Bitch About Hitchens Here

robindch wrote: »

I've not read much of Hitchens on Iraq, but if the above is a representative sample, then I'm glad I didn't waste my time doing so.

The "anti-war left" didn't primarily object to the invasion because they wanted to appease Hussein, but because there were internationally-agreed legal processes and institutions in place, designed to prevent vastly unpopular wars from taking place, which processes and institutions were subverted where they were not ignored, the result being a vastly unpopular war. Which in turn, resulted in the creation of an unstable state and a regional political problem which will long outlast any firm memory of Al-Qaeda and evidence-free talk of weapons of mass destruction.

Hitchens was a leftist and as he saw it leftists should support the overthrow of a fascist dictatorship in Iraq.
Maybe you should actually read what Hitchens wrote over the past decade?
He had no love for the Republicans, neo-conservatives, Bush or Blair but he was mature enough to recognise that the Iraq War was right and he praised the moral courage of Bush and Blair for being prepared to exhaust political capital to overthrow a fascist regime.
The current Arab Spring and the over throw of Gaddaffi, Mubarack and imminent overthrow of Assad and other dictators surely vindicates his view.
Hitchens was disgusted by millions of supposed leftists who marched in the streets in opposition to the overthrow of a fascist dictatorship.
He was disgusted by the suicidal excuses making of the same people who opposed military action against violent Islamic extremist terrorist groups.
As an atheist, a leftist, a defender of free speech, women's rights and other advanced civilised values, he knew that Islamic extremism cannot be appeased and must be defeated by military force.
The very people whom these terrorist fanatics will kill first is the very leftists who marched and protest about the rights of the very same terrorist fanatics.

Hitchens was most disgusted by those who claimed terrorism was made worse by fighting against it or when in complete denial about the extent of the problem.

He pointed out Iraq was a haven for terrorists - Abu Nidal one of the most wanted terrorists in the world and later a man who was a culprit for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Centre was also given sanctuary there too.







The left has been consistently playing this pathetic game of appeasing terrorists and dictators - the most infamous example was funneling money into the West Bank and Gaza during the failed peace process and giving Yasser Arafat the Nobel Peace Prize.

Nowadays we witness the ghastly spectacle of leftists in solidarity with members of Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood aboard flotillas trying to break blockades set up to stop arms flowing into the hands of Hamas terrorists bent on massacring the Jewish people.

Strangely no leftist flotilla dares to brave the ports of Syria or Yemen or Iran to give aid to their oppressed peoples?

Hitchens called out the fools, the appeasers and the hyprocrites on all these issues.

robindch wrote: »

If you read my post again, you'll find that I, and every other "anti-war leftists" whom I know, objected to the war, not because we didn't want to see the end of a malevolent, murderous dictator (which we certainly did) but because we objected to the general contempt with which international treaties and obligations were treated by the Bush and Blair. Contempt which contributed directly to the dangerous political instability we now see in the region.

But by all means, do feel free to continue to say that the "left" objected because we like dictators or something daft like that! :rolleyes:

So you would rather leave Saddam in power unmolested because of international treaties and obligations??????
You are joking now right?
Why wouldn't Bush and Blair have contempt for international law if these laws prohibit the overthrow of a dictator?
Presumably if they had obeyed the laws, Saddam would still be in power unmolested?
This is utterly ridiculous!