It knows very well that sanctions are injuring every Palestinian citizen, but—just like Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq—it declines to cease the indiscriminate violence and the racist and religious demagogy that led to the sanctions in the first place.

Unbelievable. Whatever the merits or otherwise of this week's article - or any other week's, for that matter - Hitch is again compelled to somehow justify the invasion of Iraq. Let's assume for a moment that Hitch's statement can be taken at face value. So what? The ostensible reason we invaded Iraq was the alleged existence of WMD, not because of "indiscriminate violence" or "racist and religious demagogy." Those were justifications that were later, and even at this late stage, apparently, almost six years on and only a few weeks until the gasping Bush administration breathes its last, retrofitted onto the rationale for war in Iraq.

Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?

Dude, you read my mind (quick read) with the Lincoln bit. Anyway, Sodamn Insane was a secular thug. The only time he picked up a Koran was at his trial, for sake of theater. He did have the right idea though, when he challenged little Bush to a duel to the death. All the leaders of the squabbling nations should be tossed into an arena to duke it out, winner take all.

The best idea by far, though, were the South American Indian tribes that settled disputes with a soccer game. The losing team's chief was decapitated and his head was the ball for the next game.

First, you seem to have a problem segregating Hitchens' justifications for the war in Iraq from those that were offered by the administration. Unfortunately, it has become commonplace for any supporter of the invasion to be lumped in with Bush and his cronies and labeled a neocon. Read any of Hitchens' articles or watch any of his debates about Iraq and you will quickly realize that he offers a comprehensive argument for the invasion and lists Saddam's WMD program as one of four reasons he believes Saddam should have been overthrown. Bush justified it like the cowboy that he is- keep it simple and, unfortunately for us, stupid. Hitchens justified it like the intellectual and scholar of history that he is, citing the role that the U.S. played in Saddam coming to power in the first place, our failure to remove him after the invasion of Kuwait, and his genocidal actions.

Second, his mentioning of the humanitarian crisis that Saddam engendered is not an attempt to justify the invasion of Iraq- nowhere in this article does he even mention the invasion. People who are adamantly against the war have developed a syndrome that makes them see any criticism of Saddam as an attempt to justify the war post hoc. Is it not possible to simply say some bad things about a brutal dictator without having to enter into some tired, 6 year-old debate about why we deposed him? Anyway, the list of four reasons for invading Iraq that I mentioned above does not include the suffering of Iraqis caused by Saddam's refusal to take steps to end the U.N. sanction regime (even though there are some of us who do believe that humanitarian crises, especially those which are perpetuated by our own actions, do require international intervention).

sid canton:

First, you seem to have a problem segregating Hitchens' justifications for the war in Iraq from those that were offered by the administration. Unfortunately, it has become commonplace for any supporter of the invasion to be lumped in with Bush and his cronies and labeled a neocon. Read any of Hitchens' articles or watch any of his debates about Iraq and you will quickly realize that he offers a comprehensive argument for the invasion and lists Saddam's WMD program as one of four reasons he believes Saddam should have been overthrown. Bush justified it like the cowboy that he is- keep it simple and, unfortunately for us, stupid. Hitchens justified it like the intellectual and scholar of history that he is, citing the role that the U.S. played in Saddam coming to power in the first place, our failure to remove him after the invasion of Kuwait, and his genocidal actions.

If I "have a problem segregating Hitchens' justifications for the war in Iraq from those that were offered by the administration," it's because he so assiduously shilled for the administration specifically and the war in general in the face of mounting evidence that it was a) at best, predicated on a giant mistake and/or b) predicated on lies. Hitchens inability to "let it go" and his need to sneak in something, anything about Iraq no matter how tangential the reference speaks to what in my mind is his continual need to justify the unjustifiable.

sid canton:

Second, his mentioning of the humanitarian crisis that Saddam engendered is not an attempt to justify the invasion of Iraq- nowhere in this article does he even mention the invasion. People who are adamantly against the war have developed a syndrome that makes them see any criticism of Saddam as an attempt to justify the war post hoc. Is it not possible to simply say some bad things about a brutal dictator without having to enter into some tired, 6 year-old debate about why we deposed him? Anyway, the list of four reasons for invading Iraq that I mentioned above does not include the suffering of Iraqis caused by Saddam's refusal to take steps to end the U.N. sanction regime (even though there are some of us who do believe that humanitarian crises, especially those which are perpetuated by our own actions, do require international intervention).

