Imagine watching the country, society, and culture you love so much be destroyed by it's own ignorance, arrogance, and stupidity. I wish I could give that man a hug.
Considering the developing world has benefitted from the scientific, technological and educational excellence we have created for centuries, all the trillions given in aid and in generous charity donations, the nations complaining are the biggest benefactors. The same old colonies speech is ridiculous. Ireland is still suffering more than those places.
I feel the exact same way. I couldn’t agree more. It feels utterly heartbreaking. I don’t know frankly if we are lucky or let down by being born in this era. Whether because we get to be on the other side of the decline or because we didn’t get to live during that time went everything made more sense in the Empire was still there but then we would have to live through the times themselves of everything declining and we would know what was truly lost.
It really is madness. So many lives lost on both sides so that Blackrock and the CIA could get some cheap land and mine the frick out of it. Ask US Senator Ms. Lindsey Graham about that...
@@Robert-tl2vg I’m with you on the magical thinking part. Christopher was a savage at slaying the indefensible religious dogma that had stifled freedom of speech and expression,for millennia. However ,Peter has shown himself equally valiant and unflinching in slaying the modern dogma of the church of Woke. In my opinion he’s serving a much more pressing function in exposing the threat of the ever encroaching leftist tyranny.
It is stunning as we stand on the brink of bankruptcy and social collapse in the west (in large part because of foreign interventions) there are people who still think its a good idea (referring to the man that challenged Peter).
Would you intervene if your child in the next room was screaming for help being lethally assaulted, you could clearly hear them, and you owned a gun and COULD possibly save their life? It's a matter far too complicated for a simple up/down vote in many cases to determine what is practically good or bad. Framings of all interventions being bad are dishonest, framings of all interventions being motivated by humanitarian life saving impulses and entirely justified are also dishonest. People aren't perfect and this reflects in all human dynamic interactions from individual to national scale. The purpose of such a debate is to think, not to 'win' and so morally determine an unambiguous truth to be slavishly adhered to in all circumstances, hopefully the people watching these things understand that.
@@ed1726 the NeoCon wars, the Global American Empire and its open borders Globalisation project has hollowed us out and created massive population movements.
Obviously the information Peter is relaying is pretty much well established to any individual with some historical knowledge but I suppose it's always refreshing to hear the truth spoken aloud.
@@romeisfallingagain Peter had a point in debate that russia didn't attacked Baltics, why everybody think that they needed NATO, that russia would stay neutral anyway and that every russian aggression act was provoked by NATO expansion. Completely ignoring the fact that Russia had hands full of Chechen 1st lost war in 90s with Khasaviurt peace deal and 2nd Chechen war in 2000s. Seems like he's don't know hes subject at all, just playing with rhetoric fitting he's narrative.
To quote Gerald celente...."Do you think we would have invaded Iraq, Libya, Syria if their major export was broccoli?" We do appear to be quite selective and inconsistent when it comes to what we will and won't be outraged about and when we will and wont intervene. But Gerald is right if these places didn't have pethaps large oil reserves would we be interested ? As he also quite rightly says if you're so outraged about something feel free to send yourself to die not someone else's children.
Spot on Paul. There is simply to much profit in war and oil for countries not to invade and cause chaos, like we've seen in the countries you mentioned. It's never about "freedoms" or "spreading democracy", case in point, Afghanistan. The US spent 20 years there and now look at it.
Same governments were not interested in oil but changing various national cultures and politics. Even though, African nations did not have oil. President Obama, VP Harris, and other western leaders went out on to support African LGBT rights. A sexual practice many Africans find distasteful. The western interference has caused considerable anger from African leaders.
I don't always agree with everything Peter says (can you imagine a world in which we all agreed, no thanks) however in this case he correctly points out that almost all foreign interventions are done under a suspicious cloak of seeming benevolence and that there is at the heart of these interventions ulterior motives and self interest, always at the expense of the people we are trying to "save". Revisionist history is necessary in these cases as we don't know where we are going unless we know where we are coming from, if we don't truly know where we are coming from we will inevitably make the same mistakes as before but on a far larger scale and this is happening right before our eyes.
The information is out there, relatively easily found, that pretty thoroughly proves your point that almost every intervention and I would add indeed, almost every full blown war over the last 200 years has been a false flag.
@D2M5 I think that the west's message of "democracy and free-trade", as you term it, is not a message. The West doesn't really belive in anything. In the West's coming together to bomb the hell out of ISIS, we all recognized that ISIS was a barbarous retrograde force. We know what we're against, but we don't really know what we're for. "Freedom". "Democracy". Democracy, as Peter pointed out could give you governments we don't like. We didn't accept the Nazi government, though they won the plurality in an election. Would we accept a Taliban government or an Iranian clerical government IF the people truly voted for that? That's been the problem with the war on terror, and Western intervention for a long time. What is "freedom and democracy"? Human rights? Its all so vacuous. Quite frankly, the Taliban and ISIS actually believe in something. They believe in definitive ideology. The West believes in nothing.
Do you think it’s a good idea to go round the world trying to “spread democracy” whether the natives want it or not? We’ve tried that a few times haven’t we and the results are in. Also, what’s the evidence democracy is desirable? I’ve lived in “democracies” all my life & the direction of travel doesn’t look good IMO. John Adams had a thing or go to say about democracies didn’t he?
Well said Peter. I agree with everything he says. Self interested economic and/or political motives are the root of most, if not all interventions by the West.
The purpose for these up/down debates isn't to prove a either/or 'Truth' for people to universally apply such as your "root of most, if not all interventions by the West", it's to make you think more deeply about a topic hearing strongly framed RHETORICAL arguments in their dialectic formulation for and against something that will in most cases be far too complicated for a simple yes/no answer. It's really a mutilation of the process for people to publish these partial clips in this way, the whole for/against the motion should be attended and considered for this format to serve it's purpose.
@@korycassel5197 Well these aren't debates, they are arguments. There is no purpose to an argument (or at least the purpose isn't the purported purpose). However in this case you'd have to argue it's pretty simple. Foreign governments interventioning in other sovereign states are predominately driven by reasons of money, power and extremely rarely for anything else.
You proved my point being so wrong about how you framed what is taking place in the clipped video. It most definitively IS a part of a debate by entire teams giving a series of arguments in adversarial turns. Their argument is RHETORICALLY formulated for strength to carry the motion, not an academically formulated educational presentation, it is not necessarily valid out of context, viewed in this way outside of its order and specific dialectic purpose in the format of the debate, and may often be modified or formulated specifically for rebuttal addressing previous arguments from the opposition in the exercise of the debate to carry or strike the motion. The clipped broadcast of one speech in isolation 'proving a point' per se is NOT what is happening here and there certainly IS a purpose to it in it's place in the complete format of the exercise. You are sounding confused like many people are seemingly confused about these things when commenting about them because this clip is only a portion of the whole, it constitutes negligence and maleducation in fact to give these clips weight of academic epistemic authority in isolation with the Cambridge name attached to them IMO. They should stop chopping them up and posting these clips online in isolation in this way. It's like a very badly spun edited news story broadcasting something that may not conform to reality at all, which also happens all the time nowadays clout chasing for more viewership appealing to knee-jerk trending sensationalism. There is most definitely a point to the dialectic process being attempted here you've apparently missed like many people. There is a useful exercise that this is only a portion of. And it is NOT to prove a simple point, it is precisely NOT to quickly declare for a position emotionally or in self-service if you find that a popular anti-Western sentiment is ascendant among your social circle in the moment because that obviously constitutes your TRUTH but rather to THINK deeply about various aspects of complicated topics and hear and consider different formulations of them from opposing positions. See how you and the OP commenter have not done this at all commenting on this one speech in isolation? That's what is wrong with this clip IMO. I very sincerely recommend watching the video of the entire motion and debate process, thinking about the issue after attending to the whole process and all the arguments, and commenting there on the video showing the entire process instead of agreeing to one rhetoric formulation of argument to carry the motion in isolation. Is it your contention then that monetary support should be withdrawn from Ukraine and they should be left to deal with Russia on their own after many nations have made public promises to support Ukraine's sovereignty? So simple as 'money and power are the motivation for western intervention'? Really? I think not.
