Christopher Hitchens interview on the Iraq War and Saddam Hussein (2002) 

Saddam Hussein was playing for keeps even early on; 24 men in parliament were taken into the courtyard and made to shoot one another and 24 died (Saddam had been vice president since 1973) when Saddam came to power in n 1979. It seems that Hitchens ignored the atrocities Saddam Hussein had committed until around 1998 when he had a sizable disagreement with Noan Chomsky. For example, Chomsky thought the attack on Khartoum was an atrocity - while Hitchens strongly believed Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein needed to be taken to task. September 11 essentially clinched what Hitchens had felt would happen and he wanted to make clear the fact that American intervention is NOT an atrocity on par with the 400,000 deaths caused by Saddam's regime or the attacks on US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and 9/11 which also had over 3,100 deaths as its final toll.

😊😊😊😊😊😊

I agree. I think it's mainly because he was told that Iraq had a hand in 9/11. That wasn't true - it was Saudi Arabia.

@@joecurran2811 Even so, that wouldn't justify the US invading Saudi Arabia, the US isn't the global police, they don't get to invade random ass countries and no reasonable person should think they can.

@@daboos6353 I didn't claim it did. It would make it an act of war from Saudi Arabia however. Our allies?

@@joecurran2811 No it wouldn't, the entire Saudi government wasn't in on some secret plot to destroy the twin towers. What the Saudi government did was fund Al-Qaeda. And if you consider that a declaration of war, you'll be shocked to know how many fucked up organizations the US has sponsored, South Korea, Taiwan, Iran, Indonesia, Chile. The list goes on.

100%. Hitchens lost few arguments, his Iraq War position was so laughably bad that it was his biggest loss by far.

Christopher was always the first to admit if he didn't know something. That's why.

​@@wastedviking6280 He also just went with it if he thought he knew something that he really didn't

Yes, I think the video is purposely edited to allow the listeners solely to listen to Hitchens. Hence the title.

@@TheTruthDon :: Yes ! You're right ! But they should have just interviewed Hitchens. Leaving out the others on the panel cheats the listeners, I think. It would have been nice to see Hitchens challenged.

@@cliffgaither You’re not wrong, it was a hotly contested issue. Reporting is so bad though it’s just intensely destructive. The media can distort facts and realities but still succeed in turning the public for or against an issue.

@@TheTruthDon :: Yeah ! That is the purpose of the media.

The original is on RU-vid as well and the best way to listen someone made this for those who just want to hear Hitchens arguments.

Which is?

Did not you see the debate?

​@someone1 he's insinuating that Hitchens' Jewish heritage meant that he was a proponent of wars in Middle East. This idiot fails to mention that Hitchens was an outspoken critic of zionism and of Israel and advocated for the Kurds and Palestinians. Antisemitism is a rot of the brain.

​@@someone1He was Jewish.

@@someone1He’s alluding to him being ✡️

it shows that despite all his crap about "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", he was a slave to hate and bigotry. I don't know how a person with conscience can live with himself after advocating for a war that caused death of around a million people. You can continue worshiping at his altar!

By "legend" did you mean a legendary war crime apologist?

@@gojiplusoneReading is difficult eh?

In the end he admits that his stance on Iraq was wrong before his death

Iraq War was done wrong. If they didn't fire all the government public services and if they knew how to reform the government(this is the root issue,basically infeasible). The Iraq War is impossibly misinterpreted,although obviously it was a bad war,basically.

You don't have to agree with him about every single issue. He dropped the ball here, though that's for sure.

He was absolutely right

@@nad1ax2 No amount of sophistry on a television interview can change the facts on the ground.

@@SlazeM7 and those being?

@@nad1ax2 Invading Iraq was a mistake that was based on lies. These lies include include Latif Yahia's claims which Hitchens cites to rouse emotions.

Absolute nonsense, cite an example.

Tell that to the Kurdish people; the people currently kicking ISIS' ass!

No he didn't. He stuck by his claims until the day he died AND wasn't afraid to call Bush incompetent. Both of which are true.

@@jslberto Died never being able to admit that he fucked up. Great...

M J because he didn't, you pathetic moron, as demonstrated by pesky facts. Dumb ingrate.

