There Can Be Only One…Wanker

Wow. So that’s what happened to the guy who gave us Wired. He was always a fluffer for capitalism, but I hadn’t realized that after selling out to Conde Nast, he’d slid from his roots in the Whole Earth Review all the way into Hitchens territory.

I nominate “personfromporlock” as a write-in vote.

I have been waiting for a while for an opportunity to write about Pajamas Media and use the joke “never had the Internet seen such a collection of bores, halfwits and second raters, or at least not since Glenn Reynolds blogged alone” and I suspect this is as near as I’m going to get, so I vote Instapundit.

Some inside information that might sway the voting: respondents were requested to keep each answer “brief, a line or two.”

That plus the way his answer skitters from Iraq to his *real* enemies in “the antiwar movement” like a lazy eye convinces me to cast my own vote for Louis Rossetto.

I vote for Oliver Kamm. No I know he’s not on the list. But he is, unquestionably, a wanker.

Incidentally, has Christopher Hitchens actually ever killed anyone? I mean, honestly? If you didn’t know who he was, and were told that some of his more bloodthirsty rhetoric was written by Charles Manson or Pol Pot or someone similar I think you would believe it. The entire political class of Russia and France are ‘scum’. He boasts that we have turned Iraq into a ‘killing field’ (and promises that other countries will be so transformed). Then there was that other interview in which he explained that he loved to inflict pain and suffering (or whatever it was) on his political opponents. Then there was his praise of cluster bombs (i.e. mines), his complaint that ‘the death toll is not high enough’, and his statement that it is a ‘pleasure’ to fight (and, presumably, kill) ‘jihadists’. The man appears to be some kind of unhinged psychopath.

Finally: ‘Yes: I was an advocate (of the war) before the fact, not a supporter.’.

Has anyone ever called him on this (very easy to disprove) lie?

I’ve got to give it to Rossetto for sounding like something that Jack Kirby ought to be illustrating.

I found Hitchens’ call for a “killing field” rather chilling. In my mind the phrase “killing field” is associated with mass slaughter. It’s especially disturbing that it comes from someone who predicted on January 28, 2003 that the Iraq invasion “will be no war — there will be a fairly brief and ruthless military intervention”. Will he at least admit that he was wrong that the war would be brief, and that it now apparently requires mass slaughter to achieve success?

As highly qualified as each of the official candidates may be, I feel compelled to submit a write-in: Ronald Bailey, Reason’s science correspondent.

1. Did you support the invasion of Iraq?
Yes.

2. Have you changed your position?
Not yet—but the history of the last three years in Iraq has greatly deepened my appreciation of the Federal government’s abilty to screw up anything.

What a breathtaking example of schmibertarianism at its finest: It wasn’t Bush who lost Iraq, or Rumsfeld or Rice or Bremer or Powell or any of the others. No, it was “the Federal Government.”
Delicious.

I’d have to go with Rosetto, too — at least Hitchens has the honesty to talk about killing people. What is this ‘reducing our enemies’ crap? If you’re going to swagger about like Rambo, you should at least be honest about it (unself-aware, perhaps, but at least let’s call things by their real names — he makes it sound as if he’s proposing to make a sauce or something.) Macho militaristic bluster is generally obnoxious, but macho militaristic bluster trying to hide behind weird technocratic jargon is even more annoying.

Macho militaristic bluster is not any more acceptable if couched in bluntly, militaristically macho language like “Kill, kill, kill, kill, kill, kill, kill, kill, kill!” than if rendered as “inflict damage upon our adversaries’ human resources.”

I’ve got another “write-in vote”:http://www.nytimes.com/marketing/winatrip/ for a dark-horse candidate.

Rosetto wins by a mile.

He reminds me of this guy I went to college with.

and this is coming from someone who actualyl supported the invasion! which I was wrong to do, because it was just a really bad idea. boy, was I ever wrong. with wrongness and mistaken sprinkles on top, and a cherry of total idiocy.
Posted by Belle Waring

I applaud your honesty and nominate you for un-wanker of the day.

Hitchens for wanker.

Charles Murray’s response is not wanking at all, just ignorant, and honestly so.

