@@masoudsarvin6117 Quite the opposite, he would see the irrational mob for what it is. Hitchens was above all else, anti-authoritarian. The Woke mobs are a quasi-religious cult.
@Jazzkeyboardist1 The fact that time after time on Christopher Hitchens pages you call him Chrissy, only because he disliked it, and reference his sexuality, which is only his business, shows that you lack the courage and confidence to take on his arguments on an intellectual level. Whether right or wrong, he was always intelligent enough to debate respectfully with those who held different opinions to him and brave enough to call out the charlatans without recourse to those kind of tactics. That is why he was a better man than the one you are.
Kinsley admitted that for every ten hours that he spent with Buckley on the set of these debates, he spent one hour in real life, and for Hitchens it was even less . If Hitchens had of been invited up to the maisonette I’m sure it would have been proudly recalled in Hitch22. Hitchens frequently said that Buckley launched his television career and he also frequently quoted him . Yes there was mutual admiration albeit a bit lopsided. Why on earth would Buckley want to bully him? Hitchens once recalled that if you said anything fatuous on Firing Line that Buckley wouldn’t let you off lightly but he never bullied anyone. What a bizarre thing to say
For anyone who's interested, this debate is entitled "Resolved: The Federal Government Should Not Impose a Tax on Electronic Commerce". Couldn't find the whole debate on youtube unfortunately.
PhilWithCoffee To further add, if you have "the internet," you can watch it in full, for free, through its adroit application. Though in your defense, it may involve much, much less hassle when using Amazon Prime, which I decry out of a stubborn demeanor and the pinching of very specific monetary units.
This is the last episode of Firing Line. I think Amazon Prime sells it. There's a list out there of all the Firing Line episodes, with some clips listed.
William, every so often we humans can rest assured we have come up with some thought that no other on the planet has, at least at that moment in time. Congratulations, sir! By the way, any relation to Robert Preston played Grigg, in The Last Starfighter? PEACE
Actually, Robert Preston played Centauri, and the name of the titular character's alien comrade-in-arms was spelled "Grig." There are many situations I've experienced in which a "Beta-unit" would have been a blessing.
***** Where is Kinsley these days? I always waited impatiently for his introductions, whether or not he hit his mark. My memory isn't always reliable any more, but it seems to me there was more candor, a bit less disengenoursness on these Firing Line shows than on any news/talk/interview shows today (the one notable exception, I thought, was Bukley's "god fearing" tribute-paying "interview" of Malcolm Muggeridge).
Doug Wild I've seen Kinsley's work at Vanity Fair and occasionally at Slate, for which he served (I think) as a founding editor back in the 1990s. He got that gig at about the same time he was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease, a development that made me genuinely sad. As an intern at The New Republic in the late 1980s I became acquainted with Kinsley and found that he was not only very professional and extremely intelligent (obviously), but also very supportive of young, aspiring journalists -- and much nicer than many people in his business.
***** I didn't know about the Parkinson's. That is very sad indeed. I'm not much of a reader any more - truth be told, I never was - so I've not read Kinsley in either Vanity Fair or Slate, but I became an enormous fan when he was on Firing Line. It's good to know that his 'on air' qualities were, in fact, were authentic. Thank you so much William for bringing me up to date.
This was an interesting debate between people who had no idea what they were talking about. Internet commerce was new and many on the panel thought what was being proposed was a blanket tax on all purchases made via the internet in addition to state or local tax. In fact what was being proposed was a loophole where one could purchase an item via the internet and avoid sales tax all together. For the Hitchens fans out there, he really didn't contribute much to the discussion other than some pithy quips. Oddly enough, the real star was Michael Kinsley who was clever, funny and affable throughout. Buckley's age was clearly taking it's toll, rendering him a shadow of his former self, quite sad actually.
