A War Worth Fighting

Last Administration misused torture practices has cause US standing among Allies countries againts Terrorist started are fading away.The Most dangerous Terrorist now in US custody that was done and deported to US with cooperation by Countries shares and arrested send these Dangerous Terrorist to US ,like Pakistan,Afganistan,Indonesia,etc extradition criminal with cooperation political treaties laws ,

But ever since US misused and mistreated the International Laws with these War Prisoner by last Administration,sadly now the signs of any future treaties cooperation with US are hardly going to be happen soon.US now has to work on its own to get treaties custody for any future Terrorist are still at large free, Dangerously threatening US safety,This show how Stupid the Last Administration

Mr. Hitchens , with all of your knowledge of the political history of europe and america, how is it that you totally missed the boat on 9/11.... the former chief of Fire Science at NIST, Alan Miller Phd, states the investigation is a flawed. Why do you believe such nosence as what was presented to the public by the "powers that be". I have a copy of the 9/12 wall street journal.... that story, is obviously propaganda,, as they present the cause of collapse before any kind of investigation. and to wit,,,, an event that has never occured preveously. The govt. or corp media has never deviated from that opinion, in fact that present it as fact. The finding of Mr. Atta's passport on a pile of ashes and the million other clues that point to a false flag attack.

Sir,

several points: the war of 1870-71 was started by Napoleon III. That Bismarck poked him is another matter, but the war was declared by the French. Mr. Buchanan could have easily argued that the German empire did not start a war until 1914. Incidentally, the agressive militarism of the German empire began with the reign of Emperor Wilhelm II - after the forced resignation of Bismarck who sought to avoid war at all costs. Furthermore, the two provinces annexed from the French had previously been annexed by the French. Elsace-Lorraine had changed hands frequently since 1648. To imply that the taking of these two provinces was particularly agressive by the standards of its time is somewhat silly.



Furthermore, you may want to read Edward Lutwack's discussion of the bomber campaign against German cities. The attacks were military useless, and did little - if anything - to degrade the Germany military potential until late into the war when the attacks began to target militarily relevant installations (such as the Buna works). The only useful thing the attacks accomplished during the Battle of Britain was to provoke Hitler into targetting London instead of the last remanining aerodromes, thereby failing to defeat the Royal Air Force on the ground.

Sir,

several points: the war of 1870-71 was started by Napoleon III. That Bismarck poked him is another matter, but the war was declared by the French. Mr. Buchanan could have easily argued that the German empire did not start a war until 1914. Incidentally, the agressive militarism of the German empire began with the reign of Emperor Wilhelm II - after the forced resignation of Bismarck who sought to avoid war at all costs. Furthermore, the two provinces annexed from the French had previously been annexed by the French. Elsace-Lorraine had changed hands frequently since 1648. To imply that the taking of these two provinces was particularly agressive by the standards of its time is somewhat silly.



Furthermore, you may want to read Edward Lutwack's discussion of the bomber campaign against German cities. The attacks were military useless, and did little - if anything - to degrade the Germany military potential until late into the war when the attacks began to target militarily relevant installations (such as the Buna works). The only useful thing the attacks accomplished during the Battle of Britain was to provoke Hitler into targetting London instead of the last remanining aerodromes, thereby failing to defeat the Royal Air Force on the ground.

the one fact that blows apart pat b.'s thesis is: it was HITLER who declared war on the U.S. hitler could have stayed neutral post - pearl harbor. how was the U.S. to avoid war pat? pat b's thesis is just another reason hitler could gain and hold power. the alpha's among us were/are not uncomfortable with the tenents of national socialism. and then blame liberals for all the woes when they realize what a monster they(C's) created. a thought to remember as facist theory enjoys a rebirth in russia, china and other lesser powers disguised as capitalism. and we give away more and more civil rights and constitutional protections to folks like the current administration. who seem to have their own S S/ S A in the ilk of Blackwater protecting them and not G I's with the same training. who are pre protected from prosecution by this prez for any war crimes they might commit as were the S S only answerable to hitler and not the law. and who are busy training local police forces around the country.

During early 1991, my 31 year old nephew???a FedEx check pilot and ex-Marine F-18 pilot, died of cancer. I can look back now and identify many medical, transportation, care, and treatment mistakes, as well as much doctor, patient, family, friend foolishness, that I witnessed from the date he was diagnosed with cancer through the date of his death and funeral. Many things went wrong. Many people made mistakes. Unfortunate words and actions diminished relationships.

