[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 22 KB, 460x276, Christopher-Hitchens-007.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4944113 No.4944113[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

>There are people on this who still worship this neocon propagandist

>> No.4944118

He was leftist.

>> No.4944123

>>4944118
He was always a center-rightist.

>> No.4944128

>>4944118
>was
he changed his views later in life. was there a great deal of support from leftists for the invasion of iraq and afghanistan.

>> No.4944181

>>4944113
He was right only about Afghanistan.

>> No.4944196

Peter Hitchens is the superior Hitchens.

>> No.4944204
File: 866 KB, 245x245, 1385987465872.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4944204

>> No.4944225

>>4944128
Read humanitarian arguments for war in iraq.

>> No.4944230

>>4944113
>neocon

Did you big brother teach you this word today? You might want to ask your homeroom teacher what it actually means tomorrow.

>> No.4944256

>>4944225

Useful idiots for petrodollar hegemony

>> No.4944262
File: 490 KB, 449x401, laughing.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4944262

>>4944181
>he believes in god

>> No.4944267

>>4944118
Not really, you can be a Marxist and be a neocon shill, like you believe in dialectical and historical materialism but don't feel the duty to be part of the movement and just vote right wingers because YOLO.

>> No.4944268

I just came from /r/lectures where people were fellating each other over cringeworthy platitudes from ol' Noam. Sad to see I come here and find high school kiddies patting themselves on the back for casually tossing aside a real man of intelligence who might actually challenge the views your disgusting baby boom parents stuffed into your gullet.

>> No.4944282

>>4944268

2/10 - You lost at "a real man of intelligence"

Opposing american expansionism is not a left/right issue

>> No.4944284
File: 191 KB, 1280x960, IMG_1708-e1396526545952-1280x960.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4944284

>still listening to cishet white men in the year of our lordess

>> No.4944321

>>4944262
I'm an atheist though.

>> No.4944324

>>4944256
I don't think it's quite as clear cut as it's made out, there was no real attempt by the US or European leftists to contact the Iraqi leftists, or even the Iraqi opposition generally. Personally opposed to the war since yeah it comes down to petrodollar imperialism and turned out just as bad for the Iraqi people as leaving Saddam in power, but some people (George Galloway etc) take it to the point of active support for his vile administration.

>> No.4944328

>>4944321
so you agree with him on more than just afghanistan

>> No.4944344

>>4944118
This. He supported the Iraq War out of his loyalty to a secular liberal universalism.

>>4944267
He could be a marxist and support the Iraq War the same way Marx supported the colonization of India.

>> No.4944433

>>4944128
He was for the invasion of Iraq before the right took up the issue. Criticism of a totalitarian regime and supporting its overthrow isn't incompatible with leftist ideology

>> No.4944437

>>4944282
>Iraq war
>having anything to do with the Pax Americana
we're not even purchasing oil from them

>> No.4944442

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FxMUj__QR8

He's the best thinker of the late 20th century.

>> No.4944457

>>4944268
>a real man of intelligence

I think you should go back to the site you just came from.

>> No.4944473

/lit/ is so butthurt about the fact that he doesn't believe in gods and magic that they don't realize that they share the vast majority of his opinions.

>> No.4944474

>>4944473
> 2013+1
> being capitalist

top kek

>> No.4944478

>>4944284
Go away with your chop suey

>> No.4944482

>>4944268
Yeah I'm going to have to side with /r/lectures here, buddy, Noam Chomsky is a very intelligent person.

>> No.4944483
File: 183 KB, 803x1010, NecronNoogies.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4944483

Eh? What do you want?

>> No.4944485

>>4944442

>Dumb Huntingtonian worldview
>Extremely misleading account of the Baghdad and Bali bombings
>That cunty, self-satisfied tone

He was an insufferable charlatan.

>> No.4944524

>>4944196
Peter Hitchens is bloody awful.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1NzlZ2GADaI&feature=kp

>> No.4944581

>>4944524
I would've had the same reaction. Matthew Parris is an idiot.

>> No.4944610

>>4944485
>>Extremely misleading account of the Baghdad and Bali bombings
in what way?

>> No.4944631

>>4944437

Silly girl.

Controlling the flow of oil is infinitely more important than selling it. Saddam was trying to gain access to the Arabian Ocean through Kuwait, by which he could begin to sell oil under non-dollar denominated currencies. And thus the Petrodollar crumbles, the dollar tanks and America goes bankrupt. All of America's interventions are for the propping up of the petrodollar. We don't need to sell oil, we just need to make sure no one does it the way we don't like them to.

>> No.4944643

So the only reason people call him a neocon is because he supported the war?

>> No.4944647

>>4944643

Cuz he supported the war that neocons have wanted since neocons were a thing?

>> No.4944648

>>4944610

He plays up East Timor as if was a primary motivation for either attack. In Bin Laden and az-Zarqawi's own statements on the incidents, ET comes at the end of a list of grievances. In each case the list cites, not surprisingly, international efforts in the Middle East and Afghanistan.

Hitchens goes off on the questioner like the cunt that he is. In reality, the guy's portrayal of events was no more incorrect than his own. He puts a pseudo-intellectual spin on the old "they hate me for muh freedums" line. As usual, the connection between his argument and reality is tenuous. Inconvenient facts are ignored.

>> No.4944659

>>4944485
>Dumb Huntingtonian worldview

You're dumb if you think Hitchens and Huntington share a worldview.

