>> ^Barbar:

Dystopianfuturetoday:
I'm not looking to debate anything here, I'm just curious as to your reasoning for considering Hitchens as an (at least) one time neo-con. What information led you to this opinion? As it seems distinctly opposed to what I've read in his memoirs and other writings.


ill answer for ya @Barber
hitchens was all for the iraq war and went even as far as to say waterboarding was not only NOT torture but necessary.
in his defense he did step down from both those positions.it should also be noted that hitchens actually allowed himself to be waterboarded and immediately (and i do mean immediately) changed his position that waterboarding was most certainly torture.which to me was a tribute to this mans intelligence.a true believer would never change his ideology but the intelligent person,when confronted with incontrovertible evidence,will change.

one final note @Enzoblue
neo-conservatism was anything BUT conservative.the neo-conservative philosophy began in the 1940's by leon strauss from the university of chicago.the basic premise is to use america's military might to secure american interests globally.this small fringe group of intellectuals had very little influence until the late 70's when they co-opted the christian right for their cause.

and so began the conflation of the christian right and american nationalism in the form of the republican party.
oh the delicious irony.

so when you say "old school neoconservative" what you are really referring to is the time the neo-cons had minimal influence (still there though) rumsfeld and cheney being big players during the reagan administration.which of course was made possible by the christian rights entering the political sphere (up till then most churches stayed out of politics).these same players brought in their fellow neo-cons during the bush administration and that administration read like a who's-who of prominent neocons:rumsfeld,cheny,pearl,wolfowitz,amratige,addington,woo.the list is massive.
so it wasnt so much about a change in philosophy but rather this fringe group (catapulted by the naive christian right) as having come into their own in terms of power and influence.

and all i have to say to that merry bunch of fucks is: THANKS DICKHEADS.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

1) I'm not going to contest that. I am not knowledgeable in the Vietnam war. It's also 8 million years ago, so it doesn't really apply anymore.
2) Yes and no. You have some 20~30k troops in europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments#Europe) They shouldn't be there. As for your socialism remark, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita the socialistic states of europe, scandinavia, are the highest gdp per capita. How do you figure that? Magic?
3) You're not free to leave if for whatever reason the department of homeland security deems you a threat, which means they can abduct you and torture you and even have you assassinated, EVEN THOUGH you're an american citizen. In the last 10 years it seems to me that the US have given up more freedoms that most countries have. As a freedom loving american, don't you hate the patriot act? I mean, really? I can't understand why americans who are otherwise so proud of their freedoms would willingly, some even lovingly, give up their freedom for a perceived sense of security.
>> ^quantumushroom:

1) The left-wing textbook on the Vietnam War always ends right before the communist genocides.
2) Europe should be paying for its own defense, except thanks to socialism it can't even pay to keep the lights on.
3) America is evil? Here you're free to leave, which in itself is more than one can say for red china, which will promptly gobble up the rest of the world as America's military mistakenly retreats under President Paul.


>> ^gwiz665:
America is a force for evil in this world.

1) The left-wing textbook on the Vietnam War always ends right before the communist genocides.

2) Europe should be paying for its own defense, except thanks to socialism it can't even pay to keep the lights on.

3) America is evil? Here you're free to leave, which in itself is more than one can say for red china, which will promptly gobble up the rest of the world as America's military mistakenly retreats under President Paul.





>> ^gwiz665:

America is a force for evil in this world.

@dystopianfuturetoday I respect this guy too, he's definitely a heavyweight in the field, that's why this threw me back so much. I would argue that Harris and Hitchens were merely attacking the faith of the Muslims as much as they attack the faith at home. Faith being so ingrained in the Muslim community I can see how this would be racist in a sense, it almost has to be. To say they are religious illiterates though... that smacks of saying they're illiterate only because they refuse to drink the kool-aid.
As far as Hitchens being a neocon, if he is an old school neocon a la Wolfowitz, I could kinda see why though I still don't like it. Since then the neocon doctrine was highjacked by the Bush administration and now is far less palatable obviously.

Edit: I also believe that no one of Hedges intellect can defend religion without 'vehement dishonesty'.

^Hitchen's was a neocon back in the Bush days. Not sure if he is still. Sam Harris made some comments in his debate with Hedges that painted Muslims with a very broad brush, and were arguably racist. I think Sam's comments were more ignorant than actively racist. Most Americans (myself included) lack a real understanding of Islamic culture, so it's easy for us to categorize them as a bunch of crazy fundamentalists that like to mutilate female genitals and will kill you for making cartoons. Hedges made the point that most Muslims are just regular people trying to get by, and that the proportion of angry, violent Islamic fundamentalists was equal to that of angry, violent American fundamentalists. (Mini editorial: I think fundamentalism is a bigger problem than any individual religious or group, be that group Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Conservative, Libertarian, Liberal, Capitalist, Socialist, etc. When you believe your personal philosophy to be the living embodiment of goodness, holiness, liberty or perfection, you lose the ability for critical thought.)

Hedges is to be respected. We could use more like him.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

We're debating why we were attacked by a handful of radical folks
Pht - I can answer that in one word. Isreal. Next?
...whether or not our military engagement, specifically since WWII, has been productive in any measurable way...
Productive to who and in what way?
You see - to a leftist - your question is unanswerable. Like Ron Paul, leftists view any military intervention by the United States as unproductive. By their very natures it is literally impossible to supply a leftist with any response that they will find satisfactory. Leftists come from a particular philosophy and perspective that disallows the word 'productive' to be used in the same sentence as 'American military engagement'. Heck to this day there are leftists who even question whether the US should have gotten involved in WW1 or WW2 or not.
Other people with other perspectives are not quite so closed-minded about whether or not a military action was 'productive' or not because they allow other definitions of 'productive' to be satisfied. But to a Proglibdyte, ANY US military action is viewed as unproductive.

