1. Comment #25514 by Helios G2V on March 14, 2007 at 12:55 am

Bravo

Free speech and thought is priceless. It is what defines human progress.

We will be in a very sad state if the hard won rights of free speech are surrended with no more than a whimper. It's the breeding ground of dictators.

Other Comments by Helios G2V

2. Comment #25515 by StewE17 on March 14, 2007 at 1:02 am

Christopher Hitchens is being very brave in voicing what the vast majority of reasonable people feel. He will have probably attracted the attention of the most violent of the Islamofascists.

Other Comments by StewE17

3. Comment #25522 by Logicel on March 14, 2007 at 1:50 am

Ah, this is the video version of the audio to which Sancus linked awhile back on another thread. Oddly, I found the audio version emphasized Hitchens points better, his formidable voice had more pow!

Other Comments by Logicel

4. Comment #25523 by Apemanblues on March 14, 2007 at 2:01 am

That was really cool. I agree with every word.

I always love it when Hitchens appears on TV or radio. He's the kind of hard drinking, cursing, pissed off atheist that really makes you smile.

Other Comments by Apemanblues

5. Comment #25533 by NMcC on March 14, 2007 at 2:52 am

Hitchens is '...the kind of hard drinking, cursing, pissed off atheist that really makes you smile' says 'Apemanblues'.

Yea, I'm sure the 100,000s of dead and maimed in the Iraq carnage, which Hitchens supports, are dying with laughter...well...dying anyway.

Other Comments by NMcC

6. Comment #25540 by Apemanblues on March 14, 2007 at 3:28 am

"Yea, I'm sure the 100,000s of dead and maimed in the Iraq carnage, which Hitchens supports, are dying with laughter...well...dying anyway." - Comment #25533 by NMcC

Oh don't be so melodramatic. As if Hitchens is responsible for the Iraq debacle. I doubt the casualties of that occupation either know or care who Hitchens is. A lot of people 'support' a lot of things that I don't agree with, that doesn't necessarily mean they aren't amusing characters none the less.

When he's invited on the telly, to 'bash the Bishop' (so to speak), it's usually quite funny. At least, it's funny to me. That's all I'm saying.

You can return to grinding your axe now.

Other Comments by Apemanblues

7. Comment #25548 by segueZen on March 14, 2007 at 4:19 am

@ NMcC

Sure, Hitchens supports the war in principle, but hardly the incompetent way it's been executed.

Other Comments by segueZen

8. Comment #25554 by L.Minnik on March 14, 2007 at 4:42 am

Great to hear someone endorse thinking for yourself, looking for primary sources, looking at evidence, and voicing your opinion.

Other Comments by L.Minnik

9. Comment #25556 by epeeist on March 14, 2007 at 4:44 am

Comment #25515 by StewE17

He will have probably attracted the attention of the most violent of the Islamofascists.

What is an "Islamofascist" (apart from being a term invented by the right wing media in the USA)?

Other Comments by epeeist

10. Comment #25568 by keith on March 14, 2007 at 6:06 am

To NMcC,
Do you belong to the faction that believes that the war really was all about oil? In that case, why not simply invade Saudi Arabia or Venezuela? Do you also think that the opposite course to war was peace in this case? For the demonstrators who marched through the streets of London with banners reading 'We want peace', I was always tempted to join them with a banner reading 'No to war! We want the continuation of torture and genicide in Iraq, plus the continuation of sanctions (that apparently killed millions of children if you listen to the 'Peace activists'). We want to allow Sadam Hussein the time to obtain the nuclear weapons he has always said he wants'. (and has since been proven as trying to get hold of). We want a quarter of the Iraqi people to remain in exile!'
If after describing the two choices in this way, which to my mind is more accurate, you still come to the conclusion that war was wrong, that's fine. We can argue about the rights and wrongs of this war and the stupidity of policies after winning it, but to lay the lives of 100,000 people at the door of Hitchens for supporting the policy of intervention (though not the stupidity that followed) seems a little harsh to me. It's very easy for people who advocate inaction to take the moral high ground after the fact since they never make mistakes. However, they never actually bother looking at the consequences of their inaction. If things had turned out to be a success in Iraq, would you honestly have held you hand up and owned up to the suffering your 'decision' had helped to keep in place?
I think your accusation would only really stick if Hitchens were guilty of either cynicism or stupidity. However, he is neither cynical nor stupid, though he might sometimes, like everyone, be wrong.
All these things can be discussed and as Hitchens says in his speech, you're as entitled to your view as I am to mine. Please note this was not a luxury allowed to Iraqis before intervention.