Hitchens is a little bit wankish, but it’s really just arrogance. He’s made a very flawed analysis of the situation, and has not an inkling that’s so.

Glenn is being dishonest and condescending.

For pure wankery, it’s the Wired guy by a mile.

Louis Rosetto. Not least because this a networked fascist movement of super-empowered individuals trying to undo 50K years of social evolution made me think that he thinks we invaded Pandagon and Feministe and not Iraq.

Hitchens as Russell?!? Well, I suppose Russell did have his stuff on logic to fall back on, but his stuff on politics seemed more the sort of thing that a reasonably clever A-Level student could come up with.

Why are we offering our ill-informed, fallible opinions? Why don’t we just ask The Editors at the Poor Man Institute? Surely he is the gold-standard now in all areas of wankegnition, wanquantification, and multi-variate wankregression.

So the reading world wants to know: What do the Editors say?

I would’ve put in David Brooks, who has since seen the error of his ways, O Lawdy, and has seen the Light and is admitting that Iraq was a big mistake (without, of course, naming any big names).

Hallelujah!

Btw,for those of you just tuning in: Happy Third Anniversary, courtesy of Assclowns of the Week #31.

30: He makes mistakes—perhaps not giving sufficient attention to the loss of Iraqi civilians—yet his analysis is far from flawed

“Perhaps not giving sufficient attention.” Nice.

Yeah, he’s “far from flawed” except for being almost completely wrong most of the time, refusing to admit error and piling outright dishonesty on his mistakes. Which is why he’s obviously still a hit with the sort who think soundbites like “you don’t bargain with people who fly planes into buildings” are “realpolitik” showstoppers.

A Bertrand Russell Hitchens is not; he’s a journalist, not a philosopher or professor. But both were concerned with the dangers of theocracy and organized religion, and had issues with communists as well as with the right. Hitchens is probably a more polished literary stylist (not a wanker in the English loser sense) but that is not always an advantage; tho’ Russell himself flashes a rather Voltairean wit here and there. Not to do some “whatiffery” but I doubt Russell would have, apres-9-11, remained alongside the PC multiculturalists and leftists.

Rossetto is, qua wanker, the biggest, but…

When referring to wanking in public discourse, it is necessary to evaluate factors other than the bug-eyed furiousness of the activity. One must also take into account the number of people watching, and how seriously they take the proceedings to be something other than wanking. Although Reynolds commands a large, er, readership, even the most dedicated are aware he’s pretty much a dilettante.

A large number of influential people actually take Hitch seriously. Historians will actually bother sniffing through his intellectual ‘output’. So I must vote for him, with bonus points for baroque patterns of rhythm and inflection.

and if it takes war to take the jihadists down, so be it.

DING DING DING!!!!

With every credible piece of evidence pointing in the opposite direction of this particular “if”, “jake” pretty much says, “I got nuthin’. I just like to disagree with liberals, because they make me feel stupid.”

Reynolds is a least smart enough not to actually describe his retarded logic.

Rossetto is swimming in incoherent bullshit and “Global Village” catchphrases. Isn’t the pro-war movement stuck in a Groundhog day Vietnam flashback too?

but it’s Hitchens’ Killing Fields actually takes it for out and out heartless, cold-blooded disrespect for human life.

Yeah of course Russell, who during WWI went to prison for six months for his pacifism, would no doubt have swung entirely behind the pro-war faction post-Sept 11th.

jake: if it takes war to take the jihadists down, so be it.

I vote that this be named the “Hammer of Idiocy” strategy.

Usage: “If Bertrand Russell were alive today, he would be writing for Frontpage Magazine! Also, we must hit our enemies again with our Hammer of Idiocy!”

more of the typical college-squid guilt by association: one shows some support for the war, thus one supports Limbaugh and is another cad. Bogus. Russell was not a pacifist during WWII, btw. But that’s beside the point.

Like most of the cafe-liberal sentimentalists, you are assuming (or have been indocrinated by some pathetic marxist professors) that war at any cost is wrong (unless perhaps waged by marxists, right). That’s not always justifiable. There were grounds for going into Afghan. and Iraq. BushCo might have botched Iraq to some extent. But you’re not there; you don’t know what the intelligence people know; and you have no sense of respect or indeed honor or valor–even Ezra Pound would have called you a bitch.

