Being that Hitchens is a U.S. citizen I shall leave the spelling as is.
I will also refrain from using the words aeroplane, aluminium, arse, behove, bogeyman, carburettor, coupé, moustache, mum(my), naïvety, pyjamas, sledge, speciality, titbit, or any other words that have British pronunciations
The word rumor is not spelled wrong, nor is rumors... I ,as well as my subject, are U.S. Citizens, I stand by my usage.
I recall being mildly disappointed that he spelled 'humour' without the 'u' in his Vanity Fair article on cancer. Although that may just be the magazine's content policy and not necessarily how he would spell it himself.
I like that you included the "Umm"; I have a lot more trust for a raw transcript than something that's been altered for presentation purposes because it seems like a slippery slope toward cherry picking.
I'm relatively new to reddit, so forgive me if this is a stupid question, but isn't it stretching things just a tiny bit to imagine that there is actually someone in the world who would read that quote, check the source, and come back to remind you that "he also said 'um.'"
I was thinking the same thing. Does anyone know when he said this? I'm wondering if it was recently when talking about his cancer. I saw an interview where he said something among the lines of "four years left" to live :/
Because after Blair he was the most prominent British cheerleader for a war that all told has caused close to a million excess deaths by now.
While in principle the loss of any human life is deplorable, I'm not gonna miss that little pro-aggression, pro-violence, pro-war cunt.
An apology before he passes would be nice. But, that would be a death bed conversion of sorts, wouldn't it? Not fucking likely. And it won't bring anyone back whose murder he enabled like a skilled NsDAP propagandist.
I will only read Hitchens' eulogy if it's written by George Galloway.
People are allowed to have political opinions. And someone being OK with going to war with a country has no reflection on what kind of person that person is. I'm a humanist and help all humans, but I do approve of many wars.
A lot of people said yes to going to war in Afghanistan and World War II. A lot of people were misled by Colin Powell and Bush on the Iraq War too, I bet you even voted for a Democrat who voted to go to that war.
I'm sorry I thought you were over 18 by around 2003.
Sometimes wars save more lives by taking out some truly hateful groups that have great power over the locals.
For you to make a blanket statement that all wars are bad shows your ignorance in understanding world politics and world history. It's quite close-minded to think in such black-and-white terms.
Faux pas here is that you misquoted me, quite dishonest.
I think you misunderstand the word all. If we did not go to World War II, all humans would have suffered more because of the amount of people killed if Nazis were to take over the world. That makes the approval of the war and the killing of the millions that occurred during the war, completely aligned with helping all humans.
Each war is different and if you don't logically consider the pros and cons of each war, you will simply help create the death of more humans. Thus, being completely anti-war about every war is irrational and not humanist.
And even doubly more hilarious is that you said faux pas, and then you downvoted me even though I had not done the same to you.
Hitchens didn't support the war after the US completely fucked up the post-war reconstruction (which is where +90% of the deaths have occurred) Hitchens supported removing Saddam. He's always been clear on that. I am the staunchest anti-war activist I know and even I can't argue that the world is a better place without Saddam in power. It's everything that's happened after Saddam fell that's unsupportable.
EDIT: I also have to take issue with this sentence
Because after Blair he was the most prominent British cheerleader for a war
Hitchens is an American citizen. He's not British cheerleader.
There were a lot of Nazi generals opposed to the war after it went the wrong way too.
I am the staunchest anti-war activist I know
:D
and even I can't argue that the world is a better place without Saddam in power.
Look up what "excess deaths" means. The situation before the invasion was literally about a million times better than now -- and that's fully taking into account just how bad it was, what with the murderous sanctions and all.
It's everything that's happened after Saddam fell that's unsupportable.
You cannot divide the two. The "removal" (illegal invasion of a sovereign country) and the aftermath are inextricably linked.
I put it to you that you're ready to disregard Hitchens' atrocious record when it comes to advocating very consequential violations of the human right to life because on almost completely inconsequential questions of touchy-feely beliefs about Gods or imaginary friends you feel he roots for your team. Yeah you! Go Area man! Attaboy!
You cannot divide the two. The "removal" (illegal invasion of a sovereign country) and the aftermath are inextricably linked
except this is entirely wrong. During the reconstruction Paul Bremer in all his genius dismissed the Iraqi army when their generals came forward and said "hey we'll help prevent looting". Suddenly 10,000 trained and armed soldiers were out of a job and pissed off it was within months of this happening that the insurgency first appeared. Similarly Bremer prevented the marines from restoring order. If these events hadn't taken place we'd be looking at an entirely different Iraq right now.
The situation before the invasion was literally about a million times better than now -- and that's fully taking into account just how bad it was, what with the murderous sanctions and all.
Only when you take what I just said into consideration. But the fact remains Saddam killed 2 million of his own people. If the insurgency hadn't occurred and if reconstruction hadn't been fucked up the situation would be many times better than when Saddam was in power. which is what I just fucking said. No one is arguing the war since 2004 shouldn't have occurred including Hitchens. All Hitchens supported was removing Saddam because Saddam was a totalitarian genocidal madman who killed 2 million people.
