Agreed. Although his positions on Women and Humor and the Iraq War were completely unhelpful. The Iraq War was a huge waste of valuable taxpayer dollars. 9/11 cost us about $1.5B, The Wars will cost us trillions, going into the next century, when the last soldier is sent from a VA hospital to a cemetery. 5,000 Americans killed and a million injured, a half million with head trauma, something like a quarter million with PTSD. Lots of long-term impact on soldeiers and families. A million Iraqis were killed. Three or four million were scattered to the four winds , many into countries that don't want them. Those people may have lived under a military dictator, and they faced random state violence, and violence from his reckless, violent son, but they still had their neighborhoods and families, and I gurantee if you ask most of them today, they would much rather have kept that way of life than the ones they had the last twenty years. I could be wrong, but... I don't disagree with his thoughts on Islam. I believe it is a religious and social problem on a whole different level. I just think you would have to wage war against all of the middle east to do anything substantive about it. And that would have to include Saudi Arabia, which is far more religious than Hussein and Iraq were. The 800 lb. gorilla is that Islam's population is growing fast; it will be the largest religion in twenty years. So, the whole middle east and the growing global diaspora brought to heel. And we're not going to do that. First, it's just too militarily ambitious. Second, the American people, while perhaps agreeing in spirit, would not support such a huge commitment of American lives and money. And third, oil relations. Given all that, the Iraq War was an utter waste and Chris was wrong. On the Afghanistan War, no one has ever successfully invaded and occupied that country. And we never meant to occupy it indefintely, which is what it would take, even if only for the territories we held. There was no intelligent end-game plan. So, bad idea and big waste there, too. In terms of cleaning out Al Qaeda and saving oppressed women, again, we would need to wage that war on a much larger scale and occupy forever, so... Really, it should have been an international man-hunt by Special Ops forces to kill bin Laden, destroy the training camp, and leave it at that. Well, that and improving our intelligence and security, minus slashing the Bill of Rights. Otherwise, I agree with Chris on most everything and miss him greatly.
I think Chris would playfully say if it hurts to think you should stop 😂. But you should at least be grateful for the massive amounts of timeless discussion he did provide for us to draw from.
I'm slowly discovering that Hitchens was not only brilliant enough to create a perfect string of words to explain the dangers of something, but that he also was briliant enough to use wonderful works in his speeches to enhance his ideas. If hitchens came up with that line on the spot, it would had been astounding. It is equally astounding to me though that he would invoke a painting by Goya to paint an even clearer and more severe picture in our minds of the dangerous lack of reason our society. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sleep_of_Reason_Produces_Monsters If only we were all as cultured as hitchens. ^_^;
@Jazzkeyboardist1 honestly, I don't have the energy to debate you on any of this... I just wanted to say that you're a horrible person for the suicide comment.
Jazzkeyboardist1 Oh look it’s the Hitchens troll ..... this idiot is on almost every video with Christopher Hitchens that I’ve seen... Your mommy is calling you for lunch little man ...your PBnJ are done ....
I just have a hard time understanding why somebody who hates Christopher Hitchens so much go around to all of his videos and make comments that are this unintelligible and childish sounding. It's like a toddler took interests in foreign and War policies. if Jazz keyboardist points were all completely factually accurate and true, 99% of people would not realize and just think he was trolling because of the ways that he approaches it and how bad natured he is.
The interviewer deserves some credit here for a fair, well-paced discussion that showcased Hitch very well. Not what I was expecting from from Texas Monthly.
Challenging Christopher Hitchens, even on your best-confidence days, is a daunting proposition. His knowledge of geo-politics and the intricacies of their global consequences was formidable, to say the least.
An excellent interview and Evan Smith should be congratulated for taking an objective view and actually letting the interviewee speak freely! Refreshing
I'm impressed by Evan Smith. I've watched nearly every Hitchens interview on RU-vid, and Smith is by far the best interviewer I've seen. He's professional, intelligent and asked great questions. Kudos to Evan Smith.
Anyone else automatically click thumbs up on every video involving Christopher Hitchens before they even watch them? This man was phenomenal in many ways.