Hitchens was a liberal universalist, he believed that democracy could actually be exported to the Middle East with tanks and aircraft carriers. Huntington thought that this was impossible, since they were two different civilizations.

Huntington was against the Iraq War because of that.

>> No.4944660

>>4944648
But they do hate us for our freedoms.

>> No.4944661

>>4944648

>If we hate your freedoms, why did we not attack Sweden?

>> No.4944669

>>4944643

Because he believes that war can and should be successfully executed for the proliferation of ideology in lands alien to it? Do you know what Neoconservatism is?

>> No.4944677

>>4944113
>there are people on /lit/ who still claim to love Ulysses
>there are people on /mu/ who still listen to Swans
>there are people on /fa/ who still wear geobaskets

>> No.4944699

I hate the way he poses for cameras.
I get he is trying to pose in a way that isn't posey but it is still posey just, hey look at me not posing posey, ya dig?

>> No.4944705

>>4944669
>Do you know what Neoconservatism is?
Don't take that tone. I'm asking because this issue seems to be the only one that has any relationship to the neocon philosophy, while his position on a whole range of other issues stand in clear opposition to the movement.

>> No.4944709

People seem to be using "marxist" as a positive connotation in this thread...

>> No.4944713

>>4944705
Not him, but his only real "neo-conservative" stance was that he supported the war in Iraq. I hardly think one bad position discredits everything else he believed though.

>> No.4944764

>>4944713
That was my thought, too.

And even then, I'll admit that his insistence on fighting oppressive theocratic governments did shake my conviction a tiny bit that invasion was a horrible thing. No neocon ever did that to me.

>> No.4944775

>>4944709
>ideologies
>having a negative or positive connotation

u wot m8

>> No.4944795

>>4944775
Not sure where you've been. See:

>>4944113

>> No.4944819

hitchens didn't like being called a liberal even in his thirties and preferred being called a socialist.

he said liberals were "dangerous compromises"

>> No.4944844

>>4944764
>Iraq
>theocratic

Saddam ran a secular state.

>> No.4944853

>>4944648
>He puts a pseudo-intellectual spin on the old "they hate me for muh freedums"
Whenever you read Sayyid Qutb and the people his writings have influenced, it sure seems like ideological differences concerning those freedoms - particularly our comparatively liberal sexual mores - informs their hatred of the West. The political grievances just seem like methods of justifying their religious impositions

>> No.4944893
File: 231 KB, 293x318, 1397609289406.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4944893

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgB20YmqN6A

Repellant showboat.

>> No.4944916

>>4944853
'fundamentalist muslims have western sexual values' - sure, but so do many russians, many thais, many africans.

qutb is actually a case in point: sure he didn't like america but he never advocated terrorism against americans. his political project was to take control of egypt and the arab world.

the reason why OBL decided to go to war with america was because of christian troops being put on saudi soil during the gulf war. that's simply a biographical fact.

>> No.4944941

>>4944893
>Hitchens is writing articles demonstrating why a popular film and cultural phenomenon is harmful
>he must be seeking attention

"How can you go in one day from Chomsky to Wolfowitz," as if he wasn't arguing for regime change in Iraq since the early 90s.

One of the smarter observations Hitchens made before he died was about the tribal nature of the modern Left. If someone disagrees with them it it can only be for the lowest possible reasons: money, influence, and power. People can't hold genuine convictions that happen to disagree with theirs.

>> No.4944970

>>4944916
>sure, but so do many russians, many thais, many africans
But they don't use the West's social mores as justification for attacking them.

>was because of christian troops being put on saudi soil during the gulf war.
So you concede that it's a religious grievance rather than a political one? Attacking a nation to prevent invasion is one thing, but attacking civilians of that nation because of an untended religious insult they caused decades ago is self-evidently stupid.

>> No.4944981

>>4944659
>You're dumb if you think Hitchens and Huntington share a worldview.

It was a reference to CoC. Didn't mean to imply anything beyond that.

>>4944660

Hate for our freedoms isn't what put planes in those towers.

>>4944853
>Whenever you read Sayyid Qutb and the people his writings have influenced, it sure seems like ideological differences concerning those freedoms - particularly our comparatively liberal sexual mores - informs their hatred of the West.

Qutb's enemy wasn't the West. Western licentiousness was just a convenient (and for him, immediate) example of what societies turn to under secular governments.

AQ takes a great deal of inspiration from Qutb, but their ideology, their focus, and their methods all differ pretty significantly from what he propounded.

>The political grievances just seem like methods of justifying their religious impositions

It is nearly always the other way around.

>> No.4944999

>>4944981
>It is nearly always the other way around.
I know. I mentioned it because I think that they're the exception. They couch their religious ideology with politics to justify their attacks and make them more palatable for their Leftist sympathizers.

>> No.4945001

The thing is with Christopher, the more you read the more you disagree with him. You have to like him enough to understand that he's wrong. He also likes to contradict himself, he was initially opposed to the Gulf War himself but later supported it.

Not to forget his last words were, "Capitalism, downfall".

>> No.4945006

>>4944970
>But they don't use the West's social mores as justification for attacking them.
neither does al qaeda...that's the whole point under debate?

>So you concede that it's a religious grievance rather than a political one?
two separate things here: religious grievance with western cultural mores? no. religious grievance with western geopolitical actions? yes

>> No.4945012

>>4944999
>They couch their religious ideology with politics to justify their attacks and make them more palatable for their Leftist sympathizers.

are you insane?