Again, if I "have developed a syndrome that makes [me] see any criticism of Saddam as an attempt to justify the war post hoc," it's because, well, so many attempts to justify the war post hoc were trotted out by the Bush administration and willing accomplices such as Hitch.

If I "have a problem segregating Hitchens' justifications for the war in Iraq from those that were offered by the administration," it's because he so assiduously shilled for the administration specifically and the war in general in the face of mounting evidence that it was a) at best, predicated on a giant mistake and/or b) predicated on lies. Hitchens inability to "let it go" and his need to sneak in something, anything about Iraq no matter how tangential the reference speaks to what in my mind is his continual need to justify the unjustifiable.

You really aren't addressing my point here. I never disputed the fact that Hitchens "shilled" for the war and even for the administration (it's not difficult to imagine why Hitchens would support the administration for adopting a policy that he agrees with). My point was you were trying to box him in with the administration by claiming that he relied soley on the WMD argument and has only recently tried to justify the war with other arguments. That could not be further from the truth. And it makes perfect sense to compare the plight of the Palestinians in Gaza with that of the Iraqis under Saddam. The Palestinians are suffering under international sanctions because their leaders refuse to come into compliance with international law. It is almost an exact parallel of what took place in Saddam's Iraq.

Again, if I "have developed a syndrome that makes [me] see any criticism of Saddam as an attempt to justify the war post hoc," it's because, well, so many attempts to justify the war post hoc were trotted out by the Bush administration and willing accomplices such as Hitch.

You're pushing an open door as far as the administration is concerned (I have no real use for Bush). They would have been better off adopting Hitchens argument instead of relying so heavily on WMD's. But then again, he would never had been able to articulate and defend the position that Hitchens presented. Yes, the Bush administration and many of its supporters attempted to justify the invasion by pointing to Saddam's acts of genocide, invasion of Kuwait and Iran, and support of terrorism after things started to go south in Iraq- my point is that Hitchens was pointing to those things all along. He wasn't part of the scramble to find a new excuse after we failed to find WMDs- in fact, even with the absence of WMDs, he still had 3 other reasons that he put forth before the invasion.

sid canton:

If I "have a problem segregating Hitchens' justifications for the war in Iraq from those that were offered by the administration," it's because he so assiduously shilled for the administration specifically and the war in general in the face of mounting evidence that it was a) at best, predicated on a giant mistake and/or b) predicated on lies. Hitchens inability to "let it go" and his need to sneak in something, anything about Iraq no matter how tangential the reference speaks to what in my mind is his continual need to justify the unjustifiable.

You really aren't addressing my point here. I never disputed the fact that Hitchens "shilled" for the war and even for the administration (it's not difficult to imagine why Hitchens would support the administration for adopting a policy that he agrees with). My point was you were trying to box him in with the administration by claiming that he relied soley on the WMD argument and has only recently tried to justify the war with other arguments. That could not be further from the truth. And it makes perfect sense to compare the plight of the Palestinians in Gaza with that of the Iraqis under Saddam. The Palestinians are suffering under international sanctions because their leaders refuse to come into compliance with international law. It is almost an exact parallel of what took place in Saddam's Iraq.

Again, if I "have developed a syndrome that makes [me] see any criticism of Saddam as an attempt to justify the war post hoc," it's because, well, so many attempts to justify the war post hoc were trotted out by the Bush administration and willing accomplices such as Hitch.

You're pushing an open door as far as the administration is concerned (I have no real use for Bush). They would have been better off adopting Hitchens argument instead of relying so heavily on WMD's. But then again, he would never had been able to articulate and defend the position that Hitchens presented. Yes, the Bush administration and many of its supporters attempted to justify the invasion by pointing to Saddam's acts of genocide, invasion of Kuwait and Iran, and support of terrorism after things started to go south in Iraq- my point is that Hitchens was pointing to those things all along. He wasn't part of the scramble to find a new excuse after we failed to find WMDs- in fact, even with the absence of WMDs, he still had 3 other reasons that he put forth before the invasion.

With respect to Hitchens' various justifications for invading Iraq, my responses are, *yawn* and, "so what," not necessarily in that order. There are lots of Bad People in the world. Why aren't we off willy-nilly invading Zimbabwe, Burma or Belarus (or China or Russia, for that matter)?