I think it’s the obvious chemistry between the Hitchens and the interviewer. The discussion feels more conversational than an interrogation for his opinions
nujac321 Wrong! Hitchens` writings will be studied in history courses, religion courses, and philosophy courses for a long time. Look at all the debates, writings (books, articles, etc.) about , and by, Hitchens. His words will survive loooooong after you and I are gone.
Such a shame this man is no longer with us. It would be so helpful to have his intellect still available to dissect all the BS that floats around today.
The interviewer is excellent, truly excellent! After this interview, I have no idea what his personal opinion is, and that is how it should be. Let the person being interviewed speak, ask questions, ask critical questions, too, but don't bring condescension or your personal opinions into it. When he asked critical questions, he would say thin gs along the lines of "some people might argue that... what is your opinion on this, Christopher?" A polite, neutral was to ask a critical question without being sneering. The interview is not fawning, but it is respectful; bravo! I love Hitchens but feel compelled to praise the interviewer here because it is so rare that an interview is conducted this professionally.
A very civil interviewer and a kindly chage from some of the more bolshy bigots that have faced off Hitchens in the past. I was expecting a heated argument given that this was in Texas!
I could listen to Mr. Hitchens all day even if I didn't agree with him. He was entertaining, passionate, and well read. I enjoy listening to any person that is willing to investigate information for the sake of being informed, while also being funny and unwilling to put up with people's shit.
Ricardo montalban I don't think he was as cutting as he normally would be. In his debates he's brutal but this was very civilised by comparison. Shit! I wish he was about now. 😟
I stumbled onto this while looking for Christopher Hitchens talks. I am a devoted fan of the late Mr. Hitchens but I was pleased to see him interviewed on a show that promotes faith and still treated Chris with much respect despite his very intense secular views. I share a great deal of his beliefs but I also believe in groups of people who share a faith and I thought that so much could have gotten very heated but the whole thing was treated and produced with distinguished taste. A fine way to run an interview...... Great Job !!!
***** I have no problem with reading, logic, reflection, etc., just in articulating my arguments verbally. I'm not good at the verbal debate, though I have been fairly active in debates on YT, for what that's worth. Typing is easy :P
what a great interview. It's so rare nowadays to see two intelligent people speaking in an intelligent manner. It's a shame there's not more of this in popular media.
You can say what you like about Hitchins. Love him, hate him. The thing that Hitchins does every time he speaks? (he makes you 'Listen' he makes you 'Question') and I think that would make him happy knowing that.
I can't believe I JUST found this channel. Texas Monthly is one of the best magazines there is, on all levels; as a guide and primer about what's good in Texas, as a socially conscious medium in a world where responsible journalism is being squeezed almost out of existence, and as an erudite, realistic journal of the political landscape of Texas. PLUS really good humor, such as the Bum Steer Awards! I had the pleasure of being in a group interview with Gary Cartwright while in a journalism class at UT. He was generous with his time and knowledge, as well as forthright with his insight. I hope they keep going.
Excellent interview! I have watched most of Hitchen’s interviews over the years and this one is by far the best! Thank you for uploading it. Evan Smith was very professional, kind and he allowed Hitchens to talk. Evan also asked great questions. I learned more in this specific interview than all of Hitchen’s other interviews put together. Kudos to the moderator!
The world seems a bit more crazy without him. All he said about faith and religions makes total sense to me and now I look for any video with him about it and listen to his audio books so I too can say something intelligent and sensible about why I wont become a follower of bronze age superstition.
This was the first time I ever seen a religious perspective’s representative not get hostile/start interrupting/spinning and putting words in mouths. Props to him
If you're seeking examples view a few of the interviews with this brilliant philosopher conducted by the geniuses on The TV station that rhymes with Nox Fews.
What an excellent host, wow. Extremely professional, especially with someone controversial (fine, important, very good) and aggressive (sometimes unnecessary) like Hitchens. Bravo.
I very much admired Hitchen's intellect and found myself in agreement with him on most points of debate. The exception is the Iraq War and his position that this is/was a necessary American battlefront. Nothing that occured on 9/11 was ever tied to Iraq not were there any Al-Qaeda associated groups there prior to the 2003 invasion. This is a point that he struggles to defend during this interview as well as others I have also watched or read. Brilliant man with a keen insight into world affairs but not by any means correct on all accounts. RIP Christopher Hitchens.
