Why Wait To Disarm Iran?
Slate.com / Christopher Hitchens
22-Oct-2009 (4 comments)

A contradiction must be faced by those of us who don't especially like the propaganda name neoconservative but who wish that there was a useful term for someone who favors a robust American attitude toward totalitarian and aggressive states. This contradiction often takes the form of wanting to emphasize a threat without overstating it. One can begin by viewing this argument from its opposite side. In the recent past, extremely nasty and dangerous one-party or one-man regimes in Serbia and Iraq have made real trouble for their neighbors and been a nightmare to their "own" people and have mocked all the canons of international law but have been considered by many commentators as too risky to confront. Go look this up, and you will discover that those who didn't want to confront Slobodan Milosevic or Saddam Hussein would always stress the awesome power of violence that they had at their command.

Anonymous Observer

Rush to Disarm

by Anonymous Observer on

Disclaimer: posting this article does not mean agreement with its contents.  I like Christopher Hitchens' writing style, but do not necessarily agree with his point of view.



AO, I sure had no idea my closed mindedness was so...

by Ostaad on

obvious! Thanks for pointing that out. I'm going to take care of that problem lickety spit.

As for posting articles, whose content you don't agree with but adore the writing style, I'm afraid that's like saying I eat crappy food because I like the packaging.

Keep posting, homie. You have the right to post anything your heart desires. 

Anonymous Observer

That's right Ostaad

by Anonymous Observer on

As much as it can come as a surprise to a closed minded person like you, one can post news articles without agreeing with them. As my blog here //iranian.com/main/blog/anonymous-observer/top-ten-similarities-between-republican-right-wing-and-iri shows (which is still on the front page) I am no fan of the right wing, where Hitchens squarely placed himself beginning in the 1990's.  But I do like his writing style and I do like his atheism.  I loved his book "God Is Not Great". 

So, I post his stuff, and other news that I think is interesting, including one below on this site, which quotes the IRI's police chief.  By your logic, I have to agree with him as well?  No? 


Disclaimer: posting this response to Chris Hitchens's article...

by Ostaad on

does not mean agreement with its contents. I like the poster's writing style, and do not "necessarily agree with his point of view...actually I don't give a sh*t about his opinion ;<{O

But here it is... peef...peef:

"The thing I find most tiresome of this kind of argument is the
circular nature of the discourse. I don't take issue with the
conclusions (questions, really) Hitchens raises in his article. My
complaint is that nowhere does he offer any pragmatic solution short of
military action. Historical precedent is pretty clear now how that
would turn out.

I'm no peacenik; show me an actionable threat to
the security of the United States and I'm all for bombing the hell out
of them. But few experts believe military action in of itself will
accomplish any of the goals we seek. It won't stop Iran's government
from continuing to pursue a weapon. It won't deter them from any course
of action they've already determined. And any military action on our
part will only end up strengthening the current regime and rallying the
general populace firmly behind them. (Bush approval rating pre 9/11 =
40%; in the days after it rose to 93%. I'm not trying to equate the
former president with anyone in Iran. I'm simply making an observation
that external threats to a government often cause a massive rise in,
internal, support.)

So..short of invading, occupying, and then at
swordpoint (so to speak) dismantling the current Iranian government and
its nuclear ambitions...what, exactly, is Hitchen's proposing?

The answers I hear, from both "sides" of the aisle are incredibly unsatisfying. It's a huge mess with no simple answers."

-- LurkingGrendel

This response by a reader to Hitchens's piece is copied and pasted here from Slate.

BTW, whenever I read something written by Chris, I always wonder how many glasses of Whiskey he had to drink before coming up with his usual crap? I think the main reason why Hichens's arguments are circular is mainly because he's a drunk, that's all!