3 ms·

All of those things happened before 9/11, which was a major turning point for Hitchens. After that, he became even more anti-religious, anti-Muslim, and pro-war

All of those things happened before 9/11, which was a major turning point for Hitchens. After that, he became even more anti-religious, anti-Muslim, and pro-war. He was pretty supportive of the Bush administration and visited Iraq with Paul Wolfowitz. He certainly "had something to do with it." Let's not forget that his books sold millions and he certainly did well financially. He also wrote countless essays justifying the war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Long_Short_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Long_Short_War As to the rest of your comment, I'm honestly not sure how to respond. What is your definition of combative to the whole region? Are you including Iran, Russia, or China in your definition? And so you'd support a global war to replace the leadership of those countries? After the debacle of the GWOT, the failure of the Iraq War and of the recent Afghanistan retreat, I genuinely don't understand how someone even slightly pragmatically-minded could have this opinion. I only included the Iraq mention off-handedly because I assumed it was nearly common sense that the war was a bad decision. My main criticisms of him are his sloppy arguments and lazy scholarship, which zero people in the academic fields of philosophy and philosophy of religion take seriously.

mixmastamyk 3y ago
> He also wrote countless essays justifying the war. Yes, that's part of him supporting it. He was a DC correspondent, who else would he meet with but the current administration? > What is your definition of combative to the whole region? Hussein invaded Iran, Kurdistan, and Kuwait, three neighbors. Was probably active elsewhere westward. Saudis were certainly scared. > Are you including Iran, Russia, or China ... global war? Russia probably fits that right now. I think you know the answer but seem to be unsure for some reason, but no—no one is invading a gigantic country with a huge army and nukes. No one influential is even contemplating expanding the war with Russia that I know of. So, let's keep this to the realm of possibility and not start imagining new world wars we could get into, please. > was nearly common sense that the war was a bad decision. This is the kind of lazy, comfortable "2000-era liberal opinion", for lack of a better term, I was writing about earlier and was Hitchens' main point. You've forgotten how unfathomable Hussein was; tried to minimize it. Erased his genocide and chemical warfare from your mind. But if you're truly a liberal you should be willing to fight against these things, really f'ing hard. Again, imagine its 1942. The holocaust is off to a fine start. You say, "well due to geopolitical realities, (nudge, nudge) starting a war would be a bad decision. Just give them Nazis a little lebensraum, that's all they want!" We had a word for that not long ago, it was called "appeasement" and history does not look kindly on those folks. If we had lost WWII, I bet those appeasement folks would be feeling comfortable too.
- keiferski 3y ago
  Comparing 2003 Iraq to WW2 Germany is the most nonsensical take I’ve read in awhile.
  - mixmastamyk 3y ago
    It's clear you've run out of argument and don't know much about Hussein. Take a look at #2 in the list below. The show is interesting as well. Good night. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Become_a_Tyrant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Become_a_Tyrant
mixmastamyk 3y ago
> He had something to do with it. Neocons planned the Iraq invasion out in advance; that’s well documented. The idea that Hitch had decision-making capability inside the admin several years later is not particularly credible. > his sloppy arguments I’ve not seen any compelling arguments here either, and those so far show a lack of research and/or thoughtfulness. One might uncharitably call them sloppy.

mixmastamyk 3y ago

> He also wrote countless essays justifying the war. Yes, that's part of him supporting it. He was a DC correspondent, who else would he meet with but the current administration? > What is your definition of combative to the whole region? Hussein invaded Iran, Kurdistan, and Kuwait, three neighbors. Was probably active elsewhere westward. Saudis were certainly scared. > Are you including Iran, Russia, or China ... global war? Russia probably fits that right now. I think you know the answer but seem to be unsure for some reason, but no—no one is invading a gigantic country with a huge army and nukes. No one influential is even contemplating expanding the war with Russia that I know of. So, let's keep this to the realm of possibility and not start imagining new world wars we could get into, please. > was nearly common sense that the war was a bad decision. This is the kind of lazy, comfortable "2000-era liberal opinion", for lack of a better term, I was writing about earlier and was Hitchens' main point. You've forgotten how unfathomable Hussein was; tried to minimize it. Erased his genocide and chemical warfare from your mind. But if you're truly a liberal you should be willing to fight against these things, really f'ing hard. Again, imagine its 1942. The holocaust is off to a fine start. You say, "well due to geopolitical realities, (nudge, nudge) starting a war would be a bad decision. Just give them Nazis a little lebensraum, that's all they want!" We had a word for that not long ago, it was called "appeasement" and history does not look kindly on those folks. If we had lost WWII, I bet those appeasement folks would be feeling comfortable too.

keiferski 3y ago
Comparing 2003 Iraq to WW2 Germany is the most nonsensical take I’ve read in awhile.
- mixmastamyk 3y ago
  It's clear you've run out of argument and don't know much about Hussein. Take a look at #2 in the list below. The show is interesting as well. Good night. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Become_a_Tyrant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Become_a_Tyrant

mixmastamyk 3y ago

> He had something to do with it. Neocons planned the Iraq invasion out in advance; that’s well documented. The idea that Hitch had decision-making capability inside the admin several years later is not particularly credible. > his sloppy arguments I’ve not seen any compelling arguments here either, and those so far show a lack of research and/or thoughtfulness. One might uncharitably call them sloppy.