>> No.4945030

>>4945012
He's just an idiot.

He's forgotten how right wing administrations were the ones that funded the Mujahadeen, armed and organized them.

He's forgotten that these are the middle-east's version of religious conservatives.

>> No.4945032

>>4945001
How is that a contradiction?

>> No.4945037

>>4945030
When was the last time a religious conservative in the United States killed someone in broad daylight for drawing a picture of Jesus?

>> No.4945041

>>4945012
Are you blind? Why do you think an organization that believes that homosexuals deserve the death penalty and that women should be subordinate to their husbands and fathers offhandedly mention Leftists like Chomsky and Michael Moore? Public relations.

>> No.4945051

>>4945030
>He's forgotten how right wing administrations were the ones that funded the Mujahadeen, armed and organized them.
I haven't. That doesn't justify their ideology or terrorism. It's a non sequitur.

>He's forgotten that these are the middle-east's version of religious conservatives.
Are you assuming that i'm a religious conservative? And if I were, that not wanting gays to get married is somehow comparable to imprisoning and killing them?

>> No.4945053

>>4945041
so bin laden only turned to terrorism against the us after 1990 because the gulf war gave him the excuse he was waiting for to curry favour with american liberals? are you serious?

>> No.4945082

>>4945053
No, you're not understanding me. bin Laden is an expansionist who openly espouses belief in a new international Muslim Caliphate.

>Al-Qaeda has as one of its clearly stated goals the re-establishment of a caliphate.[48] Its former leader, Osama bin Laden, called for Muslims to "establish the righteous caliphate of our umma".[49] Al-Qaeda chiefs released a statement in 2005, under which, in what they call "phase five" there will be "an Islamic state, or caliphate".[50] Al-Qaeda has named its Internet newscast from Iraq "The Voice of the Caliphate".[51]

In order to achieve this, he justifies his expansion to well-intentioned progressives by claiming that it's just a response to Western imperialism.

>> No.4945093

>>4945082
>bin Laden is an expansionist who openly espouses belief in a new international Muslim Caliphate.

no problem there...

>In order to achieve this, he justifies his expansion to well-intentioned progressives by claiming that it's just a response to Western imperialism.

how does this logically follow? you know what the caliphate is right? the unification of dar al-islam, the muslim world. the reason why bin laden was so pissed off at american imperialism was because it intruded on this muslim world.

>> No.4945094

>>4945082
they don't understand this shit man. america is bad. everything we do i bad. if religious fanatics want to turn the clocks back 1000 years it's because america is bad.

>> No.4945105

>>4945093
This. Attacking the United States and bringing them into Middle Eastern affairs does nothing to advance the goal of restoring the Caliphate. 9/11 was textbook terrorism. He had a political agenda and a list of grievances he outlined plainly. It was as clear a case of blowback as you could possibly ask for.

>> No.4945114

>>4945093
Sorry to universalize my values, but I don't think a Muslim empire that imprisons (and sometimes executes) gays and treats women like objects is a worthy goal. Nor do I think that America's attempt to defend the Kuwaiti people was wrong. Nor do I think that purposefully aiming at civilians to further your religious agenda is morally justifiable.

>> No.4945116

>>4944262
>he has a neckbeard

>> No.4945118

>>4944999
>I know. I mentioned it because I think that they're the exception. They couch their religious ideology with politics to justify their attacks and make them more palatable for their Leftist sympathizers.

But leftist sympathizers aren't important to them in the final analysis. The people to whom they pander--the ones who provide them with funding and support--are religious radicals.

Discussing individual motivations is almost always a very speculative undertaking. My impression, though, is that political concerns drive the AQ top brass more fundamentally than religious convictions (which is not to say that all of their beliefs are insincere.) Religion provides a vocabulary for expressing those concerns and selling them to the rank and file.

>> No.4945129

>>4945105
Fuck that. Both Iraq and Kuwait are their own countries with their own sovereignty. How the fuck is it bin Laden's business to defend the honor of either nation? It it because they both happen to be Muslim-majority?

>> No.4945142

>>4945118
>Religion provides a vocabulary for expressing those concerns and selling them to the rank and file.
It's more than that. Religion is central to their ideology. A Muslim Caliphate is inherently theocratic; and even if it wasn't it would still be expansionist. If imperialism is morally reprehensible, it doesn't become less so if the people doing hold less power and influence than the people attempting to stop them.

>> No.4945144

>>4945114
>>4945129
Nobody here is defending Osama bin Laden you fucking morons. It is incredibly clear that bin Laden's actions are the direct result of American neocolonial interventionism in the Middle East. Blowback, insofar as it applies to terrorism, is very real, whether it is in response to crippling sanctions or drone strikes. You could not ask for a clearer example than 9/11.

>> No.4945158

>>4945129

His open declaration of hostility toward the US came after the first Gulf War. He made an offer to several Saudi princes to repel Saddam's invasion with an insurgent force of Arab Afghan vets like himself. He was turned down and Fahd invited international forces to defend the kingdom. Make of this what you will.

>> No.4945168

>>4945144
>I tell a guy to stop hitting his girlfriend and he punches me in the face
>it's my fault for getting in it
blowback is quite real, but it happening doesn't justify it. In a perfect world an action needs to be judged on its own individual moral merit, not whether or not it makes people mad

>> No.4945170
File: 93 KB, 400x527, 4a07686a.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4945170

>mfw the paleocons were actually right about somethings

>> No.4945181

He had Kurdish buddies. He was sick of them being murdered by Hussein. Still not America's problem, but you can't blame him.

