He supported the idea of liberating Iraqi's and Kurds from the tyranny of the baath party, either way it was no doubt for the better, Iraq is better off in every measurable stat columb now than before
www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24547256 What about this measurable stat? Almost half a million additional dead people, as determined by censuses of the population?
omglabel .... that didn't make any sense. But then again, I don't expect much from a Hitch fan. You guys have thrown out any sense of doubt or criticism towards your fallen Profit. Anyways, I'm going to go watch Tariq Ali Hitch slap Hitchens, like he did in all their debates LOL.
omglabel hey hey, I am an atheist and I love his stance on hating religion. I've always been a fan of that and I love seeing him crush the religious in debates. I just hate his politics. That's right, you can agree with certain views and disagree with other views. I'm glad I'm not a Hitch ass licker like most of his fans, you people treat his word like it's coming from some holy infallible figure.
I think one of Hitch's fundamental principles was an utter hatred and disgust at all forms of totalitarianism, which he believed applied to both theism and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
Cockoff Gewgle Jeeeeez, this was a blast from the past - you’re right I’m sure, funny how 7 years of growing up can give you a bit of nuance and perspective 🤷♀️
Hitchens sometimes liked to use the fact that Iraq violated UN resolutions in order to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq. If we are going to attack and occupy anyone for that reason then our main target should be Israel- they have violated UN resolutions every year since 1967 and proven to be a menace to every one of their neighbours- whereas no country bordering Iraq supported the Iraq War. Fact is though that the invasion and occupation was a violation of the UN Charter because it was a war of aggression. Western meddling and imperialism is the problem, not the solution. We got Saddam in power in the first place, he was our friend- we even gave him the chemical weapons that he used against the Kurds. At the end of the first Gulf War we had the chance to get rid of him, there was an uprising in the North and South of Iraq involving Saddam's own army- we helped him crush the rebellion and maintain his power- because he was useful to the ruling classes of the west.If you don't believe me then google ten days that shook iraq inside information. We also got rid of the democratically elected leader of Iran because he wanted to nationalise his countries' oil and share that oil wealth with his own people- so we put the Shah in power, a Nazi collaborator and brutal dictator who had nothing but contempt for democracy and his own people. And I must say, it's a fact that people such as Hitchens, who strongly supported the Iraq War, are responsible for the rise of Islamic State, which is the legacy of the war and occupation, aswell as the arming of the Islamic rebels in Syria including Islamic State and Jabhat Al Nusra. I much prefer Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky to Hitchens any day.
He has spoken often about the illegal activity of Israel. Saying Israel are bad, doesn't mean Saddam didn't need to be dealt with, Saddam was war worse than fe crazy Israeli settlers btw...
@@matlord8799 UN resolutions are jokes. The only reason why the US and Russia does not have UN sanctions is because they have the veto power. These countries have bombed and invaded dozens of countries.
Iraq (Arabic: الْعِرَاق, romanized: al-ʿIrāq; Kurdish: عێراق, romanized: Êraq), officially the Republic of Iraq (Arabic: جُمْهُورِيَّة ٱلْعِرَاق, romanized: Jumhūriīyah al-ʿIrāq; Kurdish: کۆماری عێراق, romanized: Komarî Êraq), is a country in Western Asia, bordered by Turkey to the north, Iran to the east, Kuwait to the southeast, Saudi Arabia to the south, Jordan to the southwest and Syria to the west. The capital and largest city is Baghdad. Iraq is home to diverse ethnic groups including Arabs, Kurds, Turkmens, Assyrians/Chaldeans, Yazidis, Shabakis, Armenians, Sabian-Mandaeans, Circassians, and Kawliya. Around 95-98% of the country's 38 million citizens are Muslims, with small minorities of Christians, Yarsans, Yezidis and Mandaeans also present. The official languages of Iraq are Arabic and Kurdish.
Iraqi here 🇮🇶 (From Christian Assyrian background if that matters) It's almost hilarious how much stuff Hitchens was willing to say that are outright lies, with such hubris as well. If only it weren't for the results of such lies.
