Hitchens's substantive claims about international law, beginning at 18:58, are utterly, transparently false. Not only is it not "generally thought" that states "lose their sovereignty" under any of the circumstances he enumerates, but virtually no one even claims that states lose sovereignty under these circumstances. It is in fact generally accepted in the post-WW2 system that sovereign states never lose their sovereignty except by voluntary treaty (e.g. the GDR.) It is in fact generally thought - and I mean "generally thought" in the plain English sense, not whatever bizarro-"generally thought" Hitchens is talking about - that making war is legal under two and only two circumstances: 1. Self-defense against armed attack. This includes collective self-defense (if Russia attacks Poland, NATO countries may legally make war on Russia) and controversially may include anticipatory self defense under narrowly defined circumstances. "Armed attack" is generally interpreted to mean attack by regular forces and not include attacks by terrorist infiltrators. 2. Explicit authorization from the UN Security Council under Chapter VII. The Security Council, not individual States, determines what actions shall be taken. Hitchens is correct to allude to vagueness and gray areas of international law, but this is simply not one of them. The American attack in

Hopefully so. Everyone... come get you a piece of Christopher Hitchens. Woot!

Quoting propagandhi: I think news of this diavlog might take the focus off Avatar....

Awesome! This diavlog should be better than listening to Obama justify war to the Peace Prize committee. Now to watch...

OMG OMG <3 <3 Hitchens Christopher Hitchens don't be a stranger to bloggingheads.tv !

Just jump in, anywhere, Christopher. Good laying out of the case against George Bush by Bob. He stopped short of calling him a moron, which is typically the finale of such an exercise. Christopher did a wonderful job of defending Bush and the US. The case for the US causing acts of militant Islam’s actions was brilliantly layed out by Bob and brilliantly refuted by Christopher, most notably by his example of our support for Muslims in Bosnia. Just a note for Bob. Cost/benefit analyses are hallmarks of conservatism. However after all of that examination I think it is fair to say that Islamic extremism is not caused by the reaction against it. It’s always good to examine our conscience. But why can’t we just see this as a titanic clash of cultures?….something which must needs happens from time to time. Is it possible to believe that we are on right side of conflict? Hitchens says we need to be thinking in terms of decades and centuries, not electoral cycles. However, Hitchens expects a lot from the US, while Wright expects a lot from the UN. Hithchens seems to think that the

That's true, but nobody stopped the United States from invading Iraq or was prepared to. And then after the fact, the UN accepted the invasion by opening up relations with the new Iraqi government. So the War is legal by the lack of doing nothing on the part of the international community who didn't participate in the invasion, and then by accepting the results of the invasion after the fact. The same exact thing happened with regards to the occupation of Kosovo. Kosovo was (perhaps still is) a sovereign part of Serbia, but yet NATO forces occupied it without the force of international law (no Security Council authority). Yet such actions were accepted by most of the international community and, like in Iraq, the United Nations itself accepted the results of the occupation after the fact (they setup a mission or some such in Kosovo). There is also just war theory that can apply to the invasion Iraq, which is less excepted by the international community, but still exists as a legal argument.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/244...2:58&out=13:04

Hitchens really isn't a conservative. He's a man of the Left still, I think. He might even still refer to himself as a socialist. He's simply against backwardness, which puts him at odds with a lot of Republican politicians, I think. So he only comes across "conservative" when he's going after the Left when they're defending backwardness (usually in the form of defending developing world despots and/or the inferior aspects of developing world civilization).

It's amusing how Hitchens reuses the very same (word-for-word, in some cases) four-point rationalization for the Iraq War with Bob as he did in conversation with Eric Alterman. He seems to find these persuasive. I don't think anyone else does. Them talking points is weak, son.

I do.

Anticipatory self-defense has been recognized in international law as far back as the 1830s see the Caroline affair/case/indecent. The inherent right of self-defense is handled in Article 51 of the UN charter permitting defensive actions until such time as the UN gets around to dealing with the situation.

Quoting Lyle: Hitchens really isn't a conservative. He's a man of the Left still, I think. He might even still refer to himself as a socialist. He's simply against backwardness, which puts him at odds with a lot of Republican politicians, I think.

So he only comes across "conservative" when he's going after the Left when they're defending backwardness (usually in the form of defending developing world despots and/or the inferior aspects of developing world civilization).

Hmmmm, always thought he was, but now that I read this quote from him, in Wikipedia, "I'm not any kind of conservative" I see that you're right. It must have been his defense of GW which made me think he was.

First of all Hitchens didn't base his argument on any of this; he claimed that the invasion was legal a priori and not that it was tacitly legitimated after the fact. Secondly the argument that military aggression is legal if nobody can stop it is ridiculous. That's a direct appeal to the "law of the jungle" as an actual legal principle. Thirdly the argument that military aggression is legal if, after it occurs, the UN kinda-sorta endorses the resultant post-war occupation, has no basis in any conventional interpretation of the UN Charter or of any other relevant document in international law. And yes, the Kosovo war was also illegal, and I've seen no evidence that it was "accepted by most of the international community," unless we define "international community" as "the US and Western Europe." Just war theory has essentially no bearing on the legality of military action, and anyway the Iraq invasion failed every just war theory test you can think of.

Hitchens uses the wrong terminology here ( or is guilty of exaggeration ). "Thermonuclear" refers to hydrogen fusion.

Quoting Stapler Malone: It's amusing how Hitchens reuses the very same (word-for-word, in some cases) four-point rationalization for the Iraq War with Bob as he did in conversation with Eric Alterman. He seems to find these persuasive. I don't think anyone else does. Them talking points is weak, son.

What do you find persuasive about Wright's view? Some are willing to dither while Rome burns. Some see clear alternatives to dithering. Each view has consequences.

He does fall in with neoconservative views on Iraq, however loosely. So although he may not be a conservative, he does strongly agree with them on some issues.

Quoting Lyle: Hitchens really isn't a conservative. He's a man of the Left still, I think. He might even still refer to himself as a socialist. He's simply against backwardness, which puts him at odds with a lot of Republican politicians, I think.

So he only comes across "conservative" when he's going after the Left when they're defending backwardness (usually in the form of defending developing world despots and/or the inferior aspects of developing world civilization).

The proper categorization for him is "neoconservative". Neoconservatives are former liberal internationalists who want to spread individualism, liberal democracy, gay marriage and women's rights, or whatever is a popular cause at the time, to the entire world. Liberal internationalists who become disappointed or skeptical of the effectiveness of the byzantine UN, Obama- or Carter-like "let's all be friends" speeches and pacifism get subsequently turned on by iron fist military interventionist approaches. Neocons don't really care about social conservatism. Christopher Hitchens honestly says so, others don't for obvious political reasons. Christopher Hitchens isn't the only one who fits into this category. Francis Fukuyama turned neocon after he realised that history wasn't ending as quickly as he had hoped. I predict that Robert Wright will

Quoting Bob: . . . epic extrapolation . . . Bob and Chris have demonstrated that if you can't prove cause and effect when it comes to radical Islam and violence, you can't prove it anywhere. In this case, the only practical thing that matters is at what point does the American public's outrage equal the jihadists outrage, and, following that, who wins. The related question is whether American outrage will rise or will jihadist outrage diminish, but they will reach equilibrium somewhere, unless one side annihilates the other first.

Quoting badhatharry: Some are willing to dither while Rome burns.

Some are able to see that Rome is not burning, because there is neither fire, nor a Rome. Rome! What a joker!

Maybe... but that only applies to Iraq and possibly other foreign policy issues. Otherwise he's left-of-center politically, I'd argued... maybe even a centrist on some issues. He's hard to peg. Better to take him issue by issue. But yes he's spoken in favor of neoconservatives before and has included himself as part of the group in some ways (I know what they are, I'm one of them too).

I love Hitchens but he has a tendency toward windbaggery at times. Thus "thermonuclear" instead of "nuclear" just because of the way it sounds. A bit like Bush and "nuke-u-lar" but in the opposite direction.

Noticed that when Mr. Wright started arguing with Mr. Hitchens at the 9:25 point He used the same tone as when he scolded Mr. Kaus about ACORN using a talking point that turned out to be completely false.
"They tried it in Philadelphia and this woman turned out to be the picture of integrity and called the cops on them"
Turns out ACORN lied.
Caught on Tape! Media Matters Totally PWNED - Truth Deficit for ACORN's Katherine Conway Russell!

Quoting themightypuck: I love Hitchens but he has a tendency toward windbaggery at times. Thus "thermonuclear" instead of "nuclear" just because of the way it sounds. A bit like Bush and "nuke-u-lar" but in the opposite direction.

That jumped out for me, too, but I viewed it quite positvely...'thermonuclear capability,' instead of 'the bomb'...tres yum-yum.

As glad as I am to see Hitch, especially paired with Bob, I was very sorry to see them burn through an hour rehashing their views on the invasion of Iraq and related topics. I doubt these are even remotely unfamiliar to any regular visitor to this site. I look forward to part two, and hope it will be about Bob's recent militant anti-militant-atheist pronouncements. As, I think do most people, apart from those few wingnuts bent on burnishing W's legacy.

Quoting dieter: The proper categorization for him is "neoconservative".

Neoconservatives are former liberal internationalists who want to spread individualism, liberal democracy, gay marriage and women's rights, or whatever is a popular cause at the time, to the entire world. Liberal internationalists who become disappointed or skeptical of the effectiveness of the byzantine UN, Obama- or Carter-like "let's all be friends" speeches and pacifism get subsequently turned on by iron fist military interventionist approaches.

It's an interesting puzzle to ponder: Are the Zionists using our military in Afghanistan as a further buffer against potential fall-out if they bomb Iran? If so, is that a bad thing, vis-a-vis the pursuit of the eradication of the bad coding in the current religious programming of Jihadists and extreme Islamists. Here is an article that posits the former:

The neoconservative goal is to exploit the traditional language of COIN to justify deploying as many US soldiers as possible to Muslim land. Moreover, neoconservatives believe that it is extremely important that the Muslim world view neo-COIN as an occupation, much in the same vein as the IDF. Western occupation of Muslim land writ large. As Bibi said after 9-11, “We are all Israelis

"The law of the jungle" is in effect in our world. We live in an anarchic state as far as international states go. Which, like Hitchens said, makes international law dubious in many matters; including the United States' invasion of Iraq. International legal scholarship says it was illegal (the U.N. charter isn't the beginning and end of international law), but that doesn't carry the force of international law. Which is why the United States will never be adjudicated to have illegally invaded Iraq. And actually, if you can't enforce the "law" it isn't in fact "law". You can't particularly accept the consequences of the invasion, which the U.N. and the international community have now, and then say, well we're glad Saddam is gone, but you we're wrong. And certainly just war theory can and does apply to Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a despot. He wanted weapons of mass destruction. He had committed genocide. He had invaded neighboring countries and shot missiles at them. And the U.S. under the authority of U.N. was enforcing the no fly zones which left us in conflict with Saddam up until the invasion. He was an abomination that could justly be gotten rid of

Hayes v. Welch, Cohen v. Lindsey, Yglesias v. Douthat, and now Hitchens v. Wright. Is it sweeps week? I'm in bheads heaven!

These two wars seems to have wonderfully contorted both liberals and conservatives ideology. Liberals quasi-defending radical social conservatism, conservatives defending social engineering on steroids, if this keeps, the parties may depolarize...the horror!

Is there anything in being a materialist that would contraindicate that you can change people's perceived material situation and encourage them to attack you? Even though that doesn't absolve them of the sin, so to speak. I mean, I can say all kind of legal things to someone on the train that will result in them illegally kicking my ass. Aside: Man, everyone's grandmother trips over herself to proclaim what a materialist she is. I'm a materialist, I'm a materialist, no I am, no me. Hell with it, I'm an energyist.

Bob...the materialist? Wow, didn't see that one coming.

You seem to believe in this Kevin Macdonald thesis that Razib mentioned on bloggingheads the other day. I don't see Neoconservatives as primarily zionist or some kind of wing of Israeli rightists. They are zionist in the sense that they support and defend the existence of the State of Israel of course. The same is true for liberal democrats and most European Governements and intellectuals for that matter.
But this is no different from the support western Governements would give any country that is considered to be part of the West. No, the neoconservatives want to spread western democracy and values to all parts of the world, not just the middle east, just like the liberal internationalists. The main distinction between the american mainstream right and the left is a question of means not a question of ends, goals or vision.

It's an interesting puzzle to ponder: Are the Zionists using our military in Afghanistan as a further buffer against potential fall-out if they bomb Iran? If so, is that a bad thing, vis-a-vis the pursuit of the eradication of the bad coding in the current

Quoting dieter: You seem to believe in this Kevin Macdonald thesis that Razib mentioned on bloggingheads the other day.

I don't see Neoconservatives as primarily zionist or some kind of wing of Israeli rightists. They are zionist in the sense that they support and defend the existence of the State of Israel of course. The same is true for liberal democrats and most European Governements and intellectuals for that matter.
But this is no different from the support western Governements would give any country that is considered to be part of the West.

No, the neoconservatives want to spread western democracy and values to all parts of the world, not just the middle east, just like the liberal internationalists. The main distinction between the american mainstream right and the left is a question of means not a question of ends, goals or vision.

This buffer theory seems to be completely absurd. I doubt that the Iranian regime is going to strike at either Israel or the US forces in Iraq or Afghanistan, unless the Iranian regime would be completely delusional and suicidal.

If the Iranians were to strike Israel, NATO would

Quoting dieter: You seem to believe in this Kevin Macdonald thesis that Razib mentioned on bloggingheads the other day.

I didn't pay close attention to that part of the Razib/Wilson vlog, so you'll have to tell me what you mean. I was referring to group selection itself, that is, groups trying to gain ascendency over one another.

I don't see Neoconservatives as primarily zionist or some kind of wing of Israeli rightists. They are zionist in the sense that they support and defend the existence of the State of Israel of course. The same is true for liberal democrats and most European Governements and intellectuals for that matter.
But this is no different from the support western Governements would give any country that is considered to be part of the West.

Any more, I think the term neoconservative has come to indicate the strain of strongly Zionist conservative thought that followed the (corrupted?) writings of philosopher Leo Strauss. Militarism and war thought of as beneficial to a strong society, religion cynically promoted for its civilizing virtues, etc.

No, the neoconservatives want to spread western democracy and values to all parts of the world, not

Quoting bjkeefe: As glad as I am to see Hitch, especially paired with Bob, I was very sorry to see them burn through an hour rehashing their views on the invasion of Iraq and related topics. I doubt these are even remotely unfamiliar to any regular visitor to this site.

I look forward to part two, and hope it will be about Bob's recent militant anti-militant-atheist pronouncements. As, I think do most people, apart from those few wingnuts bent on burnishing W's legacy.

I agree about Iraq. But the conversation about their in-print debate regarding the Ft. Hood ordeal and militant Islam is still timely and interesting.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: Bob...the materialist?

Wow, didn't see that one coming.

He emphasizes this in the wake of his EOG book to combat the notion that he believes in some kind of (conventional) spiritual world.

Quoting Simon Willard: I agree about Iraq. But the conversation about their in-print debate regarding the Ft. Hood ordeal and militant Islam is still timely and interesting.

A fair point. Personally, I already know all about that part, too, but perhaps it is fresh to others.

Hey, I have seen this yet and am going to. I am excited to see it. I love Hitch. Next time he comes to my town or a town I'm in, I'm going to take up his offer to drink and talk until all hours of the morning, if it's still extended. Itzik Basman (not to be confused with Itzik Basman)

I'm only about a quarter of the way in, and Hitchens has already implied that Bob wants to avoid stopping genocide on account of his aversion to offending people, and that Bob justifies terrorist action on account of his belief that many instances of the terrorism would not have happened had the U.S. not engaged in two wars in Muslim countries (well, Hitchens didn't have to imply that second point, he came right out and said it!!!). Bob's view may be right, or it may be wrong, but Hitchens behavior in the first 20 minutes or so isn't acceptable. I give Bob major points for not punching a hole in his wall in the middle of the diavlog.

Oh and about half way in, Hitchens has to stress that he's not sorry that Saddam Hussein and his sons no longer have free reign of the country, as if that's something Bob's side mourns.

Agreed, but I think they have much more in common than not, regarding the willingness to use force.

Democrats use carrots and sticks. With the GOP it's all sticks.

I, as well as the first article, was talking about the Israelis striking preemptively against Iran, resulting in the troops in Afg and Iraq acting as buffers to counter-attacks on Israel.

I know. I've read the article.
Iran wouldn't strike back, if the Israelis were to take out their nuclear enrichment plants. The Iranian governement would probably cover this up in front of their own people in order not to lose face. Irak and Syria did the exact same thing. A land invasion from Iran through Irak and Syria seems absurd. The Israeli air force would take out all of their troops and rusty old tanks days before they could reach Israel. They did it with neighboring Egypt's advancing forces in the Six Day War.
Besides, Syria and Irak wouldn't let the Iranians through. Saddam Hussein certainly wouldn't have. If the Neocons were primarily motivated by a wish to protect Israel from Iran, they should have left Saddam Hussein in power. How could Afghanistan serve as a buffer

Quoting conncarroll: Hayes v. Welch, Cohen v. Lindsey, Yglesias v. Douthat, and now Hitchens v. Wright. Is it sweeps week? I'm in bheads heaven!

