We in the west may not have liked both Sadam Hussain & Colonel Gedafii but they held their countries together in relative peace. It was the west interventions (for very spurious reasons) that killed the fine balance and tipped them into a continual conflict between the different factions! America (and its allies) have to stop acting like the world police and see the ness they create when they interfere in other countries' business!
Sadam Hussain held his country together in relative peace???? If you ignore the hundreds of thousands of his fellow people he murdered. Relative peace to what. Pol pot?
@@haberjennings475 relative to American interventionist mass murder, how many victims are still being born with birth defects from the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, America is only 200 years old and it's been in 20 major wars overtly and who knows how many more covertly?
I mostly agree with Peter. Whats gets me is how he tells me as an English Athiest just to believe for the sake of it for moral christain values in the UK Peter one can be moral with out believing in the invisible man in the sky.
@@jasont6287 I do not believe in any form of religion but will not deny any else's opportunity to do so, but Peter is right, the degradation of religion and moral values in this country has, without doubt, had an impact on society on a whole and a negative impact at that.
@@Basauri48970 - Dumb? ^_^ Peter Hitchins is a devoted Christian and Christopher was an outspoken atheist - that straight away puts them in different camps on many issues, they were bound to disagree. I am sure both are considerably smarter than most of us, including you and I...
How? Islam hates you as an infidel, Islam hates your wife and views her as property and worthless. Islam hates your western kids and grandchildren. Islam does not fit in with the west or it’s ideals. So any action that goes against Islam and diminishes it is a good thing. Stop defending Islam terrorists. We should have went in and killed every single terrorist. We didn’t do enough.
@@jamesa2482 I think i missed the earlier comment that you are addressing but i object to some things you say! "Any action that goes against islam and diminishes it is a good thing" Why would you believe this ? It wont diminish the beliefs, fervor and passion of the extremists and terrorists.. If you diminish Islam as a whole then there will be no good Muslims for the terrorists to kill and then their sole and only target would be other religions and peoples. So insisting on reforming Islam and loudly denouncing and condemning the violent and regressive ideas within it should be the goal.
Good, secular and modernized believers in Islam has to win and exterminate the backwards and violent extremists of Islam. "Killing them all" will just give the extremists more legitimacy in their holy war.
It seems today that if you want to hear any common sense, you’d best listen to someone who will typically be considered right wing. The world really has gone mad. Obviously by the ‘world’, I mean the West. Thank you Mr Hitchens
Growing up I turned my nose up at people like Peter Hitchens and Anne Widdacombe, Now that i'm older and look at how society has collapsed in the west, I realise that they were correct on a lot of things. The problem people like them had is that they say what was going to happen far too ahead of their time.
My complaint with our media in The West is, to a certain degree it has now become very similar to the media in authoritarian regimes; there is very little criticism, very little diversity of opinion, and anyone who speaks out against the orthodoxy is either not given an opportunity to speak or they are ridiculed.
Perhaps, when the actions & results imposed on Libya are visited upon him personally, he will then learn his lesson and abandon his pea dough position on Libya. 🤷
@@evolassunglasses4673 Could be why he was removed. After all, he was a cartoon villain and no real threat to the West, beyond the odd terrorist attack.
@@I_Don_t_want_a_handle I have a strong suspicion that Libya was also home turf to terrorist organizations. Intelligence agencies know more than we ever will.. but usually at the government level they decide based on data, not just 'because'. I'm not saying it was right (because to me it was NOT), but I AM saying it may not be as simple as you are making it out to be.
@@rbarnes4076 Nothing is ever as simple as a RUclips comment makes it out to be but ... Gadfly was imposed on Libya by the USSR. There were terrorist training camps in the country run by the USSR and hosting fun guys like the IRA and the Red Brigade. That is fact. But after the USSR fell that pretty much stopped (or didn't but went dark). Gaddafi was getting a bullet from the West from that point onwards, and he got it. I cannot say that saddens me. Typically, due to Clinton's woeful (deliberate - pick your poison chalice) handling of the situation Libya descended into anarchy, and is still pretty much a shit place to be now. I'd like to say I care, but I cannot. As usual, the intelligence agencies fucked up ( are playing a game too clever for mere mortals to understand) and the people pay the price. It was and will be ever thus.
Peter Hitchens is still a "left wing" thinker in many ways. But I don't say that as a bad thing. The problem with the term "lefty" is it's meaning has been changed. It's now used to describe this new woke generation who are offended by everything. I wouldn't call them real "lefties" I would call them "liberal bigots" Years ago being a left winger meant you didn't believe in mass privatisation, you believed in fair working and living conditions, free healthcare and a roof over everyone's head. I still believe in all those things, but I don't believe in all this virtue signalling, destroying statues and turning everything into an argument about race. So it all depends on how people chose to interpret the term "lefty"
It would be the same as saying your eleven year old child is one-one years old.... very strange. Maybe he thinks it happened on Sept 1st 2001 instead of the 11th 😂
@@Scott100W made me think of that extremely unlucky company '9/11 airways'!! i wonder if they managed to ride out sounding like that terrible tragedy...rip norm
I think that one important fact is constantly overlooked when the west talks about putting things right in countries.. such as the ones labeled as bad regimes: is that these countries have their own political language, voice and spirit as a unique collective entity. This means the change - if to occur- has to be organic and to come from within not by forcing a government or another out! Other wise any interference- as we have seen in the case of the Middle East- is futile it results in rather in establishing chaos and loss.
In general I agree. But only in general. RE: Iraq: Saddam invaded another country and was making his own a mass graveyard. Sorry, that is beyond the pale and MUST be dealt with. If you apply your argument generally, that means the western alliance countries should have stood back and let Hitler make a mass graveyard of continental Europe during WW2. I just can't agree with that. Some things ARE beyond the pale, and should be treated differently.
Out of interest, do you take that view in regards to Germany during the 30s ? Or Russia during the 80s ? Give me a break lmao. The world order has not only a right but a duty to replace bad regimes.
@@ajs41 No, they are not. One is associated with subject and the other with object. "The fat bastard insulted Christopher and me." and "Christopher and I insulted the fat bastard." have different grammatical constructions because of the difference between subject and object.
For me as native German speaker it is always strange to witness English speakers not grasping and mastering the difference between me and I. For me it is obvious and intuitive, no doubt because in my language the difference between nominative, accusative and dative is more obvious and visible.
Great point by Hitchens: this country is a mess and the political class here is pushing us further into a police state - how on earth can this gov't point fingers at any other country without being laughed at?
Remember, more authoritarian governments sometimes use war a distraction from other issues they don't want their citizens thinking about. This isn't theory, but historical fact.
Peter Hitchens turned out to be correct about the truth avout Douma Syria, BBC has admitted a few weeks ago that the videos of gassed victims were not accurate , and the missle bombings therefore were falsely premised. Ignoring evidences, and refusing to wait for investigations now appear to have been clearly motivated by politics and not morality, but countries and peoples again have suffered. Just like Afghanistan. Peter, keep fighting for reasonability and care before militarization.
Whether you agree or disagree on the outcome it's important to note that Christopher's arguments weren't exactly garbage either though, he did understand many of these topics better than most politicians.
