Christopher Hitchens vs Mark Danner - Iraq and the War on Terror
2013 ж. 27 Шіл.
94 260 Рет қаралды
January 28, 2003.
How should the U.S. use its power in Iraq? Hear opposing views in this debate between I.F. Stone Fellow Christopher Hitchens and UC Berkeley Journalism School Professor Mark Danner. Sponsored by The Goldman Forum on the Press and Foreign Affairs, in conjunction with the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism.
Credit to uctv: www.uctv.tv/shows/Debate-How-S...
Hitchens: "I don't seek protection from those who make animal noises." An entire audience roasted at once.
🤣🤣🤣🤣👍👍👍
Roasted by the Hitch! I'd consider it a privilege. He was brilliant!
To me, listening to Hitch is the same as listening to Mozart ❤️ perfection! Sheer brilliance!
"You want quick? I can give you quick." - Like a Boss.
David Stewart my quote to all my one night stands 😎
This is one of the best debates of all time. I return to this year after year, both Hitch and Mark Danner were incredible here. Thank you James V for keeping this here all these years.
The world lost at least 10% of it's collective intelligence and 20% of it's humanity when we lost Christopher Hitchens.
And a big lying alcoholic.
+Kay Em Did he hurt your feelings? :( I'm sorry.
@@Samer-lx5sz He justified wars.
@@Samer-lx5sz No, very clearly and explicitly for nations that attack other nations.
@@Samer-lx5sz For the US, who started more wars than anyone.
I think Hitchins deserves a moment of respect just for his patience alone in this clip!
Can Danner shut up for five fuckin’ seconds and let Hitchens answer his OWN questions?
A central dichotomy of values between Danner and Hitchens is that Hitch wants to protect western values globally which includes places like Bali or more relevantly Kurdistan. Danner is primarily concerned with protecting U.S. citizens. I understand both points of view and I must say as a non-American I very much prefer Hitchen's further reaching view. Although protecting America first could be strategically useful for protecting western values later in history, people are suffering in Iraq now (which is to say now at the time of this debate.).
ShinRaPresident Exactly Shinra.
ShinRaPresident A great point, pithily made. International solidarity- Hitchens stood for it his entire life, and inspired countless others, such as myself, to advocate it too.
How does the iraq war protect western values?
Olay16 Because Iraq was a safe-haven for internationally-wanted Jihadists. It still is now, which only adds to the proof/argument.
Olay16 I was referring to Abu Nidal, Abu Rahman Yasin and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. All were on Iraq before the 2003 US and UK military intervention. I know Saudi Arabia exported Wahhabism, and should be forced to pay a price for it. However: 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.
“That went very fast” yeah when you talk like that
wow. I hope to speak and debate like Christopher some day
+William Beal Don't we all?
William Beal He is a rotting corpse now
when you die no one will speak of you
Will the mediator please shut up while the debaters are debating.
Loved The look on Hitch's face @ 13:50 when Danner said the invasion "would cause havoc where none existed before." I really miss Hitch.
31:50 to anyone else confused
The big guy with the hammer...really upset me for a second...fucking hammer
Hitchens starts at 16.41
Thank you
Where is this discourse today? I'm horribly afraid people are having these discussions and I'm missing them, or is there no one like Hitch anymore?
hahaha how can Danner keep a straight face and say the non-proliferation treaty worked in Korea for goodness sake have some integrity!
"Launch the torpedoes" .. this man doesn't know the difference between those and missiles. Credibility lost. Hitchens wins.
I would appreciate a source when you have the chance, thanks.
Can you help with the time, link the time so I can find, thanks!
+David Spadaccini you discredit his argument based on confusing torpedoes and missiles? They both have the same effect.. It's like someone calling a rifle a gun, you're a philistine if you actually mean this.
Never hostile towards Mark, but if you're going to argue about war, perhaps you should know the difference between the two. No, this was not the defining moment or factor that led me to believe that Hitchens won this debate. It was over the course of the entirety of it that I saw Hitchens providing evidence, historical context, and a very unbiased attitude. Mark added very little evidence or context and tried to use humor to downplay the fact that he could not disprove what Hitchens said.
It was just icing on top of the cake really. I have no problem using that to discredit a man who couldn't justify what he said with any type of sound proof or context. I think we agree, but perhaps my nitpicking was a bit too much.
I miss Hitch.
Melissa Phillips ... not even a little bit.
+Ramiro El Gáname I've read far better books. Try it.
+Melissa Phillips Agreed. But there is Strangetimes as a Hitch type of space.
Those who are against the Iraq war should watch this. The case for invasion and regime change was the moral one, by any liberal standard. Stability in the region is not worth and has never been worth the suffering of an oppressed people under a sadistic dictator.
