Christopher Hitchens versus Ritter: Iraq War debate PART 5

[Anomalous59]

Try as I might, I don't understand the point that Ritter makes in the beginning of this video. He continuously argues that it was clear that all Iraqi nuclear material had been discarded at the time of the US invasion, and then suddenly he, aggressively, makes the case that Iraq had been lying very grievously about their reports as in June, 1991, a convoy of WMDs was found.

This seems to contradict his own case profoundly, and I do not understand why he presents it as an argument in his favour.

[smujismuj]

The invasion of Iraq wasn't about regime change nor disarmament, it is about occupation and 14 "enduring" military bases, from which to continue it's domination of the regions resources.

Read Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard"

[Nizlopi2]

I don't agree with everything Ritter says, but he makes Hitchens' opposition in the form of George Galloway - in another debate about Iraq - look like a complete joke.

[6ganey9]

how many countries in the world with "fascists" as leaders do you want us to invade and occupy mr. hitchens? only muslim ones that are geo-politically important? your calculated moral outrage is tiresome. spouting that the invasion of iraq had anything to do with freeing the iraqi people is a canard. your support of the invasion has more to do with preventing a perceived threat to your "superior" way of life than true concern for the oppressed.

so, what islamic country do we "free" next hitch?

[regelemihai]

@6ganey9

I say no one. No matter which one is liberated people will continue to disregard to positive outcomes and posit ulterior motives for any intervention.

I say let all of those who suffer under despotism--both in communist countries like N. Korea and theocratic ones like Iran-- to rot.

[Jmsadv]

@6ganey9 Considering leaders of the Libyan revolt are asking for no fly zones, and air support from other countries, well when it comes to helping out the oppressed, the oppressed disagree with you.

[6ganey9]

@Jmsadv as history has shown, and is not to difficult to foresee in libya, the "oppressed" have a distressing way of becoming the oppressor. an imperialist power, as the U.S. has become, will inevitably, eventually, base it's "support" on advantage, not justice.

[Jmsadv]

@6ganey9 Don't worry 6ganey9.. Soon the rebels of Libya will be dead and you talk of justice. WTF?

[6ganey9]

@Jmsadv - your naivete apparently doesn't allow you to grasp some larger, unpleasant truths. watch the hilarious, while also spot-on, Daily Show "freedom package" segment of mar 21. as is usual, the underlying hypocrisy and self-interest of U.S. foreign policy is exposed there far better than in the "straight" media. if you can't get my point after that then you are just a hopeless pollyanna.

[Jmsadv]

@6ganey9 I don't need the Daily show or even the straight media on how to think. I can do the work myself and come to my own conclusion. So go ahead Ganey and keep sucking Jon Stewarts dick. The only pollyanna is you and your reliance on overpaid host like Mr. Stewart. Start thinking for yourself or just start thinking and you pulled the old " Your not smart enough line" Really 6Ganey9, Really? Oh and the oppressed still disagree with you and so do I, Cheers!

[6ganey9]

@Jmsadv it's to bad you didn't watch it. maybe then you would have something new (and intelligent) to say on the issue. if you know ANY of the history of U.S. and european colonialism and imperialism make your case there. "...sucking jon stewarts dick". Really j-sad, Really?  if you EVER want to be seen as "smart enough" you WILL have to exhibit greater rhetorical skills than a 12 yr old. ciao!

[Jmsadv]

@6ganey9 Why should I raise the bar in this discussion when you have done nothing but promote Jon Stewart. Are you on his payroll? Their nothing wrong with being Jon's lackie but you need to be honest about this. I myself am a private citizen and will not obey your's or even Jon's commands. I don't care what you think about my intelligence. Maybe this YTube channel is everything for you, maybe you crave positive feedback on your I.Q. from the YTube community. How much does Jon pay you?

[Jmsadv]

@6ganey9 If I could out do Mr. Hitchens and RItter on this subject. Then you would be commenting on my public debates and speaking engagements or maybe just telling others " Hey you should check this guy out" and when they don't agree with you or obey your request, you can just mock them like you have with me. Cheers!

[ArthurWeasleyWizard]

If you want to hear the most sophisticated, top level debate on the intervention in Iraq, I think this maybe it.