+joecairo1 The title of the debate is (Resolved: The Federal Government should not Impose a Tax on Electronic Commerce) , and available on www.amazon.com/Firing-Line-Debate-Government-Electronic/dp/B0064EGPIC/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1453007835&sr=8-2&keywords=The+Federal+Government+should+not+Impose+a+Tax+on+Electronic+Commerce ....
Ole Miss had an impressive ability to attract intellectual heavyweights to campus. When I was in law school there we had two Supreme Court Justices come to speak - that was only three or for years before this debate. And less than a decade after this debate, Ole Miss hosted a presidential debate.
I loved this series of debates moderated by Michael Kinsley. The lines may well have been written for him, but they were often humorous. He was moderating one on the pro/con of legalizing marijuana. He closed it out by remarking something like "regardless of which side of this debate you fall on, I'm gonna go have a drink"
I remember Hitchens saying something like "parts of the admin feel that what this really is is a war with Saudi Arabia". It might have been in a 2003 episode with Bill Maher. And the page in the memoir is in the chapter "Mesopotamia and Back" page 305 if it's the paperback edition. It's at the start of the bit where he describes being invited to the Pentagon by Wolfowiz.
The heading of this video is misleading to say the least because Buckley has had Hitchens on Firing Line more than once. This was not their first meeting as the title implies. Introducing intellectuals by clickbait is insulting to them.
I don't think their point is that the average progressive-minded person is personally a totalitarian. It's that the progressive frame of mind - that is, that there is one right way of doing things that is independent of tradition, and all we have to do is get enough smart people together and think hard enough and throw the right amount of money and bureaucracy and force at any problem and it will go away - that is a mode of thinking that tends to legitimate totalitarianism.
This revolutionary act within the Republican Party against the disgraceful Cold War status quo, and the lead up to the Arab Spring, strongly suggests that the move was on the right side of history.
"But if not, and the country turns totalitarian, then YES use force against it." "Yes, maybe there's no willpower to impeach in those conditions.. so yes, intervene." "Let's say there were a country 50x the size of the U.S. who COULD put a stop to aggressive military action - then yes, do it." "I want to push back aggressive U.S actions as much as I want to take out totalitarian regimes. So what's the problem?"
Well I'm glad to see we have very similar views on the rightness of breaking unjust laws with regard to drugs, however, your first paragraph is just totally in error. Where did I say or imply that the US not being punished means Saddam Hussein should not be?
It's your judgement to say that Trotskyism is misguided; Christopher Hitchens and myself do not agree. In an interview towards the end of his life he still describes himself as a Marxist. He became less concerned with the spread of Communism as he was in his youth, but never shifted from the left. It's completely nonsensical to place him on the right in any sense.
"it'd be equally wrong to think that a state is WRONG all the time as well as right all the time." I totally agree. I wasn't disputing the rightness of the policy I was disputing the claim that the bush administration was motivated by wanting to bring democracy to Iraq. whether the policy was correct is of course a separate question. cont.
I understand your reasons for being in favor of the war, and in my view they are the only morally justifiable reasons to be in favor of it. With that being said, what do you think the Bush administration hoped to achieve in pursuing military intervention? That's a question I've always wanted to hear Mr Hitchens address. Looking at the economic policies that were implemented by Paul Bremer, along with the SOFA proposed in 2007, I think it's clear that they had different reasons than you.
I'm an internationalist and I am in favour of intervening in Iraq. Just not by all out warfare and for two reasons. Firstly, just on pragmatic grounds - I simply don't think it works (and I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary in the last 9 years. And secondly, as I've tried to say, there is no basis for legality that we would find applicable to ourselves.
We should've supported democratic forces like the Kurds. That's the only way to resolve a conflict like this. The mess you create with all out warfare becomes, as we've amply seen, much bigger than the one you intended to sort out in the first place.
I just think it's worth pointing out how most citizens within the U.S. would want something done about one lone gunman, and even something done about the U.S.'s Cold War crimes, but not a torturous, fearful, murderous, psychopathic monster and his sons who slaughter Iraqis and those of other countries, and are quite willing to be patient with the regime even in spite of the failure of all methods that don't involve direct force. "Moral equivalence" doesn't stop just with politicians, remember.