>> No.4945182

>>4945142
>A Muslim Caliphate is inherently theocratic

Historically, the norm in the major caliphates was a clear distinction between religious and political power elites. So I don't think the word 'inherently' belongs here.

I'd also contest this:

>and even if it wasn't it would still be expansionist

But I guess these objections are sort of beside the point.

I'm not arguing that their religious ideology doesn't motivate them. But the origins and content of that specific ideology are bound up in contemporary global politics... AQ cannot be understood without reference to the Soviet-Afghan war, Saudi politics, the Gulf War, and post-independence Arab politics more broadly.

>> No.4945186

>>4945158
I don't get how putting American troops on Muslim holy land is inherently bad. Doesn't context matter? Weren't we on their side?

>> No.4945192

>>4945114
>Nor do I think that America's attempt to defend the Kuwaiti people was wrong.

the us was defending kuwait's oil reserves. it couldn't give a shit about the kuwaiti people: see blaming iran for saddam's chemical weapons genocide of kurdish civilians

and yes, killing civilians and trying to create a theocratic empire are bad. but the vast majority of muslims and the governments of muslim countries also agree with you. so trying to justify american actions along those lines is pretty stupid and self-defeating (it was the invasion of iraq that gave al qaeda its best shot in making its dream a reality)

>> No.4945195

>>4945168
again,
>Nobody here is defending Osama bin Laden

When making people mad leads to millions of Americans dying, you have to consider if the initial action is strategically worthwhile. In foreign policy, actions need to be judged on at least a basic cost-benefit analysis. You cannot be outcome blind. For example, is a fact that our support of Israel, well-intentioned as it may be, has contributed greatly to anti-American sentiment and to terrorist attacks against American targets. There comes a point where the costs incurred in blood and treasure by supporting Israel outweighs the strategic value of the close alliance itself. You cannot be this myopic.

>> No.4945208

>>4945186
because muhammad on his deathbed said that the whole arabian penninsula had to be made muslim pure (or something, can't remember exactly).

bin laden was a salafi and part of the salafi movement, whose defining feature is aping the prophet and his companions in everything they said and did. so...

>> No.4945213

>>4945186
>examining things in context

you're in violation of rule one of the liberal's guide to arguing.

>> No.4945214

>>4945192
>so trying to justify american actions along those lines is pretty stupid and self-defeating
How is it self-defeating? I'm saying that the majority of Muslims feel that way, i'm saying that al-Qaeda does.

>> No.4945219

>>4945170
They were right about the Iraq War. Unlike the anti-war left who actually believe it was about oil and american imperialism (now Iraq is an Iranian puppet that doesn't even export much oil to the United States).

>> No.4945228

>>4945213
You're making the neocon's mistake of thinking that acknowledging that terrorism has resulted from American action is equal to agreeing with the terrorists. It isn't. It doesn't matter how irrational the act of terrorism is, it still happens.

>> No.4945238
File: 434 KB, 517x441, hitchens1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4945238

>> No.4945244

>>4945195
If a particular action that's morally justifiable leads to unintended bloodshed through retribution, the original action shouldn't been seen as the cause of – nor should the people who committed it be held responsible for – that retribution. It wouldn't be fair.

>> No.4945252

>>4945186
>I don't get how putting American troops on Muslim holy land is inherently bad.

For what it's worth, the troops weren't even stationed in the Hijaz--the actual holy territory. They were just close enough for discomfort.

>Doesn't context matter? Weren't we on their side?

Context absolutely matters. The main context to be understood in this case is Saudi politics.

The Saudi monarchy spent the 80s shoring up their religious legitimacy after it weathered some pretty serious attacks in 79. They supported an aggressive form of pan-Islamism in Afghanistan, and at home, the religious establishment was given significantly more control and funding in education, justice, and the social sphere generally.

When the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan, it was celebrated as a victory for (Saudi) Islam. Then, after a decade of playing up their commitment to Islam and "defending" Muslims abroad from commies and the like, the Saudi monarchy turned to the West for defense against Saddam. This flew in the face of the pious image they'd been cultivating, so Saudi religious conservatives were quite pissed. Osama echoed and capitalized on their outrage. The US presence was the most immediate and egregious symbol of what the monarchy was doing wrong.

>> No.4945254

>>4944256
There's no actual evidence of the Iraq war affecting the petrodollar though

>> No.4945258

>>4945208
>bin laden was a salafi and part of the salafi movement, whose defining feature is aping the prophet and his companions in everything they said and did. so...

Ostensibly but often not actually.

>> No.4945265

>>4945244
Nobody is assigning moral culpability to the United States. But there is still a clear (and repeated) chain of causality, and it is clear that cavalier interventionism is a strategic net-negative.

>> No.4945266

>>4945214
my point is that since most muslims and every muslim government hates al qaeda's guts, american military power getting involved is superfluous and self-defeating insofar as it makes itself the 'foreign enemy'. so trying to trumpet american involvement in the ME as good since it stopped al qaeda is pretty stupid.

>> No.4945271

As someone in this thread commented, he was a liberal universalist, yet he supported neocon agenda of exporting the Western paradigm and perhaps he supported unipolar view of international relations.

He was a bright man, however far less intellectual as he's made out to be by his fanboys.

Peace be upon his soul.

