanding the conflict and destabilising Yugoslavia's neighbours.

Your IMF quote is hardly sinister at all. Imagine, economists doing what they think is best. Did Amerika wage war against all of the succesor states in E.Europe in order to implement reforms there? No? Interesting. Then any ties between the war and reforms are very weak at best.


From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 18 September 2005 02:44 AM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
No, I don't suppose you do. Refugees were fleeing Kosovo, bringing the conflict into neighbouring countries. The ethnic cleansing was prompting more KLA retaliation, which necessitated the movement of arms and rebels across borders, also expanding the conflict and destabilising Yugoslavia's neighbours.

And what do you think was a significant factor in the high number of refugees running for their lives?

quote:
Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
Your IMF quote is hardly sinister at all. Imagine, economists doing what they think is best. Did Amerika wage war against all of the succesor states in E.Europe in order to implement reforms there? No? Interesting. Then any ties between the war and reforms are very weak at best.

But the reforms imposed by the World Bank and the IMF (which also happen to have connections to the most powerful governments in the world) brought about the very instability in Yugoslavia that was used as a cover to go in, bomb the place, and have it rebuilt for the benefit of the IMF and World Bank policymakers. And remember, the IMF and the World Bank don't have a military, so they would have to co-opt someone elses in order to enforce the policies they wish to impose.


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 18 September 2005 03:03 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
* Sigh *

It's always sad to see someone who has putatively reached adulthood without developing even the most rudimentary capacity for skepticism, or an even marginally functioning bullshit detector. True, by his profile, Andrew is only 22, but that's hardly an excuse. I figured out that governmental pronouncements should be taken with a grain of salt when I was a decade younger than that. Apparently he hasn't yet. Bushite propaganda oozes into his cranium like water into a sponge.

Tell us, Andrew, is your touchingly naive faith in "good intentions" of great powers limited to the Empire Du Jour, or do you extend it backwards in time as well? Are you as impressed by the British Empire and the way it bravely shouldered "White Man's Burden" as it conquered half the land area of planet Earth and nobly bestowed upon the backwards savages the benefits of Anglo-Saxon civilization? Or the French and their magnificent "Civilizing Mission" as they bravely did the exact same thing?

Or are you one of those ungrateful wretches who doubts the nobility of those previous imperial projects, perhaps even fleetingly entertaining the notion that the noble rhetoric may have been a cynical cover for naked power grabs and insatiable resource gobbling by the powerful? In other words, a sensible person with a semi-functioning brain?

Believe me, Andrew, a hundred years from now people will be laughing at the likes of you. The same way we laugh at sphincter-clenching drivel like this:

quote:
[R]emember that the Almighty has placed your hand on the greatest of His ploughs, in whose furrow the nations of the future are germinating and taking shape, to drive the blade a little forward in your time, and to feel that somewhere among these millions you have left a little justice or happiness or prosperity, a sense of manliness or moral dignity, a spring of patriotism, a dawn of intellectual enlightenment, or a stirring of duty, where it did not before exist – that is enough, that is the Englishman’s justification in India.
-- Lord Curzon speaking to his fellow imperialists in Bombay, 1905

The fact is, all this noble gibberish about the "benevolent intentions" of the US invasion of Iraq will be a mere footnote in the history texts of the future. I mean, we don't exactly waste too much time on Curzon's nonsense or "White Man's Burden" any more, do we? Sure, we mention it in passing, noting that it was the excuse the Brits used to justify their Empire, then we move on to more important questions, like: what were they really motivated by behind the rhetoric? What strategic or economic of political self-interest were they trying to promote?

To have an imperial power that goes around the world doing good deeds out of the goodness of its heart would be such a spectacular departure from the last 10,000 years of history that one had better provide some remarkably comprehensive evidence if one wants to argue that such a thing is actually taking place. And no, Andrew, "because Bush says so" doesn't count.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 18 September 2005 03:22 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
PS: Here's a link to Juan Cole's systematic evisceration of Hitchens' recent McCarthyist/Stalinist droolings.
From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
ToadProphet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10411

posted 18 September 2005 03:32 AM      Profile for ToadProphet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by beluga2:
To have an imperial power that goes around the world doing good deeds out of the goodness of its heart would be such a spectacular departure from the last 10,000 years of history that one had better provide some remarkably comprehensive evidence if one wants to argue that such a thing is actually taking place. And no, Andrew, "because Bush says so" doesn't count.

