PDA

View Full Version : Galloway vs Hitchens



luka
21-09-2005, 09:37 AM
wow. the two most pompous, self-serving, scumbags on one stage. neither listens to the other. neither makes a single cogent point. very childish. also quite funny. i reccommend it.

Paul Hotflush
21-09-2005, 09:55 AM
Hitchens is quite a good commentator if you can get over his ego. Galloway, on the other hand, should be shot.

Circus Lupus
23-09-2005, 10:40 AM
Galloway: "You did write like an angel but your now working for the devil and damn you and all your works."

Wow! Sounds like middle aged alcoholic queens in a lover's spat.

I honestly laughed so hard listening to this I almost puked. I concur with luka that this pompous claptrat has great entertainment value and little else.

I wonder how Hitchens' second hand exculpations play with Iraq's numerous secular educated thinkers. Does having six satellite tv channels of political discourse make up for having all your relatives vaporised by US empire 'SMART' weapons?

I do fancy the diminutive timekeeper Elizabeth Wrigley Field. Meow...

The sickening approving howling of the Anglophile NPR listening leftie audience convinced me that most Yanks want a return to being ruled by someone with a British accent. Don't you lot still have some royal family hanging around?

Paul Hotflush
23-09-2005, 03:48 PM
To be honest, pretty much anyone with a British accent would be a step in the right direction from your current ruler.

BewareTheFriendlyStranger
06-10-2005, 06:37 AM
Hitchens is a strange strange strange person. From what i gather of his speeches and articles, he's a heartfelt Trotskyite humanist. WTF why is suddenly supporting the neo-con oil baron robbers warmongerers ?

craner
06-10-2005, 11:26 AM
Well,

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=5995&R=C68B2A43B (http://http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=5995&R=C68B2A43B)

there you go.

craner
06-10-2005, 11:27 AM
Luka, this one's for you:

http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_10_10/article3.html (http://http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_10_10/article3.html)

BewareTheFriendlyStranger
06-10-2005, 02:20 PM
"A War to be Proud of"

that article is so full of vitriol. Why doesn't he don on the fatigues and fight the jihadists hand to hand himself ?

Melchior
07-10-2005, 04:55 AM
I wonder how Hitchens' second hand exculpations play with Iraq's numerous secular educated thinkers. Does having six satellite tv channels of political discourse make up for having all your relatives vaporised by US empire 'SMART' weapons?

Who knows? He claims they love him but never provides evidence.

Paul Hotflush
07-10-2005, 09:39 AM
What the mutual embrace of Hitchens and the neocons tells us is that Hitchens’s assessment of neoconservatism is essentially correct: the regnant force in American conservatism today is warmed-over Trotskyism, which views America merely as the embodiment of the ideology of global revolution.

I do think that the European left's anti-neocon dogma is more to do with xenophobia than anything else.

k-punk
07-10-2005, 10:17 AM
What the mutual embrace of Hitchens and the neocons tells us is that Hitchens’s assessment of neoconservatism is essentially correct: the regnant force in American conservatism today is warmed-over Trotskyism, which views America merely as the embodiment of the ideology of global revolution.

I do think that the European left's anti-neocon dogma is more to do with xenophobia than anything else.

Whereas bombing a country which most Americans couldn't even find on a map indicates a healthy and positive attitude towards other nations and cultures, I suppose?

matt b
07-10-2005, 10:43 AM
I do think that the European left's anti-neocon dogma is more to do with xenophobia than anything else.?

mr hotflush, i know your positions are taken after extensive reading- could you provide evidence of this?


Whereas bombing a country which most Americans couldn't even find on a map indicates a healthy and positive attitude towards other nations and cultures, I suppose?

its all right, we've got god on our side ;)

Paul Hotflush
07-10-2005, 11:52 AM
mr hotflush, i know your positions are taken after extensive reading- could you provide evidence of this?


Matthew, surely you realise that this isn't the kind of thing you can just whip out a nice neat piece of evidence for?!

However, the fact that neocon ideas are in fact much closer to traditional leftwing thought than tradidtional conservatism should point you in the right direction. And this quote from the ever-eloquent K-Punk should also help you out:


Whereas bombing a country which most Americans couldn't even find on a map indicates a healthy and positive attitude towards other nations and cultures, I suppose?

Nice one K-Punk, succinctly illustrated my point there.

Most lefty critiques of the neocons centre on the over-arching American dominance bit, rather than the actual detail. If they paid a bit more attention, they'd more than likley find themselves agreeing to more of it than they'd care to admit.

k-punk
07-10-2005, 02:22 PM
Nice one K-Punk, succinctly illustrated my point there.