Give War a chance.

And the real “mirage” is that anyone opposed to the muslim barbarians is like taking side with Hermann Goering. Hitchens however arrogant is not a fascist: the fascists are in Iran calling for an end to Israel and all sorts of other things

well, i had it for rosetto, with prof instanitwit a close second, but commenter jake certainly has come on strong. still, he doesn’t quite surpass rosetto, but he beats out reynolds (whom he may actually be – that’s a joke, son).

ok, i take it back: now that i’ve read jake’s 11:43, he wins! good work, jake!

it’s realpolitik: you don’t bargain with people who fly planes into buildings or who behead men and women on videotape. Capiche?

And to the extent that it’s relevant to terrorism, installing an Islamic theocracy with limited coercive capicty in Iraq is clearly counterproductive, so your “realpolitik” is a risible non-sequitur. Capiche?

Note to future self: do not feed the troll.

Jake for wanker. Oh, and troll of the day. Quit feeding him.

jake, who are you really? Is that you dsquared? Good one.

53: You’re quite right.

more of the typical college-squid guilt by association

“college-squid”: how dare you! you, you, you chambered nautilus,, you.

I know they say don’t feed the troll, but I think in this case we need to make an exception, to keep the dada insults flowing.

OOoooooo–time for some deep philosophical semantics: “troll” accusations.

It’s amazing how hepcat leftists turn into sunday school moralists and J-Edgar-like censors as soon as someone challenges one of their sockhopper assumptions about violence and warfare

Besides, let’s say Hitchens’ views are not completely accurate in regards to the justification of the war. And people still support him, knowing this. So? It’s not like someone say supporting the vichy (ie. Derrida, by proxy at least). Tant Pis.

Actually, Russell was a logician, not a bungalow sahib like Hitchens. This is why he knew all about outcomes. If you are fighting Islamicists by increasing Islamicist power, you are transgressing against the law and the prophets, also known as the truth tables. As for Russell and communism, his well known opposition to the war in Vietnam, which resulted in him creating a tribunal in Sweden to stage mock trials of U.S. war crimes, tells us, I think, how to project his opinion of the fool’s war in Iraq. I would love to read Russell’s opinion of Abu Ghraib and the torture camps dotted, now, through Iraq and elsewhere.

His heirs, by the way — literally, the foundation he set up — publishes a very nice lefty magazine: the spokesman. And those nice people seem to find the war a hoax and a horror, and publish quite a lot of anti-war stuff.

http://www.spokesmanbooks.com/Spokesman/The_Spokesman.htm

Yea, poet I am not, donkeyshane. But sockhop–that describes the shall we say superficial territoriality of the anti-war at any cost crowd. The recent psychotic reaction to the Danish cartoons is further evidence of the sort of homicidal enthusiasm of Islamicists, yet the typical mall liberal overlooks the riots of iconoclasts: he wants to make sure that no one supports blasphemy or egads negative portrayals of the Prophet: 20 years ago, leftists argued the complete opposite. Their pimps (ie. union bossses, herr doktor professors, etc.) gave them different orders

Correct me if I’m wrong, but, since all the prospective killing Hitchens is hoping for will take place in urban settings among the Iraqi citizenry, is he not openly wishing that these people, whose ‘liberation’ he fervently called for, will be subjected to a living hell for years to come?

I reached my abiding opposition to the war using nothing more recent that St. Thomas Aquinas.

How does jake’s line of analysis explain me?

Do I have a copy of the Summa tucked in amongst all my NAMBLA?

Yeah that’s right, college boy, I support Hitchens as well as the US Military, and what’s more I am not republican, nor a Xtian: and if it takes war to take the jihadists down, so be it.

Well, Jake: barring the possibility that you are actually serving in the armed forces (or have some disability preventing you), I’m nominating you for ur-wanker of this thread. Why? Because I think all of your talk about “supporting the troops” is just one wank from start to finish.