Kudos... well put. You stated the same as I but you get points for style and clarity.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8662

posted 18 September 2005 03:37 AM      Profile for Left Turn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I Downloaded the MP3 of the George Galloway Vs. Christopher Hitchens debate. I just finished listening to it.

What a debate. Christopher Hitchens argued the case the the US intervention in Iraq was both necessary and justtified, without adressing the realities on the ground. Not that he can, since the realities on the ground contradict the entire premise of his argument. George Galloway did mention some of what is going on in Iraq, but he too shied away from fully adressing the actual realities on the ground in Iraq. George Galloway spent much of his time making inflamatory remarks against Christopher Hitchens.

That said, George Galloway's positions are excellent. He stands with the Iraqi people as they try to end the brutal occupation of Iraq. He also stands with the Psalestinian people as they try to end the illegal, immoral occupation of their territory by Israel. Christopher Hitchens, on the other hand, made a feeble attempt to justify the policies of Bush and Company. Mr. Hitchens was booed repeatedly by a crowd that was not sympathetic to his views.

The following quote by George Galloway sums up Christopher Hitchens quite nicely:

quote:
for the first time in evolutionary history, we have witnessed the transformation of a butterfly into a slug.

[ 18 September 2005: Message edited by: Left Turn ]


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 18 September 2005 04:58 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Anyone ever notice how Hitchens always spends half his time at any debate scolding and sneering at the audience because of their reactions to him? He did it at this debate, at the one with Tariq Ali a couple years ago, even on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. (Where even Stewart, a comedian, soundly kicked his pompous ass as far as I'm concerned.) Either his skin is a couple microns thick and he can't handle booing or heckling at all without lashing back, or he's actually revelling in it, in accordance with his self-bestowed "contrarian" persona.

Hell, maybe this whole Bushlicking routine since 9/11 has been one giant exercise in being bad for the same of being bad, like a teenage rebel acting out just for the hell of it.

Whatever it is, it's entirely unentertaining by this point. I doubt there's any argumentative technique from the Joe McCarthy/Stalin-show-trials handbooks he didn't deploy. A fucking disgusting display.

For those with a taste for nostalgia, here's the last written testament of the old Hitchens, moments before fascist Bush-bots invaded his skull and replaced every one of his brain cells. September 13, 2001:

quote:
With cellphones still bleeping piteously from under the rubble, it probably seems indecent to most people to ask if the United States has ever done anything to attract such awful hatred. Indeed, the very thought, for the present, is taboo. Some senators and congressmen have spoken of the loathing felt by certain unnamed and sinister elements for the freedom and prosperity of America, as if it were only natural that such a happy and successful country should inspire envy and jealousy. But that is the limit of permissible thought.

In general, the motive and character of the perpetrators is shrouded by rhetoric about their "cowardice" and their "shadowy" character, almost as if they had not volunteered to immolate themselves in the broadest of broad blue daylight. On the campus where I am writing this, there are a few students and professors willing to venture points about United States foreign policy. But they do so very guardedly, and it would sound like profane apologetics if transmitted live. So the analytical moment, if there is to be one, has been indefinitely postponed.


A moment he's devoted all his thuggish energy to postponing ever since. Fuck him straight to hell.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 18 September 2005 01:01 PM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
And what do you think was a significant factor in the high number of refugees running for their lives?
I'm going to make a wild guess here that maybe it was Milosevic's use of the army and paramilitary groups to crack down on the ethnic Albanian population.
quote:
Originally posted by beluga2:
Tell us, Andrew, is your touchingly naive faith in "good intentions" of great powers limited to the Empire Du Jour?
Oh, I have a strong sense of skepticism, that is why I opposed the invasion in 2003, that is why I didn't believe the reasons for going to war for a second. However, unlike yourself, I'm not skeptical to a fatal degree. Tell me, while you strawman me with accusations of cheerleading imperialism throughout the ages, back to the dawn of time even, when's the last time you went beyond your irrational hatred of everything said or done by the west? Try thinking for yourself, rather than parroting the belief that everything we lay our hand on must be sinister or corrupt.

You accuse me of swallowing everything that comes from the right. Nothing could be further from the truth, though I wonder how you avoid choking on all of the foolishness you seem to accept wholesale from some of the worst on the left. I don't give a jot about what the crowd in the White House has to say, I'll draw my own conclusions, thank you very much. Likewise I'm not going to believe some Scotish buffoon with a hard-on for terrorists.