Other Comments by keith

11. Comment #25571 by Shine on March 14, 2007 at 6:28 am

While the entire speech was wonderful, the last 5 minutes sent shivers down my spine. Very powerful.

Other Comments by Shine

12. Comment #25573 by Hayden Jones on March 14, 2007 at 6:38 am

I just have some nitpicks on his comments about 'A Man for All Seasons', which I love.

1) It's William Roper, his daughter fiancee who states the line about cutting down all the laws in England and not Cromwell the prosecuter.

2) A deeper analysis of the play shows that More did not make a real sacrifice by refusing to tell a lie. More was under an oath (to god), so that if he lied he would have ended him up in hell. More's choice was either to die on earth and go to heaven or live on Earth for a while longer and then go to hell. As a believing Christian, it was not much of a choice.

The real Thomas More is a more complicated affair...

Other Comments by Hayden Jones

13. Comment #25577 by Friend Giskard on March 14, 2007 at 6:55 am

I don't think it is fitting that Hitchens calls on the example of Sir Thomas More, fictional or otherwise, in a defense of free speech.

Thomas More was a christofascist who happily burned people alive simply because their beliefs were slightly different from his own ridiculous beliefs.

Other Comments by Friend Giskard

14. Comment #25581 by eoinc on March 14, 2007 at 7:08 am

It's a thrilling speech, but he has an irritating habit of pausing before the end of his sentences and then continuing directly into... the... next one I found it very annoying after the third or fourth time.

Other Comments by eoinc

15. Comment #25589 by howtoplayalone on March 14, 2007 at 7:45 am

Hitchens is going to give Dawkins a run for his money in two months when his new book -- God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything -- comes out. He's an even better writer than a speaker. Let's hope he keeps taking more from the drink than it takes from him.

Here's an article comparing fascism and Islamism. Seems a pretty fair comparison. Just lose the "o".

Other Comments by howtoplayalone

16. Comment #25591 by CruciFiction on March 14, 2007 at 7:50 am

Wow! Thanks for that link. It really was a superb lecture.

I too, am eagerly awaiting his next book.

Other Comments by CruciFiction

17. Comment #25595 by tieInterceptor on March 14, 2007 at 8:20 am

AMAZING! Bravo!

This speech reflects my thoughts so closely that is scary, and he puts them into words much better than I ever could.

Kudos to him for talking about this most important taboos in a way that completely dispels the fog of rhetoric and is direct and crystal clear.


btw, cliking on the link

http://digg.com/videos/people/Hitchens_on_Free_Speech
and using the DIG button could be a good idea, it has only 5 digs so far :)
.

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

18. Comment #25605 by waxwings on March 14, 2007 at 9:55 am

Whether you agree with Hitchens or not, it's worth noting that you had to hear his case to make that determination in the first place.

Does Hitchen's support the war in Iraq? Is he right to do so? Only a review of his views will get you an answer to either question.

I certainly don't support the war in Iraq, but I gladly add my voice to his in defense of free speech.

Other Comments by waxwings

19. Comment #25612 by NMcC on March 14, 2007 at 10:16 am

To 'Apemanblues'

You are the drama queen. 'Oh mister Hitchens, you are so funny and witty and...and..I agree with EVERY word you say!' You are easily impressed (and amused), is all I can say.