I can't believe this hasn't got more publicity.

[utupeitupe]

hitchens not only wants to make the decision about who commits genocide on his own or have one nation make that decision,he also doesnt want to tell us or talk about who gave him the weapons and chemicals to do so ,why ? because its the same country he supports to invade iraq,its also the same country who supported saddam during the eight year war with iran.the us wanted saddam out for one reason :he was the only arab leader left that can be of any danger to its best allie in the region,name it?

[equsnarnd]

@utupeitupe And why do you have a problem with our support for Israel? They, compared to the rest of the countries in that region, are a fountain of sanity and responsibility. And I say that while being critical of them for not doing more to make sure Palestine has it's own state.

[nykytne13]

Hitchens got his *ss stomped into mush!

[LowleyUK]

Ritter only cares about American lives. Hitchens believes every life has the same value, enough said.

[equsnarnd]

@LowleyUK That is a lovely sentiment but you don't get to send kids from Kansas to be killed for threats that ARE NOT TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. Period. The right for this country to wage war is not based on anything but a threat to our security. We are not the policemen of the world and I won't give my children up for such adventures.

[trailofdeadpeople]

@equsnarnd I'm afraid that whether you like it or not, The US is and should be the policemen of the world. Despite all the shit you hear about anti-americanism there are literally millions of people around the globe who look to you for solidarity. Democractic youth movements fly American flags in Tehran today - your kinda like a mother of democracy :)

[equsnarnd]

@trailofdeadpeople It does seem thrust upon us but we are not the worlds cop even if we act that way and even if we are needed to be by the rest of the world. The rest of the world needs to get off it's fat ass, find some backbone and give a helping hand. Europe is absolutely disgraceful in this.

[trailofdeadpeople]

@equsnarnd Yep, I agree with you - problem is, what do you do when such democratic movements look for solidarity in Europe an its not reciprocated?

[TheLiberty1006]

"So if we wash our hands in innocence we are just accomplices of evil"

No we are not, morality does end at the border,

its none of our business is Saddam was a bad guy, it was up to the iraqis to deal with him,

non-intervention should be the basis of foreign policy

[l3lip]

@TheLiberty1006

Poorly structured argument convolved with rudimentary grammar and a lacking idea.

[trailofdeadpeople]

@TheLiberty1006 Look up your presidents mate - Thomas Jefferson.

[Eye0fTheStorm]

Hahaha that was brilliant dodging by both speakers.

Ritter is a good guy, but he can't quite say the truth because its too shameful for him. He knows its about regime change, and he is right. But he puts forth the weak argument that they had to cause regime change to "avoid embarassment" for the hitler comment they made in 1990

The truth is that saddamn stopped taking US orders. They want regime change to install another puppet dictator who gives US companies access to Iraqi oil. Period.

[kalai333]

Very true. They helped put the nut in charge of the country, supported him throughout most of his murderour regin, then when he wasn't "their nut" anymore they got angry and decided it would be better to change the regime in Iraq. WMD's was a load of shit, the intelligence was manafactured and exaggerated. It was revealved recently that much of the supposed human intel before the war came from a expat Iraqi cab driver living in New York City. What a joke.

[boobiecats]

Wow, I think this is the best opponent Hitchens has ever had in a debate.  Really a pleasure to listen to!

[omegavalerius]

I agree and I would say these two comprise the best arguments for both sides that I have heard. I think they have more in common between them than they have with the majority of people who argue for their own side.

[Helt91]

I think it essentially boils down to what hitchens is saying at about 8 minutes in this part:

hitchens is saying: we had to get rid of saddam

while ritter is saying: we waged a war for the wrong reasons

frankly, these don't seem like opposing positions in my view - although I realise i'm throwing all nuance overboard to get to this conclusion

[Obversity]

Frankly, I think you're right. =)

The government chose nuclear weapons as the pretext, thinking they would garner more support both nationally and internationally. That their pretext failed to be qualified later was unfortunate.

[bleustilton]

Damn! Some of these debates drag on but this is a fucking monumental clash.

[DavidLetterman22]

Can you post the complete debate?

