Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
8 Comments
gwiz665says...Upvote for Hitch. I don't agree with him on the war, but I always enjoy hearing his scathing commentary on anything, be it why women arn't funny, religion is poison, or hating ones enemies.
youmakekittymadsays...i do not totally agree with many of his ideas on the iraq war, but i will say that he is one of the only public proponents of the war who sounds intelligent while showing said support. also i think he may be the only one who knows who the kurds are.
also, i actually had to go back and listen again to make sure i heard him right when he complimented hillary clinton. that has got to be a first, considering the volume of bile he usually reserves for she and her husband.
oh, and i'm not familiar with him, but Peter Robinson is quite the interviewer.
8727says....
8727says...there's probably a lot to learn from hitchens on a subject like this - but he obviously doesn't want to mention the oil much because it's the hole in his argument for war.
i can't help but think he's just supporting and repeating manufactured lies created by the U.S. government?
bcglorfsays...>> ^Johnald_Chaffinch:
there's probably a lot to learn from hitchens on a subject like this - but he obviously doesn't want to mention the oil much because it's the hole in his argument for war.
i can't help but think he's just supporting and repeating manufactured lies created by the U.S. government?
On other occasions he has gone into the oil question and stated that oil is of course a big part of the picture. He described the problem more articulately than anyone else I've heard as well.
In essence, there aren't really plans/hopes to make huge profits through the war by pilfering Iraq's oil as the most simplistic conspiracy theorists would suggest. Obviously the country was going to be unstable and the war would be expensive, far more expensive than any oil contracts which would have to be negotiated at or near market prices. The problem that Saddam and oil presented was that Saddam was within reach of 40-60% of the world's oil reserves. He may not have had control over them, but he could in essence hold the world economy hostage with the threat of destroying them.
The idea of allowing a ruler like Saddam that kind of leverage is as appealing as having Kim Jong Il holding the population of Seoul as leverage.
radxsays...*length=29:45
siftbotsays...The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 29:45 - length declared by radx.
siftbotsays...The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by vaporlock.
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.