To 'SegueZen':

Well, that's Ok then, as long as Hitchens only supports the war 'in principle'. That's the thing about people who support wars 'in principle' they never feel the need to go and support them in person. Just like Hitchens, they normally cheer from the safe distance of another country.

What do you mean by Hitchens not supporting the incompetent way in which the war has been executed? Surely you can only be accused of 'executing' (bit of an unfortunate phrase that in the context) a war 'incompetently' if you fail to kill enough people! In this regard, it hasn't been for the want of trying.

To 'Keith'

What utter tripe! If the invasion of Iraq was to save those poor people who were being abused and tortured and murdered by Saddam Hussein why hasn't Russia been invaded for what they are doing in Chechnya? Why hasn't China been invaded for its atrocities in Tibet? Why wasn't Rwanda invaded? I could continue this list indefinitely. The fact is that there is numerous countries were people are suffering the same or to a worse degree than those who suffered under Saddam Hussein. In the case of China, the last time I looked, the British police were kicking protesters off the streets so that Blair could welcome its murderous leader to Downing Street for a cosy chat. Not much concern for death and torture there.

The simple fact is that Bush (and Blair following behind like the little fawning creep he is) lied about Iraq and has created a situation that is a million times worse than previously.

Whether the invasion was for oil, to revenge a past perceived insult to daddy, as a consequence of religious nuttery or whatever, one thing's for sure, it wasn't to help the Iraqis who were being persecuted by Saddam. After all, there wasn't much said about his victims when the governments of the west were falling over themselves to arm him in the first place.

Other Comments by NMcC

20. Comment #25628 by Apemanblues on March 14, 2007 at 11:16 am

"You are the drama queen. 'Oh mister Hitchens, you are so funny and witty and...and..I agree with EVERY word you say!' You are easily impressed (and amused), is all I can say." - Comment #25533 by NMcC

Oh dear. You really don't get it do you. Unless of course you are deliberately misrepresenting me (In which case, go back under your bridge Mr Troll).

I agree with his comments on free speech and I find the man funny when he has a knockabout on TV with the usual rogues gallery of religious speakers. That amuses me (easily apparently). However, I actually happen to disagree with his stance on the Iraq war (and no doubt a whole host of other things).

So, stop waving your handbag at me, sit down, and have a nice cup of tea.

Other Comments by Apemanblues

21. Comment #25629 by Spinoza on March 14, 2007 at 11:36 am

WOooOooO! Holla at a UofT!

Other Comments by Spinoza

22. Comment #25630 by howtoplayalone on March 14, 2007 at 11:40 am

To NMcC: It's exactly that your kind of shrill attacks are missing on this site that makes it so pleasant. Not that it matters, but regarding the war in Iraq, you're probably preaching to the choir here.

Other Comments by howtoplayalone

23. Comment #25635 by an_ant_under_a_penny on March 14, 2007 at 12:05 pm

"While the entire speech was wonderful, the last 5 minutes sent shivers down my spine. Very powerful." - Comment #25571 by Shine

The last five minutes would have deserved standing ovations. That they only got lukewarm applause probably means that most of the people in the audience didn't agree. Which is scary.

PS: for those of you with precambrian media players (like myself), an mp3 of the file is here: http://digg.com/podcasts/Big_Ideas/170324/
Beware of the very slow download speed, though.

Other Comments by an_ant_under_a_penny

24. Comment #25641 by Yorker on March 14, 2007 at 12:55 pm

I don't always agree with Hitchens, but in this case he has my wholehearted support.

Other Comments by Yorker

25. Comment #25644 by NMcC on March 14, 2007 at 1:17 pm

To 'Apemanblues'

Actually, I get 'it' quite easily. For example, I get it (the hump, that is) when somone like you praises someone like Hitchens with the phrase 'I agree with every word'. What, even the bit about 'the First World War was a sanguinary conflict that America was dragged into'? And this from a man who, as far as I'm aware, opposed the Veitnam war as imperialist thuggery on the part of America whilst a follower of Leon Trotsky, but who, today, supports the war in Iraq as some great liberation struggle.

