Christopher Hitchens debates Scott Ritter on Iraq

On recalling the late Christopher Hitchens I discovered I couldn't find one of his debates on here and so I'm going ahead and posting it myself. It's long but as with anything from Hitchens it's worth it and wildly entertaining. This time he is squaring off against one of the members of the IAEA inspectors that had spent much time in Saddam Era Iraq.
bcglorfsays...

Spoiler, Hitchens 'wins' the debate. I can't honestly say I've watched or listened to a debate between him and anyone were that did not seem to be the case. As often is the case though too, his grandest victory is understated, brief and easily overlooked.

Ritter thumps hard on the absence of WMD in Iraq to condemn the invasion, which on it's surface seems a strong argument. Hitchens casually references an unwillingness to be lectured on WMD's by those who cautioned against invasion for fear that Saddam would use those WMD on US troops. Scott Ritter went on Crossfire before the invasion to state that Saddam could easily reconstitute his chemical weapons and invading was too risky.

yellowcsays...

It's very difficult to beat Hitchens, he's a master debater.

It wouldn't even matter if you had a stronger position, if you are not at his skill level and I'd say very few people are, he'd quite likely still "beat" you. This Ritter guy is not on equal level, one of his weaknesses is his passion, which I'm afraid in civil debate really just gets in the way.

If you're going to throw out a bone that a country is better off with a Dictator than the growing pains of a revolution, well, just get the shovel out and start digging.

Oh Saddam might of helped the country out a little when it was crashing and burning...oh lord BETTER keep him forever. What a shallow and stupid perspective, why does he want to rule over a dump site? Of course he'd like to improve it so he can rule something a little nicer. He's still a Dictator with crimes against humanity as long as they come.

Just a weird stance to have taken, I feel like Ritter knew he was getting a bit stupid but couldn't realistically back down without reducing the effect of the rest of his arguments.

bcglorfsaid:

Spoiler, Hitchens 'wins' the debate. I can't honestly say I've watched or listened to a debate between him and anyone were that did not seem to be the case. As often is the case though too, his grandest victory is understated, brief and easily overlooked.

Ritter thumps hard on the absence of WMD in Iraq to condemn the invasion, which on it's surface seems a strong argument. Hitchens casually references an unwillingness to be lectured on WMD's by those who cautioned against invasion for fear that Saddam would use those WMD on US troops. Scott Ritter went on Crossfire before the invasion to state that Saddam could easily reconstitute his chemical weapons and invading was too risky.

bcglorfsays...

My favorite exchange is near the start:
Ritter: Mehdi Abadi never told us anything when he had plenty of opportunity to...
Hitchens: ...While his family was in the hands of Saddams secret police...
Ritter(hesitantly): ... Yeah, they were with Saddam's police ..
Hitchens: Come on!

Discuss...

🗨️ Emojis & HTML

Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.

Possible *Invocations
discarddeadnotdeaddiscussfindthumbqualitybriefnotlongnsfwblockednochannelbandupeoflengthpromotedoublepromote

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists




notify when someone comments
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
  
Learn More