Evolution of Dispossession

Evolution of Dispossession
How to Steal a Country?

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Galloway vs Hitchens

I finished watching a debate between George Galloway and Christopher Hitchens concerning the Iraq War, and the premise of the debate was to discuss the opposing viewpoints that the war was just and necessary.

Each segment is 55 minutes long, and I have watched only the first 55 minutes. But it was riveting, and there was much useful information presented, and many arguments discussed.

I know 2 hours is a lot to ask, but if you are bored, and want to watch a good debate, then it is provided for your convenience.

Offer some comments after watching the debate.

Part 2 is available at :

click here


JohnnyB said...

Lots of Ad Hom attacks in there on both sides. Beyond that, Hitchens was more "cerebral", used bigger words, and I think made more points. The biggest point made against Hitchens was made by the moderator, who asked if the US government could clean up Iraq if it can't clean up New Orleans. Rush Limbaugh used to always say the purpose of a military is to kill people and destroy stuff. It is not good a nation-building. Galloway was out of his league with a serious thinker. Hitchens is a smart, tough debater, not some info-babe or US Senator. Thus the bombs get thrown. It is odd that Galloway condemn tyranny in the Middle East after coming from Syria.

scottie said...

Johnny B,

Well we must agree to disagree on this debate. I watched both segments, and I found Galloway's arguments to be more sound.

But Galloway is pro-Palestinian and pro-justice like myself, so I am biased.

Hitchens never explained the inconsistencies of his stances, nor could he resolve Galloway's ability to win the crowd over.

Galloway threatened his cause by saying critical things of Sharon's government, and its crimes against the Palestinians. The crowd briefly turned on him, but he got them back on his side.

Hitchens opposed the 91 war, when the world was united on that one, and the UN did have unanimity. The US did lead the moral majority on that issue.

I liked Galloway's comments on the foreign fighters (hard to rebut that one) and the details he presented concerning the US view of Iraq when it was fighting a US-sponsored proxy war against Iran (after the Iranian Revolution which again is inextricably linked to the 53 coup, a complete fiasco if you consider the ramifications still felt today).

I also think Galloway exposed a glaring double-standard on Hitchens' stance concerning the role of the resistance fighter ; on some occassions, Hitchens is for, and others against, and it seems that politics dictates which he does support.

Galloway also made a good point on the metamorphosis of Hitchens' moral platform.

Did you read the responses from people who offered them on YouTube?
Not many positive comments on Hitchens.

I watched the Senate grill Galloway, and he was under oath, and I thought he made many fine points and clarified the whole oil-for-food situation aptly.

In all honesty, Hitchens took more pot-shots at Galloway, but big George took a few himself.

Also in the 2nd segment, the crowd turned on Hitchens. They completely turned on him. He said some very questionable things.

Amy Goodman did ask a very good question of Hitchens; The US did not invade Iraq because Saddam was evil incarnate, but because he was supposedly developing WMD's. All of Hitchens' arguments, however, were designed to discuss the evil nature of Saddam, and that the ends justified the means. Very Machiavellian.

But I will probably watch the debates again, to drink up the arguments once more.

And, thanks for the comments. You are the 2nd commentator on this site. I have sent out invitations to a few people, but I hope that more people will eventually stumble on this site. But this newly named site is still poorly named ; a google search of "no justice no peace" generates way too many pages with which to compete. But I like this title, but may change it to make it more search-friendly.

Best, and keep posting comments !