Your final comment was too stupid to comment on, so I won't - even though I just have!

Other Comments by NMcC

26. Comment #25650 by Linda on March 14, 2007 at 2:19 pm

If Hitchens needs bodyguards curently for speaking out about the terrorism inherent in the 3 books of monotheism then he should really watch his back after the new book is available. I love the title 'God is not Great, How Religion Poisons Everything'.
Yummy!

Does Richard Dawkins also need bodyguards?

Other Comments by Linda

27. Comment #25651 by keith on March 14, 2007 at 2:25 pm

To NMcC,
At least you only called my ideas 'tripe' and didn't resort to jibes about effeminacy, which was a relief.
The invasion of Iraq was for an accumulation of reasons which all tipped the scales in favour of intervention (in the eyes of Bush and Blair and Hitchens). Those reasons were human rights abuses, genocide, giving a refuge to terrorists, the fear that Sadam was trying to acquire nuclear weapons (which we now know to be the case), destabilisation of the region, the lack of cooperation with the weapons inspectors, the suspicion that he had WMD (which of course turned out to be false), and the belief that somewhere down the line there would have to be some kind of confrontation, either with Sadam or later with his sons. Leaving it until later might leave the choice of when it finally happened to Sadam.
Incidentally, Sadam said after the first Gulf War that his only mistake had been to invade Kuwait before he got the bomb, so you can see his mindset.
All these factors taken together made a reasonable case for intervention, factors that don't come together in any other country.
The reason America hasn't invaded Russia or China is partly because only a few of those above factors come together in those two countries and also for the reason that it would be suicide to do so (which you of course know). I sometimes tell children to pick up litter they have dropped in the street but I wouldn't dream of telling a gang of ten chain-wielding thugs to pick up their litter. To some this may appear to be a case of double standards or cowardice but it is really just good sense; I am not prepared to get beaten to a pulp for the sake of a dropped crisp packet. If the Americans wanted to start World War Three, invading Russia/China would be the best way to go about it. However, this does not mean that they can't intervene in the places where they are able to do so. You step in where you can. So I tell children to pick up their rubbish. (Please don't accuse me of calling Iraqis childish).
The reason Rwanda is different from Iraq is that it does not harbour any desires to acquire nuclear weapons or cause instability to other countries. I personally think the UN should have gone in there, but they didn't. Is that also the fault of the Americans? You might claim that had the Americans insisted, then the UN would have gone in. However, Iraq shows that the UN doesn't simply do what the Americans ask.
As regards your comment that the people of many countries other than Iraq suffer worse or equally bad treatment at the hands of their governments, that is something I doubt. The scale of the abuses in Iraq put it pretty much at the top of the list of human rights abuses. Of course the degree of abuse is all-important here. Just because one man was beaten up by the Swedish police would not constitute a reason for invading Sweden and thus the extent of abuse is crucial to a decision on when to intervene. My point is that even if abuse is bad in say, Tibet, is it really so bad that it requires an invasion.
Regarding the British police clearing away protesters from the streets (I didn't see it. Did the police really kick the protesters?) what is a government supposed to do? Let anyone who disagrees with its policies stop all traffic in the capital? Would your policy be to stop all talks with China?
Yep, I agree with you. Bush and Blair did lie about WMD. (Actually, exaggerate the danger might be a better description but I won't split hairs). However, for Hitchens, this never was a reason for going into Iraq. And yes, I do believe that Hitchens had the good of the Iraqi people at heart. Call me naive if you like, but if you should read more by him you might conclude that he really is a very moral and brave person too.
Yes, we both agree that the situation in Iraq is much worse now than before the war, everybody agrees with that. The thing we disagree about is whether this was inevitable from the start. I think that had the Americans and Brits put more effort into the basic needs of the Iraqi people straight after the war (water, electricity, repair of roads, jobs etc.), the intervention could have been a success.
The reason 'daddy' didn't finish off the job the first time round was that he was tied to a coalition who had signed up only to get Sadam out of Kuwait, not to change the Iraqi regime. Any further action would have been alone and even then the spectre of a power vacuum after deposing Sadam loomed. Perhaps he foresaw what junior and his advisors didn't. However, finally getting rid of Sadam this time round was not a private obsession of G. W. Bush's as you seem to suggest. The democrats under Clinton proposed the idea of regime change in Iraq in 1999, long before Bush came to power.
I realise that you're in good company here: Richard Dawkins, of course, was also against the war and I've never heard anyone speak more sense than him. And in the end I probably dislike Bush as much as anyone else, and I'm no fan of Tony Blair either. I just felt I ought to defend Hitchens from what I think was a crude caricature.

