@@MattSingh1 Yes, it was. SH was working toward developing a Nuclear Weapon (IIRC they found a key component under a Rose Bush after SH's execution). The invasion was wholly justified, although I would argue parts of it were botched.
was a good idea, saved the trouble of dealing with sadist dictators with nuclear bombs. kim jung un seems like a student of real politik in front of saddam and his sons uday and the other guy. got rid of libya's nuclear plans with the same swipe. bush was right, they should have stayed the course and helped mesopotamia out of the conundrum. like they did in post war japan. WW-1 germany was made to fend for itself plus the versailles treaty. yes, shit gets real in the world, you gotta deal with it.
dont get offended but do you think leaving afghanistan under the nurturing care of taliban wont come around and bite the world in its ass. America always heads in with the right intentions and scoots out of the country leaving shit in shambles, when things get tough politically. you simply have to stay the course and when you're in it, don't dilly dally and fuck around, get to it, war is serious business.
@@kaustabhkalita2476merica isn’t the world’s police. We need to get our own country in order before invading others. There’s NO justification for the forever wars, period. Hitchens was a brilliant man but his take on the Iraq war was objectively bad
In the long term he is right it was a good idea. Iraq to this day is closer than it would to democracy had it stayed under a dictatorship. I mean how many times can ISIS come back as horrible as it is. It’s just a flash in the pan.
he was not particularly smart, and was only so supremely articulate/eloquent because of his "public school" education (elocution lessons, etc.). Smarter than the average journalist, to be sure, especially these days, but not some great thinker or intellectual. Also he was not a good writer, which, given the aforementioned education, is inexcusable. Just read the first lines of his book on Cyprus. Laughable.
The person conducting the interview did a good job of shutting down callers who tended to go on & on with their opinions without ever asking a question.
It's interesting how derisive people can be towards someone for having the nerve to declare their opinion. Nobody says it's right, or compulsory. Hitch is saying that, given the information he has, he believed it was the right move. This demonizing of differing opinions has always rubbed me the wrong way. This happens all the time from every perspective, and it's getting unbearable really. Especially on the net. Everybody in fighting for the last word in a vitriolic battle to prove their the reigning king of the assholes.
I will try to be as civil and as non euphemistic as possible. I hope the point comes across. The real question is how do we solve it and prevent future events. So: You and me, as declared atheists should know above all that we're not islands in an ocean and my decisions impact you and vice versa. A sustained lobby for this for 9 years straight from a prominent and influential intellectual is something that can't simply be glossed over, especially from one who was well versed in the intricacies of USA exceptionalism. He either was not aware that USA interests are not the people of Iraq, in which case he would have been naive to say the least, or he was outright dishonest. In ether case, he should have used the money he had received from the numerous speeches and debates to try to mend fences. And to top it all off, today, the issue du jours in atheist circles is whether Sam Harris's preemptive nuclear strike in the region should be done today or tomorrow and they all blame it all on Islam. If that's not irony, I don't know what is. More of the same and hope for a different solution. More pointing fingers and no true knowledge on the matter of the human condition, no peer review, no reason. Just visceral hatred for the monsters empires create. What is it these days? Charlie Weekly? Has anyone stopped to think about poking a cornered bear strategy for winning the hearts and minds of the disenfranchised or is it more of the _I want to do whatever I please without thinking about the consequences_? My constructive criticism is as follows: 1. Nobody is above ridicule and criticism, as long as it is constructive. Identifying the Mickey Mouse conspiracy does not impress me. I figured out Santa when I was 4. 2. When in doubt, ask experts, not authorities. _Hey Spinoza, my car won't start and my penis is flacid. What should I do?_ Now that is just silly. The human mind and crowd mentality is not such a mystery anymore. Ask the advertising cast. I don't care what Hitch said. I have official USA records for that which are as close to peer reviewed documents as you can get and thank gzus for democracy, they're all available online. 3. Religion is not a cause, it is a tool to rationalize our actions post factum! Period! We know this to be true in any other circumstance. We have cat scan machines these days and 3d models of the brain. We've spent too many billions of dollars on bananas for monkey studies to gloss this one over. I congratulate all atheists but for fuck's sake, let's not all be hammers and see everything as a nail.
TechnocraticBushman I appreciate the comment and must admit that I don't necessarily agree with the Hitch here. I don't see anywhere we differ (although I didn't completely grasp your position on Sam Harris) I don't have an expensive education, or a particular interest in philosophy which puts me at a distinct disadvantage to those who recognize a fallacy before someone has finished an idea. Sometimes things are what they seem and an individual has the authority to gauge that for themselves. I am not chastising any conclusion. I am chastising the way it is defended, and the notion that an opposing conclusion should be shamed into shutting up. I see it in politics, I see it in feminism,...religion, atheism....you name it. It is just too much. It is low hanging fruit and ad hominem by definition to attack the person and not the idea. I am particularly turned off by atheists who defend "reason & logic" through personally attacking the religious...if that isn't irony I don't know what is. I guess my disinterest in philosophy betrays my support of reasoned conclusions also, but I don't deny the assertion that we are all capable of having "2 sets of books". I guess in that case I try not to stick my entire foot in my mouth. We all contradict ourselves sometimes.
It is indeed unfortunate that the government at the time had so little confidence in the will of it's own people to resist and destroy psychopathic dictators that they chose to appeal to their fear rather than their solidarity with their fellow man who are living under such as regime of Saddam Husseins Iraq. I guess we'll never know what would have happened if the government had chosen to include Hitchens' points as some of the main reasons for intervention.