How's that? Being anti US foreign policy isn't the same as being xenophobic.


Most lefty critiques of the neocons centre on the over-arching American dominance bit, rather than the actual detail. If they paid a bit more attention, they'd more than likley find themselves agreeing to more of it than they'd care to admit.

such as?

matt b
07-10-2005, 02:44 PM
Matthew, surely you realise that this isn't the kind of thing you can just whip out a nice neat piece of evidence for?! .

err, why not? especially as you are essentially calling everyone on 'the left' (whatever that means to you), racists.


However, the fact that neocon ideas are in fact much closer to traditional leftwing thought than tradidtional conservatism should point you in the right direction.

what are you on about?? i can see how people like hitchens move easily from trotskyism to neo-con (they both believe that elites should govern 'the masses'), but your sentence makes no sense.

Paul Hotflush
07-10-2005, 02:59 PM
How's that? Being anti US foreign policy isn't the same as being xenophobic.

Your previous comment wasn't just about foreign policy though, was it?


what are you on about?? i can see how people like hitchens move easily from trotskyism to neo-con (they both believe that elites should govern 'the masses'), but your sentence makes no sense.

You obviously don't know much about neocon thought (it's not just about bombing a-rabs, you know!). Alternatively, you don't know much about traditional left/right ideology.

matt b
07-10-2005, 03:20 PM
You obviously don't know much about neocon thought (it's not just about bombing a-rabs, you know!). Alternatively, you don't know much about traditional left/right ideology.

ok. enlighten / educate me.

thanks in advance.

Paul Hotflush
07-10-2005, 03:24 PM
I wouldn't want to deny you the pleasure of self-education, old chap.

matt b
07-10-2005, 03:25 PM
I wouldn't want to deny you the pleasure of self-education, old chap.

you don't know shit, do you?

troll.

Paul Hotflush
07-10-2005, 03:33 PM
Matt, you've betrayed your own lack of knowledge enough already on this thread, resorting to cheap insults won't help you.

k-punk
07-10-2005, 03:34 PM
Originally Posted by Paul Hotflush
However, the fact that neocon ideas are in fact much closer to traditional leftwing thought than tradidtional conservatism should point you in the right direction.

So, by that logic, Paul is a supporter of 'traditional leftwing ideas' then? Odd, given his stated disdain for 'lefties'.

Paul Hotflush
07-10-2005, 03:41 PM
I'm not a big fan of neocon thought, mainly because it's so moralistic. Neither am I a big fan of traditional leftwing politics, in any case it's been completely discredited in various different ways.

And I'm DEFINITELY not a big fan of people like you two slagging things off which you clearly know very little about.

k-punk
07-10-2005, 04:46 PM
Much as I enjoy your trolling, Paul, it would be nice to see some evidence of EITHER

(1) Some of the knowledge of which you boast or
(2) Our lack of knowledge.

btw, the point about Americans not being able to find Iraq on the map is not xenophobic, unless it is xenophobic to report known facts. Besides, being anti-American is not xenophobic. Xenophobia is the irrational fear and loathing of ALL foreigners, whereas I should have thought that a fear of Americans was pretty rational, really.

luka
07-10-2005, 04:57 PM
what paul is pointing out is that a)mark made a cheap easy sneering attack on americans at large (can't point to it on the map...) not a detailed critique of us foreign policy, a subject he knows nothing about.

i'm not opposed to that sort of thing, i do it too.

he's also making the same points craner keeps making, points which mark is thoroughly familiar with. if anyones being a troll its mark, as per usual.

i don't share hotflushes point of view but pretending you don't know where he's coming from is tiresome and pointless.

craner
07-10-2005, 08:27 PM
But anyway, who killed the Bush doctrine (http://www.meforum.org/article/767)?

Melchior
08-10-2005, 01:04 AM
i don't share hotflushes point of view but pretending you don't know where he's coming from is tiresome and pointless.

Just as tiredsome and pointless as saying that you are arguing from a position, claiming that that position isn't understood byt he people you are arguing with and then refusing to explain what the position consists of when asked to.

k-punk
08-10-2005, 01:18 AM
I've just discovered the pleasures of the 'Ignore' list...

dominic
08-10-2005, 05:45 AM
the point about Americans not being able to find Iraq on the map is not xenophobic, unless it is xenophobic to report known facts.