>> No.4945291

>>4944631
Jesus, the fact that people can really believe this is mind-blowing. You do realise that China and Russia were hugely benefited by the Iraq war and the subsequent oil deals right? Much more so than having Saddam as a partner would have been.

The petrodollar imperialism is a myth perpetuated by the tunnel-visioned leftists who feel the need to attach a conspiracy theory to every action the US undertakes.

>> No.4945302

>>4945219
The amount Iraq gives the US is barely quantifiable. The US creates most of it's own oil and imports the vast majority of the rest from North America and the idea of petrodollar hegemony is based on a flawed understanding of geopolitics.

>> No.4945306

>>4945291
It's not like there wasn't a genuine conspiracy anyway. The war was sold to the American people on WMDs (everybody knew did not exist) and post-9/11 fears (even though nobody could draw any connection to Saddam).

>> No.4945324

>>4945271
Thinking that Western morality, which evolved through centuries of political and philosophical debate, isn't applicable to any society except a Western one is dumb.

>> No.4945331

Probably because of how fucking good he is at talking. It sounds like goddamn movie dialogue and he just spouts it out spontaneously for as long as needed about basically anything hes asked about

>> No.4945355

>>4945266
But the US's war on al-Qaeda was simply a response to 9/11. How the majority of Arab countries feel about them is irreverent

>> No.4945356

>>4945114

You're being silly.

A muslim empire that imprisons gays and treats women like objects is not something that military force can solve without the eradication or dehumanization of the original muslim population. Not to mention it is extremely expensive, corporatist, and prolongs this dizzying wallstreet-petrodollar inflationary carousel.

>> No.4945360

>>4945355
and 9/11 was a response to the gulf war and american involvement in the middle east

are you starting to see my point?

>> No.4945367

>>4945324

Western morality is a debatable thing. Just look around you. We're all Westerners here and we cannot agree upon single issue.

Western standard of morality and most basic things... probably, but it's just so vague.

>> No.4945370

>>4945252
So the US is responsible for Saudi hypocrisy?

>> No.4945372

>>4945168

more like

>stop telling the serfs on my land to stop treating their wives so disrespectfully
>step into their huts and kiss their wives
>one day the serf stabs me in the leg
>i burn his family

>> No.4945374

>>4944225
>killing hundreds of thousands of people to remove one man and his regime, despite the fact that you supported him through his most evil moments

Faggot pls there is no argument.

>> No.4945377

>>4945367
Blame postmodernists and their moral relativism.

>> No.4945382

>>4945377
blame nietzsche

>> No.4945385

>>4945367
The Harm Principle is motherfucking scripture as far as I'm concerned

>> No.4945387

>>4945082
I thought the Caliphate already exists and just isn't recognized as a geopolitical entity or head of state.

>> No.4945390

>>4945356
You didn't get the point of my post. I'm not saying that the West should enforce the opposite, i'm saying that the deliberate spreading of extremist Qutbism under the guise of fighting American imperialism isn't okay.

>> No.4945396

>>4945302

Dude if you think that actually extracting the oil from the ground is essential to maintaining the petrodollar then you don't understand the nature of the petrodollar.

You don't need to have American companies pumping the stuff. You need to have every country agreeing to pay for it with USD. It follows then that the fact that Iraqi oil has gone largely idle since the successful invasion provides zero counter-evidence to the idea that petrodollar maintenance was the primary cause of invasion.

>> No.4945401

>>4945306

Actually everyone did know that they existed as the US sold them to Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war. The funny part was that after 9/11, those WMDs suddenly became relevant (and totally not our fault) despite the lack of connection between Iraq and the 'hijackers'

>> No.4945409

>>4945129
You're applying the Western concept of a sovereign state to the ME, that's idiotic.

>> No.4945411

>>4945360
>and 9/11 was a response to the gulf war and american involvement in the middle east
Except that preventing a Kuwaiti annexation is more justifiable than deliberately attacking innocent civilians because the nation they happened to belong to got involved in a conflict that occurred near them.

>> No.4945417

>>4945377

Actually - no. If you want to blame postmodernists, we need to blame modernists first and whole programme of Enlightment. Partially destructive activity - removing tenants of tradition and absolutely destructive activity - removing of one-self.

Postmodernism is a will of nothingness. An idea that nothingness is a true freedom...

>> No.4945425

>>4945370
>So the US is responsible for Saudi hypocrisy?

That's not what I'm saying.

The US presence in Saudi Arabia was the most obvious and convenient target for the ire of religious conservatives in that country at that time.

>> No.4945428

>>4945390

Ok I'm not quite sure what you mean.

Anyways, "defending the innocent people of kuwait" had nothing to do with rushing to bomb the dictator whose military capacity we had just previously built up with armaments and loans. The real impetus was keeping Hussein from reaching the ocean with a pipeline and exposing the international oil market to non-USD denominated supplies.

>> No.4945429

>>4945409
>that's idiotic
It isn't when the population of that country recognize its borders, and would be treated like shit if annexed.

>> No.4945434

>>4945370
The Saudi monarchy =/= Saudi people

>> No.4945436

>>4945425
I'm not saying that you're saying that, i'm saying that that was the Muslim conservative mindset: blame the US for inconsistent Saudi ideology.

>> No.4945444

>>4944113
>there are still people in the world who believe an Abrahamic God still exists

>> No.4945446

>>4945401
You're being very liberal with your definition of WMDs. Bush promised us yellowcake

>> No.4945455

>>4945411

I'm sorry but this is so naive. You can't base your personal foreign policy off of: "That person is killing people over there!" If you do, you will always be the political canon fodder for elites who really don't give a shit about dead people on the other side of the earth but want to further aggrandize their own objectives. Such as the continued ability of the American monetary system to inflate the financial sector and sustain equity bubbles and their inevitable backlashes.