If it takes war to to take the jihadists down, as you say, do something real about it… like enlist. Or donate cash for body armor and toothbrushes for troops. Or help out at a VA hospital. Not bloody bumper stickers nor harrassing comment threads.

Of course, if you have done any of those things, then I will withdraw my nomination. I’m waiting.

I vote Instapundit.

Prescribing victory as the next step in the war is a deliciously insta-hackish.

And the next step in oncology research is: eliminate cancer!

Of course, leftists aren’t really anti-cancer. They’re on the other side.

keef

Jake–

Have you ever served in the military? Fought in a war? Read, say, the Marine Corps’ Small Wars Manual? There’s a reason cigar-chomping, poker-playing hard-asses like Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni were against the war in Iraq–and they have nothing to do with sockhopping commie leftists. It mostly had to do with a sense of history and a dash of common sense–two things emminently lacking in the Bush Administration’s doings.

As for Hitchens, I’ll grant him a bit more credit than many here. Yes, he can be slapdash (and less-than-sober)–but I think I can find some coherent sense in his rants, vis. Iraq. He’s wrong about the value of armed force in combatting Islamic terrorism/fundamentalism, but really: we do have something of a problem on our hands here, no?

I can confirm I am not Jake, though I have noted the ploy of occasionally claiming not to be a right-winger for future use; it’s brilliant.

Almost as Bwilliant as my claim to be a marxist-trotskyite for twenty years. It fooled eveyone at the Nation and Socialist Workers Daily. That along with my per Diem from MI6 bought my pad in washington DC.

I liked the short intro lines.

“Stand, kill, and train” – Christopher Hitchens

Don’t keep score, just exercise your killing skills.

“Win” – Glenn Reynolds

As in the lottery, just keep buying tickets until you get the big prize.

“Fascists and fascism” – Louis Rossetto

Those were the days.

Everyone who has talked about Marx on this thread raise your hand. OK, jake, now please explain what he has to do with any of this.

Hitchens, obviously. For the sheer drunken viciousness of this: “The United States and its allies should continue to stand for federal democracy, while making Iraq a killing-field for jihadists and fascists and a training ground for an army that will need to intervene again in other failed state/rogue state contexts.”

Fuck what Iraqi’s want – we’ll make their country a killing-field. Useful to know that Hitchens hasn’t moved much on from Pol Pot, despite his veering, lurching stumble rightwards.

And of course, what REAL Iraqis want is for their country to be a training ground for an American army. How can we tell? The ones who don’t are terrorists. Easy.

(ref 18, rasselas) – someone who doesn’t know the story of Coleridge and the person from porlock, obviously. in the standard telling the PFP interrupts genius at work, imposes drivel, and causes greatness to be lost. :)_

Okay, technical question: it seems like the comments thread has expanded in a very weird way, interpolating a bunch of new comments throughout the thread and messing up most of the numerical post attributions. Is this normal? Am I taking crazy-pills?

dr. slack —

welcome to the world of moderated comments…

welcome to the world of moderated comments…

*slaps forehead*

But Iraq is not the war, it is a battle. The war is The Long War against Islamic fascism.

So, Iraq invasion was, quite counterintuitively, a battle against Islamic fascism? Where’s the next battle against Islamic fascism – Venezuela? Or Canada maybe?

Dan Simon–

As someone who had no doubt about the war in Iraq being a bad idea, I empathize with Belle’s sentiment (and, for same reasons, am willing to cut Hitchens a certain amount of slack)–fundamentalist Islamic terrorism is a problem. Saddam Hussein is a bad guy.

There have been significant Islamic terrorist attacks on NY, London, Madrid, Saudi Arabia (Khobar), Kenya, Tanzania, Bali… this suggests we have a serious problem on our hands.

Now, the Coulter solution is obviously ridiculous–as was the invasion of Iraq–but it doesn’t take a lot of empathy to see how many proper-thinking folks could have seen Iraq as an opportunity. Mistakenly so–but not entirely wrong-headed w/r/t the end result: namely, the elimination of one bad guy and the possibility of stabilization in an area deeply in need of such.

This is so difficult! Kind of like having to choose between three beautiful and smart women, but less satisfying. Rossetto is clearly insane and Reynolds an obvious moron.