Carroll v. Farley (or Alterman) might be a nice addition. Then if they really wanted to bring them in... a UFC Cage match amongst all the commenters. Of course the same 4 to 1 ratio there as it is here would probably still be fair.

Interesting diavlog. I would NEVER want to debate Hitchens on any topic!

Quoting Simon Willard: This diavlog should be better than listening to Obama justify war to the Peace Prize committee.

I think listening to a baby cry would be more entertaining than either an Obama speech or this diavlog. At least the baby has a real reason to cry. Listening to two pundits justify their respective paper trails is just one of those intellectual burdens we have to assume to get to the good diavlogs.

I wouldn't either, even if the topic was whether or not the sky is blue, and my side was arguing the affirmative. It was still be a maddening experience.

... but they do, buy arguing the War and occupation were wrong to have happened in the first place. Haha.

Sorry Lyle, it's hard in typed words to detect sarcasm. The haha was supposed to tip me off, right?

No, no sarcasm... just humor. It's funny how people can be happy and content with the fact that Saddam Hussein is gone, and yet abhor the act that made him gone.

Quoting Jay J: Sorry Lyle, it's hard in typed words to detect sarcasm. The haha was supposed to tip me off, right?

i hear nelson (from the simpsons) every time he does that. it seems appropriate.

Lyle, It's not funny at all. The question is not whether it would be singularly good if bad guys were removed from their posts. The question is whether it would be good, all things considered. If you don't agree, then maybe you plan on saddling up and going out, throwing caution to the wind, and removing evil people from their powerful positions, all around the world? And without worrying that this cure will be worse than the disease? If not, why not? After all, you've just endorsed reasoning that says that if it's singularly good to remove these a-holes, then anyone who objects to your action on account of it's on-balance bad, has no right to call it bad AND call the fact that said evil person is gone, good. When I show you your reasoning this clearly, does it still look as good to you?

Near the end, Hitchens says the last people Bob will blame for the recent spat of terrorist bombings in Iraq are the people who set the bombs themselves. Blame and shared causal responsibility are NOT always the exact same thing... Is this like, a huge revelation or something?

Quoting EvanHarper: Hitchens's substantive claims about international law, beginning at 18:58, are utterly, transparently false. Not only is it not "generally thought" that states "lose their sovereignty" under any of the circumstances he enumerates, but virtually no one even claims that states lose sovereignty under these circumstances. It is in fact generally accepted in the post-WW2 system that sovereign states never lose their sovereignty except by voluntary treaty (e.g. the GDR.)

Hitchens sets up a straw man to knock down for his own purposes. The notion, that Westphalian sovereignty is ironclad, is itself a legal, political, and moral claim that is not supported by facts. As Stephen Krasner has argued, "In the international system norms, including those associated with Westphalian sovereignty and international legal sovereignty, have always been characterized by organized hypocrisy. Norms and actions have been decoupled. Logics of consequences have trumped logics of appropriateness." (Stephen D. Krasner, Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy, p. 220) One prime example is what happened to the Ottoman Empire. Hitchens also doesn't allude to P2P, which at least has some legal and moral authority as a doctrine. I also LAUGH at Hitchen's assertion, that the DPRK wants war with the US. He needs to stay drunk if he is so sold on - bamboozled by

Yes, the reasoning is still good to me. It's not that straight forward of course, but in Saddam Hussein's case it works for me since he wanted to have wmd, had used them before, had invaded two neighboring countries before, had shot Scud missiles at Israel, and we, the United States, were already having to enforce an embargo and no fly zone on Iraq due to him. It's not like he was just some random despot; we had business with him. Again, it's odd for people to be so sanguine about Saddam being gone, and yet abhor (be obscenely mad at) the action that has made him gone.

Quoting badhatharry: Just jump in, anywhere, Christopher.

Yes, it was a very entertaining fight.

I love listening to Christopher Hitchens. I don't always agree with him, but he always makes a persuasive argument. So when I saw him on blogging heads I was very excited, and downloaded the podcast right away. I must say I was a bit disappointed with the topic selection. Iraq? Really? Again? And not even the current situation in Iraq, but the 2003 invasion? What year is this? Did I fall through a hole in space-time? How about something a little more current?

Quoting Lyle: Hitchens really isn't a conservative. He's a man of the Left still, I think.

Labels...where can I buy one?

Man, just give your wife a marker and have her write Baltimoron on your forehead.

Quoting dieter:

Democrats use carrots and sticks. With the GOP it's all sticks.

That's awfully simplistic. Carrots were tried with Iran during the second Bush II administration. (They had turned down an offer by Iran to completely open themselves up to inspection right after the invasion of Iraq, according to Colin Powell's chief-of-staff, Larry Wilkerson...not that it would have held in the ensuing quagmire.)

I know. I've read the article.
Iran wouldn't strike back, if the Israelis were to take out their nuclear enrichment plants. The Iranian governement would probably cover this up in front of their own people in order not to lose face. Irak and Syria did the exact same thing.

Sorry, I see what you meant.

A land invasion from Iran through Irak and Syria seems absurd. The Israeli air force would take out all of their troops and rusty old tanks days before they could reach Israel. They did it with neighboring Egypt's advancing forces in the Six Day War.
Besides, Syria and Irak wouldn't let the Iranians through. Saddam Hussein certainly wouldn't have. If the Neocons were primarily motivated by a wish to protect Israel from Iran, they should have left Saddam Hussein in

No Lyle, You too are conflating. See you may be completely right; your side may be completely justified on Iraq. So the reasons you give about Saddam needing to be removed, or being properly considered an evil dictator, may be 100% right on. BUT, that's just not the issue. The issue is, some people claim that the cure of removing Saddam is worse than the disease of Saddam being in power. NOW, that may be completely wrong, OK? Are we clear on that? Hopefully. OK, so, the fact that Bob's side may be wrong does not in any way oblige him to have anything other than the same reaction you and Hitchens do to the fact that Saddam is gone, because, after all, the issue is not whether Saddam's absence from power, and now, planter earth, is worth celebrating, OK? The issue is whether the cure we've offered is worse than the disease. EVEN IF your side is right about this, you are still hopelessly wrong that those who disagree with you are obliged to want Saddam back in power. Trust me, they think it's *singularly* good that that a-hole is gone, what they disagree about is whether it's good *on the whole*, considering the action

Quoting Alex2000: I love listening to Christopher Hitchens. I don't always agree with him, but he always makes a persuasive argument.

So when I saw him on blogging heads I was very excited, and downloaded the podcast right away.

I must say I was a bit disappointed with the topic selection. Iraq? Really? Again? And not even the current situation in Iraq, but the 2003 invasion? What year is this? Did I fall through a whole in space-time? How about something a little more current?

Yes, what a drag. It's the same thing Hitch discussed with Alterman the last time he was on.

Quoting basman: Hey, I have seen this yet and am going to.

I am excited to see it.

I love Hitch.

Next time he comes to my town or a town I'm in, I'm going to take up his offer to drink and talk until all hours of the morning, if it's still extended.

Itzik Basman (not to be confused with Itzik Basman)

And why wouldn't it be? I'd love to be a fly on the wall for that one.

Aw, Christopher at his weakest.

Gee, what an astute rejoinder! I knew when I assumed that moniker, it was like lobbing a slow pitch. But, now it's more like T-ball with a fat bat and a red ball. You're about as witty when sober as Hitchens is compelling while drunk!

I didn't think it was am either-or thing. Why can't both be wrong? But, it was entertaining! Right, Bob? Nothing sells like strife, eh, Bob?

I've understood you the entire time Jay J... and I'm still smirking. And let me say that as someone who supported getting rid of Saddam Hussein, I'm glad you're happy he's gone too... even if you never wanted it to happen because you thought the cost of removing him was too high a cost.

Quoting Salt: Bob and Chris have demonstrated that if you can't prove cause and effect when it comes to radical Islam and violence, you can't prove it anywhere. In this case, the only practical thing that matters is at what point does the American public's outrage equal the jihadists outrage, and, following that, who wins. The related question is whether American outrage will rise or will jihadist outrage diminish, but they will reach equilibrium somewhere, unless one side annihilates the other first.

Example #1 of why I oppose the Carter Doctrine. This fight to the death for honor in Eurasia is not America's.

I was trying to be witty? What did your original comment even mean? You had a point to make or something?

Quoting bjkeefe: As glad as I am to see Hitch, especially paired with Bob, I was very sorry to see them burn through an hour rehashing their views on the invasion of Iraq and related topics. I doubt these are even remotely unfamiliar to any regular visitor to this site.

I look forward to part two, and hope it will be about Bob's recent militant anti-militant-atheist pronouncements. As, I think do most people, apart from those few wingnuts bent on burnishing W's legacy.

It was entertaining. Perhaps both can talk about the burdens of being smart guys who are often wrong in a world that values entertainment and violence.

So then you agree with me that it's a dirty trick to imply that people who opposed the war are under some epistemic duty to forego their happiness that Saddam is gone? Or that the question of Saddam's badness is the most relevant question?

Quoting Simon Willard: I agree about Iraq. But the conversation about their in-print debate regarding the Ft. Hood ordeal and militant Islam is still timely and interesting.

The pundits have little to add until the court transcripts are published.

Quoting osmium: Is there anything in being a materialist that would contraindicate that you can change people's perceived material situation and encourage them to attack you? Even though that doesn't absolve them of the sin, so to speak.

I mean, I can say all kind of legal things to someone on the train that will result in them illegally kicking my ass.

Aside: Man, everyone's grandmother trips over herself to proclaim what a materialist she is. I'm a materialist, I'm a materialist, no I am, no me. Hell with it, I'm an energyist.

"Realism" is the word that's abused even more, and I think Bob is more of that than a materialist.

Quoting Jay J: Oh and about half way in, Hitchens has to stress that he's not sorry that Saddam Hussein and his sons no longer have free reign of the country, as if that's something Bob's side mourns.

It is something Bobs side never brings up in the positive camp in anything other than a throw away line done out of a sense of duty (and an irritated one at that), it is almost universally negative. And frankly, Bobs side does not care Saddam is gone or not, that is why it is not mentioned. The fate of Iraq, for good or ill, is beneath the concern of that type. Doubt me? Just ask any of them what developments going forward both in Iraq and around it as a result of the invasion would sway their opinion that it was on balance a good decision. What you will find in response, is static. There is no outcome that would sate them. Not UN approval (even if that was there, Bob and his type would have been on the opposing side of invasion even then), not legality (this sways no one - it is

Quoting Alex2000: I love listening to Christopher Hitchens. I don't always agree with him, but he always makes a persuasive argument.

You're joking, right? Hitchens doesn't do arguments: he does assertions, strawmen burning, and slander. Try imaging him saying the same things he says, but *without* the plummy accent. Not so smart anymore, eh? It's a con job. I'm disappointed that BHTV would (again) give this unthinking, attention loving blowhard a platform.

Quoting Jay J: I'm only about a quarter of the way in, and Hitchens has already implied that Bob wants to avoid stopping genocide on account of his aversion to offending people, and that Bob justifies terrorist action on account of his belief that many instances of the terrorism would not have happened had the U.S. not engaged in two wars in Muslim countries (well, Hitchens didn't have to imply that second point, he came right out and said it!!!).

It's all for the cause of free speech!

Quoting Lyle: ... but they do, buy arguing the War and occupation were wrong to have happened in the first place. Haha.

Now, there's a slur worthy of Hitchens!

Quoting Lyle: Yes, the reasoning is still good to me. It's not that straight forward of course, but in Saddam Hussein's case it works for me ...

It works for you because it worked. Period!

Quoting freedomforall: Interesting diavlog. I would NEVER want to debate Hitchens on any topic!

Neither would I - I hate lectures!

Quoting nikkibong: You're joking, right?

Hitchens doesn't do arguments: he does assertions, strawmen burning, and slander.

Try imaging him saying the same things he says, but *without* the plummy accent. Not so smart anymore, eh?

It's a con job.

I'm disappointed that BHTV would (again) give this unthinking, attention loving blowhard a platform.

You left out, "thinking on fumes" and "living on past perceptions of unfulfilled promise"

There is no dirty trick about it. Its just humorous that people who didn't want to see an invasion of Iraq happen are glad that it did happen in light of Saddam Hussein now being gone. It weakens, to a degree, one's rational for not having supported an invasion in the first place... cause without the invasion Saddam Hussein would still be running Iraq. No one gets points for recognizing evil, or appreciating its dissappearance, what matters is what you did about it or what you advocated to be done about it.

Hitchens argues that the USA, realizing it was complicit in Saddam's genocide, accepted its responsibility to rectify the conduct. But the fact is that the USA NEVER accepted responsibility for being Saddam's accomplice, never acknowledged it and never apologized to the Kurdish people. The argument also has a half dozen other flaws, some of which Bob pointed out, but the "righting the wrong" one is especially offensive. Even today, we find Obama referring to "past mistakes" the USA has made that perhaps need to be rectified (by even more warfare?), but Obama never has the moral courage to say, for example, "Secretly bombing Cambodia was a war crime and an act of mass murder" or (to be bi-partisan) "The Gulf of Tonkin fraud perpetrated on Congress and the American people was criminal." Even on the CIA-overthrow of the democratically elected Iranian gov. in the 50s Obama was cagey in the infamous "mistakes were made" mode. Who made them? What presidential predecessor was complicit in enabling the tyrannical Shah to come to power? Who supported him throughout his regime? What historical assessment are we to make of the "complicity" of Henry Kissinger in crimes against humanity? Didn't Hitchens himself

OK... Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. You can't say you understand, and then say there's not dirty trick to it. I can easily grant you that there are many people who the earth would be better off without, but that doesn't mean that I think any possible means of removing them is good; I may even have to come to the conclusion that thre are certain evils we have to live with. If I assert that the removal of these people is a good thing, (while I object to the methods on account of considering the whole outcome, rather than just the removal of said evil person) that does not at all indicate tension in my position. To say otherwise is either short-sighted or cynical, or both. So sadly, I don't think you do understand..

Quoting Wonderment: Hitchens argues that the USA, realizing it was complicit in Saddam's genocide, accepted its responsibility to rectify the conduct.

I have to give Hitchens props for that one. It's a very imaginative argument that I've not read before. It would probably be very compelling to a certain American audience that finds such moralizing justifications compelling. It's about as good as any realist policymakers can do when they use logic to create policy and then turn over the PR to those who learned their trade in the MIME-net, to convince voters the government just isn't selling out to vested interests.

That's exactly right, we pick and choose what evil to stand up to. This won't ever be different. Some people would go to Dafur, and not go to Iraq. Obama supports being in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but didn't support being in Iraq. I supported going in to Iraq. I would have supported going into Dafur too. If Obama wanted to invade North Korea tomorrow, I'd support him with that. The only other alternative to our pick and choose interventionist policy (we're incapable of tackling every problem in the world), is to do absolutely nothing and just let whatever badness that is going down, go down, and just act like its none of our business... the George Washington doctrine. As long as America is the world hegemon, this alternative option won't ever be an actual option because the United States will be moved to act when other countries (e.g. Europe with the Balkans) or the American people (e.g. post 9/11) move the United States to act.

Quoting Jay J: ... Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. ...better off ...good...evils...good...evil...cynical...

Are we talking about foreign policy, or religion?

I understand you Jay J, we just disagree with one another. What you see as a "dirty trick", I see as reason.

I have to give Hitchens props for that one. It's a very imaginative argument that I've not read before. It would probably be very compelling to a certain American audience that finds such moralizing justifications compelling.

And the best part is that it's completely circular, so you can keep spinning it forever: We support Iraq in killing Kurds; then we repent by starting a new war on Sadam; then we repent for that war ("Wrong war, wrong time") by escalating another one in Afghanistan; then we can repent for that one by supporting India in the next one against Pakistan (Hitchens' vision of the future), etc., ad infinitum.

Quoting Baltimoron: Are we talking about foreign policy, or religion?

It's hard not to fall into this kind of discourse when Hitchens is around. Despite his professed "atheism," (and, yes, he did "write" that book of warmed over Sam Harris/Richard Dawkins nostrums), Hitchens is one of the most religious thinkers out there. It's all a manichean struggle of good versus evil with him Worthy of the Left Behind series.

Wanna know why they (and me) seem irritated? Because those on the other side have accused us, implicitly and explicitly, of wishing the best to Saddam Hussein, rather than recognizing objections to the Iraq War were made on strategic, geo-political, or otherwise pragmatic grounds. And in the kinds of debates Bob and Hitchens just had, even milder forms of spreading one's anti-Saddam peacock feathers is a bit maddening, because it can do nothing but gain someone like Hitchens rhetorical support and demerit (but purely rhetorically, of course) the other participant (in this case, Bob). Based on the history of the dispute, and the fact that it's not about whether Saddam was good for Iraq or not, the move is out of bounds. And a war supporter declaring something like "well I for one am happy Saddam's gone" gets an annoyed reaction *because it is annoying*! Whoopty freakin doo! Somebody's happy Saddam's gone, what a courageous stand. The issue was never about whether Saddam Hussein deserved the worst of all fates, or whether it would be a singular good if Saddam were gone, and it's a dirty trick to argue the issue on those grounds.