Well the admin-side that wanted the regime change to happen actually theorised that it would lead to something like the Arab Spring - they had considered Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran, but for their huge faults they've been nowhere near as deadly and near-perfectly-totalitarian as Saddam in Iraq, so it'd made sense to start in the middle of these countries to start the wave of revolution. Wolfowiz even called it an "anti-Kissinger policy". Hitchens talks about this in his memoir. (cont..)
Again, wouldn't stooping to the U.S.'s level be a failure of moral equivalence, i.e. "well they did it to us and we didn't like it but not it's totally justified to do it to them!". Can't I just cut the crap and say that overthrowing democracy is morally a bad thing? Let alone murder? Let's say there were a country 50x the size of the U.S. who COULD put a stop to aggressive military action - then yes, do it. But we don't have that option, so we're kind of stuck. Neither perfect human beings.
With that being said I do think invading Iraq in the way that they did was worse than not invading at all, but I can think of policies where that wouldn't be the case. They were to concerned with their own economic interests for the policy to benefit the Iraqi's in the way that it could have. Naomi Klein wrote an essay call "Baghdad year zero" on the economic policies pursued by that admin. It's available online, I recommend it.
Actually I'd say supporting him for 30 years was the real crime - For which, I'm sure you'll notice, nobody has been held to account. Of course the sanctions had to go but I simply do not believe war was the only option left on the table.
Well aside from having used the term amply in several interviews, it's factually the case. Trotskyism is a form of Marxism even if he had not used the term Marxism specifically, which he has. It is true that he is a Trotskyist specifically as well. All this aside, whatever version of Marxism he espoused, there is no possible interpretation which could be used to call him a "neo con" or a conservative of any kind.
It's a better argument, yeah. But credibility has to extend towards empowering the Kurds as well. And I don't care what 98% the U.S. thinks, to be honest. They also laughed at the theory made in 02/03 that Iraq intervention would help trigger a domino effect of revolution against the dictators in the region. Hitchens also re-emphasized it in 05 in the video "Whiskey, Cigs and Jefferson". It's only now in 10/11 that the mass media have caught up with the idea, not surprisingly due to their bias.
Well you have to remember that the Kurds were not exactly in favour of a peaceful resolution with Saddam. (This is the only part of the convo that interests me now, if I am being honest).
(..cont) Hitchens had described it as a reactionary/revolutionary force within the Republican Party, one that started to show how the Cold War mentality was grinding against reality.
I was in favour of removing Saddam. I agree there is an enormous amount of anti-war advocates who need to take a long, hard look at themselves if their position meant keeping Saddam in power.
Part 2... I forgot to address your concern about why "OUR ALLIES" are so inadequate on the Israel-Palestine question. Its the same reason why so many people in Lebanon have some sympathy for Hezbollah though they despise and fear them. Without US support, the Israeli state would not just go back to pre-1967 borders but would cease to exist. Without Hezbollah and Hamas, Palestinian expulsion would increase. Haaretz has better discussion on this than any newspaper in the west.
(..cont) And where the Wolfowiz side failed disgracefully was to assume that the democratic "pulse" they were hoping for would work so well in the short term that troops and humanitarian help could be toned down in places, which lead to needless violence leading to more violence. Not to mention that U.S.'s (and my side, the U.K.'s) lack of troop equipment. So yes, but I think for historical reasons, and maybe perhaps that we might not have had another chance to take Saddam out in the future..
I'm not sure I understand. If you agree that there's no comparison between the U.S. and Saddam's regime, how does that lead to a nullification of these four conditions as a basis for deciding sovereignty? I should say I am not an Iraq-war advocate: I am a fence-sitter. But I feel primarily obligated to point out the overconfidence of the anti-war position. There are good reasons to oppose, but I cannot say that moral equivalence, or "he without sin may cast the first stone" is one of them.