However, since there’s no wanker like a drunk wanker, I have to go with Hitchens. Especially since he thinks he’s a “liberal.” Hah.

Dale,

I wouldn’t worry about “jake” any more. He decided to visit the local recruiter’s office, and is now on the bus to Parris Island as I write. Honest.

Rossetto, for litterary reasons. Could have been Hitchens, but i like my wankers incoherent, and there’s a purpose in that oil-for-food mania.

the influence of oil-for-food racketeers and other political scum.

It sounds like that cute old line, sooo 2003, etc. Hitch’s being a cutie, you may say.

But there’s a method in there : as long as it we’re talking about the oilforfoodscandal, we’re not talking about the embargo.

It is important to them, because the warnuts fallback position is “it was for the iraqi people”. But they don’t give a damn about them, because they didn’t give a damn about the embargo, who martyred the iraqi people.

So the oilforfoodscandal (corruption! in! oil! tradings! with! a! distatorship! under! embargo!!!) is useful, necessary even. Hitch, masquerading as a mere wanker, had a point : unfit for wankery.

saigon (106): as eddie izzard is wont to say “in his MIIIIINNNNNNDDDDD”, perhaps.

Are we talking about Hitchins when he is sober or when he is drunk…or is there a difference?

“Sockhopper”?

No, really: “Sockhopper”? Sure, post 59 contains some truely bizarre punctuation, but that’s the single lamest insult I’ve heard in ages.

“What the hell does fascism have to do with any of this? I don’t see any fascists.”

Well it’s not a big stretch to say that Saddam is a Fascist, in the colloquial sense. An Islamist, however, he is not – as many of his Islamist victims (or at least their surviving friends) would attest.

Can I register a late vote for Reynolds as Wanker-in-Chief on the basis of this:

“Saddam was a threat (no he wasn’t), making any other action in the region impossible (not that anybody in the US or British governments tried to find out).”

I’m going with Hitchens, who seems happy to throw around the term “killing field” without acknowledging where that term came from. He may as well have suggested that winning in Iraq will be our Final Solution.

He also wins for so openly disregarding what will happen to the millions of people who live in his brand new Killing Field.

yes it’s me. Instead of mentioning the sanctions I mentioned the inevitable oil smuggling that resulted from a policy of starvation. Very clever observation. I’m inhuman.

The other two have more wanker bona fides and a bigger podium, but Rosetto displays echt wankitude with not-so-subtle accents from LGF land here. A couple of questions:

super-empowered individuals

He’s worried about terrorists who’ve read all of Dr. Phil?

Waiting to get hit by an NBC weapon is not an option.

What’s an NBC weapon? The wrath of Matt Lauer upon discovering his “Q” rating has tanked?

yes it’s me. Instead of mentioning the sanctions I mentioned the inevitable oil smuggling that resulted from a policy of starvation. Very clever observation. I’m inhuman.

Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t. However, I think the “could’ve been Hitchens” was a reference to the honor of being wanker for the day rather than your advent on this thread. Put aside the bottle of Boodles, it’s easier to read with unblurred vision.

Oooh… it’s so hard to choose between the wankers in the original post and the wankers on the thread. Damn! I’d have to go with Rosetto tho for the ‘fellow travelers on the left’ altho Hitchen’s ‘what the US should do now … win’ comment is sidesplitting. But it’s kind of academic really since even though the fellow travelers on the right have different names they’re all connected to the same Borg brain.

“Who the hell names himself “personfromporlock”?”

I agree, that is a ridiculous name–so self-consciously clever and très unusual.

Anyway, Hitchens wins, but only because he is a wanton wanker; whereas for the other two being a wanker is in their nature.

No offense to the many smart and clever commenters here, but I can’t be the only one who just started skimming for Jake comments around 75 or so.

I’m sorry that I didn’t see “Bitchens” in the thread yet. “Instapuke” was a good one, though.

I’d like to submit “Instafurher” and “Hit(ler)chins” for use in the future.

I think if we use these, people won’t be able to disagree with any point we make about them. Who wants to take the side of a Nazi?

We’ll have them right where we want them.