>> No.4945461
File: 66 KB, 500x364, 1398427379831.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4945461

>>4945331
I agree. He was an absolute master at oratory.

>> No.4945462

Hitchens was nothing more than a drunk polemicist.

>> No.4945464

>>4945446

Dept of Agriculture sold him yellow cake in 86 look it up

>> No.4945466

>>4945252
>i know hijaz from grand srtat but it's actual holy land?
>look up hijaz
>Historically, Hejaz has always seen itself as separate from the rest of Saudi Arabia because Hejazis are open-minded and liberal, unlike Najd.[3] Saudi Hejazis are of diverse origins.[4] Hejaz is the most cosmopolitan part of the Arabian Peninsula.[5] 35% of Saudis live in Hejaz.[6] Hejazi Arabic dialect is closely related to Egyptian Arabic.[7]
So Islam's Vatican City is open-minded and liberal? That's odd.

>> No.4945478

>>4945291
Can you give me a little more, or at least links to articles? Because the petrodollar thing really appeals to my admittedly limited knowledge of geopolitics.

>> No.4945483

>>4944113

stay pleb op/

>> No.4945486

>>4945466
>So Islam's Vatican City is open-minded and liberal? That's odd.
Not really, because Mecca was a mercantile centre of commerce from its foundation...which is why the Kaba'a was there. People passing through Jeddah for the Hajj from all over the world kind of rubs off on the region.

>> No.4945488

>>4944128

The smart ones who don't have such rigid self definitions. stay pleb anon.

>> No.4945492

>>4945455
We're getting away from the point, which is that preventing a Kuwaiti annexation isn't in any way ethically comparable to 9/11. The US's actual reasons for its involvement don't matter as much as the effect of that involvement: prevent Iraq from taking over a sovereign nation.

>> No.4945495

the benefit of the iraq war was twofold:
money for private contractors who had links to the white house (cheney &co)
getting iraqi oil (2nd/3rd largest oil producers in the world) onto the world markets and therefore lowering the price of oil for american buyers. it didn't matter who exactly the oil was going to.

>> No.4945496

>>4944268

This.

Thank you anon. Glad there are people here who use their brains for more than regurgitation.

>> No.4945498

>>4945478
>limited knowledge
It should make a whole lot of sense to you then.

>> No.4945500

>>4944282
>Opposing american expansionism is not a left/right issue


Good luck in grade 12 next year. Enjoy your summer.

>> No.4945504

>>4945492
Kuwait wasn't so free democratic nation. It was a dictatorship. So why is it that those who were so vocal about Saddam's occupation of Kuwait were in turn so vocal about invading other sovereign nations and using the 'it's a dictatorship' defence?

>> No.4945509

>>4944482

Was. He has been senile for about the last 20 years.

>> No.4945513

I've read arguments that the removal of Saddam and the emergence of an Iraqi democracy allowed for and encouraged the Arab Spring. Anyone see any truth to that?

>> No.4945517

>>4945324
>we just need to make sure no one does it the way we don't like them to.

Smartest anon here.

>> No.4945519

>>4945504
Saddam had a massive military and routinely threatened invasion on his neighbors. No one is happier he's gone than Arabs.

>> No.4945520

>>4945291

This.

Nice to see another comrade on here that knows how to think.

>> No.4945524

>>4945428

Wow you need to stop smoking weed.

>> No.4945525

>>4945513
No, the Arab Spring was sparked high unemployment and high food prices in Tunisia as well as wikileaks revelations about the extent of corruption by the Tunisian leadership.

>> No.4945526

>>4945291

China and Russia 'benefitting' from the Iraq War was a secondary or tertiary concern to someone trying to keep alternative currency options locked away. And now we are up in Russia's face about Ukraine, which happens to be the hub through which all of Russia's pipelines flow.

No one ever said petrodollar hegemony was easy to maintain or even a sane policy, but as long as they have the military might and the soundness of the dollar intact they will continue to try and preserve it.

>> No.4945528

>>4945291
This.

I'm really glad there are people who think like I do (people who are right) in my country.

>> No.4945533

>>4945513

It's obvious.

Young Iraqis love the USA more than you'd think.

>> No.4945535

>>4945504
The abuses of the Kuwaiti and the the Iraqi dictatorships weren't in any way comparable. Many nations have dictatorships, but that doesn't them all equal. I'd much rather live in Cuba than North Korea, for example. And invading North Korea is infinitely more justifiable than invading Cuba.

>> No.4945539

>>4945291
This guy is right, Anons. Answer to his shimmering beacon of Truth (capital intended).

>> No.4945540

>>4945513
it may have had an impact around 2005: the cedar revolution in lebanon and the kefaya movement in egypt (at the time the term 'arab spring' was actually being used by commentators). after that it petered out. the arab spring proper was unrelated.

>> No.4945541

>>4945524
>>4945500
>>4945498
>>4945496

Empty insults all

>> No.4945542

>>4945526

Enough. You are so out of your depth. I'm embarrassed and you're anon.

>> No.4945547

>>4945495

um I think iraqi oil already was on the world markets

>> No.4945552

>>4945436
>I'm not saying that you're saying that, i'm saying that that was the Muslim conservative mindset: blame the US for inconsistent Saudi ideology.