I could, if I wished, damn???in a public forum???many of those involved for their, mistakes, foolishness and errors of judgement, however, I think that would be very unwise. Why? Because: the situation was thrust upon us without warning, few totally understood the problem, no one AT THAT TIME could predict the exact outcome, everyone feared the worst, the vast majority of us were untrained in dealing with an event of this magnitude, we did not have time to prepare for all of the unknowns, and we all did the best we could with the knowledge, prejudices, information, fears, doubts, pressures, shortcomings, that those involved possessed AT THE MOMENT cancer entered the picture. Pat Buchannan seems to have just as unwisely tried to measure an event by assuming that all event participants had the same vantage point that Mr. Buchannan has today???50 years after the event. How convenient. How small.

While I'm no historian and do not qualify to discuss anything with Chris Hitchens on *his level of intelletualism*... I will not purchase *Pat Buchanan's nonsense* - WWII certainly has multi-faceted reasons - but for the USA entry into WWII - does anyone remember "... a day that will live in INFAMY"?

Thank you Mr. Hitchens for your superb rebuttal. All Mr. Buchanan has succeded in is producing another "bible" for domestic right-wing extremists to use in their ongoing war against the a perceived New World Order and Zionism. Just take a look at some of the "reviews" posted on Amazon.com and you'll see several that are obviously from folks who either just sympathize with Hitler or are outright members of National Socialist movement.

Unnecessary...to those who subscribe to this lunacy....Ya Vol! Oh, and I have some great sea-side property for you in Utah. When a WWII vet dies, a library of WWII dies with him/her. It is strange how revisionists believe that publishing an idea that is so out there will lend them credibility. I will steal from Lewis Black who has said that twenty-four hour jounalism is a very bad think. In the box on the right we have the "so called " revisionist who has no credentials and little , if any suppot in the academic community, and then in the box next to him a great historian such as McCollough....Suddenly these two, by appearing side-by-side on a "news program" and discussing any historical topic, especially one of this magnitude, are equals and each is credible because of the power of the medium. Marshall McLuhan....did you ever see this train coming?

Regarding Christopher Hitchens, a War worth Fighting, June 23rd, it???s Orwellian, but not surprising how the political Right continues its devious attempts to distort the Truth about the Nazis, whether this involves Pat Buchanan???s apologism for and even sly defense of Adolf Hitler or Jonah Goldberg's ( Liberal Fascism ) cunning Doublethink that Hitler and the Nazis were, in any way, part of the political Left. Concerning Goldberg???s Lies: Hitler believed that Socialism was part of the far political Right, and identical to Nationalism. This is why he named the movement ???National Socialism???.

As far as Churchill versus Buchanan, the former is the model of a decent Conservative. The latter?, well, see above.

John Bryans Fontaine
Westport, CT

I agree with Hitchens that World War II was a war worth fighting, that
it was not avoidable. But there was much about the conduct of the war
he avoids mentioning.

Churchill and Roosevelt did very little before the war to
save European Jews and other innocents and very little during the war
to blunt the implementation and carrying out of the Final Solution,
despite what they knew to be happening and much pleading from many
quarters.

The carpet-bombing of German cities achieved very little other than
the slaughter of civilians. When, early in the war, an internal RAF
report pointed out that it was having no effect on the German war
effort, the officer who produced the report was transferred elsewhere.
Also, Britain was the first to engage in the indiscriminate bombing of
cities in the war. The firebombing and utter destruction of Dresden by
the Allies late in the war did nothing "to end the war one microsecond
earlier," and gave us, the good guys, the dubious distinction of
killing the most humans in a single day using conventional weapons.
German war production only failed at the very end of the war.

Despite the leveling of Japan's major cities, their centers of
production, we still feared Japan enough that we unleashed two atom
bombs on showcase cities, intentionally spared from being bombed
earlier for that purpose. This gave us the further dubious distinction
of killing the most humans in a single day through the use of a
nuclear weapon.

Nothing can be done about the conduct of World War II. The important
point to be taken away from all of this should be that in present and
future wars the wholesale killing and maiming of non-combatants is
both inhuman and ineffective.

An excellent refutation of Trotskyite-turned-neocon Hitchens' argument, Buchanan's riposte if you will, can be found in his commentary at www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=13039 Simply put, Hitchens is simply wrong, in addition to distorting timelines in a limp attempt to justify British and later American atrocities.