Hitch's politics WAS garbage, and I say that as an ex-Muslim atheist who believes in the selective use of Western military force to overthrow Islamic theocracies like the Taliban and ISIS. However, Saddam, Gaddafi, and Assad were not and are not Islamic theocrats, and Hitch called for their overthrow too even though those secular regimes have been the greatest enemy of Islamic extremists who naturally overran the middle east when we toppled the secular governments that kept them in check. Hitch's politics was pure and unadulterated garbage. I'll take Peter Hitchens any day, both as a political analyst and as a writer.
I sadly, always felt that the late, brilliant Christopher Hitchens allowed his emotional response to the horror of 9/11 to override his formidable critical thinking skills, in supporting the Bush/ Blair dishonest war.....
@@timeisfleeting2452 Agreed. Although I think you'll agree that they were all very bad actors in their countries. Saddam and Assad were creating mass graves of their own citizens, and Gaddafi was funding terror training in his country. These are NOT the actions of peaceful world leaders. I don't think the solutions was what happened, but there WAS a problem that their citizens paid the ultimate price for before the west did anything.
@@homelander-enjoyerhris was brilliant, but was a conspirator and apologist for US/Western exceptionism. The US is the #1 threat in the world. This is hardly controversial
By their fruits you shall know them. Someone should really tell the host, just because someone is against endless wars, this does not make him a lover of tyrants
That’s one thing I never understood about C Hitchens.. his support for the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq always perplexed me.. he usually understood things quite clearly without inherent biases except these Wars. I guess his hatred for Islam did cloud his judgements.
“Get our own house in order first” seems to be the obvious but most difficult action for western countries at the moment. But of course it has always been easier to criticise others than to evaluate our own short comings.
I agree with almost everything that Peter says except for Russia. They did not withdraw; they were effectively kicked out by people who did not want to be part of the Soviet Union or the 'new' Russia.
Everything he says about utopianism and Western governments believing they are all powerful can equally be applied to the insane, futile "fight" against covid.
Peter is a consistent conservative. He doesnt believe in universal values. If you're born with money and security that's the core thing and you deserve it. Christopher opposed that idea.
Peter Hitchens is a Netanyahu fart sniffer and promotes the "Hollow Cost" hoax. He also still has an emotional attachment to Russia and even excuses Russian revanchism and imperialism.
Many on 'the left' opposed both the Afghanistan war and the Iraq War but the neo-Liberals aka Blair/Clinton/Bush/Cheney etc are a different matter altogether.
@@t5kcannon1 He actually does if you read his books. His focus is on reversing some of the modernisations of Britain that have turned out counter productive. Reversing getting rid of police on the beat, alcohol licensing laws, drug laws and grammar schools are his main aims.
Definitely agree with Peter about sorting home out first... the UK's strength comes from its tolerance of diversity and thought... ultimately that will be the deciding factor on numbers in the end matched with the true good morality of religion that most people of all ethnicities follow. We have deep conflicts of interest in our systems that ultimately feed on its citizens rather than Nourish them for example the NHS's structure of making money off the sick through Big Pharma or the industrial war machine to create the wars only to solve them later. Our leaders are smart enough to know this but is their resolve strong enough to ultimately let go of the fear? I often think creating a national service in regenerative agriculture would be a much more satisfying and peaceful solution to one of the problems... why not start from a place of love rather than hate and destruction as the foundations of our own leading example?
People dislike Hitchens because he was, first and foremost, a polemicist and a propagandist. His works are not even handed studies of subjects, they are Hitchens’ view and only Hitchens’ view. They are built around meta-narratives, and only evidence that suits the meta-narrative appears at all. Any inconvenient ideas are disregarded and any opposing ideas, on the rare occasion they are even mentioned, are oversimplified and misrepresented. Many people find propaganda of this kind dishonest and manipulative. As a result of putting his meta-narrative before any more complex truth, Hitchens was often shockingly uninterested in facts. His research was often shoddy in the extreme. Any serious scholar of religion from any perspective would struggle to find a single page of Hitchens’ most famous work, God is not Great, that doesn't contain some jaw-dropping factual error. His example of Buddhism being anti-intellectual was a Hindu. He gets Bart Ehrman’s name wrong, misidentifies him as a Christian and misattributes research to him. He claims the Q document was the basis for all four gospels when Q materials are only even present in two, and says the gospels don't agree on anything of substance when three of the gospels largely share the same text (the very fact that resulted in the formulation of the Q hypothesis in the first place). These aren't the sort of mistakes that sometimes slip through the net in any piece if serious research, they are the sort of errors that crop up when you are more interested in telling a story than actually knowing what you are talking about. Note that all the examples above are factual errors, not just disagreement with Hitchens’ arguments. Nonetheless, Hitchens’ arguments were often not only suspect, but downright bizarre. The moment in God is not Great when he tries to claim Martin Luther King (a minister, lest we forget) was only nominally a Christian should have any right thinking person’s jaw on the floor with incredulity. His argument against vicarious atonement is deeply strange. Whilst it's understandable that someone would not want someone else to suffer on their behalf, to suggest that someone would be immoral for willingly doing so is just odd. It suggests nobody should ever endure any hardship on another human being’s behalf without their express permission. It suggests the whole concept of self-sacrifice, upon which a great deal of human nobility is founded, is somehow reprehensible. People who dislike Hitchens find much to dislike in the real Christopher Hitchens, not the imaginary version of Christopher Hitchens worshiped by his followers. This fantasy version of Hitchens was gracious and generous, whereas the real Hitchens was often snobbish and rude. This fantasy version of Hitchens was a paragon of integrity, whereas the real Christopher Hitchens was often hypocritical, attacking his targets political affiliations whilst happy to support suspect regimes that suited his leanings. This fantasy version of Hitchens never even came close to losing a debate, whereas the real Christopher Hitchens was clearly out of his depth when debating anyone of substance. People, in short, don't dislike Hitchens as much as they dislike the tedious, fawning legend that sprang up around him. Christopher Hitchens was a deeply flawed human being who said something a certain group of people agreed with and said it passionately and quotably. As a result, his fans ascribe his work a depth it never had and ascribe Hitchens characteristics he rarely displayed. The attitudes some people have towards Christopher Hitchens have disturbing echoes of the the very things they claim to despise in followers of religions. An unskeptical, uncritical, blatantly biased view that is unwilling to see anything inconvenient and unable to handle any sort of criticism.
I don’t understand why you are posting this here. At first I thought would mistook Peter as Christopher which would of at least made sense, but you’ve just ranted about Christopher for no reason at all one here.
@@heavyweightboxingfan2269 I like to poke Christopher’s fan base that do exactly to same when ever Peters on Mainly because they have deified Christopher which I find hilarious! If you bother to scroll through the main section the CH brigade always make an appearance! Indeed I’ve noticed the fan base have had a little dig at you too
Has there ever been western foreign military intervention in the recent past which was necessary or beneficial to us. Korea possibly, but apart from that they’ve all been disasters, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Vietnam, Russian Civil War. The extent to which it was even necessary for Britain to get involved in both world wars in Europe is also tenuous. Better had we stayed neutral and just defended our own territory where necessary.