Well, as an Iranian, I concur with all the points made in this interview; they ring true to me. My belief is that most Iranians share this view too, which is why I'm quite hopeful about the future of Iran, unlike Iraq's.
I think politics can't be framed towards an end game because there is no end. Bringing up policy from 30 years ago and using that as an argument against action now presents at least 2 general issues. 1: the point is, typically, to stop a worse likely outcome not to fix everything in one bombing run. Bad consequences have to be argued in light of the alternative probable outcomes (e.g., hiroshima). 2: Actions can always have mixed outcomes, what did or didn't work in the past may work now. (1/2)
Hitch fans know he's raising a toast in triumph over the "dismantling" of Nasrallah two days ago. As are the Lebanese people dancing in the streets across the Levant.
Your response is both a delight and unexpected. I agree, it is tragic. Of note, I'm one of the dwindling few that still argues the UN, though it could be better, is better than a world of only unilateral options and does help. Furthermore, I think we demonize truly evil men (assad comes to mind) but the tragedy is that demonization spills over to a public that abhors them equally (e.g., Iranians, Kurds etc). I hope that if war is a constant we at least get better at it; more exacting and wise.
Sometimes speaking in apocalyptic terms, us v them, stirring the 'comrades', seeming to splash around in the mud of conflict and necessary violence and as Galloway said in there debate 'always willing to fight to the last drop of someone else's blood'. I love Hitch and miss him, but his lust for imperialism under the cloak of interventionism will always leave a sour taste in my gob.
I wouldn't say it was imperialism. Hitchens made it quite clear his interests were of the people living under these theocratic dictatorships. His desire to overthrow nations like Iran and Iraq wasn't based on the sole purpose of advancing the interests of the invading nation, as was the imperialism of centuries past, rather it was in the interest of the global community. We could argue about realistic these desires were, but I think hitchens intent was, at the very least, noble.
George Galloway, like many communists of the same stripe, has never found a totalitarian creep he doesn’t like as long as there is a minimal facade of anti-imperialism in their attitude.
@@1080lights this is how most pseudo leftist people think. Opposing American imperialism in favor of a more local/regional minor imperialism of pseudo socialist/bonapartist states.
@@Eric-hi5py Hitchen is not naive enough to believe that the war is done to liberate Iraqis. Saddam invaded Iran causing the death of somewhere between 500,000 to 1,000,000 people. Literally used chemical weapons against his ppl in halaja and the list goes on. The second he invaded Kuwait (us close allay) he instantly gets sanctioned and get his military’s ass kicked out of Kuwait which is a good thing. The problem is that the calls for overthrowing him only started after Saddam started messing with US interests in the region. Where were these calls when Saddam was committing atrocities left and right? Hitchen’s response to that is “we made a mistake not taking action earlier” it sounds like a very very convenient mistake isn’t it? I just can not believe he thought Tony Blair and George bush were overthrowing Saddam to help the Iraqi people. Yet every time he uses that point to support the war. His intelligence is the exact reason I don’t believe supported the war in good faith.
As Htichens said, he was anti-fascist and anti-dictator and you were going to have a war there no matter what once Saddam was either deposed or died, akin to what happened in Rwanda for example.
@@RikerLovesWorf I did you zionist. Iraq and Syria were invaded now Iran is next for the bigger Israel project that was made 100 years ago by the ziopigs. Bitchens was one of them.
Imagine if he had lived another ten years. I wonder what his excuse would be to explain the Iraq invasion he supported creating Islamic State and its horrors?
And yet why was he still a defender Palestinian rights during this 'neocon' turn? Even when he made criticisms of Hamas and its supporters in Iran, he still managed to to turn the conversation back to Israel, the Jewish settlers taking land in the West Bank as well as Israel having helped to prop up Hamas in the first place. I don't know but it seems to me that to be a proper neoconservative, you have to be a die hard supporter of Israel. Also are you sure Hitchens found out he was Jewish late in life? I thought he found this out earlier in life? In fact come to think of it he mentions to Charlie Rose that his mother wanted him to become a Zionist but he refused.
now you have changed your argument, or did not phrase it properly the first time. the first comment said the iraq war was a war crime and now you are saying war crimes happened during the iraq war. the first comment is not a war crime considering iraq by the international framework that established war crimes infact said the iraq under the baath regime was no longer recognized by it. the latter war crimes happen in any war, the only question to be asked is how do you deal with what happened.
you mentioned Iran, and I said we (Iranian) do export violence (via Hezbollah, and currently supporting corrupted Asad's regime, not to mention supporting militant Shiite terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan). what did Saddam has to do with Iranian policies?