You don't know what the hell you're talking about. First, any murderous dictator maintains stability by shutting down political opposition in a country. Second, we didn't invade Iraq because Hussein was a ruthless tyrant. We invaded for reasons which turned out to be false and wasted billions of taxpayer dollars.
SilverMenace100 Removing Hussain was the primary reason for the invasion. Additionally Hussain had frequently thrown out UN inspectors. That means we had no sure way of knowing what the state of WMD programs in the country was. And if your next argument is that the invasion wasn't sanctioned by the UN, consider that a lot of UN countries are also run by dictators who have no interest in setting precedents for their removal. Hussain was guilty of genocide against the Kurds. As signatories of the genocide convention the UK, US and a number of other countries were obligated to intervene to prevent or punish an act of genocide. Two real mistakes were made: 1. Saddam was not removed from power after the first gulf war. 2. The west abandoned it's allies in Iraq and Afghanistan before victory over islamic fascism and stability was achieved. This is comparable to liberating France from the Nazi regime, stopping there and returning home before Germany was defeated, to put it in familiar terms. (Yes I know it is a flawed analogy because Islamic Fascism was the ideology of an insurgent movement rather than a nation at the time.)
Sebastian Koenig Saddam Hussein committed genocide against the kurds and used chemical weapons to eradicate Iranian troops with full military support, financial support, and approval from the U.S. and U.K. during the Iraq-Iran war. Again, the main reasons Bush gave for invading Iraq were completely false. There was no imminent threat from Iraq, no WMD's found, and no collaborative ties to Al-Qaeda. The war was unnecessary, wrong, and an enormous waste of resources.
SilverMenace100 So because the US took the wrong stand in the Iran-Iraq war they can not do the right thing years later under a new administration? Iraq required constant monitoring (which was actively undermined by Hussain) and the enforcement of a no-fly zone which is an act of war itself. The only reason Iraq is not better off today is that the west abandoned it's allies. Germany had a US occupation force until 1990. That's 45 years, and it was necessary until at lest the 70's because old nazis had managed to remain in or return to key positions. You can not hope to defeat a fascist ideology in only a decade.
Sebastian Koenig I'm saying that the U.S. government aids cold-blooded killers and throws them away when they're no longer useful. Why won't you address the fact that the reasons for invading Iraq were completely false? Bush exaggerated the threat posed by Hussein and lied about Iraq's alleged ties to Al-Qaeda.
Mark is way too slow for Christopher....Christopher can speak three times faster in the seem amount of time.
This was a much, much better debate than the one between Hitch & Galloway & Hitchens/Parenti, both of whom, for different reasons, disgust me (Galloway & Parenti). My guess is, he didn't question Bush's capacity to handle post-invasion Iraq, and without a crisis precipitating the invasion, it wasn't justified. I admire Hitchens' prose & I don't believe he turned into some sort of neocon, but he didn't school Danner at all. Iraq's been on my mind since the left abandoned Syria -- I started questioning issues I thought were long settled. Thanks for posting.
He's a genocide denier -- I feel very, very, strongly about that.
michelemichele Which genocide does Parenti deny? I knew he was a bit of a turd but that is something. The Holodomor? The Aremnians? Also, you are right in detesting Galloway, a manipulative demagogue at best. I disagree with Hitchens on this one but I respect him and his honesty.
The genocides in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I've noticed that American intervention tends to have that effect. Not that the US is wonderful (oh ho), but lately I've wondered if denying or minimizing atrocities removes the moral dilemma we face when a crisis unfolds in another part of the world -- Syria's the latest example of that. When the war there began & a FB friend agonized over it, I said no, we can't intervene, but no matter how many sensible reasons I enumerated for him, I still felt like crap. It would have been nice to take refuge in anti-American pro-Assad pro-Putin pro-Iranian denialism & escape the dilemma altogether. I also wonder if there's some vestigial loyalty to so-called socialist ideals in the mix.
michelemichele That is terrible to deny the suffering of Albanians. I think the US led intervention was a truly necessary act that saved hundreds of thousands of lives and gave the Balkans stability. Too bad that some are so entrenched within their ideologies that they will blame the US no matter what. I am not American but I am glad that she is around. The world would suck without the US. Syria is indeed a tragic case, and a complex dilemma at that. The rebels have far too many Islamic extremists and have been caught killing civilians as well while Assad has made a policy out of it. Neither side should be helped. I hate Putin. He kills journalists and whistleblowers like Litvinenko and invades other countries like Georgia. Even the Chechan wars that he did not start were marred by incidents of killing civilians in the most callous and reckless means. And he makes stupid shirtless music videos.