Other Comments by keith

28. Comment #25654 by privateeye on March 14, 2007 at 2:33 pm

With free speech comes responsibilty. That responsibility extends to accepting the principal that if you lie you should be prepared to explain why you lied and indeed, if your lie has the effect of causing harm to anyone, then you should also be prepared to accept the punishment for that lie. Step forward Tony Blair and explain why you lied to us about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction - oh and by the way, the punishment for your lie will be found at the Hague!! No doubt his priest will already have heard that confession and done sod all about it along with the numerous confessions to rape and murder he has heard over the years!!

Other Comments by privateeye

29. Comment #25662 by NMcC on March 14, 2007 at 3:18 pm

To 'Keith'

Thanks for your response.

Quite a long post, so I'll leave it until tomorrow before I respond as I'm going to the land of nod in a minute.

Other Comments by NMcC

30. Comment #25670 by Jack Rawlinson on March 14, 2007 at 4:10 pm

Hitchens can be a jerk and I most certainly don't agree with him all the time but he's right on the money here, and I respect the guy a lot for his fundamental nous about rights.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

31. Comment #25674 by Duff on March 14, 2007 at 4:58 pm

Everyone who comes out forcefully against religious nonsense needs bodyguards. And that simple fact says it all. Religion is the basis of all evil in this world, at this time.
When ever any of us see Hitchens and Dawkins and Harris in public places, we should be ready and willing to protect them from the religious cranks and sickos out there in the world who would love to do them harm.
Thinking people unite!! Get in the face of the religious fanatics! Don't let a ridiculous, ignorant statement go unchallenged!

Other Comments by Duff

32. Comment #25679 by ksskidude on March 14, 2007 at 5:30 pm

Hitchins was on Real Time with Bill Maher last season, and my first impression of him was; smug but intelligent.

This however was excellent!

Other Comments by ksskidude

33. Comment #25694 by HappyPrimate on March 14, 2007 at 6:25 pm

Hitchins - A far braver human than I. I do envy his forthright manner, no holes barred. Sort of reminds me of my Grandma. She would speak her mind about anything to anybody. Sure do admire that fortitude. Wish more of us had it too, including me. Think I'll watch it again now.

Other Comments by HappyPrimate

34. Comment #25707 by Yorker on March 14, 2007 at 7:05 pm

31. Comment #25674 by Duff

I agree with you but getting people on this site to unite will be a problem. I've tried a few times - so far without success. People here are mostly talkers, not persons of action. I'm spending less time here now because I'm trying to get support in my local area, we want to tackle this problem using political means. The simple fact is that people who just think and talk are powerless; being right, logical and sane is not enough, individuals are just ignored or swatted aside. For success, right must be allied with might so unity is essential, I may succeed or I may fail, but at least I will know that unlike most, I tried.

Other Comments by Yorker

35. Comment #25709 by Yorker on March 14, 2007 at 7:13 pm

14. Comment #25581 by eoinc

I think he does that for effect - clearly, it's working!

Other Comments by Yorker

36. Comment #25712 by Yorker on March 14, 2007 at 7:26 pm

Interesting but sad to see that most of the young YouTube'rs commenting on the Hitchens vs Galloway debate, are strongly pro-Galloway, they've fallen for the bullshit. I think they may see their hero take a heavy fall in the near future, that corruption affair is far from over.

