Debate on the War in Iraq - 1/12

Goodman is a harlot, Galloway a Stalinist, Hitchens a sluggard-- I say we lynch them all for being traitors, F****ts and dullards.

What a shock that Amy Goodman does not seem to like Hitchens? I wish she would retire early

Plus, the man affiliates himself with the likes of Alex Jones. That gives me a headache.
The hypocrite, and the pseudo-skeptic fanatic who believes 9/11 was an inside job. What a pair.
I oppose the present gov. but I hold a scientific world view. The 9/11 Truth movement is unscientific and hostile.

I agree. I am opposed to the war itself, but I just... I despise George Galloway. He thinks he can win debates through ranting and attacking his opponenents.
George Galloway calls himself anti-war and pro-peace, yet he still supports one side of the war. One can do a YT search and see him praising "freedom fighters" who shoot at Americans. I don't support Americans shooting at others (unless it's self-defense, etc.).
Opposing both sides of a war is anti war. George does not meet these standards.

Did you watch all 12 parts to this video? I certainly hope so.

I think I can say that without being a gun toting redneck that the war in Iraq is a just thing

sorry but hitchs first 3 mins are full of assumptions....

she does seem somewhat dull

Hitch articulates his argument better and therefore wins the debate. Galloway simply can't speak like a civilized man. He rants and screams, uses ad hominid attacks, "Devil," "slug," and stick that finger somewhere else. His comment about the Twin Towers was disgusting! Now don't get me wrong, I am not necessarily for the war. I am a USAF physician who has been to Iraq and Afghanistan and am not real pleased we are there. Wars are always easier to support when someone else does the dirty work.

Amy Goodman is profoundly incompetent.

This debate was the first time I saw Amy Goodman. I'm so glad I happened to see it.

my bad i see the date at the corner now lol

how old is this debate?

The hypocrisy is beyond belief isn't it? The US is damned if it does, damned if it doesn't. Destroying Saddam was the moral thing to do, even though we did it 12 years after we should have.

Are you from Iraq? Because I think if you ask (non-baathist) people in Iraq whether they wished Saddam was back, I think I know what the answer would be.

Not at all ... stop meddling in people's lives, hearts, and existences all in the name of the ever expansive CAPITAL, the sole intent of which is to VAMP all form of energy for the accumulation and creation of ELITE over others justifying the illusion of superiority.

The only reason why you have to intervene in a country, is to fix the interminable mistakes you make. GO HOME. LEAVE US ALONE. let us BE and STOP LOOTING our countries and saying you're bringing us 'freedom'.

I love this debate. The debate where Hitchens the ex Marxist Neo Capitalist war monger cries like a baby! :D

*BIG SMILE* Good post.

Again, anyone with all 4 criteria? Anyone? North Korea, maybe 3... Zimbabwe, possibly 2...

But if you are really nervous about weapons I know I haven't got the sophisticated resources of the CIA but I've got a 'hunch' you might find some in Korea... Gross human rights atrocities you already have in Zimbabwee.
So theres a couple of suggestions for you.

Well, invasion of neighbouring state was last time (Kuwait), and there would be others that qualify for that if that was your penchant. Illegal pursuit of weapons; I assume you're still talking about last time as we didn't find any this time (the worlds 'leading intelligence organisation' got it wrong apparently, they were THAT confident they had it right that they were willing to start a war, but astoundingly they were completely and utterly wrong... Whatdoyouknow... (Out of room on this post)

Well, if the "rule" merely held to Saddam's criteria (invasion of neighboring state, illegal pursuit of weapons, collusion with terrorists & gross human rights atrocities or acts of genocide) then who else would qualify?

But I will say that I hope that UN forces do intervene in Zimbabwe before a civil war or mass civilian slaughter occurs.

So its just a coincidence that the US has chosen to intervene multiple times around the oil supplying nations and not in Africa?

If YOU (US) are to then take on your new 'rule' of removing dictators, we should be able to set a date for your intervention in Zimbabwee. When can we expect that good sir?

So because we didn't stop a humanitarian disaster in Rwanda, then we have no business trying to stop any others?

And once we've involved ourself in any wrong foreign policy (like arming Saddam in the 80's), we have no business ever changing to the a better one (like removing him)?

Listen to your own arguments... If taken as a rule, they'd be more heartless than anything you accuse Bush of.

How about we got honest here, is Saddam the worst man on the planet in regards to humanitaritism? No. Did the US take any action in Rwanda? No. Do they have any intention of getting involved in Zimbabwee? Hmmm... No.

So whats different about Iraq? Why have they stuck their nose in here in the past, first on one side, and now on the other?... Hmmm, I wonder....

Can anyone spell O-I-L?
Do yourself a favour, stop trying to convince/justify to the world all your BS and hang your heads in shame.

Lads, we're about to run out of oil so get real! Who controls the oil supplies and the guys with guns who control the oil supplies will prevail. The removal of Saddam- which I incidentally marched against- will soon be seen as a very mild incident compared to the everyday bloodbath that will characterise future squabbles!