Christopher Hitchens - [2008] - Discussing politics with Eric Alterman 

I dig your Hitch vids.

@@1984isnotamanual Cheers :)

RU-vid, that bastion of vacuous self-promotion and amateurish exhibitionism, was hardly the breeding ground for the sophisticated, aurally-driven medium that is podcasting. No, , podcasting, with its rich, sonorous tones and erudite conversation, was always the superior format. And as for video conferencing on RU-vid, why, that was little more than a fleeting fad, a momentary aberration in the grand tapestry of human communication. I mean, really, who among us wishes to gaze upon the gurning, pixelated visages of our interlocutors when we might instead indulge in the rich, aural textures of the spoken word? The very idea is risible, a joke, a farce, a... well, a RU-vid video, if you will.

+drstrangelove09 You would think he would reconsider Iraq after it did more harm then good. Sad to see Hitch appear to be stubborn on this one.

+Siba Burck So you claim.

+Siba Burck Iraq now has free elections, and an autonomous federal system with the most recent voter turnout being on par with voter turnout for presidential elections in the U.S. This is harm you say? Get real.

What are you? A fucking comedian

He'd win any debate whether he believed in the side he was debating on or not.. in fairness..

You've never watched their appearance on Charlie Rose, have you? Also, to call Hitchens 'quite a boor' is both laughable and absurd in equal measure.

Hardly. Watch many of Hitchens' filmed panel discussions and interviews (I have) and it's easy to see: his "talk-over" rate was always astonishingly high. He camouflaged it well with that plummy English schoolboy accent (Americans almost always fall for that) and the strategic placement of a few Miss Manners niceties spiced with the occasional traditional British vicious backhanded compliment, but the boorishness was always there, lurking just beneath the surface. And it's always, only his partisans who refuse to see it. I'll admit that I was largely in that camp until his ludicrous, and strenuous, advocacy of the insane, nightmarish, catastrophic 2nd Iraq war shocked me out of it.

daveguy11 'Hardly. Watch many of Hitchens' filmed panel discussions and interviews (I have) and it's easy to see: his "talk-over" rate was always astonishingly high.' I completely disagree, having seen a great deal more of Hitchens' public appearances than you. 'He camouflaged it well with that plummy English schoolboy accent (Americans almost always fall for that) and the strategic placement of a few Miss Manners niceties spiced with the occasional traditional British vicious backhanded compliment, but the boorishness was always there, lurking just beneath the surface' So, you're unaware of ad hominem attack, and why it's considered intellectually inferior. You appear to be the typical bitter, miserable Brit that begrudges a fellow Brit being a success in the US. Hitchens actually explained he partly left the UK because of the sour-faced likes of you. 'And it's always, only his partisans who refuse to see it.' This is very close to being a presuppositionalist/infallible argument. Essentially, it's the tired 'Hitchens admirers are all sheep' trope. ' I'll admit that I was largely in that camp until his ludicrous, and strenuous, advocacy of the insane, nightmarish, catastrophic 2nd Iraq war shocked me out of it.' As I was expecting, you have a personal grudge over the liberation Iraq, and thus no objective, honest criticism of Hitchens. Rather, you have an irrational, perhaps hysterical dislike of Hitchens for his, GASP!, audacity to advocate the removal of a proven genocidal despot, whereas the likes of you advocated the remaining in power of said fascistic maniac. To Hitchens, the shame is all yours, and you're welcome to it. You should also consider, if possible, the following: A nation sacrifices its sovereignty when; 1. It invades a neighbouring state, as Iraq had done in Kuwait (in fact Hussein tried to annex and absorb Kuwait) 2. It has committed genocide, and therefore violated, the UN Genocide Convention (and the Convention by the way MANDATES immediate action be taken to either "prevent or punish" as soon as information is available) as Iraq did with the Al-Anfal genocide campaign in which at least 130,000 Kurds were gassed, some with US, UK, French, Russian and Germany weaponry, much to our shame (and is the reason we have a moral and ethical duty, obligation and responsibility to the people of Iraq) 3. It harbours internationally-wanted criminals, as Iraq had, giving safe-haven to the likes of Abu Nidal (who killed Leon Klinghoffer ) and Abu Rahman Yasin (who mixed the chemicals for the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993). 4. It tries to acquire WMD, or out-right violates the UN Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In his book, 'The Bomb In My Garden', former Iraq chief nuclear scientist Medi Abedi confessed remnants of a centrifuge were buried in his garden, and that dummy sites were manufactured to fool UN weapons inspectors. Iraq met ALL FOUR POINTS, and therefore surrendered it's sovereignty to the international community and made the 2003 intervention and liberation legal AND moral. Only the US and UK took action because France, Russia and Germany were bribed thru the corrupted UN Oil-For-Food Programme.