I've recently come to the conclusion (as if it hadn't already been obvious to me before) that a country's defence forces should be used only for defence of that country. Helping out some weaker country to oppose aggression might be the only exception to that rule.
I'd say WW2 is a good example. Kosovo, East Timor might also serve as decent examples. Even in the examples you give, I can hardly think of alternatives; Iraq was doomed regardless of the 03 intervention for instance. How can one imagine a timeline where things went well... ? Perhaps it was bound to be a nasty time in the ME no matter what ...
A national treasure - highly mischaracterised by some unpleasant segments of the media/society. ‘There are limits to power’ I think I should read more of his literature and I also think others should too. It is clear that whether you like him or dislike him the previous US President had an agenda that was inward and socially and economically focused with specific view to trade imbalances and the improvements needed/identified inside that country - not dissimilar to the remarks of PH with view to the UK - that is not to say the US and the UK have saved human lives and been a force for good in overseas activities - more so I think a prescription for where we are now and what is coming down the track - economically speaking we have tremendous challenges that cannot be ignored and it has been very easy to cast our attention elsewhere whilst we are decaying at home. PH is not someone I agree with on certain issues - but I respect him and value his thoughts.
I wonder if Christopher would ever eventually regret Iraq. Yes ,my initial repulsion with the Taliban probably came from a whig underpinning and subconscious ideological inheritence
My feeling was he always saw Iraq through the prism of the Kurds and Kurdistan (which he had a very long association with right back to his Trotskyist days) so as long as Kurds had in effect an largish autonomous state he saw the US Iraq intervention as a net positive. The US abandonment of Kurdish interests when Trump green lighted the Turkish intervention into Syria, he would view as a betrayal and rightly shown how transactional and morally bankrupt the whole Project for the New American Century stuff was as several major members had moved in the MAGA cesspool. Quite how he would overcome his own large hurbis, I'm not sure.
Do you no longer feel such repulsion from the Taliban ? Its just fine that they throw gay people off roofs and promote FGM ? But we westerners are the real problem hey!!
I think the shallowness of the arguments for or against the use of force is primarily the issue. It’s always overly simplistic for or against. The undercurrent of these failed wars is that there were too many civilian casualties, usually because air strikes were much too heavily leaned upon, not enough boots were provided on the ground to hold the strategic territory required for victory, an underwhelming amount of resources were devoted to rebuilding, an overzealous drive to fully demand a complete acknowledgment of modern human rights where it comes into conflict with local culture, indecisiveness in regional diplomacy to ensure long term success, and finally leaving with the mission unfulfilled. There are policy prescriptions for all of these issues. It’s not about Utopianism. It’s about paving a foundation for which a fully Democratic state can be realized with legal institutions, law enforcement, economic opportunities, and a stage for human rights to eventually grow from a minimum point that the culture will allow into a modern state. I agree with his assessment that we did quite a lot of harm and it’s sadly very easy to point out exactly where things went wrong. We simply do not scrutinize these interventions enough to get them right, as a result people die and suffer.
The US isn't a full democracy. The UK people don't even decide who their leader is. Gimme a break. You don't even know what you are talking about even on a basic level. Your comments then get even worse. You didn't mention even one workable policy prescription. Yet, you somehow can't see that the fact that you can't even come up with one is evidence of why we should not be intervening in the first place. You think these governments or some hidden intellectuals somewhere know these policy prescriptions and are just hiding them? LOL.
@@JimmyBoydauthor no i think they don’t bother to employ proper policy out of ignorance, incompetence, corruption, and/or negligence. Similar to why politicians don’t achieve much at home either. My comment was long enough. That’s why I didn’t include multiple pages of policy and supporting information for what I would propose. Plus, I have better things to do than satisfy every commenter with a thorough explanation they are likely to disagree with on the grounds of “just because”.
Hearing about all of these USA invasions and wars discussed as if they were liberal goals is a bit of a reach. By all means lets talk about how the liberals viewed and reacted to Mr Rumsfield & Mr Cheney's world views.
It could be that "liberal" is being used in a more fundamental sense (i.e., not merely as an American synonym for "left-wing"). It's the kind of philosophical doctrine that prizes individual rights and the kind of pluralistic state that can safeguard them. To that extent, both Democrats and Republicans subscribe to the same creed. A (friendly) piece of advice: read John Mearsheimer's "The Great Delusion" and his analysis of what he calls liberal hegemony. This goes into the matter in far more detail.
Hitchens is looking at this from a UK perspective and the UK war was led by Blair. You're right that he overstates his case by not recognizing that the liberals in the US did not behave like liberals in the UK. I also think he massively overstates his argument when he says that leftists "hate Islam." Has he been asleep the last 20 years? If anything they're weirdly pro-Islam given how much Islam seems to conflict with every left-wing goal
@@BazIrvine I would have more respect for Peter Hitchins if he would talk about the University of Fairbanks, Alaska's 4 year expert study into the collapse of WT Building 7. This 4 year study proved the NIST report to be phoney. Fire didn't bring the building down. WT7 collapsed into its own footprint at freefall speed.
Imagine how different our lives would be if President George H. W. Bush had skipped the 1991 Gulf war, and withdrew from the Middle East. We would not have been a target of al Qaeda, and the 9/11 attacks would not have happened. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would not have happened.
I was stunned to learn that if you added up all the explosives in WW2, including bombs dropped on all sides, bullets, fired, grenades thrown , bombs detonated including nuclear weapons and multiply by 4 you would achieve the explosives dropped on North Vietnam.
Whether to use I or me depends on whether the phrase is the subject of the sentence or the object of the sentence. I is a subject pronoun, and the subject is the person or thing doing the action as in "I went to the store." Me is an object pronoun, and the object is the person or thing the action happens to as in "Alex liked me." Use you and I when it is the subject of the sentence; use you and me when it is the object of the sentence.
@@ajs41 “why me disagreed with him” is most certainly not acceptable in English. I don’t know about whatever language you speak. Given they’ve changed the title the Spectator appears to agree with me.
@@philhill3359 I think that’s right, but it’s still easy if you have poor grammatical knowledge (like me), simply remove the other person and see if the sentence makes sense. ‘John and me went to the park’ becomes ‘me went to the park’. ‘Do you want to come to the park with John and I?’ becomes ‘do you want to come to the park with I?’ It then becomes obvious.
@@Uppernorwood976 I agree. That’s how I generally do it. I have just gained a better understanding of cases recently by learning German. Which has helped immensely with my understanding of my mother tongue. Crazy really.
He’s right of course about the capriciousness of former Trotskyites in later life going glassy eyed about America’s role as emissaries of freedom; but then as we all know, and as Peter now displays, people go soft in the head as they grow old.
I'm sure whatever Christopher's opinion today may have been it would have been presented in a fashion to give us pause for thought & ruminate on Peter's position is compelling....but I can't help feeling a back & forth between the two Hitchens would've been a more interesting & useful endevour
he looks like 19th century industrialist to be fair, Commies just adopted the look, because it inspired respect and because the Communist elite were majorly part of the upper class.
It's a pity that more British dusant? But thay will when everything as GONE it's usely the case for Britain? Thay allways vote for MISSERY ther obsessed with MISSERY THER a THERD WORLD COUNTRY'S OUT SIAD OF Londonastan!.
