So now we know that Christopher Hitchens thinks more clearly, expresses himself more lucidly (even after a bottle or two of the red infuriator) and is a better literary stylist than Flying Rodent.

All this post does is invite us to think Hitchens’s points are absurd. But in no case does it explain why we should think that. Not a single substantive argument. Just a clever-dick tone that invites us to be complicit in a festival of pointless clever dickery.

If you’re going to lay a glove on Hitch you’ll have to do better than this.

Arguments against bombing Iran:
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2009/12/28/whats-our-argument-in-the-drumbeat-against-iran/

For most sane people, these don’t need to be brought up repeatedly..

“…our attempts to democratise Iraq and Afghanistan…”

Err, really? You think Bush and co. – the people who actively undermined democracy and civil liberties at home, crushed democracy in the occupied Palestinian territories, backed anti-democratic coups in Haiti and Venezuela, etc. – invaded Iraq and Afghanistan out of some democratising zeal?

Is this not already conceding far too much to the likes of Hitchens?

@Heathlander: Is this not already conceding far too much to the likes of Hitchens?

Quite – whap some inverted commas around that word, if you like. You can call Chalabi and the crowd that Wolfowitz wanted to install whatever you like, but “democrats” would be something of a stretch.

Just a clever-dick tone that invites us to be complicit in a festival of pointless clever dickery.

I can see you’re not familiar with my schtick.

If you’re going to lay a glove on Hitch you’ll have to do better than this.

I would wear gloves if I was going to touch Hitchens, but I don’t really have much interest in providing a nine-million point refutation. Hitchens’ comments are being met with incredulity even amongst the headbanging warbloggers that are his sole remaining constituency – if he can’t carry that crowd into this fresh lunacy, he really is out on a limb.

And let’s remember that, barring some catastrophic, 28 Days Later-style outbreak of Rage Virus, there is simply no way that the Americans are going to mount an invasion of Iran, or even give the Israelis the go-ahead to do so. The Dude might as well be advocating the invasion of Saturn.

or even give the Israelis the go-ahead to do so.

To bomb Iran’s nuclear research sites, that is.

Flowerpower,

I spent a little time yesterday reading both parts of that ‘interview’.

It is certainly the case that Hitchins expresses himself very well. It is what he is expressing that is at issue. Some things are said where there is no debate to be had and that is mixed in with points on which there certainly is a debate to be had. I believe that this is quite a popular style of debate on American chat shows.

He leaps from humanitarian grievances, which are legitimate, to yet another easy victory.

It is a primrose path that you may wish to follow, but most folk will probably assume that twice bitten, thrice shy.

All this post does is invite us to think Hitchens’s points are absurd.

It’s an invitation I am delighted to accept.

As am I Larry!

Flowerpower,

Hitchins…

As a poppy of Flanders Fields?

Or more accurately as someone who put them there?

One of the many sofa warrior types you find around. That’s Hitchens.

I disagree with Hitchens but this piece is largely based on personal abuse and an almost complete distortion of hat he actually said. As for the argument that the Iranian regime is really no worse than the western liberal democracies, surely that’s the sort of argument that gets left behind in the student union.

As for the argument that the Iranian regime is really no worse than the western liberal democracies, surely that’s the sort of argument that gets left behind in the student union.

If anyone was making that sort of general-terms argument, you might have a point. However, since FR is talking about the specific matter of invading other countries, you obviously don’t.

Gotta love Jimmy complaining about an “almost complete distortion of hat he actually said”, and then in the very next sentence ascribing to rodent the view that “the Iranian regime is really no worse than the western liberal democracies”.

I, for one, am intrigued by Jimmy chucking stones like complete distortion of what (Hitchens) actually said around in such dangerously close proximity to glass houses such as the argument that the Iranian regime is really no worse than the western liberal democracies.

Well, sheeeit.

We simply don’t have the money for another war. Perhaps Hitchens would like to buy a reasonably priced assault rifle and parachute or is he just going to sit on his arse and expect the state to do everything for him

“they go into countries where they’re not wanted, arm violent insurgent groups and militias, shoot protestors in the streets, send death squads to the other side of the planet, seek nuclear weapons and they torture, rape and disappear prisoners.

“The existence of such regimes is incompatible with us,” Hitchens says, with a straight face.”