My stance is based on what I have observed, what has been accomplished, not what lies we're being told (and both sides are guilty). All in all, the mark of "a sensible person with a semi-functioning brain" if I may say so myself. Your interpretation of the facts is not the only one, and to come to conclusions that differ from your's is not the sign of slavish devotion to Amerikan imperialism, as you'd so arrogantly accuse me of.

quote:
Originally posted by beluga2:
Believe me, Andrew, a hundred years from now people will be laughing at the likes of you.
Let's make a deal, if I get my way and Iraq turns out as a peaceful, prosperous, democracy, I get to laugh at you. If you get your way and the country collapses and the coalition is forced to withdraw with heavy casualties and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis die in a brutal civil war you get to laugh at me, though there won't be very much to laugh about if the international mission fails over there.

[ 18 September 2005: Message edited by: Andrew_Jay ]


From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 18 September 2005 02:44 PM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Andrew Jay:
quote:
I'm going to make a wild guess here that maybe it was Milosevic's use of the army and paramilitary groups to crack down on the ethnic Albanian population.

And are you that naieve that you cannot see why bombing a country might cause even more chaos and cause even more refugees to fight for their lives?

Andrew's logic: we must invade and destabalise a country in order to prevent it from becoming destabalised.

[ 18 September 2005: Message edited by: Aristotleded24 ]


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 18 September 2005 04:01 PM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Andrew Jay:

quote:
Oh, I have a strong sense of skepticism, that is why I opposed the invasion in 2003, that is why I didn't believe the reasons for going to war for a second.

If that is the case, your continual assertions that Iraq is heading towards some kind of "democracy" under the divine tutelage of God's Chosen Superpower are an odd way to express it. If someone claimed to "not support" the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, but at the same time continually expressed hope that the Afghan people could be "defended" against the warmongercapialistimperialistwallstreetrunningdogs and brought into the light of classless proletarian utopia, that claimed opposition would ring rather hollow, n'est-ce pas?

quote:
However, unlike yourself, I'm not skeptical to a fatal degree.

Skepticism with regards to the propaganda pronouncements of aggressive, violent imperial powers is not "fatal". It's obligatory.

quote:
Tell me, while you strawman me with accusations of cheerleading imperialism throughout the ages,

Actually, I didn't. I asked you whether you place the same faith in the good intentions of previous empires, or whether you subscribe to the current Patriotically Correct assertion that the United States, and the United States alone throughout all of history, bases its foreign policy on benevolent motives -- what's commonly known as the "American Exceptionalism" doctrine. If you are capable of examining previous imperial ideologies skeptically, then there may be hope for you yet. You never answered, though, so let me ask again: do you believe the "White Man's Burden" philosophy was real? Or the French "Civilizing Mission"? Enquiring minds want to know.

quote:
when's the last time you went beyond your irrational hatred of everything said or done by the west? Try thinking for yourself, rather than parroting the belief that everything we lay our hand on must be sinister or corrupt.

quote:
I wonder how you avoid choking on all of the foolishness you seem to accept wholesale from some of the worst on the left.

** Yawn ** Straw, meet man.

quote:
Let's make a deal, if I get my way and Iraq turns out as a peaceful, prosperous, democracy, I get to laugh at you. If you get your way and the country collapses and the coalition is forced to withdraw with heavy casualties and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis die in a brutal civil war you get to laugh at me, though there won't be very much to laugh about if the international mission fails over there.

"If the country collapses"? If "hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died"? If "the international mission fails"? If? Where've you been? That's already happened. It's already over. It's ended, the way the Vietnam war ended after Tet in 1968. All that's left now is the agonizing, drawn-out, bloody interlude, which unfortunately will probably last years, before the US finally admits that they've lost and pulls out.

Y'see, the difference between us is that I am caustiously optimistic about the future of Iraq -- once the Empire withdraws its troops, that is. Unlike you, I'm not deluded enough to think that anything remotely resembling real democracy can come about thru the kind of bludgeoning imperial domination that the US has tried (and thus far failed) to impose upon Iraq.