… Also, if you have other options in mind about what should have been done with Iraq I’d like to hear, since I don’t advocate war lightly (the only one that has ever made me confident was that we should have declared war on the Nazis). In fact I usually don’t have the nerve to say “I advocate this war” since I know it carries a heavy moral responsibility.
I'd rather have a state that is hypocritical than a state that is 100% consistently evil. In fact, I doubt there is one state on Earth that is NOT hypocritical in regards to law. It's a rather meaningless point. Humans are overrated, as the great Dr House once put it. I want to push back aggressive U.S actions as much as I want to take out totalitarian regimes. So what's the problem? The fact the U.S can even so much as vote a new government into office ALONE puts it well above Saddam's regime.
Supremely humorous comments by the equally sublime host, Mr. Kinsley. I don't think I've ever seen both these men smile so much in a single debate.
Kinsley and Hitch became Vanity Fair's most prolific writers no?
i'm always saddened when I see/listen to Christopher Hitchens. He left us way, way too soon. Imagine his comments in todays world!
I think a few of his positions would change in the wake of the Woke movement.
PappyScrappy, are you insinuating that Christopher Hitchens would be cowering to the irrational mob, surly you're mistaken.
@@masoudsarvin6117 Quite the opposite, he would see the irrational mob for what it is. Hitchens was above all else, anti-authoritarian. The Woke mobs are a quasi-religious cult.
@@pappyscrappy6663 Interesting as brothers, Peter and Christopher are at the end of spectrums.
@@BoiledOctopus Not exactly, they differed on many positions but agreed on some things. When Christopher dies, he was more center left.
It's so clear from this how deep Hitch's hatred for Kissinger was.
The moment Kinsley mentioned Kissinger, Hitchens' laugh just disappears ( at 1:22 )
@Jazzkeyboardist1 LMAO.
@Jazzkeyboardist1 what are you on about?
@Jazzkeyboardist1 The fact that time after time on Christopher Hitchens pages you call him Chrissy, only because he disliked it, and reference his sexuality, which is only his business, shows that you lack the courage and confidence to take on his arguments on an intellectual level. Whether right or wrong, he was always intelligent enough to debate respectfully with those who held different opinions to him and brave enough to call out the charlatans without recourse to those kind of tactics. That is why he was a better man than the one you are.
Thete is good fun, and then there is just crossing the line. The FIRING LINE.
Misleading title, but anyway, you can see the admiration they had for each other, even as opposites. Rare these days.
You really need it spelled out, and read to you, slowly, don't you.
R.I.P. TO BOTH CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS & WILLIAM BUCKLEY JR. SUPER GREATS !!! LEGENDS !! MISSED GREATLY !! FROM U.K. (2022).
When conversation was intelligent without being mean spirited.
Buckley met Hitchens long before this. Hitchens was often a guest on Firing Line
True. At least as early as 1984.
Very true, the title is stupidly misleading.
You can see Hitchens thoughts on Kissinger, his eyes speak volumes.
Xargxes not to mention the context, which somehow made a bizarre comparison between the two of them
best introduction ever
you know why they were friends because despite their disagreements Buckley recognized Christopher's great mind.
Jefferson and Adams
Buckley couldn't bully Hitchens . Some people fight back. Hitchens had a presence.
Kinsley admitted that for every ten hours that he spent with Buckley on the set of these debates, he spent one hour in real life, and for Hitchens it was even less . If Hitchens had of been invited up to the maisonette I’m sure it would have been proudly recalled in Hitch22. Hitchens frequently said that Buckley launched his television career and he also frequently quoted him . Yes there was mutual admiration albeit a bit lopsided. Why on earth would Buckley want to bully him? Hitchens once recalled that if you said anything fatuous on Firing Line that Buckley wouldn’t let you off lightly but he never bullied anyone. What a bizarre thing to say
@@cestmoi2894
Substitute one for Thomas Paine
He was fairly godless like Hitchens
bro Kinsley was saying he was friends with Hitchens it wasn’t Buckley who was friends with Hitchens
For anyone who's interested, this debate is entitled "Resolved: The Federal Government Should Not Impose a Tax on Electronic Commerce". Couldn't find the whole debate on youtube unfortunately.
