Peter Hitchens | This House Believes Western Interventionism Has Been a Force For Good 

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.

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.

@Dominion Philosophy whats the philosophy you follow again, you seem quite confused based on your comment? your welcome to Peter, just like his namesake, peter the hermit, he leads fools on religious crusades of fantasy to their inevitable demise based on flawed premise and faulty beliefs.

Evil does indeed rule the world. You just get called anti semitic if you point this out.

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

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.

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.

If I were you I'd think three times before citing Dugin; a post-Soviet fascist dreaming about the reestablishment of the soviet/Russian empire through war and ethnic cleansing - or are you that anxious to see the barbarians on your doorstep?

@@Kloozy1 I see people citing Martin Heidegger all the time and Hegel, and Nietzsche and many other figures key in the development of NAZI Germany and Fascist style ideologies, so no, I don't have a problem citing Dugin, whose book The Rise of the Fourth Political Theory I consider garbage except for the part in which he coincided with Hitchens. BTW, I don't concur with Hitchen's opinion about what is going on in Ukraine, I agree with George Fridman on that issue, and please, don't even try to play that cheap trick of poisoning the well just because you don't understand the context or the general issue under consideration.

@Louis Rangel and what is the general issue under consideration, Mr 'know it all'?

It does not "...presupposes that Russia has a say in what military alliances its neighbour is allowed to make". Nations may ally however they please, but they should be mindful of possible consequences. Other nations (e.g. Russia) are free to respond as they think best.

@@Kavala76 respond by invading a neighbour? That's on them, then.

@@sinephase Realpolitik...

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.

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.

@@Dickeyj2010 Think and learn about the roots and motives of people, countries and conflicts. Mastering rhetoric is only practice I suppose.

A sad joke compared to his late brother

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.

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 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.

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?

Balcony Steve is now a caring sharing hedge fund manager with homes on the East and West coast..

We Christians are modest people; we do not want much, only ETERNAL LIFE.. LOL

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.

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.

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!

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

Got a Grindr tap

I think he meant military interventions. Poland and Lithuania are irrelevant examples here.

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

On the contrary, that's precisely the arranged format of these debates.

Be grateful you have someone to make the decisions for which you're not competent

@Dominion Philosophy Frankly they are both idiots

Indeed. This is Hitchens at his absolute best -- wise, erudite, eloquent, and fearless.

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?

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.

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.

The line between good and evil is one that lays with the heart of every man. Humans are naturally hierarchical, there is a reason that we have always been so compatible with dogs, we have very similar social structures as fellow familial based group predators. The intentions are very clearly enacted with understanding, it's just the the public is lied about what they are. Cynical policy decisions are sold as benevolent acts of absolute necessity, the fact that the European Imperialists were a vastly more positive influence than modern interventionists is because they actually drunk their own kool aid about dragging people out of savagery and inhuman conditions, the ingerventionists are entirely self serving and their broader aims are economic and political strategies that have been drawn up by a group of psychopaths in a room somewhere deep with state bureaucracy and probably with the consultation of corporate interests and lobbying groups. The most immediate interest is embezzling the funds meant to go towards whichever cause it is and the second is having to do as little work for as little money as can be got away with.

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.

We Christians are modest people; we do not want much, only ETERNAL LIFE.. LOL

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...

😂

@@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...

Actually, from what my history teacher taught me it was West Asia (Near/Middle East) that was the crucible of civilisation and if we go back far enough, the continent of Africa where the first hominids evolved. What is now continental China is also a good contender, as is Meso-America where sophisticated civilisations also arose. Europe was largely inhabited by peoples who were still relatively unsophisticated in comparison.

@@view1st I wrote 'essential crucible' which is vastly different, as history attests. It did the most to extend the capacity of this species.

@@view1st Near East and Middle East/Persia/India that was a completely different population and ruling class than what it is now due to wars/misgenation/migration (guess : whites) No one cares about Africa because it's always been a shithole until Europeans did some things there and finally used the resources of the land Btw Europeans evolved separated in Northern Europe during the Ice Age, we might as well be a differrent subspecies of humans

Arrogance supreme

@@mikevolante7663 Whose arrogance?

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.

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.

I've gotten the sense that public opinion in Afghanistan began to turn against the western intervention when Bush and Bliar went into Iraq.

It made Russia out from first war with Germany but open the door for second, more destructive... Without Thälmann and other communists in Germany who knows if Hitler would get into power.

Wow… very convincing argument you have there… I’m totally overwhelmed by your well presented and logical conclusions…. Well done… now you can go back to watching your cartoons on TV.

@@paulklee5790 You sound just like one of those entitled pampered Cambridge undergrads who gullibly lapped up Eeyore's familiar "I told you so" narrative. So I'm sure you'll go far in entitled English society.

@@paulklee5790 You're correct in the point you made with perfect sarcasm, but you've got to admit, the OP's comment is pretty funny.

Smart animals, donkeys. Should listen to them more often, I say.