Bollocks. I'm a socialist and I firmly believe that not only was America right to get involved in WW2, it was right to get involved in Libya recently.

Typical "rightist" attitude. You can't see any nuance or context. The left opposed Americas intervention in Vietnam, in Iraq and guess what? They turned out to be fucking right. Hell, I don't even remember that much left wing opposition to gulf war 1, other than the likes of Bill Hicks pointing out the ridiculous position you were in was largely of your own making.

As for "American exceptionalism", the USA had some grand ideals, and should be commended for that. But the reason it occupies the place it does in the world today is down to geology (it was rich in natural resources) and geography (America has never had a strong belligerent neighbour). So really, more down to good luck than good management.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

You're a funny guy Mr Pennypacker
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

[...]
But American Exceptionalism is not jingoism or arrogance. It is a quick way to summarize the American spirit of enlightened self-interest combined with personal freedom and entrepreneurism. The liberal left hates to admit it, but the US Constitution, economy, and position in the world was no accident of chance or random luck. Our constitution was a model to the rest of the world. Our freedoms and way of life still make us the envy of just about everyone. People still want to come here in droves to escape oppression, poverty, and intolerance. America was innovating, inventing, testing, and producing when the rest of the Western world was literally standing still. This is not arrogance or snootiness. It is just fact. American Exceptionalism summarizes this - and apparently makes Proglibdyte leftists squeal like stuck pigs when they hear the words.

Where in there was a justification for global empire? We aren't debating words "the left hates." We're debating why we were attacked by a handful of radical folks. Further we're debating whether or not our military engagement, specifically since WWII, has been productive in any measurable way. Can you provide some examples?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

The only reason the Proglibdyte left is such a fan of Ron Paul is because he is a non-interventionist. The liberal left's vision of the ideal world is the United States giving all its cash - no questions asked - to the United Nations. At that point the US is supposed to sit down, shut up, and do whatever the UN orders them to do. Then - in the minds of the left - we will have world peace. RP would do about 90% of that by just being an isolationist. He won't give the UN any money, but the left will settle for the US just shutting down all its involvement (especially military).
But American Exceptionalism is not jingoism or arrogance. It is a quick way to summarize the American spirit of enlightened self-interest combined with personal freedom and entrepreneurism. The liberal left hates to admit it, but the US Constitution, economy, and position in the world was no accident of chance or random luck. Our constitution was a model to the rest of the world. Our freedoms and way of life still make us the envy of just about everyone. People still want to come here in droves to escape oppression, poverty, and intolerance. America was innovating, inventing, testing, and producing when the rest of the Western world was literally standing still. This is not arrogance or snootiness. It is just fact. American Exceptionalism summarizes this - and apparently makes Proglibdyte leftists squeal like stuck pigs when they hear the words.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Yep, gotta agree with this. "American exceptionalism" is really jingoism. The Chinese believe in Chinese Exceptionalism just as much - and it's just as ugly and misguided. I'll be glad with nationalism fades away. >> ^kymbos:

Sure, but to take that on face value you must believe there's something genuinely special about America's 'freedom'. That's the hubris. Every country calls itself the best on Earth - most other countries understand they're not that 'special'. America's been calling itself special for so long its people actually believe it.
America is targeted because it dominates politically, culturally, and definitely because it intervenes in other countries out of perceived self interest.

>> ^kymbos:

The suggestion that people hate America for its freedom and not for its history of intervention is just so laden with hubris it beggars belief. There is just no perceptible rational basis for that argument, and I refuse to believe anyone informed genuinely believes it.
Like the Swiss have less 'freedom', or the Danes, or the British. How much freedom do the Kiwis have? They must be loathed around the world, right? Them and their 'freedom'.


The Swiss, the Danes, and the Kiwis* are not the "leaders of the free world". While I agree that interventionism plays a large part in the legitimate grievances people have against America, I would say that a percentage would be ideologically opposed to the west and America is simply the largest target there. Reality, as always, is not that simple. There are a myriad of reasons America is targeted, some political, some economic and yes, some people genuinely do "hate freedom".

So yeah, you're right, but I don't think it's the whole story.

* I deliberately left the British out of that list. As a former colonial power, they have their own set of issues and in case you missed it, they're not exactly popular around the world.

Your video, a message to all neocons who booed ron paul, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

It's a logically consistent argument that Corolla makes but there is just one problem that I see with it: it's purely imaginary. It's easy to make a theory consistent when you don't have to incorporate actual details from messy reality.

Oh but how is it imaginary, I hear you Neocons asking? It's all based on a mythical group of trust fund 'self esteem' babies who are adverse to doing a day's work for a day's pay and want to be rewarded like a CEO for their entry level customer service worker position.

If you need evidence why this is so much bullshit, you really need to come out of your gated communities and maybe talk to some of the people formerly known as 'the middle class' but now more accurately referred to as 'the working poor.'

>> ^cosmovitelli:
The bottom line is rogue elements inside the US Government are commanding private companies to interfere with the expression of constitutionally protected rights in order to destroy an organization that is proving politically awkward for them. What you think of Assange or WL is not the issue: unilateral extrajudicial besieging of lawful political groups is, well, roughly Germany at the start of the 30's.


I completely agree with your assessment here, but the condemning is being directed at VISA,MC,etc and not these neolibs and neocons inside the government. While I no doubt hold VISA,MC,etc in contempt, giving the government a pass is ridiculous.

And if you do your homework, wikileaks and Assange stink of a CIA psyop. Further reason to question the motives of these recent announcements and actions.