@Timothy Mostad : Islamic tyranny in a 'secular' state? Really? Have you considered that maybe the age-old animosities between the Sunni/Shia or the partitioning of this regions after WWI might be a better explanation for the amount of ethnic hatred and bloodshed this country experienced? Sadaam would never have tolerated a religious terror organization to operate within the confines of Iraq and would have obliterated any attempt at doing so. Ever hear of the Mukhaburat and their operations against those thought to be disloyal to the state? To be clear, Hussein was no choir boy to be sure but to say that the underlying cause of Iraq's troubles are from 'Islamic tyranny' is a real stretch. The Baath (Renaissance) Party was the real purveyor of Iraq's troubles with Sadaam at its head. The gassing of the Kurds wasn't done by Islamic terrorists but by the state and its actors (military). The war with Iran was another state-sponsored, nationalist, genocide that used the innate hatred between Shia and Sunni to send many people to their death for so-called nationalist aspirations. If you need more proof, look at what's happening today in Yemen where a proxy war between Iran and Saudi has cost the lives of thousands of innocents so one of these regimes can become the regional hegemon. Again, Shia and Sunni at war but sanctioned by the state. One final note: Hussein was an American puppet for years, particularly during the Iran/Iraq war where the U.S. backed and supplied his war effort against the Ayatollah and his followers. This story goes back even further and involves a number of state actors (Britain, U.S., France) who favored a 'western friendly' government in Tehran (under the Shah) mainly to guarantee access to Iran's vast oil reserves for their own exploitation. To blame all the regions woes on Islamic terror fails to take the above into account and leads to a misunderstanding of why such atrocities have taken place.
@Timothy Mostad The Iraqi regime were 'tyrannical' but not 'terrorists.' Correct? How do you suppose a 'tyrant' maintains his power base? Through generosity and beneficence? Think instilling fear and terror in their population might be a useful tactic? As to Iraq under Hussein sponsoring terror organizations, where's your proof? Can you provide '1' example that linked the state to a group identified as 'terrorists?' What reason would the Baath Party have to invite a radical version of Islam into its country? To usurp its power and then throw the country into chaos? This rationale is the same used by Bush/Cheney and their WMD lies that amounted to thousands dying in an unnecessary war. If anything disturbed the status quo within Iraq, this act of outside aggression, followed by an utterly mismanaged reconstruction effort, bears the responsibility and blame. It's funny. I can't remember hearing of any incidents of terrorism in Iraq until after the 2003 invasion. Interesting, huh? To not know that modern Iraq (like Turkey) was a 'secular' Arab state shows a real lack of historical and present day perspective to say the least. How many mullahs and/or religious leaders were in Hussein's cabinet? Ever hear one cleric denounce Hussein in public or try and remove him from office? Is there a religious cleric running the country today? Sadaam was an authoritarian ruler, not someone wanting to share power with anyone and would move quickly to remove (murder) those who would challenge his rule. Not because of some ancient religious teaching but more along the lines of 'real politic' in the most extreme Machiavellian style. You need to stop watching the garbage that passes as mainstream news in America today. If you're going to blame the Koran for the world's issues then you might as well include the Bible (OT) too as there are many examples of outright hatred, bloodletting, and massacres in both. Each stem from the same regional, monotheistic origins from a time where pantheism was the norm and the sword was the tool of conversion. Neither of these 'faiths' can deny their murderous past and, in some cases today, their present aggressions in the name of glorifying their god. Any faith that decrees the destruction and/or dehumanization of the 'other' in the name of their god is a danger to all of humanity - period.
This is a great conversation, good hosting. I love a religious person who can take a punch in argument, although this wasn't an argument, just a chance for people to hear Hitch's views. At least these religious folk are honest, and not screaming or changing the subject or spouting off fallacy after fallacy like we all know a lot of people like to do.
@Jazzkeyboardist1 Ha ha ha! There you go again. You still seem to think anyone cares that Hitchens loved whoever he wanted to love. Why don't you just go down a gay club and get it over with? It's obvious you want to be bummed, or you wouldn't be so obsessed.
Kind of ironic, since Einstein died a theist and Oscar Wilde converted to Roman Catholicism at the end of his life. If you are an atheist, it is ironic indeed that you would choose these as your dinner buddies.