To add, if you have Amazon Prime you can watch it in full, for free through them.
PhilWithCoffee
To further add, if you have "the internet," you can watch it in full, for free, through its adroit application. Though in your defense, it may involve much, much less hassle when using Amazon Prime, which I decry out of a stubborn demeanor and the pinching of very specific monetary units.
PhilWithCoffee Thank you
It has been uploaded to youtube! Just search the debate name! :D
czcams.com/video/DzLD7fGtjyg/video.html
I'd be hugely grateful. I can't wait to hear/see it. Thanks for replying.
Here: czcams.com/video/DzLD7fGtjyg/video.html
I second the request for more of the Firing Line discussion to be uploaded!!
where can i see this full debate? anyone know the title of the youtube vid? ill i can find are older debates...
This is the last episode of Firing Line. I think Amazon Prime sells it. There's a list out there of all the Firing Line episodes, with some clips listed.
Good to see Buckley smile.
I think Mr. Buckley and Mr. Hitchens had previously met.
They certainly have
would love to see the full debate on youtube.
people asking for the full version should find it over on the right somewhere... --------->
Anyone know a link to the full debate?
It's not a matter of whether the US can be stopped or not. You do not WANT them stopped.
They met in the early 1980s and became lovers soon after.
Thanks so much for uploading:) Do you know where I can watch the entire video?
Here: czcams.com/video/DzLD7fGtjyg/video.html
Are you still going to upload that? I could not find it on your channel. :/
Where's the rest of it???
Michael Kinsley is the smartest and wittiest person I know who uncannily resembles Squidward from "Spongebob Squarepants."
William, every so often we humans can rest assured we have come up with some thought that no other on the planet has, at least at that moment in time. Congratulations, sir!
By the way, any relation to Robert Preston played Grigg, in The Last Starfighter?
PEACE
Actually, Robert Preston played Centauri, and the name of the titular character's alien comrade-in-arms was spelled "Grig." There are many situations I've experienced in which a "Beta-unit" would have been a blessing.
***** Where is Kinsley these days? I always waited impatiently for his introductions, whether or not he hit his mark. My memory isn't always reliable any more, but it seems to me there was more candor, a bit less disengenoursness on these Firing Line shows than on any news/talk/interview shows today (the one notable exception, I thought, was Bukley's "god fearing" tribute-paying "interview" of Malcolm Muggeridge).
Doug Wild I've seen Kinsley's work at Vanity Fair and occasionally at Slate, for which he served (I think) as a founding editor back in the 1990s. He got
that gig at about the same time he was diagnosed with Parkinson's
disease, a development that made me genuinely sad.
As an intern at The New Republic in the late 1980s I became acquainted
with Kinsley and found that he was not only very professional and
extremely intelligent (obviously), but also very supportive of young,
aspiring journalists -- and much nicer than many people in his business.
***** I didn't know about the Parkinson's. That is very sad indeed. I'm not much of a reader any more - truth be told, I never was - so I've not read Kinsley in either Vanity Fair or Slate, but I became an enormous fan when he was on Firing Line. It's good to know that his 'on air' qualities were, in fact, were authentic. Thank you so much William for bringing me up to date.
Gah, I've been looking for this fully 'debate' for a while. Does anyone know where to find it?
Fantastic quips. Is the actual debate accessible somewhere?
looked like a great panel is there a full episode?
Is the rest of this available anywhere?
Appreciate your response, Is there a link to it? It appeared as regular text.
I one hundred percent agree with you sir. +1 to you!