***** Well put. Very good comment. Not to sound contrarian but the US did find WMDs. The term WMD is essentially political jargon without merit in a technical sense. It covers a wide variety of unrelated weapons including biological and chemical weapons which Blix did find. I was against the mission in 2002 and stand by it but I can assure you the blood for oil myth or the idea that this was all Bush's doing is hopelessly false.
Hitchens was if nothing else a strong voice, and in conflict "Child psychology" as Danner put it is not a bad thing, the communication is a simple one, a forceful one, an effective one. Anything sophisticated is easily misunderstood by an enemy (i.e. someone with whom communication comes via blows, rather than discursive language.).
Kitchens biggest mistake was thinking Iraqis would act like human beings without Saddam in power. He was wrong
your right, who says launch the torpedoes at 1:06:26?!?!, and thinks that "off the cuff" trumps "specificity" in an argument as serious as this...Hitchens would never make that mistake...ever
8:35 it's OK I wasn't ready LOL
I never thought I would but Hitchens has made me to slowly turn favourable to the invasion of Iraq, my change of opinion has not been quick, it has taken several years and it isn't slowing down.
+Karl-Johan Embretsen you must support isis then because the usa invasion of iraq gave birth to isis
+imedi Nonsense- Islam gave birth to IS. Additionally, well-known Jihadists were in Iraq BEFORE the 2003 liberation.
Matthew Singh-Dosanjh nonsence- if you know anything then you should know that al-qaeda were as much an enemy of saddam as they were to america.. if operatives from al-qaeda were in iraq before the war then they were there without saddam knowing about it.. the invasion of 2003 led to a vacum in northern iraq which led to al-qaeda (under zarqawi) taking control of sunni towns in the north and west over time al-qaeda in iraq were replaced by isis we know today.. if there had been no invasion isis would never have had a foothold in iraq in which they could launch attacks within libya and later into syria so thanks to americas invasion we have isis;; saddam was an evil man but he would never have allowed the jihadists to take control of those towns in north west iraq because they would have been as much of a threat to him as america
imedi You haven't the faintest clue what you're babbling about- Abu Nidal, Abdul Rahman Yasin and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi were all in Iraq BEFORE the 2003 liberation of the nation, in al-Zarqawi's case his Ansar al Islam terrorist, fascist Islam group was in Northern Iraq *IN 2001* trying to murder the brave and courageous Kurdish leadership. Also, by 2003 Iraq under the Ba'ath Party had become a fully-fledged Jihadist nation, (1) paying for Jihadist suicide bombers to attack Israel (within pre-1967 boarders, I have to add), putting a verse from the Qur'an on the Iraqi flag and as previously-mentioned, harbouring well-known and internationally-waned Jihadi terrorist murderers.
Matthew Singh-Dosanjh babbling am i lol................was saddam an enemy of al-qaeda or not answer the question????? im afraid your notion that zarqawi was in iraq in 2001 is false as he was wounded in afghanistan in 2001 so now who does not have the faintest idea what they are on about..... there has NEVER been any evidence to link zarqwai to saddam zarqawi operated everywhere from afghanistan to syria, jordan, iran
"If I were an Iraqi or a Kurd sitting in this hall, and I dare say there are some, I might be a little nettled by the fact that people talk about me as if I wasn't there. The suggestion is that if these people were able to rule themselves, or had the right to determine their own future, there would be chaos and inconvenience and so on, or that they might need a permanent occupation. It seems to me that there's no evident ground for either of those assertions." Beautiful idealism.
Did you literally miss the next sentence or?
Iraqi here 🇮🇶 (From Christian Assyrian background if that matters) It's almost hilarious how much stuff Hitchens was willing to say that are outright lies, with such hubris as well. If only it weren't for the results of such lies.
y͠o͠u͠ k͠n͠o͠w͠ w͠h͠a͠t͠ t͠h͠e͠y͠ s͠a͠y͠: "s͠c͠r͠a͠t͠c͠h͠ a͠ f͠a͠sçi͠s͠t͠ a͠n͠d͠ a͠ l͠i͠b͠e͠r͠a͠l͠ b͠łe͠e͠đs͠." h͠o͠p͠e͠ h͠ê e͠n͠j͠o͠y͠e͠d͠ b͠a͠t͠h͠i͠n͠g͠ i͠n͠ t͠h͠e͠ b͠ĺo͠o͠d͠ o͠f͠ m͠y͠ p͠e͠o͠p͠l͠e͠. g͠l͠a͠d͠ h͠e͠ w͠i͠t͠n͠e͠s͠s͠e͠d͠ h͠i͠s͠ o͠çc͠uúpi͠e͠r͠s͠ k͠i͠çk͠êd͠ b͠y͠ m͠e͠r͠e͠ ći͠vi͠l͠îa͠n͠s͠ w͠i͠t͠h͠ r͠u͠sşt͠y͠ áķs͠ b͠e͠f͠o͠r͠e͠ m͠èe͠t͠i͠n͠g͠ h͠i͠sś m͠i͠s͠e͠ŕa͠ɓl͠ê e͠ñd͠. So much for freedom of speech.