@@korycassel5197 what a wonderfully well written response. I am impressed. However, much like western intervention, the reasons given for a debate may be best not taken simply at face value. At worst those participating are learning how to manipulate others to do what they want. This is a key skill taught in private schools. They won't print this in their manifesto but, well, that is an example of manipulation. At best, sure the debaters enter the exercise with a straightforward intention to properly debate. I'm not sure how many debates you have been in? Did you personally find them useful for the stated goal? Intervention in Ukraine, and thank you for the context as Peter's ulterior motives weren't clear to me and it's nice to see him consistently wrong, is, possibly, necessary. I frankly do not possess the information or expertise to say for certain one way or the other. The problem is that international politics is cut throat. There are no international laws. As such one important thing that you really have to do is not be weak. Otherwise you stand a good chance of being bullied. In this context supporting the Ukraine seems to make sense.
@@ed1726 Indeed I agree with your apparent cynicism and distaste for methods of rhetoric manipulations people are taught how to employ and thank you for the compliment and cordial response. I don't have much formal higher education so haven't ever participated personally in such a formal debate setting, I'm individually representative of the 'lived experience' of an actual American working class person. I believe the debate process itself is extremely valuable in fact and the point of my objection to clipped isolated arguments from them being posted. You see, not being manipulated by pressure to immediately conform to a particular side of an argument is inherent in the procedure of formalizing the dialectic and allowing; requiring by process actually, that the other side of an issue be earnestly argued and those marking the other side's arguments be heard in their allotted turn with equivalent time and all formatted rights in the process (they are not supposed to play favorites at all). It's a difference between seeking more truth, more explored intellectual territory rather than some currently fashionable ideas quite popular with today's radicals that there is only 'MY TRUTH' and hearing the 'Other' only gives the oppressor power and they should in fact be de-platformed. The traditions in these schools of holding the events are valuable IMO. Students are going to get into the habit of considering a range of dialectic discussion of some of the most difficult and complex topics they can come up with that are relevant to current events in these debates with strong advocates arguing their multiple formulations in civility. As stated again, these are RHETORIC formulations and part of the process encouraging thought. It's not necessarily the case that the person arguing even holds the particular view they are advocating addressing your comment about Peter's 'ulterior motives' although I believe the prestigious schools attempt to get participants with experience and track records of publicly advocating for the side they will argue in the debate. We could use a bit more of this tolerance for opposition and deep thought steel-manning points of view we may not immediately agree with in general in today's discourses IMO. There is a current vein of leaning exclusively in polarized directions that I think is less productive than it should be all over the place and being exacerbated by gratification incentives built into Social Media which make sensationalist clout chasing quite literally biologically incentivized by reactions in people's brain chemistry and behaviorally addictive. Back to the Ukraine issue: So it is a matter of perceived power projection out of self interest that makes Western nations supporting Ukrainian sovereignty something they should be doing since principle of respecting Ukraine and it's people is not the reason? Is that because of simply needing to show that Russia is an inferior power on the world stage and thus incapable of bullying the West, or the regional hegemony of Russia reaching through Ukraine to border Europe is an existential military threat, both, something else? Complicated IMO.
Ronald Reagan once said the most scary words in English were _"I'm from the government. I'm here to help."_ I guess we should've extended that understanding to natives looking at our foreign intervention.
I always find it funny how the people who make questions seem to not be able to understand a thing of what is said in these events. Almost as if they were deaf the entire time and only stood up to give their very precious two cents.
I understand -- but I also used to be an academic speaker (gave that up long ago). Believe you me -- a dumb question is far better than no questions. To wit: the largely listless, insipid boredom of the audience members in front of the camera is utterly discouraging. They could be learning something. Instead, they're probably not even listening and instead are wondering whether whichever alphabet soup pronouns they selected for their Twitter bios last Monday are woke enough -- and, if not, will they need to change them by Wednesday... At least the people asking questions are offering some semblance of engagement, even if they're barking up the wrong tree... and they're giving the speaker the opportunity to correct their misapprehensions, if need be...
Well @@jayxavier7357 I think it is an error to judge the audience thus. Mr Hitchens delivers a lot per sentence and it is not a passive process to follow his erudition. I too paid attention to them and all seemed absorbed …the Far Eastern face was an exception but surely they go of their own volition and in their own time… I feel you are somewhat jaundiced and the applause seemed enthusiastic to my ears…. I would have liked to hear the other speakers but I recall with gratitude the Ministers and big names that graced my eyes and ears at uni -a long time ago
It's quite interesting that there will be many who will now agree with this position as its been espoused by a white male, right/Conservative leaning establishment figure, with a particular pronunciation. This view has been articulated by many held in less regard whose arguments were equally and possibly more cogent. Often its not the quality of arguments/rationale that gives them value and weight but who makes them and the audience. If Trump said these things his base would agree. If he made converse argument his base would agree.
@@rationalreasoning5612 that's what happens when we are so obsessively focused on the attributes you described. (Not "we" as in you and I, but people in general).
@@cassconner6023 I'm not arguing propaganda. I'm making an observation about how easily people are swayed depending on whose delivering the message. Trump is an easy example of how people give weight to others because of what they represent to/for them. I specifically referenced Trump as his flaws and fallacy of his rhetoric has been apparent prior to him becoming President.
I hitch-hiked through the north of Kabul (Afghanistan) in 1970, staying with the people labelled from outside as Mujahadeen, who were apparently meant to be violent and murderous. They were some of the most hospitable people I have ever met. What was noticeable was that they wanted to lead the life they wanted. It is not surprising that they were suspicious of foreign travellers and resisted intervention, both international and from within the borders of Afghanistan.
@@DaboooogA True. Your use of „some people” is interesting. The important question to affix to it is “why?” Some people in Western Democracies have become Presidents and Prime Ministers and then warmongers. Using “some people” in the way you did becomes somewhat meaningless, beyond an attempt to nullify something.
@@cliffjamesmusic No I used it specifically because the Mujahideen eventually split into the Taliban, Al Qaeda and the Northern Alliance (not to mention other smaller factions).
@@DaboooogA Do you mean the Al Qaeda terrorists created by the CIA for the specific purpose of creating mayhem in the region, that Al Qaeda? And the Taliban, the paramilitary wing of Saudi Arabia, carrying out the foreign policies of the USA by proxy, that Taliban?
@@view1st No I mean the Al Qaeda and Taliban that split off from the other Mujahedeen groups (resulting in a bloody civil war where Saudi Arabia supported those fighting against the Taliban) and then went on to orchestrate some of the worst terrorist attacks in recent human history. I mean, you don't really believe that Bin Laden was saying the things he was saying because the CIA told him to, do you?
"We simply do not have a clue of what we are doing, if we are doing what we say we are doing." 7:40. Maybe the leaders are good at masking there Evil. Maybe evil rules the world.
He's good, excellent, his brother was one of a kind priceless individual, wished he was still around to expose the ruthlessness of the government involved in the current genocide of the Palestinians
@@sv9818 , I'm surprised he didn't add, "And you look about the right age, sign-up", like he said to a lad in the audience on Question Time some years ago who said we should commit ground troops in Syria, priceless!