Louis Rosetto is tempting, but it has to be Hitchens. Everything else he’s ever done condemning Kissenger and even Mother Teresa for their callousness toward human life and suffering should have led him elsewhere, and that “killing field” thing is what we get instead.

The wankiest part is how he got there. This all started with his personal resentment of some guy he went to Oxford with who got to become President of the United States. That kind of pettiness would be tragic if we could only bring ourselves to care about Hitchens in the first place.

They’re all wankers, but Rosetto has to take the prize cup on the strength of his legendary wanking for accuracy, precision, velocity and distance. The others are just phoning it in.

“Glenn is being dishonest and condescending.”

So what’s new?

What exactly did Christopher Hitchens say above that was wrong? And what is so wrong with making a killing field for jihadists? Do we not want them to be killed? if not what do we want?

Are Oil-For-Food racketeers and people who otherwise profit from Saddam’s regime not political scum? If not, what are they?

I really would like to know what…people want, because all i’m hearing here is pointless aprobium and sneering at a man who feels very passionately about democracy, freedom and cosmopolitan modernity….not just as talking points but as actual ideas.

If support for the war qualifies you for being called a wanker should we call Kant and Rawls wankers ? ( I know you should also be unrepentant ). I ask because a very strong case can be made that Kant would support the invasion ; especially in his ‘Metaphysics of Morals’ ( note I am not talking about his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals which is a different work and much earlier ) where he discusses nature of republican government and provides strong argument for dealing with rogue states such preinvasion Iraq was .
Similarly Rawls in his ‘Law of the People’ develops an argument which provides a rationale for dealing with roque states.
So we must I am affraid ask : if the leftie outlook entails that some of the greatest western minds come out as wankers do we not have here a reductio of the leftie values ? ( recall that if P implies a contradiction then P must be false by modus tolens ).

Iain/#148 – I want to know exactly what the people here hate so much about the idea of killing mysoginistic fascists.

Quoted ironically:
http://fugs-lyrics.wonderlyrics.com/Kill-For-Peace.html

“Kill, kill, kill for peace
Kill, kill, kill for peace
Near or middle or very far east
Far or near or very middle east
Kill, kill, kill for peace
Kill, kill, kill for peace
If you don’t like the people
or the way that they talk
If you don’t like their manners
or they way that they walk,
Kill, kill, kill for peace
Kill, kill, kill for peace”

I’m with Walt. Troll of Sorrow. On his meds, but they’re wearing of a little.

Re Hitchens – his sin is simple he is providing intellectual support to the great satan ( Bush , capital, super rich, the rich jews or whatever ); the merits of his case ( the argument itself and whwther it is sound ) are neither here nor there , because we are in the ideological war with the hegemon and anyone who is not on our side ( loonie left/loonie right ) is the enemy . This is the script so stop being a pest.

I shouldn’t bring up anti-Semitism in the context of Christopher Hitchens if I were you. He is, after all, an outspoken apologist for the professional holocaust denier David Irving. All in the name democracy, free speech, etc. Understandible, in a man whose bread and butter is slanging on people more notable than himself. His obsession with the Clintons and the late Princess Diana being good examples, not to mention his tagging Mother Teresa as the “Ghoul of Calcutta”.

The Right’s embrace of Hitchens is remarkable. Not because of his lapsed Trotskyism but considering that his criticisms of “Islamofascism” are spawn of his visceral hatred for all religion.

Reliance on such “intellectual” support is partial explanation for why the current regime has morphed into such a mammoth cock up. Stupid is as stupid does.

Oh no! Oh my! Caught joking by the “decent left” at the expense of many-times-refuted arguments! The jig is up!

Iain: Seriously, though, I’m going to assume your question is sincere and tell you straight why I find the Hitchens quote repulsive. In one of his rare moments of lucidity in recent years, Hitch criticized American “force protection” practices and the associated civilian casualties — but here, he blithely talks about “killing fields for jihadists and fascists” without a hint of moral compunction, as if the complicating factor of civilian death were simply not worth mentioning. (Never mind the fact that he’s never really come to terms with the apparent reality of such “killing fields” as a recruitment tool for such “jihadists and fascists.”)