Simply put. What if the Hitler and the Nazis were not confronted and were able to have a nuclear arsenal. Then there would of been a Holocaust on a scale that would be horrific.

Note to the crazies, my reference to 9/11 is not about Arabs hating Americans, it is about American hating Arabs because a small group of Arabs attacked us. Also for all those warmongers, the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudia Arabia, something Bush doesn't like to point out because he has many Saudi friends (he has run a number of their oil companies into the ground) and America imports alot of Saudi oil. Also, he knows the world opinion of Saudi Arabia is good and the UN would not appreciate the US attacking another country that did not attack us (Saudi Arabian citizens attacked us but there is no evidence there gov't was involved even though Osama Bin Laden is a Saudi). I lied there though, the reason we didn't invade Saudi Arabia is b/c it is a major oil exporter and the US economy in particular would crumble if an invasion interupted oil exports (for us imports). Knowing that, do you still believe the invasion of Iraq was justified or have you figured out Sadam Hussein was just an easy target who did not have nukes or oil he could legally sell (sanctions-Iran anyone?) or even any terror connections except the fact that he was concerned about Shia groups starting a revolt. (note it would have been much easier for the US to go this route but we had already bailed on a revolution which was squashed and it's members killed, reducing US credibility in that department.) Also, does it concern you that your leader lied to you and has not apologized and has no intention to. I'll make this short, Bush is a sadist, if you want to inflict harm on someone you don't even know then you are a sadist. Sadists are not good Christians but they are good at questioning good Christians faith (see Obama). He who throws the first stone and all that. If you believe a passage in the Bible trumps the teachings of Jesus (turn the other cheek and feed the poor and all that) then you are not a good Christian. My advice, find God or a new religion, for all you hateful nuts out there w/ no release, I recommend, for you, not me, Satanism, that and a hunting trip w/ Cheney (who never apologized for shooting that guy in the face, in fact, the guy apologized for being shot, what a pile of crap. Cheney=Satanist
Republican voter=retarded Democratic voter=slightly more intelligent but just slightly
Libertarian = freedom Green=enviromentalism me=anti retarded

While Mr. Hitchens criticized Buchanan for withholding important historical facts leading to the First World War, he was making the same mistake in his article. In criticizing the Kaiser's aggressive, if not clumsy, foreign policy, Mr. Hitehcnes failed to note the equally aggressive British and French colonial policies exercised from Asia to Africa, as well as the infamous pan-Slavic ambitions of the former Russian Empire. Yet, Mr. Hitchens made no mention of these factors, despite them being major contributions to the outbreak of the First World War, and put the blame almost too conveniently on the Kaiser and Germany. In fact, the British and French authorities were picking fights across the globe long before the Kaiser laid his hands on Germany's first overseas colony!

And what of Hitler? His rise to power was hardly surprising. The post-WWI world, Germany torn by uncertainty and chaos, while the rest of Europe sat back and watched, without lifting a single finger to assist Germany in its integration to the International Community. Adding to the injury was the occupation of German Ruhr by France and Belgium where once again, Germany was left to its own devices. Under these harsh conditions, no wonder a vast majority of German people preferred stability & security to consciousness.

Then there were the British and French colonial empires, where the indigenous peoples saw further exploitation and oppression during the immediate post-WWI era. Certainly, the ???war to make the world safer for Democracy??? did not apply to them. While Hitler???s war in Europe was terrible, it nonetheless broke the backs of major imperialist powers of Europe and indirectly contributed to the independence of former colonies around the world, where British and French colonial masters were viewed just as evil, if not surpassing the evils of National Socialism itself. Nor were the French and British authorities intended to give up their colonial holdings upon the end to the Second World War. Violence, proxy wars, racism and other forms of chaos from Vietnam to South Africa all originated from generations of forceful occupation by European colonial powers and their reluctance of giving up their holdings. But, apparently to Mr. Hitchens, everything was about the Kaiser, Hitler and German militarism. Indigenous peoples of occupied territories who suffered generations of exploitation and oppression at the hands of the British and French, people the Germans had very little to do with, certainly didn't matter to him.

And let us not forget, while Germany admitted and apologized for its war crimes committed during the Second World War, the British and French have yet to make a similar, official remark regarding their past colonial legacies.

- Tak

"aggressive Ottoman imperialism" ? The last Ottoman aggression was long before WW1. The Ottoman Empire had been shrinking and on defense long before the WW1. And there was nothing holy about the Ottoman's war against Britain since all muslims allied with Brits against Turks.