I'd love to hear his thoughts on Trump.

struggled with this for a while, but there is no point in time that saying it would not be correct, he would be good to have around at any point in time. We are lucky that we got to hear what he had to give in the time he had, its up to us now, like Orwell was to him, we have to carry on. Still....wish he was here to .

No.

@@voiceofmoderation9810 he would suck of Trump

NO. Better for him.

Lmao

Nonsense. Whose idea was it to create a sunni-Shia civil? You think that was the fault of the Americans? Do you have any sense what moral responsibility is? All the bombs and bullets from US and British troops is nothing, nooooothing compared to the hundreds of thousands killed by Iraqis themselves. They did that to themselves.

@@philmitchell91 I agree. Saddam was an absolute idiot but america still wasnt supposed to be there

@@philmitchell91 and america killed over 1 million brother

@@ahmadarnaoute He was far more than an 'idiot', he was the worst, most vicious and most sadistic of all the dictators in the Middle East. As Hitchens said, you can get a sense of how much someone knows about Saddam if they describe him as a 'bad guy'. Or as you say, an 'idiot'. You wouldn't know what fascism feels like, to be a hunted minority with chemical weapons launched against you, women and children. Or to be any enemy of the Saddam regime. When have the Americans come close to replicating what Saddam did in causing actual terror?

Was the invasion unjustified due to how it turned out, or was it unjustified to begin with, no matter what?

So the invasion of Germany was unjustified?

If we were to follow this argument to its logical conclusion, it would mean that Hitler would be free to do what he will with German jews so long as he stayed within his borders. Are you willing to accept that?

"Terrible things are happening in Nazi Germany, they're literally sending men women and children o gas chambers" The truth seeker : "That's Germany's internal matter"

@@user-hu3iy9gz5j to begin with

He was a war criminal cheerleader! But I guess you hate Putin, but love warmonger criminal Blair and his friend Bush. God eventually gave him cancer and he died as a silly dog.

he was totally wrong

21 years later, 1 million Iraqi died. The leaders appointed by Paul bremer are corrupt. Iraq is living in the dark ages. So Hitchens judgment and prediction is totally wrong. I wonder how many theories he believes in are acceptable and applicable?

@@basingstokesteve9131how do you think the continuation of non democratic or dictatorships are good?

@@MrWhitmen1981 We're not saying that, we're saying that American interventionism does not guarantee democracy and political stability.

Then what would be? Hug it out and ask him pretty please?

@@Lobsterwithinternet we killed more people than Saddam did

@@LOREHAMMER40000 If you count everyone who died in Iraq after the US invaded, sure. But that's like saying Henry Ford killed more people than Hitler when you add in all the deaths caused by auto accidents. It's disingenuous to assert that.

Oh yeah? Were you there? Because I was. The worst thing that ever happened to them was the sanctions, not Saddam Hussein. Don't you remember the town hall Ware Madeleine Albright was told 500,000 children we're going to starve to death or die because of lack of medical supplies in 1996 and she said those were acceptable losses? Saddam was a pikey compared to us

@@LOREHAMMER40000 That wasn't a town hall she said that and it wasn't about medical supplies. It was an episode of ‘60 Minutes’ from May 12 of 1996 that said, and I quote: Lesley Stahl, speaking of US sanctions against Iraq: “We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And - and you know, is the price worth it?” Madeleine Albright: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it.” Which was based on a 1995 U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report that 567,000 Iraqi children under the age of five had died as a result of the sanctions. This is also ignoring that this was a rough rendering of preliminary estimates and that this was the highest of those estimates. For example, In early 1998, Columbia University’s Richard Garfield published a dramatically lower estimate of 106,000 to 227,000 children under five dead due to sanctions, which was reported in many papers (e.g. New Orleans Times-Picayune, 2/15/98). Later, UNICEF came out with the first authoritative report (8/99), based on a survey of 24,000 households, suggesting that the total “excess” deaths of children under 5 was about 500,000.

Bit like Ann Coluter on Bill's show a few years ago, she was right and made out to look like a loon...?

Did we watch the same show?

Do you actually know anything about Iraq right now? It’s insanely better than it was.

