How revealing that the little trio that were cheering Galloway when he attacked the Iraq war were then booing him when he pointed to Israel. The lobby is deeply rooted.
Are you high, good sir? Galloway has gone full conspiracy-theorist and Russian propagandist (literally). History won’t be kind. Hitchens’ arguments were solid and well-reasoned. The US ballsed up the nation-building and Iraq isn’t perfect by any means but at least it has a future.
@@Samn3212Anyone who uses the phrase “good sir” is obviously a twat. And a stupid one at that if you can’t see, even with a decade’s worth of hindsight, that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were fundamentally wrong and have had a huge detrimental affect on all of those countries that participated. Wake up, grow up or if you are really that stupid, try keeping your opinions to yourself.
Did the long term occupation Hitchens defended end in an army engineer rebuilt Afghanistan? Nope, just as George warned, the geopolitical medling served only to foment an eventual return to the fundamentalists under harsher policies. I respect Hitchens as a debator, but he lost this debate, and it is a pity Hitchens did not live to see how wrong he would prove to be about the region after a failed, 2 decade attempt to pacify through forced occupation.
The crucial linchpin of all ME genocidal wars that Hitchens dare not mention is that a small chosen country is in total control of America and its vassals and that pulls the strings for war. Next in line: Iran. Hitchen died a slow, agonising death. Good riddance. 0:16
Its an amazing debate, i understand where both sides are coming from and Hitchens is incredibly clever and more educated and more insightful then nearly anyone else in the world. It hasn't aged horribly for him at all.
I agree, Hitchens outlook on the wars and assumptions he made turned out horribly wrong and opposite of what he estimated. Looking today, he made numerous errors, including the total deaths of Iraqi war, the pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq, the coming of ISIS, just to name a few and MANY more.
@@handsomelyditto4215Cope. Galloway was a better speaker and caught Hitchens lying. Hitchens also happens to have been proven completely wrong by history.
@@farzanamughal5933LOL good one, galloway speaks in platitudes and slogans and is a known shill for putin and assad. hitchens is a far better speaker and knows far more about this topic than galloway, who has to stick to the script provided by his financial backers, does
6:49 Hitchens doesn't realize that America had ironically broken all of these conditions too. So, by his own logic, does that mean the United States shouldn't be formally recognized as a country? Also, Hitchens should never forget that America was the one that armed Saddam with illegal weapons of mass destruction during the first Gulf war, does that mean America shouldn't be recognized as a country since it's the host country which provided these weapons?
Yes it’s quite laughable. Americas crimes at the time of this debate utterly dwarfed those of Iraq, but Hitchens wanted the former to be the moral arbiter of the world.
True, given the military situation within the American forces, and the new doctrine of the Shock and Awe doctrine versus the older doctrine of amassing a land force invasion which made nation building and martial law implementation of a post Iraq after Saddam Hussein's regime was toppled, is an undeniable point that is a large negative of that whole Iraq war of the American hegemony, exceptionalism and technology heavy bias meanwhile only importance is the oil in that geography and not the nation building. In fact the lead up of the war most generals still planning and arguing about the old versus new doctrine, it was a mess. How the military conducted itself and the end result allowed lootings and riots and other terror groups to take control due to the small American military presence in Iraq, too small to implement martial law, too understaffed. Also, this is a complicated situation in geopolitics, given the many developmental factors like Spiral Dynamics stages of development(by Don Beck), cognitive and moral development, personality types/traits(big five personality traits modal and Myers Briggs personality types modal), 9 stages of ego development(By Jane Loevinger), life experiences and other lines of development in life and societal domains(Integral Theory by Ken Wilbur), ideological beliefs indoctrinated by upbringing and culture, and self biases and preferences in worldviews. I disagree with the binary framing of the Iraq war by both sides of this argument, it's too over simplified and does not take into account other factors and variables in this situation, economically, politically, socially, and ideologically speaking.
Hitchens came to regret , and publicly denounce, his support for the Iraq war. Kinda bothers me that the debate is being retransmitted without these caveats.
Keep in mind that support for the Iraq War in 2003 and the ousting of the genocidal regime in Baghdad is not equal to approving or giving a free pass for how the Iraq War turned out. Two entirely different propositions that people all too easily conflate. There is also not real reason to believe that there was only possible contingency for supporting the War against Iraq and only one possible prognosis and end point (even though many people pretend like so)
@@benaffleckisanokayactor But they knew it would turn out that way before they invaded.. Cheney called it a quagmire in the 90s. The Arab states told them it would turn out this way before they invaded. They didn't even ask the Iraqi's what they wanted. You want to liberate a people but don't even ask their opinion??
I think it's really because the whole idea of nation building as foreign policy is a ethical quagmire. On one end you do have people in desperate need of help and support but then on the other end you get the issues that come with waging any war against someone to the level needed to actually start a rebuilding process. It's really hard to square the two.
John Blonde No it's not. If nations of other countries have to go through shit times like european medieval ages and dark ages then they have to and need to, in order to learn their own lessons from it by themselves, so that in time they could learn and grow better.
@@melissaconway9145 say that to those people who have to go through those dark ages. I wouldn't want to tell an Iraqi, 'dont worry, in 200 years or so there'll be a stable society in this area of the world. You just have to learn from these awful tyrants that are raping and killing your friends and family'. It's not you or me or that went through the dark ages, it's our ancestors. I dont think its moral to have people living today to go through further centuries of tyrannical government, expecting them to go through the same process as 'us'. You and I never went through that, and if we did I'm betting we'd both welcome an intervention from countries that sought to dismantle the tyranny we were living under. Where the intervention failed was in the aftermath. More resources should have been spent in rebuilding the countries that the US and others destroyed. But they left before the job was finished, resulting in Iraq and Afghanistan being (potentially) in a worse state than was previously the case.