The '911' attacks? Eleven can't just be substituted for one-one. Nine-Eleven is the date, nine-one-one as a date is September 1st 2001. Did this guy just want to sound different and not realise that saying it that way is stupid af.
@@holocene6 Also it's funny when someone makes the effort to reply to someone's comment just to essentially say 'chill out about it'. Take your own advice
Strange then that Vietnam didn't convince people that America was a lost cause, like the invasion of Czechoslovakia did for the Soviets. What could be the difference?
It is obvious that asymmetrical damage cannot cause symmetrical collapse, and I believe the general consensus is that controlled demolition brought down the three towers --- I haven´t heard either Hitchens address the implications of this.
At 3:32 "didn't acjieve what it set out to achieve", any power becomes stronger in respect of its enemies in one or both of two ways, the direct increase in its own capacity greater than any increase in that of your enemy and secondly by the diminution in the capacity (militarilly, politiclly, socially, economically) of that enemy, the "Balkanisation" of its neighbours and more distant opponents is well exemplified in the Yinon Plan, even if it's disparaged, it seems to be going rather well.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
The importance of Peter's argument that we should focus on our own loss of liberty and the degradation of our institutions can't be stressed enough.
We're in 1985 by now...the year has turned
Bollocks
…and could not have been more completely ignored by Fraser 😡
Well put...
What loss of liberty? That you weren’t allowed to go to buy crap for a few months to protect the ill, elderly and infirm. Where are all the men?
We in the west may not have liked both Sadam Hussain & Colonel Gedafii but they held their countries together in relative peace. It was the west interventions (for very spurious reasons) that killed the fine balance and tipped them into a continual conflict between the different factions! America (and its allies) have to stop acting like the world police and see the ness they create when they interfere in other countries' business!
saddam and Gdaffi were murdered because they were issuing the Gold Dinar as a trading currency to usurp the dollar. They had to go!
Sadam Hussain held his country together in relative peace???? If you ignore the hundreds of thousands of his fellow people he murdered. Relative peace to what. Pol pot?
@@haberjennings475 Yep, I shouldn't be surprised because it's RUclips but the ignorance of John's comment is astounding.
I’m trying to find something right with this comment but I just can’t.
@@haberjennings475 relative to American interventionist mass murder, how many victims are still being born with birth defects from the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, America is only 200 years old and it's been in 20 major wars overtly and who knows how many more covertly?
Peter is so well educated on his responses. Its a pleasure to listen to common sense
I mostly agree with Peter. Whats gets me is how he tells me as an English Athiest just to believe for the sake of it for moral christain values in the UK Peter one can be moral with out believing in the invisible man in the sky.
Peter has been caught on video telling me to believe
@@jasont6287 I do not believe in any form of religion but will not deny any else's opportunity to do so, but Peter is right, the degradation of religion and moral values in this country has, without doubt, had an impact on society on a whole and a negative impact at that.
@@jasont6287 When intellligent people and their theism collide. Summary: they lose their minds.
Exactly 💯. Peter is a clear sober thinker. Keep telling the truth Peter, God bless you 🙏
I can listen to Peter Hitchens for three days in row, none stop.
Same. I watch his videos compulsively.
Si mps
But on the 4th day: Peter, STFU 🤣
@@RAFchurchlawford4469 STFU? Never!!!
@@keenondeen5291 It is not worship. It is willingness to learn.
Imagine having a PM the calibre of Peter Hitchens what a country we would have.
You are not wrong there.
Let's face it, Peter was always the dumb brother. And deeply aware and resentful for that.
@@Basauri48970 did you know them?
Journalists generally make poor prime ministers. Think Boris and Benito.
@@Basauri48970 - Dumb? ^_^
Peter Hitchins is a devoted Christian and Christopher was an outspoken atheist - that straight away puts them in different camps on many issues, they were bound to disagree. I am sure both are considerably smarter than most of us, including you and I...
Hitchens is too good for these amateurs.
Nelson is an amateur compared to the likes of Hitchens.
Well said Peter. How I wish I and many people in public life had your knowledge and eloquence.
How? Islam hates you as an infidel, Islam hates your wife and views her as property and worthless. Islam hates your western kids and grandchildren. Islam does not fit in with the west or it’s ideals. So any action that goes against Islam and diminishes it is a good thing. Stop defending Islam terrorists. We should have went in and killed every single terrorist. We didn’t do enough.
He obviously reads books to establish a knowledge base, something anybody can do if they are motivated to do so.
@@jamesa2482 totally agree
@@jamesa2482 I think i missed the earlier comment that you are addressing but i object to some things you say!
"Any action that goes against islam and diminishes it is a good thing" Why would you believe this ? It wont diminish the beliefs, fervor and passion of the extremists and terrorists..
If you diminish Islam as a whole then there will be no good Muslims for the terrorists to kill and then their sole and only target would be other religions and peoples.
So insisting on reforming Islam and loudly denouncing and condemning the violent and regressive ideas within it should be the goal.
Good, secular and modernized believers in Islam has to win and exterminate the backwards and violent extremists of Islam.
"Killing them all" will just give the extremists more legitimacy in their holy war.
Peter Hitchens many times comes under attack for his opinions, but I have always found that they are well thought out and make a lot of sense.
I agree that he talks a lot of sense, and is clearly an extremely thoughtful and intelligent journalist and commentator.
It seems today that if you want to hear any common sense, you’d best listen to someone who will typically be considered right wing. The world really has gone mad. Obviously by the ‘world’, I mean the West. Thank you Mr Hitchens
Growing up I turned my nose up at people like Peter Hitchens and Anne Widdacombe, Now that i'm older and look at how society has collapsed in the west, I realise that they were correct on a lot of things.
The problem people like them had is that they say what was going to happen far too ahead of their time.
My complaint with our media in The West is, to a certain degree it has now become very similar to the media in authoritarian regimes; there is very little criticism, very little diversity of opinion, and anyone who speaks out against the orthodoxy is either not given an opportunity to speak or they are ridiculed.
An argument can make sense and still be wrong. Peter is a wizard at this. He has many well-thought out horrors to suggest.
The warmongering host actually thinks Libya is better off now? lol
Perhaps, when the actions & results imposed on Libya are visited upon him personally, he will then learn his lesson and abandon his pea dough position on Libya. 🤷
Also he held back the mass migration which later came.
@@evolassunglasses4673 Could be why he was removed. After all, he was a cartoon villain and no real threat to the West, beyond the odd terrorist attack.
@@I_Don_t_want_a_handle
I have a strong suspicion that Libya was also home turf to terrorist organizations. Intelligence agencies know more than we ever will.. but usually at the government level they decide based on data, not just 'because'. I'm not saying it was right (because to me it was NOT), but I AM saying it may not be as simple as you are making it out to be.
@@rbarnes4076 Nothing is ever as simple as a RUclips comment makes it out to be but ...
Gadfly was imposed on Libya by the USSR. There were terrorist training camps in the country run by the USSR and hosting fun guys like the IRA and the Red Brigade. That is fact.