From the US's refusal to hold elections until they were forced to by the agitation of people like Sistani, to the ultraright, privatizing economic policies Bremer tried to impose, to the insistence that Iraqis must repay the debts of Saddam Hussein or be subjected to the usual IMF shock therapy -- the actual conduct of the US, as opposed to the rhetoric, clearly indicates nothing but their utter contempt for democracy in Iraq.

The US's original idea was that Iraq would be quickly pacified, Chalabi would be safely installed as the puppet president, and American corporations would be happily sunning themselves after having feasted upon Iraq's assets and resources, like snakes contentedly digesting rodents. Of course, that initial, deluded plan has failed utterly.

But in that failure, there may be opportunity. As I've said before, it may be that the Fratboy Emperor, with his idiotic invasion, has unleashed forces in Iraq, and in the Middle East in general, that he neither intended to release nor is able to control. Nothing would please me more than if Iraqis take advantage of the end of Saddam's nauseating regime and the failure of the attempted American conquest, and shrug off all domination and create their own democracy (the only legitimate form of democracy there is, after all), without interference from busybody arrogant outsiders. It would be poetic justice if Dubya's fraudulent campaign to bring "democracy" to Iraq accidentally unleashes the real thing.

But first the Empire has to leave. It won't happen otherwise.

So, there is a glimmer of hope... but only a glimmer. It seems far more likely for the time being that Iraq will become another failed state, like Liberia or Yugoslavia, full of violent, crazy extremists doing horrible things to each other and destabilizing everything in the vicinity. Except this failed state will be right in the heart of the most volatile and strategically and economically significant area in the world. Hardly a recipe for optimism, for Iraqis or the world.

[ 18 September 2005: Message edited by: beluga2 ]


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 18 September 2005 04:12 PM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If that is the case, your continual assertions that Iraq is heading towards some kind of "democracy" under the divine tutelage of God's Chosen Superpower are an odd way to express it.
But you see, I'm a fairly realistic person (read; sensible). There's no turning back the fact that the invasion happened (and no, having U.S. forces leave isn't the same). We might as well make the best of it - with demands that the U.S. lend honest and transparent aid to democrats in Iraq, not that they pack up and leave.
quote:
The US's original idea was that Iraq would be quickly pacified, Chalabi would be safely installed as the puppet president, and American corporations would be happily sunning themselves after having feasted upon Iraq's assets and resources, like snakes contentedly digesting rodents. Of course, that initial, deluded plan has failed utterly.
Yes, luckily that plan did fail, and the U.S. has to contend with - and accept - election results that they hadn't been hoping for. First their chosen man Chalabi is out, then Allawi loses the election. I consider it a fairly optimistic sign.
quote:
Unlike you, I'm not deluded enough to think that anything remotely resembling real democracy can come about thru the kind of bludgeoning imperial domination that the US has tried (and thus far failed) to impose upon Iraq.
And unlike you, I'm not deluded enough to think that anything remotely resembling real democracy can come about if the country is abandoned to the violence of Sunni Ba'athist extremists, who terrorise and murder their fellow citizens in the hopes of restoring their old place in power.

From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 18 September 2005 04:41 PM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, y'see, there you go, we aren't as far apart as it seemed. I don't suggest it's likely that Iraqis will be able to pull genuine democracy out of the current mess. I fully expect years of anarchy, in the worst sense of the term, as the various factions go at it, whether the US remains or not.

I doubt the Ba'athists are much of an issue, though, frankly; the Sunnis have pretty much reverted to basic tribal loyalties. The Ba'ath Party Humpty Dumpty is broken, and I doubt any number of car bombings and militias will be able to put it back together again.

The more serious danger is not an attempted restoration of Saddam's regime, but the rise of Islamic fundamentalists of both the Sunni and Shi'ite variety. They are very much organized, and active, and driven, and determined to impose their religious laws upon the entire country. Witness the appalling retreat on women's rights in the recent proposed Constitution.

The situation is rather eerily similar to that in Afghanistan in the late 1980's. An imperial power stuck in a quagmire after having attempted to impose its will upon a smaller country, accompanied by stirring oratory about bringing "people's democracy", and "defending" against bandits and terrorists supported from outside. Various sinister extremist groups resisting the occupation and patiently waiting for the country to fall into their lap.

One hopes that the situation in Iraq will turn out better than it did there, but here's the question: is there anybody who believes that things would have been better had the Soviets remained in Afghanistan? If the Red Army had stayed on a few extra years, would there have been any difference in the ultimate outcome?

