Chris Hitchens and his arguments regrding the GWOT

[PubliusInfinitum]

As far as Hitchens is concerned, I have read many of his ideas on the Afgan war and the Iraq invasion and why we went in. It is an interesting point and in my opinion he provides the best argument for the invasion, even though I was against it. The problem is he does not cling to this make believe idea that Suddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and we must have moved in to stop him.....he states that there were very dangerous people talking with suddam before the invasion and that it was essential to end these conversations before they went further.

It's interesting that you would frame the WMD issue as 'make believe' because that is precisely what that argument is: The assertion that the US liberated Iraq; that the sole explanation; the only motivating factor expressed in justifying the invasion was the WMD issue, is absurd... it was absurd the first day it was trotted out, it has remained absurd throughout the gelling of it's present status as the source of erroneous conventional wisdom and it remains so today.



[qoute]He also states that Prime minister Maliki is a crook who is not to be trusted. He stated that saddam should not have been executed so quickly without a fair trial which proves the corruption of Maliki who we appointed in the first place.[/QUOTE]

We appointed Maliki? LOL... I feel like you need some slack cut here... seeing how we're both big Hitchen fans and all... so I'm going to give you this chance to withdraw that; should you fail, I will use that position to as evidence of your tendency to advance absurdity as fact for pretty much the rest of our respective lives.

 

[Gurdari]

I wonder if Mr. Hitchen's arguments would still hold up if we substitued other nations into discussion...