I loved the Hitch and still do, but I never heard a truly solid argument for this war, given the mess that was so very likely to result from an ill-conceived invasion. Did Hitchens ever address the point that this war will surely lead to another, and another, and that military intervention might not be the answer, given the historical record. It's a simple point. The Iraqi people didn't choose this, but they have to live with it. Time may prove Hitchens to have been guilty of wishful thinking.
For good or for bad, I love Hitch. I didn’t agree with him here, but damn he was brilliant. I cant help but feel the fatwa on Rushdie started to change his feelings towards Islam and religion in general. Also the few months he spent on Bush Jrs ranch could have changed his mind.
He questioned religion since he was a kid and according to his brother, it was the most consistent critique he held. The fatwa did get to him yeah, it made him think that if theocracies felt that they wanted to change open, tolerant societies that on paper at least valued free speech, then maybe those societies would have to change in of themselves. In other words, being anti war can only get you so far before you start becoming an apologist for all sorts of nasty expansionist regimes.
I know I am not going to live forever and neither are you, but until my furlough here on earth is revoked, I’d like to raise my glass of JWB high above my head 🥃 in honor of the beautiful intellect and mind of Christopher Hitchens, the world is a poorer place without Hitch, I sorely miss the gorgeous bastard.
As an aside, a mormon approached me a few days back - "have you heard of the book of mormon?" he asked, "yup, I replied, I've got a copy". What do you think of it?" I replied that I thought it was hilarious. The look on his face was priceless.
hi skraeling 1000, had a good laugh on this one,Thanks, it took me 2/3/ read throughs i know i spelt that wrong,but im high and when it hit was funny ....love it ..
Yes, I have heard how it is done: the ends justify the means. If you need to gain support for a just cause, you can: issue false propaganda, wrongly stoke fears, and make inaccurate claims (again, only if the cause is "just" enough). I agree that the American endorsed Iraqi dictator should be handled by Americans, but how we went about it: disastrous. I don't doubt Hitchens account of Iraq, in fact, I think everyone should look into it. Sadly, people used his brand name, rather than his reasons.
I think Hitch responded to your point along the lines of - Just because there are other despots or dictators doesn't mean we can't Saddam -.. and I agree.
one of the few topics I disagree with Hitchens on... I think his motives are noble (removal of a fascist dictator) but his willingness to ignore the imperialist angle and the massive cost in human suffering to the Iraqi people negates any noble intent. As such an ardent supporter of the Kurdish cause I think Hitchens was blinded to the damage inflicted on innocent Iraqis and in fact adopted a win at all costs outlook.
But the fact that the public was once again "duped" into a war that only a few like Hitchens understood in the first place, is why people seem to be the most upset with the war. Hitchens stance is more like "there could be a more unjust cause" which is wholly unsatisfying. We all understand Saddam is bad, but the fact that most do not understand these wars is a serious concern. There were better ways of going about dealing with Saddam, and I do think America was hasty. The people were played.
If anyone is still skeptical whether to take Hitchens' arguments seriously in the video, I would implore one to skip to 8:25 and then check the front page of any major newspaper. Hitchens claimed that "there is a definite evolution toward democratic pluralism" in the region. If by "democratic pluralism" Hitchens meant the rise of ISIS, the extremist group declaring themselves a caliphate, and commencement of a sectarian civil war, democracy has been achieved. The ultimate connection neocons loved to bring to light during 2011 was whether the "liberation" of Iraq brought about the Arab spring. That position has been nullified since. The entire region has imploded into further violence since the American occupation. Not one democracy has been salvaged from the carnage, which continues to this day. With President Obama sending what I believe is now 500 "military advisers" back to Iraq, which is always how further intervention begins, Google JFK and Vietnam if you don't believe me, this issue could not be more important. The bottom line is: Western military intervention and occupation will NEVER bring about "democratic pluralism" in any Middle Eastern country. In how many different countries do we need to see this not only fail, but then devolve into civil war? There should be mass protests at what Obama is doing. Hitchens, though a brilliant writer, was 100% wrong here.
what about the part where the US urged Iraq (who at the time was their loyal ally and arms customer) to invade Iran as retaliation for the US Embassy hostage taking many years earlier costing millions of lives on each side? If you study US history you will realize that America has an extensive history of supporting viscious dictators who would further their interests in various regions. Sometimes the dictators lose favor with the US for various reasons but political philosophy is not one of them
By now, had Hitch lived, he surely would've realized that effective military intervention in Iraq would have to include permanent occupation. Right? Given that he always opposed that idea, it's hard to see him not making a few grudging concessions of defeat. He was stubborn as all hell, but surely by now...
I don't think he would have relented his position. But to his credit he got the worst case scenario right at 1:55 which actually did pan out. Makes him even more culpable for descending Iraq into the cesspool of terrorism today since he knew what the risks of intervention were and chose it anyway.