For the US to hang on pointlessly in Iraq will accomplish nothing but to cause further bloodshed, more dead Americans, and more fanning of the flames of anti-Americanism throughout the Muslim world, to the delight of fanatics like bin Laden.

What the US needs now is a Mikhail Gorbachev to recognize the futility of the situation and cut his losses.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 18 September 2005 05:18 PM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by beluga2:
One hopes that the situation in Iraq will turn out better than it did there, but here's the question: is there anybody who believes that things would have been better had the Soviets remained in Afghanistan? If the Red Army had stayed on a few extra years, would there have been any difference in the ultimate outcome?
And it is an interesting one, but I'm not sure how far the parallels go. You might not, but I think the U.S. (not to mention the sundry other nations currently involved on the ground) has a better commitment to helping Iraq than the Soviet Union did for Afghanistan. Then again that's tempered by the fact that the Soviets were fighting to back up their government in Kabul (which they thought was in the best interests of Afghanistan), so I don't know. I think the international presence is key - it's not just the U.S. in Iraq, while it had been a one-power presence in Afghanistan, and one can only hope that that means some pressure that prevents the U.S. from getting its own way. As well, I think many Iraqis do want American security, and they're not nearly united in opposition as the Afghans had been to the U.S.S.R.
quote:
The more serious danger is not an attempted restoration of Saddam's regime, but the rise of Islamic fundamentalists of both the Sunni and Shi'ite variety. They are very much organized, and active, and driven, and determined to impose their religious laws upon the entire country. Witness the appalling retreat on women's rights in the recent proposed Constitution.
Very true, the Shi'ites who would prefer an Iranian-style theocracy certainly outnumber the Ba'athists. But again, this only bolsters my support for the current government as otherwise it sets us up for a conflict between two equally distasteful challengers - the ayatollahs versus the fascists.

From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hawkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3306

posted 18 September 2005 09:56 PM      Profile for Hawkins     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Did Lebanon have democracy with Syrian troops on its soil?

Talking heads in the US didn't think so - certainly not George Bush. If they were correct then, how can they be correct now?


From: Burlington Ont | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 18 September 2005 10:27 PM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
Did Germany have democracy with American and British troops on its soil? Did Japan?

Not saying that that guarantees democracy at all, but neither does it preclude it.


From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 18 September 2005 11:49 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
When the U.S. occupied Japan and parts of Germany after WWII, it was led by the Truman administration, and was a very different place. Bush is no Truman. Rumsfeld and Rice are no George Marshall. And if the "Project for a New Century" crowd had been making the decisions back in 1945, I shudder to think about what might have happened.

[ 18 September 2005: Message edited by: Albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 19 September 2005 12:36 AM      Profile for radiorahim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
When the U.S. occupied Japan and parts of Germany after WWII, it was led by the Truman administration, and was a very different place. Bush is no Truman. Rumsfeld and Rice are no George Marshall. And if the "Project for a New Century" crowd had been making the decisions back in 1945, I shudder to think about what might have happened.

Yeah I think we would have seen the rise of a New Nazi movement in Germany...new militarists in Japan...followed by World War III.

The Anglo-American (& hangers-on) occupation of Iraq is a colonialist occupation and it has to end...and soon. We're seeing the strengthening of the fundamentalist factions with every day that the occupation continues.

That's one of the key points that Galloway makes.
He expresses his concern that this could turn into a very nasty civil war drawing in neighbouring countries...and if you think the price of oil is high now...well wait till things totally break down.

IMHO, If there is to be a stabilizing force placed in Iraq, it must be under the authority of the UN...and not made up of any of the current colonialist occupation forces. They're totally discredited.


From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 19 September 2005 01:00 AM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by radiorahim:
IMHO, If there is to be a stabilizing force placed in Iraq, it must be under the authority of the UN...and not made up of any of the current colonialist occupation forces. They're totally discredited.

You're absolutely right! We need the UN forces to take their highly-specialised equipment, knowledge, and expertise, and to supervize Iraq as its people rebuilt it...

Oh wait, haven't certain global superpowers been fighting tooth and nail to handcuff the UN completely?

Edited to add: I don't want to sound like I'm making fun of anyone's post, just to demonsrate that the UN doesn't have the support from nations it needs to carry out such mandates.