At all possible to access all of this encounter? Would be well worth a watch I think!:)
This was an interesting debate between people who had no idea what they were talking about. Internet commerce was new and many on the panel thought what was being proposed was a blanket tax on all purchases made via the internet in addition to state or local tax. In fact what was being proposed was a loophole where one could purchase an item via the internet and avoid sales tax all together. For the Hitchens fans out there, he really didn't contribute much to the discussion other than some pithy quips. Oddly enough, the real star was Michael Kinsley who was clever, funny and affable throughout. Buckley's age was clearly taking it's toll, rendering him a shadow of his former self, quite sad actually.
Pleeease, does anyone have a link or know the title of this debate?!?!?!
+joecairo1 The title of the debate is (Resolved: The Federal Government should not Impose a Tax on Electronic Commerce) , and available on
www.amazon.com/Firing-Line-Debate-Government-Electronic/dp/B0064EGPIC/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1453007835&sr=8-2&keywords=The+Federal+Government+should+not+Impose+a+Tax+on+Electronic+Commerce ....
Where is the rest of the debate
Ole Miss had an impressive ability to attract intellectual heavyweights to campus. When I was in law school there we had two Supreme Court Justices come to speak - that was only three or for years before this debate. And less than a decade after this debate, Ole Miss hosted a presidential debate.
The Country Club
is the full video here?
I loved this series of debates moderated by Michael Kinsley. The lines may well have been written for him, but they were often humorous. He was moderating one on the pro/con of legalizing marijuana. He closed it out by remarking something like "regardless of which side of this debate you fall on, I'm gonna go have a drink"
I don’t think Buckley would have hired him if he wasn’t witty enough to write his own lines
Great , but where is the rest of it?
(..cont) makes the whole issue blurry and I am not sure if it were the right decision or not.
well said......I agree completely
Hitchens didn't like a single bit being compared to Kissinger right there at the end..
I wonder what Hitch was writing down
+redryan20000 perhaps just drawing a penis?
+BountyFlamor lmao well played
a doodle of buckley?
"Kissinger is a bloody war criminal..."
Hitchens has been on Firing Line at least once before. It's on youtube.
I remember Kinsley. The man never blinked. Ever. It's not a good look for television.
Love them both amazing
I remember Hitchens saying something like "parts of the admin feel that what this really is is a war with Saudi Arabia". It might have been in a 2003 episode with Bill Maher.
And the page in the memoir is in the chapter "Mesopotamia and Back" page 305 if it's the paperback edition. It's at the start of the bit where he describes being invited to the Pentagon by Wolfowiz.
The first time Buckley met Hitchens, again! 😂 👍
Jolly good joke have a sherry, after all, it's almost lunchtime🍸
I don't recall you saying that, no.
Where's the rest of it?
KINSLEY'S MOMENT IN THE SUN.
Where's the rest of this?
Uh...this isn’t when they met. It was at least 15-20 years prior. Why the misleading title?
We all have friends we are ashamed of. This is your last chance to go first. Brain needs this caliber of discourse.......
The heading of this video is misleading to say the least because Buckley has had Hitchens on Firing Line more than once. This was not their first meeting as the title implies. Introducing intellectuals by clickbait is insulting to them.
I don't think their point is that the average progressive-minded person is personally a totalitarian. It's that the progressive frame of mind - that is, that there is one right way of doing things that is independent of tradition, and all we have to do is get enough smart people together and think hard enough and throw the right amount of money and bureaucracy and force at any problem and it will go away - that is a mode of thinking that tends to legitimate totalitarianism.
Gore Vidal has just joined them in the harem... missing them all!
This revolutionary act within the Republican Party against the disgraceful Cold War status quo, and the lead up to the Arab Spring, strongly suggests that the move was on the right side of history.
What's the point
But I stress again, did I not repeatedly say that aggressive U.S. military regimes SHOULD be stopped?
Deceiving headline...They met years before that video...Undo your thumbs up.
A matter of perspective there; I've heard both the other interpretation, as well as a clear draw, so what it amounts to is personal interpretation.
They met a long time before this
I don't recall espousing a position of letting Iraq rot.