Operating the no-fly zone over Kurdistan or even getting rid of Saddam Hussein wasn't an apology? That's Hitchens' point. Saddam Hussein was America's responsibility to end, and we ended him. I'm pretty sure the Kurdish peoples of Iraq are appreciating our apology this very hour.

Quoting Lyle: What you see as a "dirty trick", I see as reason.

because you don't understand the difference.

Quoting EvanHarper: Hitchens's substantive claims about international law, beginning at 18:58, are utterly, transparently false. Not only is it not "generally thought" that states "lose their sovereignty" under any of the circumstances he enumerates, but virtually no one even claims that states lose sovereignty under these circumstances. It is in fact generally accepted in the post-WW2 system that sovereign states never lose their sovereignty except by voluntary treaty (e.g. the GDR.)

I know! I laugh every time he says that. And I've heard him say it many, many, many times. (including on his diavlog with Alterman.) He made up the "rule" out of whole cloth! By fiat! But he knows it on faith.

Quoting Lyle: That's exactly right, we pick and choose what evil to stand up to.

Again, are we talking about religion, or foreign policy?

Quoting Lyle: This won't ever be different. Some people would go to Dafur, and not go to Iraq. Obama supports being in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but didn't support being in Iraq. I supported going in to Iraq. I would have supported going into Dafur too. If Obama wanted to invade North Korea tomorrow, I'd support him with that.

Why, you're just an equal opportunity chicken hawk, aren't you? No one wants to do these things but whores and chicken hawks. The experienced and principled statesman knows that every decision has ten bad consequences, and those are the "easy" decisions. States act based on interests, not religion or morality. Only children act on their beliefs.

Quoting Lyle: The only other alternative to our pick and choose interventionist policy (we're incapable of tackling every problem in the world), is to do absolutely nothing and just let whatever badness that is going down, go down, and just act like its none of our business... the George Washington doctrine. As long as America is the world hegemon, this alternative option won't ever be an actual option because the

Quoting nikkibong: Worthy of the Left Behind series.

Let's not pile on - Manichean is as insulting as I care to go. Hitchens certainly brings out the worst - and best - in us all!

You actually seem impervious to reason, on this topic. So let me give it one more try: Jim is a very bad man. He's so evil in fact, that my friend Dave thinks it would be a singular good if he were killed (and I agree with Dave). Now in order to kill him, I say that Dave must embark on a course of action that will cause suffering and conflict beyond what Jim causes, and it will cost Dave a ton of money, money that could have been used on other very important causes, not to mention the very risky nature of the venture. I say it could come back to haunt Dave and his progeny for years and years to come. But Dave thinks those concerns are misguided, and Jim's presence on the scene is a worse threat that the ones I laid out, so he goes in and kills Jim. Now, every time I agree with Dave that it's good that Jim is gone, he says that I must then endorse the act that required Jim to be removed, the very act that I proposed would cause all the problems I warned him

It was around at the time of the invasion, but the theme then was mostly from the anti-invasion side that Saddam would have not been there except for the grandiosity of our support during the Iran-Iraq war. It was then and remains nothing more than a political talking point, our aid was very limited, mostly along the lines of finical aid, intelligence and training; the armories of Iraq were primarily filled with Russian and French weapons. Edited for clarity

Quoting Jay J: So let me give it one more try:

Jim is a very bad man.

States are not people. The rest of this is just imbecility.

Quoting piscivorous: the armories of Iraq were primarily filled with Russian and French weapons.

As well as the contracts for Iraqi oil.

States are not people, that's true... so... Anyway, what's imbecilic about it?

Quoting Jay J: States are not people, that's true... so...

Anyway, what's imbecilic?

Children have morality. States have interests.

Have you been following the discussion between Lyle and myself? The form of the argument in my hypothetical is completely applicable.. Soundness and validity getting crossed again, but this time with you, I see.

I mean hell B I could have easily interjected names of states rather than people, and the lesson would have been the same. Please don't go to bed tonight having missed that.

Quoting Jay J: Have you been following the discussion between Lyle and myself? The form of the argument in my hypothetical is completely applicable.. Soundness and validity getting crossed again, but this time with you, I see.

And, you're using people and emotions for terms in your hypothetical. Those terms are irrelevant in statecraft.

Quoting Jay J: I mean hell B I could have easily interjected names of states rather than people, and the lesson would have been the same. Please don't go to bed tonight having missed that.

The two terms are not interchangeable, not even logically.

I'm not proposing any substantive whatsoever in statecraft. We're dealing with whether someone with Bob's position on Iraq is compelled to believe something based on something else they believe. OK? So again, this is about whether someone is compelled to believe something based on something else they believe, and as such, it is a perfectly abstract issue... man this is getting tiring to have to explain.. so anyway, this is not a conversation about statecraft, K? It's a perfectly abstract conversation about standards of belief, and in this case coherence and/or validity appears to be the topic at hand, even though some people have deluded themselves into thinking it's about soundness, or truth (and still in other cases, statecraft, for some crazy reason).

Yes, logically, they are. Matter of fact, I should have just used single letters, so you wouldn't get confused.

I can't believe it. A discussion I actually asked for coming true. Thanks Bob for inviting Hitch on. I won't be able to listen till later tonight but mucho props. The topic title "Is Maj Hasan really the one to blame?' is really a bad sign of how far the PC meme has taken over. To blame anyone other than Hasan is to enable future murder sprees. And if you are still taking requests, please bring in Douglas Murray to talk on the Islamification of Europe.

No, I'm happy Saddam Hussein is no longer the despot running Iraq, and I'm happy that people who didn't want the United States to remove Saddam Hussein are happy that Saddam Hussein is no longer the despot running Iraq. Are you even proud the United States removed Saddam Hussein from power? Or is the invasion of Iraq something we shouldn't, as Americans, be proud of?

That's not the issue. Let's stay on topic. Don't be emotionally blinded by your patriotism. Whether I share it or not should not prevent you from seeing the form of the argument.

Oh boy. When I read the section title "Hitchens: Iraq forced itself upon us" -- nay, when I even saw that Hitchens and Bob had gotten together to make this diavlog -- I knew that we were in for some unbelievable clownishness. I felt like the stereotypical character in a movie who wakes out of a long coma or dissociative fugue, goes to the newsstand, picks up the paper and sees the date at the top of the page -- "December 2009?! That means I've been asleep for seven years! Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck broke up?! The Iraq war turned out to be a bad idea!? My god, what else have I missed?!" Hitchens has been in a special sort of vegetative state since the early part of the decade, one that doctors can't detect -- an ideologically vegetative state. No matter what sort of evidence he's presented with, no matter what complicating factors Bob introduces, he always comes to the same conclusion. He didn't debate anything Bob said, he just kept going forward in his unique neocon Gish gallop. Bob is wrong on Iraq because Bosnia, so I'm going to blather on about Bosnia for a few minutes

No, really, what's your answer Jay J? Are you proud that the United States removed Saddam Hussein? You must be, because you're glad Saddam Hussein is gone. Right? I don't care about your silly argument Jay J. That's not what I've been talking about. I simply said it is funny that people who wanted nothing to do with Iraq are glad Saddam Hussein is gone now. Of course you can hold such a view. I've not said otherwise. I've just said it brings a smile to my face that you hold such a view. JonIrenicus makes the point better than me. You guys can't give America credit for getting rid of Saddam Hussein, yet your sure happy that's he gone. You recognize evil, but wouldn't do a damn thing about it and then curse the people who ended it. Show some respect and give credit where credit is due. So I ask you again, are you thankful the United States ended Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq?

So I ask you again, are you thankful the United States ended Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq?

I see what you did there -- this question is essentially the same as the question "Do you support the Iraq war?" except more emotionally loaded. You're being a jackass. Does it even matter what people's personal emotional reactions towards these things are? I'm proud that we won World War II, but I'm not proud we dropped the atom bomb on Hiroshima, and neither of these emotional reactions of mine have anything to do with whether the actions we took back then were good or bad or justified or anything at all. I just happen to feel good about liberating concentration camps and bad about vaporizing people and melting their faces off.

No, I made a point about a dirty trick Hitchens employed, and you attempted to refute me, so that *is* the topic. As far as your question, I don't even care to answer it. It's smacks of tribalism. When points of correct thinking and proper arguing are the topic, even when the close-topics are near and dear to people's hearts, I just don't care to answer questions like "Well do *you* believe in God?" or "Well don't *you* think gays deserve the right to marry?" or "so do you think we should adopt socialism in the U.S.?" When the topics are things like whether religion is bad in general, whether gay marriage is a state issue or not, or whether socialism necessarily leads to communism, it just doesn't matter what I think about god, gay marriage, or U.S. policy. And in this case, it just doesn't matter what my view on the U.S. is. I know you would feel better if I told you, but I think it would do you better if you learned to resist these kinds of urges. In any case, I can see I'm wasting my time. And if you're talking about something else entirely, then you're not addressing the point I made in my

Quoting nikkibong: You're joking, right?

Hitchens doesn't do arguments: he does assertions, strawmen burning, and slander.

Try imaging him saying the same things he says, but *without* the plummy accent. Not so smart anymore, eh?

It's a con job.

I'm disappointed that BHTV would (again) give this unthinking, attention loving blowhard a platform.

Agree, except Hitchens is very intelligent and excels at intellectual "Food Fights". Hitchens gives the mob what they want. Most Americans - even at BHTV - don't really want open, reasoned discussion but slander, emotionalism, etc. I mean do you really think someone like Clay or Bj Keefe gives a damn about "strawman" or "Slander" - they thrive on that Crap. I saw Hitchens debate on the Allied terror bombing of German civilians in WWII. IMO, he was half-drunk and his only point was the pathetic "They Deserved it" - but he had bloodthirsty assholes in the crowd cheering him on. He gives the same Bloodthirsty morons a plummy, intellectual sounding justification for their warmongering in Iran and Iraq.

Well good for you Kezboard, but you would at least credit the United States for having helped to end Nazi Germany right... you know, liberate some of those concentration camps?

Quoting Jay J: Wanna know why they (and me) seem irritated? Because those on the other side have accused us, implicitly and explicitly, of wishing the best to Saddam Hussein, rather than recognizing objections to the Iraq War were made on strategic, geo-political, or otherwise pragmatic grounds. And in the kinds of debates Bob and Hitchens just had, even milder forms of spreading one's anti-Saddam peacock feathers is a bit maddening, because it can do nothing but gain someone like Hitchens rhetorical support and demerit (but purely rhetorically, of course) the other participant (in this case, Bob). Based on the history of the dispute, and the fact that it's not about whether Saddam was good for Iraq or not, the move is out of bounds.

And a war supporter declaring something like "well I for one am happy Saddam's gone" gets an annoyed reaction *because it is annoying*!

Whoopty freakin doo! Somebody's happy Saddam's gone, what a courageous stand. The issue was never about whether Saddam Hussein deserved the worst of all fates, or whether it would be a singular good if Saddam were gone, and it's a dirty trick to argue the issue on those grounds.

It's not

Who said anything about correct thinking? I simply asked you a question, you don't have to say yes, you can actually say no. So I'll ask you the question again... are you thankful the United States ended Saddam Hussein's regime? Yes or No. I don't care which. ... and you're a coward if you can't answer the question. You shouldn't be afraid to stand up for your beliefs. Show some spine and answer the question.

Jon, I know you're very interested in my level of concern, but that just isn't relevant. You have strong suspicions about me, and I have one about you, and that is that on this topic, we'll never be able to communicate meaningfully. It's happened to me several times on this site, mostly it's been with people on the left actually. It's rare and rewarding when you find someone you disagree with that you can have a meaningful exchange with, unfortunately. It is so disheartening when the difference has to be over something so fundamental though.

Lyle, The entire thread has been about correct thinking, or more precisely, Hitchens correct arguing (or even more precisely, his lack of adherence to correct standards in argument). If that's not what you wanted to talk about, you didn't have to deny that there was a dirty trick at play, or even have attempted to refute what I said at all. The only belief I care to stand up for on this topic is a higher standard of discussion. I'll leave you with a little hint: Your conclusion that I'm a coward if I can't answer the question is valid, because, after all, I'm not answering it. The soundness of your premise is another matter (and here your premise is "if Jay J does not answer this question, he is not standing up for his beliefs"). That your assumed premise can get you a valid conclusion does not mean your premise is true, in other words. You may want to think about that the next time you're tempted to go off half-cocked and try to back someone in a corner to where they're on a rhetorical hot seat. I don't feel any heat from your ultimatum, by the way..

I mean, I really don't know what Socrates' feelings were about his children, but his refusal to bring them into court to pull the heartstrings of his jurors is heroic, because he didn't think that was the proper way for the jurors to decide his guilt or innocence. And btw, his decision is consistent with him loving his children. You and Lyle remind me of the jurors.. or at least those who would have allowed his feelings for his children to be a relevant factor in their decision..

Quoting Jay J: I...compelled to believe something based on something else they believe. OK? So again, this is about whether someone is compelled to believe something based on something else they believe...a perfectly abstract conversation about standards of belief...even though some people have deluded themselves into thinking it's about soundness....

Oh, I see! When you lose an argument, or just don't know what you talking about, it's just a "chat"? Like confessing to a priest....I understand!

Quoting Jay J: Yes, logically, they are. Matter of fact, I should have just used single letters, so you wouldn't get confused.

For your "chat", I think pictures would be more appropriate.

Go back to my original post, and then trace the thread down to here, K? I doubt you've done it, or that you will do it, but when you do, you'll see that I haven't changed the topic at all.. (course even then maybe you'll be too distracted to see what's in front of your nose). Man I tell ya, so many people on the right and left are the same, just different content is all. Same stuff though..

Are you conceding that all you have are rhetorical quips? Albeit in a more transparent way than Hitchens?

If I've misjudged you, you'll have to forgive me, divining your deeper make-up and motive may not be my best strength.. but it is what we're up to, now that you've started the game.

Do you honestly BELIEVE you are arguing?

"is the invasion of Iraq something we shouldn't, as Americans, be proud of?" Anyone proud of this utterly incompetent pigfuck that resulted in, at minimum, a hundred thousand lives lost and millions of people displaced - all to install a government that will be a reliable ally of Iran's long after we're out of the picture - is a total moron, at best.

I believe I was, and what you've done is assert that my hypothetical was imbecilic and merely grunted "states aren't people." When I pointed out that the issue was abstract and about argument form, rather than truth, you told me that I should have used pictures. So between the two of us, you think it's me who isn't arguing? I am a bit confused though; from your other posts, you seem to agree with me about Hitchens style and merit (or lack thereof) as an interlocutor.. so you would think you of all people would get what I was saying.

Quoting Lyle: ...If Obama wanted to invade North Korea tomorrow, I'd support him with that.
...

If he did that, it would be incontrovertible proof he was a moral idiot. (It will never happen, short of a huge Nork incursion.) If you did what you say, it would constitute affirmation of what I already believe about you.

Jeff! Someone I often disagree with, but never massacres standards of intellectual discussion when I grapple with him! Man, I don't have the temperament for this stuff, Jeff.

Pathetic. After two years of listening to Bloggingheads on my training runs, I have finally been compelled to come back to the computer and post a comment. How did Bob and Christopher just discuss the Iraq war and not mention the thousands of American men and women and tens of thousands of Iraqis killed by this insane war of choice? We get a highly affected discussion of "materialism" and the definition of the word "irony" but not one mention of casualties, not one single reference to the most salient fact about this conflict until 58 minutes into the dialog, and even then it is only a passing reference to one bomb attack. Bob and Christopher are standing in a field littered with the dead, maimed, concussed and destroyed and yet lock their gazes completely and unwaveringly into each other's navels. Pathetic.

Also, I find it perplexing that my point about argument form has been accused of using emotions and people for it's strength. I would expect that people would accuse it being way too dry, of course those people would be confused, but that's the critique I would expect first (in any case, you may be more confused than them). I'm not convinced we disagree at all about Hitchens, but I'm growing more confident that you don't understand what I've written.

Quoting Jay J: Jeff! Someone I often disagree with, but never massacres standards of intellectual discussion when I grapple with him! Man, I don't have the temperament for this stuff, Jeff.

Jay, I appreciate the testimonial, especially as I'm trying to defend my honor on exactly that point elsewhere here, at the moment. I heartily return the sentiment. It has always been a pleasure to argue with you.

Course some in this comment section would think, based on this topic, that we're just two lefties. I've sure you could disabuse them of that notion. Now why do I let myself get distracted by bloggingheads when I have a paper (On Chomky's contribution to psychology, no less) to write? That's the most mysterious philosophical question of all. Good luck in here man. I might be masochistic enough to come back when my paper is done.