11:11. "Russian invasion was provoked". This might interest you. "Rand report prescribed US provocations against Russia predicted Russia might retaliate in Ukraine. The Rand Corporation, one of the main think tanks that the US DOD relies upon to draw its assessments, had anticipated the result of the long-lasting policy of antagonizing Russia: pushing Russia to retaliate. According to a Rand report of 2019 entitled: 'Overextending and Unbalancing Russia' the US goal is to undermine Russia just as it did the Soviet Union in the cold war. Rather than 'trying to stay ahead' or trying to improve the US domestically or in international relations, the emphasis is on efforts and actions to undermine the designated adversary Russia". Ukraine is to be where it happens. - " for reasons of geography and history, Ukraine is a major component of US/NATO effort to undermine Russia. Current Under Secretary for Political Affairs, Victoria Nuland, said that over 20 years the US invested 5 billion dollars in the project to turn Ukraine (another regime change). The culmination was a violent coup in February 2014 (covered by the BBC in which she was heard to say - "fk the Eu!" when they objected). Since 2015 the US has been training Ultra-Nationlist and Neo- Nazi militias. This has been documented in articles such as 'The US House admits Nazi role in Ukraine' (Robert Parry 2015). 'The US is arming and assisting Neo-Nazis in Ukraine while House debates prohibition' (Max Blumenthal, 2018). 'Neo-Nazis and the far-right are on the march in Ukraine' (Lev Golinken 2019). By the way, mainstream media like DW covered the rise of the nazis in Ukraine in 2014 which I found on RUclips. 'The CIA may be breeding Nazi terror' (Branko Marcetic, Jan 2022). Rick Sterling: Al Mayadeen.
Ukraine has been the slaughter ground for Communist apologists for long enough. They've decided to reject the old Soviet global slavery servicing the elites 'commune' vision entirely. It ain't happening Commies, the REAL working class is done with you, get over it.
@@korycassel5197 Russia is in the post-Communist Era. Putin is ex-KGB. Russia in the 90s gave itself over to the control of Neo-Cons - war hawks and Neo-Libertarians who made a mess of the economy and sucking out the wealth of the country and destroying the jobs and pensions of the Real working class and putting them into poverty with no help from the State because they weren't allowed to by the Americans who were there running everything for their benefit, not on behalf of the Real working class, you get over it. You mention "Soviet Global slavery servicing the Elites" You mean the US, don't you? It's been doing this since its inception as a country. In a long list of Regime changes and I'm not talking of Russia, the US also included the overthrow of Czarist Russia and the funding of the Bolshevik Revolution. "Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution: The remarkable true story of the American capitalists who financed the Russian Communists" Anthony C. Sutton. 'Dear Mr, President: I'm in sympathy with the Soviet form of government as that is best suited for the Russian people....'Letter to Woodrow Wilson (October 1918) from William Lawrence Saunders chairman Ingersoll - Rand corporation; director, American International Corp and Deputy Chairman, Federal Reserve of New York. Putin took back control, and America is State a capitalist/ Corporatist State. It isn't there for the working class. You obviously haven't read what I wrote.
@@terry4137 In clear contrast to Peter Hitchens, who's always incredibly eloquent when communicating his ideas and POV, we have poor Terry here, whose entire intellectual repertoire can be summarized by an emoji...
His statements that Western intervention is always bad is not true. Example of that is European countries (Poland, Lithuania etc.), that joined the west are all more prosperous and free than they were before under influence of Russia. That is why Ukraine wants to join us, that is why they are fighting. Russia was not provoked, as far as I remember all independent countries (in this case Ukraine) have the right to join whatever alliances they want. Russia is an empire, a weak one. And a person who is "anti-imperialist" defends it. It sounds like a joke.
I’ve come to believe that while our intervention in Ukraine is good, and it is good that it is supported by the west, it is not supported by the west because it is good.
Constant interruptions by ill-mannered oafs. Why is it permitted? It's got nowt to do with cancelling them, it's got to do with protocol at a formal debate with everyone dressed formally. Even in the House of Commons, while MPs may heckle, they don't demand that they can interrupt with a question.
While Hitchens' points are valid, Putin has drawn back the curtain and revealed that the Russian Federation under his leadership has been CCCP 2.0 all along. Irrespective of the mistakes that led to this war, one has only to consider the horrors being inflicted on Ukraine, knowing the same fate awaits other former Soviet states should Russia prevail, to come to the conclusion that we cannot stand by and passively allow it to continue. The consequences of inaction are too great, for the economic and political stability of the world pivots on the outcome of this conflict. Martin Luther King once said: “Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?’ Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?' Vanity asks the question, 'Is it popular?' But, conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it because one's conscience tells one that it is right.” This is one of those times.
Hi from Russia. 1. What horrors? This war like any other war. War is norm. Ask your American handlers if in doubt. 2. "Is it right?" - Only if/when you send your soldiers in Ukraine. Until then - you only prolong the agony of failed state, essentially acting as the deaths multiplier.
There have always been, and always will be, colonial and interventionalist powers. I have to wonder if any empire has left former colonies in better shape, generally, than the British? I suspect, even given all their bad actions, that they were better than most. I do agree though, a lot of recent interventions have been complete disasters.
The colonial powers tended to greatly improve the living standards of the places they conquered merely by introducing modern medicine, that was so momentous that it made even the terrible colonial powers greatly more of beneficial than than they were awful. Most other introductions were vast improvements to what had come before but very little of it was profitable, the current system is far more so while costing a lot less and ensuring in so far as possible that the little countries will never rise up the totem pole.
Really important point Peter Hitchens makes, is his statement at end, about the real cause behind the tragic conflict being played out in the Ukraine! It wonderfully ties up his whole argument . And I didn't realize this is supported by Noam Chomsky and Henry Kissinger, who have never agreed on anything!
Usually, I agree with him but sometimes I think he spends so long blaming the West. He sometimes gets it wrong the invasion of ukraine being one of those times .. Prigozhin 2 months ago told us the invasion was a vanity project for the Russian MOD, NATO was the excuse They took back crimea for mother Russia in 2014 and the west done nothing they figured they could take the rest of ukraine now .. It should also be noted that countries like the baltic nations looked at what happened to chechnya and feared they would be next so they begged to be left in .. From what we see now they had a point .. Too easy to always point at the west , Many russian nationalists wanted the USSR back regardless of NATO
My daughter's Ancestor was Sir Francis Younghusband, who ceded Tibet to then Western Controlled China on behalf of Great Game Britain to Counter Russia in 1906. The Retreat from Kabul was about 1840, the year Britain signed a Minsk Type Treaty of Waitangi to delay and enable a Military Build up until 1860. Now THEY are pulling out The Treaty to Divide and Rule over Water in New Zealand.
@@mikevolante7663 I saw the debate and I think the audience voted for Christopher if I remember correctly. I understand the appeal of pascal's wager but I don't look at them like ponies in a horse race... my only concern is whether or not what they say is accurate or not...
There is much in the argument that most interventions are not for the reasons (often mythical) given and are usually self-serving at some level. I suspect that the reasons for Russian agression in the Ukraine go even further back than Hitchens allows - to Russian imperialism, the events of the First World War - in other words unresolved tensions of which the expansion of Nato is a symptom
The Ukraine Civil War goes back to February 2014 when the EU/NATO overthrew Viktor Yanukovych. Not content with replacing Yanukovych with neo n@zi groups like the Azov and Kraken, the West encouraged the new Ukrainian leadership to ethnically cleanse Southern and Eastern Ukraine of Russian speakers. Atrocities like the Odessa Fire then occurred. The Russian speakers of the Donbas in Luhansk and Donetsk fought back and were winning the civil war when Merkel persuaded Putin to broker a peace agreement (Minsk Agreement). We now know that the West brokered the Minsk Agreement under false pretences. Putin has recently stated that Minsk was a mistake and given the fact that Ukraine never intended to follow Minsk and allowed Ukraine to murder at least 14,000 Russian speakers in the Donbas before the SMO started.
