Christopher Hitchens versus Ritter: Iraq War debate PART 7

[jamesthenabignumber]

You hear Hitchens at 0:39 anticipating that Ritter was daring to suggest that living under Sadam would be better than democratizing forces of the US and UK. He almost relished the opportunity to rebuke that stupid idea.

[batvette]

Disarmed?

"Former chief U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter said Iraq is capable of reconstituting a chemical weapons program within a matter of weeks."

"I believe Iraq will seek to reconstitute a militarized nerve agent that will be used in a last ditch defense of Baghdad, and I think the Iraqi government's efforts to acquire significant stockpiles of atropine are an indication that this is the direction that Saddam Hussein is heading," Ritter said on CNN's "Crossfire."

CNN Nov. 2002

[BahrainiScribe]

Iraq is occupied by the USA. Country is destroyed. The USA, in effect, influences/dictates a lot of its policy, especially as relates to Iraq's security. How can we consider Iraq anything but an occupied country?

Does Iraq's government have the moral, political and actual power and ability to rule Iraq without the USA occupation? If we answer no to any part of this last question, I can't see how we can consider Iraq anything but an occupied country.

[NorthCitySider]

Hitchens is wrong. We still owe a massive debt to the Iraqi people. More debt than ever before.

[sinistar99]

Why does Hitchens continue to say that Bush was in the position of taking the word of Saddam Houssen, when there were hundreds of weapons inspectors on the ground varifying the presence of weapons or not? It makes no sense.

[sinistar99]

I think it is a cheap rhetorical ploy that Hitchens is using to say we can't speak of the loss of life when deciding if a war is just. He's basically taking a lawyer's tactic of getting the evedence which damns a murderer inadmissable on the basis of a technicality. Of course the cost in human lives should be taken into account. If human lives don't matter --if we're not allowed to "speak for the dead" as Hitchens puts it then why go on about the Kurds? This is rhetorical slight-of-hand.

[MrPootisman]

@infox1000 No doubt, but now that a majority of US, UK Polish and others from the coalition of the willing troops have already returned. at the height of the intervention there were 170,000 US soldiers in Iraq now there are 50,000. This force remains until Iraqi Police and military can regain a status to which it would be able to deffend its own people. I can only direct you to an interesting article "Soldiers remaining in Iraq expect little will change as mission evolves" in "stars and stripes

[MrPootisman]

@infox1000 have a chance to live free and prosper

[MrPootisman]

@infox1000 He wasn't deffending Hussein no , but he demonized the intervention in Iraq which in retrospective made saddam hussein's regime less brutal than in reality. Are you saying that Now that people have freedom of speech, a secular constitution and a first ever elected president , whos people had been gassed and mutilated During the Kurdish genocide, and even protested against the death sentence of Hussein, you tell me that Iraqis are worse off? Their homes may be destroyed but now they

[sinistar99]

@MrPootisman I would say the tens if not hundreds of thousands of dead and maimed are in fact worse off, yes.

[MrPootisman]

@sinistar99 I cannot add more than "Mors aut lībertās".

[AnotherMasterMind]

I hope to have the fortune to speak to either of these brilliant men before I die.

Fantastic dialogue and riveting debate.

[TheDanielWooi]

I took this guy so seriously right up to the point he said, 'I'd rather be an Iraqi under the rule of Saddam Hussein."

[MrPootisman]

@TheDanielWooi Exactly I thought the debate so far was carried was quite good, but when he said that I Automatically thought of Hussein apologists. such a despicable comment should have been taken back

[demon001]

@MrPootisman He didnt say life was gonna be great under saddam, but right now, it is much worse. It was extremely cowardly to go into Iraq. If they really want to make a difference, America should go into North Korea. Life there is truly terrible. That will never happen. Life is terrible in many countries in the world I dont see them being invaded .

[writersblock26]

@TheDanielWooi Me, too, and I really don't care if Scott Ritter served in the USMC. The comment was utterly contemptible.

[breakerofbigots]

@PhillyDickinson Sure, if you want to listen to one-liners and not the core of the debate itself, where Ritter utterly demolishes Hitchens for his invocation of the Iraq Liberation Act and disregard for the rule of law.

[suzukix5owner]

this is the 1st hitchens video where both debaters have had equal applause

[EasyEs]

I think people need to understand that what the UN et al was looking for was completed stock piled weapons or evidence of them. They were not interested or looking for precursor organic phosphates and other components that are needed for making bulk use nerve agents in a tens of days. Which in 2010 we have proven Saddam stockpiled.

Immediate threat to the USA. Hmm probably not, but it shows Saddam's intentions for the future.

[regelemihai]

@EasyEs

Who has proven in 2010 that Saddam stockpiles masses of nerve agents?

[EasyEs]

@regelemihai I read it, but also found a small video overview with documents named and referenced.

watch?v=zVnWjcbHkrA

[regelemihai]

@EasyEs

Thanks! It's a great help.

[captain3xtreme]

Ritter its just saying meaningless statements to get applause imo.

[elfred1980]

Sorry terrorism apologists, but adults are speaking.

[bertinotti]

And when you torture captives to trump up lies about connections between Al Quaeda and Iraq??

[boobiecats]

I don't think you'd hear Hitchens supporting or defending those practices.

[radoa1]

yeah philly - spot on dont support the monster to end all monsters the US of A

[elfred1980]

oh boo hoo

[radoa1]

elfred - that's all you got????it???

[PhillyDickinson]

"Well don't do it then."

Spot on.

[sinistar99]

@PhillyDickinson "Well don't do it then." Spot on?

Spot on as a disingenuous rhetorical ploy to get some cheap applause. Nowhere was Ritter defending the regime of Saddam.  It's in little cheap quips like this that we see the chinks in the armor of Hitchens' arguments.