Quoting Jay J: Course some in this comment section would think, based on this topic, that we're just two lefties. I've sure you could disabuse them of that notion. Now why do I let myself get distracted by bloggingheads when I have a paper (On Chomky's contribution to psychology, no less) to write? That's the most mysterious philosophical question of all. Good luck in here man. I might be masochistic enough to come back when my paper is done.

Nah. I've been meaning to read Albert Ellis' book on procrastination, but I haven't gotten around to it yet...

Bob's insistence to mark the Fort Hood massacre as a "cost" of the Iraq war is quite misleading. The cost of the war, of course, is the alternative uses of all the money, human capital, human lives, resources, etc....spent on pursuing these foreign policy ideals. Pointing to the crazy shooter distracts from the real gigantic cost. The Hitch might be brilliant for all I know, he might have it all mapped out. He's certainly walked the region and took moral sides etc....But the burden is still on him to show us that all those resources couldn't have been put to better use. It's as simple as that. We are spending several times Afghanistan's GDP in Kabul only.

Oh boy. I can't wait for the next hour on Godliness. I think I'll listen while ensconced on a bed of nails.

Quoting brucds: Oh boy. I can't wait for the next hour on Godliness. I think I'll listen while ensconced on a bed of nails.

You haven't been good enough.

Quoting Jay J: You actually seem impervious to reason, on this topic.

Yep. And if you had wanted to make an even truer observation, you could have omitted the last three words. You've been extremely lucid in all of your points. The only problem is that it's Lyle you're talking to. You'll never get through to him. The more right you are, the more determined he becomes to disagree with you. Thank you for playing the buzz saw to his face. It's very entertaining!

Hitchens often refers to the evidence provided by Mahdi Obeidi, Sadam's chief nuclear engineer who was captured after the war, as proof that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program. In fact, Obeidi said precisely the opposite in a NYT op-ed 5 years ago: "In addition to the inspections, the sanctions that were put in place by the United Nations after the gulf war made reconstituting the program impossible. During the 1980's, we had relied heavily on the international black market for equipment and technology; the sanctions closed that avenue."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/26/op...i&st=cse&scp=1 This shows just how disingenuous Hitchens can be on this subject.

I didn't say it would be a sensible thing to do, but I'd support him. Fuck Kim Jung Il.

Aww... someone's afraid to answer with a No. Can't even give credit to the United States military for ending the abomination known as Saddam Hussein. The United States rid the world of Saddam. Rejoice! The United States rid the world of Saddam. Rejoice! The United States rid the world of Saddam. Rejoice!

Quoting Lyle: I didn't say it would be a sensible thing to do, but I'd support him.

Proudly irrational.

Quoting Jay J: Jeff! Someone I often disagree with, but never massacres standards of intellectual discussion when I grapple with him! Man, I don't have the temperament for this stuff, Jeff.

JJ, one vlog does not a standards make. Jeff massacres plenty around here. Assuming the argument here is about Hitchen's statement of happiness over the end of the Saddam reign... If you don't mind indulging me. Isn't the point to your argument here based on an assumption? In that sense, are you not doing exactly what you accuse Hitchens of doing? Could it not have been really about getting Bob to agree with him (which he did)? Could it not have been just purely a statement about his own opinion and nothing else? The other thing I kind of missed in your argument is you seem to want to discount plausible extrapolation of bad man "Jim's" unheeded actions.

It's hard to watch nice people getting trolled.

Maybe, but the likes of the 54th Massachusetts, members of the White Rose Society, and some of the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto were proudly irrational too. Sometimes risks need to be taken, even if hopeless. ... although we'd win in a War against North Korea. It would likely be a really, awful mess, but we'd win.

Don't blame Hitch for not being financially wise in Afghanistan. He was an early advocate of buying up all the poppy produce in Afghanistan (to keep as little money out of the Taliban and AQ's hand), which is what is being seriously talked about now.

Quoting Lyle: Maybe, but the likes of the 54th Massachusetts, members of the White Rose Society, and some of the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto were proudly irrational too. Sometimes risks need to be taken, even if it hopeless.

... although we'd win in a War against North Korea. It would likely be a really, awful mess, but we'd win.

Seoul would be annhilated if we had that fight. How do you define that as winning?

North Korea being free of course. Did the Soviet Union lose WWII just because Stalingrad was obliterated? No.

Quoting Lyle: Aww... someone's afraid to answer with a No. Can't even give credit to the United States military for ending the abomination known as Saddam Hussein.

The United States rid the world of Saddam. Rejoice! The United States rid the world of Saddam. Rejoice! The United States rid the world of Saddam. Rejoice!

You're welcome, chicken hawk! Now, go away with your FUBAR'd thinking and policies, and stop calling us when you screw up!

Quoting onelessfixie: Pathetic.... Pathetic.

The dead don't matter when the future of a state is at stake. For example, Jonirenicus wrote: And frankly, Bobs side does not care Saddam is gone or not, that is why it is not mentioned. The fate of Iraq, for good or ill, is beneath the concern of that type.
Doubt me?
Just ask any of them what developments going forward both in Iraq and around it as a result of the invasion would sway their opinion that it was on balance a good decision. Iraq, not the Iraqi people who were swallowed in darkness at the whim of George Bush. It was a good decision, and those hundreds of thousands, perhaps a million people who died as a direct result of the whirlwind the US unleashed, were expendable, collateral damage. All you will get from the proponents of the war such as Hitchens and others here when you shine a light on the tremendous human cost of the invasion and occupation is a sneer. For these proponents believe that it is legitimate to kill thousands of people now to save an indeterminate number of other people from the possibility of being killed in the future.

Quoting Lyle: Don't blame Hitch for not being financially wise in Afghanistan. He was an early advocate of buying up all the poppy produce in Afghanistan (to keep as little money out of the Taliban and AQ's hand), which is what is being seriously talked about now.

Oh I see, so after toxic assets and frozen securities, we should ask the Fed and the Treasury to also mop up all the opium that is produced in Afghanistan??? Why not if it relaxes them enough that they stop be so damn hyperactive I'm all for it!

Quoting Lyle: North Korea being free of course. Did the Soviet Union lose WWII just because Stalingrad was obliterated.

No.

No, millions just died, and the government became even more authoritarian. But, it was all to our benefit right? It allowed numerically-inferior armies to recover Western Europe while the Russians took on huge forces at awful cost. They were all commies, tight, so who cares? Your concern for my family is touching too. What you just said is repulsive. Dead is not synonymous with free.

Quoting Lyle: North Korea being free of course. Did the Soviet Union lose WWII just because Stalingrad was obliterated.

No.

You are a real four-alarm fire, kid. A panic.

Really, the Iraqi people aren't grateful to be rid of Saddam Hussein? You wouldn't call his regime a darkness for them? Yes, the War and occupation was (continues) to be awful. Suicide bombings, blown up people, rapes, murders... the works. Yet, the sacrifice of all that humanity has made Iraq and the world a better place. Saddam Hussein is gone. The Iraqi people are rebuilding their lives and their country. As awful as it has been, we should also give thanks and truly appreciate the sacrifices that have been made.

Quoting Lyle: Really, the Iraqi people aren't grateful to be rid of Saddam Hussein? You wouldn't call his regime a darkness for them?

Yes, the War and occupation was (continues) to be awful. Suicide bombings, blown up people, rapes, murders... the works. Yet, the sacrifice of all that humanity has made Iraq and the world a better place. Saddam Hussein is gone. The Iraqi people are rebuilding their lives and their country. As awful as it has been, we should also give thanks and truly appreciate the sacrifices that have been made.

That you can assume even the barest mantle of triumphalism for a colossal political and geostrategic error for which the military services are still struggling to compensate - and for which Iraqi and American military families are paying - makes you the tiniest facsimile of the most putrid ass ever! Seriously, you HAVE distinguished yourself!

Thanks so much Hitch for coming in and arguing against the forces of appeasement. If you're reading the comments here the degree of hate and bile is actually a good thing because it's SOP for the usual suspects here when they are presented with uncomfortable facts. Bob may be deaf to your sound points of fact and reason but there are many people who are going to gain insight from your appearance here. Comparing the causal aspects of Hasan's murderous rampage with cigarettes and lung cancer brought a smile to my face as well as your own. There is no specious argument beneath these people when it comes to blaming Bush/American policy/freedom fighters for terrorism and jihad. I hope you return again soon and make appearances regularly. And take care of yourself, I hope your physical appearance has more to do with the early hour and not any illness, you look very tired.

Yes, cause apparently it would have been/will be cheaper than whatever has already been spent in Afghanistan. http://washingtonindependent.com/701...e-taliban-does
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/ar...soldiering.php edit: Never mind on the poppy farms. The "reports" I read were about the cost per soldier we're spending (or that the Afghan government is spending). The point being that spending could have been and can be handled more intelligently than it has. The Pentagon is notorious for not spending wisely. Wars cost money, which do have adverse effects on domestic economies... but we are the world Hegemon, and being the world Hegemon costs money. There's nothing we can really do about it. 9/11 happened you know? The best we can hope for is to get more help from Europe and Japan so they take on more of the costs.

So what, we're supposed to all wallow in anger and hate? We're supposed to not respect what our soldiers have accomplished, and instead pity them? Really? I actually support their service and their accomplishments. I'm not ashamed of them for what they've done, and what they're doing. Can you say the same thing? You served, if I'm not mistaken, and I'm proud of you for that, but don't you dare tell me to pity our brave men and women because I'm not against what they're doing every day in Iraq and Afghanistan, and around the world. You pity them if you want, but I'll be damned if I will.

You don't have to worry Baltimoron, a couple more generations worth of Koreans will grow to be 3 ft. tall in North Korea just so Seoul won't burn tomorrow or next week. Yay! ... and yes, tragically the Soviet Union defeating Nazi Germany at Stalingrad and then all across Eastern Europe was to our benefit. Fewer Americans were killed and mutilated surely, Nazi concentration camps were liberated (especially all the really nasty ones in Poland), and Nazi Germany was finished off. Of course it turned out to be more bad news for a lot of people in Eastern Europe, but hey, we didn't want Europe to burn anymore than it already had, which it certainly would have if the U.S. and the Soviet Union ever fought over central Europe.

Quoting Lyle: You don't have to worry Baltimoron, a couple more generations worth of North Koreans will grow to be 3 ft. tall in North Korea just so Seoul won't burn tomorrow or next week.

Yay!
...

Is there anybody who still believes there's any point in engaging with this?

Aww... don't give up. We shall fight Lyle on the seas and oceans, we shall fight Lyle with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight Lyle on the beaches, we shall fight Lyle on the landing grounds, we shall fight Lyle in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight Lyle in the hills; we shall never surrender.

Quoting AemJeff: Is there anybody who still believes there's any point in engaging with this?

Two or three, I guess. But for the rest of us, Lyle has trolled himself out.

Quoting Lyle: Yes, cause apparently it would have been/will be cheaper than whatever has already been spent in Afghanistan.

http://washingtonindependent.com/701...e-taliban-does
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/ar...soldiering.php

edit: Never mind on the poppy farms. The "reports" I read were about the cost per soldier we're spending (or that the Afghan government is spending). The point being that spending could have been and can be handled more intelligently than it has. The Pentagon is notorious for not spending wisely though.

Wars cost money, which do have adverse effects on domestic economies... but we are the world Hegemon, and being the world Hegemon costs money. There's nothing we can really do about it. 9/11 happened you know? The best we can hope for is to get more help from Europe and Japan so they take on more of the costs.

The cost of war is not money, as I said before, it's lost opportunity of using the resources differently and in a more decentralized way. Yes 9/11 happened but I don't think it could have been prevented.

Quoting Lyle: Aww... don't give up.

We shall fight Lyle on the seas and oceans, we shall fight Lyle with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight Lyle on the beaches, we shall fight Lyle on the landing grounds, we shall fight Lyle in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight Lyle in the hills; we shall never surrender.

We shall be bored, and forget to pay attention.

Quoting Lyle: Aww... don't give up.

We shall fight Lyle on the seas and oceans, we shall fight Lyle with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight Lyle on the beaches, we shall fight Lyle on the landing grounds, we shall fight Lyle in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight Lyle in the hills; we shall never surrender.

Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves, that if BHTV and its left-wing Commentsars last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was their finest hour."

You're right of course. I just don't see us dropping our hegemonic responsibilities anytime soon... not in our lifetimes, I'd imagine. We can be smarter about it though. Know Hope!

Quoting Ken Davis:
For these proponents believe that it is legitimate to kill thousands of people now to save an indeterminate number of other people from the possibility of being killed in the future.

I think the question is, is saving people from a fate worse than death, in the future, worth the deaths today. Here is a thought-provoking Q&A from French political philosopher Bernard Henri-Levi. The accent is bit hard to understand at times. The key question he asks of Liberals is, is it right to look the other way when oppressive regimes make women live under the veil, kill homosexuals, etc. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9r...k-times_webcam Thanks to JI for originally posting this link.

Wasn't there just a rather long discussion on the one having to kill one of 20 to set the other 19 free? At what point does this argument no longer hold? Is it 10 of 200, 100 of 2000... x/25,000,000. I believe that your appeal to emotion is sincere but while war is fought by humans with other humans caught in the middle of the turmoil. Even we supporters of the liberation of Iraq have these very same emotions. Yet war is conducted between states, and irrational actors nowadays; states by definition have no emotions and irrational actors are just that; irrational actors.

Quoting Lyle: You pity them if you want, but I'll be damned if I will.

I don't think you'll be damned. I think absolutely nothing will happen to you, except that a few people will call you a dick on a message board. Yes; here you are masturbating with and into a flag, and for some reason you think yourself to have taken a courageous stand against...what? You'll be damned. Christ. You embarrass the very notion of thinking about war with your star-spangled, colouring-book jingoism. Dressing yourself up in GI Joe underoos and hopping on the laptop doesn't make you a genuine defender of the military. Your understanding of violence is revoltingly trivializing. Every soldier who ever lived hates your guts, jocksniffer.

Actually there is a consortium that is allowed to grow poppy legally, for the production of medicine, and we would not really have to buy it all up if we forced the opium cartel to admit Afghanistan. It's a two for the price of one to boot just think how that could lower the cost of pain medicine.

Who says I'm courageous? I haven't. I am just some douche bag commenting at bh.tv. Still, what I say is what I believe and rings true to me.

I thank you. You have my love Baltimoron. Seriously, mad respect.

On the Fort Hood issue, I thought Hitchens was right on Wright being wrong. Wright wanted to make the point—and wrote a Times op ed about it—that Hassan’s murderousness was a consequence of the Iraq and Afghan wars and that therefore the radicalizing of Muslims is a cost of such wars and America would be wise to rethink its policies in light of such a cost. Actually I find this reasoning—in its application to Hassan— more off kilter than illogical, more of a tail wagging the dog than illogical. Consider Obama’s recent decision to commit 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan in substantial fulfillment of what his general wanted. Does someone want to argue that in all of his deliberative lead up to his decision, Obama and his advisors did not take into account the likelihood of radicalization both abroad and at home as a consequence of intensifying the military effort? The point is that wars should be decisions of last resort. If they are truly decided on that basis—no other acceptable alternative—then the plea to consider the consequence of radicalization is puerile. It would

Quoting look: Here is a thought-provoking Q&A from French political philosopher Bernard Henri-Levi. The accent is bit hard to understand at times. The key question he asks of Liberals is, is it right to look the other way when oppressive regimes make women live under the veil, kill homosexuals, etc.[/url]

The key question I ask of Bernard-Henri Lévy is, does any government, especially the US government, give a fuck about women in developing countries, or homosexuals, particularly brown ones, on both counts, unless there is some geo-strategic advantage to be gained by using their plight as a pretext to invade some little country. The parable is told of the human rights worker who discovered that a particular third-world government of a mineral-rich nation had a secret prison in which it tortured political prisoners. In the local community he met with victims of torture who had been released from the prison, and told them he had documentation of the abuses and would report the human rights violations of this government to the great Superpower, and they would set things right, and liberate the people. The local people killed the human rights worker and destroyed his

North Korea is a case where the immediate deaths would seem to be too great to go in and take the thug out. A legitimate action, but too costly. And it is the South Koreans who by and large do not want such action taken, not only due to direct harm to their nation, but the economic refugees from the aftermath of the blighted north being unleashed upon the south, and all its prosperity (thank you relations with the US, trade, and capitalism).
But then you have to ask, what exactly is the end game for dealing with N Korea?
Do we wait for Kim to die? Hope his heir will be more amenable? How many decades of perpetual slavery must stand before it becomes unacceptable?
It is like a local minimum, pushing the ball up the hill to get to a lower potential is painful, takes energy, but the aftermath, over time, will be worth the amount paid. But I guess no one believes his crime family will keep hold for decades. A nice hope. Hopefully that is true. But it cannot go on like that forever, and at some point, it WILL be a painful transition for the

Quoting piscivorous: Wasn't there just a rather long discussion on the one having to kill one of 20 to set the other 19 free? At what point does this argument no longer hold? Is it 10 of 200, 100 of 2000... x/25,000,000. I believe that your appeal to emotion is sincere but while war is fought by humans with other humans caught in the middle of the turmoil.