Masood Afzal Why not try blaming the terrorists for terrorism, instead of the people of Iraq, or the likes of Hitchens? (Hitchens was a truer friend to the Iraqi people than anyone who opposed the 2003 intervention) It's also absurd to blame I.S on the 2003 intervention in Iraq- the Fedayeen Saddam was the original terrorists force in Iraq post-the 2003 intervention. By your logic, if a terrorist group sprouted-up in ten years time, that group could be blamed on the 2003 intervention. Also, the stated goal of I.S is to created an Islamic state, not repel or kick-out foreign occupiers
Matthew Singh-Dosanjh Hitchens smitchens. Have you researched the problem up close? I propose you take a look into Jeremy Scahill's work on the subject. He's been to Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia etc. Unlike Hitchens, he has not been embedded with the US troops so he's gotten a chance to see what we are not presented with. A closer approximation to reality is the fact that desperate people do desperate deeds. We're all swayed by charismatic leaders. Bush, Lenin, Kennedy, Hitler, Obama, Pat Robertson, Ken Ham etc. Generally speaking, the scum of the Earth. (I only put elected and admired people in the list.) As a crowd, we respond to charisma, not reason. Couple that with the war and you get what US intelligence had predicted, prior to the invasion. Again, Jeremy Scahill. Watch his _Dirty Wars_, at least to know what to disagree with.
TechnocraticBushman I'm aware of Scahill. He's a hack of the lowest order, as are those that cite him as a credible source. Scahill and his co-thinkers believe the cause of Islamic fascism is the resistance to it, and that it can all be blamed on rampaging American colonialism and imperialism. I stopped debating this sophomoric mentality quite some time ago, as the people that espouse it are essentially presuppositionalists who axiomatically dismiss evidence contrary to their position. On Hitchens, I think you'll find that he made his first trip to Iraq in 1976 when Ba'ath Party and Saddam Hussein had just taken power. Additionally, he was in Iraq at the end of the first Gulf War with the Peshmerga fighters in the North of the country. Hitchens also had a great deal of Iraqi friends when Scahill was still a child, friends such as Jalal Talabani. Also, Hitchens reported from some *sixty nations* during his journalistic career, including being one of the few (if not the only) journalists to visit all three 'axis of evil' nations of Iraq, Iran and North Korea.
It feels like the argument that the Bush administration makes, and the case Hitchens makes are different. I feel that Hitchens argues about the long history of Iraq, and America did not jump on the war bandwagon for many of those reasons. The Iraq War was largely interpreted as a war as a result of 9/11, not the clean-up of American mistakes. He never seems to bridge this gap, and people have given him sufficient shit for it.
If Hitch could have held out for a few more years. I bet if there was anything he regretted. it would have been not being around to provide clarity to this election.
33:30 Hitchens has previously made the case about the '93 terrorist who cooperated and fled to Iraq and was told the truth. Iraq tried to arrange his departure and his rendition to USA and all they asked in return was for a document attesting to this exchange. USA refused. I don't believe he still made this argument after all this time.
Hitchens will always be a hero of mine but yes his support of the Iraq war is where we part ways and for many. He wasnt alone, many people became reactionary after 9-11 and tried to justify Iraq. He was no chickenhawk though.It just proves he was mortal and fallable like us all but definitely was one of the sharpest minds bar none.
I think that the way in which people in the country, in an age of information, are given terrible reasons for warmongering: to protect you and yours at the cost of others. Often, this is disingenuous, as terrorism is more flashy than dangerous, as lethality to nations go. It isn't Hitchens fault for being given a small bullhorn, indeed, we should have been listening to his rallying cry. If the reasons were humanitarian, no one would argue the war, this wasn't the case, and can't be neglected.
Hitchens was right on so many issues, but his view of the Middle East was far too simplistic and he totally miscalculated the invasion of Iraq. Afterwards he seemed pretty embarrassed to talk about Iraq on stage as it continually undermined his credibility. He tried to defend his unrectifiable position at times, but to little avail - administering a self 'hitchslap' in the process which seemed to reverberate the more louder in the presence of inexplicable silence from the audience. The never-ending bloody consequences of the Invasion of Iraq is one of the worst things to happen in human history. George Bush Jr. was a religious nut believing God contacted him privately to give blessing for the on-coming war. This one-dimensional baboon for a President, and together with war hawks at his ear, proved to be a disastrous combination. Hitchens on the other hand, who should really have know better, was a sincere dreamer on Iraq.
+OmegaKent hitch was a true contrarian. he always took the most unpopular position just to open up opposition to the consensus view. i dont think he really belived everything he said about iraq he just felt it his obligation to open up a new avenue of conversation. He was a contrarian in every sense of the word.
The Iraq war was maybe 50th or 60th worst thing to happen. I disliked Bush and the reasons he gave for war. I disliked Saddam and what he did more. Saddam was 35th on the list of horrible things. I wish I knew about Christopher when I argued against Saddam. He was the first person that agreed with my opinion. A very unpopular opinion.
+ProjektaV2 Discovering Hitch and his opinions really helped flourish mine as well, and it seems necessary too, especially when you share such a contrarian opinion with other people
@@theflyingotis3797 Well, being for the iraq war in public life or privilieged positions in the US by the time of the invasion, was the path of least resistence.
I'm not saying the war was one jolly litte teaparty. Just that hiring an attack dog that would deliberately and openly target civilians is generally a bad idea.
As i just said, it is now known that particles are created and destroyed from absolutely nothing all the time at a quantum level. If you add up all the positives and negatives in this universe you get a total of 0, it is easy to come from 0 when we are currently 0 if you take into account the entirety of the universe
Oh, so we went there to make sure that China and India could get all the oil? Those are the big benefactors of Iraqi oil, not the USA. Let's not forget that the Iraqi people now directly benefit from the oil sales, as opposed to before. You'll have to do a bit more thinking to get past that inconvenient liberty.
