Below is an hour-long video on YouTube, part one of a debate between Christopher Hitchens (of present atheist popularization fame) and George Galloway (British guy). It is strange because I find what would have been my view on the Iraq invasion represented by Galloway by a string of rhetorical tricks and dishonesty, and on the other hand, a pro-war stance which I would have objected to represented credibly and convincingly by Hitchens. As usual the YouTube member comments are utterly retarded, but the point is, I am not sure what to think about all this. I remain a Hitchens fan, and I will have to watch myself for falling for arguments like those Galloway tries to use in this debate, as they are rubbish.

Meta

United States6226 Posts

December 31 2007 00:09 GMT

Hitchens is pro-war because it's severely damaging the religion Islam. He's not pro-oil or pro-bush to any extent, but he is anti-Islam.

That said I'll watch this later on tonight.

Physician

United States4146 Posts

December 31 2007 02:23 GMT

war is always the result of failure of reason; anyone pro- any war is a tard and there probably isn't anything more outright stupid than "preemptive" war..

Rev0lution

United States1805 Posts

December 31 2007 05:34 GMT

I saw this debate and boy, I'm torn apart. I know war is hell, but sometimes it is necessary to go to war. I'm not sure really. I know for sure that no war is a good war.

Mindcrime

United States6899 Posts

December 31 2007 05:57 GMT

Galloway speaks of "cheap demogoguery" at 29:00, and up to this point, I feel that "cheap demogoguery" is all that I have heard from both of them.

That Hitchens opened up with a moment of silence and then followed that up with a horrifically poorly thought out argument about why you shouldn't ever be against a war disgusted me.

Polis

Poland1292 Posts

December 31 2007 17:52 GMT

On December 31 2007 11:23 Physician wrote:
war is always the result of failure of reason; anyone pro- any war is a tard and there probably isn't anything more outright stupid than "preemptive" war..

What about ww2? Poland wanted to attack Germany becouse they broken threads but neither England or France wanted to. Attacking Germany would be stupid then?

OverTheUnder

United States2929 Posts

December 31 2007 18:55 GMT

On January 01 2008 02:52 Polis wrote:

Show nested quote +

What about ww2? Poland wanted to attack Germany becouse they broken threads but neither England or France wanted to. Attacking Germany would be stupid then?

that isn't preemptive ......;/

Polis

Poland1292 Posts

December 31 2007 19:13 GMT

On January 01 2008 03:55 OverTheUnder wrote:

Show nested quote +

that isn't preemptive ......;/

Yes it is after ww1 Germany had threads concerning they army size that they had broken.

Mindcrime

United States6899 Posts

December 31 2007 19:45 GMT

On January 01 2008 04:13 Polis wrote:

Show nested quote +

Yes it is after ww1 Germany had threads concerning they army size that they had broken.

"Thread"?

MoltkeWarding

5195 Posts

January 02 2008 01:56 GMT

#10

Double

MoltkeWarding

5195 Posts

January 02 2008 01:57 GMT

#11

On January 01 2008 02:52 Polis wrote:

Show nested quote +

What about ww2? Poland wanted to attack Germany becouse they broken threads but neither England or France wanted to. Attacking Germany would be stupid then?

The Polish proposition for a joint operation with France came in the Rhineland crisis, a year after Poland signed a non-aggression pact with Germany (and when German intelligence became aware of these proposals eminating from Warsaw, Polish statesmen embarassingly attempted to pretend that they didn't exist.) This was an embarassing episode in Poland's diplomatic history, and the less said about it the better.

Please or register to reply.

Live Events Refresh