I do not appeal to emotion, but to common sense. To reason. There is no moral justification for killing someone now in order to ward off a prospective similar fate for others. We're not talking about certain death for the second group. We're talking about liberating a people from a dictator who may or may not kill X number of people, by killing X number of people for damned sure. That's never morally excusable. We're not talking about people who are being held captive in a plane on the tarmac by desperate gunmen, and being willing to accept a percentage of civilian casualties to free the balance.

The thing about the Iraq argument is that Mr Wright's can be proven right in the short term while Mr. Hitchens' can only be proven right over the long term. While I believe it is headed in the right direction, and that representative governance will have positive effects throughout the Middle East these effects are likely to take a generation or two to bear fruit. Look at how long a time there was one party rule in Japan after WW II or Korea after the cease fire. That being said I don't think it was a mistake to attack the root cause of the problem and that is the form of governance that prevails in the Middle East. And that to do so, in a reasonable number of generations, required using force of arms.

Quoting look: I think the question is, is saving people from a fate worse than death, in the future, worth the deaths today. Here is a thought-provoking Q&A from French political philosopher Bernard Henri-Levi. The accent is bit hard to understand at times. The key question he asks of Liberals is, is it right to look the other way when oppressive regimes make women live under the veil, kill homosexuals, etc.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9r...k-times_webcam

Thanks to JI for originally posting this link.

BHL: "I am a free man, a free spirit, and not a diplomat." For those of you unfamiliar with Gallic ways, this true confession of a French intellectual means: I am a luftmench and will tell you what you already know with uncommon eloquence. Diplomats and politicians are less eloquent but then they are responsible for the lives of their own citizens. BHL is a brilliant and courageous man, but like Christopher Hitchens he caught the liberal war fever a few years ago and hasn't yet recovered.

The Iraq war was personal for Hitchens, he has stated before he was for the removal of Saddam Hussein long before either Bush thought about invading Iraq. But this goes against a lot that he stood for as a young naive socialist lefty, no matter how you cut it the Iraq war was an illegal war. But lets move on.

You'll be damned. Christ. You embarrass the very notion of thinking about war with your star-spangled, colouring-book jingoism. Dressing yourself up in GI Joe underoos and hopping on the laptop doesn't make you a genuine defender of the military. Your understanding of violence is revoltingly trivializing. Every soldier who ever lived hates your guts, jocksniffer.

This is even better than the lung cancer analogy.

Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves, that if BHTV and its left-wing Commentsars last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was their finest hour."

The libs are certainly doing everything they can to make this their finest hour so far (in their eyes): http://www.usatoday.com/printedition...terstitialskip "Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession's first 18 months — and that's before overtime pay and bonuses are counted.

Federal workers are enjoying an extraordinary boom time — in pay and hiring — during a recession that has cost 7.3 million jobs in the private sector......

.....The growth in six-figure salaries has pushed the average federal worker's pay to $71,206, compared with $40,331 in the private sector." Amazing that at a

Quoting piscivorous: The thing about the Iraq argument is that Mr Wright's can be proven right in the short term while Mr. Hitchens' can only be proven right over the long term. While I believe it is headed in the right direction, and that representative governance will have positive effects throughout the Middle East these effects are likely to take a generation or two to bear fruit. Look at how long a time there was one party rule in Japan after WW II or Korea after the cease fire. That being said I don't think it was a mistake to attack the root cause of the problem and that is the form of governance that prevails in the Middle East. And that to do so, in a reasonable number of generations, required using force of arms.

I agree. Mr. Wright seemed to be always arguing for the smaller point here. His subconscious knowledge of that caused him to be quite animated so it made for an interesting specticle. One could say that arguing that the Ft. Hood shooter did so because of the recent wars is a BIG point (not to mention one

This turned out to be better than I had feared. It was not a complete waste of time. And, actually, the best part was Hitchens's soliloquoy at the end, best meaning most thought-provoking, of most interest to a rationalist, of least interest to people interested in watching a circus performance. Hitchens looked seriously hung over, no surprise. I was a moderately big fan of Hitchens when he was still clearly a man of the left. Now he seems to me to be a walking train wreck. Obviously, I'm far from the only self-identified leftist to have lost much of his patience with Hitchens. I have to give him some points here, because he did manage to sublimate his worst rhetorical tendencies, I think because he actually respects Bob Wright somewhat. I will never understand how some people, like Hitchens, seem always to be able to win the interruption war in a conversation. You cannot shout him down. He is an immovable object. On virtually every substantive point in this diavlog prior to the terminal soliloquy, Wright either won the rational argument or held his own. Stylistically, however, he loses, because he tends to shriek a bit, and he is considerably less articulate than

Whatfur, I don't mind indulging you at all. First though, you'll have to tell me what the assumption is I'm working with. I'm not being coy, seriously. I just don't have my bearings yet. What assumption I am working with, and what is it again about Jim's unheeded actions?

I suppose it's more convenient for you to hypothesize that I'm "afraid" of answering with a "no" rather than that I think the way you argue makes a massacre of keeping of the standard of staying on topic, and I refuse to indulge your obsession. So if that's your verdict, so be it, I won't get into the irrelevant topic of how proud or not proud I am of the U.S. It's. Not. Relevant.

Quoting Jay J: Whatfur,

I don't mind indulging you at all. First though, you'll have to tell me what the assumption is I'm working with. I'm not being coy, seriously. I just don't have my bearings yet. What assumption I am working with, and what is it again about Jim's unheeded actions?

Somewhere below I tried to make it clear. Did not the argument start with your assumption that Hitchens made his statement about being happy Saddam was gone because he was really trying to make the point that others must not be? It may in fact be true...but, I did not hear it that way and as I also allude somewhere below...there are a number of other reasons to make the statement. You chose one for him.

I see. Well, combined with the overt dirty trick Hitchens pulled about Bob blaming the U.S., rather than merely assigning causal responsibility, and the way Hitchens inflected his voice, emphasizing that it was *him* who is *actually happy* that Saddam and his sons don't have the run of the country anymore, while it's plausible that Hitchens meant something else, it doesn't seem likely. So I concede that it's possible, but my interpretation does not at all seem arbitrary, as you seem to fear. So for one thing, Hitchen's point about Bob blaming the U.S. was just *clearly* out of bounds, and his point that I've been discussing in this thread is less clearly out of bounds, but really.. I mean, what can come of his emphasis that it's him who's happy that Saddam and his sons are gone? At the very least, I would think you would have to acknowledge that it's sloppy and not charitable to your interlocutor, and with the way he emphasized that he was pleased with Saddam's removal is sketchy. And one thing you must acknowledge, I think, is that it is not even a relevant point or counterpoint in the kind of discussion he was having

Quoting Whatfur: [...]

For entirely understandable reasons, a Bh.tv admin has moved the subthread that grew off of this post to a new thread of its own. For reasons passing understanding, this has upset nearly two of our commenters. Thus, if you want to see more of the same old pointless bickering, go to the new thread.

Wow, great discussion! But I am left with the belief that neither side is correct and that there is no reconciliation for that. At this point in our history there is no correct side. As Hitchens says this conflict is one of decades, not electoral cycles. The history books will sort this out. I like Ron Paul's notion that we should gather ourselves up, defend ourselves and keep out of other countries' business. One could argue that that would have been a very good stance instead of supporting the devil as we so often have, with thugs like Hussein, Noriega and the Shah himself. Some would argue that we have been in bed with these thugs for reprehensible reasons and I'm sure at times this is true. But sometimes it was mere strategy which got us unto these messes. Regardless, we cannot stand before the world blameless as the shining city we would like and sometimes profess to be. But we are the biggest dog in a very dangerous world and because of that we have responsibilities. The UN has proven itself to be ineffectual and even when it does act, it

Quoting Jay J: I see. Well, combined with the overt dirty trick Hitchens pulled about Bob blaming the U.S., rather than merely assigning causal responsibility, and the way Hitchens inflected his voice, emphasizing that it was *him* who is *actually happy* that Saddam and his sons don't have the run of the country anymore, while it's plausible that Hitchens meant something else, it doesn't seem likely.

So I concede that it's possible, but my interpretation does not at all seem arbitrary, as you seem to fear.
...

The best case scenario is one where Hitchens didn't mean it, and would take it back, but will any of us hold our breath for that kind of humility from Chris Hitchens?

Well, I still disagree with your interpretation. I watched with the added fact of already reading it and listening for "inflection". Still didn't see it or hear it. I don't fear your interpretation, nor can I totally discount it.

Quoting Jay J: And in any case, my little sub-thread started small, but Lyle challenged me not in the way you are, but actually accepted my interpretation and ran with it, keeping up the tactic, so that's been the course of my efforts to explain the whole thing.

Now, what about Jim's actions?

That is

Quoting JonIrenicus: Iseek to magnify all the problems, while damping all the benefits.

so how do you weigh the loss of thousands of innocent lives vs. one despot? 1000:1
100000:1
100000000000000:1 where would you draw the line? how many women and children would you mow down with an automatic weapon on your way to getting one "evil doer"? man up, JI and Lyle - state for us just exactly how many women and children you would personally be willing to kill to get one bad guy.

Quoting popcorn_karate: so how do you weigh the loss of thousands of innocent lives vs. one despot?

1000:1
100000:1
100000000000000:1

where would you draw the line? how many women and children would you mow down with an automatic weapon on your way to getting one "evil doer"?

man up, JI and Lyle - state for us just exactly how many women and children you would personally be willing to kill to get one bad guy.

Excellent question popcorn_karate. But if you expect our world-improving, papier-mâché Machiavels to give you straight answer, you know nothing about papier-mâché Machiavels.

nice post. it seems to be part of our basic world view how we react to this, and it is true that none of us can really know whether the outcome will ultimately be more "good" than "bad". for me, there was so much uncertainty that it seemed like a bad idea from the start just because the unintended consequences seemed pretty likely. Odd how the liberal/conservative worldviews seem switched when it comes to war - liberals touting unintended consequence while conservatives are filled with optimism about government efficacy. have a good one, pk

Define one bad guy? One bad guy sounds like a police action to me, like some guy hold up in a Circle-K. In a Circle K police-situation, I'd say none. If you're talking about apprehending or killing bin Laden, or ending some despot's regime, like Saddam Hussein's rule in Iraq... we're talking about the innocent people being killed annually in Iraq and Afghanistan. It hasn't gotten to a really unacceptable level, at least not so much that we'd stop what we'd doing and give up. That's not to say that any of it is acceptable. We must continue to try and avoid any needless loss. Neeless loss will still happen though despite our best efforts. Hopefully one day, through practical steps, there won't be any innocents ever killed. What more can be said? Modern war is what it is... it's very, very dangerous.

Well, I still disagree with your interpretation. I watched with the added fact of already reading it and listening for "inflection". Still didn't see it or hear it. I don't fear your interpretation, nor can I totally discount it.

OK, well, we'll agree to disagree on Hitchens use. But tell me, when your opponent has no qualm with the fact that Saddam was a bad guy, what good does it possibly do to talk about how happy you are about the removal of said bad guy? I mean, shouldn't you know that people will be rabble roused to your side from that, when actually the opposition wishes to argue on more pragmatic grounds? Since you should know the emotional tug it will have on people on account of their visceral reaction to evil dictators, isn't it more scrupulous to not use this tactic? I realize that the removal of Saddam can serve as a short-hand for all kinds of pragmatic results, but it's too conveniently ambiguous for Hitchens here. And while he's low-down enough to accuse Bob of "blaming" America, what I'm asserting is not a stretch at all. As a matter of fact, what we're talking about here

Oh, Bob... Why do you submit yourself to this brainy browbeating bully. I very seldom turn off any of these diavogs but Mr. Hitchins is simply insufferable. Next time pair him up with some sacrificial lamb tied to a post.

Robert, please stop shouting.

I'm late getting to the party, but this thread seems the most apt. Hitchens is a smart guy, but he's also a lazy thinker. Not only does he repeat points, he has a bag of tricks he relies on to avoid ever having to actually think about things. (I'll admit I'm only 15 minutes in, but I'm dying already.) It goes something like this: Hitchens: extreme statement larded with mischievous provocation. Earnest foe: begins to unpack the comment Hitchens: interrupts with a complaint that he was misquoted, sending into a spiraling narrative of several minutes wherein a laundry list of tired old points are trundled out. Earnest foe: tries to respond to one of the points Hitchens: goes on an animated rant, constraining analysis to defeat a caricatured straw man never offered by the earnest foe. Earnest foe: tries to correct the record. Hitchens: another filibuster, striking down all attempts by earnest foe to engage. Earnest foe: silence. End. In other words: nice monovlog we've got here.

Quoting Alworth: I'm late getting to the party, but this thread seems the most apt. Hitchens is a smart guy, but he's also a lazy thinker. Not only does he repeat points, he has a bag of tricks he relies on to avoid ever having to actually think about things. (I'll admit I'm only 15 minutes in, but I'm dying already.) It goes something like this:

Hitchens: extreme statement larded with mischievous provocation.

Earnest foe: begins to unpack the comment

Hitchens: interrupts with a complaint that he was misquoted, sending into a spiraling narrative of several minutes wherein a laundry list of tired old points are trundled out.

Earnest foe: tries to respond to one of the points

Hitchens: goes on an animated rant, constraining analysis to defeat a caricatured straw man never offered by the earnest foe.

Earnest foe: tries to correct the record.

Hitchens: another filibuster, striking down all attempts by earnest foe to engage.

Earnest foe: silence.

End.

In other words: nice monovlog we've got here.

I really do like Hitchens. Even when he's at his most extraordinarily contentious it's a lot of fun just to listen to him go at it. But you really do have a point. There's just little chance of moving

Quoting Alworth: I'm late getting to the party, but this thread seems the most apt. Hitchens is a smart guy, but he's also a lazy thinker. Not only does he repeat points, he has a bag of tricks he relies on to avoid ever having to actually think about things. (I'll admit I'm only 15 minutes in, but I'm dying already.) It goes something like this:

Hitchens: extreme statement larded with mischievous provocation...

That made me laugh out loud. I think they teach that style of debating in expensive English high schools. They all do it. It's boring once you can see it for what it is.

Quoting claymisher: That made me laugh out loud.

I think they teach that style of debating in expensive English high schools. They all do it. It's boring once you can see it for what it is.

Okay, I've made 33 minutes in. I will say that Hitchens was surprisingly deferential to Bob's arguments in the Iraq piece, and I have rarely heard a more clear-cut example of rhetorical victory. Bob didn't get around to all four of the points, but on the key point--Iraq having WMD--the best Hitchens could muster is that the gang-lord Hussein was evasive. He gave off sincerely trying to defend that preposterous point. Fortunately, at this point we have reality to help us parse the arguments: 1) inspectors were let in; 2) no weapons were found then or subsequently; 3) Iraq never had them. To make the case that this was a just war, Hitchens tries to go into the deep weeds about bribes, obfuscation, and other unrelated minutiae. Oh, and one more point on Hitchens' style: he also selects the most minor, off-hand comment (or phrase or even, as the debate about "irony" demonstrated, word) as the point of attack, thereby avoiding the actual substance of the Earnest Foe's argument.

Quoting Jay J: OK, well, we'll agree to disagree on Hitchens use. But tell me, when your opponent has no qualm with the fact that Saddam was a bad guy, what good does it possibly do to talk about how happy you are about the removal of said bad guy? ...
his insistence that Bob is somehow blaming America.

You seem to be consistantly one post behind other things I have written elsewhere. I already stated a couple other reasons why Hitchens could very well have made the statement without having the connotation you have decided on. Also never heard Hitch insist Bob was blaming America...although I did hear Bob also accusing him of such. He did so in framing it as a tactic of the "right" when in reality the "left" owns that bit of deflection more so because of their own denials (guilty conscience?) than anyone on the right telling them they are anti-American. But yes, we can agree to disagree. (You are quite like Hitch though in the way you concede a point. Sorry. I know..I know so am I)

Quoting Jay J: I was specifically trying to avoid issues of soundness, or truth, with my hypothetical about Jim. See the issue

Quoting Francoamerican: BHL: "I am a free man, a free spirit, and not a diplomat."

For those of you unfamiliar with Gallic ways, this true confession of a French intellectual means: I am a luftmench and will tell you what you already know with uncommon eloquence.

Diplomats and politicians are less eloquent but then they are responsible for the lives of their own citizens. BHL is a brilliant and courageous man, but like Christopher Hitchens he caught the liberal war fever a few years ago and hasn't yet recovered.

Thanks, I appreciate your analysis.

Quoting Ken Davis: The key question I ask of Bernard-Henri Lévy is, does any government, especially the US government, give a fuck about women in developing countries, or homosexuals, particularly brown ones, on both counts, unless there is some geo-strategic advantage to be gained by using their plight as a pretext to invade some little country.

Even doing the right thing for wrong reasons can have positive benefits. Levy is asking this question of citizens, not governments. If the neocons were using the human rights factor as a prop (I think they were really true believers), the American people were not.