He was many things to the west but a puppet certainly isn't one of them. You don't invade your own puppet state. I do however agree with you that every single country/regime around the world that engages in constant violations of human rights should be taken to task, but the political situation especially in the USA (which is always the country doing the heavy lifting) is far too delicate.
I wouldn't say the inferior laryngeal couldn't possibly be designed. But if it were consciously designed, it would be an indication of stupid design...or lazy design.
his only weak point, foreign policy for the us of a he was such a clear thinker for everything else .....no one can be perfect (except maybe carl sagan)
Hitch was surely brilliant, however pre & post 911 Hitch presented two quite different perspectives. My personal view is his almost forced patriotic stance defending actions undertaken following the attacks, shows how his “immigrant “ personal journey pushed him subconsciously to stand behind pro America propaganda. What a shame, his wonderful mind with such deadly use of words, could have had a real impact against the criminal administration he seemingly stood behind.
while I agree with what you say, I'd just like to point out (as I made the same error a few days ago) the murdering as far as I know of the officials in the consulate in Benghazi was well in the works before the video happened. While I am not sure about this information, I heard there were no protests going on related to the film when the attack happened. At worst, the murders were a plot regardless of the movie that seized upon the moment of outrage as a smoke screen for its evil.
The regime change was justified however the death toll of civilians was not. The political vacuum left from the invasion was also badly managed and we know it permitted extremists to gain power from that situation. The amount of power the government gave to private military contractors and a temporary immunity from prosecution was equally wrong. War I'd never been pretty however this one was a mess as described by various soldiers from the winter soldier program.
I completely disagree with you on this but I think it's the common opinion of Chris's fans. Being an atheist most of his fans a left wing pinko types and he KNEW that this opinion would piss them off. He must have. Part of his reason for having the opinion is preciously because of that. This is something we all do to some degree but the main point I'll make here is that with political situations there is no right or wrong... there is just opinion. It's not an exact science.
I've read the bible. There's nothing more likely to make one an atheist than READING the damned book. Not having it "explained" to you. Not having someone pick out phrases here and there - but READING the book. Worked wonders for confirming my atheism.
The “so-called insurgents”? And next to the sentence “(a) I know what I’m talking about and (b) I’m willing to look these facts in the face”... Insurgents were fighters from surrounding countries who came because of the invasion and the power void-many thinking their country is next or will be after Iran takes over, many unaffiliated with Al Qaeda. All nuance is eventually lost in war, I realize, but saying so-called insurgency implies so-called attacks and so-called casualties which is absurd.
August 18, 2005 was the original date of broadcast of this piece (for those of us trying to keep track of the Hitch's chronology).
Thank you! I'm trying to sort these vids by date. You're the man 👍👌
Bit creepy but alright.
@jhmulkey What the fuck is your point exactly? Some people clearly didn't see it and were curious
You can date it around 05 by his beard anyway, he was clean shaven in 02/03 interviews and again by around 07.
This man is sorely missed.
thank you for uploading... I miss hitch :-(
In my opinion,Hitchens' work on Iraq is his most important for liberals to pay attention to and take seriously.
Yeah...bullshit. It was an unnecessary war and a major waste of U.S. taxpayer money.
The liberation of Iraq was just and necessary, moral and legal. Get over it.
The Bush cabinet fooled the American public into believing that Hussein was working with Al-Qaeda and a growing WMD threat. Get over it, bub.
@@MattSingh1 Yes, it was. SH was working toward developing a Nuclear Weapon (IIRC they found a key component under a Rose Bush after SH's execution). The invasion was wholly justified, although I would argue parts of it were botched.
@@MattSingh1 you’re becoming my hero in this comment section bro
Only a man as eloquent as Hitchens could make you think the war in Iraq might have actually been a good idea.
was a good idea, saved the trouble of dealing with sadist dictators with nuclear bombs. kim jung un seems like a student of real politik in front of saddam and his sons uday and the other guy. got rid of libya's nuclear plans with the same swipe. bush was right, they should have stayed the course and helped mesopotamia out of the conundrum. like they did in post war japan. WW-1 germany was made to fend for itself plus the versailles treaty. yes, shit gets real in the world, you gotta deal with it.
dont get offended but do you think leaving afghanistan under the nurturing care of taliban wont come around and bite the world in its ass. America always heads in with the right intentions and scoots out of the country leaving shit in shambles, when things get tough politically. you simply have to stay the course and when you're in it, don't dilly dally and fuck around, get to it, war is serious business.
@@kaustabhkalita2476merica isn’t the world’s police. We need to get our own country in order before invading others. There’s NO justification for the forever wars, period. Hitchens was a brilliant man but his take on the Iraq war was objectively bad
@@kaustabhkalita2476 our asses have some bite marks
In the long term he is right it was a good idea. Iraq to this day is closer than it would to democracy had it stayed under a dictatorship. I mean how many times can ISIS come back as horrible as it is. It’s just a flash in the pan.
"Ah, that's much better."
That line gave me a chuckle.
Was there ever a smarter more articulate person? His entire life he was devoted to learning and love. What an inspirational human.
Supporting the Iraq war was smart ?