But after the USSR fell that pretty much stopped (or didn't but went dark). Gaddafi was getting a bullet from the West from that point onwards, and he got it. I cannot say that saddens me.
Typically, due to Clinton's woeful (deliberate - pick your poison chalice) handling of the situation Libya descended into anarchy, and is still pretty much a shit place to be now. I'd like to say I care, but I cannot.
As usual, the intelligence agencies fucked up ( are playing a game too clever for mere mortals to understand) and the people pay the price.
It was and will be ever thus.
God bless Peter Hitchens.
God bless indeed.
In The Mighty Name Of JESUS Blessed are the Peacemakers for they are the children of GOD 😎🙏
@@danmorfy3631 blessed are the cheese makers?
I would if there was a God.
@@ashleelmb if there WERE a god, subjunctives darling please! :)
One might disagree with Peter, but must appreciate his thought consistency
This man has so much common sense considering he was a lefty.
Peter Hitchens is still a "left wing" thinker in many ways. But I don't say that as a bad thing. The problem with the term "lefty" is it's meaning has been changed. It's now used to describe this new woke generation who are offended by everything. I wouldn't call them real "lefties" I would call them "liberal bigots" Years ago being a left winger meant you didn't believe in mass privatisation, you believed in fair working and living conditions, free healthcare and a roof over everyone's head. I still believe in all those things, but I don't believe in all this virtue signalling, destroying statues and turning everything into an argument about race. So it all depends on how people chose to interpret the term "lefty"
Peter looks like he's one shaved moustache away from becoming Amish
Well said Peter Hitches. God Bless you.
First time I’ve ever heard someone describe them as the “911” attacks
It would be the same as saying your eleven year old child is one-one years old.... very strange. Maybe he thinks it happened on Sept 1st 2001 instead of the 11th 😂
@@Scott100W No, he's just one of those guys who gets things wrong.
Likewise.
@@voxer99 I reckon the script/autocue just said '911' and he just read it verbatim. I just said a more outrageous explanation for comedic effect 😑
@@Scott100W made me think of that extremely unlucky company '9/11 airways'!! i wonder if they managed to ride out sounding like that terrible tragedy...rip norm
Would you go Fraser?
Would you let your kids go?
Exactly
'The Nine One One Attacks' . Ah who could forget Nine One One.
Peter Hitchens is a clear- minded commentator of estimable pedigree. Critical thinking is not dead after all!!🙈🙉🙊
I think that one important fact is constantly overlooked when the west talks about putting things right in countries.. such as the ones labeled as bad regimes: is that these countries have their own political language, voice and spirit as a unique collective entity. This means the change - if to occur- has to be organic and to come from within not by forcing a government or another out! Other wise any interference- as we have seen in the case of the Middle East- is futile it results in rather in establishing chaos and loss.
I agree
Agree, we fight and die for our freedom, not theirs. Unfortunately there is always an evil that must be dealt with.
In general I agree. But only in general. RE: Iraq: Saddam invaded another country and was making his own a mass graveyard. Sorry, that is beyond the pale and MUST be dealt with. If you apply your argument generally, that means the western alliance countries should have stood back and let Hitler make a mass graveyard of continental Europe during WW2. I just can't agree with that. Some things ARE beyond the pale, and should be treated differently.
The second Gulf War was waged because Saddam was attempting to sell Iraqi oil in a currency other than US dollars, which the US does not tolerate.
Out of interest, do you take that view in regards to Germany during the 30s ? Or Russia during the 80s ?
Give me a break lmao. The world order has not only a right but a duty to replace bad regimes.
Christopher and I
Both are acceptable.
@@ajs41 No, they are not. One is associated with subject and the other with object. "The fat bastard insulted Christopher and me." and "Christopher and I insulted the fat bastard." have different grammatical constructions because of the difference between subject and object.
@@ajs41 They might be to you but not to ME.
For me as native German speaker it is always strange to witness English speakers not grasping and mastering the difference between me and I. For me it is obvious and intuitive, no doubt because in my language the difference between nominative, accusative and dative is more obvious and visible.
@@peterd788 That might be true formally, but I think in every day speech you can use both most of the time.
Great point by Hitchens: this country is a mess and the political class here is pushing us further into a police state - how on earth can this gov't point fingers at any other country without being laughed at?
Because it's not a real government.
Remember, more authoritarian governments sometimes use war a distraction from other issues they don't want their citizens thinking about. This isn't theory, but historical fact.
@@rbarnes4076 the government is governed.
Peter Hitchens turned out to be correct about the truth avout Douma Syria, BBC has admitted a few weeks ago that the videos of gassed victims were not accurate , and the missle bombings therefore were falsely premised. Ignoring evidences, and refusing to wait for investigations now appear to have been clearly motivated by politics and not morality, but countries and peoples again have suffered. Just like Afghanistan. Peter, keep fighting for reasonability and care before militarization.
Just like Iraq Lybia Lebanon Yemen Kosovo Bosnia Serbia ..Ukraine etc
Sorry but where have the left ever criticised Islam or Islamism?
Exactly. They fawn over Islam.
Nowhere, ever!!
Yep, seems crazy that they boast about freedom, liberty and rights but never complain about a religion that is just the opposite of all that
Morons!
Listen to Christopher Hitchens Sam Harris Richard Dawkins Stephen Fry for five minutes
They are of the left
These Left Right Spectrums are very Broad
@@seanmoran6510 That's the old left. It has changed in the past 20 ( dare I say 30) years.
This is a good interview (apart from the embarrassing Russia remarks at the end)
“We shouldn’t overestimate our powers” Exactly
Peter does an excellent job here
Whether you agree or disagree on the outcome it's important to note that Christopher's arguments weren't exactly garbage either though, he did understand many of these topics better than most politicians.
Hitch's politics WAS garbage, and I say that as an ex-Muslim atheist who believes in the selective use of Western military force to overthrow Islamic theocracies like the Taliban and ISIS. However, Saddam, Gaddafi, and Assad were not and are not Islamic theocrats, and Hitch called for their overthrow too even though those secular regimes have been the greatest enemy of Islamic extremists who naturally overran the middle east when we toppled the secular governments that kept them in check. Hitch's politics was pure and unadulterated garbage. I'll take Peter Hitchens any day, both as a political analyst and as a writer.
I sadly, always felt that the late, brilliant Christopher Hitchens allowed his emotional response to the horror of 9/11 to override his formidable critical thinking skills, in supporting the Bush/ Blair dishonest war.....
@@timeisfleeting2452 Agreed. Although I think you'll agree that they were all very bad actors in their countries. Saddam and Assad were creating mass graves of their own citizens, and Gaddafi was funding terror training in his country. These are NOT the actions of peaceful world leaders. I don't think the solutions was what happened, but there WAS a problem that their citizens paid the ultimate price for before the west did anything.
@@silverfish8059 What an absurd thing to say and shows you havn't really tried to understand his arguments properly. Sad, but ultimately fixable.
@@homelander-enjoyerhris was brilliant, but was a conspirator and apologist for US/Western exceptionism. The US is the #1 threat in the world. This is hardly controversial
It’s good that the interviewer is a dullard. It allows us the see how much Peter’s intellect shines.