Quoting claymisher: That made me laugh out loud.

I think they teach that style of debating in expensive English high schools. They all do it. It's boring once you can see it for what it is.

They teach it in high schools, but they hone it at Oxford and Cambridge. It's totally infuriating.

Quoting popcorn_karate: so how do you weigh the loss of thousands of innocent lives vs. one despot?

1000:1
100000:1
100000000000000:1

where would you draw the line? how many women and children would you mow down with an automatic weapon on your way to getting one "evil doer"?

man up, JI and Lyle - state for us just exactly how many women and children you would personally be willing to kill to get one bad guy.

As an aside, why are adult men so devalued in the innocent deaths calculation? I am mildly offended by this being male. What about us!
First, "mow down" is not something I would support in almost any situation. Though thank you for that choice of rhetoric, it shows the filter through which you view what our military does there. Just wantonly mowing down women and children. k
But to the bigger question, there is no specific number, and the breaking point varies between different individuals. For some the number is a ZERO. No innocent deaths are tolerable as a result of going after an enemy. If that is the metric, then by definition, virtually no war could ever be waged, not WWII, not the civil war, not much at all.
You cannot

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: They teach it in high schools, but they hone it at Oxford and Cambridge. It's totally infuriating.

Okay, last comment from me on Hitchens' debating style. It occurred to me, as I listened to him offer incredibly sweeping statements of assumption ("we would have had to deal with Iraq eventually"), that Hitchens is a man of belief. While it's true that he's one of the world's great anti-religionists, that doesn't change the facts. His habit of mind is to assemble facts after he's found his truth. Listening to the diavlog was frustrating because so many of his points rested on deeply-held, totally unsupported 'facts.' These beliefs are absolute and immutable. Shading, softening, contextualizing them--not possible. Debating a true believer is a fruitless and frustrating exercise: there's never any hope of arriving at a truth that hasn't already been unshakably established. (cell-phone post--forgive typos)

I skimmed the talk so far, so excuse me if I missed anyone making the same comment. Bob asks if we should consider changing our foreign policy because it radicalizes certain people. It's simple enough to concede that one of the consequences of the Iraq war is likely to be tragedies like the one at Fort Hood. However, I think it's easy to make the argument that there is so much more at stake in the Middle East that it's a risk we have to take. It's a cost of asserting our interests. A very high cost to the individuals affected, but that includes the soldiers who are actually at the front line as well. Hitchens consistently makes the argument that the people who perpetrate terror are the one's to blame, not the victims. He's particularly firm about that when it comes to Islamists. From the terrorist's standpoint, they too are simply asserting their own interests in the only way they can given their limited ability to attack. It's lose-lose until we figure out the path to win-win. And like Hitchens said, that's going to take a long while. I suspect he'll blame religion for that in the next section.

Eh, I guess i'm not satisfied that I'm reading the conversation the same way that you guys are, and would say that Bob was sometimes almost obtusely unresponsive to questions Hitchens posed. In particular, There is a lengthy period where Hitchens asks Wright about the necessity of the involvement of the US with the UN, and for some reason Bob just keeps talking about his own foreign policy prescriptions. Hitchens tries to get Wright to answer the question he initially posed two or three times, and, I don't think if was dissembling on Wright's part, he was just lost in his own mental space, committed to defending an argument that Hitchens wasn't even arguing against. At any rate, while it's true that Hitchens is a committed partisan, I think it's unfair to cast him as a "true believer," and it tires me a little bit hearing this same rhetoric about him and the other "new Atheists," as if being forthright in one's opinions were somehow identical to believing in Jesus. Whatever else may be said about Hitchens' hatred of what he sometimes calls 'theocratic tyranny," and his commitment to a positive reading

Quoting testostyrannical: Eh, I guess i'm not satisfied that I'm reading the conversation the same way that you guys are, and would say that Bob was sometimes almost obtusely unresponsive to questions Hitchens posed. In particular, There is a lengthy period where Hitchens asks Wright about the necessity of the involvement of the US with the UN, and for some reason Bob just keeps talking about his own foreign policy prescriptions. Hitchens tries to get Wright to answer the question he initially posed two or three times, and, I don't think if was dissembling on Wright's part, he was just lost in his own mental space, committed to defending an argument that Hitchens wasn't even arguing against. At any rate, while it's true that Hitchens is a committed partisan, I think it's unfair to cast him as a "true believer," and it tires me a little bit hearing this same rhetoric about him and the other "new Atheists," as if being forthright in one's opinions were somehow identical to believing in Jesus. Whatever else may be said about Hitchens' hatred of what he sometimes calls 'theocratic tyranny," and his commitment to a positive reading

Originally Posted by testostyrannical

At any rate, while it's true that Hitchens is a committed partisan, I think it's unfair to cast him as a "true believer," and it tires me a little bit hearing this same rhetoric about him and the other "new Atheists," as if being forthright in one's opinions were somehow identical to believing in Jesus. Whatever else may be said about Hitchens' hatred of what he sometimes calls 'theocratic tyranny," and his commitment to a positive reading of the Iraq War, he comes by his opinions on his own terms, and I don't see why we should be put off by the fact that he is a dogged defender of his own views.

Great pseudonym. I want to know all about these "new Atheists". I'll have to google them. Since he is no conservative (his own words), what party is he a partisan of? And yes, people who come by their opinions on their own terms shouldn't put us off. However, they often do. We do like to pigeon-hole people, so we can properly understand them. Originally Posted by whatfur

Here! Here!

or is it hear! hear!? I always struggle with that.

Originally Posted by whatfur Here! Here!

Quoting badhatharry: or is it hear! hear!? I always struggle with that.

It's "Hear! Hear!"

Quoting Baltimoron: It's "Hear! Hear!"

Thanks...didn't feel right when I typed it...but then I thought we need more of that straight talk Here! Here!

Quoting popcorn_karate: nice post.

it seems to be part of our basic world view how we react to this, and it is true that none of us can really know whether the outcome will ultimately be more "good" than "bad".

for me, there was so much uncertainty that it seemed like a bad idea from the start just because the unintended consequences seemed pretty likely. Odd how the liberal/conservative worldviews seem switched when it comes to war - liberals touting unintended consequence while conservatives are filled with optimism about government efficacy.

have a good one,

pk

excellent observation.

Quoting Whatfur: ...however you cannot ignore the alternative universe...as what was stopped with the removal of Saddam is more than that minute point...more than stopping his son's from pushing people off of tall buildings just for a laugh and to see how they bounced...more than the dismantling of rape rooms and the filling of graves with innocents...more than the stopping of U.N. bribary and Oil for Food massive fraud, but possibly also stopping the next attack on Kuwait or Israel or the Kurds...and possibly stopping the actual creation of a nuclear weapon...and possibly stopping more than just the rewarding of terrorists and their families but also stopping the financing of the next WTC bombing. I understand these things are not tangible, but we do have history to extrapolate.

I am struggling with this. I agree with what you have stated above, however, do you think it would have been possible in the run-up to the invasion or after the WMDs weren't found, for someone in the administration to speak to the peeps and explain the situation? And in that explanation include things like why we supported

Quoting popcorn_karate: for me, there was so much uncertainty that it seemed like a bad idea from the start just because the unintended consequences seemed pretty likely.

Just one more little thing. There are always consequences and there are always unintended consequences.

Excellent diavlog! I hope to see lots more of Bob and Christopher going at it with each other.

Am I the only one who noticed this? :-)

Since he is no conservative (his own words), what party is he a partisan of?

His own party. Like Connecticut for Lieberman, except The Whole World for Christopher Hitchens.

I pretty much agree. Bob gets caught up in trying to prove his position using debate club tactics while Hitchens, notwithstanding his obvious use of rhetorical strategies, appears to have his eyes more on the prize. This reminds me of Bob's notorious exchange with Daniel Dennett where he wears his adversary down and then claims victory due to a throwaway remark. Hitchens is too smart for this and when things get ridiculous goes with the rubber/glue stratagem.

How embarrassing for Mr. Wright to have his ass handed to him on every sophomoric and insipid point he tried to make. It's clear he's not even in the same league intellectually as Christopher Hitchens. Once again, the best of the left are laid to waste on the basis of their own arguments, but that doesn't change the thinking, which tells you something even more scary. For more from me, go to www.libertariancomment.com

I guess glennd1 and I did not hear the same conversation. It's pretty obvious to anyone that Robert Wright is not a moron. It's even obvious to Hitchens, as I pointed out, because he was actually on very good behavior here, despite the early morning glass of wine, which I did not pick up on but which he no doubt needed. (I only watched the first minute and had to download the episode to MP3 and listen. My connection in rural France is good, but not great.) Anyone could see that he was badly hung over. So the moron here must be someone else. I won't be going to your site glenn, but thanks so much for the invitation. Libertarianism is for morons. If I want to read a libertarian, I'll reread von Mises. I don't need to waste my time with you. It's amazing how little objectivity there is in assessing a debate like this. People hear what they want to hear. I think that attempts to defeat the echo chamber are largely doomed to fail. James Fallows points out, in a link provided by bj, how little the health-care debate has changed in America in forty years. The only thing that has changed

Robert Wright's argument is specious. In a schoolyard, when a bully hits you, you do not weigh the consequences of hitting back. Robert Wright should recount his schoolyard experiences to us. I believe he was bullied and was bloodied, and never learned to hit back.

I wish Robert would have responded to what I think was Hitchens' strongest argument. Robert admits that Saddam wouldn't allow scientists to leave the nation with family members for questioning. While Iraq was so big that Hussein could play cat-and-mouse with mobile WMD research sites), there were a limited number of capable scientists which our intelligence had identified. Saddam had the ability to prevent this war by simply dropping his cat-and-mouse act. Also, Robert, some of us were against supporting Saddam when he committed genocide -- we weren't bound by the Reagan administration's decision forever more! I wonder if one day in the future a nation will launch a war of aggression against another nation (say Pakistan against India) and lose. The armies of the victorious nation will approach the capital to topple the warmongering government, and the UN will say "wait! It will cause too much bloodshed -- let us set up a sanctions/inspections system." And they will respond "like you did with Iraq in 1991?"

I expect this kind of stupidity many times until it is realized that international law is not law at all: It is lawlessness.

I'm confident that I am very far to the left of glennd1, yet, I find Wright a moron in this dialogue also. I'm quite familiar with Wright, having read several of his books and many columns. There is a problem with these neo-aetheists, in that they are defending their belief system most of the time. Their belief system necessitates that their morality is circumstantial and contractual. They are unaware of their own psychology. It is much more 'reptilian brain' than they think. For example, the fact that Israel, North Korea, Pakistan are not signatories to NPT is pretty relevant (as Hitchens points out). Iran has threatened to withdraw (which is different than not signing in the first place), and has used subterfuge to cover up its violations, IS relevant. Hitchens also points this out. Wright, defending his aetheism and internationalist perspective insists that if Iran were given better inspection choices it might come into compliance. His moral relativism derives from accepting only the agreement between communities or individual values as binding. There is no higher good in Wright's world. Like the other neo-aetheists, Dawkins and Dennett, Wright thinks the world is a game of tit-for-tat. In a world filled with

[quote=Bert gold;142657]

There is a problem with these neo-aetheists, in that they are defending their belief system most of the time. Their belief system necessitates that their morality is circumstantial and contractual. They are unaware of their own psychology. It is much more 'reptilian brain' than they think..... His moral relativism derives from accepting only the agreement between communities or individual values as binding. There is no higher good in Wright's world. Like the other neo-aetheists, Dawkins and Dennett, Wright thinks the world is a game of tit-for-tat.

So this is a fresh perspective. You criticize Wright's views and attribute what's wrong with them to his atheism? However, Hitchens is also an atheist and you seem somewhat supportive of his. Can you tell me more specifically how atheism plays into what you find wrong about Wright?

In a world filled with believers, these aetheists will undoubtedly lose at the game.

So are you saying here that the passion which animates the believer will always trump the moral relativism which lives in the atheist?

[quote=badhatharry;142661]

Quoting Bert gold:

So this is a fresh perspective. You criticize Wright's views and attribute what's wrong with them to his atheism? However, Hitchens is also an atheist and you seem somewhat supportive of his. Can you tell me more specifically how atheism plays into what you find wrong about Wright?

So are you saying here that the passion which animates the believer will always trump the moral relativism which lives in the atheist?

It looks like Bert has interpreted that Bob is a New Atheist (!).

Quoting Bert gold: Robert Wright's argument is specious. In a schoolyard, when a bully hits you, you do not weigh the consequences of hitting back. Robert Wright should recount his schoolyard experiences to us. I believe he was bullied and was bloodied, and never learned to hit back.

By that reasoning, and since the biggest, strongest player in all of these situations is the US, the above sounds like you'd be in favor of increased terroristic activities.

Quoting glennd1: How embarrassing for Mr. Wright to have his ass handed to him on every sophomoric and insipid point he tried to make. It's clear he's not even in the same league intellectually as Christopher Hitchens. Once again, the best of the left are laid to waste on the basis of their own arguments, but that doesn't change the thinking, which tells you something even more scary.

For more from me, go to www.libertariancomment.com

Since Science Saturday isn't up yet, I thought I'd check out your link. I like most libertarian thought and I read the article you wrote about 'doing jobs'. It always galls me to hear some politician talking about creating jobs, because IMHO this is absolutely not the job of any politician. And as you point out, job creation is a by-product of the desire to create wealth. My comment to you is, at this crossroads of capitalism, it isn't entirely clear that that system will survive. With all the fiddling around in Washington and all the crappy decisions made on Wall Street, it might be in it's death throes. Especially after there have been several generations growing up with entitlement thinking.

Quoting bjkeefe: By that reasoning, and since the biggest, strongest player in all of these situations is the US, the above sounds like you'd be in favor of increased terroristic activities.

The biggest, strongest player is not always a bully, perhaps because he doesn't need to be.

Quoting badhatharry: The biggest, strongest player is not always a bully, perhaps because he doesn't need to be.

True, but in many cases, including recent activities in the Middle East and Afghanistan, it is at least arguable that the US is acting like a bully. Certainly, you will find no shortage of people who subscribe to that view.

Just as there is a large contingent of people that believe in UFOs.

Quoting piscivorous: Just as there is a large contingent of people that believe in UFOs.

Not quite, pisc. Much of the rest of the world believes the US was the bully in Iraq. Most believers in UFOs live in the US, or in Idaho and Nevada and places like that.

Yes, the U.S. is the "bully" when it came to Saddam Hussein and the Taliban. How mean we are to pick on such people.

Oh yeah, the U.S. bullied Saddam Hussein... only after he bullied Kuwait. His downfall and the invasion of Iraq are all on him. It would never have happened if he hadn't been the dictator he was. And without his invasion of Kuwait there would have never been U.S. troops stationed in Saudi Arabia which was the ultimate rational for 9/11. Oh, America, such the bully. We punched Saddam Hussein in the face, oh no!

Quoting bjkeefe: Certainly, you will find no shortage of people who subscribe to that view.

Yep, opinions are like assholes.........

Quoting piscivorous: Just as there is a large contingent of people that believe in UFOs.

Quoting Lyle: Yes, the U.S. is the "bully" when it came to Saddam Hussein and the Taliban. How mean we are to pick such people.

Due to your histories, I'm not going to waste any time discussing this with either of you.

Not the largest no of hits I've ever seen but 471,000 on the search Europe UFO clubs tells me not all the UFO believers are in the USA.

Quoting ledocs: I guess glennd1 and I did not hear the same conversation. It's pretty obvious to anyone that Robert Wright is not a moron. (I only watched the first minute and had to download the episode to MP3 and listen. My connection in rural France is good, but not great.) Anyone could see that he was badly hung over.

So the moron heIt's even obvious to Hitchens, as I pointed out, because he was actually on very good behavior here, despite the early morning glass of wine, which I did not pick up on but which he no doubt needed.re must be someone else. I won't be going to your site glenn, but thanks so much for the invitation. Libertarianism is for morons. If I want to read a libertarian, I'll reread von Mises. I don't need to waste my time with you.

It's amazing how little objectivity there is in assessing a debate like this. People hear what they want to hear. I think that attempts to defeat the echo chamber are largely doomed to fail. James Fallows points out, in a link provided by bj, how little the health-care debate has changed in America in forty years. The only thing that has changed

Quoting badhatharry:

So this is a fresh perspective. You criticize Wright's views and attribute what's wrong with them to his atheism? However, Hitchens is also an atheist and you seem somewhat supportive of his. Can you tell me more specifically how atheism plays into what you find wrong about Wright?

Hitchens is also a moral relativist and it hurts his case. Both of these guys don't understand how often they are pointing at the other like two jealous schoolkids who each have the bigger Christmas present. Neither of them appears to get to the root of why people might be, as Obama said in Olso,
"evil". Why does this kind of evil exist, boys? Wright would have us believe it is reactionary (in reaction to events). Hitchens would have us believe, well, it's in the nature of certain kinds of power. I would get deeper and say it is hard wired and has a role in tit-for-tat that neither of these guys really wants to grapple with.