@grimblebrumble17889 I find it hard to believe that you are an Iraqi. Saddam was in power for only 24 years. The maximum estimates from the Iraq Body count organisation put the number of deaths of civilians at around 120,000. Remember a high percentage of this isn't caused by US forces, but the resistance to it. Under Saddam estimates of 800,000 deaths are attributed directly to his regime, the actual numbers are probably much higher. Continued...
(2/2) No we shouldn't ignore history, but you can't gloss over each present being unique to the past. But to my endgame point, arming saddam and then disarming him may actually be a better option than never arming. It's not incoherent, it's dealing with the blows as they come. Saddam was unpredictable. When he came in, it seemed that he was going to be a secular force in the region. It's only by the late 80s it's became clear he was a stalinist thug. I want to say more but the word count is lim-
Secular?? literally six days after he came to power he executed all his political rivals. He’s been thug all along and everyone saw except those who didn’t want to until he directly hit their interests in the region
@grimblebrumble17889 That means more than twice as many civilians died per year under Saddam (without a war in the country) than during the Iraq war. I'm not saying that the civilian deaths in Iraq are acceptable, everyone is tragedy. You seriously prefer the regime of Saddam? This man caused the death of 80,000 in a day. Continued...
That isn't true at all. www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24547256 Then add to the fact that the US supported Saddam through this worst atrocities. And only invaded Iraq out of pure self-interest and opportunism.
@grimblebrumble17889 On topic of Iraqi's disapproval, polls have shown that even in the more developed middle eastern countries 15% to 30% of Muslims approve of the terrorists attacks against the United States! An even higher percentage had positive feelings for Osama. It is stupid to expect a warm welcome in such a country! "Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would disagree with you". This is actually very small amount - less than 3% of the population.
@grimblebrumble17889 too much* You're right, the occupation of Iraq is worryingly suggestive of Imperialism. Especially given the US presence still in the country. War profiteering is disgusting, I agree. But it is madness to say that the eight years we spent in Iraq, attempting to give them a stable democracy, is worse than the 20 years Saddam had left and then the rule of his equally ruthless heirs. Don't forget; hatred of the US is catalyzed by their religious views of the infidel too.
if i have to explain someones position for supporting the war in iraq or the crimes of the baath party in iraq i can see why you think iraq was the a war crime, genocide, and imperialist i.e your reference to slavery.
I hope this man repented before his death. Rejecting God in this life will leave you without Him in the afterlife. And that is NOT what anyone wants. When all good is taken away all you have left is evil and living in unending evil is not what anyone wants.
![BOWKYLION - วิงวอน (ex-change) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cLdnZWDaO-w/mqdefault.jpg)
What he said about Iran reminds me of how Western leaders kowtow to these Saudis who just happened to be someone's great-great-great grandson.
I agree - we should stop kowtowing to them.
Whoever defend a war that took the lives of millions of innocent is simply evil.
DelJuvePiero
A simple comment from a simple mind.
God of Drink
Holy shit, what an amazing comeback from an amazing mind. What a damn Einstein, man.
He supported the idea of liberating Iraqi's and Kurds from the tyranny of the baath party, either way it was no doubt for the better, Iraq is better off in every measurable stat columb now than before
www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24547256
What about this measurable stat? Almost half a million additional dead people, as determined by censuses of the population?
Are u stupid??
You are sick in the head
Man he really lost it and went down a never ending rabbit hole with his Iraq support
He knew more about Iraq than you ever will, and he was totally right about it, he even predicted Isis.
+shobig
ye.