It goes back as far as Russia existing, Kiev as the capital of the first orthodox Russian state was immensely powerful as a tool of legitimacy and Ukraine itself was needed as a gateway into the Russian heartland and the path of tartar slave raiders, Crimea gives access to the black sea, the old Russian ambition is conquering Turkey and other than the Soviets it has always been the end goal of Russian statehood, warm water ports and strategic depth have been the other overriding considerations.
Examples of “western” interventions are way too generalized and broad. The UK hasn’t had the same agendas as for example France or the US for that matter. So making these generalizations undermines his line of argument. Who are “we” that he talks about. The Baltics have their history and a completely different view than Hitchens. If he only means UK then maybe fine?
Well done to him for eschewing easy plaudits and condemning Western intervention in Ukraine as well as lower-hanging fruit like Iraq and Afghanistan. The evil of US imperialism cannot be understood without reckoning with its behind the scenes interventions, as well as its direct military engagements.
As a person who has spent 14 years of my life in the western humanitarian industry including 2 years in Somalia during the 1990's. Thank you Peter Hitchens! Honesty is so rare it is truly the most precious character trait that a person can have these days.
Many heard , how many listened .. that i canot say. A brave man who daringly told the truth. I am reminded of someone else who acted thus. A brave man, a soldier when his country needed him, a friend who saved a young life in battle, a man who withstood ridicule, who spoke uncomfortable truths the elite did not wish to hear. Who spoke of misrepresentation and neglect, of human beings, of lies that sounded good, but were poison far more bitter, than the one he was forced to take in the end. Let us hope the end is different this time.
I disagree with Peter on a lot of things (religion, culture/multiculturalism, monarchy, "Tradition", etc) but this is definitely where I agree with him and when he's at his best. Peter the Critical Journalist mode
“When he’s at his best” because you happen to agree with Mr Hitchens on the matter at hand? Peter Hitchens brings this level of scrutiny, objectiveness and thought to every discussion he is involved in. He is an individual and thinks as an individual, disregarding bias and nonsense. I don’t accept all of what Mr Hitchens has to say but regardless of his subject matter I listen and give serious consideration to the man’s argument. Mr Hitchens (to me) has been at “his best” while his debate has opposed that of my own, because he is willing to stand alone.
Exporting and imposing a foreign system of life on a culture which has survived thousands of years is immoral. If you want to spread the seeds of democracy, doing it at the barrel of a gun is perverse. Intervening in clear cut cases is a moral duty, e.g. UN peace-keeping during a genocide. Helping a country fight an aggressor.
It's always intrigued me how the the same people who condemn 19th century western imperialism, which did so much to end slavery, cannibalism, feudalism, warlordism and many other ghastly things all over the world: are whole-heartedly in favour of the modern variety of western interventionism which has managed to make almost everything worse for everyone we've ever "helped".
What you have to ask is why so many politicians who control the interventions don't agree with him.And are allowed to creat the misery & chaos but not held responsible & suffer no consequences.
There is little use debating these things when people have a long term memory equal to just one news cycle. ps If we want to know why we intervene in other countries then perhaps you should invite on King Charles, the City of London, and the top of our establishment to explain things. They're the ones calling the shots.
We (the citizens) must create a system in which politicians, academics, and theorists of all types who propagate and enact policies and actions by the nation are personally responsible for the results of those acts and policies.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Imagine watching the country, society, and culture you love so much be destroyed by it's own ignorance, arrogance, and stupidity.
I wish I could give that man a hug.
Paying the price for the horrors of colonialism
Considering the developing world has benefitted from the scientific, technological and educational excellence we have created for centuries, all the trillions given in aid and in generous charity donations, the nations complaining are the biggest benefactors. The same old colonies speech is ridiculous. Ireland is still suffering more than those places.
I feel the exact same way. I couldn’t agree more. It feels utterly heartbreaking. I don’t know frankly if we are lucky or let down by being born in this era. Whether because we get to be on the other side of the decline or because we didn’t get to live during that time went everything made more sense in the Empire was still there but then we would have to live through the times themselves of everything declining and we would know what was truly lost.
@@Camille_AndersonAbsolutely on point.
a superb erudite argument against this madness, bravo peter hitchens!
@@Dickeyj2010 Think and learn about the roots and motives of people, countries and conflicts. Mastering rhetoric is only practice I suppose.
It really is madness. So many lives lost on both sides so that Blackrock and the CIA could get some cheap land and mine the frick out of it. Ask US Senator Ms. Lindsey Graham about that...
Hitchens embodies eloquence.
Not just in the artful weaving of his words , but also in the substance of his intellect and culture!
You must be talking about Christopher
Is it the same Hitchens who was destroyed by Galloway on the very same subject? During his support of Iraq war?
@@sixmillionsilencedaccounts3517 that was his brother
Depends where that intellect is employed. He believes in a creator god which makes him an idiot at some level.
@@Robert-tl2vg I’m with you on the magical thinking part. Christopher was a savage at slaying the indefensible religious dogma that had stifled freedom of speech and expression,for millennia. However ,Peter has shown himself equally valiant and unflinching in slaying the modern dogma of the church of Woke. In my opinion he’s serving a much more pressing function in exposing the threat of the ever encroaching leftist tyranny.
It is stunning as we stand on the brink of bankruptcy and social collapse in the west (in large part because of foreign interventions) there are people who still think its a good idea (referring to the man that challenged Peter).
Would you intervene if your child in the next room was screaming for help being lethally assaulted, you could clearly hear them, and you owned a gun and COULD possibly save their life? It's a matter far too complicated for a simple up/down vote in many cases to determine what is practically good or bad. Framings of all interventions being bad are dishonest, framings of all interventions being motivated by humanitarian life saving impulses and entirely justified are also dishonest. People aren't perfect and this reflects in all human dynamic interactions from individual to national scale. The purpose of such a debate is to think, not to 'win' and so morally determine an unambiguous truth to be slavishly adhered to in all circumstances, hopefully the people watching these things understand that.
foreign interventions? Our problems are largely of our own making.
Empire's are in the elites intrest, definitely not in the ordinary people's intrest.
@@ed1726 the NeoCon wars, the Global American Empire and its open borders Globalisation project has hollowed us out and created massive population movements.
@@ed1726 Totally agree. Our governments have been out of control for a near century now.
Thanks to bring Mr. P Hitechens. Greetings from Central America. We need more men like him bringing common sense.
Obviously the information Peter is relaying is pretty much well established to any individual with some historical knowledge but I suppose it's always refreshing to hear the truth spoken aloud.
the sad truth is that many who have an oppossing opinion to hitchens, on this topic, have no historical knowledge
@@romeisfallingagain
no historical knowledge, but a lot of media support .... very sad indeed.
Lol. Colonialism is soooooo goooooooood.
Only to those who actually take time to read copious amounts of history and acquaint themselves to it.
@@romeisfallingagain Peter had a point in debate that russia didn't attacked Baltics, why everybody think that they needed NATO, that russia would stay neutral anyway and that every russian aggression act was provoked by NATO expansion.
Completely ignoring the fact that Russia had hands full of Chechen 1st lost war in 90s with Khasaviurt peace deal and 2nd Chechen war in 2000s.
Seems like he's don't know hes subject at all, just playing with rhetoric fitting he's narrative.
To quote Gerald celente...."Do you think we would have invaded Iraq, Libya, Syria if their major export was broccoli?" We do appear to be quite selective and inconsistent when it comes to what we will and won't be outraged about and when we will and wont intervene. But Gerald is right if these places didn't have pethaps large oil reserves would we be interested ? As he also quite rightly says if you're so outraged about something feel free to send yourself to die not someone else's children.
