Created by MorphingReality. Check out his channel for more amazing videos! / theskatersunited Also, be sure to check out the Hitchens playlist here: • Hitchens videos
I love Hitchens for defending the Iraq war - sadly the left and even the right-wings have taken the popular opinion that Iraq war was a mistake - rather than conforming to the cold, hard facts.
No, the mistake was going from shock and awe, a massive success... to counter-insurgency almost immediately. The invasion and execution itself was done without flaw.
There weren't many civilian casualties in shock and awe. A few thousand or less is a massive success in military doctrine, especially for invasion. Most other estimates are unfounded and highly conflated. You've already made the mistake of conflating the invasion with the counterinsurgency. That was a bit of a mess, because they weren't prepared for it at all... both in doctrine and equipment. The Government, with Maliki was actually a success - only flaws started to show there in the closing years of 2010. The CPA took time to hand over sovereignty back, but it got there. This was due to the untrained/lack of experience any Iraqi's had with leading a nation.
The general population has criticism about GMOs, about evolutionary theory - just because most of a population believes something, doesn't make it founded. Basically you're committing the ad populum argument.
Yes, shock and awe only lasted a few days. The most liberal estimates, are at around 6,000 civilians killed. That's a massive success. Actually, that was ad populum - just because there is a majority consensus on something within the public eye, doesn't give it any credibility. Most experts find that the invasion was both justified and legal. A new UN resolution would have been best, sure - but given the threat assessment, which was partly correct suggested reliance on prior UN resolutions summed in resolution 1441... As noted by John B. Bellinger III, one of the negotiators of resolution 1441, and as one of the US lawyers who met with Peter Goldsmith to discuss the US legal basis for the use of force writes, "Australia, Spain, and Poland relied on the same legal justification. And the Clinton Administration had relied on precisely the same 678/687 rationale to use force repeatedly against Iraq from 1993-2001." www.lawfareblog.com/chilcot-inquiry-and-legal-basis-iraq-war
Thanks a lot for the upload!
I miss him.
Hard truths here.
Fuck, I miss Hitch ;^
New from Christopher Hitchens... Really.
I love Hitchens for defending the Iraq war - sadly the left and even the right-wings have taken the popular opinion that Iraq war was a mistake - rather than conforming to the cold, hard facts.
No, the mistake was going from shock and awe, a massive success... to counter-insurgency almost immediately.
The invasion and execution itself was done without flaw.
There weren't many civilian casualties in shock and awe. A few thousand or less is a massive success in military doctrine, especially for invasion. Most other estimates are unfounded and highly conflated.
You've already made the mistake of conflating the invasion with the counterinsurgency. That was a bit of a mess, because they weren't prepared for it at all... both in doctrine and equipment.
The Government, with Maliki was actually a success - only flaws started to show there in the closing years of 2010. The CPA took time to hand over sovereignty back, but it got there. This was due to the untrained/lack of experience any Iraqi's had with leading a nation.
The general population has criticism about GMOs, about evolutionary theory - just because most of a population believes something, doesn't make it founded. Basically you're committing the ad populum argument.
Yes, shock and awe only lasted a few days. The most liberal estimates, are at around 6,000 civilians killed. That's a massive success.
Actually, that was ad populum - just because there is a majority consensus on something within the public eye, doesn't give it any credibility.
Most experts find that the invasion was both justified and legal. A new UN resolution would have been best, sure - but given the threat assessment, which was partly correct suggested reliance on prior UN resolutions summed in resolution 1441...
As noted by John B. Bellinger III, one of the negotiators of resolution 1441, and as one of the US lawyers who met with Peter Goldsmith to discuss the US legal basis for the use of force writes,
"Australia, Spain, and Poland relied on the same legal justification. And the Clinton Administration had relied on precisely the same 678/687 rationale to use force repeatedly against Iraq from 1993-2001."
www.lawfareblog.com/chilcot-inquiry-and-legal-basis-iraq-war
BRAVO
This frustrates me to tears.
We all agree tat energy can become conscious.
that*
Compare with Col Wilkerson we have 47 million of these crazies.
some beautiful women here.