Search Tags:

Categories:

Christopher Hitchens gives anti war lobby a taste of its own



Uploaded by: mateyboy07
Video Description:
Christopher Hitchens' impromptu rebuttal to the non-interventionist anti-war argument.
Full debate here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qx04ueOwG-Y


Tags for this video: anti christopher darfur hitchens interventionist iraq owns war

Find more videos in the "News" category
See more videos uploaded by mateyboy07

Related Videos
Christopher Hitchens and Tom DeLay at The Hill Book FairGeorge Galloway vs. Christopher Hitchens Pt4George Galloway vs. Christopher Hitchens Pt5
christopher-hitchens-and-tom-delay-at-the-hill-book-fair.htmlchristopher-hitchens-and-tom-delay-at-the-hill-book-fair.htmlchristopher-hitchens-and-tom-delay-at-the-hill-book-fair.html
George Galloway vs. Christopher Hitchens Pt2George Galloway vs. Christopher Hitchens Pt3George Galloway vs. Christopher Hitchens Pt7
christopher-hitchens-and-tom-delay-at-the-hill-book-fair.htmlchristopher-hitchens-and-tom-delay-at-the-hill-book-fair.htmlchristopher-hitchens-and-tom-delay-at-the-hill-book-fair.html


Share This Video:       StumbleUpon       del.icio.us       Reddit       digg       Furl       Spurl       Simpy       YahooMyWeb