@@RikerLovesWorf No it fucking isn't

@@chairmanbunker4418 Right or wrong to attack Iraq ? We will never know,,,if Hussien was still in power he might have now acquired nuclear weapons

"We're going to have to decide what a post Hitler Germany is anyway". Those damn colonialist allies decided other nations fates for them.

@@norbetjagamara5536 Comparing Saddam to hitler is just repeating a blatant state department lie that is 20 years out dated and is a complete joke to anyone who hasn't spent a lifetime watching cable news brain rot.

@@chairmanbunker4418 Saddam was comparable to Hitler in that they were both were genocidal, expansionist war mongers who ruled through repression and a cult of personality. The only thing that should be 20 years out of date is apologism for Hussein. You can argue against the Iraq War as a matter of policy and execution, but describing Saddam as anything less than a monster and a blight on Iraq is wrong. He absolutely deserved to hang, even if the geopolitical ramifications of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and it's bungled aftermath make it a negative on balance.

@@norbetjagamara5536 same shit right? Iraq also invaded Europe and wanted to eliminate an entire race right? Also iraq had wmd.

@@darkcloud9053 Saddam invaded Kuwait, and his government genocided the kurds. Saddam was not Iraq, he oppressed the people of Iraq and you think it noble to let that continue for longer than it did? the 2003 invasion was 100% an intervention, not an annexation or occupation

Some of it.

Why wouldn’t he support the first? That was an attempt of imperialism and colonialism fueled by the pure greed of a genocidal dictator, which was intervened by western nations trying to protect their allies and end intimidation of smaller nations. The second was fueled by lies, that there were Weapons of Mass Destruction which they knew there weren’t, and the indoctrination that some how Iraq had something to do with the September 11th terror attacks. Yes, Saddam killed what, 300 thousand Kurds? But how does killing 1 million Iraqis and leaving enough weapons to create ISIS fix that?

He’s Jewish

*That's because you're woefully ignorant- Hitchens was 100% correct about the 2003 liberation of Iraq.*

⁠@@MattSingh1it was about oil, not liberation.

There’s more terrorism and extremism flowing out of that country than ever before and a ground for Russian and Chinese’s influence it is also not the wests business invading other countries because the leader decided to stop using the US dollar for paying for oil

As someone who was deployed to Iraq twice I can't tell you how many people said they were better off with Saddam. Not only did our power vacuum cause a civil war, it also caused isis. We are essentially responsible for more deaths than Saddam. And Iraq was a neutered country by then. Saddam didn't allow Islamic extremists in the country. And there are far worse regimes. I'm no liberal either. Don't speak on things you don't know about.

@MJ jotaemei he believed Saddam Hussein should be removed from power. As anyone with a brain should think. The issue with the invasion of Iraq was the American refusal to plan to for AFTER they'd removed Hussein, leading to a total mess politically. But Saddam Hussein needed to removed from power, or he would've kept killing thousands of Iraqis and continue the ethnic cleansing of the Kurds

Yeah, me too.... But a group of hypocrites are out there... When Hitchens took down religion, they would call him 'Saviour'. When he took this stand on Iraq Issue, they would call him 'bigot'.

@Known of Unknown True...

You are a bigott. Democracy is not a functioning system in every part of the world. Your friends killed 100.000s of Iraqis for what reason? Did they have MDWs? They obviously didn’t. Some people get smarter when they understand reality but you obviously stick to you evil agenda. Burn in hell

Hes was stupid and naive the war in iraq destroyed the country and created ISIS same with syria every place the west make wars its falls and turn radical there is a reason countries like Morocco Algeria Tunisia are stable , if they distroyed those countries ISIS would trive there too

@@chakir348 The West did not create the Syrian Civil War. If anything, it was lack of Western intervention which has led to the total disaster that Syria became (except in the case of NES, or Rojava, the predominantly Kurdish region, where significant US air support for Kurdish troops were instrumental in defeating ISIS in that part of Syria).

Terrible comparison. Not that I support the Iraq war though.

@@razbigranicu please expand

@@Nunoolavo For starters, the main goal of the war in Ukraine is to incorporate parts of Ukraine to Russia, not to overthrow regime or what have you. It's much more similar to what Serbs were doing in Bosnia and Croatia in the 90s.