When Hitchens compares the plight of Palestinian civilians under Hamas with Iraqi civilians under Hussein, I want to ask "and...?" Lots of civilians suffer under bad leaders. Why does Hitch feel the need to oh so casually sneak in a remark about Iraq?

There are lots of Bad People in the world. Why aren't we off willy-nilly invading Zimbabwe, Burma or Belarus (or China or Russia, for that matter)?

Now this is a debate that is actually worth having. Hitchens actually addressed why Iraq was ripe for invasion and the countries that you mention first (Zimbabwe, Burma, Belarus) are not in a recent debate. Basically, international law holds that a country gives up its sovereignty and opens itself up to intervention in four cases: 1) acts of genocide or ethnic cleansing, 2) invasion of another country, 3) possession of WMDs in violation of the various international treaties governing them, and 4) support for international terrorists. Saddam, within 15 years of our invading Iraq, was guilty of all four of these. To what degree and for how long can be debated, but the fact remains that he was guilty on numerous counts. Mugabe, the Junta in Burma, and Sidorskiy MIGHT be guilty of one or two of these, but none of them meet all four criteria. In regard to China and Russia, there is a general rule of thumb when it comes to interventions that has been accepted by the international community and flows from Just War doctrine- basically, any military action has to have a reasonable chance of success in order for it to be justified. It is hard to argue that invading China or Russia, two nuclear armed countries with million-men armies, would have any chance of succeeding. There is also a general consensus that an intervention must do more good than harm and, given the regional and international fallout that would result from an invasion of Russia or China, this standard could not be met either.

sid canton:

There are lots of Bad People in the world. Why aren't we off willy-nilly invading Zimbabwe, Burma or Belarus (or China or Russia, for that matter)?

Now this is a debate that is actually worth having. Hitchens actually addressed why Iraq was ripe for invasion and the countries that you mention first (Zimbabwe, Burma, Belarus) are not in a recent debate. Basically, international law holds that a country gives up its sovereignty and opens itself up to intervention in four cases: 1) acts of genocide or ethnic cleansing, 2) invasion of another country, 3) possession of WMDs in violation of the various international treaties governing them, and 4) support for international terrorists. Saddam, within 15 years of our invading Iraq, was guilty of all four of these. To what degree and for how long can be debated, but the fact remains that he was guilty on numerous counts. Mugabe, the Junta in Burma, and Sidorskiy MIGHT be guilty of one or two of these, but none of them meet all four criteria. In regard to China and Russia, there is a general rule of thumb when it comes to interventions that has been accepted by the international community and flows from Just War doctrine- basically, any military action has to have a reasonable chance of success in order for it to be justified. It is hard to argue that invading China or Russia, two nuclear armed countries with million-men armies, would have any chance of succeeding. There is also a general consensus that an intervention must do more good than harm and, given the regional and international fallout that would result from an invasion of Russia or China, this standard could not be met either.

Aside from all of this, you are also putting yourself in the undesirable and untenable position of saying that "since we can't help everybody, we shouldn't help anybody." If that is how you want to relieve yourself and your country of any responsibility to protect vulnerable and victimized people in the world, be my guest.

1. We *thought* that Iraq *possibly* had WMD, and were subsequently proved wrong. So one of your rationales goes out the window.
2. As the 9/11 Commission noted, there was no credible evidence that Hussein has any ties with terrorists, specifically, with al-Qaeda. Bye-bye rationale number two.
3. Yes, Hussein invaded other countries and committed acts of genocide -- at least ten years prior to the invasion in 2003. What's the statute of limitations of doing Bad Stuff before you can't be invaded?
   

Kenrockthelast is like a dog

who dug three holes in the ground

but only got one bone to bury. (sic)

In other words ,

that’s a whole

lotta effort

for a dumb ass dog ! lol

We *thought* that Iraq *possibly* had WMD, and were subsequently proved wrong. So one of your rationales goes out the window.

If you get the time, watch a four-part movie that was produced by HBO and the BBC about Saddam's reign called "The House of Saddam". It does a pretty good job of explaining a number of things about Saddam's psychology and, to some degree, his being an evil genius. In a very important part of the movie, when Saddam is deciding whether or not to destory the chemical and biological weapons that he DID have following the First Gulf War, he makes a pretty poignant statement after deciding to destroy them. I'm paraphrasing, but it's along the lines of "The weapons are not of any value. What is most important is the knowledge that it takes to create them." If you, like many others, were comfortable leaving Saddam "boxed in" while he still had the capacity and desire to produce WMDs, especially after he had demostrated a willngness to use them, then I don't know what to tell you.