Simple answer to you first question: Rwanda. Nobody cared because there was nothing to steal.
Spot on Paul. There is simply to much profit in war and oil for countries not to invade and cause chaos, like we've seen in the countries you mentioned. It's never about "freedoms" or "spreading democracy", case in point, Afghanistan. The US spent 20 years there and now look at it.
Thank you, Paul. Great quote, so I had to investigate Gerald Celente. Excellent!
Good day.
Same governments were not interested in oil but changing various national cultures and politics. Even though, African nations did not have oil. President Obama, VP Harris, and other western leaders went out on to support African LGBT rights. A sexual practice many Africans find distasteful. The western interference has caused considerable anger from African leaders.
@getlost3346 Obama is a homosexual himself, so his cheerleading is not surprising.
I don't always agree with everything Peter says (can you imagine a world in which we all agreed, no thanks) however in this case he correctly points out that almost all foreign interventions are done under a suspicious cloak of seeming benevolence and that there is at the heart of these interventions ulterior motives and self interest, always at the expense of the people we are trying to "save". Revisionist history is necessary in these cases as we don't know where we are going unless we know where we are coming from, if we don't truly know where we are coming from we will inevitably make the same mistakes as before but on a far larger scale and this is happening right before our eyes.
The information is out there, relatively easily found, that pretty thoroughly proves your point that almost every intervention and I would add indeed, almost every full blown war over the last 200 years has been a false flag.
As Churchill once said, "The first casualty of war is always the truth."
@@Si_Mondo churchill himself was a zionist shill
@D2M5 I think that the west's message of "democracy and free-trade", as you term it, is not a message. The West doesn't really belive in anything. In the West's coming together to bomb the hell out of ISIS, we all recognized that ISIS was a barbarous retrograde force. We know what we're against, but we don't really know what we're for.
"Freedom". "Democracy". Democracy, as Peter pointed out could give you governments we don't like. We didn't accept the Nazi government, though they won the plurality in an election. Would we accept a Taliban government or an Iranian clerical government IF the people truly voted for that? That's been the problem with the war on terror, and Western intervention for a long time. What is "freedom and democracy"? Human rights? Its all so vacuous. Quite frankly, the Taliban and ISIS actually believe in something. They believe in definitive ideology. The West believes in nothing.
Do you think it’s a good idea to go round the world trying to “spread democracy” whether the natives want it or not? We’ve tried that a few times haven’t we and the results are in. Also, what’s the evidence democracy is desirable? I’ve lived in “democracies” all my life & the direction of travel doesn’t look good IMO. John Adams had a thing or go to say about democracies didn’t he?
Well said Peter. I agree with everything he says. Self interested economic and/or political motives are the root of most, if not all interventions by the West.
The purpose for these up/down debates isn't to prove a either/or 'Truth' for people to universally apply such as your "root of most, if not all interventions by the West", it's to make you think more deeply about a topic hearing strongly framed RHETORICAL arguments in their dialectic formulation for and against something that will in most cases be far too complicated for a simple yes/no answer. It's really a mutilation of the process for people to publish these partial clips in this way, the whole for/against the motion should be attended and considered for this format to serve it's purpose.
@@korycassel5197 Well these aren't debates, they are arguments. There is no purpose to an argument (or at least the purpose isn't the purported purpose). However in this case you'd have to argue it's pretty simple. Foreign governments interventioning in other sovereign states are predominately driven by reasons of money, power and extremely rarely for anything else.
You proved my point being so wrong about how you framed what is taking place in the clipped video. It most definitively IS a part of a debate by entire teams giving a series of arguments in adversarial turns. Their argument is RHETORICALLY formulated for strength to carry the motion, not an academically formulated educational presentation, it is not necessarily valid out of context, viewed in this way outside of its order and specific dialectic purpose in the format of the debate, and may often be modified or formulated specifically for rebuttal addressing previous arguments from the opposition in the exercise of the debate to carry or strike the motion. The clipped broadcast of one speech in isolation 'proving a point' per se is NOT what is happening here and there certainly IS a purpose to it in it's place in the complete format of the exercise. You are sounding confused like many people are seemingly confused about these things when commenting about them because this clip is only a portion of the whole, it constitutes negligence and maleducation in fact to give these clips weight of academic epistemic authority in isolation with the Cambridge name attached to them IMO. They should stop chopping them up and posting these clips online in isolation in this way. It's like a very badly spun edited news story broadcasting something that may not conform to reality at all, which also happens all the time nowadays clout chasing for more viewership appealing to knee-jerk trending sensationalism. There is most definitely a point to the dialectic process being attempted here you've apparently missed like many people. There is a useful exercise that this is only a portion of. And it is NOT to prove a simple point, it is precisely NOT to quickly declare for a position emotionally or in self-service if you find that a popular anti-Western sentiment is ascendant among your social circle in the moment because that obviously constitutes your TRUTH but rather to THINK deeply about various aspects of complicated topics and hear and consider different formulations of them from opposing positions. See how you and the OP commenter have not done this at all commenting on this one speech in isolation? That's what is wrong with this clip IMO. I very sincerely recommend watching the video of the entire motion and debate process, thinking about the issue after attending to the whole process and all the arguments, and commenting there on the video showing the entire process instead of agreeing to one rhetoric formulation of argument to carry the motion in isolation. Is it your contention then that monetary support should be withdrawn from Ukraine and they should be left to deal with Russia on their own after many nations have made public promises to support Ukraine's sovereignty? So simple as 'money and power are the motivation for western intervention'? Really? I think not.
@@korycassel5197 what a wonderfully well written response. I am impressed. However, much like western intervention, the reasons given for a debate may be best not taken simply at face value. At worst those participating are learning how to manipulate others to do what they want. This is a key skill taught in private schools. They won't print this in their manifesto but, well, that is an example of manipulation.
At best, sure the debaters enter the exercise with a straightforward intention to properly debate. I'm not sure how many debates you have been in? Did you personally find them useful for the stated goal?
Intervention in Ukraine, and thank you for the context as Peter's ulterior motives weren't clear to me and it's nice to see him consistently wrong, is, possibly, necessary. I frankly do not possess the information or expertise to say for certain one way or the other. The problem is that international politics is cut throat. There are no international laws. As such one important thing that you really have to do is not be weak. Otherwise you stand a good chance of being bullied. In this context supporting the Ukraine seems to make sense.
@@ed1726 Indeed I agree with your apparent cynicism and distaste for methods of rhetoric manipulations people are taught how to employ and thank you for the compliment and cordial response. I don't have much formal higher education so haven't ever participated personally in such a formal debate setting, I'm individually representative of the 'lived experience' of an actual American working class person. I believe the debate process itself is extremely valuable in fact and the point of my objection to clipped isolated arguments from them being posted. You see, not being manipulated by pressure to immediately conform to a particular side of an argument is inherent in the procedure of formalizing the dialectic and allowing; requiring by process actually, that the other side of an issue be earnestly argued and those marking the other side's arguments be heard in their allotted turn with equivalent time and all formatted rights in the process (they are not supposed to play favorites at all). It's a difference between seeking more truth, more explored intellectual territory rather than some currently fashionable ideas quite popular with today's radicals that there is only 'MY TRUTH' and hearing the 'Other' only gives the oppressor power and they should in fact be de-platformed. The traditions in these schools of holding the events are valuable IMO. Students are going to get into the habit of considering a range of dialectic discussion of some of the most difficult and complex topics they can come up with that are relevant to current events in these debates with strong advocates arguing their multiple formulations in civility. As stated again, these are RHETORIC formulations and part of the process encouraging thought. It's not necessarily the case that the person arguing even holds the particular view they are advocating addressing your comment about Peter's 'ulterior motives' although I believe the prestigious schools attempt to get participants with experience and track records of publicly advocating for the side they will argue in the debate. We could use a bit more of this tolerance for opposition and deep thought steel-manning points of view we may not immediately agree with in general in today's discourses IMO. There is a current vein of leaning exclusively in polarized directions that I think is less productive than it should be all over the place and being exacerbated by gratification incentives built into Social Media which make sensationalist clout chasing quite literally biologically incentivized by reactions in people's brain chemistry and behaviorally addictive.