​@@razbigranicu that IS the stapled goal of the Ukraine invasion ? ?m

Indeed lol. But Putin at least is fighting against war criminals North Atlantic Terrorist Organization aka NATO at his front door! US/NATO criminals went to Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, bombed two bombs on Japan, invaded Korea, Vietnam etc etc etc etc etc etc etc!

Im a great admirer of his, and he presented the single BEST case for war. It didnt ever win me over, but he did masterfully reject some opinions made by fellow leftists. Gone too soon

@Ayush Shah with hindsight, this is an extremely naive take. Even at the time, do you want to invade every country with a human rights violation. If you did, that'd be quite an expensive undertaking. The massive expense on a war with a country that didnt attack us will forever be a mistake.

@Austin Park So you’re saying that US shouldn’t have supported the Allies with weapons and later join the Allied forces during WWII against Hitler right?

@Mohammed Khetran I never even used the word “Nazism”. Read the whole damn sentence.

@Mohammed Khetran No not everything. But this one did.

Hitches war criminal cheerleader, is now rotten in hellfire.

Saddam hussein didn't get cancer and didn't suffer more than a minute or so when he died hanging. God is NOT real

There is no God, his position on war as a public intellectual is debatable.

least stupid religious guy.

@@fautlsavoirhein Exactly, It can't be the copious amounts of cigerettes he was smoking, It must be GOD!!!!

CH was a whore the DS paid him $100's of millions to help sell the war.

It was clipped that way, I think the full debate is on RU-vid.

*History has proven Hitchens correct. The 2003 liberation of Iraq was entirely justified. You're an ignorant fool. In regard to Afghanistan, Hitchens was actually entirely correct in that he said if the country fell back into the hands of the Islamofascists it would be a catastrophe.*

Typical Hitchens- worked best with the wind in his face, rather than at his back.

You're a moron. The Iraq was disaster.

Mmm... as much as Hitchens was right much of the time, he was wrong here in retrospect. He was right in a certain sense with faulty information (he was told that Saddam was linked to 9/11 and that's what many believed at the time). If he knew that wasn't as true, he might have a different perspective today, as many of us do.

The other contributions were skipped over. As it happens I have a lot of sympathy with Hitchens' POV. But it would have been a better video ifit had shown the contributions made by those of the opposing view, rather than erase them.

Agree he was a Sophist and tried to justify invading Iraq with bad arguments. But on the Ukraine situation, it's not as if the Ukrainians have a choice in the face of bare Russian aggression within their borders.

What a stupid thing to say, I don’t deny Christopher was sometimes a sophist, of course he was deeply affected by 9/11 and developed a slightly bizarre American patriotism. That is not however to say he was wrong when he criticised the anti war movement for being pro Saddam Hussein. He was disillusioned with the foreign policy of the left, Precisely because of morons like you. If Ukrainian sovereignty isn’t protected it sets the precedent that invasion can be justified on the global stage by pathetic and dishonest appeals about ethnic populations, imagine the carnage that could lead to in Europe alone. It sets the precedent that threats of nuclear war are an acceptable method of expansionism, you want to see more of that? And this weird pro Russia sentiment on the left which stems from somewhat legitimate criticism of American foreign policy is a cancer, nationalist expansionism IS NOT ONLY BAD WHEN THE AMERICANS DO IT, ITS JUST BAD.

@@jonathancowley2030 They had a choice during the Minsk accords.

Who's Hitchens?

...or people arent perfect?

Er, he is was posh public school boy. Would you prefer he faked an accent?

Nope. Just don't be duped into thinking a Sophist like Hitchens is correct just because of the style of his delivery.

You didnt listen to a single thing he said here.

sigh...

hahahahaha.He was totally wrong.

Hahahaha

IQ of a potato.

Yuck

200,000 civilian deaths are the only flaws in his victory.

“Liberation”

Ah yes the "liberation" that threw the entire country into chaos, destabilized the region, killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, created ISIS and its impact still continues to this very day.

@@ihsahnakerfeldt9280 the country was already fucked. Or is it stable when Iraqs citizens are grinded into soap or bulldozed into mush?