He thought you could be humans without fascists running the house
@@billyb6001 when have westerners ever acted like human beings?
Maybe I'm missing something... How can Danner make the argument that the inspections in NK were effective when that regime just denied the inspectors access once it got to a position where it could afford to do so? Psychopathic dictators will cooperate with you only as long as it benefits them in some way (or if they are forced). In what way is that a stable and secure situation? And as Hitch later pointed out, Saddam was trying to buy long-range missiles off-the-shelf from the North Koreans. You can inspect all you like for equipment for manufacturing these weapons, but how is an inspection supposed to catch that?
Sorry, time is around 31:50
Mar/24 - This intellectual vacuum that Hitch's death created has never been more intense than now - I am gutted (love the UK term) that we do not have his voice in these difficult times
54:20-58:00, Hitchbombs away.
First: Why would you intentionally open a second front? We took our eyes off the objective - UBL and AQ. Containment was working. It should have been continued until we found UBL. Second: We tried to do the invasion on the cheap. Cheney, Rumsfeld and others in the administration, all veterans of Grenada, Panama, and the First Gulf War, greatly underestimated the size and scope of this task.
Totally agree with your second point but you're off on the first. Al Queda wasn't the only problem in the world. The US had been having trouble with Saddam since the first Gulf war. He'd refused to obey the terms of the armistice for over a decade. He'd continued to use gas on his own people and threaten his neighbors. He probably had nothing to do with Al Queda but it was high time someone did something about him and the US has such a huge military, it could easily do the job (though it tried for ages to get an international coalition). The political will for an expensive war wasn't present and needed to be there for Iraq to succeed.
Hitchens although an Ameriican citizen, is English full on. That is, its an inherent right to interfere wherever and at will, culteral considerations be damned.
The introduction gave me CP
indeed
Turns out democratization did spread throughout the middle east, it's called the Arab Spring.
Are you serious?
Yes. Just as predicted.@@moviereviews1446
Damn it hitch, watch you mouth on Iran bro,1:25:15-1:25:30...they still be playin like whoah, democra...yea...CRUSHED...
OK 13 years later, turns out Danner was right... this debate proves that being more eloquent does not necessarily mean being right
No, he really hasn't if you actually understand the situation in the Middle East and Iraq beyond the lame slogans.
And look at Iraq now, free and regaining strength. Thankful for the ICTF for crushing the religious zealots and thugs into fertilizer.
@icemachine79 modern education has ruined critical thinking. The Pro Danner contingent have proven George Carlin right. Educated just enough to press the buttons. No idea why they are pressing the buttons.
Mr. Hitchens seems so at home on the debate stage that he can add flatulence to his arguement
there seems to be an strong aspect of both defeatism and ignorance within Marks argument. He seems to appeal to the delusion that Iraq is at a state of equilibrium or control when its quite to the contrary; Hussein had continued his rule of totalitarianism for some time while the United Nations was trying to figure out how to deal with the problem created within Iraq.
wtf r u saying?
Garcia Pedro Read into it
US backed totalitarian state btw, the US gave him chemical weapons
Hitchens having a picnic with the mic.
49:36 Take A Moment 49:52 Enjoy a genius at play 50:14 I am a veteran of the RAF for 28yrs. I volunteered to keep the Lawnmower of Death rolling on. Op Warden in Turkey 🇹🇷 Protect the Kurdish people. The Turkish Airforce would go out to give us a few days off. Fully armed out Empty on return home. I can't be the only person who knew what was going on 56:56 god's not seen or heard in my foxhole for 45 years 🙏 Thx Zeus ✔️ 58:06 popcorn time ⏲️ 58:21
"doesn't work with one party megalomaniac states.." Hitchens on Weapons inspections @ 1:17:47...priceless...
He said shit dean. lol
"This might the first documentary to show the reality of modern war without bias" - The Guardian. We are proud of having making it this far. Help us reach others. DOWNLOAD FILM or SHARE IT, Thanks! bundles.bittorrent.com/bundles/warfeelslikewar
ITT: lots and lots of people who waited for him to die to say "Hitchens was wrong" while offering no rebuttal of his argument
He was indeed wrong.
People were saying he was wrong long before he died, moron.
"Does anyone think I haven't answered that question"?...Is Danner NOT listening??
Hitchen once again proved right by history.