If you think your guy was the smartest person you are in a cult my friend
he was not particularly smart, and was only so supremely articulate/eloquent because of his "public school" education (elocution lessons, etc.). Smarter than the average journalist, to be sure, especially these days, but not some great thinker or intellectual. Also he was not a good writer, which, given the aforementioned education, is inexcusable. Just read the first lines of his book on Cyprus. Laughable.
no one mentioned nuclear weapons i was talking about chem weapons which are also WMD's
The person conducting the interview did a good job of shutting down callers who tended to go on & on with their opinions without ever asking a question.
This man will be sorely Missed
Thanks for posting this. Enoyed it.
He looks good with a beard.
It's interesting how derisive people can be towards someone for having the nerve to declare their opinion. Nobody says it's right, or compulsory. Hitch is saying that, given the information he has, he believed it was the right move. This demonizing of differing opinions has always rubbed me the wrong way. This happens all the time from every perspective, and it's getting unbearable really. Especially on the net. Everybody in fighting for the last word in a vitriolic battle to prove their the reigning king of the assholes.
I will try to be as civil and as non euphemistic as possible. I hope the point comes across. The real question is how do we solve it and prevent future events. So:
You and me, as declared atheists should know above all that we're not islands in an ocean and my decisions impact you and vice versa. A sustained lobby for this for 9 years straight from a prominent and influential intellectual is something that can't simply be glossed over, especially from one who was well versed in the intricacies of USA exceptionalism. He either was not aware that USA interests are not the people of Iraq, in which case he would have been naive to say the least, or he was outright dishonest. In ether case, he should have used the money he had received from the numerous speeches and debates to try to mend fences. And to top it all off, today, the issue du jours in atheist circles is whether Sam Harris's preemptive nuclear strike in the region should be done today or tomorrow and they all blame it all on Islam. If that's not irony, I don't know what is. More of the same and hope for a different solution. More pointing fingers and no true knowledge on the matter of the human condition, no peer review, no reason. Just visceral hatred for the monsters empires create. What is it these days? Charlie Weekly? Has anyone stopped to think about poking a cornered bear strategy for winning the hearts and minds of the disenfranchised or is it more of the _I want to do whatever I please without thinking about the consequences_?
My constructive criticism is as follows:
1. Nobody is above ridicule and criticism, as long as it is constructive. Identifying the Mickey Mouse conspiracy does not impress me. I figured out Santa when I was 4.
2. When in doubt, ask experts, not authorities. _Hey Spinoza, my car won't start and my penis is flacid. What should I do?_ Now that is just silly. The human mind and crowd mentality is not such a mystery anymore. Ask the advertising cast. I don't care what Hitch said. I have official USA records for that which are as close to peer reviewed documents as you can get and thank gzus for democracy, they're all available online.
3. Religion is not a cause, it is a tool to rationalize our actions post factum! Period! We know this to be true in any other circumstance. We have cat scan machines these days and 3d models of the brain. We've spent too many billions of dollars on bananas for monkey studies to gloss this one over. I congratulate all atheists but for fuck's sake, let's not all be hammers and see everything as a nail.
TechnocraticBushman I appreciate the comment and must admit that I don't necessarily agree with the Hitch here. I don't see anywhere we differ (although I didn't completely grasp your position on Sam Harris) I don't have an expensive education, or a particular interest in philosophy which puts me at a distinct disadvantage to those who recognize a fallacy before someone has finished an idea. Sometimes things are what they seem and an individual has the authority to gauge that for themselves. I am not chastising any conclusion. I am chastising the way it is defended, and the notion that an opposing conclusion should be shamed into shutting up. I see it in politics, I see it in feminism,...religion, atheism....you name it. It is just too much. It is low hanging fruit and ad hominem by definition to attack the person and not the idea. I am particularly turned off by atheists who defend "reason & logic" through personally attacking the religious...if that isn't irony I don't know what is. I guess my disinterest in philosophy betrays my support of reasoned conclusions also, but I don't deny the assertion that we are all capable of having "2 sets of books". I guess in that case I try not to stick my entire foot in my mouth. We all contradict ourselves sometimes.
Very nicely put, Atlas.
24:35 look at his smile when he is being called "vile". brillian!
Excellent As Always.
It is indeed unfortunate that the government at the time had so little confidence in the will of it's own people to resist and destroy psychopathic dictators that they chose to appeal to their fear rather than their solidarity with their fellow man who are living under such as regime of Saddam Husseins Iraq. I guess we'll never know what would have happened if the government had chosen to include Hitchens' points as some of the main reasons for intervention.
I loved the Hitch and still do, but I never heard a truly solid argument for this war, given the mess that was so very likely to result from an ill-conceived invasion. Did Hitchens ever address the point that this war will surely lead to another, and another, and that military intervention might not be the answer, given the historical record. It's a simple point. The Iraqi people didn't choose this, but they have to live with it. Time may prove Hitchens to have been guilty of wishful thinking.
He looks fricking hammered, still managed to do a good interview,
I voted on this page for Hitchens as one of a group of thinking people that we see too seldom on Western mainstream media forms.
christopher hitchens > homework
For good or for bad, I love Hitch. I didn’t agree with him here, but damn he was brilliant. I cant help but feel the fatwa on Rushdie started to change his feelings towards Islam and religion in general. Also the few months he spent on Bush Jrs ranch could have changed his mind.