Quite disgraceful of Hitchens to accuse Galloway of criminality and not answering the senate questions. I have watched that appearance here on line and Galloway defends himself robustly and does answer the questions far more directly than the average person who ends up questioned in that arena. Every hero has their flaws I suppose.
And it’s healthy to recognize as much. I sometimes find myself too close to hero worship with Mr. Hitchens and I’m relieved for reminders that he’s human from time to time. But it is rare.
Hitchens talked in 2002 about the new fantastic Afghanistan,Hitchens cheered on the Iraq war in 2003.Has the penny dropped ,with the fools that turned this very average and completely flawed man into some sort of God.
Afghanistan was a good place until we recently abandoned it. I welcome you to go there now and speak your mind and tell the now oppressed people how much better off they are.
@@ryancafferty3302 Yes, he would certainly fare well as a member of a high-school debate team. He also probably sold more books than the other guy. But that's about it.
I watched this when it happened as a college student, thinking Hitchens was on the right side, and Galloway was a demagogue. Now I’m afraid I may have had it exactly backwards. It really is humbling and insightful.
*What babbling nonsense. You're a total fool, and likely a liar too. Galloway is a textbook demagogue, right down to shouting into a microphone even though he doesn't need too and that's on top of Hitchens winning handily using purely the point of fact. Again, you're a hack of the lowest kind. Provide some evidence of your hack claim.*
I see GG pulling at the audiences heart strings. Hitchens, for the most part, tried to stick with facts. Whether you agree or not with him. This wasn't a great debate by 2 heavyweights. Lot of mud slinging and personal attacks. Sad.
@@republica13 SO you didn't see Hitchens evoke the spirit of 9/11 to appeal to a New York audience? shut up. Hitchens was more guilty than Galloway of this.
what do you mean? Because he changed his opinions? I actually think that shows integrity, not the opposite. A man who evolves his beliefs and is honest about it is a follower of truth. Someone like Galloway would never change his opinions because underlying all his beliefs is a consistent anti-west agenda. It makes him consistent, and such a clear narrative is persuasive, but it also means he prioritises the cause over truth or right vs wrong. Aka more likely to be dishonest, since the means justifies the end when you have an agenda.
@@tc98826 wow. Are you a bot? You really came to a lot of conclusions based on your interpretation of Galloway. Another interpretation might be that he stuck to his principles and never wavered from his stance. Critical of the west? Criticism is warranted where it is earned. The Hitchens changing his tune could be interpreted as someone who blew in the direction of selling a book and getting his articles read so he could flatter his ego by going on tv and word smithing his way through a 7 minute appearance while plugging said book. See what I did there?
@dribblesg2 I agree that Hitchens was wrong here, and yet he still managed to win the debate (imo), thanks to his oratory skills and intellectual superiority over Galloway. He didn't win because he was right, but he won by giving strong and articulated arguments, whereas Galloway spent most of the time insulting him.
I'm a huge admirer of Hitchens and have read his work, but sadly I have to admit that Galloway had him time and time again here, to the point that Hitchens was reduced to arrogant aloofness in the face of awkward facts and a whole variety of straw man arguments that were beneath a writer of his calibre. It's also notable that such an impassioned debate about humanity and the deaths of a million people in horrendous wars should end with a glib announcement to form three lines in order to buy products that are for sale. God Bless America.
I read Hitchen's autobiography. He devoted a few pages to the experience of being present while victims of Saddam were exhumed, and of the discomfort at the cloying nature of the odours and sights of death. He used this as a weapon to attack Saddam. And I have heard him reuse this experience since. I found this dishonest, a trick. The victims of the Iraq civil war that resulted from the removal of Saddam would have resulted in equally grisly scenes. Many of his arguments over Iraq have this same quality. They are almost as bad as Bush's justifications. That Saddam was a "bad man" and do you really want to defend him? The younger Hitchens would have ripped this assimilated, entitled, compromised Hitchens to shreds.
@@kevinmcinerney1959 no, I wouldn't defend him on that issue, in fact his opinion on Iraq was what caused the split between Hitchens and his hero Gore Vidal, who refused to engage with him subsequently. I think it is possible to admire someone's intellectual abilities and agree with them on many issues whilst also fundamentally disagreeing on certain other points they make. You think Hitchens should be wholly negated because of his view on Iraq?
@@grebo65 I wouldn't wholly negate him, no. But I get frustrated when I read people say "I love Hitchens. We need him now". (I am not referring to your good self here). I want to say "you love the early trotskyist Hitchens or the later Bush-supporting right-wing one?". I admire his eloquence and his lived life. I envy his ability to martial arguments and to recall quotations. But when he migrated to the right he seemed to become obsessive. Were the Clintons really a dark force that had to be traduced? Or just more slightly-dishonest politicians? And over Iraq, could he really be so confident? I also find his tendency to beat the audience up (as here and in Hitchens v Hitchens) quite unpleasant. Apologies I can see I was unclear with "defend him". I meant that Hitchens' argument (as was Bush's) a pretence that opponents of the war were blind to the obvious faults of Saddam. (Bush always used to say "But he's a bad guy!"). Whereas opponents of the war were quite aware of the evils of the Baathist regime and were not of course DEFENDING or misunderstanding Saddam. But they saw more clearly how intervention was likely to lead to a civil war and an insurgency.