Ahh yes, Hitchens. The atheist messiah, who's word is infallible, praise be unto him. How was he proven right? He was arguing that going into Iraq was a good idea. By any measure, the war in Iraq was a complete failure. It did not complete it's supposed goal of liberating the Iraqi people. They are being terrorized by a group of fundamentalists who want to take them back to the fucking dark ages. It has further endangered the US by creating an insurgency that's spread into other countries (namely Syria). It has actually done exactly the opposite of what Hitchens hoped for (the weakening of Islam in the middle east) by strengthening religiosity there and beyond that reverting it into an empowered and growing fundamentalist state. ISIS/ISIL/IS happened precisely because of the Iraq war that they were debating here. Mark Danner has been proven entirely correct by history.
John Snow we quit saying the wars over does sadly make it so..... I was there in 2010 we all could see it coing
sounds to me like he couldn't have been more wrong on this one.
John Snow You couldn't be more wrong about this. You're equating the fact that we should have gone in and changed this government to the failure of HOW we went in and changed this government. No fair view of ANY SANE PERSON can be pressed into service to demonstrate that we should have allowed Saddam to remain in power. If you make such an argument, you're merely demonstrating a profound ignorance of morality, geopolitics and what it means to be a signatory member of the UN and NATO, bound by their numerous resolutions to intervene in situations just like this. This kind of ignorance, and this kind of disconnection from the realities of the countless horrors perpetrated by this psychopathic monster is obscene. This situation is PRECISELY why organizations like NATO and the UN exist in the first place. What possible conception or reason of having a coalition of nations trumps something like this?
John Snow lol must be a sarcastic comment.. the guy just cant be serious that history has proved hitchens right
Hitchens with his very large hammer of reason and evidence smashing all others!!!! A tour de force of realism and expression!!!
Same excuse was used by Austro-Hungarian empire to launch a war on Serbia in 1914. AH's demand to Serbia was to allow a police investigation (by AH police) on sovereign territory of Serbia, in order to pursue the terrorists and conspirators who assassinated prince Ferdinand. No sovereign country in the World has ever allowed such a thing. Afghanistan's taliban government, requested Evidence of bin Laden's involvement in 9/11, so it could oblige the request for extradition. These are normal legal procedures. Again, sovereignty. US didn't think itself obligated by such trifling things... Iraq? WTF was that?
Well, osama bin laden didn't need proof to be called the planner of 9/11, he said it himself that he did it. What more do you need for proof of international gangsterism?
Andre Kim Actually, check again. He did not "say it himself". He only congratulated to whom ever did it. You are warping history to suit you. In fact - every terrorist group in history - CLAIMS their hits. Because terrorism is their means of conducting politics. They WANT to be credited with terrorist acts. Alciaeda must be the first terrorist group in history to vehemently DENY any involvement in a terrorist act and still be blamed for it. Provide Evidence that bin parachute pants claimed responsibility for 9/11
MrDeicide1 sorry dude, facts don't lie like you do
UC Berkeley provides a balanced forum for debate? Since when???
Boy, Danner got real greedy after a while.
So typical of any American events that it consumes 10 mins of itedious intros and mutual backslapping...
Big fan of hitchens, but i've always struggled with his stance on invading iraq. He makes some valid points, but in hindsight i think Mark danners position stands up better than hitchens.
You fucked up Christopher.
No. The US government did
mark's only hope was to try and silence Christopher by talking over him, very telling.
'His tragedy is that he became what he had despised - a living and ignominious satire upon himself'
Who?
Hitchens' warmongering was disgusting, especially when he attacked anti-war activists, as he did with vigor and a deplorable lack of honor. Nonetheless - as a lifelong student of literature - his essays on James Joyce, Saul Bellow, Oscar Wilde, and many more giants of the Canon are irresistible to me. He really was a double-sided coin.
You're blinded by ideology, Iraq was one of Hitchens best subjects, his arguments slaughter the pseudo intellectual anti war nonsense.
+Mat Lord "Iraq was one of Hitchens best subjects." That's a remarkable statement. Especially considering the range of subjects Hitchens covered, and how many he covered so well. Choosing the one subject about which he was explicitly and provably wrong as his "best," is odd. And I am the one blinded by ideology?
a You just said he was proven wrong. This is nonsense, if he was, then prove it to me right now, tell me exactly where he was wrong, if you're right, ill change my mind right here. He said, Saddam was a mass murdering psychopath who should have been removed in 91. He was correct. He said the longer we wait the worse the consequences. The Kurdish region free'd in 91 is far better off than the rest of Iraq we free'd in 2003. He was correct. He said the parties of God would try and destroy Iraq and that "the caliphate is coming" He was right. He even predicted Boko Haram...