Quoting badhatharry:
So are you saying here that the passion which animates the believer will always trump the moral relativism which lives in the atheist?

Yes, believers

Quoting Bert gold: Yes, believers have an advantage. They have something unworldly to aim for. For believers, there is a Platonic form for beauty, excellence, and evil. They therefore don't have to worry about defending their beliefs against various shades of gray that muddy the waters of focus for agnostics and aetheists. In fact, the black and white rulings of aetheists in a grey world of believers make them always defensively rationalizing their minority status. Even though they think they are intellectually superior, and are quite snobbish about their own belief system. [their belief system is, of course, that they don't believe].

You're fun at parties, aren't you?

I'm sure I haven't done a thing to be perceived as a moron. My comment about Mr. Wright being one is based on his terrible argumentation. In his best moments, he uses fatuous, defensive reasoning such as this (I'm paraphrasing). '...just because in one case something didn't cause something to happen doesn't mean it doesn't cause it in another case...' And this is as good as he gets. His intellectual weakness is all too evident in arguing for the primacy of the U.N. Security council, but he isn't even prepared to respond to it's history of inaction, or the U.S.'s unilateral action in the Balkans. He doesn't even have a good recollection of important facts regarding say Saddam Hussein's adventures with the U.N. inspectors. His initial point for the debate is equally weak, and Christopher Hitchens destroys Wirght's facile logic by pointing out that all oppressed people/nations do not resort to terroristic actions, while it's as common as peas in the Muslim Jihadist world, hinting that perhaps religion is much more of a common denominator than U.S. foreign policy. Wright is so beaten down by Hitchens' incisive argumentation that he looks

The most important thing I heard was Christopher Hitchens' point that the an understanding of and appreciation for the history of India and the creation of Pakistan are fundamental to any possible success of a our foreign policy in that region. One of the more useful books to that end is "The Man Who Would Be King: The First American in Afghanistan" by Ben Macintyre. This has nothing whatsoever do to with the movie or Kiplings short story. It is based on the real life and experience of Josiah Harlan a quaker from Pennsylvania. Macintyre is a columnist for The Times of London. More currently Ghost Wars by NYT reporter Steve Colls gives a contemporary understanding (to the extent that is possible) of Pakistan's ISI
and how they played us while we supported the mujahideen fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. Hitchens' comment also makes the point we are again cleaning up the after effects of British colonialism—witch created the Palestinian conflict, modern day Iraq and modern day Afghanistan/Pakistan/Kashmir/India.

Huzzah! (as opposed to OMG)
<3 <3 Hitchens
Christopher Hitchens don't be a stranger to bloggingheads.tv !

Quoting look: In his defense, I don't think Hitch would be caught dead drinking wine from a tumbler...I think it was grape juice, with a coffee chaser...yuck.

Or the blood of a theist.

Quoting Simon Willard: Or the blood of a theist.

That would explain the pallor.

Quoting Simon Willard: Or the blood of a theist.

What do you think would be the proper vessel for that?

Quoting look: In his defense, I don't think Hitch would be caught dead drinking wine from a tumbler...

Unless of course he was eye-hand coordination challenged, at so early an hour, and in obvious disrepair. What better than hair of the dog, caffeine, and hoh for hydration. Here is class/glass:http://www.furniturestoreblog.com/20...re_spills.html

Quoting Bert gold: I'm confident that I am very far to the left of glennd1, yet, I find Wright a moron in this dialogue also.

I'm quite familiar with Wright, having read several of his books and many columns.

There is a problem with these neo-aetheists, in that they are defending their belief system most of the time. Their belief system necessitates that their morality is circumstantial and contractual. They are unaware of their own psychology. It is much more 'reptilian brain' than they think. For example, the fact that Israel, North Korea, Pakistan are not signatories to NPT is pretty relevant (as Hitchens points out). Iran has threatened to withdraw (which is different than not signing in the first place), and has used subterfuge to cover up its violations, IS relevant. Hitchens also points this out.

Wright, defending his aetheism and internationalist perspective insists that if Iran were given better inspection choices it might come into compliance. His moral relativism derives from accepting only the agreement between communities or individual values as binding. There is no higher good in Wright's world. Like the other neo-aetheists, Dawkins and Dennett, Wright thinks the world is a game of tit-for-tat.

In a world filled with

Quoting glennd1: How embarrassing for Mr. Wright to have his ass handed to him on every sophomoric and insipid point he tried to make. It's clear he's not even in the same league intellectually as Christopher Hitchens. Once again, the best of the left are laid to waste on the basis of their own arguments, but that doesn't change the thinking, which tells you something even more scary.

For more from me, go to www.libertariancomment.com

I wonder how Hitchens, who fancies himself quite the "intelletual," feels about who his biggest fans have become.

Quoting graz: Unless of course he was eye-hand coordination challenged, at so early an hour, and in obvious disrepair. What better than hair of the dog, caffeine, and hoh for hydration. Here is class/glass:http://www.furniturestoreblog.com/20...re_spills.html

Could be, but red wine with a hangover...yuck. Good eye.

Well, you obviously know nothing about Hitchens. He would not be caught dead drinking grape juice under any circumstances, not if it were a prerequisite to the cessation of torture.

Quoting ledocs: Well, you obviously know nothing about Hitchens. He would not be caught dead drinking grape juice under any circumstances, not if it were a prerequisite to the cessation of torture.

I'm not so sure, ledocs. Hithens has always struck me as a little too boastful about his drinking ... a bit PJ O'rourkian. If we were really a drinker - a serious drinker - we wouldn't know. Until he turned up dead. Or like Ronnie Wood. Of course, this is utterly brilliant: http://www.theonion.com/content/news...chens_forcibly

Quoting nikkibong: I wonder how Hitchens, who fancies himself quite the "intelletual," feels about who his biggest fans have become.

Heh. That's the best revenge.

I'm sure I haven't done a thing to be perceived as a moron. My comment about Mr. Wright being one is based on his terrible argumentation. In his best moments, he uses fatuous, defensive reasoning such as this (I'm paraphrasing). '...just because in one case something didn't cause something to happen doesn't mean it doesn't cause it in another case...' And this is as good as he gets.

No, you're quite wrong. You've done everything to indicate, at least to me, that you are a moron. The first thing you did was to call Wright a moron. The second thing you did was to cite your libertarian web site. In my view, libertarianism under contemporary conditions is the province of unthinking idiots and wackos. The third thing you did was to claim that Hitchens had roundly defeated Wright on all relevant matters of substance in this diavlog. Now, the fourth thing you've done is to to give an example of "fatuous, defensive reasoning" that is neither fatuous nor defensive. It's a perfectly valid logical point. If it is too simple a point for you or Hitchens to be bothered with, then perhaps Hitchens should have

A short exchange between Itzik Basman (not to be confused with Itzik Basman) and his older and wiser brother Muni Basman, in his day amongst the cream of Toronto lawyers, both brothers insistent, in matters such as this, on declaring winners and losers: Muni Basman: "Wonderful. He really gave it to Hitchins, didn't he?" Itzik Basman (not to be confused with Itzik Basman): "I had the opposite reaction. What can I tell you?" Muni Basman: "Itzik, I thought you would realize that I was joking. Hitchins mopped the
floor with him." Itzik Basman (not to be confused with Itzik Basman): "Well okay then." Itzik Basman (not to be confused with Itzik Basman) p.s. None of the above and gripping dialogue is meant to convey any suggestion that Wright is not an extremely bright fellow with an extremely bonny mind.

Um, nikkibong, Hitchens's drinking is legendary, and the legends are not all perpetuated by Hitchens. I'd put good money on the contention that he was hung over and drinking something to help with hangovers. I was under the impression that people drank alcohol in the morning to help with hangovers. I see that in the movies a lot. I've been drunk so rarely that I don't have much personal experience here. Hitchens either is an alcoholic or is a borderline alcoholic, that's my distinct impression. But that's neither here nor there, really, except that he can be abusive in argument, and sometimes the abusiveness is probably exacerbated by alcohol. I did see an interview of Hitchens once, in his DC apartment, and the interviewer asked him about his drinking. Hitchens presumably had not asked the interviewer to bring this up so that he could boast about it, and what Hitchens said in reply was that, yes, he drinks, but that he's got it under control. But most alcoholics say that. Hitchens had a lot of artworks resting on the floor, not hung on the walls. I bring this up only as evidence that I have a fairly distinct memory of the interview. As

Quoting nikkibong:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news...chens_forcibly

Excellent.

Quoting Bert gold: ...

Yes, believers have an advantage. They have something unworldly to aim for. For believers, there is a Platonic form for beauty, excellence, and evil. They therefore don't have to worry about defending their beliefs against various shades of gray that muddy the waters of focus for agnostics and aetheists. In fact, the black and white rulings of aetheists in a grey world of believers make them always defensively rationalizing their minority status. Even though they think they are intellectually superior, and are quite snobbish about their own belief system. [their belief system is, of course, that they don't believe].

I agree that atheist ethics are harder to formulate. It is hard to get an ethical framework and basis more simple than
-BECAUSE GOD SAID SO-
But at the end of the day, it is a WEAKER foundation of ethics, consider it ethics on training wheels. Now based off many off the rails secular formulations of ethics, I'd prefer training wheels to some of their constructs, moral relativism is true in a cosmic sense, but they take it further and seek to deny ANY objective standards of ethics too often. The distinction between objective and absolute is lost on them, but again, this task is alot harder than "because god said

Hitchens has publicly stated he drinks the same spirits as the Saudi Royal family, Johnny Walker Black Label... http://fora.tv/2009/07/09/Axis_of_Ev...vorite_Whiskey

I have gotten w good chuckle out of this whole thread on is Mr. Hitchens hung over for this episode, while there has been little if any comment on the drinking habits of one of the darlings of the left Mr. Alterman who has obviously been drunk on at least two of his diavlogs.

Quoting piscivorous: I have gotten w good chuckle out of this whole thread on is Mr. Hitchens hung over for this episode, while there has been little if any comment on the drinking habits of one of the darlings of the left Mr. Alterman who has obviously been drunk on at least two of his diavlogs.

You understand that the issue is in regard to Hitchens' acknowledged reputation as a hard drinking lover of malt, and not so much about his appearance here, right?

And Mr. Alterman has no similar reputation about his drinking and drug use?

Quoting piscivorous: And Mr. Alterman has no similar reputation about his drinking and drug use?

Nope, not in the sense that Hitchens is known as a drinker. Hitchens is, of course, far better known, so his reputation has had a much better chance of, err. ripening.

Quoting basman: A short exchange between Itzik Basman (not to be confused with Itzik Basman) and his older and wiser brother Muni Basman, in his day amongst the cream of Toronto lawyers, both brothers insistent, in matters such as this, on declaring winners and losers:

Muni Basman:

"Wonderful. He really gave it to Hitchins, didn't he?"

Itzik Basman (not to be confused with Itzik Basman):

"I had the opposite reaction. What can I tell you?"

Muni Basman:

"Itzik, I thought you would realize that I was joking. Hitchins mopped the
floor with him."

Itzik Basman (not to be confused with Itzik Basman):

"Well okay then."

Itzik Basman (not to be confused with Itzik Basman)

p.s. None of the above and gripping dialogue is meant to convey any suggestion that Wright is not an extremely bright fellow with an extremely bonny mind.

The Basman brothers, I would bet, are seldom confused and only confusing when that is the task at hand. Of course, many here are going to inquire if by chance you have a third or fourth or.... sibling who thinks otherwise or possibly more importantly thinks Hitchens was drinking last night, drinking during, or at least hungover. Not sure that bodes any better for Mr. Wright anyway though. p.s. Muni's hobby

Quoting Bert gold: Why does this kind of evil exist, boys? Wright would have us believe it is reactionary (in reaction to events). Hitchens would have us believe, well, it's in the nature of certain kinds of power. I would get deeper and say it is hard wired and has a role in tit-for-tat that neither of these guys really wants to grapple with.

The tit for tat, hard wired reason you propose is something an atheist and both of these guys would agree with, I think. The question after that is 'what to do about it?'. Surely we are also prone towards cooperation (another hard-wired feature). The next big question is whether we can learn to cooperate on a global scale and how to do that. Wright seems quite hopeful that we can learn, through the mechanisms he discusses in the diavlog. Hitchens seems much less sanguine about this prospect, at least at the current time and in the current environment.

Quoting Alworth: I'm late getting to the party, but this thread seems the most apt. Hitchens is a smart guy, but he's also a lazy thinker. Not only does he repeat points, he has a bag of tricks he relies on to avoid ever having to actually think about things. (I'll admit I'm only 15 minutes in, but I'm dying already.) It goes something like this:

Hitchens: extreme statement larded with mischievous provocation.

Earnest foe: begins to unpack the comment

Hitchens: interrupts with a complaint that he was misquoted, sending into a spiraling narrative of several minutes wherein a laundry list of tired old points are trundled out.

Earnest foe: tries to respond to one of the points

Hitchens: goes on an animated rant, constraining analysis to defeat a caricatured straw man never offered by the earnest foe.

Earnest foe: tries to correct the record.

Hitchens: another filibuster, striking down all attempts by earnest foe to engage.

Earnest foe: silence.

End...

Excellent analysis of the Hitchens method.

I think that Robert Wright appears to be good guy. However, he is simply an unserious partisan and not someone who should be arguing with a serious person such as Chris Hitchens. Robert got spanked repeatedly throughout this diavlog because he has not read enough. IT is as simple as that.
The key point that made me realize that he is unserious was his answer to Hitchens point about Bosnia and Kosovo. He wrote articles supporting the wars there and yet to this day has no idea that the United Nations Security Council never supported the war...and he had no idea that both the Chinese and the Russians were completly opposed to the war. There was NO way it was going to pass the security council. The Clinton administration NEVER even brought it to the Security Council. The Kosovo war was a purely NATO operation that did not have any "legal" justification according to International Law. The Bush administration, regardless of the many faults that can be attributed to the prosecution of the war, DID bring it to the UN and one can argue that the first resolution would justify

Quoting joetheragman: I think that Robert Wright appears to be good guy. However, he is simply an unserious partisan and not someone who should be arguing with a serious person such as Chris Hitchens.

Great commentary, ragman. But what do you think of Hitchen's excessive drinking?
BTW, feel free to comment more than every six months.

Badhat Harry, ummm what difference does it make if I comment every four years? Also, to sort of Quote Lincoln when asked about US Grant's excessive drinking said "find out what kind of whiskey he is drinking so I can send it to my other Generals". Who are you, the prohibition movement head of the 21st century?

Quoting joetheragman: I think that Robert Wright appears to be good guy. However, he is simply an unserious partisan and not someone who should be arguing with a serious person such as Chris Hitchens. Robert got spanked repeatedly throughout this diavlog because he has not read enough. IT is as simple as that.
The key point that made me realize that he is unserious was his answer to Hitchens point about Bosnia and Kosovo. He wrote articles supporting the wars there and yet to this day has no idea that the United Nations Security Council never supported the war...and he had no idea that both the Chinese and the Russians were completly opposed to the war. There was NO way it was going to pass the security council. The Clinton administration NEVER even brought it to the Security Council. The Kosovo war was a purely NATO operation that did not have any "legal" justification according to International Law. The Bush administration, regardless of the many faults that can be attributed to the prosecution of the war, DID bring it to the UN and one can argue that the first resolution would justify

Quoting joetheragman: Badhat Harry, ummm what difference does it make if I comment every four years? Also, to sort of Quote Lincoln when asked about US Grant's excessive drinking said "find out what kind of whiskey he is drinking so I can send it to my other Generals". Who are you, the prohibition movement head of the 21st century?

Or to quote one of Hitchens' own countrymen:
"You are disgustingly drunk, Sir Winston."
""Yes, madam, I am drunk. And you are ugly. But in the morning I will be sober."

If this is possible Josh Cohen and Moshe Halbertal of http://www.tnr.com/print/article/env...l-and-the-real and who sometines teaches at NYU law? Itzik Basman (not to be confused with Itzik Basman)

Exactly...he understands that being anti west is self defeating. I mean I will never understand the left when it comes to these regimes that are anti women, anti gay, anti human rights. Yet Hitchens communicates the ideals of the left without the anti military aspects that seem to infect most of the left. I remember prior to 911 the talk on the left about the hideous anti female Taliban and the left were the ones who were exposing this human rights nightmare...I agreed with them then. However, what makes me look at the left with a slightly jaundiced eye, is that they are good at identifying a problem in teh world community, but simply are not comfortable with solutions that involve military force. It is a hangover from baby boomer leftists during the Vietnam period. It is like Robert Wright saying that using the military was correct in the Balkans (which I agreed with) but then not even having the intellectual curiousity to find out that it was not a UN operation and in fact, it was DOA if the Clinton administration were going to bring it to the UN.
Hitchens point

Quoting look: Yes, our Bob is no match for Hitchens, but I think the deal was that he'd engage Bob as a favor because people just plain like Bob. Though the exchange was distressing to see, Hitch was dear, sweet, kind, and tolerant.