Yes it is tragic that such a marvellous thinker as Hitchens should have gone so far astray. Even more so that he died before he could have the opportunity to see the fault in his argument.
@@billy9497able Einstein was a genius. Beethoven was a genius. Charlie Chaplin, too. Hitchens was lightyears away from being or becoming a genius per se, but specifically because he chose to be on the wrong side of history for way too many times, e.g. in the context of the illegal war of aggression against Iraq in 2003. And it doesn't even take a genius to choose the right historical side. All it takes is historical literacy and a moral center. And it seems to me, that Hitchens wasn't equipped with at least either of them. Or he was bought and paid for to ignore both of it. Because he wouldn't be the first (or last) "upright liberal" to eventually turn into a silver-tongued warmonger and snake oil salesman.
@danh555. The US created the Taliban in the 1980’s when it was convenient for us to use them as a tool against the USSR. And the US CIA happily did millions of dollars in annual business with the Taliban in the 1980’s, 1990’s and early 2000’s through the illegal opium trade to finance the CIA’s myriad of illegal operations around the globe during those years. As for Saddam Hussein, I’m pretty sure he is the same Saddam Hussein of Iraq that US President Ron Reagan happily sold US weapons to in 1988 AFTER the Halabja massacre enacted by Saddam Hussein against the northern Iraqi Kurdish people in the spring of 1988. Reagan sold him those weapons because he and US military experts thought an armed Saddam could be used as a war tool against Iran. And after he became US President, a guy named W Bush (same guy that started the Iraq War) actually sent roughly $30 million in early 2001 to the Taliban because his admin too thought they could be bought and used as a war tool against various Mid East factions in the region before 9/11 occurred that same year. I agree with Hitch regarding many things, but it was extremely disingenuous of him here not to provide any background or context of the heavy US involvement that included both military aid and financing in building up both the Hussein regime and the Taliban long before we decided they were our enemies.
Hitchens vs Scott Ritter on Iraq war was amazing too, it was the first time I saw Hitchens lose a debate. even though Hitchens was eloquent, he couldn’t beat the reality Ritter brought on.
I loved Hitchens but he was clearly in the wrong with Iraq. Galloway is a monster in debates. A man of principles his entire life always telling how things really are without any bullshit.
Wow I think he comes across as a self-righteous pompous ass, and I had never heard of the guy and knew nothing about him before I followed the link to this video. I'd even describe him as dangerous. And I think of Hitchens as a tad pompous, but he's got nothing on this guy. I'm enjoying his getting heckled and booed.
@@SuperJolie2011you are on the money, despite you not knowing of him. He is just a profiteer, started extreme left, and as politics is a circle, it means he's actually always touching extreme right.
@davefandango1303 He is still far left. Btw politics isn’t a circle it’s an ideological terrain conditioned by the real antagonisms existing in society. Stop pushing your metaphysical nonsense onto politics.
I don't understand one thing. Seeing hitchens, the so-called intellectual debater, on the wrong side of the history and even after being proven some fanboys still cheering for him. And these same guys says religious people are irrational! Irony is dead!
Christopher changed his tune somewhat from his position on Iraq since 1991 . In a debate with Charlton Heston at that time he definitely opposed any invasion , occupation by the United States against Iraq. What happened to change his views so dramatically.?
He went to the Right. I kind of contain elements of both left and right Hitchens, but at least the earlier leftward Hitchens didn't sound embarrassingly, desperately in denial of evidence. He could earlier just try to be on the side of the angels.
I actually went to Kuwait during the first war. I have personal experience with it. The war was not founded in anything good. War is never good. The US and others put Sadam in charge then when he became uncontrollable they took him out.
You know Galloway is an anti semite and supports bashar al-assad who killed 100s of thousands of people right? He's an awful person, and his arguments here aren't even good. This guy has no authority to morally lecture anyone
George is a fantastic rhetorician. In his first speech he managed to bury Christopher in a grave he had dug for himself. History has proven George to be 100% correct and would make me suspicious as to what company Christopher was keeping in the latter years of his life.
How? Why do people so readily conflate the two premises? Supporting the Iraq war and the overthrowing of a dictatorship is NOT an endorsement of how the Iraq war turned out or the domino effect it had or the people it killed. How the Iraq War turned out was not the only possible contingency. Anybody who insists otherwise is lying to you. And as far as Galloway is concerned, this is a man who, when pressed in front of a NYC audience is smart enough to readily admit Saddam had committed war crimes but the same man who in 1999 -- a full two years before 9/11 and 4 years before the Iraq War and after Saddam had presided over death camps, torture camps, chemical weapons and the Anfal genocide etc -- had gone to Baghdad on a trip organised by the Baath Party, met and enthusiastically congragulated Saddam as well as his infamous military general (who authorized the kidnapping of Kurdish children), right after being paraded on the streets of Baghdad by baathist IIS to cheering people and then holding a sword up in the middle of the palace square calling for "Jihad against western imperialism", ALL whilst he was still a British MP! He then went on to do the same in a propaganda event oragnised by the Syrian dictatorship in Damascus. He is truly a deplorable human being who is not anything like how he presents himself here. His rebuttal when Christopher brought it up was to slander Christopher by claiming Christopher somehow supported the Saudi and Qatari dictatorship, and in comparable terms as him supporting Saddam Hussein and Bashar-al-Assad, the butchers of hundreds of thousands
Galloway is a miserable hypocrite boot-licking whatever comes from Islamic leaders, demanding free speech and then opposing it when it comes to criticize religion. This debate was just a case of a broken clock telling the right hour twice a day.