This passage is plainly not limited to the issue of invasions.

Jimmy are you arguing that some Western democracies haven’t engaged in such practices and haven’t created a network of client states that also commit these kinds of abuses?

dodgy article.

Two sources for thinking this:

1. Oliver Burkeman writes, “Since the parting of ways on Iraq [...] Hitchens claims to have detected a new, personalised nastiness in the attacks on him, especially over his fabled consumption of alcohol. He welcomes being attacked as a drinker ‘because I always think it’s a sign of victory when they move on to the ad hominem.’

2. Middle Eastern Hitler? But who…

This passage is plainly not limited to the issue of invasions.

It certainly isn’t – it implies that Hitchens obviously isn’t overly concerned by the arming of psychotic militias and death squads, torture, disappearances and clandestine subversion in far-off lands etc. on principle, since he tends to blow these off as incidental misdeeds or flat deny their existence when the Americans get caught doing this stuff. This is not the behaviour of an honourable man.

Allow me to shorterise – the Iranian regime are a horrendous, medieval throwback with a horrible human rights record, and Hitchens is a warmongering lunatic who would rather blow a field full of donkeys all day, every day, than admit to the slightest error.

Or, metaphorically – Hitchens, in the hole that is Iraq, digging with a giant shovel marked “TOTAL FUCKING DISASTER” towards a gigantic pile of booby-trapped human bodies, while voluntarily wearing a blindfold and singing “God Bless America”. In a radioactive minefield filled with man-eating baboons, on fire.

And @Carl – Christopher Hitchens non-ironically disdains ad hominem attacks on political opponents is basically Sunday Sport material.

“it implies that Hitchens obviously isn’t overly concerned by the arming of psychotic militias and death squads, torture, disappearances and clandestine subversion in far-off lands etc. on principle, since he tends to blow these off as incidental misdeeds or flat deny their existence when the Americans get caught doing this stuff.”

You might want to take a look at this

http://www.amazon.com/Trial-Henry-Kissinger-Christopher-Hitchens/dp/1859843980

“Sharp-eyed readers will note that we, the injured and passive western democracies, have actually attacked, invaded and currently occupy the territories immediately to Iran’s west and north, not to mention bombing Yemen to their south. If we include the Israelis in our thinking – and we really should – we can add Lebanon, Gaza and Syria to the list of local countries we have been forced to attack.”

Let’s not forget Haiti, which was obviously attacked by the US’s HAARP weapon in order to allow the Israelis (who were included in their thinking) to steal organs which they have no doubt Madoff with.

Iran’s Press TV have been all over this one and frankly they may be the only ones to truly understand the scope of this terrible Jew’s HAARP that may do us all in. Let us pray for nuclear weapons!!!1!

More here:

http://angrysoba.blogspot.com/2010/01/joooos-haarp.html

Flying Rodent @ 20

– it implies that Hitchens obviously isn’t overly concerned by the arming of psychotic militias and death squads, torture, disappearances and clandestine subversion in far-off lands etc. on principle, since he tends to blow these off as incidental misdeeds or flat deny their existence when the Americans get caught doing this stuff.

Huh?

Clearly you missed most of what Hitch has written on the subject of Henry Kissinger.

Clearly you missed most of what Hitch has written on the subject of Henry Kissinger.

I read it when it came out, it’s an excellent book on a despicable figure. OTOH, Hitchens now uses precisely the same fiery tones of denunciation on anyone who suggests that we have no business smashing around the middle east like a bull in a china shop, blowing shit up in pursuit of fuck knows what purpose.

Hitchens is very good on the bombing of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, yet not quite so good on our current lunatic, ultraviolent wars. Who knows who it is we’re blasting with predator drones in Pakistan, for instance? Ask Hitchens and you’ll get Who cares? Almost certainly Islamonazis.

In fact, when he does mention, to pick a random example, the Americans’ massive covert abduction, torture and extrajudicial black prison scheme, it’s as a pretext to hectoring readers on what should be done with the prisoners instead. Note: Not invading countries, blowing shit up and imprisoning God knows who from God knows where is not a legitimate answer, however rational we might imagine that is.

@Angrysoba: Yes, PressTV is insane and deranged, unsuprisingly given who funds it.

@FlyingRodent I’m not sure the SS (Sunday Sport) will know what ad hominem means