By their fruits you shall know them. Someone should really tell the host, just because someone is against endless wars, this does not make him a lover of tyrants
That’s one thing I never understood about C Hitchens.. his support for the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq always perplexed me.. he usually understood things quite clearly without inherent biases except these Wars. I guess his hatred for Islam did cloud his judgements.
Where did Fraser study politics? Disney Land?
Y'know.. rather than throw insults, make a serious rational point and folks MIGHT take you serious rather than recognize you for a fool.
“Get our own house in order first” seems to be the obvious but most difficult action for western countries at the moment. But of course it has always been easier to criticise others than to evaluate our own short comings.
Hard to get your own house in order when its being attacked by theocrats and suicide bombers though really isn't it ? 🤣
I agree with almost everything that Peter says except for Russia. They did not withdraw; they were effectively kicked out by people who did not want to be part of the Soviet Union or the 'new' Russia.
Of course he is educated and intelligent, he was brought up properly in England.
When England was England.
Over time I've come to regard Peter as the better Hitchens.
u mad bro?
Everything he says about utopianism and Western governments believing they are all powerful can equally be applied to the insane, futile "fight" against covid.
Covid equals Scientism (C S Lewis)
@@seanmoran2743 Yup, he predicted all this.
Amazing. 2 bright brothers and NEITHER of them know a thing about 9/11....Building 7 anyone?
Eh?
The truth about 911 is antisemitic
Right! No upstream there there?
Can not rule out Perception or Gatekeeping alike, always withstanding!
Peter is a consistent conservative. He doesnt believe in universal values. If you're born with money and security that's the core thing and you deserve it. Christopher opposed that idea.
How the name of Israel is avoided in any discussion of the 'interventions is mind-boggling enough!!!!
Peter Hitchens is a Netanyahu fart sniffer and promotes the "Hollow Cost" hoax. He also still has an emotional attachment to Russia and even excuses Russian revanchism and imperialism.
@Lucas Gray: Seek help.
@@nickwyatt9498 Who do you suggest, Nickolai: maybe I can attend the same school of Grooming the Brainwashed as thee...
@@nickwyatt9498 So you deny that Peter Hitchens is a pro-Netanyahu Russian apologist?
Peter proved to be completely correct.
Proved how?
The nine one one attacks??
This guy and Thomas Sowell, I could listen to them all day.
Yin and Yang
Peter Hitchens has turned into Jordan Peterson "Start with yourself before you try and change the world). Great advice.
Peterson is a cringey libertarian.
That kind of stuff was said LOOONG before Peterson ever arrived. And, in fact, Hitchens said this kind of stuff long before Peterson ever arrived.
"Let Saddam violate the Geneva convention and commit genocides" lmao do you hear your own nonsense ?
Many on 'the left' opposed both the Afghanistan war and the Iraq War but the neo-Liberals aka Blair/Clinton/Bush/Cheney etc are a different matter altogether.
Don't forget dodgy David Cameron, he encouraged war in Libya and Syria.
Neo-Liberals? Bush admin were hardcore neo-con Zionists. 😂
Peter was always the superior Hitchens brother. His Brother Christopher was prone to delusion and zealotry.
Isolationism: not invading, bombing, killing and destabilising other countries.
"Isolationism: allowing(and sometimes funding) genocide, human rights violations, terrorism and dictatorship"
Water that Peace Lily! It’s hurting me seeing it like that!
Has there ever been anyone, or anything, anywhere in the entire world that Peter Hitchens has ever agreed with?
Hitchens is filled with almost nothing but complaints. He almost never suggests a practical alternative; therefore, he is just tedious and boring.
@@t5kcannon1 He actually does if you read his books. His focus is on reversing some of the modernisations of Britain that have turned out counter productive. Reversing getting rid of police on the beat, alcohol licensing laws, drug laws and grammar schools are his main aims.
James Frost - utter balls
@@matthewstokes1608
Snappy comeback
@@t5kcannon1 ✔ 👍
if only his brother was still around.
Yes we could send him and his fans to the Middle East to carry out his agenda
Christopher Hitchens = Iraq and 🩸
Yes, so we could hear him apologize.
@@matthewstokes1608
And he would gladly if he was proved incorrect
Much missed.
@@adriang2053 How can you have the gall to say that 🩸🩸🩸🩸
Why don’t you go yourself and do us all a favour
@@adriang2053 How arrogant you are. A know-it-all without the charm to carry it off!
This should have 1000X the views.
Definitely agree with Peter about sorting home out first... the UK's strength comes from its tolerance of diversity and thought... ultimately that will be the deciding factor on numbers in the end matched with the true good morality of religion that most people of all ethnicities follow.
We have deep conflicts of interest in our systems that ultimately feed on its citizens rather than Nourish them for example the NHS's structure of making money off the sick through Big Pharma or the industrial war machine to create the wars only to solve them later.
Our leaders are smart enough to know this but is their resolve strong enough to ultimately let go of the fear?
I often think creating a national service in regenerative agriculture would be a much more satisfying and peaceful solution to one of the problems... why not start from a place of love rather than hate and destruction as the foundations of our own leading example?
People dislike Hitchens because he was, first and foremost, a polemicist and a propagandist. His works are not even handed studies of subjects, they are Hitchens’ view and only Hitchens’ view. They are built around meta-narratives, and only evidence that suits the meta-narrative appears at all. Any inconvenient ideas are disregarded and any opposing ideas, on the rare occasion they are even mentioned, are oversimplified and misrepresented. Many people find propaganda of this kind dishonest and manipulative.
As a result of putting his meta-narrative before any more complex truth, Hitchens was often shockingly uninterested in facts. His research was often shoddy in the extreme. Any serious scholar of religion from any perspective would struggle to find a single page of Hitchens’ most famous work, God is not Great, that doesn't contain some jaw-dropping factual error. His example of Buddhism being anti-intellectual was a Hindu. He gets Bart Ehrman’s name wrong, misidentifies him as a Christian and misattributes research to him. He claims the Q document was the basis for all four gospels when Q materials are only even present in two, and says the gospels don't agree on anything of substance when three of the gospels largely share the same text (the very fact that resulted in the formulation of the Q hypothesis in the first place). These aren't the sort of mistakes that sometimes slip through the net in any piece if serious research, they are the sort of errors that crop up when you are more interested in telling a story than actually knowing what you are talking about.
Note that all the examples above are factual errors, not just disagreement with Hitchens’ arguments. Nonetheless, Hitchens’ arguments were often not only suspect, but downright bizarre. The moment in God is not Great when he tries to claim Martin Luther King (a minister, lest we forget) was only nominally a Christian should have any right thinking person’s jaw on the floor with incredulity. His argument against vicarious atonement is deeply strange. Whilst it's understandable that someone would not want someone else to suffer on their behalf, to suggest that someone would be immoral for willingly doing so is just odd. It suggests nobody should ever endure any hardship on another human being’s behalf without their express permission. It suggests the whole concept of self-sacrifice, upon which a great deal of human nobility is founded, is somehow reprehensible.