Back to the Ukraine issue: So it is a matter of perceived power projection out of self interest that makes Western nations supporting Ukrainian sovereignty something they should be doing since principle of respecting Ukraine and it's people is not the reason? Is that because of simply needing to show that Russia is an inferior power on the world stage and thus incapable of bullying the West, or the regional hegemony of Russia reaching through Ukraine to border Europe is an existential military threat, both, something else? Complicated IMO.
Well spoken Peter,enjoyed your talk.Thank providence for people such as yourself,that tell us the truth,instead of propaganda. Respects to you.
Aaah an intelligent thoughtful person. We need more like him.
Too many people like him are why this country is in a bad state. He has no real convictions
Alas, they are in short supply.
Deep respect for this man!
Always pleasure to listen peter.he puts his words succinctly.
Ronald Reagan once said the most scary words in English were _"I'm from the government. I'm here to help."_ I guess we should've extended that understanding to natives looking at our foreign intervention.
Interventions, wars....it's all about the money!
I rarely agree with Peter but my lord he's a national treasure and he's always a person that springs to mind when I want an opinion on something.
I always find it funny how the people who make questions seem to not be able to understand a thing of what is said in these events. Almost as if they were deaf the entire time and only stood up to give their very precious two cents.
I understand -- but I also used to be an academic speaker (gave that up long ago). Believe you me -- a dumb question is far better than no questions. To wit: the largely listless, insipid boredom of the audience members in front of the camera is utterly discouraging. They could be learning something. Instead, they're probably not even listening and instead are wondering whether whichever alphabet soup pronouns they selected for their Twitter bios last Monday are woke enough -- and, if not, will they need to change them by Wednesday... At least the people asking questions are offering some semblance of engagement, even if they're barking up the wrong tree... and they're giving the speaker the opportunity to correct their misapprehensions, if need be...
Well @@jayxavier7357 I think it is an error to judge the audience thus. Mr Hitchens delivers a lot per sentence and it is not a passive process to follow his erudition. I too paid attention to them and all seemed absorbed …the Far Eastern face was an exception but surely they go of their own volition and in their own time… I feel you are somewhat jaundiced and the applause seemed enthusiastic to my ears…. I would have liked to hear the other speakers but I recall with gratitude the Ministers and big names that graced my eyes and ears at uni -a long time ago
@@jayxavier7357 Well said. 👍
Without a doubt.
"...then it's not a reason, it's a pretext."
Peter Hitchens, masterly as always.
We Christians are modest people; we do not want much, only ETERNAL LIFE.. LOL
Good honest hard talk. People on social media are being banned about speaking the truths . We are not a democracy.
Peter Hitchens, bang on the money again. 👏👏👏
I disagree with Peter on lots of things, but he's talking absolute sense here and people need to hear it.
It's quite interesting that there will be many who will now agree with this position as its been espoused by a white male, right/Conservative leaning establishment figure, with a particular pronunciation. This view has been articulated by many held in less regard whose arguments were equally and possibly more cogent. Often its not the quality of arguments/rationale that gives them value and weight but who makes them and the audience. If Trump said these things his base would agree. If he made converse argument his base would agree.
@@rationalreasoning5612 that's what happens when we are so obsessively focused on the attributes you described. (Not "we" as in you and I, but people in general).
@@rationalreasoning5612 That you would use Trump to argue propaganda shows you are a victim of it yourself.
@@cassconner6023 I'm not arguing propaganda. I'm making an observation about how easily people are swayed depending on whose delivering the message. Trump is an easy example of how people give weight to others because of what they represent to/for them. I specifically referenced Trump as his flaws and fallacy of his rhetoric has been apparent prior to him becoming President.
@@cassconner6023 and yes we all believe one thing over another for our own peculiar reasons
8:16 Hitchens burned balcony guy so hard, he's probably still crying in a corner somewhere 😢
Balcony Steve is now a caring sharing hedge fund manager with homes on the East and West coast..
Having lost loved a one on these expeditions thank you for pointing out the cost to the little people for the decisions of our betters.
Be grateful you have someone to make the decisions for which you're not competent
A force for good… tell that to the millions of Iraqis, Afghans & Libyans who have had their houses blown up and been massacred.
I hitch-hiked through the north of Kabul (Afghanistan) in 1970, staying with the people labelled from outside as Mujahadeen, who were apparently meant to be violent and murderous. They were some of the most hospitable people I have ever met. What was noticeable was that they wanted to lead the life they wanted. It is not surprising that they were suspicious of foreign travellers and resisted intervention, both international and from within the borders of Afghanistan.
But things changed Cliff, and some people who were once Mujahadeen became Al Qaeda...
@@DaboooogA True. Your use of „some people” is interesting. The important question to affix to it is “why?” Some people in Western Democracies have become Presidents and Prime Ministers and then warmongers. Using “some people” in the way you did becomes somewhat meaningless, beyond an attempt to nullify something.
@@cliffjamesmusic No I used it specifically because the Mujahideen eventually split into the Taliban, Al Qaeda and the Northern Alliance (not to mention other smaller factions).
@@DaboooogA
Do you mean the Al Qaeda terrorists created by the CIA for the specific purpose of creating mayhem in the region, that Al Qaeda? And the Taliban, the paramilitary wing of Saudi Arabia, carrying out the foreign policies of the USA by proxy, that Taliban?
@@view1st No I mean the Al Qaeda and Taliban that split off from the other Mujahedeen groups (resulting in a bloody civil war where Saudi Arabia supported those fighting against the Taliban) and then went on to orchestrate some of the worst terrorist attacks in recent human history.
I mean, you don't really believe that Bin Laden was saying the things he was saying because the CIA told him to, do you?
"We simply do not have a clue of what we are doing, if we are doing what we say we are doing." 7:40. Maybe the leaders are good at masking there Evil. Maybe evil rules the world.
Evil does indeed rule the world. You just get called anti semitic if you point this out.
He's good, excellent, his brother was one of a kind priceless individual, wished he was still around to expose the ruthlessness of the government involved in the current genocide of the Palestinians
His hatred of Islam and love of interventionism may have made that tricky
I hope John Bolton hears this
So should Douglas Murray
Doubt that it would penetrate.
John Bolton does not care for what is established by debate. He is a war hound, his very being feeds and sustains itself on the misery of others.
The density of Bolton’s skull is impenetrable to reason.
Me too but I doubt it would do any good. To a neocon like Bolton it’s a religion. A pretty dark one at that.
Always truthful and a brother to the Irish when being so was not popular.
Love Love Ekin-Su. So humbled & down to earth!!! ❤
That 'idealist on the balcony' got thoroughly Hitch-slapped.
That was fun to watch...
@@sv9818 , I'm surprised he didn't add, "And you look about the right age, sign-up", like he said to a lad in the audience on Question Time some years ago who said we should commit ground troops in Syria, priceless!