Not entirely.

The Gulf War decision set off a big wave of domestic opposition in Saudi Arabia. The monarchy (and the official religious establishment that legitimized its decisions) lost a ton of prestige and were criticized by the same religious conservatives we're talking about. Their protests and petitions prompted some limited reforms, crackdowns, arrests, and so forth. As mentioned, the US military presence was one of their main grievances.

A radical fringe (of which Bin Laden was a part) took matters into its own hands by staging attacks on US targets in the kingdom. In time they also targeted the Saudi regime directly, but this was more difficult to justify from an ideological standpoint.

>> No.4945559

>>4945542

If you're so smart then why don't you tell me why I'm so stupid?

>> No.4945566

>>4945559

There's no point. Just trust me.

>> No.4945567

>>4945547
nope, iraq was under UNSC sanctions and could only sell oil for food

>> No.4945571

>>4945566

5/10 you got me

>> No.4945572

>>4945498
Well, yeah, that's what I'm saying. I seek to correct that without having to take a course on world systems theory or some shit.

>> No.4945586

>>4945572

don't bother he's trolling

>> No.4945593

>>4945291
>>4945520
>>4945528
>>4945539

people samefag this hard?

>> No.4945601

>>4945466

This:

>>4945486

Every year since the religion's inception Muslims from all parts of the Islamic world have gathered in the Hijaz for the pilgrimage. Its a natural center of intellectual exchange. It's also the most desirable religious territory for a Muslim ruler to possess, so it has been part of lots of huge, cosmopolitan empires.

The Al Sa'ud come from the hinterland of the Arabian peninsula, Najd. It is, by contrast, a backwater that very rarely saw centralized political control or imperial penetration until the first Saudi state rose in the 18th century.

The different regions of Saudi Arabia have very different histories and mindsets. The other major distinct area is the Persian Gulf coast, which contains the country's oil resources and (inconveniently) a big Shi'ite population.

>> No.4945607

>>4945601
>Muslim ruler to possess, so it has been part of lots of huge, cosmopolitan empires.

Muslim and cosmopolitan are mutually exclusive.

>> No.4945612

>>4945607
They are now, but back when the Silk Road was a thing Islam was at the crossroads of the world.

>> No.4945627

>>4945607
>Muslim and cosmopolitan are mutually exclusive.

Considering its one of the largest and most internally diverse world religions, I have to disagree.

>> No.4945629

>>4945627

Disagree all you want. Doesn't make you right.

>> No.4945644

>>4945629

No, but failing account for these basic realities makes you wrong.

How much do you really know about the subject?

>> No.4945678

>>4945629
Yes, exactly, you're wrong.

>> No.4945691

>>4945678

Mate everyone knows Islamic countries are living in the stone age. Don't tell me "but muh Damascus, muh Beirut, mah Tehran" Yeah maybe 40 years ago, but times have changed.

>> No.4945700

>>4945691
>the stone age
Your hyperbole doesn't help you. You're right that there is a real problem in Islamic countries, but they are not that different from us and its disingenuous to compare them to the fucking stone age.

>> No.4945754

>>4945700

It's not hyperbole. Stop being an apologist. They are very different, it's disingenuous to not compare them to the stone age.

>> No.4945760

>>4945754
I'm not an apologist in the slightest, I'd probably throw you away with bathwater as you might do to me. The fact remains that they are much more modern than ancient

>> No.4945767

>>4945760

No mate. You are wrong. They are living in the stone age with modern conveniences.

>> No.4945781

>>4945767

Spent a lot of time in that part of the world?

>> No.4945827

>>4944941
This. He also brought attention to the juvenile, sneering, jeering attitude of the modern left whenever they are confronted with the dialectic and logical arguments.

>> No.4945831

>>4945291
>The petrodollar imperialism is a myth perpetuated by the tunnel-visioned leftists who feel the need to attach a conspiracy theory to every action the US undertakes.
Well said.
>>4945593
Yes, everyone who has a differing opinion to yours must be the same person.

>> No.4945851

>>4945827

Exactly. He is great. It wasn't the Iraq war that made the so-called left lash out at him in impotent rage, that was merely the final straw. It started when he was rightfully pillorying Clinton.

>> No.4945858

>>4945781

Yes, in fact. It's a cesspool.

>> No.4945898

>>4945858
>It's a cesspool.

The entire Islamic world huh

>> No.4945923

>>4945898

Yup from Egypt to Bangladesh to Indonesia, I foresee this until they renounce Islam.

>> No.4945927

>>4945923

You aren't the brightest bulb are you?

>> No.4946053
File: 39 KB, 383x400, Quite.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4946053

>>4945291
>>4945520
>>4945528
>>4945539
>>4945831
So what, we still would have invaded if Iraq was the world's largest exporter of pickles and lettuce?

The Middle East is home to the largest resource of easily-accessible oil on Earth, and this is the primary reason why it has been so violently sought after by imperial powers. Lord Curzon was forthright about the need for the "Arab Facade" when Britain was the hegemonic power in the region, and George Kennan was equally open about the need to keep the US's hand on the lever to "the world's most stupendous source of strategic power." This is not to say the invasion of Iraq was solely about oil, but you're kidding yourself if you think it was not far and away the primary motivation.