@@benaffleckisanokayactor Thanks for that comment. I don't have enough info/knowledge to make my own judgment and I am curious whether Galloway was aware of what you described regarding the Baathist part; especially the jihad part against western imperialism. From whatever snippets I've heard from him, he's not said anything incorrect. As in, the west interfering in foreign countries, puppet leaders, spawning Bin Laden in the fight against the Soviets etc etc. A lot of Americans seem to think the M.East folks hate them because of american freedoms etc. But I think that's absurd. Canada and other western nations enjoy a similar freedom. It's more about political interference and maybe the Israel factor. Also, in hindsight, I think to many, the Iraq war was bogus. A lot of money was made from that war. The Afghanistan war is also ridiculous and hard to justify. Galloway or maybe Hitchens said that there was no evidence any Afghanistan actor was involved whatsoever. So if Galloway wasn't aware of the terrible things Saddam's general (as you say) and if his visit happened BEFORE the Kurdish gas attacks, then that's different. If he did this, knowing all that, then that is despicable. I don't have a bias against either of them. Just trying to understand it..
Sadam wanted to start selling oil en Euros, Gadafi wanted to introduce a gold back currency.. get the picture? Al least Russia who has now gold a a important part of its economy won't be a pushover.
@lolledopke How did it age well? Russia is thriving outside the US backed economic regime, and holding its annexed territories against the failed ukrainian counteroffensive.
George Galloway talks from the heart, and for the debate, we all know what happened to the 'WMD" and how primitive those 'Islamists' are when using violence on mass is mostly done by these 'civilized' saviors of the world
@@alpatton5965 Absolutely, look what happened after Hussein was removed, the middle east fell apart more than ever before, ISIS ran rampant, more wars incurred etc.
@@alpatton5965 100%... the Iraqi invasion apart from murdering 1 million Iraqis, leading to the death of approx 4.4 k US soldiers and injuring around 30,000 destabilized the whole middle east and the world. And they entered the war on a pack of lies to further their own interests all the while looting the country's resources. They created a vaccum state where extremists came to power ( isis) and led to many other conflicts and wars in the region. No doubt Saddam was a dictator but also no doubt Iraq and the region was in a much better condition and at least stable before 2003. Similar Libya was also fairly stable and in a much better condition before their revolution.
I'm surprised that GG didn't point out that on four occasions Hitchens' attempted to shame the audience for not supporting his view by stating that the debate was televised and their friends and relatives would be watching.
Galloway got his “way” with Hitch on this one. Ashamed Hitch died before seeing the results on Iraq. As Galloway pointed out transgressions to international law, we now see with with present actors today.
A correction, Iran never used chemical weapons against Iraqis. In fact, Iran refused to retaliate in kind. Saddam however, kept using it not only in the battlefields but also in densely populated Iranian cities such as Tehran. it's also worth to note that, as Galloway mentioned, it was Saddam's Western allies who provided Saddam with such weapons right in the middle of the war.
Iran took Iraq to the ICJ twice and twice the US vetoed their findings… It was a disgrace that Hitchens got in bed with Bush… it goes to show that alcohol makes biatches out of men
Mainly because using chem weapons in iraq which is majority Shia would have harmed fellow Shia muslims. Having said that saddam was despicable. And the US even worse for supplying both sides with weapons.
@@YA-hm5zy US never supplied weapons to Iran. Iran was actually put under sanctions by the US and its allies throughout the war. You might be reffering to the Mcfarlane scandal. There was a secret negotiations with some pro west iranian officials to recieve some weapons from the US but that never happened. Thou, I do agree that the west did thier best to drag the war as far as they could to cause damage to both sides of the war.
When Hitchens was criticized on the Iraq War all he did was hurl ad hominems. He was one of many people who lost their minds concerning 9/11. Quite unlike how he engaged on other issues.
In retrospect, Hitchens could not have been more wrong. Whatever the merits or demerits of Mr. Galloway's arguments, our war in Iraq was a complete and utter debacle. No weapons of mass destruction have ever been found and the cost of so many lives lost (primarily Iraqi) is indefensible. The only American debacle that surpasses Iraq, is Vietnam. Maybe all those Hitchens' idolaters out there should reconsider their allegiance.
Lol, I admit I had to do the same.... as I am also tired of all that "relativism/subjectivism" idealism/deception/manipulation/BS... Good to see that I am not the only one who is able to notice it and doesn't bear it anymore...
It was brave of Galloway to make the connection between 9/11 and US foreign policy in front of an american audience. Every sentient being in the world can make that connection except jingoist people in the USA. You have been so indoctrinated by nationalism that you say "we" and "us" when talking about the US government and military. I remember Malcolm: "what's the matter, boss? WE sick?". Even Galloway got it wrong when he said "a swamp of hatred created by us". It was the imperialist machine who created that swamp, not the ordinary people of the US or the UK.
Not brave. Its the same stupid take most masochistic British & European lefties took. They knew America had committed some terrible atrocities in their time (either directly or via proxy), and 9/11 seemed to conveniently coincide with their pre-existing beliefs that America was sowing its own retribution. But that had nothing to do with it. 9/11 was just the actions of an insane, evil death cult we're still dealing with to this day.
@@rckli I guess you missed the bit where Hitchens tried to gain emotional sympathy due to the location of the audience being in the same city as the 9/11 attacks. Get you hasbara-loving ass outta here.