***** Yeah, cant remember which, I think it was in a TV interview
+Mat Lord Initially, he supported the administration's line that the invasion was over Saddam's illegal stockpiling of WMD's. When that was proven false, he shifted his stance toward "we are promoting democracy by liberating Iraq." Look at Iraq today. It is a failed state. The power vacuum left by the removal of the Baath Party and the sectarian conflict that was intensified by the invasion both contributed to the rise of ISIS. He was flatly wrong. We all make mistakes, I just wish he would not have so adamantly adhered to his own. But like I said, his writing is still immortal and he is still one of the finest essayists in English in the postwar era.
Hitchens has always been a good debater. In this debate he was the better debater. However events since then have proven Danner to be more correct.
No they haven't, you know nothing about Iraq...
Hitchens proved right and correct by history @1:09:50-1:10:15 The man was incredible and unrivalled in his analysis.
Matthew Singh-Dosanjh Note that Chomsky said what he said back in 2003 and Hitchens knew about it very well.
TechnocraticBushman pardon, 2001
+Matthew Singh-Dosanjh The regime wasn't imploding, the US invasion led to the implosion with the results we see now, and You give Hitchens the credit for insuring that implosion with the utter and brutal chaos we see now in the form of ISIS.
mark y 'The regime wasn't imploding, the US invasion led to the implosion with the results we see now,' Actually, the post-liberation chaos is proof of how unstable the regime was, for one simple fact- the US & UK did not create a Sunni/Shia/Shiite divide within Islam, the divide has been around for centuries. Chaos was in the future of Iraq whether the US & UK intervened or not (I can expand on this point if necessary) '...and You give Hitchens the credit for insuring that implosion with the utter and brutal chaos we see now in the form of ISIS' The cause of ISIS *is Islam*. Status-quo liberals like to blame West, the US & UK in particular, for every woe in the Middle East. It's contemptible, ahistorical and sophomoric.
+Matthew Singh-Dosanjh The cause of ISIS is Islam I would say incapability to live by reason (or by living by tribal reason) than islam. However, did somebody had or still have an illusion, that toppling a dictator or war will remove or make Islam redundant? I cant find a study, but its somewhere out there, that most successful system changes have come from inside not outside? I predict Iran's future is chaos too, the society is dysfunct (clerics control only what happens on surface), it might be unjust for lot of Iranians but if this what brings long term solution thats the way to do.
Maybe the first debate I've seen Hitchens, who I love, lose. Perhaps though I'm biased by how history went and the disaster the occupation and withdrawal was. But Danner did a very good job in the debate in any case. IMO, we should have kept troops in Iraq longer. We kept them for decades in Japan and Germany and that worked out - and was necessary. I think that's the lesson here: *if* you invade a country, keep your troops there until it is truly stable. And that takes a long, long time. But we didn't have the political will to keep troops there. So don't invade a country unless you have the political will to stay there.
Solan K yeah it seems that you are
Wow. I used to love Hitchens and I had no idea who Mark Danner was until recently. A couple of years ago I'm sure I would have watched this admiringly and felt satisfied as Hitchens used his wit and charm to intellectually dominate a nobody. But now, I respect Danner far more; especially after reading some of his works on El Salvador. He has clearly done far more to advance our understanding of the third world and U.S. policies abroad than Hitchens - with all his stylish, self-righteous bravado and bullshit - ever did.
I suggest you purchase and read a copy of 'The Trials of Henry Kissinger', because clearly you haven't a clue the book even exists, which is why your choosing of Danner over Hitchens is so absurd. One can only assume you're the type of masochist that believes the cause of terrorism is the resistance to it, and that the Al-Qaeda group is some sort of brown-skinned resistance/liberation movement that is expressing some sort of Third-World grievance about colonialism and imperialism.
To understand Hitch's views and to why he took the position he did you really need to have read his or listen to his opinions dating back from the 70s. When much of the media and political pundits flip flopped according to public opinion Hitch never did. You don't have to agree with him but at the very least you can respect his unwavering opinion and his care for humanity.
CSCI Trust A tremendous comment, and one I wholeheartedly endorse. Kudos!
CSCI Trust I've read a few of his earlier works, especially from the 1980s when he gave scathing critiques of the Reagan administration and it's policies in Central America. I respected these works and still do. But it is sort of hard to defend someone as a lover of humanity when he defended the Iraq War until the end. And his contribution to the "New Atheism" literature just seems pointless to me. And that's coming from an atheist.
Matthew Singh-Dosanjh Yes, I am a self-hating white masochist who wishes to see a brown liberation movement sweep the Earth. Get real. This is the same type of hysteria which drew me away from Hitchens' views. And I have read the 'The Trials of Henry Kissinger.' A good work for sure, but it told us very little that people didn't already know when Kissinger was in power or what others had written about before Hitchens.