We all need to be pussies that stay home and shit on anyone except you.
omglabel .... that didn't make any sense. But then again, I don't expect much from a Hitch fan. You guys have thrown out any sense of doubt or criticism towards your fallen Profit. Anyways, I'm going to go watch Tariq Ali Hitch slap Hitchens, like he did in all their debates LOL.
shobig
You being a bias moron already shows the level of stupidity and shear arrogance on your Pussie stance
omglabel hey hey, I am an atheist and I love his stance on hating religion. I've always been a fan of that and I love seeing him crush the religious in debates. I just hate his politics. That's right, you can agree with certain views and disagree with other views. I'm glad I'm not a Hitch ass licker like most of his fans, you people treat his word like it's coming from some holy infallible figure.
I love Hitch but I need subtitles.
I think one of Hitch's fundamental principles was an utter hatred and disgust at all forms of totalitarianism, which he believed applied to both theism and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
But he didn't believe applied to (western) foreign policy.
Cockoff Gewgle Jeeeeez, this was a blast from the past - you’re right I’m sure, funny how 7 years of growing up can give you a bit of nuance and perspective 🤷♀️
Not always agreeing, what a great man Mr hitchens was until the moment of death...
I am at peace imagining him writhing in hell right now
Hitchens sometimes liked to use the fact that Iraq violated UN resolutions in order to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq. If we are going to attack and occupy anyone for that reason then our main target should be Israel- they have violated UN resolutions every year since 1967 and proven to be a menace to every one of their neighbours- whereas no country bordering Iraq supported the Iraq War. Fact is though that the invasion and occupation was a violation of the UN Charter because it was a war of aggression.
Western meddling and imperialism is the problem, not the solution. We got Saddam in power in the first place, he was our friend- we even gave him the chemical weapons that he used against the Kurds. At the end of the first Gulf War we had the chance to get rid of him, there was an uprising in the North and South of Iraq involving Saddam's own army- we helped him crush the rebellion and maintain his power- because he was useful to the ruling classes of the west.If you don't believe me then google ten days that shook iraq inside information. We also got rid of the democratically elected leader of Iran because he wanted to nationalise his countries' oil and share that oil wealth with his own people- so we put the Shah in power, a Nazi collaborator and brutal dictator who had nothing but contempt for democracy and his own people. And I must say, it's a fact that people such as Hitchens, who strongly supported the Iraq War, are responsible for the rise of Islamic State, which is the legacy of the war and occupation, aswell as the arming of the Islamic rebels in Syria including Islamic State and Jabhat Al Nusra. I much prefer Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky to Hitchens any day.
He has spoken often about the illegal activity of Israel. Saying Israel are bad, doesn't mean Saddam didn't need to be dealt with, Saddam was war worse than fe crazy Israeli settlers btw...
@@matlord8799 UN resolutions are jokes. The only reason why the US and Russia does not have UN sanctions is because they have the veto power. These countries have bombed and invaded dozens of countries.
@@matlord8799 Saddam was nothing compared to the se,tl.ers ////
Thank you for posting this, rferlonline.
Iraq (Arabic: الْعِرَاق, romanized: al-ʿIrāq; Kurdish: عێراق, romanized: Êraq), officially the Republic of Iraq (Arabic: جُمْهُورِيَّة ٱلْعِرَاق, romanized: Jumhūriīyah al-ʿIrāq; Kurdish: کۆماری عێراق, romanized: Komarî Êraq), is a country in Western Asia, bordered by Turkey to the north, Iran to the east, Kuwait to the southeast, Saudi Arabia to the south, Jordan to the southwest and Syria to the west.
The capital and largest city is Baghdad.
Iraq is home to diverse ethnic groups including Arabs, Kurds, Turkmens, Assyrians/Chaldeans, Yazidis, Shabakis, Armenians, Sabian-Mandaeans, Circassians, and Kawliya.
Around 95-98% of the country's 38 million citizens are Muslims, with small minorities of Christians, Yarsans, Yezidis and Mandaeans also present.
The official languages of Iraq are Arabic and Kurdish.
What of the thousands of civilians that would be subject to the threat of Iranian nukes?
Iraqi here 🇮🇶 (From Christian Assyrian background if that matters)
It's almost hilarious how much stuff Hitchens was willing to say that are outright lies, with such hubris as well. If only it weren't for the results of such lies.
y͠o͠u͠ k͠n͠o͠w͠ w͠h͠a͠t͠ t͠h͠e͠y͠ s͠a͠y͠: "s͠c͠r͠a͠t͠c͠h͠ a͠ f͠a͠sçi͠s͠t͠ a͠n͠d͠ a͠ l͠i͠b͠e͠r͠a͠l͠ b͠łe͠e͠đs͠."
h͠o͠p͠e͠ h͠ê e͠n͠j͠o͠y͠e͠d͠ b͠a͠t͠h͠i͠n͠g͠ i͠n͠ t͠h͠e͠ b͠ĺo͠o͠d͠ o͠f͠ m͠y͠ p͠e͠o͠p͠l͠e͠. g͠l͠a͠d͠ h͠e͠ w͠i͠t͠n͠e͠s͠s͠e͠d͠ h͠i͠s͠ o͠çc͠uúpi͠e͠r͠s͠ k͠i͠çk͠êd͠ b͠y͠ m͠e͠r͠e͠ ći͠vi͠l͠îa͠n͠s͠ w͠i͠t͠h͠ r͠u͠sşt͠y͠ áķs͠ b͠e͠f͠o͠r͠e͠ m͠èe͠t͠i͠n͠g͠ h͠i͠sś m͠i͠s͠e͠ŕa͠ɓl͠ê e͠ñd͠.y͠o͠u͠ k͠n͠o͠w͠ w͠h͠a͠t͠ t͠h͠e͠y͠ s͠a͠y͠: "s͠c͠r͠a͠t͠c͠h͠ a͠ f͠a͠sçi͠s͠t͠ a͠n͠d͠ a͠ l͠i͠b͠e͠r͠a͠l͠ b͠łe͠e͠đs͠."
h͠o͠p͠e͠ h͠ê e͠n͠j͠o͠y͠e͠d͠ b͠a͠t͠h͠i͠n͠g͠ i͠n͠ t͠h͠e͠ b͠ĺo͠o͠d͠ o͠f͠ m͠y͠ p͠e͠o͠p͠l͠e͠. g͠l͠a͠d͠ h͠e͠ w͠i͠t͠n͠e͠s͠s͠e͠d͠ h͠i͠s͠ o͠çc͠uúpi͠e͠r͠s͠ k͠i͠çk͠êd͠ b͠y͠ m͠e͠r͠e͠ ći͠vi͠l͠îa͠n͠s͠ w͠i͠t͠h͠ r͠u͠sşt͠y͠ áķs͠ b͠e͠f͠o͠r͠e͠ m͠èe͠t͠i͠n͠g͠ h͠i͠sś m͠i͠s͠e͠ŕa͠ɓl͠ê e͠ñd͠.
So much for freedom of speech.
Well, as an Iranian, I concur with all the points made in this interview; they ring true to me. My belief is that most Iranians share this view too, which is why I'm quite hopeful about the future of Iran, unlike Iraq's.
Does anyone know that Churchill speech I'm desperate to find it
I am not sure, obviously, however I think it's the speech about ”The threat of Nazi Germany”
th-cam.com/video/ReAkzTw8RHE/w-d-xo.html
I think politics can't be framed towards an end game because there is no end. Bringing up policy from 30 years ago and using that as an argument against action now presents at least 2 general issues. 1: the point is, typically, to stop a worse likely outcome not to fix everything in one bombing run. Bad consequences have to be argued in light of the alternative probable outcomes (e.g., hiroshima). 2: Actions can always have mixed outcomes, what did or didn't work in the past may work now. (1/2)
Hitch fans know he's raising a toast in triumph over the "dismantling" of Nasrallah two days ago. As are the Lebanese people dancing in the streets across the Levant.
Your response is both a delight and unexpected. I agree, it is tragic. Of note, I'm one of the dwindling few that still argues the UN, though it could be better, is better than a world of only unilateral options and does help. Furthermore, I think we demonize truly evil men (assad comes to mind) but the tragedy is that demonization spills over to a public that abhors them equally (e.g., Iranians, Kurds etc). I hope that if war is a constant we at least get better at it; more exacting and wise.
Sometimes speaking in apocalyptic terms, us v them, stirring the 'comrades', seeming to splash around in the mud of conflict and necessary violence and as Galloway said in there debate 'always willing to fight to the last drop of someone else's blood'. I love Hitch and miss him, but his lust for imperialism under the cloak of interventionism will always leave a sour taste in my gob.
I wouldn't say it was imperialism. Hitchens made it quite clear his interests were of the people living under these theocratic dictatorships. His desire to overthrow nations like Iran and Iraq wasn't based on the sole purpose of advancing the interests of the invading nation, as was the imperialism of centuries past, rather it was in the interest of the global community. We could argue about realistic these desires were, but I think hitchens intent was, at the very least, noble.
Eric nailed it for you
George Galloway, like many communists of the same stripe, has never found a totalitarian creep he doesn’t like as long as there is a minimal facade of anti-imperialism in their attitude.
@@1080lights this is how most pseudo leftist people think. Opposing American imperialism in favor of a more local/regional minor imperialism of pseudo socialist/bonapartist states.
@@Eric-hi5py Hitchen is not naive enough to believe that the war is done to liberate Iraqis. Saddam invaded Iran causing the death of somewhere between 500,000 to 1,000,000 people. Literally used chemical weapons against his ppl in halaja and the list goes on. The second he invaded Kuwait (us close allay) he instantly gets sanctioned and get his military’s ass kicked out of Kuwait which is a good thing. The problem is that the calls for overthrowing him only started after Saddam started messing with US interests in the region. Where were these calls when Saddam was committing atrocities left and right? Hitchen’s response to that is “we made a mistake not taking action earlier” it sounds like a very very convenient mistake isn’t it? I just can not believe he thought Tony Blair and George bush were overthrowing Saddam to help the Iraqi people. Yet every time he uses that point to support the war. His intelligence is the exact reason I don’t believe supported the war in good faith.
A warmonger to the end.
What is your case against interventionism in the middle east?
As Htichens said, he was anti-fascist and anti-dictator and you were going to have a war there no matter what once Saddam was either deposed or died, akin to what happened in Rwanda for example.
He loved the idea of killing 1 Million Iraqis
@@MrRamazanLale2 Moron. Shut up and learn.
@@RikerLovesWorf I did you zionist. Iraq and Syria were invaded now Iran is next for the bigger Israel project that was made 100 years ago by the ziopigs. Bitchens was one of them.
@@MrRamazanLale2 lol Oh so you're an anti-Semite. lmao Way to completely invalidate anything you did or could say.
This Hitchens dude is really that ignorant about the region.
Imagine if he had lived another ten years. I wonder what his excuse would be to explain the Iraq invasion he supported creating Islamic State and its horrors?
@@georgeash4008 he’d probably still support the invasion and rightfully so.
@@georgeash4008He would have been massively critical of ISIS. Secular apologists for religion were terrified of Hitch.
Anyone ever notice how Hitchens did a 180 and became an interventionist neocon after he found out he was Jewish?
And yet why was he still a defender Palestinian rights during this 'neocon' turn? Even when he made criticisms of Hamas and its supporters in Iran, he still managed to to turn the conversation back to Israel, the Jewish settlers taking land in the West Bank as well as Israel having helped to prop up Hamas in the first place. I don't know but it seems to me that to be a proper neoconservative, you have to be a die hard supporter of Israel. Also are you sure Hitchens found out he was Jewish late in life? I thought he found this out earlier in life? In fact come to think of it he mentions to Charlie Rose that his mother wanted him to become a Zionist but he refused.
weather or not it was your opinion you said two different things in your comments.
i did not challenge your opinion of the war after you clarified it.
now you have changed your argument, or did not phrase it properly the first time. the first comment said the iraq war was a war crime
and now you are saying war crimes happened during the iraq war. the first comment is not a war crime considering iraq by the international framework that established war crimes infact said the iraq under the baath regime was no longer recognized by it.
the latter war crimes happen in any war, the only question to be asked is how do you deal with what happened.
@sehguh1 Yes, it is-- esophageal cancer, to be specific.
Which god are you referring to?
We do export violence at cost of misery of our people. That's my word as Iranian, I would be happy if you need evidence on this matter.
Im going to miss these.
@BRtankbuster Unfortunately, that is what cancer does to people-- age them.
That was brilliant. Where do I sign up for updates on your future literary whereabouts?
Yo man, you still alive?
you mentioned Iran, and I said we (Iranian) do export violence (via Hezbollah, and currently supporting corrupted Asad's regime, not to mention supporting militant Shiite terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan). what did Saddam has to do with Iranian policies?
OIL
He lived long enough to have the same politics as GWB and Biden.
yeah, and Saddam had WMD"s...right,right.
@grimblebrumble17889
I find it hard to believe that you are an Iraqi. Saddam was in power for only 24 years.
The maximum estimates from the Iraq Body count organisation put the number of deaths of civilians at around 120,000. Remember a high percentage of this isn't caused by US forces, but the resistance to it. Under Saddam estimates of 800,000 deaths are attributed directly to his regime, the actual numbers are probably much higher. Continued...
Is he still battling cancer today ?
I don't see your point?
I totally agree
Who you saying that too.
the problem with that is the baath party committed genocide, defacto slavery and war crimes.
(2/2) No we shouldn't ignore history, but you can't gloss over each present being unique to the past. But to my endgame point, arming saddam and then disarming him may actually be a better option than never arming. It's not incoherent, it's dealing with the blows as they come. Saddam was unpredictable. When he came in, it seemed that he was going to be a secular force in the region. It's only by the late 80s it's became clear he was a stalinist thug. I want to say more but the word count is lim-
Secular?? literally six days after he came to power he executed all his political rivals. He’s been thug all along and everyone saw except those who didn’t want to until he directly hit their interests in the region
just in case you wonder wherever I got this info. first link i could find. watch?v=F1vWo18YNFE
@grimblebrumble17889
That means more than twice as many civilians died per year under Saddam (without a war in the country) than during the Iraq war. I'm not saying that the civilian deaths in Iraq are acceptable, everyone is tragedy.
You seriously prefer the regime of Saddam? This man caused the death of 80,000 in a day.
Continued...
That isn't true at all.
www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24547256
Then add to the fact that the US supported Saddam through this worst atrocities. And only invaded Iraq out of pure self-interest and opportunism.
@grimblebrumble17889
On topic of Iraqi's disapproval, polls have shown that even in the more developed middle eastern countries 15% to 30% of Muslims approve of the terrorists attacks against the United States! An even higher percentage had positive feelings for Osama. It is stupid to expect a warm welcome in such a country!
"Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would disagree with you". This is actually very small amount - less than 3% of the population.
@grimblebrumble17889
too much*
You're right, the occupation of Iraq is worryingly suggestive of Imperialism. Especially given the US presence still in the country. War profiteering is disgusting, I agree.
But it is madness to say that the eight years we spent in Iraq, attempting to give them a stable democracy, is worse than the 20 years Saddam had left and then the rule of his equally ruthless heirs.
Don't forget; hatred of the US is catalyzed by their religious views of the infidel too.
last time I checked Jesus boy got nailed on the cross, whatever that means :))
Real life gollum
@shurednichso
The war has saved millions of future lives.
if i have to explain someones position for supporting the war in iraq or the crimes of the baath party in iraq i can see why you think iraq was the a war crime, genocide, and imperialist i.e your reference to slavery.
man lost his mind poor sod
I hope this man repented before his death. Rejecting God in this life will leave you without Him in the afterlife. And that is NOT what anyone wants. When all good is taken away all you have left is evil and living in unending evil is not what anyone wants.
Most people could do without a god,. In fact we're forced to do without a 'god' whether we want or not.
I would not worship God. I don’t want to worship anyone
Kitchens became idiotic clearly in his last year.