I hope they both loose.
User login
Author Information
Poll
Why have you visited this website?
To check for updates
11%
Read posts
39%
Contribute to discussions
6%
Share content
3%
Social media brought me here
6%
Tis fate
35%
Total votes: 632
Active forum topics
Recent blog posts
Upcoming Events
- 5 May 2024 - 11:00 to 16:30
Quick Links
Who's online
There are currently 0 users online.
Just finished listening to it.
Prob Hitchens.
But too personal.
I take it you don't believe George Galloways "Friend O' Muslims" deal?
I have no interest in getting involved politics so I don't really have any interest in Galloway.
I think Galloway says things that make him sound like a fanatic and discredit his arguements.
Most of the things Hitchens says can be easily shot down if you know enough about his political beliefs and the subject. He's also pretty easy to confuse as seen on the Daily Show which isn't suprising considering he's probably tanked most of the time.
Take for example his statement about the Kurds not being chauvinistic after their "victory" over Saddam. Thats certainly not the way non-kurdish Iraqis see it as I've learned from Iraqi internet forums. There have been many forced removals of arabs from their lands in the north and arrests of Arab and Turkoman activists.
I noticed Europeans make a bigger deal out of Hitchens than is due... no idea why. In the grand scheme of things he isn't as close to the admin as other neocons but that's probably because he's not really a neocon.
Conservatives in this country don't really trust him since he was (and still is) so very far out in left field up until recently.
Frankly I think Galloway is ideologically christian socialist as he claims but i'm sure his antics are all for show.
He's another Dean.
Hitchens is sort of a loose gun, he runs off speaking for conservatives and gets anihilated.
When you compare his performance on the Daily Show with like a Brian Williams - who consistently schools Stewart, you can see why even neocons are a little reserved about him.
That said William Kristol appears to like him
Thats true media outlets here tend to portray him as America's leading journalist. I think thats why he gets so much attention.
Another thing I find interesting about him is his continued support for the Viet Cong and Algerian resistance against the French. From what I've read about both groups they were probably worse than the people fighting in Iraq now e.g. The Viet Cong massacre of South vietnamese civil servants and intellectuals in Hue during the Tet offensive. I doubt Zarqawi killed 6000 people while he controlled Fallujah.
Might have something to do with him being British by birth.
That's just an expression of his leftist leanings - I don't really consider him a conservative, he's like another Ron Silver.
The internationalist lefties figured out a while back that they could leech on American nationalism and power to promote liberalism worldwide - if you look at the conservative movement in the last 100 years they are typically more in line with the general american belief we should be more isolationist.
He wants to use the US military to export leftist revolution. I don't see why you pay attention to him, his ideas are virtually irrelevant to American Politics - if anything he just stands behind points made by other more relevant political theorists.
Always seems so angry too... must have had an abusive childhood or something.
I find that there's a lot of hypocracy in Left in that they will support violence as long as its in support of leftist aims but decry its use by any other group. Example Hitchens;
Violence by Viet Cong,FLN and Kurdish terrorists = justified
Violence by baathists and "jihadists"=unjustified
This also applies to leftists who opposed the war. I feel there's too much hypocracy for leftists to legitimately oppose this war. I feel conservative isolationists like Ken Clarke and Patrick Buhcannan are in a much better position to do it.
Its possible. His brother Peter Hitchens (www.peterhitchens.com) is pretty much the same although at least he isn't so obviously drunk when he speaks publicly. He has more confidence whereas with Chris I think he's just too intoxicated to show any emotion which people interpret as confidence.
Internationalist leftists are even more hypocritical when you look at their non-military strategies to start the changes they are trying to make. Take the infamous example of neoliberal economic reforms with the IMF. When Mexico went under the US gov't was calling banks, holding back foreclosures, floating loans, and most importantly not requiring structural changes at their most vulnerable hour, that's the US backyard - but when the Asian crisis occured the IMF and lefties demanded Indonesia accept all these crazy radical neolib reforms - often had nothing to do with economics, and the country just got hit harder.
It's like they want this stuff to fail.
Buchannan would have my sympathy more if he didn't base his policies on xenophobia. They guy is a ridiculous racist.
Its possible. His brother Peter Hitchens (http://www.peterhitchens.com/) is pretty much the same although at least he isn't so obviously drunk when he speaks publicly.[/quote]
Sometimes I wonder if Chris isn't a little tipsy too
I was taking about him. Peter Hitchens is a very conservative christian. He probably doesn't drink or have sex or watch television.
I know you were talking about him... Thats why I said I often wonder if he isn't a little drunk too
I know nothing about Peter - is he fundamentalist christian?
I've never had any problem with political Christianity, except that there aren't any leaders seriously interested in promoting.
His brother says he is http://hitchensweb.com/reply.html
I don't think he's a fundementalist he's just very conservative (supports death penalty in Britain, supports wars if they're to build a new British empire). I don't think his views are primarily motivated by religion he just identifies himself as a christian. He opposed the war in Iraq believeing it wasn't in Britain's interests.
Sounds like a nationalist
Just watching this debate today Hitchens identifies himself as a socialist, in fact just before that ridiculous little book plug at the end he challenges Galloway's socialist loyalties.
I don't see how Europeans can continue to call this guy a neocon.
And Galloway just seemed like a screeching twit self promoter.
I'd like to see him handle a real intellectual - like Kristol. Or better yet a real conservative intellectual like George Will (that [i]was[/i] directed at Kristol).
From what i've seen tonight he couldn't handle it.
This debate had the intellectual utility of Pamela Anderson's autobiography.
- Anybody else notice Hitchens is always sweating like a pig?