[ 19 September 2005: Message edited by: Aristotleded24 ]


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 19 September 2005 01:48 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, the UN's effectiveness won't be helped by having John Bolton running around during Security Council meetings blasting holes in the walls of the UN building with a bazooka.

Another distinction between Japan/Germany c. 1945 and Iraq today is that back then, the US had an interest in rebuilding those countries as fully-fledged industrial powers, as the US needed them as customers and trading partners in the new US-dominated global order they were setting up. Iraq, on the other hand, was to be strictly a resource-extraction colony and feeding ground for American companies, and a site for US military bases with which to dominate the region. Genuine democracy is far more compatible with the former situation than the latter.

Plus, the US had a rival in those days, the USSR, and thus had to grant certain democratic concessions to its defeated enemies lest they drift into the Soviet sphere and start messing around with dreaded socialism. Also, in both cases, Japan and Germany were restored to democracy; both countries had had democratic governments, however ineffective, in previous eras. Iraq has no such history.

In any event, the US stance towards democracy has nothing to do with principle; it's entirely pragmatic. If democracy is compatible with US interests -- if the people of country X can be trusted to vote the way the US wants -- then democracy's fine, and the US will happily tolerate it. If democracy is incompatible with US interests, and people vote the wrong way, then the US, more than likely, will flush it down the shitter if they can get away with it, leaving at best a toothless, powerless democratic facade, at worst a vicious dictatorship with death-squads, torture chambers and all the usual goodies. Which attitude the US adopts depends on the particular local circumstances.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 19 September 2005 03:38 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
I see, it's a "you broke it, you're not allowed to fix it" policy.

Why, yes. Similar to a "You raped the woman, you're not allowed to raise the resulting child" policy, or a "you busted down the henhouse door and killed the hens, you don't get to guard the henhouse" policy. I've never understood why some people don't seem to understand this concept.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 20 September 2005 12:43 AM      Profile for radiorahim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Oh wait, haven't certain global superpowers been fighting tooth and nail to handcuff the UN completely?

Absolutely they have.

It's why this colonial occupation is bloody frustrating...they've made it almost impossible for the UN to bail them out of the mess.

The longer the occupation continues the bigger the mess.


From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Anonymous
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4813

posted 20 September 2005 04:58 AM      Profile for Mr. Anonymous     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Right-wingers seem to like economic analysis, so let me offer this thought:

How much has/will the occupation of Iraq cost? What are the realistic chances of a good resolution, and how much will this resolution cost? What will the drawbacks be, and how much will these cost? What is the most likely (range of) cost-benefit scenario(s)?

Compare this to the cost/benefit analysis of things such as offering free schooling, adequate food, and basic infrastructure to all muslims worldwide, or investment in alternative energy sources, which when discovered will cut the funding to terrorist funding dictatorships dramatically. What would these things cost to yeild excellent results? What would be the economic or other geopolitial benefits of the improved attitudes towards the US and/or other participating nations if this were done?

If the second (or similar actions) are of greater benefit for the dollar than the first (or similar actions), I would suggest that this would be a legitimate reason to choose the second group of actions over the first.

It would seem to me that 100 billion or so could do a hell of a lot of good if wisely used, and surely much more good than nearly any realistic military scenario I can envision now or in the future. Investing in social programs would even have the benefit of making future military (or terrorist) conflicts much less likely, therefore saving even more money in the future which could likewise be reinvested into positive social efforts at home or abroad.

Edited to add: Does anybody have a link to a transcript of the debate, or for that matter similar political dabates? Is there a database somewhere one can access for material of this kind?

Here is a transcript of his comments to the US senate which I found interesting:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1616578,00.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1616578_2,00.html

[ 20 September 2005: Message edited by: Mr. Anonymous ]


From: Somewhere out there... Hey, why are you logging my IP address? | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
ToadProphet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10411

posted 20 September 2005 05:30 AM      Profile for ToadProphet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Enjoy!

Transcipt
Audio/Video


From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Anonymous
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4813

posted 20 September 2005 06:11 AM      Profile for Mr. Anonymous     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Merci, ToadProphet.

Edit: As per the request of the website: This is a SEIXON EXCLUSIVE, must credit and must link!!
COPYRIGHT © 2005 SEIXON ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

[ 20 September 2005: Message edited by: Mr. Anonymous ]


From: Somewhere out there... Hey, why are you logging my IP address? | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca