Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
9 Comments
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.
siftbotsays...Moving this video to bcglorf's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.
bcglorfsays...*beg
siftbotsays...Sending this video to Beggar's Canyon to plea for a little attention - beg requested by original submitter bcglorf.
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.
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.
chingalerasays...*✨
siftbotsays...Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued - promote requested by chingalera.
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!
siftbotsays...Moving this video to bcglorf's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.