errr, i'd say that's anti-american propaganda

it should suffice to observe that americans know less about other cultures, and are less versed in other languages, etc, than the citizens of practically any other nation

certainly americans' ignorance of iraqi and arab culture allows the former to think in terms of "us" vs. "them," and to view them as less than human and with little or no sympathy

nor can americans possibly imagine what it'd be like to be on the receiving end of american fire power

at the same time, i get impatient with people who lambast america as though other countries would not be similarly cruel/ignorant/callous if they had comparable military power

the people who run american foreign policy are ruthless and cold blooded -- this should be taken as a given for the ruling elites of any great military power at any time in history

the only real question is whether, in addition to being ruthless and cold blooded, the american policy makers are smart or foolhardy -- and on this one, the jury is still out b/c it isn't entirely clear on how things will go down in the middle east or even what the actual goal is (i.e., i for one think the main object is to park u.s. army in middle east and control oil supplies by brute force once the oil shortage turns seriously painfu)l

but of course they don't give a damn about the iraqi people -- nor do they care about most americans

and yet do you really think things would be better if another country were calling the shots???

or are you judging american power against the imaginary standard of a benevolent world socialist govt?


I should have thought that a fear of Americans was pretty rational, really.

yes, now you're being reasonable again

dominic
08-10-2005, 05:52 AM
But anyway, who killed the Bush doctrine (http://www.meforum.org/article/767)?

the doctrine died as soon as the american public began to realize that a democratic iraq would likely become the ally of shiite iran

i'm not a big believer in democracy anyway -- so for me the demise of this doctrine is no great loss

Melchior
08-10-2005, 08:08 AM
On the subject of American Geography comprehension, check out this video from Australian satire show CNNNNNN:

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/002454.html#002454

k-punk
08-10-2005, 09:17 AM
errr, i'd say that's anti-american propaganda

it should suffice to observe that americans know less about other cultures, and are less versed in other languages, etc, than the citizens of practically any other nation

Yes and one of the results of that is just the sort of thing I described. This (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12391626&method=full&siteid=50143) survey, admittedly not that representative, by the Mirror confirms the truth of this 'propaganda'.... Surely it is well-known, though, that Americans are in general massively insular by comparison with, say, Europeans, and have limited interest or knowledge in what's going outside their own country, something confirmed by the fact that so few Americans have passports.



and yet do you really think things would be better if another country were calling the shots???

Probably not; you're right, the American sitation is in many ways a structural effect of having been the world's most powerful country...


or are you judging american power against the imaginary standard of a benevolent world socialist govt?



No, it really was a straight comparison between Europe, condemned by troll above as xenophobic, and America. Although in one sense, I suppose, many Americans are in a literal sense so ignorant of other countries that tit is not even possible for them to be xenophobic.

The neo-con agenda (Project for New American Century etc) is straightforwardly neo-imperialist, operating uder an assumption of other nations' inferiority. The Project website states that it believes that ' American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.' It's Manifest Destiny redux.

Melchior
08-10-2005, 11:00 AM
The neo-con agenda (Project for New American Century etc) is straightforwardly neo-imperialist, operating uder an assumption of other nations' inferiority. The Project website states that it believes that ' American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.' It's Manifest Destiny redux.

I believe the phrase is "American Exceptionalism"

dominic
09-10-2005, 05:09 AM
something confirmed by the fact that so few Americans have passports

so few passports in relation to whom?

if you mean as compared with europeans, then surely i don't need to explain to you that european countries are much closer to each other geographically than america is to other countries


Although in one sense, I suppose, many Americans are in a literal sense so ignorant of other countries that tit is not even possible for them to be xenophobic.

and in another sense, unless a person actually lives for a lengthy period in a country or, doing things the old-fashioned way, reads a lot of books about a particular country or region, then surely he's only marginally less ignorant of conditions there -- surely you're not going to argue that most tourists have any real knowledge of the places they visit? i.e., i have the opportunity to talk with a lot of european tourists on a fairly regular basis, and for the most part i haven't been impressed by their take on america (which is not to say i'm final arbiter on all things american, or that i have anything approaching a good understanding of their countries -- merely to say that if you don't live somewhere, then you really don't know)


The neo-con agenda (Project for New American Century etc) is straightforwardly neo-imperialist, operating uder an assumption of other nations' inferiority. The Project website states that it believes that ' American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.' It's Manifest Destiny redux.

yeah, but i'm not sure how much such "idealists" are driving the policy -- i.e., this is the rhetoric for public consumption -- and if they believe their own words, then they're quite clearly fools

surely there are others in the state department, pentagon, etc -- plus all the texas oil movers and shakers -- who are playing a different, far more cynical, but also possibly more "intelligent" game -- i.e., in the world that is shaping up for the 21st century, open resort to brute methods and deadly military force may be the best way for today's elite to maintain their position -- hardly noble or inspiring, but kinda smart -- if you define "smart" as securing your own narrow self-interest

luka
10-10-2005, 09:00 AM
mark is out of his depth, ignore him.