I think Bob did about as well as I have seen with that position, I just think the position itself is on weaker ground than alternatives. Until international law more closely mirrors justice and lines up with "what is right"
following it to the T would often be the WRONG action. This is not a contestable point, even within our own country, there were laws that I would have considered rightly and justly flouted at the time. If the law states certain people are "property" does that make it so? Should I act in accordance with that? Whether that was ever constitutional or not, the fact remains that some actions are right (abolitionists helping slaves escape to the north) independent of any law. Nor can we judge the rightness or merits of an action on based off consensus. Using the same theme, the fact that the southern white consensus at one time was that slavery should remain legal did not

Quoting joetheragman: Badhat Harry, ummm what difference does it make if I comment every four years? Also, to sort of Quote Lincoln when asked about US Grant's excessive drinking said "find out what kind of whiskey he is drinking so I can send it to my other Generals". Who are you, the prohibition movement head of the 21st century?

It makes no difference. I was referring to the excellence of your commentary and that it is appreciated. And I was kidding about Hitchen's drinking. So sorry to have bothered you.

Quoting JonIrenicus: Of course, this is assuming Bob is even concerned about right and wrong, he is pretty realist in his sympathies. They often get agitated at the very mention of nuisances like ethics and justice and rightness in any sort of discussion of policy.

It is one of the reasons I think I will always be more sympathetic to the sort of place Hitchens argues from, even if I sometimes disagree with his policy wants. You never get the sense that Hitchens ethical moorings are completely detached like you often sense in realists (placing such concerns somewhere between jogging left or right in the morning, indifferent, uncaring, unconcerned).

You've written a lot here, but I was particularly curious about what I have quoted above. It seems to be your opinion that a realist is not concerned with things like right and wrong. If they are not, what in your estimation are they interested in? Maybe you could include your definition of a realist. Just trying to learn....

We will not be a civilized nation until we can look at our own crimes first: 1. The US has consistently invaded other nations with shaky justification for over a century.
2. The US had near genocidal policies in Vietnam and the UN's Oil for Food program killed over 500,000 Iraqi citizens. We backed Suharto in Indonesia. We also backed Saddam when he gassed the Kurds.
3. US proxy Israel continues to maintain an illegal nuclear arsenal.
4. The US has too many thuggish friends around the world to list here, but let's just start with the mujahadeen in Afghanistan. So by Hitchen's criteria, the US has lost its legitimacy long ago. Neo-Conservatives like Hitchens are the just the newest incarnation of radical nationalism.

Quoting BlueberrySky: We will not be a civilized nation until we can look at our own crimes first:

1. The US has consistently invaded other nations with shaky justification for over a century.
2. The US had near genocidal policies in Vietnam and the UN's Oil for Food program killed over 500,000 Iraqi citizens. We backed Suharto in Indonesia. We also backed Saddam when he gassed the Kurds.
3. US proxy Israel continues to maintain an illegal nuclear arsenal.
4. The US has too many thuggish friends around the world to list here, but let's just start with the mujahadeen in Afghanistan.

So by Hitchen's criteria, the US has lost its legitimacy long ago. Neo-Conservatives like Hitchens are the just the newest incarnation of radical nationalism.

So once the wrongs have been acknowledged, what would be the next, correct course of action?

Blueberry says:We will not be a civilized nation until we can look at our own crimes first:
1. The US has consistently invaded other nations with shaky justification for over a century.
2. The US had near genocidal policies in Vietnam and the UN's Oil for Food program killed over 500,000 Iraqi citizens. We backed Suharto in Indonesia. We also backed Saddam when he gassed the Kurds.
3. US proxy Israel continues to maintain an illegal nuclear arsenal.
4. The US has too many thuggish friends around the world to list here, but let's just start with the mujahadeen in Afghanistan.
So by Hitchen's criteria, the US has lost its legitimacy long ago. Neo-Conservatives like Hitchens are the just the newest incarnation of radical nationalism. [/b][/i][/i][/i] Joe: Blueberry, how about defeating the Nazis...how about the fact that the communism, to include the Vietnamese, the Chinese, the Russians, the Pol Pot nightmare were a complete horror show of human rights that killed 100 million human beings outside or war..how about the fact that the Oil for Food program was administered by the UN...do you understand the fact that international law, if it is to be useful at all, will require sanctionsjust like

Quoting joetheragman: .....do you understand the fact that international law, if it is to be useful at all, will require sanctionsjust like national laws? Or are you stating that you dont believe in International law? Law requires sanctions and an enforcement capability that as Hitchens points out, is simply the US or ...who?

True, international law requires sanctions. The invasion of Iraq by the US should have been sanctioned under international law. Why? Because it was in violation of international law, which does not recognize a right to "preventive" war (the "Bush doctrine," as opposed to preemptive war, i.e. in the case of the threat of an imminent attack). So are you saying that the United States, as the only enforcer of international law, should have sanctioned itself?

[quote=joetheragman;142890]Blueberry says:We will not be a civilized nation until we can look at our own crimes first:
1. The US has consistently invaded other nations with shaky justification for over a century.
2. The US had near genocidal policies in Vietnam and the UN's Oil for Food program killed over 500,000 Iraqi citizens. We backed Suharto in Indonesia. We also backed Saddam when he gassed the Kurds.
3. US proxy Israel continues to maintain an illegal nuclear arsenal.
4. The US has too many thuggish friends around the world to list here, but let's just start with the mujahadeen in Afghanistan.
So by Hitchen's criteria, the US has lost its legitimacy long ago. Neo-Conservatives like Hitchens are the just the newest incarnation of radical nationalism. [/b][/i][/i][/i] Joe: Blueberry, how about defeating the Nazis...how about the fact that the communism, to include the Vietnamese, the Chinese, the Russians, the Pol Pot nightmare were a complete horror show of human rights that killed 100 million human beings outside or war..how about the fact that the Oil for Food program was administered by the UN...do you understand the fact that international law, if it is to be useful at all, will require sanctionsjust like

I think Alworth pretty much summed up why I haven't bothered to watch this diavlog yet. Hitchens is more interested in winning the debate than actually addressing the points his opponent makes. Colourful language and a blustery personality only amount to so much. At least Bob always gives the impression that he is trying to consider the other side in his formulations.

International law does have sanctions. However, international law did nothing in Cambodia, did nothing in Bosnia...nothing in the 56 and 68 uprisings against communism, did nothing in Rwanda and so forgive me if I am not enamored with the idea of what is mostly a useless international law framework. I thought then and think now that using force to save the Muslims in Bosnia regardless of what hte Russians or the Chinese thought (and why are the Russians on the Security council anyway? Why not the Japanese or the Indians? Where is the legitimacy of a 1945 agreement 64 years later?) was the morally right thing to do...what you are saying is that our morality, our idea of law is going to be guided by Russians and Chinese versions of what is correct. I am sorry, but as evidenced repeatedly, their ideas of law do not agree with my western views. Do they agree with yours?

To Joe's points: Lumping all the world's regimes that called themselves communist is useless as a tool for argument. We created stronger ties with Mao then the Soviet Union ever did. As for Pol Pot, he never would have been able to accomplish his massacres had we not laid the soil with our devastation of Cambodia. Yes, its true that the US in alliance with Uncle Joe Stalin defeated the Nazis and that was of course a good thing. Of course we ourselves purposely killed over a million Japanese civilians in that same war, so lets not allow ourselves to be too smug about the whole affair. My bottom line is that US military adventures since World War II (though it goes back to at least Teddy Roosevelt) are mainly the brainchilds of either the industrial military complex or technocrats who have read too many spy novels. Stand back and look at the twentieth century. Think about the global scope of American Power and then compare it to the relative isolationism of the PRC or the Soviet Union. I don't mean to excuse the crimes of those nations, but

Quoting joetheragman: International law does have sanctions. However, international law did nothing in Cambodia, did nothing in Bosnia...nothing in the 56 and 68 uprisings against communism, did nothing in Rwanda and so forgive me if I am not enamored with the idea of what is mostly a useless international law framework. I thought then and think now that using force to save the Muslims in Bosnia regardless of what hte Russians or the Chinese thought (and why are the Russians on the Security council anyway? Why not the Japanese or the Indians? Where is the legitimacy of a 1945 agreement 64 years later?) was the morally right thing to do...what you are saying is that our morality, our idea of law is going to be guided by Russians and Chinese versions of what is correct. I am sorry, but as evidenced repeatedly, their ideas of law do not agree with my western views. Do they agree with yours?

International law is older than the UN and transcends it. The weakness of international law, as you point out, is the lack of an enforcement mechanism, i.e. sanctions. So I am not sure what you mean when you say that international law already

Quoting Francoamerican: International law is older than the UN and transcends it. The weakness of international law, as you point out, is the lack of an enforcement mechanism, i.e. sanctions. So I am not sure what you mean when you say that international law already has sanctions. The UN is nothing but a deliberative body that strives to reach a consensus, in accord with international law, about what is to be done when a conflict arises between its member states. Without the unanimity of the Security Council, it is powerless. Sanctions can only be imposed at the behest of its most powerful member states. Hence all the violations of international law since the creation of the UN.

But you didn't answer my question. If the most powerful and one of the most democratic nations in the UN, the US, violates international law, as I believe it did in invading Iraq, who is to impose sanctions?

Everybody else. They should have thrown the USA out of the WTO in 2003.

I dont think that Bob Wright is actually knowledgable about this subject. He has a cursory knowledge of Iraq and international law but basically his knowledge is at the level of someone who watches and learns about these subjects from tv...I was unimpressed with his ability to actually debate and the reason he was not able to was a simple lack of knowledge and preperation...he might be impressive at a cocktail party of people who are not knowledgeable about foreign policy or Iraq or International law (especially when he has no idea what was going on in Bosnia and Kosovo and was paid to write about it), but not when it comes to someone who as actually paid attention to the subject and done the homework....like Hitchens...

Blue Sky says : Lumping all the world's regimes that called themselves communist is useless as a tool for argument. We created stronger ties with Mao then the Soviet Union ever did. As for Pol Pot, he never would have been able to accomplish his massacres had we not laid the soil with our devastation of Cambodia. Joe: this could be a long conversation Blueberry...but Cambodia, just to ensure this is put out there, were either unable to stop their territory for being used to transport weapons, ammo food for Vietnamese troops in teh South that was killing Americans, OR they abetted the movement of those supplies. Either way, that supply line was killing American Soldiers...so it was perfectly fine to take the fight into that country to stop that supply line... and your laying the blame for Pol Pot, the ultra communist at the feet of America is pure nonsense. The US does not control the world with some sort of Godlike ability (see Iraq/Afghanistan for proof). YOu can blame the communists for Pol Pot...cause that is what he was...same with N Korea, China and N Vietnam....and more misery than

I didn't say anything about Imperial Japan. I just said that the US purposefully murdered over a million Japanese civilians. Yes, history is filled with countless atrocities like the Nanking Massacre, but this does not make anything that we do any more or less morally acceptable. Also, I did not even remotely endorse Mao or the PRC. Mao was a monster. I just pointed out that it was OUR president Nixon and not the Soviet Union that made nice with him. As for the democrats, they don't hold up much better to scrutiny. It was Truman who dropped the A-bomb on Hiroshima. It was Kennedy who started the war in Vietnam and Johnson who expanded it. And yes, the adventures in Bosnia and Kosovo were poorly conceived and poorly executed. I wouldn't use the word isolationist to describe myself. If there is something that we can do to help outside our borders we should do it, but almost always situations are too complex for this to be the case. Its hard for us to step back and realize it, but we live in a nation obsessed with war. Specifically obsessed with our own war history. The holy trinity

There is no strength to "international law". It is not recognized internationally and it is not law. It is just a way for strong nations to prey on the weak, and it justifies the prosecution of some atrocities of war. Otherwise, it is meaningless.

I thought then and think now that using force to save the Muslims in Bosnia regardless of what hte Russians or the Chinese thought... was the morally right thing to do

I do too, but what would have been even more morally right is if the US and the Europeans and everyone else had been on the same page and if there had been some structure in place so that Yugoslavia could have stayed together or broken up without genocide. Pretty much everything that happened in the Balkans in the 1990s happened in the worst possible way, and the fact that we ended up sponsoring the Croats to re-ethnically cleanse the Krajina and kick the Serbs back in Bosnia wasn't a moral victory for NATO. I mean, I think we did what had to be done, but it can't be called a moral victory. (Keeping Macedonia from going completely to crap in 2001, on the other hand, was.) The argument that the UN/international community/international law had no effect on this or that horrible event isn't really a valid argument against multilateralism in theory. It reminds me a bit

Quoting BlueberrySky: We will not be a civilized nation until we can look at our own crimes first:

1. The US has consistently invaded other nations with shaky justification for over a century.
2. The US had near genocidal policies in Vietnam and the UN's Oil for Food program killed over 500,000 Iraqi citizens. We backed Suharto in Indonesia. We also backed Saddam when he gassed the Kurds.
3. US proxy Israel continues to maintain an illegal nuclear arsenal.
4. The US has too many thuggish friends around the world to list here, but let's just start with the mujahadeen in Afghanistan.

So by Hitchen's criteria, the US has lost its legitimacy long ago. Neo-Conservatives like Hitchens are the just the newest incarnation of radical nationalism.

I think that the implied characterization of Hitchens' stance on Iraq as being both congruent and continuous with most of the underlying policies you outline above misses what motivates Hitchens. Hitchens himself has not exerted a great deal of energy defending himself from the "neo-conservative" tag I think because he probably sees his own intellectual history as having tracked closely the history of the original members of the neo-conservatives. This was a tradition

If anything, Hitchens here is holding on to a certain moral universalism that he sees as being consistent with his older Marxist, or he would probably say 'Trotskyite' days

He would probably say 'Trotskyist'. Aren't Trotskyites supposed to be very sensitive about being called Trotskyites, since that was a favorite pejorative of Stalin's? Anyway, this post was very astute. I thought it was very interesting how Hitchens said something sort of like "If we supported Saddam when he was killing the Kurds with gas, all the more reason for us to overthrow him 20 years later". I suppose I understand the logic behind it -- supporting Saddam while he was killing the Kurds was bad, overthrowing Saddam was good, and there's no reason for us not to do something good just because we did something bad in the past -- but it's a very weird kind of logic. We didn't support Saddam because we thought supporting evil Middle Eastern dictators was the right thing to do, we supported him because we thought it served the greater good of keeping Iran in check and we could deal with the nasty stuff he

Quoting badhatharry: You've written a lot here, but I was particularly curious about what I have quoted above. It seems to be your opinion that a realist is not concerned with things like right and wrong. If they are not, what in your estimation are they interested in? Maybe you could include your definition of a realist.

Just trying to learn....

I was probably too strong there. Put it this way, if concern for morality and justice and democratic rule and freedom were like dials on an equalizer, I think the realists dials would be set near the bottom.
It is not that there are no concerns, it is that those concerns are damped. It would have been the difference between an abolitionist breaking laws and forcing an end to slavery vs one who was more concerned about the union first and foremost, with the concern for the injustice over slavery on a sort of back burner compared to others.
At the extremes I honestly see such people as a bit... broken ethically.
soulless calculations of ledgers, overly cautious on the upsides, overly credulous on the downsides. At almost all times erring on the side that upsets

Quoting JonIrenicus: No, at the end of the day, all policy arguments must be argued on their own merits, that will always be the source of the strongest material for or against.

Yes, but did I hear Christopher say that for the Rwanda crisis the US voted no in the UN, for intervention?

On January 11, 1994 Lieutenant General Romeo Dallaire (United Nations Force Commander in Rwanda) notified Military Advisor to the Secretary-General, Major-General Maurice Baril of four major weapons caches and plans by the Hutus for extermination of Tutsis. The telegram from Dallaire stated that an informant who was a top level Interahamwe militia trainer was in charge of demonstrations carried out a few days before. The goal of the demonstrations was to provoke an RPF battalion in Kigali into firing upon demonstrators and Belgian United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR) troops into using force. Under such a scenario the Interhamwe would have an excuse to engage the Belgian troops and the RPF battalion. Several Belgians were to be killed, which would guarantee a withdrawal of the Belgian contingent, which was the backbone of the peacekeeping mission. The Tutsis would then be eliminated. According

Quoting AemJeff: What do you think would be the proper vessel for that?

PZ Myer's chalice.

I was thinking of Robert's opinions on international law, and have been wanting to comment on them for some time so this is as good a time as any. Often he'll put forward some opinion on international laws and give more power to international institutions. I think there's a disconnect in what Robert is trying to say and what he actually is saying. The main problem is that, there is what International Law IS, what it IS right now. What Robert talks about has nothing to do with that. So when he says we should have more of this, people try to correct him by pointing out what International Law IS. They assume Robert is ignorant of what it IS. When Robert says "we should pay more attention to these institutions", people assume that he's talking about giving up more authority to what these institutions ARE. What Robert is actually talking about is what these institutions OUGHT to be, and how to get there. In Robert's mind there is this thing, let's call it Binternational Blaw, to distinguish it, which has all these traits of what he calls international law. Binternational Blaw is

Quoting look: PZ Myer's chalice.

I guess it goes well with crackers.