As the 9/11 Commission noted, there was no credible evidence that Hussein has any ties with terrorists, specifically, with al-Qaeda. Bye-bye rationale number two.

Forgive me if I am not one to accept a bunch of political hacks and has-beens' opinions on whether or not bad guys collaborate around the world. Most of the people on the commission spent the better part of their lives sitting behind desks and collecting paychecks for not keeping us safe from terrorism in the first place. I don't know what universe you live in, but in mine, assholes from all walks of life (dictators, islamic radicals, drug dealers, etc.) have no problem cooperating to achieve their individual goals, and not all of them keep neat records for us to discover and present as evidence. The RUF (a rebel group in Sierra Leone) collaborated with Al Qaeda to provide them with an alternative source of funding (diamonds), North Korea sells missile technology to Iran and builds nuclear plants in Syria, Russian Mafias distribute drugs they acquire from the Taliban, the government in Khartoum buys off the Chinese with oil countracts. I could go on forever. There is an entire underworld out there where dictators, terrorists, drug dealers, and the like meet and collaborate, and a bunch of politicians in Washington will never convince me (or anyone else who knows how shady this world really is) otherwise.

Yes, Hussein invaded other countries and committed acts of genocide -- at least ten years prior to the invasion in 2003. What's the statute of limitations of doing Bad Stuff before you can't be invaded?

Hussein didn't simply "invade" other countries. He (admittedly with our blessing) invaded Iran and proceeded to declare victory after his military suffered from 250k-500k casualties, Iraq's economy lost almost a half trillion dollars, and no land changed hands. These are not actions of a sane individual who can be expected to stay "boxed in". He then proceeded to annex Kuwait (not invade, ANNEX) because he said they were drilling underneath Iraq to steal its oil and declaring economic war by increasing oil production. After being driven from Kuwait and handed a serious ass-whoop'n, he declared victory because he had faced down 30 countries and managed to stay in power. Again, you can continue to pretend that Saddam was a sane, rational actor who had learned his lesson and could be counted on to stay boxed in with sanctions, but I live in the real world. And no, there is not a statute of limitations for war crimes. Pinochet was constantly indicted for his actions as ruler of Chile (1974-1990) all the way up until his death in 2006. And international agreements provide the international community with the power to punish those who commit genocide without placing limitations on when it must take place. In my opinion, late is better than never.

What you're essentially saying is that if a country meets the above criteria AND is weak and can be pushed around, e.g. Yugoslavia / Serbia, we can intervene, but that if a country can *actually* defend itself, we shouldn't bother

Sadly, given current circumstances, that is essentially what I am saying- if the international community can end or alleviate immense human suffering that a government is responsible for or unwillng to address, we should (given that it has reasonable prospects for success and will not do more harm than good) Is that really too hard to understand? Or accept?

I'm not saying that we shouldn't help anyone...

Whether you like it or not, that is exactly what you are saying- since we won't invade China, we have no right to invade anyone. And if you are now backing off of that position, then why don't you provide some criteria for intervention since you seem to reject mine.

We're in Iraq not because Hussein was a Bad Man but because of a neocon wet dream about hegemony in the Middle East, specifically, ensuring our vital interests with respect to continued access to cheap oil

When you come across a neocon, you can argue this point with him. I, like Hitchens, am offering my own rationale for the invasion. And I guess you aren't in favor of ensuring America's vital interests? I understand you are trying to make a point, but I would advise against constantly taking absurd positions that you are be unwilling or unable to defend.

sid canton:

We *thought* that Iraq *possibly* had WMD, and were subsequently proved wrong. So one of your rationales goes out the window.

If you get the time, watch a four-part movie that was produced by HBO and the BBC about Saddam's reign called "The House of Saddam". It does a pretty good job of explaining a number of things about Saddam's psychology and, to some degree, his being an evil genius. In a very important part of the movie, when Saddam is deciding whether or not to destory the chemical and biological weapons that he DID have following the First Gulf War, he makes a pretty poignant statement after deciding to destroy them. I'm paraphrasing, but it's along the lines of "The weapons are not of any value. What is most important is the knowledge that it takes to create them." If you, like many others, were comfortable leaving Saddam "boxed in" while he still had the capacity and desire to produce WMDs, especially after he had demostrated a willngness to use them, then I don't know what to tell you.