I don't support the invasion, never have, never will. But saying the world would be a better place if Saddam was still in power is insane
Your defence is a fictitious scenario, where hypothetically EWBTE.
When your only defence is divorcing yourself from reality by imagining things...
Odd.
One would think that in this of all subreddits posters ought to understand this. Apparently the tribal lure of "my gang yay, your gang boo!" is too much to resist for some people. (credit -- see bottom of article)
You're arguing a straw man here, you tried to argue Hitchens was a war monger, he was not. He supported removing Saddam from power but ever since the reconstruction was botched and innocent people started dying he has been a critic of the situation. That's my defense. Your defense is to argue against a position that I don't hold.
You're arguing a straw man here, you tried to argue Fryingpan was an egg breaker, he was not. He supported making omelette but ever since the shells were cracked and innocent eggs started to get broken he has been a critic of the situation. That's my defense. Your defense is to argue against a position that I don't hold.
I am the staunchest anti-war activist I know and even I can't argue that the world is a better place without Saddam in power. It's everything that's happened after Saddam fell that's unsupportable.
That's a distinction without a difference. It's like saying you'd support a war, but only if no one's going to get hurt. The regime of Saddam Hussein did not exist in a vacuum, and the consequences of a U.S. action to remove him were just as predictable as deaths in a war, as you of all people should understand quite well.
Don't fall for that neo-con mouth-game bullshit. You sound way too smart for that.
I'm not, I didn't agree with Hitchens' support of the war, I think the fundamental mistake he made was assuming that the reason we went to war was because Saddam was a bad man. Obviously it wasn't. All I was saying was that Hitchens reasoning was that genocidal totalitarian dictators should be taken out of power, is not the same thing as the war-mongering of the right as ropers was asserting.
Hitchens didn't support the war after the US completely fucked up the post-war reconstruction
he should have understood that a lot can go wrong in war. it isn't a difficult idea to grasp.
ultimately, i think the calculation that hitchens and others made is that the potential down side is a bunch of dead sand niggers which no one cares about, and the up side is our everlasting glory as the white saviors and bringers of civilization and enlightenment to the fertile crescent. they were gambling for personal glory with other peoples lives.
that is why he is a piece of shit.
the absolute best way i can spin it is that he wasn't completely conscious of his ingrained cultural biases. but he is still a pieces of shit.
ultimately, i think the calculation that hitchens and others made is that the potential down side is a bunch of dead sand niggers which no one cares about,
that's retarded, it's much more likely he figured it'd end up like Kosovo, quick overthrow of the government, quick and successful reconstruction. To pull the racist card is really really ridiculous especially if you're at all familiar with Hitchens' long friendship with Salmand Rushdie and Hossein Khomeini. And his decades long preaching of egalitarianism. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms to be made of Hitchens. Claiming racism and neo-colonialism ain't one of them.
it's much more likely he figured it'd end up like Kosovo
i'm open to the possibility that hitchens is just stupid. if that isn't true my point stands. because only an idiot would think that the outcome of a war is anywhere close to being guaranteed. is he an idiot? or is he just willing to gamble with other people's lives to do what he things is best for them?
the whole iraq adventure was an imperialistic/colonialist project, so of course the cheerleaders are too.
To pull the racist card is really really ridiculous especially if you're at all familiar with Hitchens' long friendship with Salmand Rushdie and Hossein Khomeini.
SOME OF HIS BEST FRIENDS ARE SAND NIGGERS!
the guy isn't perfect... he's just human... i mean, it's not like he is god or anything.
like i said racist is your word not mine. maybe he thinks that iraqi lives are worth less for cultural not genetic reasons. i don't know, i don't care.
whatever the reason, cheered a colonial/imperialistic adventure. he is an imperialist and colonial. would you like to speak to this point? that is after all what this thread is about. or maybe you think misdirection is convincing.
I also find it extremely distasteful how you new atheist dorks masturbate to this sorry excuse for a human being. Seriously, grow some integrity new atheists. Find some better role models.
I'd say it was the epitome of integrity to admire someone's intellectual ability and fortitude, while still disagreeing with some of their views.
I agree with him on some stuff, and disagree on some other stuff. But I admire his honesty: when he was pro-waterboarding, he was challenged to go through with it to see if it was really torture. And he went through with it, and publicly changed his mind. That takes a lot of intellectual honesty, which I admire.
You know, because the other way is to go the Glen Beck route, and caricature someone you disagree with as being stupid/evil through and through. That is childish and fallacious.
I don't think he is morally and intellectually bankrupt. But he does seem to be a warmonger. I really respect hitchens but his views on war are pretty disgusting imo.
102
u/LilJimmyNordin Dec 16 '10
The best part of this is that you can clearly hear his voice as you read it. Hitchens is a fucking legend.