11:11. "Russian invasion was provoked". This might interest you. "Rand report prescribed US provocations against Russia predicted Russia might retaliate in Ukraine. The Rand Corporation, one of the main think tanks that the US DOD relies upon to draw its assessments, had anticipated the result of the long-lasting policy of antagonizing Russia: pushing Russia to retaliate. According to a Rand report of 2019 entitled: 'Overextending and Unbalancing Russia' the US goal is to undermine Russia just as it did the Soviet Union in the cold war. Rather than 'trying to stay ahead' or trying to improve the US domestically or in international relations, the emphasis is on efforts and actions to undermine the designated adversary Russia". Ukraine is to be where it happens. - " for reasons of geography and history, Ukraine is a major component of US/NATO effort to undermine Russia. Current Under Secretary for Political Affairs, Victoria Nuland, said that over 20 years the US invested 5 billion dollars in the project to turn Ukraine (another regime change). The culmination was a violent coup in February 2014 (covered by the BBC in which she was heard to say - "fk the Eu!" when they objected). Since 2015 the US has been training Ultra-Nationlist and Neo- Nazi militias. This has been documented in articles such as 'The US House admits Nazi role in Ukraine' (Robert Parry 2015). 'The US is arming and assisting Neo-Nazis in Ukraine while House debates prohibition' (Max Blumenthal, 2018). 'Neo-Nazis and the far-right are on the march in Ukraine' (Lev Golinken 2019). By the way, mainstream media like DW covered the rise of the nazis in Ukraine in 2014 which I found on RUclips. 'The CIA may be breeding Nazi terror' (Branko Marcetic, Jan 2022). Rick Sterling: Al Mayadeen.
Ukraine has been the slaughter ground for Communist apologists for long enough. They've decided to reject the old Soviet global slavery servicing the elites 'commune' vision entirely. It ain't happening Commies, the REAL working class is done with you, get over it.
@@korycassel5197 Russia is in the post-Communist Era. Putin is ex-KGB. Russia in the 90s gave itself over to the control of Neo-Cons - war hawks and Neo-Libertarians who made a mess of the economy and sucking out the wealth of the country and destroying the jobs and pensions of the Real working class and putting them into poverty with no help from the State because they weren't allowed to by the Americans who were there running everything for their benefit, not on behalf of the Real working class, you get over it. You mention "Soviet Global slavery servicing the Elites" You mean the US, don't you? It's been doing this since its inception as a country. In a long list of Regime changes and I'm not talking of Russia, the US also included the overthrow of Czarist Russia and the funding of the Bolshevik Revolution. "Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution: The remarkable true story of the American capitalists who financed the Russian Communists" Anthony C. Sutton. 'Dear Mr, President: I'm in sympathy with the Soviet form of government as that is best suited for the Russian people....'Letter to Woodrow Wilson (October 1918) from William Lawrence Saunders chairman Ingersoll - Rand corporation; director, American International Corp and Deputy Chairman, Federal Reserve of New York. Putin took back control, and America is State a capitalist/ Corporatist State. It isn't there for the working class. You obviously haven't read what I wrote.
I've always said Peter was the smarter Hitchens brother.
On the whole, I agree. I have a great deal of respect for both brothers, but for different reasons.
Less articulate and not as witty, but a deeper thinker.
Elder brother, Christopher, carried a lot of left wing baggage which often caused him to be dogmatic without wishing to be. Peter isn't on any wing.
Peter grew up, Christopher didn't really
I remember Christophers Hitchens saying the West should have invaded Iran soon after Iraq. I can't imagine that turning out well.
Peter Hitchens, always great. I wish there were more people in the West with both the courage and the eloquence he has.
😂
@@terry4137 In clear contrast to Peter Hitchens, who's always incredibly eloquent when communicating his ideas and POV, we have poor Terry here, whose entire intellectual repertoire can be summarized by an emoji...
His statements that Western intervention is always bad is not true. Example of that is European countries (Poland, Lithuania etc.), that joined the west are all more prosperous and free than they were before under influence of Russia. That is why Ukraine wants to join us, that is why they are fighting. Russia was not provoked, as far as I remember all independent countries (in this case Ukraine) have the right to join whatever alliances they want. Russia is an empire, a weak one. And a person who is "anti-imperialist" defends it. It sounds like a joke.
I think he meant military interventions. Poland and Lithuania are irrelevant examples here.
He's on top form here. Love it.
Indeed. This is Hitchens at his absolute best -- wise, erudite, eloquent, and fearless.
An intelligent conservative. A rare breed.
It did not used to be.
No, most small c are. Big C aren't. 2 completely different things. The Conservatives haven't conserved anything for the last 70 years.
@@evolassunglasses4673 Thatcher was the most revolutionary leader since Stalin.
A partially-literate leftist. A rare breed.
@@sv9818 The left tends to be more literate, more interested in theory and literature in general compared to the right.
I’ve come to believe that while our intervention in Ukraine is good, and it is good that it is supported by the west, it is not supported by the west because it is good.
Brilliant from Peter Hitchens who, for years, has been principled and consistent in his views.
We Christians are modest people; we do not want much, only ETERNAL LIFE.. LOL
Why is that dude flicking through his phone?!
Got a Grindr tap
Thers's a very good reason why his brother didn't speak to him....
@Dominion Philosophy Frankly they are both idiots
There are so many wonderful, great, humane, brains in this Country: yet not one of them is in PARLIAMENT.
Bravo Peter for trying to educate these so called intellectuals.
Very Interesting Thank you.
After reading PH's column this weekend, I'm feeling gratitude that I don't live in a city likely to be targeted.
Constant interruptions by ill-mannered oafs. Why is it permitted?
It's got nowt to do with cancelling them, it's got to do with protocol at a formal debate with everyone dressed formally. Even in the House of Commons, while MPs may heckle, they don't demand that they can interrupt with a question.
On the contrary, that's precisely the arranged format of these debates.
While Hitchens' points are valid, Putin has drawn back the curtain and revealed that the Russian Federation under his leadership has been CCCP 2.0 all along. Irrespective of the mistakes that led to this war, one has only to consider the horrors being inflicted on Ukraine, knowing the same fate awaits other former Soviet states should Russia prevail, to come to the conclusion that we cannot stand by and passively allow it to continue. The consequences of inaction are too great, for the economic and political stability of the world pivots on the outcome of this conflict.
Martin Luther King once said:
“Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?’ Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?' Vanity asks the question, 'Is it popular?' But, conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it because one's conscience tells one that it is right.”
This is one of those times.
Hi from Russia.
1. What horrors? This war like any other war. War is norm. Ask your American handlers if in doubt.
2. "Is it right?" - Only if/when you send your soldiers in Ukraine. Until then - you only prolong the agony of failed state, essentially acting as the deaths multiplier.
@@paulzx5034 The propaganda is strong in this one, young Padawan. How's the weather over there, Tovarich?
@@AnthonyB2351 -13C over Volga river, comrade
There have always been, and always will be, colonial and interventionalist powers. I have to wonder if any empire has left former colonies in better shape, generally, than the British? I suspect, even given all their bad actions, that they were better than most. I do agree though, a lot of recent interventions have been complete disasters.
Would you prefer British tribal “backwardness” or hypothetical enslavement to a technologically superior Arab race?
The Soviet Union.
@@view1st You cannot be serious.
The colonial powers tended to greatly improve the living standards of the places they conquered merely by introducing modern medicine, that was so momentous that it made even the terrible colonial powers greatly more of beneficial than than they were awful. Most other introductions were vast improvements to what had come before but very little of it was profitable, the current system is far more so while costing a lot less and ensuring in so far as possible that the little countries will never rise up the totem pole.
Brilliant argument by Peter Hitchens.
Forgot the part during my life where countries scared of Russia and trying to defend themselves against Russia made Russia attacking them their fault
Really important point Peter Hitchens makes, is his statement at end, about the real cause behind the tragic conflict being played out in the Ukraine! It wonderfully ties up his whole argument . And I didn't realize this is supported by Noam Chomsky and Henry Kissinger, who have never agreed on anything!
Peter Hitchens never disappoints for sure
Usually, I agree with him but sometimes I think he spends so long blaming the West. He sometimes gets it wrong the invasion of ukraine being one of those times ..