People who dislike Hitchens find much to dislike in the real Christopher Hitchens, not the imaginary version of Christopher Hitchens worshiped by his followers. This fantasy version of Hitchens was gracious and generous, whereas the real Hitchens was often snobbish and rude. This fantasy version of Hitchens was a paragon of integrity, whereas the real Christopher Hitchens was often hypocritical, attacking his targets political affiliations whilst happy to support suspect regimes that suited his leanings. This fantasy version of Hitchens never even came close to losing a debate, whereas the real Christopher Hitchens was clearly out of his depth when debating anyone of substance. People, in short, don't dislike Hitchens as much as they dislike the tedious, fawning legend that sprang up around him.
Christopher Hitchens was a deeply flawed human being who said something a certain group of people agreed with and said it passionately and quotably. As a result, his fans ascribe his work a depth it never had and ascribe Hitchens characteristics he rarely displayed. The attitudes some people have towards Christopher Hitchens have disturbing echoes of the the very things they claim to despise in followers of religions. An unskeptical, uncritical, blatantly biased view that is unwilling to see anything inconvenient and unable to handle any sort of criticism.
I don’t understand why you are posting this here. At first I thought would mistook Peter as Christopher which would of at least made sense, but you’ve just ranted about Christopher for no reason at all one here.
Undoubtedly some fair points, but unfortunately a similarly one-sided analysis just as Christopher was often guilty of.
Do you think anyone read your post?
@@heavyweightboxingfan2269
I like to poke Christopher’s fan base that do exactly to same when ever Peters on
Mainly because they have deified Christopher which I find hilarious!
If you bother to scroll through the main section the CH brigade always make an appearance!
Indeed I’ve noticed the fan base have had a little dig at you too
@@michaelanstis5668 If that was aimed at me ?
Think about what you just said 🙄
Has there ever been western foreign military intervention in the recent past which was necessary or beneficial to us. Korea possibly, but apart from that they’ve all been disasters, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Vietnam, Russian Civil War. The extent to which it was even necessary for Britain to get involved in both world wars in Europe is also tenuous. Better had we stayed neutral and just defended our own territory where necessary.
I've recently come to the conclusion (as if it hadn't already been obvious to me before) that a country's defence forces should be used only for defence of that country. Helping out some weaker country to oppose aggression might be the only exception to that rule.
I'd say WW2 is a good example. Kosovo, East Timor might also serve as decent examples.
Even in the examples you give, I can hardly think of alternatives; Iraq was doomed regardless of the 03 intervention for instance. How can one imagine a timeline where things went well... ? Perhaps it was bound to be a nasty time in the ME no matter what ...
Peter Hitchens always disagrees. He is the enlightened one, the possessor of the truth
He does the necessary step to move the Hegelian dialectic forward.
@@ijejlnfzzdfar7540 If you say so
INTERVIWER: You are a contrarian.
PETER HITCHENS: No, I'm not.
A national treasure - highly mischaracterised by some unpleasant segments of the media/society.
‘There are limits to power’
I think I should read more of his literature and I also think others should too.
It is clear that whether you like him or dislike him the previous US President had an agenda that was inward and socially and economically focused with specific view to trade imbalances and the improvements needed/identified inside that country - not dissimilar to the remarks of PH with view to the UK - that is not to say the US and the UK have saved human lives and been a force for good in overseas activities - more so I think a prescription for where we are now and what is coming down the track - economically speaking we have tremendous challenges that cannot be ignored and it has been very easy to cast our attention elsewhere whilst we are decaying at home.
PH is not someone I agree with on certain issues - but I respect him and value his thoughts.
Like his brother in that he days what he thinks and doesnt care about popularity. I enjoy them both.
I wonder if Christopher would ever eventually regret Iraq.
Yes ,my initial repulsion with the Taliban probably came from a whig underpinning and subconscious ideological inheritence
My feeling was he always saw Iraq through the prism of the Kurds and Kurdistan (which he had a very long association with right back to his Trotskyist days) so as long as Kurds had in effect an largish autonomous state he saw the US Iraq intervention as a net positive. The US abandonment of Kurdish interests when Trump green lighted the Turkish intervention into Syria, he would view as a betrayal and rightly shown how transactional and morally bankrupt the whole Project for the New American Century stuff was as several major members had moved in the MAGA cesspool. Quite how he would overcome his own large hurbis, I'm not sure.
Do you no longer feel such repulsion from the Taliban ? Its just fine that they throw gay people off roofs and promote FGM ? But we westerners are the real problem hey!!
"nine one one attacks..."? bruh.
I think the shallowness of the arguments for or against the use of force is primarily the issue. It’s always overly simplistic for or against. The undercurrent of these failed wars is that there were too many civilian casualties, usually because air strikes were much too heavily leaned upon, not enough boots were provided on the ground to hold the strategic territory required for victory, an underwhelming amount of resources were devoted to rebuilding, an overzealous drive to fully demand a complete acknowledgment of modern human rights where it comes into conflict with local culture, indecisiveness in regional diplomacy to ensure long term success, and finally leaving with the mission unfulfilled. There are policy prescriptions for all of these issues. It’s not about Utopianism. It’s about paving a foundation for which a fully Democratic state can be realized with legal institutions, law enforcement, economic opportunities, and a stage for human rights to eventually grow from a minimum point that the culture will allow into a modern state. I agree with his assessment that we did quite a lot of harm and it’s sadly very easy to point out exactly where things went wrong. We simply do not scrutinize these interventions enough to get them right, as a result people die and suffer.
The US isn't a full democracy. The UK people don't even decide who their leader is. Gimme a break. You don't even know what you are talking about even on a basic level. Your comments then get even worse. You didn't mention even one workable policy prescription. Yet, you somehow can't see that the fact that you can't even come up with one is evidence of why we should not be intervening in the first place. You think these governments or some hidden intellectuals somewhere know these policy prescriptions and are just hiding them? LOL.
@@JimmyBoydauthor no i think they don’t bother to employ proper policy out of ignorance, incompetence, corruption, and/or negligence. Similar to why politicians don’t achieve much at home either. My comment was long enough. That’s why I didn’t include multiple pages of policy and supporting information for what I would propose. Plus, I have better things to do than satisfy every commenter with a thorough explanation they are likely to disagree with on the grounds of “just because”.
Hearing about all of these USA invasions and wars discussed as if they were liberal goals is a bit of a reach. By all means lets talk about how the liberals viewed and reacted to Mr Rumsfield & Mr Cheney's world views.
It could be that "liberal" is being used in a more fundamental sense (i.e., not merely as an American synonym for "left-wing"). It's the kind of philosophical doctrine that prizes individual rights and the kind of pluralistic state that can safeguard them. To that extent, both Democrats and Republicans subscribe to the same creed.
A (friendly) piece of advice: read John Mearsheimer's "The Great Delusion" and his analysis of what he calls liberal hegemony. This goes into the matter in far more detail.
Hitchens is looking at this from a UK perspective and the UK war was led by Blair. You're right that he overstates his case by not recognizing that the liberals in the US did not behave like liberals in the UK.
I also think he massively overstates his argument when he says that leftists "hate Islam." Has he been asleep the last 20 years? If anything they're weirdly pro-Islam given how much Islam seems to conflict with every left-wing goal
WT7.