He questioned religion since he was a kid and according to his brother, it was the most consistent critique he held. The fatwa did get to him yeah, it made him think that if theocracies felt that they wanted to change open, tolerant societies that on paper at least valued free speech, then maybe those societies would have to change in of themselves. In other words, being anti war can only get you so far before you start becoming an apologist for all sorts of nasty expansionist regimes.
This is what your Tivo used to watch at night to get the program guide
Christopher is not always right... but he's always interesting.
Right as in correct or political leanings? Haha
Great original insight sam harris
I know I am not going to live forever and neither are you, but until my furlough here on earth is revoked, I’d like to raise my glass of JWB high above my head 🥃 in honor of the beautiful intellect and mind of Christopher Hitchens, the world is a poorer place without Hitch, I sorely miss the gorgeous bastard.
I guess he's referring to Hitch's book "The Trial of Henry Kissinger"
As an aside, a mormon approached me a few days back - "have you heard of the book of mormon?" he asked, "yup, I replied, I've got a copy". What do you think of it?" I replied that I thought it was hilarious. The look on his face was priceless.
hi skraeling 1000, had a good laugh on this one,Thanks, it took me 2/3/ read throughs i know i spelt that wrong,but im high and when it hit was funny ....love it ..
Yes, I have heard how it is done: the ends justify the means. If you need to gain support for a just cause, you can: issue false propaganda, wrongly stoke fears, and make inaccurate claims (again, only if the cause is "just" enough). I agree that the American endorsed Iraqi dictator should be handled by Americans, but how we went about it: disastrous. I don't doubt Hitchens account of Iraq, in fact, I think everyone should look into it. Sadly, people used his brand name, rather than his reasons.
I think Hitch responded to your point along the lines of - Just because there are other despots or dictators doesn't mean we can't Saddam -.. and I agree.
one of the few topics I disagree with Hitchens on... I think his motives are noble (removal of a fascist dictator) but his willingness to ignore the imperialist angle and the massive cost in human suffering to the Iraqi people negates any noble intent. As such an ardent supporter of the Kurdish cause I think Hitchens was blinded to the damage inflicted on innocent Iraqis and in fact adopted a win at all costs outlook.
Seconded, you have my support and solidarity.
Why can't callers just ask their damn question
Hitchens did just that in his article on Slate titled "Romney's Mormon Problem".
That's my man! He is a bad ass.
He did, in fact...only about 30 seconds worth, but it's out there on the net...
But the fact that the public was once again "duped" into a war that only a few like Hitchens understood in the first place, is why people seem to be the most upset with the war. Hitchens stance is more like "there could be a more unjust cause" which is wholly unsatisfying. We all understand Saddam is bad, but the fact that most do not understand these wars is a serious concern. There were better ways of going about dealing with Saddam, and I do think America was hasty. The people were played.
He looks damn good with a beard! I miss him so
If anyone is still skeptical whether to take Hitchens' arguments seriously in the video, I would implore one to skip to 8:25 and then check the front page of any major newspaper. Hitchens claimed that "there is a definite evolution toward democratic pluralism" in the region. If by "democratic pluralism" Hitchens meant the rise of ISIS, the extremist group declaring themselves a caliphate, and commencement of a sectarian civil war, democracy has been achieved. The ultimate connection neocons loved to bring to light during 2011 was whether the "liberation" of Iraq brought about the Arab spring. That position has been nullified since. The entire region has imploded into further violence since the American occupation. Not one democracy has been salvaged from the carnage, which continues to this day. With President Obama sending what I believe is now 500 "military advisers" back to Iraq, which is always how further intervention begins, Google JFK and Vietnam if you don't believe me, this issue could not be more important. The bottom line is: Western military intervention and occupation will NEVER bring about "democratic pluralism" in any Middle Eastern country. In how many different countries do we need to see this not only fail, but then devolve into civil war? There should be mass protests at what Obama is doing. Hitchens, though a brilliant writer, was 100% wrong here.
What about the Arab Spring?
I first misread your comment, mistaking "a mormon" for "a moron".
I found that either way works.
What is the date of this interview?
what about the part where the US urged Iraq (who at the time was their loyal ally and arms customer) to invade Iran as retaliation for the US Embassy hostage taking many years earlier costing millions of lives on each side? If you study US history you will realize that America has an extensive history of supporting viscious dictators who would further their interests in various regions. Sometimes the dictators lose favor with the US for various reasons but political philosophy is not one of them
When was this first broadcast?
Very educational.
He was a total failure in this.
By now, had Hitch lived, he surely would've realized that effective military intervention in Iraq would have to include permanent occupation. Right? Given that he always opposed that idea, it's hard to see him not making a few grudging concessions of defeat. He was stubborn as all hell, but surely by now...
Occupation? By whom? The US military *left Iraq after being asked to do so by the government of Iraq*.
I don't think he would have relented his position. But to his credit he got the worst case scenario right at 1:55 which actually did pan out. Makes him even more culpable for descending Iraq into the cesspool of terrorism today since he knew what the risks of intervention were and chose it anyway.
Masood Afzal
Why not try blaming the terrorists for terrorism, instead of the people of Iraq, or the likes of Hitchens? (Hitchens was a truer friend to the Iraqi people than anyone who opposed the 2003 intervention)
It's also absurd to blame I.S on the 2003 intervention in Iraq- the Fedayeen Saddam was the original terrorists force in Iraq post-the 2003 intervention. By your logic, if a terrorist group sprouted-up in ten years time, that group could be blamed on the 2003 intervention. Also, the stated goal of I.S is to created an Islamic state, not repel or kick-out foreign occupiers
Matthew Singh-Dosanjh Hitchens smitchens. Have you researched the problem up close? I propose you take a look into Jeremy Scahill's work on the subject. He's been to Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia etc. Unlike Hitchens, he has not been embedded with the US troops so he's gotten a chance to see what we are not presented with.