Zdenek: When you can identify the potential fallacy in implying that Kant’s just war doctrine would make it likely for him to support the Iraq War in particular, and explain why you don’t feel your argument falls afoul of that fallacy, your talk about “good” and “bad” arguments and “leftie values” will be worth a little more.

As far as I’m aware, nothing in Kant or Rawls political and moral theories requires they pursue policies almost certainly destined to fail, even if we concede they might have supported the idea of the Iraq war. And I agree: the greatest folly isn’t the lack of liberalism, but the lack of common sense, awareness of limitations, and good old-fashioned Burkean caution.

w.b. reeves #153 – Aint nothing wrong with being an iconoclast, Mother Theresa WAS a bloody ghoul, Mahatma Ghandi was a condescending racist and Henry Kissinger was…all sorts of stuff.

So CH affirms your own bias. Message received. I note that you don’t mention his dancing on Princess Diana’s grave or his defenses of David Irving. You prefer to introduce Ghandi and Kissinger, whom I did not mention, by way of diversion. A trifle transparent don’t you think?

As for the left attacking Hitchens in the manner of this post (and Atrios and various other blogs) it really is a shame. Because Christopher Hitchens, in championing the causes of the Kurds and the Palestinians, in offering moral support to those progressives in Iraq who are being attacked by fascists at home and being met with a callous indifference by ‘liberals’ abroad, is a much better liberal social democrat than any guttersnipe blogger.

My, quite the fan aren’t you? Isn’t it a bit weird to be touting CH’s “liberal social democrat” bona fides since he himself has disowned them? Being neither a liberal or Social Democrat myself, his standing as such, or lack thereof, is a matter of complete indifference to me. I would have thought that obvious since I dispensed with the political question in favor of addressing CH’s ingrained hostility to religion in all its forms.

“Guttersnipe blogger”, eh? So tell me, how is the view from Belgravia these days?

Ian, the repulsiveness is on several fronts.

a. The term killing field, first. To oppose the Al Qaeda paramilitaries is one thing. To speak of a killing field is something entirely different. It evokes, for one thing, non-discrimination among killings. It also makes killing itself seem like an activity to relish. The rhetorical enjoyment of butchering the wicked has led, time and time again, to mere butchering. Insofar as a political writer has a responsibility to the language and to history, Hitchens tone is simply disgusting, a form of provocation that evokes the fascist polemicists of the 20s and 30s.

Second is the idea of where such a ‘killing field’ exists. The jihadists of his imagination came into Iraq from elsewhere — in no small part because the Americans carelessly and stupidly disbanded the Iraqi army, without even processing it. Since they did not have the manpowr to process that properly, they had a responsibility to Iraq itself to achieve that manpower. But they didn’t. Hence, the influx of Saudis into the Iraq, and the use of Iraqi cities as killing fields. I know, it sounds like fun, but if, say, Bush invited jihadists to come into L.A. so that we could stage fire fights against them in various L.A. neighborhoods, we might find it a tad irresponsible. Even, who knows, immoral.
And finally, there is the context of Hitchens rhetoric, the way it echoes the rhetoric of the far scarier War mongers who make up the Pentagon and the far right war cliques, who actually hold up, as one of the reasons for being in Iraq, its ‘learning potential.” Real life war helps the U.S. army to learn to fight other wars. Human experimentation of this kind isn’t a liberal value, but a clearly fascist one.

Known as the “zealous convert syndrome”.

Please, please Tom Bach, I am Z. Don’t confuse Zdenek with me. That said, I have met Kant yesterday and asked him about the Iraq war. He’s against it.

the fact that the hitchens = bertrand russell dude actually thought to include the word “infelicitous” in his post indicates either:

(1) an absolutely rabid hitchens fan, or
(2) satire.

if (2), he should’ve thrown in a “lugubrious” or two, for the sake of clarity.

hitchens is my vote. also, sometimes i marvel at his gift for using words for which the top google results are invariably the said word’s definition. an unusual talent, but impressive nonetheless.

Would it be right for such a republic to go to war against such a despotic state ? Kant would say yes.