Well, I hardly know whether to feel complimented or offended, but, being an sometimes-proud (and sometimes-ashamed) American, and most certainly *not* an Englishman, I'll decide that I'm offended, and *demand* that you take back your assertion that I'm a Brit. (Jesus, did you blow that...) As for ad hominem attacks, well, your accusation that I am a "typical bitter, miserable Brit", in addition to possessing the glorious distinction of being *entirely* wrong, also perfectly fits Merriam-Webster's definition of "ad hominem": "marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made". As for my assertions about Hitchens' boorish debate tactics (all of my assertions being based on *behavior*, *not* character), all one has to do is watch the very 54 minute video (above) that we are discussing to see the truth of that. ...Oh, and, btw, nice copy-and-paste job on Hitchens' talking points. ...Oh, and I did not "advocate" the "remaining in power" of "said fascistic maniac", but I *would* like the thousands of American deaths, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths, and as many as millions of displaced Iraqis "restored", thank you very much. Sadly, Mr. Hitchens is not in a position to accomplish that.

2nd best after Carlin.

I was just thinking that

If Hitchens were still alive he would backhand you for your idiocy. He has given his reasons in support of the Iraq in tons of different debates. Furthermore you obviously don't know the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan but I digress. So stick your head back in the sand, you just want a nice little hovel for Western values and I you are not going to get it. The parties of god will not let you.

I've read his autobiography and numerous of his writings on the Iraq War. He clearly writes about how his thinking about Iraq evolved over decades but NEVER does he address the point that I made in my post except to write about a single soldier who was inspired by Hitchens' polemics to sign up to go to Iraq and subsequently died. He would backhand you for intellectual laziness as well as poor reading comprehension: Afghanistan is an entirely different subject which I did not address in my post. I suggest you take your pygmy intellect (apologies to pygmies), and post elsewhere where the level is not so far beyond your attainments.

If you think that 4000 American lives should be sacrificed on a pack of lies, you would be a traitor if you weren't so self-evidently a fool. All low-info wingnuts perceive their intellectual betters as "pompous." Sorry. No one can help you with that.

John Browner chickensguys Well, Hitchens probably wouldn't give either of you a second thought after the childish way you handled yourselves here--calling names and such--so don't invoke his name as any sort of support for your arguments. For you, Browner, there are multiple reasons he would have failed to mention the U.S. soldiers who died in Iraq. First off, his debating style often included neglecting to mention possibly convincing points for the opposing side, doing so might weaken his argument. On top of that, he likely considered four thousand a sad but acceptable price for what he considered to be the liberation of Iraq from a totalitarian dictator who regularly murdered his own countrymen. From my own personal thoughts, I would like to mention that we as Americans get caught up in the numbers of *Americans* who die in conflicts and tragedies as if their lives matter more than the lives of citizens of other nations. I understand patriotism, but, especially in this now-global society, shouldn't we consider all deaths of human beings to be equally tragic, when considering nationality? Hitchens himself was a truly international being; he visited a diverse array of countries before his early death, and he was even a citizen of two different nations, being both officially British and officially American in the final few years of his life, and I'd consider him an honorary American starting long before then; he loved America more than even some of the staunchest of patriots. From that perspective, he would have, I think, not seen the deaths of four thousand U.S. soldiers to be more tragic than the deaths of thousands of Iraqis--another group victimized by the war, though you failed to mention them; he certainly would have done so, and in the same breath in which he mentioned the American dead. And therein lies my other point: Iraqis were already dying prior to the war, by Hussein's hand, as I've already mentioned and as Hitchens would love to repeat often, so those four thousand soldiers were a sacrifice to end Iraqi bloodshed. Was it worth the cost? Did it cause more Iraqi deaths than it saved? I don't know, but it isn't as simple an issue as "We lost four thousand of our own citizens over there."

John Browner The number of dead, in any given situation, is never irrelevant, especially when considering moral issues, as killing innocents is one of the most immoral acts possible. The typical media rhetoric regarding the WMD situation does consistently say there was no evidence and the war was based on lies, but Hitchens would argue differently, as, I think, he does in this video. I'm sorry if you interpreted my tone as being "pious" or self-righteous. I merely wanted to defend Hitchens a little bit. I think his personal views and his morals are related, in that morals are personal views, so I'd say he didn't suspend any morals; he most definitely considered the war to be a moral act, whether he'd think that way today is up for debate.

teodelfuego as long as you admit you're being petty

He’s not a leftist he is a liberal.

it was true in 2008

in other words, "shame on him for not predicting the future"

If you have think he isn't missed, then you mustn't have read the comments of most of his videos. I've lost count of how many times I've read that he's greatly missed.

Yeah, there are a lot of things he said I don't necessarily agree on, but I have to admire the way he says things.

North Korea had by then signed off the non proliferation treaty and also had China on its side which (which have nukes) would have made an invasion virtually impossible and too dangerous for the US citizen via a nuclear holocaust

At least he wouldn't his "religion" influence his decisions.

Too bad he wasn't smart enough to quit smoking and drinking which shortened his life.

All you people love to say that, but HOW exactly was he wrong? You always just say "I love Hitch but it's a shame he got this one wrong," as if it's been conclusively decided at this point that his side was wrong in some objective fashion. Our wretched federal government made many fabulous fuck-ups, as per usual, but it's still entirely possibly the situation would've been much worse had we not fought against Mesopotamian fascism.

Hmmm - I never saw an ugly side. I guess it's in the eye of the beholder.

So you disagree

So cognitive dissonance is your game. It seems to be quite widespread.

@@theonlyantony where's the cognitive dissonance?

And how do you rate his books? His debating prowess is one thing. Which was your favourite read - the real page-turner for you?