A closer approximation to reality is the fact that desperate people do desperate deeds. We're all swayed by charismatic leaders. Bush, Lenin, Kennedy, Hitler, Obama, Pat Robertson, Ken Ham etc. Generally speaking, the scum of the Earth. (I only put elected and admired people in the list.) As a crowd, we respond to charisma, not reason. Couple that with the war and you get what US intelligence had predicted, prior to the invasion.
Again, Jeremy Scahill. Watch his _Dirty Wars_, at least to know what to disagree with.
TechnocraticBushman
I'm aware of Scahill. He's a hack of the lowest order, as are those that cite him as a credible source. Scahill and his co-thinkers believe the cause of Islamic fascism is the resistance to it, and that it can all be blamed on rampaging American colonialism and imperialism. I stopped debating this sophomoric mentality quite some time ago, as the people that espouse it are essentially presuppositionalists who axiomatically dismiss evidence contrary to their position.
On Hitchens, I think you'll find that he made his first trip to Iraq in 1976 when Ba'ath Party and Saddam Hussein had just taken power. Additionally, he was in Iraq at the end of the first Gulf War with the Peshmerga fighters in the North of the country. Hitchens also had a great deal of Iraqi friends when Scahill was still a child, friends such as Jalal Talabani.
Also, Hitchens reported from some *sixty nations* during his journalistic career, including being one of the few (if not the only) journalists to visit all three 'axis of evil' nations of Iraq, Iran and North Korea.
1:05 2023.
Christopher Hitchens 2:05
Israel, Ukraine, etc.
WW3 is not something we can see.
Stay Safe
Stay Safe
Stay Free 4:05
It feels like the argument that the Bush administration makes, and the case Hitchens makes are different. I feel that Hitchens argues about the long history of Iraq, and America did not jump on the war bandwagon for many of those reasons. The Iraq War was largely interpreted as a war as a result of 9/11, not the clean-up of American mistakes. He never seems to bridge this gap, and people have given him sufficient shit for it.
Hitchslapped! He's his own man.
Heavy night mr hitch... good on you
Actually, no. This was filmed in 2005, he died in 2011.
I'm not surprised that Hitch is hammered. I am surprised, however, that we're able to notice he's hammered.
I agree he would have said something along those lines, just wish he was still here to put his eloquent spin on it :( R.I.P.
I wish people wouldn't call in to showcase what they know. No one cares. Ask the question and listen.
11:36 The poor interviewer looks petrified by the prospect of trying to ask Hitchens an intelligent question.
So you blame us when we do nothing and then blame us when we do something. What do you people want?
When was the war? 2013?
Is the cross in the centre of the background (wooden cross on red) deliberate, perhaps to encourage Christians to watch? Hitchens?
LOL!!!
Seconded. Couldn't have put it better myself.
If Hitch could have held out for a few more years. I bet if there was anything he regretted. it would have been not being around to provide clarity to this election.
The pre-video advertisement was for a free Bible app...bit of a LOL coming as it does before the Hitch.
Well the war was one huge fuck up but at least you didn't use mustard gas on civilian settlements.
33:30 Hitchens has previously made the case about the '93 terrorist who cooperated and fled to Iraq and was told the truth. Iraq tried to arrange his departure and his rendition to USA and all they asked in return was for a document attesting to this exchange. USA refused. I don't believe he still made this argument after all this time.
Sorry to drag this up after 4 years, but what exactly do you mean?
I wonder what he would think of the recent unrest within Islam
Hitchens will always be a hero of mine but yes his support of the Iraq war is where we part ways and for many. He wasnt alone, many people became reactionary after 9-11 and tried to justify Iraq. He was no chickenhawk though.It just proves he was mortal and fallable like us all but definitely was one of the sharpest minds bar none.
I think his explanation may be a lit more post-hoc, he was an intellectual. Of course he'd present it that way.
I think that the way in which people in the country, in an age of information, are given terrible reasons for warmongering: to protect you and yours at the cost of others. Often, this is disingenuous, as terrorism is more flashy than dangerous, as lethality to nations go. It isn't Hitchens fault for being given a small bullhorn, indeed, we should have been listening to his rallying cry. If the reasons were humanitarian, no one would argue the war, this wasn't the case, and can't be neglected.
I can't hear shit
He did eviscerate romney and mormonism in the 2008 primaries in both articles and interviews, check them out
Hitchens was right on so many issues, but his view of the Middle East was far too simplistic and he totally miscalculated the invasion of Iraq. Afterwards he seemed pretty embarrassed to talk about Iraq on stage as it continually undermined his credibility. He tried to defend his unrectifiable position at times, but to little avail - administering a self 'hitchslap' in the process which seemed to reverberate the more louder in the presence of inexplicable silence from the audience.
The never-ending bloody consequences of the Invasion of Iraq is one of the worst things to happen in human history.
George Bush Jr. was a religious nut believing God contacted him privately to give blessing for the on-coming war. This one-dimensional baboon for a President, and together with war hawks at his ear, proved to be a disastrous combination. Hitchens on the other hand, who should really have know better, was a sincere dreamer on Iraq.