Trouble is, I doubt that even you could seriously maintain that your conditions (2) and (3) are met by any actually existing states. So your argument is somewhat moot.

are (2)& (3) met today ? — condition 2 is met by most liberal democracies where basic rights are taken seriously surely ( I am thinking of Rawls here ), while the condition 3 is met by all modern democracies where political obligation is understood contractually surely ?

It is also doubtful that (5) and (6) were ever satisfied in any conflict.

No further questions, Your Honour! No further questions.

So it is not a very good objection to say that there are no perfect examples of Kantian republics (there are also no perfectly true theories ).

It is a perfectly valid objection because Zdenek you presented your case as if it was self-evident that each and every condition was satisfied. That there are not perfect examples (which is obvious) indicates that you Zdenek-not Chris, not anyone else-have to prove that the US is sufficiently close an approximation so that your conclusion is warranted.

is anyone else inspired into thought-experiment by zdenek’s comment (168)? (yes, i know he’s a troll, but at least he’ a real one.)

so, here’s the experiment – i took zdenek’s criteria for kantian illegitimacy (which he appears to have sucked out his ass), and on which bases what he laughably calls his argument for the war, and reapplied them to another modern day example:

was (america) illegitimate in Kant’s sense ?

was it:

a) “manifestly despotic” – 50/50. well-managed, distributed despotism. more oligarchy than tyranny.

b) “not a law abiding member of UN” – yes. see the ongoing violations of resolutions

c)”people denied basic rights” – yes. ref. guantanamo etc. also the class of folk represented by cory maye, et al, who are policed in their inner city ghettos by paramilitary swat teams. etc etc etc, fill in your own violation here

d) “crime regularly commited (sic) by rulers” – yes. that’s almost becoming the definition of an american ruler.

e) “manifest threat to peace” – more so than ever, having committed the most egregious acts of aggression in recent memory, ostensibly in response to saudi terrorism, without ever actually invading the fortress of the house of saud. (what are they doing, throwing darts at a map of the middle east?)

f) “has invaded neighbor” – grenada, i suppose. otherwise, no. tends to invade on other continents. (not sure why zdenek makes next door invasion a criterion, unless he’s just playing too much age of empires.)

g) “commited (sic) genocide” – yes, and supported it. and not merely native americans. filipinos, too. latterly attempts to have others do it on its behalf. in service of such ideals paid indonesia militarily and financially for 25 years to destroy east timor. trained indonesian special forces (kopassus) on us soil, despite clear evidence of massive wrong-doing. bragged in the un about preventing humanitarian aid to timor (for which moyihan will roast and roast and roast). bombed laos and cambodia into complete chaos, from which they might never recover (for which kissinger will be basting alongside moynihan).

h) “bend (sic) on imposing its will on others” – this is too easy. (start with iran, to be topical.) give me another one.

i)”state claims voice in UN to promote itself and its policies and amplify its power” – beyond satire, now.

___________

it follows that under the terms of zdenek’s argument, you could have reversed the roles (iraq invades america) and kant (poor kant) would have had to support it. possibly under threat of zdenek representing him to posterity.

or perhaps zdenek’s argument is crap. who want to take a go at his preceding ‘philosophical sketch’? his proposition number 6 promises to be fun.

in his justification he also says ” because it is a larger power that is also a republic , is anxious to spread republican values and is motivated by some version of the Ideal of Reason Kant spells out in ‘Perpetual Peace’ and US is confident that it can destroy the despotic state with minimum harm to its people”, the us can invade iraq.

someone might want to tease apart the claim that the all that would be required would be the confidence of the us (the landmass? the airspace?) rather than the justifiable likelihood, as attested to by impartial bodies. i suspect kant would have demanded more than ‘i know i can, i know i can’ as grounds for war.

of course, this is all within the context of zdenek’s imaginary universe where such considerations were actually meaningfully addressed by policy planners, rather than brushed aside by ideologues, and subsequently delegated to dispirited teenagers with guns for implementation. his arguments collapse when measured against anything in reality. but that’s not the point here. just have fun.

I vote for the one who said “fellow travelers” while at the same time accusing others of being stuck in the past. Oh my freaking gourd. That is hilarious.