Other Comments by Yorker

37. Comment #25727 by neander on March 14, 2007 at 8:42 pm

Does anyone have a link to a transcript of this?

Other Comments by neander

38. Comment #25740 by Apemanblues on March 15, 2007 at 12:30 am

"Actually, I get 'it' quite easily. For example, I get it (the hump, that is) when somone like you praises someone like Hitchens with the phrase 'I agree with every word'." - Comment #25644 by NMcC

No, you don't get it and I don't think you want to.

The "every word" comment was aimed at his comments on free speech, your extrapolation on that to include his views about the Iraq war (or other views that he may have) has nothing to do with what I have said. Maybe It was a flippant remark to say "every word", when In fact I meant "I agree with the overall tone of his speech". It was just a turn of phrase.

If you have a problem with Hitchens, that's fine, but it's not my problem.

Other Comments by Apemanblues

39. Comment #25752 by MorituriMax on March 15, 2007 at 2:47 am

What's really funny, is that even Saddam thought he had WMDs... even at the point where all his subordinates had either hidden them, moved them to Syria or destroyed them after they finished pissing themselves when they recognized the other countries were about out of patience with them, they still knew that if they told Saddam he no longer had any WMDs IN Iraq, Saddam would have had them tortured to death for lying to him.

Other Comments by MorituriMax

40. Comment #25754 by MorituriMax on March 15, 2007 at 2:49 am

You know if we follow Apemanblues logic we have to wonder when he is going to go confront Hitchens in person. After all if you can't agree with the war without actually going there and fighting it (that by itself is one of the most infantile arguments on the planet) then you can't criticize Hitchens unless you put your money where your mouth is and tell him to his face you dislike his views.

Other Comments by MorituriMax

41. Comment #25756 by Apemanblues on March 15, 2007 at 3:08 am

MorituriMax

I never put forward the argument that you are referring to, nor would I, because I agree with you, it is indeed an infantile argument.

You are confusing me with someone else.

I suggest you scroll up the page a little to see the poster who actually made the remark that you are referring to.

Other Comments by Apemanblues

42. Comment #25758 by NMcC on March 15, 2007 at 3:33 am

To 'Apemanblues'

So, your 'I agree with every word' was a 'flippant remark'. Fair enough.

I was just warming to you there with your 'I commend your passion' then you went and spoilt it with 'have fun with your crusade.'

Ah, well! What you gain on the swings, you lose on the roundabouts.

Incidently, far from 'hating' Hitchens, I don't even know him. What I do hate, however, is someone like him (given his history of support for various codswallop) pontificating about how 'necessary' it is that other people's children had (have) to die for nothing more than some dubious abstract 'principle' about freedom and democracy as elucidated by a religious lunatic like Bush.

To 'MorituriMax'

'Apemanblues' has already put you straight. All I would say is that, one thing's for sure, we will hardly follow your 'logic' since you can't even follow who's saying what.

In regard to the 'infantile argument' concerning how easy it is to support a war when it's someone else's kids being slaughtered and maimed, it's neither infantile nor an 'argument.' I would have thought it comes under the heading 'accepted fact.'

Other Comments by NMcC

43. Comment #25767 by NMcC on March 15, 2007 at 4:38 am

To 'Apemanblues'

Nice one. Let's leave it there.

Though, I'd make one last remark. I live in Northern Ireland, and have therefore lived with unctuous 'rationalisations' of war and violence all my life. That's one of the reasons why I deplore the likes of an obviously intelligent man like Hitchens giving any kind of succour to the moronic 'war, war' brigade.

Regards

Other Comments by NMcC

44. Comment #25768 by Apemanblues on March 15, 2007 at 4:41 am

I deleted my last post NMcC , because I thought I've been posting way too much in this thread already, but you have already read it, so that's cool.

Anyway, moving on.