Comments for this video: Show || Hide
Comments for this video on YouTube
Hitchens at his ... ( 1 month ago by bradforever)
Hitchens at his best; clear, precise and indignant annihilation. I'd love to know what the whining was as well.
Here here ( 4 weeks ago by nausinora)
Here here
Array ( 3 weeks ago by entity3sf)
OWNED!
Hitchens uses the deadliest weapons: intellect, logic, undeniable truth.
I agree with ... ( 3 weeks ago by jonnykzj)
I agree with Hitchens on this IF those criminals or terrorists in Darfur and other countries are either attacking his country or the US and the most important condition TARGET THOSE PEOPLE SPECIFICALLY USING THE BEST AVAILABLE MILLITARY PRECISION TECHNOLOGY WHICH MOST DEFINITELY DOES NOT INCLUDE BOMBING FROM A HEIGHT which causes hell lot of collateral damage...
...The prob with ... ( 3 weeks ago by jonnykzj)
...The prob with siding with a certain grp of ppl n attacking the other party, no matter whether they are considered terrorist, is obviously the relativity of what is considered good and bad. YES one my argue tht certain values are universal. But this cld only be implicated if the whole world were one country with laws chosen by the absolute majority. Otherwise this cld lead to an unimaginable war. For now the laws cnt according to the local majority in any country...
So if the majority ... ( 3 weeks ago by jonnykzj)
So if the majority in a country thinks tht islamic, hindu or christian values are the right ones and shld be implemented then so be it and there sld be no PHYSICAL intervention from outside whilst there shld always be dialogue and free speech and yes shld tht country attack us because we use free speech to convince those ppl to act otherwise ONLY THEN wld we again have the right to fight back...
...Truth shld stand ... ( 3 weeks ago by jonnykzj)
...Truth shld stand out clear from falsehood through free speech and dialogue. Thts the whole pt. IF we as rational thinkers impose our thoughts on others by force this means wer insecure within our own selves just like many religious folk who need to use force to ultimately get their dogma across the public.
Fascism means war. ... ( 2 weeks ago by neestle)
Fascism means war. It's in its nature. If we don't confront it, it will confront us eventually.
Sometimes, when we're lucky, it will collaspe under its own weight. But that won't happen with self-financed thugs with no country to implode, or parasites in an emerging republic. These groups, sadly, have to be utterly annihilated. That's the only way. Otherwise they'll be back 10 times stro
nger in 20 years. (e.g. Germany) I think your moral relatavism is a bit naive.
Yes BUT these thugs ... ( 2 weeks ago by jonnykzj)
Yes BUT these thugs need to be targeted SPECIFICALLY AND ACCURATELY. You cannot kill someone besides them on purpose like the unarmed civilians no matter what ideology they may hold unless theres direct evidence tht those are responsible for killing civilains in your place too. AND also if any from those thugs surrender then BY NO MEANS shld they still be killed. Thtd be extremely dangerous as it wld lead to more animosity towards us. NOW in regards to moral relativism...
...it is just a ... ( 2 weeks ago by jonnykzj)
...it is just a fact tht this is so in differnt parts of the world right now. Whether ultimately the whole of humanity will reach a consensus on morals is a different issue BUT nobody shld ever force anyone else to accept his/her concept of morality. The majority of any sovereign country decides this for itself. If others dont like it THEN DO NOT trade with tht country or don support them, BUT never try to attack them as long as theyr not attacking n then only those who r...
...NOW lemme give u ... ( 2 weeks ago by jonnykzj)
...NOW lemme give u an example of a moral or rather legal issue which cld be very relative. A certain country argues tht theyd ban ANY drugs including alcohol because it leads the person's brains who take them to become highly unpredictable and chaotic so as to put other individuals into real physical danger, presenting their data. Another country might argue against this and present their data. Data is never completely free from bias either. Each group can argue their's is more accurate...
...So since both ... ( 2 weeks ago by jonnykzj)
...So since both countries are sovereign no one is to use force to bring the other to ones views. Get my pt now? ALSO the one who uses force to forward his/her ideology or legal/moral concepts is him7herself insecure. Otherwise truth always stands out free from falsehood. We dont even force ppl to accept evolution. We present the data and if it's true ppl automatically come towards it without anyone having to use force. Otherwise wer no better than those crooks and religious folk themselves.
Countries make ... ( 2 weeks ago by neestle)
Countries make different policies. Many are debatable. But many things are objectively, absolutely wrong. For example, the enslavement and subjugation of half the Muslim world in those countries. Yes we CAN judge that. I judge it. It's vile. And we're better than them because of it. And they should change things yesterday.
Use of force has its own rule set and higher standards than this. But do we impose these values on them after we win? You bet. As well we should. Condense please.
This very word " ... ( 2 weeks ago by jonnykzj)
This very word "ABSOLUTE" in ur above phrase is where i have strong objection to. There is nothing ANSOLUTELY wrong. Yes objective evidence is the best we'll always have at any given time but we shld never try to force even our objective evidence. It is still relative even if from our pt of view a very tiny %age. And yes we can certainly place judgements. I never denied tht. But say a sovereign country somewhere endorses slavery. We can have ialogues with them, boycott them BUT...
...we can most ... ( 2 weeks ago by jonnykzj)
...we can most certainly not bomb them or start sending our footsoldiers to kill them UNLESS THEY ATTACK US. If we do tht then itd not lead to peace but a disaster since tht country was not yet upto to the level of understanding tht slavery is wrong. They didnt grasp it as yet. As i said be4 truth shld come to them initiating dialogue later boycotts or things which do not involve physicacl violence towards them until they attack u. I cant say this enough.
I still stand ... ( 2 weeks ago by raspberrymuffin)
I still stand against the Iraq war and generally am anti-war in general. I think we should only go to war when necessary, not be trigger happy like ol' Dubya is.
Look at all the ... ( 1 week ago by thelameones)
Look at all the people who have died because liberals only care about hating America and Israel and ignoring far greater tradgedies and genocides in the world. Ie.. Tibet.. Darfur, East Timor, West Papua.
In modern times no ... ( 6 days ago by EasyEs)
In modern times no potential enemy is going to give the clear examples the American left wants as preconditions to go to war. Sorry they are smarter then that. America was essentially at a low intensity war with Iraq for over 12 years.
Exactly. ( 5 days ago by AllenbysEyes)
Exactly.
Please define what ... ( 5 days ago by AllenbysEyes)
Please define what you deem a necessary war.
Thank you I wonder ... ( 4 days ago by EasyEs)
Thank you I wonder what that angry Bitch at the end was yelling about. Probably about the loss of Iraqi social programs instituted by Saddam or something. That women is the type who would feel no pain about throwing a Ukrainian family in jail for having a loaf of Bread in their house in the 1930s.
It was probably the ... ( 4 days ago by AllenbysEyes)
It was probably the idiot who got up to read a statement about the plight of Iraqi women earlier in the debate. Sounds like her, anyway, and the rude tone seems to jive.
What a piece of ... ( 21 hours ago by xxmonickkkkaxx)
What a piece of shit this man is, hasn't he ever heard of blowback. We should not preemptively strike another country, our founders our rolling over in their grave. Hello people we were meant to be a republic not an empire. We have bases in 130 countries right now and are ready for an economic collapse the last thing we need to do is strike Iran. You know the country in which the CIA overthrow the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadeq. No wonder they hate us!
Since when was it ... ( 21 hours ago by xxmonickkkkaxx)
Since when was it the United States job to be the police man of the world? As I recall our founders wanted nothing to do with entangling alliances. We cannot afford another intervention we borrow approximately 2 billion dollars a day from China to prop up our military industrial complex which is about to collapse and cause a depression. You need to read your history, our founders would be ashamed at what we have become.



Tell a friend:


URL 
Embed Code