Prigozhin 2 months ago told us the invasion was a vanity project for the Russian MOD, NATO was the excuse
They took back crimea for mother Russia in 2014 and the west done nothing they figured they could take the rest of ukraine now ..
It should also be noted that countries like the baltic nations looked at what happened to chechnya and feared they would be next so they begged to be left in ..
From what we see now they had a point ..
Too easy to always point at the west ,
Many russian nationalists wanted the USSR back regardless of NATO
Perhaps it’s time these well spoken gentlemen did the fighting themselves
My daughter's Ancestor was Sir Francis Younghusband, who ceded Tibet to then Western Controlled China on behalf of Great Game Britain to Counter Russia in 1906. The Retreat from Kabul was about 1840, the year Britain signed a Minsk Type Treaty of Waitangi to delay and enable a Military Build up until 1860. Now THEY are pulling out The Treaty to Divide and Rule over Water in New Zealand.
Excellent.
Regardless of whether you agree with him, you must admit that you're fortunate to have heard him speak.
but more fortunate to have heard his brother speak...if truth is of any value this day and age...
@@steven2183 they did debate each other publicly at least once, proving they are not always right. Overall, my money is on Peter
@@mikevolante7663 I saw the debate and I think the audience voted for Christopher if I remember correctly. I understand the appeal of pascal's wager but I don't look at them like ponies in a horse race... my only concern is whether or not what they say is accurate or not...
First class!!!
Brilliant.
Well said Peter! I will be saving and sharing. Thanks so much.
There is much in the argument that most interventions are not for the reasons (often mythical) given and are usually self-serving at some level. I suspect that the reasons for Russian agression in the Ukraine go even further back than Hitchens allows - to Russian imperialism, the events of the First World War - in other words unresolved tensions of which the expansion of Nato is a symptom
The Ukraine Civil War goes back to February 2014 when the EU/NATO overthrew Viktor Yanukovych.
Not content with replacing Yanukovych with neo n@zi groups like the Azov and Kraken, the West encouraged the new Ukrainian leadership to ethnically cleanse Southern and Eastern Ukraine of Russian speakers. Atrocities like the Odessa Fire then occurred.
The Russian speakers of the Donbas in Luhansk and Donetsk fought back and were winning the civil war when Merkel persuaded Putin to broker a peace agreement (Minsk Agreement). We now know that the West brokered the Minsk Agreement under false pretences.
Putin has recently stated that Minsk was a mistake and given the fact that Ukraine never intended to follow Minsk and allowed Ukraine to murder at least 14,000 Russian speakers in the Donbas before the SMO started.
It goes back as far as Russia existing, Kiev as the capital of the first orthodox Russian state was immensely powerful as a tool of legitimacy and Ukraine itself was needed as a gateway into the Russian heartland and the path of tartar slave raiders, Crimea gives access to the black sea, the old Russian ambition is conquering Turkey and other than the Soviets it has always been the end goal of Russian statehood, warm water ports and strategic depth have been the other overriding considerations.
Examples of “western” interventions are way too generalized and broad. The UK hasn’t had the same agendas as for example France or the US for that matter. So making these generalizations undermines his line of argument.
Who are “we” that he talks about. The Baltics have their history and a completely different view than Hitchens. If he only means UK then maybe fine?
Right on and right every word.
Well said Peter.
Peter Hitchens. Thank you for your educating talk.I look forward to more of them.
Well done to him for eschewing easy plaudits and condemning Western intervention in Ukraine as well as lower-hanging fruit like Iraq and Afghanistan. The evil of US imperialism cannot be understood without reckoning with its behind the scenes interventions, as well as its direct military engagements.
go on then and apologise for the Russian imperialism
@@Kloozy1 I'm sorry for Russian imperialism. Feel better now?
@avonacolyte apologise to the Ukrainians, not to me
@@Kloozy1 No.
As a person who has spent 14 years of my life in the western humanitarian industry including 2 years in Somalia during the 1990's. Thank you Peter Hitchens! Honesty is so rare it is truly the most precious character trait that a person can have these days.
Powerful 👍
Many heard , how many listened .. that i canot say. A brave man who daringly told the truth. I am reminded of someone else who acted thus. A brave man, a soldier when his country needed him, a friend who saved a young life in battle, a man who withstood ridicule, who spoke uncomfortable truths the elite did not wish to hear.
Who spoke of misrepresentation and neglect, of human beings, of lies that sounded good, but were poison far more bitter, than the one he was forced to take in the end.
Let us hope the end is different this time.
Good to see this. Liberal interventionism needs to cease.
I disagree with Peter on a lot of things (religion, culture/multiculturalism, monarchy, "Tradition", etc) but this is definitely where I agree with him and when he's at his best. Peter the Critical Journalist mode
Sounds like a Tsar. Peter the Critical.
“When he’s at his best” because you happen to agree with Mr Hitchens on the matter at hand? Peter Hitchens brings this level of scrutiny, objectiveness and thought to every discussion he is involved in. He is an individual and thinks as an individual, disregarding bias and nonsense. I don’t accept all of what Mr Hitchens has to say but regardless of his subject matter I listen and give serious consideration to the man’s argument. Mr Hitchens (to me) has been at “his best” while his debate has opposed that of my own, because he is willing to stand alone.
This is great. One question though, are the bow ties mandatory or are these three gentlemen part of the bow tie revolution?
He's a national treasure.
Those kids sitting behind at the throne are starting to think in terms of humanitarian aggression/intervention/colonialism/etc.
well said.
Yes, it has but since no-one wants it let’s pull back and focus on strengthening ourselves instead of uselessly propping up failing groups.
Look at those bored, uninterested products of the consumer society.
Exporting and imposing a foreign system of life on a culture which has survived thousands of years is immoral.
If you want to spread the seeds of democracy, doing it at the barrel of a gun is perverse. Intervening in clear cut cases is a moral duty, e.g. UN peace-keeping during a genocide. Helping a country fight an aggressor.
It's always intrigued me how the the same people who condemn 19th century western imperialism, which did so much to end slavery, cannibalism, feudalism, warlordism and many other ghastly things all over the world: are whole-heartedly in favour of the modern variety of western interventionism which has managed to make almost everything worse for everyone we've ever "helped".
9:10 lol that girl reacting to his roast of the pro interventionist
So what should we do about Russia's interventionism?
Excellent speech.
Kissinger has recently said he was wrong about Ukraine.
Wicked, been waiting for this for a while, glad you recorded it.
That was pretty epic.
The Egyptians removed the Muslim brotherhood...not the army...and thank God for that 🙏
The Egyptian army protected us & defended us against these terrorists...
well said sir!!!!!!!!!
Thank you Mr. Hitchens! As an American, I deeply wish your voice were heard in my misguided country.
Why didn't the kid on the right make an effort?
Well put!
Good to hear the truth
Whatever happened to 'dress code'?
What you have to ask is why so many politicians who control the interventions don't agree with him.And are allowed to creat the misery & chaos but not held responsible & suffer no consequences.
The sons and daughters of the Western ruling class never lead troops on the ground in these expeditions.
Thank you for the truth.
Well said Peter
There is little use debating these things when people have a long term memory equal to just one news cycle.
ps If we want to know why we intervene in other countries then perhaps you should invite on King Charles, the City of London, and the top of our establishment to explain things. They're the ones calling the shots.
Ukraine was a part of the Soviet Union from 1922 until 1991. That did not pose a threat to America or Europe or Nato. People have lost their minds.
Fortunately there are some Brits standing up against BBC tripe.
We (the citizens) must create a system in which politicians, academics, and theorists of all types who propagate and enact policies and actions by the nation are personally responsible for the results of those acts and policies.