1:37:00 Hitchens really was clueless here. Mentioning the attributes of the Kabul Kandahar highway. It's like saying the Brits looted and plundered India for 200 years but at least they built them a highway and taught them English language.
@@Ehrgeiz33 why are you being offended at the truth? cant debunk iraq so now you want to attack my rudeness? have you become so shallow and foolish as the people you hate so much, you right wing snowflake. Projecting yourself towards me is laughable.
@davveist yeah - it’s rhetoric they learned from other sophists. Sophistry got real popular within those crowds coz it is very effective rhetoric for tricking fools They’re sales tactics - the stuff that a car salesman would do to get the sale
I'd say it was the most intellectual public debate Galloway has had but almost certainly the least inellectual debate Hitchens has ever participated in
I went to a college in that city. It is totally dominated by those who oppose all Arab nations. If a vote was taken at the venue where this debate was held it would be 99% against Iraq. On the other hand, George Galloway is a brilliant orator, that part of the world is lucky to have somebody like him to speak the truth about that area.
Europe is much closer and we have direct impacts from all that what's going on in the arab world - ask us. Look how almost all current problems of Europe are originated by arabs here. Can't you just think about all that? Why all of you won't try to settle things there and maybe even lead by example?
@@Saeglopur89 well, if you westerns did not intervene in the Middle East from as early as in the 50s you wouldn’t have this issues, enjoy your cooking.
@@bgg3046 Who? I'm from Poland in Central Europe, 20+ countries have nothing to do with Middle East problems. Also who is blamed for making absurd amounts of kids and ZERO decent level of live in not only Middle East but also whole Africa. Why they can't govern, manage, work and improve their own lives? It's easy to blame everybody else
Poland was an active member of the invasion forces in Afghanistan. During WWII, 100,000 Poles received sanctuary in the Mid-East especially in Iran. They were very well treated there. Apparently, one good turn doesn't deserve another. @@Saeglopur89
@@Saeglopur89 Poland sent thousands of soldiers in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Don't pretend Poland has nothing to do with Middle East problem. Even if "they can't govern, manage, work and improve their own lives?", it's no justification for Western interference. And why can't Polish stay in their country instead of migrating to UK? Can't find jobs in Poland?
Galloway is a moron who only uses strawman, ad hominem attacks and appeals to emotion. Hitch was right, at least he was supporting the secularist movements instead of the terrorist side mr Galloway was meeting with and applauding, the same group that murdered women and children in gruesome ways for nothing
@@RevDog777 I mean they're nowhere near as articulate or precise or as highly researched for lack of a better term as Christopher but they are of the same opinion as Christopher.
that question that Amy asked Hitchens about if the media is more friendly to him because of his stance on the war was beautiful ! his stupefied answer spoke volumes!
@squiddley100 My biggest issue with Hitchens in this debate is that he conveniently failed to mention the extreme level of involvement the US had in building up both the Saddam Hussein regime and the Taliban in the 1980’s and 1990’s. The US effectively armed and financed the Taliban in the 1980’s when it was convenient for us to use them as a tool against the USSR. And the US CIA then happily did millions of dollars in annual business with the Taliban in the 1980’s, 1990’s through the illegal opium trade in Afghanistan to finance the CIA’s myriad of illegal operations around the globe during those years. As for Saddam Hussein, I’m pretty sure he is the same Saddam Hussein of Iraq that US President Ron Reagan happily sold US weapons to as well as provided large amounts of financing to in 1988 AFTER the Halabja massacre enacted by Saddam Hussein against the northern Iraqi Kurdish people in the spring of 1988. Reagan sold him those weapons and gave that financing because he and US military experts thought an armed Saddam could be used as a war tool against Iran. And after he became US President, a guy named W Bush (same guy that started the Iraq War) actually sent roughly $30 million in early 2001 to the Taliban because his admin too thought they could be bought and used as a war tool against various factions in the region before 9/11 occurred that same year. I agree with Hitch regarding many things, but it was extremely disingenuous of him here not to provide any background or context to the heavy US involvement in building up both the Hussein regime and the Taliban long before we decided they were our enemies.
@@ivanboesky1520 Hitchens was a silver-tongued demagogue for the U.S. and British war machine. No more, no less. Because for most of the time, he was on the wrong side of history - and Galloway so brilliantly has pointed that out throughout that debate.
@@myusername2607 ? He didn’t use anecdote as his argument for anything He didn’t demand we ignore reality and instead think of the children He didn’t misrepresent his opposition and argue against his misrepresentation If you think he did any of these things, feel free to time stamp. I can point to all these things the dishonest Galloway did All you can do is just say “that’s hitchens, not Galloway!” 😂 your comment is about as substantive as saying hitchens ate a baby on stage ahahahaha
I love Christopher, originally I cheered him on in this debate. I disliked Galloway (and still do). However it's now painful to watch him defend such an exposed position. We were both wrong on this one.
@Terry Owens Well, some points I agree with him on (being anti-Zionist for example). However at times he appears dishonest, hiding his faith even after he was married with an Islamic ceremony. Likely a serial monogamist. He supported Venezuela's Hugo Chávez, and lauded Fidel Castro, tweeting "You were the greatest man I ever met, Comandante Fidel" - Marxist and Communist, Socialist society pusher.
Save Evropa ツ Serial monogamist doesn't mean anything further than having multiple respective relationships in one's lifetime (not at once) instead of sticking to the first ever person you ever get romantically involved with, if that's what you mean by serial monogamism. Meanwhile I don't know about his private life.