Other Comments by Apemanblues

45. Comment #25769 by NMcC on March 15, 2007 at 4:44 am

To 'Apemanblues'

Ah!...the above post was to your last post which has just disappeared...

Other Comments by NMcC

46. Comment #25912 by shetlandforpeace on March 15, 2007 at 4:01 pm

I have mixed feelings about this, I must say.

The argument for free speech is convincing, but there's something that disturbs me; having a free press is habitually stated as being a prerequisite of democracy, and yet the ownership of many of the most powerful media organisations is concentrated in the hands of just a few.

I guess it's something to do with some voices being louder than others - is that desirable?

Other Comments by shetlandforpeace

47. Comment #26102 by MelM on March 16, 2007 at 11:13 pm

A much needed speech.
A very serious matter! I hope he gives this speech all over the place because I think our committment to freedom of speech is wavering.

People can see hate speech anywhere.
I will just add that it only takes a few sentences of logical fallicies to turn something said into "hate speech". Remember the spin Bush was using against those who said that the goal of freedom/democracy in the Middle East was absurd? He called this view "racist." What if he'd been able to order the Attorney General to start investigations of "hate speech?" And, I wonder what harm he did with this rediculous accusation? After all, he effectively told the Arabs that there were lots of people in the U.S. who were anti-Arab racists, a claim I think is quite false. (Spin doctors never seem to learn that the nonsense that's so convenient one day can come around and bite them on the ass the next day or next month or next year.)

I hate any "hate speech" law!
I want no law against hate speech enacted in the U.S. We're very fortunate in this regard and I want to keep it that way. Nor do I want legislatures in the business of legislating historical facts; how absurd. The people's job is to write history; the f'ing government's job is to protect our right to do that. Defy those who advocate the use of guns (the police power of the state) to restrict what you say. They want to rule you; tell 'em to go f'-off

Other Comments by MelM

48. Comment #26590 by Stella on March 20, 2007 at 4:33 pm

Bravo. I agree with every single thing he says (since he didn't say anyting in praise of the Iraq war in this particular clip! ha!).

Thanks for the heads-up.

Other Comments by Stella

49. Comment #29985 by Veronique on April 6, 2007 at 12:27 am

This is probably too late for anyone to take any notice - it's nearly a month since anyone posted here.

I don't want to comment so much on Hitchens but on the Iraqi war.

1. US commercial interests have billions if not trillions of US$ tied up in the Caspian area in oil deposits. It's a land locked place except for the Caspian Sea the bottom end of which is Iran's border.

2. Russia has just signed with Turkey and Greece to get its oil out into the Meditteranean rather than the Bosporus.

3. The US needs to put a pipeline through Iraq to control its oil into the Gulf. Even then the US has to go through Azerbaijan, Armenia and Turkey to even get to Iraq. It needs Iraq.

4. The US could go through Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan to get to the Arabian Sea. A little more fraught, but the US is hedging its bets.

5. This war is not so much about oil as the control of the US oil pipelines from the Caspian.

6. This war is not so much a civil religious war between Sunni and Shia, as a war between those who supported the US invasion (the puppet government) and those who resisted. This is a war of political revenge.

I would love someone to comment on this take of mine.

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

50. Comment #39055 by MarcCountry on May 9, 2007 at 9:48 pm

It's great to hear him speak on atheism, and the horror of religion, but he's just so painfully superficial in his singling out Islam as qualitatively different from the other religions, based on middle-eastern conflict. If we all woke up tomorrow and, instead of "Xians" v. "Muslims" the teams were "Catholics" v. "Protestants", for example, the real story would still be one of rich v. poor, educated v. ignorant, opressed and oppressor. Hitchens says, between the angry arab ranting about cartoons, and his free-speaking-self, it is HE that is in danger, HE who needs protection... c'mon, Chris, you're an Oxford educated man with every advantage; your lifestyle is an unimaginable fantasy compared to the life angry arab has known.

Other Comments by MarcCountry