The days where u disagreed but could be friends....now we may be at a point of no return
Two great intellects who loved displaying it ! A little ( or more) narcissistic?🤔
We all have friends that we are ashamed of...
"But if not, and the country turns totalitarian, then YES use force against it."
"Yes, maybe there's no willpower to impeach in those conditions.. so yes, intervene."
"Let's say there were a country 50x the size of the U.S. who COULD put a stop to aggressive military action - then yes, do it."
"I want to push back aggressive U.S actions as much as I want to take out totalitarian regimes. So what's the problem?"
They’d met long before this.
Well I'm glad to see we have very similar views on the rightness of breaking unjust laws with regard to drugs, however, your first paragraph is just totally in error. Where did I say or imply that the US not being punished means Saddam Hussein should not be?
It's April 13th today. Hitchen's birthday.
It's your judgement to say that Trotskyism is misguided; Christopher Hitchens and myself do not agree. In an interview towards the end of his life he still describes himself as a Marxist. He became less concerned with the spread of Communism as he was in his youth, but never shifted from the left. It's completely nonsensical to place him on the right in any sense.
If you've heard him on the subject of Islam, he's not exactly a moral relativist...
@@bobpurcell8357 Which still won't make him a rightwinger. In fact the rightwingers have more incommon with Islam than Hitchens
Never said you did, but could you address my point, please?
"it'd be equally wrong to think that a state is WRONG all the time as well as right all the time." I totally agree. I wasn't disputing the rightness of the policy I was disputing the claim that the bush administration was motivated by wanting to bring democracy to Iraq. whether the policy was correct is of course a separate question.
cont.
Seeing Hitch laugh is like spotting a unicorn. Except I'd much prefer the former.
I understand your reasons for being in favor of the war, and in my view they are the only morally justifiable reasons to be in favor of it. With that being said, what do you think the Bush administration hoped to achieve in pursuing military intervention? That's a question I've always wanted to hear Mr Hitchens address. Looking at the economic policies that were implemented by Paul Bremer, along with the SOFA proposed in 2007, I think it's clear that they had different reasons than you.
It was love at first sight
I'm an internationalist and I am in favour of intervening in Iraq. Just not by all out warfare and for two reasons. Firstly, just on pragmatic grounds - I simply don't think it works (and I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary in the last 9 years. And secondly, as I've tried to say, there is no basis for legality that we would find applicable to ourselves.
Kinsley was awesome.
Yes, including any U.S. government who did so.
Ive seen them on a show with woody Allen in 1967
We should've supported democratic forces like the Kurds. That's the only way to resolve a conflict like this. The mess you create with all out warfare becomes, as we've amply seen, much bigger than the one you intended to sort out in the first place.
I just think it's worth pointing out how most citizens within the U.S. would want something done about one lone gunman, and even something done about the U.S.'s Cold War crimes, but not a torturous, fearful, murderous, psychopathic monster and his sons who slaughter Iraqis and those of other countries, and are quite willing to be patient with the regime even in spite of the failure of all methods that don't involve direct force.
"Moral equivalence" doesn't stop just with politicians, remember.
Did Michael Kinsley ever blink in his life?
Well the admin-side that wanted the regime change to happen actually theorised that it would lead to something like the Arab Spring - they had considered Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran, but for their huge faults they've been nowhere near as deadly and near-perfectly-totalitarian as Saddam in Iraq, so it'd made sense to start in the middle of these countries to start the wave of revolution. Wolfowiz even called it an "anti-Kissinger policy". Hitchens talks about this in his memoir.
(cont..)
Again, wouldn't stooping to the U.S.'s level be a failure of moral equivalence, i.e. "well they did it to us and we didn't like it but not it's totally justified to do it to them!". Can't I just cut the crap and say that overthrowing democracy is morally a bad thing? Let alone murder?
Let's say there were a country 50x the size of the U.S. who COULD put a stop to aggressive military action - then yes, do it. But we don't have that option, so we're kind of stuck. Neither perfect human beings.