@@GT-hy2wm Cubans have higher literacy and life expectancy than the average US citizen in spite of crippling sanctions imposed by the US. I'd say Fidel did well with limited resources. But I do understand why human rights activists would take issue with him.
When a person says "somebody dEsTroYeD somebody", Its usually a red flag that they are not a serious person and that we may therefore outright reject any and all opinions they profess
@@benaffleckisanokayactor I don't know about any of that, but I do know what I saw and what we saw was Hitchens get his ass kicked. You don't like destroyed, how about demolished.
Hitchens lost this debate, as much as I liked him when best debating religion apologetics with wits and charm. He looked beat by his own conscience that betrayed his character. A hypocrite here? Mmmm-yes.
In his later years Hitchens went all out to demonstrate how despicably dishonest he had become. He gives an excellent performance here as a slippery, smug upper class turncoat.
Oh no, what did he do to you?? There seems to be some projecting going on in your comment... might you be some God-fearing faith-based individual, or just an isolationist who cares nought for anything beyond his own? Grow up, sir!
The one debate that Hitchens lost (obliterated would be more accurate). Simply, he was on the wrong side of history and supporting what proved to be a destructive war to further U.S. hegemony. Galloway saw that and annihilated Hitchens. It's easy arguing against God with dimwits who live in the stone age. Here he looked vulnerable, and frankly, an apologist for imperialists. Kudos to Galloway.
@@Nousmourronsseuls what I meant to say is that he is a massive hypocrite and therefore I won’t hear from someone as foolish as Galloway that he supports the Iraqi people, is that more specific for you? You can argue that starting the war in Iraq was a mistake, but anyone who thinks that withdrawing would have solved the problem are absolutely deluded.
@@Xhw3288 The war has been proven to be fundamentally misconceived, illegally prosecuted and, to most right thinking people, morally wrong. George recognised that early on. Hitchens did not. End of argument. Whatever your personal opinion is of George is irrelevant to the original comment.
Thankfully Hitchens did not live long enough to see Afghanistan fall under Taliban control in ONE WEEKEND after a 20 year illegal occupation by the U.S. that cost the American citizens $4 billion per month. Christopher should have asked himself what events PRECEDED the "necessary" illegal invasions perpetrated by the U.S. One can argue if military action is needed (or not) all day long, but he seems to ignore the deliberate, calculated actions of imperialism that created these awful situations throughout the world (and continue to) for profit. According to him, we had to bring ruin to Iraq to avoid something far worse. Who was it then who created Saddam? Who kept him in power & supplied him with weapons? Who propped him up for nothing more than oil money? You can't ignore all those questions and have a leg to stand on for pro-war rhetoric.
Afghanistan didn't collapse in one weekend it happened over the course of 4 months I watched day by day, it wasn't an occupation what the afghan people are experiencing now is an occupation by the taliban-al qaeda military junta. And to bring it back to a question of money is as hitchens said the most based parochial chauvinistic and isolationist guttersnipe abuse, (why did we spend money on these A-rabs ....) and thats the whole point we had a responsibility to remove saddam because the CIA put him there
How revealing that the little trio that were cheering Galloway when he attacked the Iraq war were then booing him when he pointed to Israel. The lobby is deeply rooted.
31:40
Anecdotal argument
Appeal to emotion (think of the children)
Strawmanning (“he wants you to believe…”)
This man has absolutely no shame
israel intentionally tried to get the US to invade iraq
@@rckli you speak like a redditor, just say you want to kill children in the name of democracy
@@rcklihard to take you seriously when you don't even know what a strawman argument is.
@@chombers I dunno if you do yourself my G.
Hitchens was destroyed. Time has proven Galloway as being on the right side of history.
Are you high, good sir? Galloway has gone full conspiracy-theorist and Russian propagandist (literally). History won’t be kind.
Hitchens’ arguments were solid and well-reasoned. The US ballsed up the nation-building and Iraq isn’t perfect by any means but at least it has a future.
@@Samn3212Anyone who uses the phrase “good sir” is obviously a twat. And a stupid one at that if you can’t see, even with a decade’s worth of hindsight, that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were fundamentally wrong and have had a huge detrimental affect on all of those countries that participated. Wake up, grow up or if you are really that stupid, try keeping your opinions to yourself.
“ you lying again, your nose is growing” 😂
"The world has been made a more dangerous place". Never a truer word spoken.
Since 622 AD.
Did the long term occupation Hitchens defended end in an army engineer rebuilt Afghanistan? Nope, just as George warned, the geopolitical medling served only to foment an eventual return to the fundamentalists under harsher policies. I respect Hitchens as a debator, but he lost this debate, and it is a pity Hitchens did not live to see how wrong he would prove to be about the region after a failed, 2 decade attempt to pacify through forced occupation.
In thanks to Obama and Biden’s best efforts to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Mission accomplished.
The crucial linchpin of all ME genocidal wars that Hitchens dare not mention is that a small chosen country is in total control of America and its vassals and that pulls the strings for war. Next in line: Iran. Hitchen died a slow, agonising death. Good riddance. 0:16
@danh555how exactly is Iraq in a better place? Could you elaborate on that?
@@chombersit is a republic no longer under the genocidal dictator Saddam Hussein
@danh555you're arguing an indefensible position and have provided no evidence in support. You are no Hitchens, don't try to be
This has aged terribly for Hitchens. His descriptions at the beginning pretty much sum up the American Empire. And in summary, Hitchens was bought
Its an amazing debate, i understand where both sides are coming from and Hitchens is incredibly clever and more educated and more insightful then nearly anyone else in the world. It hasn't aged horribly for him at all.
