[FORA.tv]

Christopher Hitchens on Withdrawal from Iraq
Aug 23 2007
Stanford, CA - Hoover Institution
Christopher Hitchens, author, columnist and vocal supporter of the U.S. war in Iraq, discusses possible consequences were the U.S. to rapidly withdraw from the country.
Click to watch Christopher Hitchens on Withdrawal from Iraq

[saloon singer]

Hitchens is one of the few commentators who realizes the likely consequences of a failed Iraq state.

[Lipo]

I agree. The United States must stay in Iraq until it can properly govern and defend itself.

[entheogen]

Just read an article by this guy where he claims:
"invading Iraq was a just cause and much good has come of it" and quite frankly it's a load of tosh. How an intelligent man, allegedly, can come across so disturbingly naive and idealistic is beyond me. How can people such as this continue using bullshit explanations for why they think the war happened when the real reason behind the invasion has already been outlined - by the administration responsible for the rubber stamping it - despite rhetoric to the contrary some 4/5 years ago. It's all about the contracts, deal with it, this is colonialism, it's nothing new, it has enumerable historical precedents, and it is totally in keeping with America's modus operandi, so stop throwing all these farcical explanations at us and be honest enough to admit the truth of the matter.

[Scorch]

Originally Posted by entheogen

Just read an article by this guy where he claims:
"invading Iraq was a just cause and much good has come of it" and quite frankly it's a load of tosh. How an intelligent man, allegedly, can come across so disturbingly naive and idealistic is beyond me. How can people such as this continue using bullshit explanations for why they think the war happened when the real reason behind the invasion has already been outlined - by the administration responsible for the rubber stamping it - despite rhetoric to the contrary some 4/5 years ago. It's all about the contracts, deal with it, this is colonialism, it's nothing new, it has enumerable historical precedents, and it is totally in keeping with America's modus operandi, so stop throwing all these farcical explanations at us and be honest enough to admit the truth of the matter.

Speaking of "disturbingly naive and idealistic".......I can't help but wonder which "contracts" you're referring to? Perhaps the 20 billion dollar contract between Iran and China for gas and oil? (Rhetorical)

I'm also wondering which historical precedents you're citing, Germany, Japan and Korea perhaps? If so, then 10 years removed, Iraq should be in excellent shape.

The reasons why the US went into Iraq and removed Saddam haven't changed. In point of fact, the WMD rationale has proven to have some substance, with over 1,000 chemical munitions having been found and destroyed. Granted, this doesn't rise to the level of what was thought to be there, however it does tend to give credence to the UN reports which plainly stated that Iraq had not destroyed all of its chemical and biological weapons. One can't help but wonder if the UN was correct on a portion of what it alledged, how much more will will be found or tracked later? I personally am very interested in what may have happened to 2.5 tonnes of Sarin Gas that Iraq was known to have produced (see the UN Report).

Saddam's links to terrorism can't be disputed, well they can, but not logically. Even if you disregard every opinion offerred by every intelligence service in the world, you still have that pesky $10,000.00 "bonus" that Saddam offerred to the families of suicide bombers. This, combined with the fact that no fewer than 10 terrorist organizations maintained offices in Baghdad, clearly establish's linkage.

In closing I'd like to point out that "we" chose the battlefield instead of letting "them" chose the battlefield. If "they" had their way, we'd be hiding behind boarded up windows waiting to see where they struck next. "We" don't and won't live that way. You'll just have to excuse "us" if we don't wage war the way you think we should. If you're looking for someone to pin the blame for the war on, why not start with a despot who had 10+ years to comply with UN Sanctions and elected not to. Or you could look at any number of people who lead groups of religous fanatic's that can't be reasoned with and can't wait to add their own name to the ever growing list of those seeking their promised share of virginity. Realistically, one has to wonder if there will be enough virgins to go around, but hey.....I'm not going to offer an opinion on that!

Scorch

[nomad81]

Scorch,

You fail to mention the fact that over 1 million Iraqi's have died since the US invasion, and that over 2.5 million have fled the country. Those that are still there are living in horrendous conditions.
The given reasons to go to war were much more specific than those you state.
It was said that there was already "proof" that Saddam had WMD's. We were shown a chicken scratch picture with circles pointing to the supposed WMD's. This was a lie.
It was also said that Saddam was cooperating with Bin Laden, which is absurd (one a fundamentalist and one a secularist of different sects) and not true.
It was said that Saddam is a terrible dictator, which he was, but they forgot to mention that during his worst atrocities he was backed by the US.
It was said that the US was going to bring democracy to Iraq. Iraqis have showed in polls that there the overwhelming majority wants the US out of Iraq. The democratic thing to do would be to leave.
I really hope you are right about Iraq looking great in 10 years from now, but that does seem extremely unlikely.
Your simplistic description of "we" vs. "they" shows that you know little of the complexity of the Muslim world.
Additionally, neither WMD's nor a dictator are reason to occupy a country. The USA doesn't go invading every country that has WMD's. In fact, as far as I know, it never has invaded one that actually had WMD's. There are many terrible dictators around the world, but the USA doesn't try to overthrow them all. The idea of the poor and distant nation of Iraq posing a serious threat to the USA was also absurd.
As in every war, some corporations are getting filthy rich while the blood flows (Haliburton, Blackwater, the Weapons industry, etc). It is naive to think that these interests don't play a part in the war.
I agree with you that fundamentalist Islam is dangerous, but invading foreign countries and causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians is neither justifiable, nor a good strategy.
Much more can be achieved by struggling for human rights, diplomacy, and supporting grass-roots democracy.

nomad81

[Morris]

There is a dictum that says 'Results speak for itself'. Just the mess in Iraq is reason enough to believe that it was an awful decision. How can any one think that it was right thing to do. It is just absolutely beyond comprehension.

'in closing I'd like to point out that "we" chose the battlefield instead of letting "them" chose the battlefield. If "they" had their way, we'd be hiding behind boarded up windows waiting to see where they struck next'
That is absole bunk. Do you honestly believe that?Sadam was a third world dictator and was no match with the US. During the first invasion he fired a couple of stud or some kind of missiles. One of them hit a camel pasture and another totally misfired. That is my recollection. And you are trying to lead us to believe this kind of crap. I would not even call them wars. They were just invasions. War implies two parties fighing. There was no fighting other than chemical Ali's fihgting speech. It was a unilateral illegal distruction of a country by the US.
Morris