[grubelsucht]

Here Hitchens scales an insurmountable argument with his oblique points. Which of these two is right?

[truestefq]

It boils down to the "Pilates-wager":

can we wash our hands in innocence?

Ritter says (like Kissinger): yes - we live in an anarchical state-world, national security trumps everything, morality ends at the border of the US- the rest is strategy.

Hitchens says: no, we have certain moral obligations to people everywhere and have to evaluate the situation and our position accordingly. So if we "wash our hands in innocence" we are just accomplices of evil.

[grubelsucht]

Very good! Yes, it's a conundrum. Who will define evil? Should the US endanger or sacrifice its well-being to aid such ilk as undemocratic islamicists? The news presents daily versions of islamic buffoonery which would thwart our most moral intent to aid them. Some might consider that helping islam (may it disappear from earth) promotes islamicist jihad, honor-killings, the subjugation of woman, and the general promulgation of ignorant superstition. Hitchins is a sophist here, I think.

[truestefq]

I always thought Christopher Hitchens is in favour of helping the Secularists not the Islamist "ilk". That seems to me the right moral and also long-term strategical decision from a civil society point of view. The question than is, what are the right means?

[grubelsucht]

Hi True. Everyone looking out for their own best interest holds democracy together, and those who do the greatest evil are those convinced they're doing good. One example might be Christian missionaries who destroy old cultures by converting the "heathens" (but serving Christian interests). Of the 41 countries in need of help, we help the ones with oil, thus helping only ourselves by changing their dictators. Realpolitik, like it or not, guides global behavior, but I can't say wha'ts moral.

[truestefq]

I'm not against Realpolitik, in fact I think for a democracy it is in the best interest to spread its values.

"Old cultures" are not more authentic than "new" ones, they have no merit in themselves or 'as such'.

Secular Humanist Morality as Hitchens proposes is "moral realism", to aspire the moral thing to do in the world we live in. This can mean to 'liberate' the country first that is in our best interest, not another that would not pay off in the long run.

[germanicus24]

Don't be a liar. If you would even care for democracy you wouldn't ban people from your channel for posting Iranian proverbs.

You just like to impose your own secularist whims on others caring little about those others. When their culture contradicts you, you just become the very fascist you claim to detest.

Pharisee.

[truestefq]

And this from a lover and apologist for dictatorship and a violent religious police state. Whine a bit more about being banned on a youtube channel, maybe you find some idiots who really think that this is the same as "censorship".

[germanicus24]

If I am a lover of dictatorship, then your banning of my comments implies you are something like the American army coming to rescue the world from evil terrorism and Middle Easterners who vote for leaders your mother didn't teach you to like?

Interesting, You use the word censorship only against your enemies. You ban, censor, insult, intimidate, threat others, but the lovers of dictatorship are those others.

Fascinating. Your logic goes just along the lines of Bush and Obama deceptions.

[truestefq]

You are obviously discussing with the voices in your head here, so there is no use for me to answer. I'm done with your pathetic self-obsessed attention-whoring. Keep up the mad ravings in the youtube-comment section, this seems to suit you and the silly world-view you've chosen.

[germanicus24]

You try to cover up your tyrannic ways with a lot of blah blah and empty words, but going back to the marrow: What level of schizophrenia does it take to be preaching all that rubbish you do on democracy and liberty, while you censor people who think differently to you and you want to pretend they don't exist?

No wonder why you can easily disrespect the votes of dozens of millions of Iranians, and try to force your own fanatic secularist whim on that nation.

[Eye0fTheStorm]

stfu retard. The US does everything in its power to ENSURE true democracy and fairness does not arise in the middle east. Because the second a real genuine leader arises in the middle east, the first thing he will say is "We are going to use the oil wealth of our country to help our people and build our nation."

That is exactly what the US does not want. They want murderous dictators who run teh country like a family buisness and give US companies a slice of the pie.

Brainwashed imbecile

[grubelsucht]

Such a strong statement requires strong supporting reasoning, which you lack here.

[Eye0fTheStorm]

Can't provide support reasoning in a 500 word textbyte of a youtube clip.