@@BazIrvine I would have more respect for Peter Hitchins if he would talk about the University of Fairbanks, Alaska's 4 year expert study into the collapse of WT Building 7. This 4 year study proved the NIST report to be phoney. Fire didn't bring the building down. WT7 collapsed into its own footprint at freefall speed.
I'm a complete pinko vegan commie, but I have more in common with a genuine conservative like Peter Hitchens over a Trot any day
"Splitter!"
I would like to understand why Korea was a successful war but Vietnam was a failure.
Aside from his stance on drugs, Hitchens makes some very valid points.
His stance on drugs is excellent, you just don't like it because you sympathise with people who destroy their bodies.
@@niceone550 and minds
Imagine how different our lives would be if President George H. W. Bush had skipped the 1991 Gulf war, and withdrew from the Middle East. We would not have been a target of al Qaeda, and the 9/11 attacks would not have happened. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would not have happened.
Both carefully avoiding the elephant in the room...
Fraser Nelson is such a salty neocon lmao
I was stunned to learn that if you added up all the explosives in WW2, including bombs dropped on all sides, bullets, fired, grenades thrown , bombs detonated including nuclear weapons and multiply by 4 you would achieve the explosives dropped on North Vietnam.
Kissinger was bombing for peace
You "learned" that, did you? Where? From whom? I don't believe this figure for one moment.
@@DieFlabbergast I can't remember but it was a credible source. It sounded high to me too.
@@elingrome5853
And it worked. 😳
Some grammatical rules are tricky to follow. The I/me rule isn’t one of them.
Both are acceptable.
Whether to use I or me depends on whether the phrase is the subject of the sentence or the object of the sentence. I is a subject pronoun, and the subject is the person or thing doing the action as in "I went to the store." Me is an object pronoun, and the object is the person or thing the action happens to as in "Alex liked me." Use you and I when it is the subject of the sentence; use you and me when it is the object of the sentence.
@@ajs41 “why me disagreed with him” is most certainly not acceptable in English. I don’t know about whatever language you speak.
Given they’ve changed the title the Spectator appears to agree with me.
@@philhill3359 I think that’s right, but it’s still easy if you have poor grammatical knowledge (like me), simply remove the other person and see if the sentence makes sense. ‘John and me went to the park’ becomes ‘me went to the park’.
‘Do you want to come to the park with John and I?’ becomes ‘do you want to come to the park with I?’
It then becomes obvious.
@@Uppernorwood976 I agree. That’s how I generally do it. I have just gained a better understanding of cases recently by learning German. Which has helped immensely with my understanding of my mother tongue. Crazy really.
Christopher Hitchens is 800 times smarter! R.I.P. LEGEND.
Only a micro-cephalic would think such a thing, let alone write it down for all to see.
He’s right of course about the capriciousness of former Trotskyites in later life going glassy eyed about America’s role as emissaries of freedom; but then as we all know, and as Peter now displays, people go soft in the head as they grow old.
Wow you are clever
Or maybe just disillusioned and angry, as we grow older
@@fontainejohn An observation and a fact in one statement. How jolly of you.
Great interview. Both Peter and Fraser on fine form.
Fraser is a fool, can tell that by his questions and assumptions.
@@Internetbutthurt I just enjoyed the debate. Fraser seemed almost desperate to take Hitchens down, Peter seemed to effortlessly bat him away.
Yeah, Fraser was neocon-ing hard by the end of this interview, lol.
Well said Peter Hitchens.
I'm sure whatever Christopher's opinion today may have been it would have been presented in a fashion to give us pause for thought & ruminate on
Peter's position is compelling....but I can't help feeling a back & forth between the two Hitchens would've been a more interesting & useful endevour
War is a massive business with lots of profit for some people.
Despite being a former Commie, Peter looks more like a Soviet intellectual with every beard hair! 🤣
Amish
I think he's getting closer to the Merlin the Wizard look
he looks like 19th century industrialist to be fair, Commies just adopted the look, because it inspired respect and because the Communist elite were majorly part of the upper class.
@@hellbender31 he is miserable
@@Jay-xr3sb He is correct though
Is this interview pre- or post-Ukraine?
Peter... You're the man. Full stop.
would love to hear Peter Hitchens take on Ukraine
I still miss Christopher Hitchens. His brilliant wit is sorely missed.
I agree. We lost the Lone Ranger. We're stuck with Tonto.
@@H-Zazoo Perfectly put!
Interesting interview.
I respect the Hitchens brothers.
I agree with Peter's attitude about intervention in other nations cultures
It's a pity that more British dusant? But thay will when everything as GONE it's usely the case for Britain? Thay allways vote for MISSERY ther obsessed with MISSERY THER a THERD WORLD COUNTRY'S OUT SIAD OF Londonastan!.
@@philltaylor8442
Spell check?
@G C Morrocco: You're being admirably tactful. Head-check springs to mind.
"I think it's pretty clear we did harm"....jaunty music ensues.
The older man is right because he is lucid and realistic.
Wow! That point about transferred utopianism is brilliant 👏 👌
The '911' attacks? Eleven can't just be substituted for one-one. Nine-Eleven is the date, nine-one-one as a date is September 1st 2001. Did this guy just want to sound different and not realise that saying it that way is stupid af.
Was probably a slip of the tongue, have a day off son
@@holocene6 Actually the prompter probably just said '911' and he read it verbatim. Regardless, it's disrespectful and factually incorrect.
@@holocene6 Also it's funny when someone makes the effort to reply to someone's comment just to essentially say 'chill out about it'. Take your own advice
Calm down deary
@@holocene6 cringe.
I didn't know Peter Hitchens had become Amish.
The English-speaking world has never been less free.
Thanks to PC culture from the left and the barbaric racist anti-western views of Islam.
@@jamesa2482 Couldn't agree more.
Strange then that Vietnam didn't convince people that America was a lost cause, like the invasion of Czechoslovakia did for the Soviets. What could be the difference?
It is obvious that asymmetrical damage cannot cause symmetrical collapse, and I believe the general consensus is that controlled demolition brought down the three towers --- I haven´t heard either Hitchens address the implications of this.
For such serious conversations, you should really change the intro music. It doesn't match the tone at all.
100% on Libya. Every Libyan muj we killed in Fallujah and Ramadi was from Benghazi
Why is it so quiet? I would have liked to listen to this. Bye.
‘Christopher and I’ ?
Hey they changed it!!
Peter is my old school crush 😀🥰😀🥰
why I disagree with Peter Hitchens? Because he is not Christopher.
Cringe
You’re deeply religious.
At 3:32 "didn't acjieve what it set out to achieve", any power becomes stronger in respect of its enemies in one or both of two ways, the direct increase in its own capacity greater than any increase in that of your enemy and secondly by the diminution in the capacity (militarilly, politiclly, socially, economically) of that enemy, the "Balkanisation" of its neighbours and more distant opponents is well exemplified in the Yinon Plan, even if it's disparaged, it seems to be going rather well.
he lived innewyork i think that had somthing to do with it.
they are not looking for controversy they are looking for commodities
Did this interviewer actually say the people of Libya are better off after Gadaffi????!!!!! Complete stupidity!!!
It's not stupidity at all. It's pea dough brotherhood criminality.