@@tomsiddle7583are you demented? Or just a kjockey? Imperialist ^
Cult worship tom.
I agree, Hitchens outlook on the wars and assumptions he made turned out horribly wrong and opposite of what he estimated. Looking today, he made numerous errors, including the total deaths of Iraqi war, the pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq, the coming of ISIS, just to name a few and MANY more.
@@m00dy7Yes, well, that's what happens when you blindly believe in something, right? :)
Typically Hitchens dismantles his opponents, but here he got his hat handed to him!
Scott Ritter did the same on same topic to Hitchens
not really lol
@@handsomelyditto4215Cope. Galloway was a better speaker and caught Hitchens lying. Hitchens also happens to have been proven completely wrong by history.
@@farzanamughal5933LOL good one, galloway speaks in platitudes and slogans and is a known shill for putin and assad. hitchens is a far better speaker and knows far more about this topic than galloway, who has to stick to the script provided by his financial backers, does
@@RaNc0Rscott ritter is a registered sex offender btw lol
6:49
Hitchens doesn't realize that America had ironically broken all of these conditions too. So, by his own logic, does that mean the United States shouldn't be formally recognized as a country?
Also, Hitchens should never forget that America was the one that armed Saddam with illegal weapons of mass destruction during the first Gulf war, does that mean America shouldn't be recognized as a country since it's the host country which provided these weapons?
Yes it’s quite laughable. Americas crimes at the time of this debate utterly dwarfed those of Iraq, but Hitchens wanted the former to be the moral arbiter of the world.
True, given the military situation within the American forces, and the new doctrine of the Shock and Awe doctrine versus the older doctrine of amassing a land force invasion which made nation building and martial law implementation of a post Iraq after Saddam Hussein's regime was toppled, is an undeniable point that is a large negative of that whole Iraq war of the American hegemony, exceptionalism and technology heavy bias meanwhile only importance is the oil in that geography and not the nation building. In fact the lead up of the war most generals still planning and arguing about the old versus new doctrine, it was a mess. How the military conducted itself and the end result allowed lootings and riots and other terror groups to take control due to the small American military presence in Iraq, too small to implement martial law, too understaffed.
Also, this is a complicated situation in geopolitics, given the many developmental factors like Spiral Dynamics stages of development(by Don Beck), cognitive and moral development, personality types/traits(big five personality traits modal and Myers Briggs personality types modal), 9 stages of ego development(By Jane Loevinger), life experiences and other lines of development in life and societal domains(Integral Theory by Ken Wilbur), ideological beliefs indoctrinated by upbringing and culture, and self biases and preferences in worldviews. I disagree with the binary framing of the Iraq war by both sides of this argument, it's too over simplified and does not take into account other factors and variables in this situation, economically, politically, socially, and ideologically speaking.
Hitchens came to regret , and publicly denounce, his support for the Iraq war.
Kinda bothers me that the debate is being retransmitted without these caveats.
@@jonasdownerfacts
@@jonasdowner Did Hitchens came to regret and publicly denounce the war before or after the public backlash?
Christopher Hitchens argument and promises did NOT age very well, did they?!
Hitchens proved himself to be a bootlicker on this one.
For someone of his intelligence, yes very disappointing.
Like your hairy mother and wife
It doesn't matter how great of a debater you are. If you are on the wrong side of the truth you will loose. The truth always win
Keep in mind that support for the Iraq War in 2003 and the ousting of the genocidal regime in Baghdad is not equal to approving or giving a free pass for how the Iraq War turned out. Two entirely different propositions that people all too easily conflate.
There is also not real reason to believe that there was only possible contingency for supporting the War against Iraq and only one possible prognosis and end point (even though many people pretend like so)
@@benaffleckisanokayactor exactly, the way the Obama and trump and biden admins have betrayed and abandoned iraqi and syrian kurds if horrific
Where do you come down on
@Teun de Heer I type fast lol.
@@benaffleckisanokayactor But they knew it would turn out that way before they invaded.. Cheney called it a quagmire in the 90s. The Arab states told them it would turn out this way before they invaded. They didn't even ask the Iraqi's what they wanted. You want to liberate a people but don't even ask their opinion??
I do not miss to rewatch this masterpiece of a debate at leat once a year.
Same
His bullshit support of US imperialism will always a be a rotten stain on his otherwise brilliant mind.
Same
I really expected more actually as i like to listen to both of them...to many personal attacks, like they are opponents in an election
Defending the invasion of Iraq was and is shameful. If that invasion was justified then Ukraine invasion is 1000 times more justified.
Hitchens made so much sense about the Clintons but his take on the Iraq was is insane and was horribly wrong.
I think it's really because the whole idea of nation building as foreign policy is a ethical quagmire. On one end you do have people in desperate need of help and support but then on the other end you get the issues that come with waging any war against someone to the level needed to actually start a rebuilding process. It's really hard to square the two.
John Blonde No it's not. If nations of other countries have to go through shit times like european medieval ages and dark ages then they have to and need to, in order to learn their own lessons from it by themselves, so that in time they could learn and grow better.
@@melissaconway9145 say that to those people who have to go through those dark ages. I wouldn't want to tell an Iraqi, 'dont worry, in 200 years or so there'll be a stable society in this area of the world. You just have to learn from these awful tyrants that are raping and killing your friends and family'. It's not you or me or that went through the dark ages, it's our ancestors. I dont think its moral to have people living today to go through further centuries of tyrannical government, expecting them to go through the same process as 'us'. You and I never went through that, and if we did I'm betting we'd both welcome an intervention from countries that sought to dismantle the tyranny we were living under.