Hitch mentions the Kurds and uses the Kurds as an example across numerous interviews and articles in support of the Iraq War and overthrow of Hussein. I think what he fails to account for is that relative uniqueness of the Kurds within the region. They are the only openly tolerant and democratic ethnic group within the Middle East region that has developed a state along those lines. They are the exception to the rule, and are not a good example when talking about almost any other country within the region.
Sure, but certainly not democratic.
Not true at all xD
"Those who, like Christopher Hitchens, detest a cliché, turn into one of the dreariest types of them all: the revolutionary hothead who learns how to stop worrying about imperialism and love Paul Wolfowitz." (ಠ⌣ಠ)
37:20 He fucks up royally here.
Elaborate!
Can't be bothered watching the clip again, but Hitchens' predictions about how the Iraq War would unfold were grossly inaccurate. Maybe wikipedia.org would be a good resource for you.
getsomegetsomenow Of course you aren't. It seems that you are very bad at comprehending videos, because I am sure that any human being able to do so clearly understood that Christopher was against the filthy regime and the removing of the said regime. He didn't necessarily agreed with how it went down in Iraq and the procedures that the US took. Neither did he predict how the war would unfold, he was telling how he'd hope it to unfold and his reasons as to why. Back to your hole you go, ignorant cretin!
Well then, Mr Internet Hardman, I'm an ignorant cretin with a university degree and my 'hole' is a well-to-do suburb in the South Island of NZ.
getsomegetsomenow It has very little to do with being a 'hardman', but you're spouting nonsense and excusing yourself by saying 'you don't want to watch it again', when you referenced to a particular moment in the video. And I am a professor at Harvard, I'm not sure what your point is by continueing to make no comments regarding the video and just spouting 'wikipedia! i have a uni degree! i live in a good town!'. So I'll leave it at this, since it's fairly obvious you have nothing to say to back up your nonsense.
Wrong ,,,,,,
Hitchens makes extremely compelling arguments for the Iraq war, which I have maintained a staunch opposition to for years. He never really squared away exactly the larger issue with it, though. It was a reactionary action spurred to life because of 9/11, the evolution of the federal opinion after that initial trauma just reflects it. "Ties to Al Quaeda" was the most-spoken media colloquialism, because at every turn we were to make no mistake that Iraq was the proper target and not operatives in Afghanistan or Pakistan. I get that Saddam Hussain was a terrible despot and I do agree he had to go. This had nothing to do with why we went to war and the American people were absolutely misled in believing it. Now that we're through the looking glass I am less angry at it and more angry at how determined the west was to vacate Iraq in such shaky conditions, it was a liberal impulse that has been proven since to be a complete mistake. We wanted to rectify our mistake and made an even bigger one.
I never suggested "we" should've replaced him with anyone. Hopefully whoever/whatever is put in his place isn't such a fascist.
_" it was a liberal impulse that has been proven since to be a complete mistake."_ The invasion itself was not a mistake. Nothing that has happened in Iraq since 2003 compares to what happened there in the previous four decades.
@@icemachine79really? Nothing compared to ISIS, or having you’re country destroyed?
1:19:32,... LOL, You don't have to be a psychiatric nurse to read into Mark Danner's body language,.... watch Mark's stance right after he rambles on trying to cut Christopher off. It's like he has to take a shit and wants to hurry things up. You can almost read his mind,.... ツ *( I HATE YOU HITCHENS!!!!! )* ツ
Understandably the deaths of many and the loss of homes of many as I so basically and grotesquely put it to be concise, is a hard fact regarding collateral to swallow, but so far I havnt heard yet of an anti war movement individual who addresses the issue directly, as to the state of Iraq and neighbouring countries if we hadn't invaded.
Hah, when Hitch had already stated NK was worse than Iraq and Danner later said as if having not heard Hitchens, something along the lines of : it's worse, you must read this book to learn what really happened. Hitchen responds with: Well I have read the book and continues without missing a beat. Ouch.
I’m a big fan of hitch, however after watching him here I was really disappointed in his attitude tonight, he mentioned gassing the Kurds, and well did he know where Iran got the gas? Would one fight for oil yes if it’s NOT ME How wrong he was for the fact that over 4 thousand young Americans gave their lives, not to mention between 100 to 400 thousand innocent civilians, and especially now years later we can all see the failure in human life and monetary cost, so having said all this I fully agree with Mark Danner.
It's a shame you didn't actually listen to Hitch. He was right on the money. Nothing that has happened in Iraq post-2003 compares to what went on in the previous four decades. Iraq failed the moment Saddam took power. Regardless of the mistakes made during the conduct of the war and the occupation, the fact remains that we were simply cleaning up a mess that had been made decades before.