The fact that Russia and China have gained from the invasion is merely evidence of how incompetent the neoconservatives are at foreign policy, as they thought they could instate the kind of imperial control America exerts on Colombia or Indonesia, but the anti-imperialist sentiment - particularly that of the jihadist movement the neocons are responsible for growing during Reagan - in Iraq along with unprecedented domestic opposition in the states left a void that China and Russia quickly sought to fill.

In fact, NATO's intervention in Libya's Civil War was actually largely motivated by a desire to kick Chinese energy corporations out of the oil-rich country, which was completely successful seeing as how virtually all of the Chinese nationals evacuated when the NATO bombing began, and now Libya is a tribal cesspool like Somalia

>> No.4946056

>>4945927

?

>> No.4946059

>>4946053
>The Middle East is home to the largest resource of easily-accessible oil on Earth

No it's not.

>> No.4946065

>>4946053

You're so off base it's not even funny. Please be trolling.

>> No.4946074

>>4946053
>This is not to say the invasion of Iraq was solely about oil, but you're kidding yourself if you think it was not far and away the primary motivation.

>Implying it's not better to have a dictator in power who does not care about the environment or the countries people who can easily be bought.

Do you even into logic m8?

>> No.4946087

>>4946059
>>4946065
You're free to be contrarians all you like, but there is a very clear and almost tauntingly open historical record concerning these fundamental truths. Feel free to check out the two men I mentioned, but you'll quickly find a whole cacophony of agreement, not merely on the left, but also in the halls of state and corporate power.

>>4946074
I'm not the one who was making decisions in the Pentagon, so you're missing the point if you're questioning my logic. If you want to know why the Neoconservatives thought it'd be easier to invade and take direct control rather than just coax Saddam back into complete subservience, you'll have to take that up with Dick Cheney. History is full of very smart people and very powerful organizations making stupid decisions that hurt themselves

>> No.4946101

>>4946087
>Neoconservatives

I don't pay attention to anyone that uses such a term.

>> No.4946110

>>4946101
It's a very important term used to define a movement that played an extremely pivotal role in this country's history. To learn more about them and the parallels they share with the militant jihadist movement, I would recommend a BBC documentary series called "The Power of Nightmares"

>> No.4946120

>>4946101
>It's a very important term used to define a movement that played an extremely pivotal role in this country's history.

Please.

>> No.4946121

>>4946110
>the parallels they share with the militant jihadist

Top laff.

>> No.4946428

Yes, that's all very well and good. But what about the Jews?

>> No.4946430

>>4946053
>that image
could you be any more insufferable?

>> No.4946447

>>4944196
This.

>> No.4946470
File: 1.22 MB, 500x360, Cleese - no.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4946470

>>4946447

>> No.4947808

>>4946120
>>4946121
Don't just take my word for it, go do the actual research. And remember to keep an open mind. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean it's wrong.

>>4946430
>ad hominem

>> No.4947860

>>4944113

Even if it was true that he was a leftist, his essays on topics like PG Wodehouse, Orwell, why women aren't funny, etc. are entertaining. He was very well read and a compelling writer on topics other than the Middle East.

>> No.4948217

he's too fat and not femme enough to smoke that way.

>> No.4948232

>>4947808
Being insulted isn't ad hominem you fucking retarded piece of shit. You're just being insulted. Faggot.

>> No.4948480
File: 923 KB, 500x265, Consoling Roger.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4948480

>>4948232
It'll be okay, tripfag

>> No.4948517

>>4948232
Actually that's the definition of ad hominem.

>> No.4948526

>>4948480
>tripfag
You don't even know what that means.

>> No.4948646
File: 1.75 MB, 480x269, Don Fuck you very much.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4948646

>>4948526
Whatever you say, summer

>> No.4948877

>>4945170
>implying paleocons are ever wrong

>> No.4948931

I'm not sure why people are discussing politics on the literature board instead of the political board.

>> No.4948980

>>4944268
>find high school kiddies patting themselves on the back for casually tossing aside a real man of intelligence
what? Hitchens was witty. He had no capacity for sustained thought.

>> No.4949089 [DELETED] 

>>4944485
>tfw you know the tardnon who posted this comment would be intellectually castrated by Hitches in any debate

>> No.4949101

>>4944485
>tfw you know the tard-non who typed this comment would be intellectually castrated by Hitchens in any debate.

>> No.4949147
File: 247 KB, 1127x914, Hitchens.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4949147

I went through a phase where I bought all of his books, collections of essays and his memoir. When reading them, I was taking a Persuasive and Analytical writing course at uni. I'd finished reading about the same time my course finished and i'd noticed that my skill in academic writing had improved exponentially. Not only could I tell I had written better than ever, so did my tutors and I received full marks for 98 per cent of what I handed in.

tl;dr - read Christopher Hitchens when undertaking studies, your academic writing will thank you for it. Thanks Hitch!

>> No.4949165

>>4949101

We'll never find out. Know why?

Because he's dead and your butt-tears won't bring him back.

>> No.4949318
File: 35 KB, 467x528, 1345666799310.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4949318

>>4949165
>your butt-tears won't bring him back.
You don't know that anon.

>> No.4949389

>>4949147
I dream of being able to speak as confidently and eloquently as Christopher. He is nothing if not a gift to the English language

>> No.4949427

>>4944196
He's far more intellectually honest imo.
Chris relied way too much on emotionalisms and cheap rethoric that would appeal to American liberals who already broadly agree with him.

>> No.4949582

All I've ever wanted is a clear picture of his library accompanied with annotations of what books there are.

Seriously, his bookshelf is one of the greatest things every.