As the 9/11 Commission noted, there was no credible evidence that Hussein has any ties with terrorists, specifically, with al-Qaeda. Bye-bye rationale number two.

Forgive me if I am not one to accept a bunch of political hacks and has-beens' opinions on whether or not bad guys collaborate around the world. Most of the people on the commission spent the better part of their lives sitting behind desks and collecting paychecks for not keeping us safe from terrorism in the first place. I don't know what universe you live in, but in mine, assholes from all walks of life (dictators, islamic radicals, drug dealers, etc.) have no problem cooperating to achieve their individual goals, and not all of them keep neat records for us to discover and present as evidence. The RUF (a rebel group in Sierra Leone) collaborated with Al Qaeda to provide them with an alternative source of funding (diamonds), North Korea sells missile technology to Iran and builds nuclear plants in Syria, Russian Mafias distribute drugs they acquire from the Taliban, the government in Khartoum buys off the Chinese with oil countracts. I could go on forever. There is an entire underworld out there where dictators, terrorists, drug dealers, and the like meet and collaborate, and a bunch of politicians in Washington will never convince me (or anyone else who knows how shady this world really is) otherwise.

Yes, Hussein invaded other countries and committed acts of genocide -- at least ten years prior to the invasion in 2003. What's the statute of limitations of doing Bad Stuff before you can't be invaded?

Hussein didn't simply "invade" other countries. He (admittedly with our blessing) invaded Iran and proceeded to declare victory after his military suffered from 250k-500k casualties, Iraq's economy lost almost a half trillion dollars, and no land changed hands. These are not actions of a sane individual who can be expected to stay "boxed in". He then proceeded to annex Kuwait (not invade, ANNEX) because he said they were drilling underneath Iraq to steal its oil and declaring economic war by increasing oil production. After being driven from Kuwait and handed a serious ass-whoop'n, he declared victory because he had faced down 30 countries and managed to stay in power. Again, you can continue to pretend that Saddam was a sane, rational actor who had learned his lesson and could be counted on to stay boxed in with sanctions, but I live in the real world. And no, there is not a statute of limitations for war crimes. Pinochet was constantly indicted for his actions as ruler of Chile (1974-1990) all the way up until his death in 2006. And international agreements provide the international community with the power to punish those who commit genocide without placing limitations on when it must take place. In my opinion, late is better than never.

What you're essentially saying is that if a country meets the above criteria AND is weak and can be pushed around, e.g. Yugoslavia / Serbia, we can intervene, but that if a country can *actually* defend itself, we shouldn't bother

Sadly, given current circumstances, that is essentially what I am saying- if the international community can end or alleviate immense human suffering that a government is responsible for or unwillng to address, we should (given that it has reasonable prospects for success and will not do more harm than good) Is that really too hard to understand? Or accept?

I'm not saying that we shouldn't help anyone...

Whether you like it or not, that is exactly what you are saying- since we won't invade China, we have no right to invade anyone. And if you are now backing off of that position, then why don't you provide some criteria for intervention since you seem to reject mine.

We're in Iraq not because Hussein was a Bad Man but because of a neocon wet dream about hegemony in the Middle East, specifically, ensuring our vital interests with respect to continued access to cheap oil

When you come across a neocon, you can argue this point with him. I, like Hitchens, am offering my own rationale for the invasion. And I guess you aren't in favor of ensuring America's vital interests? I understand you are trying to make a point, but I would advise against constantly taking absurd positions that you are be unwilling or unable to defend.

Here's the bottom line: Hitch or anyone, yourself included, can dress it up in pretty words but I simply don't accept that we invaded Iraq for any reason other than oil. Everything else is just window dressing, IMHO. The Bush regime let a major American city simply be washed away, for f***'s sake, so all that noise about Peace, Love and Understanding is BS. Whatever about your having reasons other than WMD for invading Iraq, the truth is that those reasons have been made a joke of by the ham-handed way in which the Bush administration tried to retrofit them as justifications for the invasion of Iraq after WMD proved to be a bust.

.

.

ruff

ruff

dig

.

.

lol