Yeah Hitch was so right here that he U-turned on the subject several years later only when it became clear that there were no WMD's in Iraq and and Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and the War on Terror became wildly unpopular with the public. Even though he was right 90-95% of time on other subjects, here, history has proven Danner right.
Your an idiot, he never changed his mind on Iraq and he even predicted Isis, everything you said was bullshit.
He also bullshitted about Yugoslavia, the disgusting colonial mouthpiece.
Nope, but I find it interesting how often anti-interventionists feel the need to lie in order to support their indefensible position.
@Garrus Vakarian There were materials that remained from a previously active WMD program, including the shells and chemicals used against the Kurds during al-Anfal. The Bush admin played up intelligence they knew to be false or misleading, but that doesn't change the fact that Saddam had developed and used chemical weapons in the past.
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 "The never-ending bloody consequences of the Invasion of Iraq is one of the worst things to happen in human history." . . . Really? I can think of a few worse examples in human history just off the top of my head: Communist policies which brought about the Great Chinese famine 1958-62 which killed 45 million; The Khmer Rouge regime leading to Pol Pot murdering 21% of the Cambodian population; Josef Stalin’s forced starvation genocide against the Ukraine from 1932 to 1933; the crusades; Mongol conquests; Second Sino-Japanese war; European colonization of the Americas; Chinese and Russian civil wars; the Holocaust; Napoleonic Wars; second Congo war; Thirty Years' war; Hundred Years' War; Gallic Wars; Serbian genocide; Rwandan genocide; Circassia genocide; Armenian genocide; Massacre of Poles by Ukrainian insurgent Army; Bangladesh genocide; Japanese occupation of Dutch East Indies; Mao Zedong's policies; Leopold II of Belgium's crimes in the Congo; Nanking massacre, etc., etc. . .
+Anna Bella Great, nuanced point. It shouldnt be nuanced though, 10 years later. Should have got that one from the jump! ugh humans!!!!!!
Anna Bella Most of it is the result of amateur minds who can't think far enough ahead with conviction nor make hard moral decisions.
+Hermes “The Grandmaster” Trismegistus You know people can be left and be for the war at the same time right? I don't know if I'm just paying attention to it more now or if it's actually being brought up more but this whole Left vs Right, on EVERY single issue is insane. Obviously I'm left, I'm also for the war. You can be more then one thing, not everyone is right or left on every single issue.
justin bartelen right and left are just another fantasical human creation in my eyes. I will never be able to take the idea of left and right politics seriously. Separation of church and state should have read separation of church and ideology. Missed that crucial point, Mr Jefferson, religion isnt the only dangerous ideology.
What a terrible speaker that Danner guy is. On average he says um after every three words.
Hitch Slap!
"Nothing gonna work except invasion and military intervention because Saddam is sadistic Caligula" - basic argument of Hitchens. Strawman after strawman from Hitchens. Sadly, he is very weak at debating and providing solid arguments. He often avoids answering straightly to opponent's argument and brings up distant examples that have nothing to do with basic argument. Fanaticism is never a good thing.
I despise this "it's not my problem so it's not my problem" attitude. Objections all voiced are with a lack of nukes found irrespective of everything else being confirmed. So many turn coat, turn cowardly and become weak.
41:35 Jihadists: "War of civilisations!" Hitch: "If they want one, they can have one" Damn straight !!
Iraq had nothing to do with jihadism. Are westerners genetically impaired?
@@qaiser648those who think the saddam regime was a purely secular are deluding themselves
@@billyb6001 you’re a moron
@qaiser648 so when he had the Koran written in his own blood. Was that a secular stance?
@@jaed2630 nope
DONT READ THE COMMENTS, YOU WILL LOSE HOPE IN HUMANITY
Hitchens was thoroughly discredited by his stance on the war in iraq. How anyone can hold him in high esteem now is beyond me.
How was Hitchens discredited for his stance in the Iraq war.
Did we watch the same debates
@@thedoctor.a.s1401 The point I'm making is that the critics of the Iraq war have been vindicated by history, while the lies of its apologists have been confirmed as just that.
@@weakboson7813 can you be specific or are you not interested in a serious discussion of foreign policy
@@thedoctor.a.s1401 iirc hitchens was big on wmds existing. he also talks glowingly about democracy and freedom, when iraq in fact saw mass destruction and sectarian violence. Maybe you think he had good reason to believe these things at the time (I don't) but he has been proven wrong by subsequent events either way.
Even if you hate him, Hitchens took Danner behind the woodshed here. Danner had basically nothing in the cannon.