Excellent interview!...Christopher revealed much of his thoughts. The late Robert McNamara pleaded with us all to recognise that 'Reason' never saved us from total destruction, on the numerous occasions we invited "Nuke Destruction". On each occasion "Reasonable" men got us into the mess, "Reasonable" men wanted us to go the whole way!!! but by remarkable good fortune we "Lucked-Out" on each occasion. In fact it is reasonable to conclude, that "Reason" itself will ensure total human extinction!
Evan Smith is a first rate interviewer in the style of Brian Lamb - asks intelligent questions then gets out of the way of the interviewee; does not let the interview devolve into a time for his personal opinions. It's amazing how much great information comes out in only 26 minutes when a fine interviewer lets an intelligent man of letters speak his mind without needless interruption. Good job, Mr Smith, may your skills only increase, and your audience too.
one of the most succinct roll outs by Hitchens. I have a new respect for the interviewer. Is it possible that letting Hitch speak resulted in many of the audience buying his book! One can hope. I am inspired once again by this man's clear view and call to reason.
There were two different issues with Iraq and Iran. One is the problems created by Fundamentalist Muslims. But another is the continued interventions and meddling by the 'West'. If the CIA hadn't helped overthrow Mosadegh in 1953-54, and supported the Shah's abuses, the Ayatollah would probably never come to power. Military Industrial Complex
As good as this interviewer was, some of his questions were just incredibly dumb considering the level at which Hitch is clearly operating on... "Do you feel outnumbered?" Lol.
@Jazzkeyboardist1 Actually no, he was dead right about wars since he thought, like I do, that wars are necessary population controllers. Separate the wheat from the chaff.
We owe a debt of gratitute to Mr. Hitchens as he was instrumental for most of us in not only having the courage to come out to friends and family as disbelievers of their established superstitions and organised religions but he also lead the charge of New Atheism that we will solmenly continue on into the future; for science, for reason and for secular humanism. For Christopher Hitchens.
The only thing I've ever disagreed with Hitchens on, is his views toward the Iraq invasion and occupation. Al Qaida was not in Iraq until we invaded. Deposing Saddam enabled al Qaida to establish a presence their. There is no evidence that shows any al Qaida presence in Iraq before we invaded. We did not "clean out," the Taliban from Afghanistan.
+TheGlobuleReturns Saddam kept Iran in check and ensured stability in the region. History has shown that the entire middle east has been destabilized by deposing Saddam. Was he a violent dictator? Yes, he was, but he kept the madness of what we have now, at bay.
+David Fahey Stability? Did you just say stability? What does that even mean in this context? Still alive? I'd bet you wouldn't be able to make it a day under a regime like Hussein's. You can always tell when someone has no idea what they're talking about in this debate. It's when they finally admit 'ok Saddam wasn't such a great guy after all'.
@@KillgoreTrout43 Saddam held Iran in check and helped keep stability in the region?? How about several genocide attempts in the Armenian and the Kurdish minority? AND it was Saddam who attacked Iran, not the other way around.
I like how Hitchen's, at the start, laid out specific issues for about four straight minutes- & the interviewer never actually addressed that at all? He just parroted out his script? WTF? If I had the shot to have Christopher Hitchens in a chair, across from me, I'd make damned sure to make our exchange memorable. Every single interviewer of Hitch, was SH*T. Really & truly was...He owned them, pure & simple. Hitchen's book "God is not great", then, WAS #1 & the host could NOT concede such- what a dick! Who has a guest on & then completely evades their book? A dick! Sorry- I'm not wasting my time regurgitating the issues of the "great spaghetti monsters". My personal issue with the religious "believers"- it isn't their "faith"- ever. People have crazy faith in LOTS of things...that's humans. We think, "the next cast will give me a giant fish"---- even if we've cast a minute for ten years & never caught anything. MY trouble is this: no evidence. In science, though not yet perfect or fully explanatory, there's a sense of "we're on it". Religion? We'll get back- but we're warring with other religions. I'm sorry. I grew up in FL, USA in the 60's-70's. Went through teachings all the way through my adult life. End of the day? We're scared of dying... That's all...Hug your nearest & enjoy it. Be honest & grateful. Have a great life. :)
That was a surprisingly good interview. Mr. Smith wasn't the most eloquent interviewer, but he asked good questions and gave Hitchens space to answer. Well done.