With that being said I do think invading Iraq in the way that they did was worse than not invading at all, but I can think of policies where that wouldn't be the case. They were to concerned with their own economic interests for the policy to benefit the Iraqi's in the way that it could have. Naomi Klein wrote an essay call "Baghdad year zero" on the economic policies pursued by that admin. It's available online, I recommend it.
Wolfowiz hates how Kissinger has got away with so much, for example.
Actually I'd say supporting him for 30 years was the real crime - For which, I'm sure you'll notice, nobody has been held to account. Of course the sanctions had to go but I simply do not believe war was the only option left on the table.
Well aside from having used the term amply in several interviews, it's factually the case. Trotskyism is a form of Marxism even if he had not used the term Marxism specifically, which he has. It is true that he is a Trotskyist specifically as well. All this aside, whatever version of Marxism he espoused, there is no possible interpretation which could be used to call him a "neo con" or a conservative of any kind.
It's a better argument, yeah. But credibility has to extend towards empowering the Kurds as well.
And I don't care what 98% the U.S. thinks, to be honest. They also laughed at the theory made in 02/03 that Iraq intervention would help trigger a domino effect of revolution against the dictators in the region. Hitchens also re-emphasized it in 05 in the video "Whiskey, Cigs and Jefferson". It's only now in 10/11 that the mass media have caught up with the idea, not surprisingly due to their bias.
Well you have to remember that the Kurds were not exactly in favour of a peaceful resolution with Saddam.
(This is the only part of the convo that interests me now, if I am being honest).
(..cont) Hitchens had described it as a reactionary/revolutionary force within the Republican Party, one that started to show how the Cold War mentality was grinding against reality.
I was in favour of removing Saddam. I agree there is an enormous amount of anti-war advocates who need to take a long, hard look at themselves if their position meant keeping Saddam in power.
You still sure about that?
False dichotomy, excluded middle fallacy. Also known as False Dilemma.
Part 2... I forgot to address your concern about why "OUR ALLIES" are so inadequate on the Israel-Palestine question. Its the same reason why so many people in Lebanon have some sympathy for Hezbollah though they despise and fear them. Without US support, the Israeli state would not just go back to pre-1967 borders but would cease to exist. Without Hezbollah and Hamas, Palestinian expulsion would increase. Haaretz has better discussion on this than any newspaper in the west.
(..cont) And where the Wolfowiz side failed disgracefully was to assume that the democratic "pulse" they were hoping for would work so well in the short term that troops and humanitarian help could be toned down in places, which lead to needless violence leading to more violence. Not to mention that U.S.'s (and my side, the U.K.'s) lack of troop equipment. So yes, but I think for historical reasons, and maybe perhaps that we might not have had another chance to take Saddam out in the future..
I'm not sure I understand. If you agree that there's no comparison between the U.S. and Saddam's regime, how does that lead to a nullification of these four conditions as a basis for deciding sovereignty?
I should say I am not an Iraq-war advocate: I am a fence-sitter. But I feel primarily obligated to point out the overconfidence of the anti-war position. There are good reasons to oppose, but I cannot say that moral equivalence, or "he without sin may cast the first stone" is one of them.
… Also, if you have other options in mind about what should have been done with Iraq I’d like to hear, since I don’t advocate war lightly (the only one that has ever made me confident was that we should have declared war on the Nazis). In fact I usually don’t have the nerve to say “I advocate this war” since I know it carries a heavy moral responsibility.
As far as british socialists and american conservatives go, these two where absolute greats.
(This is not the first time they met one another though)
I'd rather have a state that is hypocritical than a state that is 100% consistently evil.
In fact, I doubt there is one state on Earth that is NOT hypocritical in regards to law. It's a rather meaningless point. Humans are overrated, as the great Dr House once put it.
I want to push back aggressive U.S actions as much as I want to take out totalitarian regimes. So what's the problem? The fact the U.S can even so much as vote a new government into office ALONE puts it well above Saddam's regime.