I've read the thread and to be honest, I found the use of "pro-Imperialist" + "atheist" = Hitchens quite funny.
Being that Hitchens was anything BUT a neo-con and pro-imperialism.
And it was quite revealing that ALL of the problematic regions, where human rights violations occur were strictly from Islamic countries. Is that a coincidence?
Hitchens has been to Pakistan/Iraq/Iran, etc... and has seen what's going on there and wasn't interested in politics since 9/11. I guess some of the anti-Hitchenians simply forget that.
Iran is an obvious problem. Not only to Israel or the stability of the region, but first and foremost, to IT'S OWN PEOPLE. I don't know if many of you are aware of the Iran's history pre- and post-1979.
When Saddam was the 2nd man in Iraq, he indeed looked like a force for good, or at least a secular leader with an appetite for power, or shall we say simply "the better of two bad options".
Hitchens was always interested in the life/role of the Kurds in the region and saw them as the victims of all states involved: be it Turkey/Iraq or Iran.
Iran had too much influence on Afghanistan and its evil Taliban terrorists, who not only thought that women have no souls, but who also thought that selling heroin and opium to Iran is a great business model. No wonder, given that roughly 5 million Iranians today are addicted to either opium or heroin.
So guess why Iran and the US are the biggest investors in today's Afghanistan.
Why were the US interested in Iraq? Given that they have a decent relationship with Turkey, as a strategic partner and can bribe the Pakistanis enough to keep them in check (while terrorists and Taliban can roam the countryside of Pakistan as they wish) Iraq's domination of the region was too dangerous, as time went on.
Was invading Iraq and getting rid off Saddam an "imperialist agenda" or actually a GOOD thing?
Whoever says it wasn't a good thing should've lived in Saddam-rule Iraq.
What about the Kuwaitis and Saudis paying the US 60bn dollars for protecting them from Saddam in the 1st Gulf War? Right, right, that was a honorable thing to do.
But other than that, we should make these scumbags continue to oppress their own people and destabilize the region, while they build up their intelligence agencies, armies and prepare for their "holy wars" (symbolically and literally). Nope, won't happen.
The Iraqis welcomed the US army and were thankful for getting rid off Saddam. Well, until they realized that the leadership is up for grabs and billions of dollars worth of oil...........and they started to bomb and kill eachother.
I was "glad" to see that when you free Islamic countries of their dictators, all of a sudden they turn into peaceloving pacifist.
Ehmmm..........*cough* Iran post 1979 *cough* Taliban in Afghanistan *cough* Iraq post-Saddam.
Of course non-interventionalism is the way to go UNLESS the dictators take over the country, because then it's a.) they are just puppets of the Juice (of course, what else) or b.) "they don't really care about us".
Once they intervene to ALSO PROTECT THEIR OWN INTERESTS, it's a.) & b.) and c.) "they want to kill all Muslims!!!".
So basically, no matter what you do, you lose as a Western country.
The question is: do you go for the lesser evil (protect the people & your own interests) or do you not do anything at all AND listen to the liberal pseudo-pacifists, who think that killing the political opposition, oppressing women, taking away all of the people's freedoms and generally creating a HELL for them to live in........should be considered "respecting their "different" culture".
I think we should follow the glorious example of all muslim-majority states, which are fearless in fighting injustice in the world and couldn't sleep at night, unless their brothers and sister (including the non-Muslims), leave in freedom................OH WAIT!!! That never happens, because Muslims don't care about anybody else but themselves (and by that I mean, their own countries), or they live under a dictatorship, which doesn't about anybody else but themselves and oppressing their own people.
The perfect example of "anti-imperialist, freedom loving Super Muslim Freedom"-reasoning is the objection to getting rid off Gadaffi and his goons.
Think about it (if you can) - either we get rid off them, or they will spread like a cancer across Norther Africa, Turkey and the Middle East and not only threaten us here, in the West, but first and foremost, oppress and terrorize their own people, who are fed up with the injustice and corruption. Just watch Iran over the next 2-3 years and you will see what I mean. Just imagine what would happen if the Irania people throw over the government and become allies with the US/Western powers and stop threatening the Juice in Israel.
After all, if the "evil imperialist West and the Zionist Juice" were as evil as many of the pseudo-liberals think (including some in this thread), nuking every major city and region in the countries they wanted to take over wouldn't be a problem. And how many times did that happen?
Now something to consider for the haters of the Juice.
Roughly 6 million Jews and 3 million Poles were killed in 6 years (1939-1945).
Unbelievable terror, pain and loss of lives.
Since 1945, how many terrorist attacks on German soil were carried out by Jewish and/or Polish terrorists.
Ponder this for a while.
As far as the "New Atheism" goes:
Dawkins = "I don't understand how people can be this stupid and follow religions!"
Hitchens = "I don't care how stupid you are, that doesn't excuse your beliefs one bit!"
Harris = "I don't care about your peaceful religion that much...........I learned that from the Buddhists!"
Dennet = "I don't care about theology, I choose philosophy!"
Topic: Hitchens....Dawkins....Harris....