If you want a clear consise breakdown, or a video which might be easier to watch, just send me a private message and i'll gladly oblige.

Cheers

[kalai333]

Its clear you know little of US foreign policy. America is rarely for democracy anywhere that it does not benefit their economic and geostrategic interests.  Afghanistan's puppet governemnt, their fradulent elections (named so by UN and other international agencies) and our willingness to still support them should be proof enough.

Iraqi candidates for office are still handpicked by the US handlers. Please do some research.

[grubelsucht]

It is pointless to research opinions. But conclusions are simple. Do you want the Taliban or Karzai to rule Afghanistan? The USA merely wants a safer world, which is in its own interests as it is in everyone's, of course. Everyone's interest is best served by democracy, even if made in slow steps, not by totalitarian systems such as Islam and communism or other religions. When you make statements, even if clear to you, you must support them with facts or reasons. Stay in school.

[kalai333]

I am a poltical science major and I have a MBA degree. Shutup. You dont know much that much is clear. Do you know how created the Taliban even? The Pakistanini Intelligence Service with the funding and consent of the CIA. No opinions here just documented facts. Please please dont be so naive to think American interests are the rest of the worlds or that America even cares about democracy. Look at our own country.

[grubelsucht]

@kalai333 You realize that the US wants merely to make money. A democratic Pakistan in full economy would be a great trading partner. Without communism, as you know, the world economy has risen to everyone's betterment. Taliban fanatics would plunge the world back into that poverty and darkness. Human rights, education, and freedom of speech would disappear. Expect a dismal future if even Pakistan's educated have fallen victim to the paranoia generated by the Taliban.

[kalai333]

@grubelsucht Absolutely. The US just wanting to make money is the first thing you have written I agree with fully. And there is in my opinion nothing wrong in a capitalist society in making money. The Taliban is a bunch of backwards uneducated religious fanatics trying to gain control of a dirt poor and landlocked country for their own purposes. The US has markets better prepared to deal with US corporations and with much less of a cultural difference. Asia, and Emerging markets in E Europe

[GaiusIuliusTaberna]

@kalai333 I'm curious, do you support the cold war era american policy of supporting the Taliban against the soviet union, or do you now support our policy of apposing them?

I hate to break it to you, but those are two different policies, and you can't be against both, or for both as they directly contradict each other.

[kalai333]

@GaiusIuliusTaberna I hate to break it to you. Yes thats precisely the problem isnt it? We run contradictory policies depending on who we think is our enemy at the time, we should not be sticking our noses in countries that our themselves divided, reactionary, and hostile to us.

[GaiusIuliusTaberna]

@kalai333 We don't run contradictory policies, we ran a different policy several decades ago than we do now. Not only did all that happen before I was born, but it was done in a different time, with different considerations, by different people.

This us vs them idea you seem to express in saying they are hostile to us is false in my view. The people of a given nation are most likely divided about our government, but I doubt they are hostile to us as a people, certainly not to our ideas.

[GaiusIuliusTaberna]

@kalai333 Marxists drivel... Nothing about either the war in Iraq or Afghanistan benefited America in any was excluding the ideological need to appose fascism, totalitarianism, theocracy, and terrorism.

Afghanistan is a problem because the Marxists and anti Americans will site the removal of the corrupt government as american imperialism, and the failure to remove them as american imperialism. So the calculation is, better to have a corrupt government than non at all.

[MonkeyThatIsLuminous]

Spot on I think.

[LowleyUK]

@truestefq SPOT ON!

[breakerofbigots]

@truestefq Your overall analysis is correct, but the problem is that Hitchens tacks on falsehoods about WMD/terror threats and creates false dichotomies regarding international law. Ritter is better informed and doesn't flinch a bit in the face of Hitchens' typically browbeating attempts to gain the moral high ground.

[dingane]

@truestefq Which policy resulted in more dead Iraqis? More dead Americans? More property destroyed, more lives ruined?

Which one is therefore more evil?

[Territomauvais]

@dingane Our policy of appeasement (and sometimes to our shame, support) and coexistence with Saddam Hussein has been the core of all we've done wrong.

Removing Saddam in 1991 or 1987 would have saved MILLIONS and MILLIONS of lives.