+OmegaKent hitch was a true contrarian. he always took the most unpopular position just to open up opposition to the consensus view. i dont think he really belived everything he said about iraq he just felt it his obligation to open up a new avenue of conversation. He was a contrarian in every sense of the word.
The Iraq war was maybe 50th or 60th worst thing to happen. I disliked Bush and the reasons he gave for war. I disliked Saddam and what he did more. Saddam was 35th on the list of horrible things. I wish I knew about Christopher when I argued against Saddam. He was the first person that agreed with my opinion. A very unpopular opinion.
+ProjektaV2 Discovering Hitch and his opinions really helped flourish mine as well, and it seems necessary too, especially when you share such a contrarian opinion with other people
@@theflyingotis3797 Well, being for the iraq war in public life or privilieged positions in the US by the time of the invasion, was the path of least resistence.
His only flaw was that he was so sorely wrong about Iraq
so we just leave Saddam in power?Let him have Kuwait?
@@woodytheduke ye your right killing a million innocent people and destroying the country for the next 100 years was a much better option lol
I'm not saying the war was one jolly litte teaparty. Just that hiring an attack dog that would deliberately and openly target civilians is generally a bad idea.
I would give anything to hear him eviscerate Mitt Romney and mormonism :-( Love ya big man
As i just said, it is now known that particles are created and destroyed from absolutely nothing all the time at a quantum level.
If you add up all the positives and negatives in this universe you get a total of 0, it is easy to come from 0 when we are currently 0 if you take into account the entirety of the universe
Ha! That is awesome. I'm usually just a prick until they leave. I'm gonna have to use that one.
Probably the least appropriate compliment ever haha
Oh, so we went there to make sure that China and India could get all the oil? Those are the big benefactors of Iraqi oil, not the USA. Let's not forget that the Iraqi people now directly benefit from the oil sales, as opposed to before. You'll have to do a bit more thinking to get past that inconvenient liberty.
Wtf kind of title is this?
If you don't know how psycho angry what Hitch says at 2:45 - 4:00 would have angered liberals and the Left back then, you didn't live through it.
yes
Well I agree with you but I find it hard to believe Hitchens was doing more than promoting his poxy book
He was many things to the west but a puppet certainly isn't one of them. You don't invade your own puppet state. I do however agree with you that every single country/regime around the world that engages in constant violations of human rights should be taken to task, but the political situation especially in the USA (which is always the country doing the heavy lifting) is far too delicate.
Yes, the 'coalition of the willing' certainly don't, especially ones which actually have chemical and biological weapons.
now I have to replay the whole video, I was too focused on his beard
I wouldn't say the inferior laryngeal couldn't possibly be designed. But if it were consciously designed, it would be an indication of stupid design...or lazy design.
his only weak point, foreign policy for the us of a
he was such a clear thinker for everything else
.....no one can be perfect (except maybe carl sagan)
Hitch was surely brilliant, however pre & post 911 Hitch presented two quite different perspectives. My personal view is his almost forced patriotic stance defending actions undertaken following the attacks, shows how his “immigrant “ personal journey pushed him subconsciously to stand behind pro America propaganda. What a shame, his wonderful mind with such deadly use of words, could have had a real impact against the criminal administration he seemingly stood behind.
It is a very sad Thing indeed that Hicthens was wrong about that after the Trial that These apologists of Saddam would stop. Just sad.
True.
Such a loss.
Since I'm listening, how do you find that he squared the American motives for war and the suitable one's he purported?
while I agree with what you say, I'd just like to point out (as I made the same error a few days ago) the murdering as far as I know of the officials in the consulate in Benghazi was well in the works before the video happened. While I am not sure about this information, I heard there were no protests going on related to the film when the attack happened. At worst, the murders were a plot regardless of the movie that seized upon the moment of outrage as a smoke screen for its evil.
The regime change was justified however the death toll of civilians was not.
The political vacuum left from the invasion was also badly managed and we know it permitted extremists to gain power from that situation.
The amount of power the government gave to private military contractors and a temporary immunity from prosecution was equally wrong.
War I'd never been pretty however this one was a mess as described by various soldiers from the winter soldier program.
What was the last thing he said about Iraq before he died?
I completely disagree with you on this but I think it's the common opinion of Chris's fans. Being an atheist most of his fans a left wing pinko types and he KNEW that this opinion would piss them off. He must have. Part of his reason for having the opinion is preciously because of that. This is something we all do to some degree but the main point I'll make here is that with political situations there is no right or wrong... there is just opinion. It's not an exact science.
he has did very near the end of his life on bill maher's show
I've read the bible. There's nothing more likely to make one an atheist than READING the damned book. Not having it "explained" to you. Not having someone pick out phrases here and there - but READING the book. Worked wonders for confirming my atheism.
Thats not what Hitchens discussed in the Trial of Henry Kissinger..
but Nice Try anyway.
¿¡¿¡Title noesn't can making scent?!?!
The “so-called insurgents”? And next to the sentence “(a) I know what I’m talking about and (b) I’m willing to look these facts in the face”... Insurgents were fighters from surrounding countries who came because of the invasion and the power void-many thinking their country is next or will be after Iran takes over, many unaffiliated with Al Qaeda. All nuance is eventually lost in war, I realize, but saying so-called insurgency implies so-called attacks and so-called casualties which is absurd.