Where the intervention failed was in the aftermath. More resources should have been spent in rebuilding the countries that the US and others destroyed. But they left before the job was finished, resulting in Iraq and Afghanistan being (potentially) in a worse state than was previously the case.
Yes we should have let tyrant Saddam Hussein and his crime family rule the Iraqi people without question
@@sloppymcslops954 ruclips.net/video/z9wC6W7EJpg/видео.html
Absolutely amazing, thanks for uploading!
Quite disgraceful of Hitchens to accuse Galloway of criminality and not answering the senate questions. I have watched that appearance here on line and Galloway defends himself robustly and does answer the questions far more directly than the average person who ends up questioned in that arena.
Every hero has their flaws I suppose.
And it’s healthy to recognize as much. I sometimes find myself too close to hero worship with Mr. Hitchens and I’m relieved for reminders that he’s human from time to time. But it is rare.
No u.
@@supafuckinmingster mm. Wise.
Lol hitchens a hero lmao.
Hero?
The incredible thing is Galloway speaks with no notes.
Galloway is a genius that’s why
even if you oppose the war you should notice that he is yapping. He relies on his irish shouting and vague moral appeals to 100%
@@Theodosius_fan in a 2 hours debate that's your conclusion?
@@Theodosius_fan I agree
@@Hslt95 yeah
Hitchens talked in 2002 about the new fantastic Afghanistan,Hitchens cheered on the Iraq war in 2003.Has the penny dropped ,with the fools that turned this very average and completely flawed man into some sort of God.
He’s a force to be reckoned with but my gosh he’s wrong when he’s wrong
@@Jimmy-jy5ol And I have not even mentioned "Reparations" which White Americans (who never owned a slave ) are now meant to pay for.
@@sonnyirish3678 Are you saying Hitchens supported reparations? If so can you point me to that video
Afghanistan was a good place until we recently abandoned it. I welcome you to go there now and speak your mind and tell the now oppressed people how much better off they are.
@@TwistedHorizonI20 Afghanistan was never a good place.Its a 7th century hell hole and it always will be.It was not worth the life of one US soldier.
Watching this decade later, it is now clear Hitchens was wrong.
It was clear from the get-go
He was wrong, but still won this debate. Galloway’s argumentation was cheap as usual.
@ryancafferty3302 the fact that you put wrong and win in the same sentence proves you are less than cheap.
@@ryancafferty3302 Yes, he would certainly fare well as a member of a high-school debate team. He also probably sold more books than the other guy. But that's about it.
npc
I watched this when it happened as a college student, thinking Hitchens was on the right side, and Galloway was a demagogue. Now I’m afraid I may have had it exactly backwards.
It really is humbling and insightful.
100 iq
*What babbling nonsense. You're a total fool, and likely a liar too. Galloway is a textbook demagogue, right down to shouting into a microphone even though he doesn't need too and that's on top of Hitchens winning handily using purely the point of fact. Again, you're a hack of the lowest kind. Provide some evidence of your hack claim.*
College must've really done a number on you.
I see GG pulling at the audiences heart strings. Hitchens, for the most part, tried to stick with facts. Whether you agree or not with him. This wasn't a great debate by 2 heavyweights. Lot of mud slinging and personal attacks. Sad.
@@republica13 SO you didn't see Hitchens evoke the spirit of 9/11 to appeal to a New York audience? shut up. Hitchens was more guilty than Galloway of this.
It was a great debate on a dead issue, the US invasion of Iraq was a disaster, a crime and a blunder indeed. Hitchens made a fool of himself.
@ Salman Akbar If you and your 20 fools say so. Ask Iraqis. No Sadam. No ISIS.
@@DannyBoy777777 You are really that ignorant. Iran is now in total control of Iraq.
@@DannyBoy777777 millions of innocent people killed by usa
Hitchens is a silver tongued devil. Shown in a more realistic light here. Galloway brought that version of Hitchens into the light. Impressive.
So clever yet so profoundly wrong, it’s fascinating to observe in hindsight.
Isn’t silver poisonous to the devil? Just kidding
@@user-hw3hh4pp5d Hitch got 30 pieces of silver to perpetuate a lot of his views on the USA and its foreign policy in the Middle East it would seem.
what do you mean? Because he changed his opinions? I actually think that shows integrity, not the opposite. A man who evolves his beliefs and is honest about it is a follower of truth. Someone like Galloway would never change his opinions because underlying all his beliefs is a consistent anti-west agenda. It makes him consistent, and such a clear narrative is persuasive, but it also means he prioritises the cause over truth or right vs wrong. Aka more likely to be dishonest, since the means justifies the end when you have an agenda.
@@tc98826 wow. Are you a bot? You really came to a lot of conclusions based on your interpretation of Galloway. Another interpretation might be that he stuck to his principles and never wavered from his stance. Critical of the west? Criticism is warranted where it is earned.
The Hitchens changing his tune could be interpreted as someone who blew in the direction of selling a book and getting his articles read so he could flatter his ego by going on tv and word smithing his way through a 7 minute appearance while plugging said book.
See what I did there?
Hitchens got buried alive here.
Hitchens getting hitch slapped
What a debate. Likely the best I’ve yet seen
Time proved Galloway right and Hitchens wrong!
Time proved Galloway a Rssian tool. He does anything and everything to undermine democracy and freedom.
I think we can safely say, history has proven Hitchens wrong on this one.
It's interesting how Hitchens won the debate, but Galloway was the one proven to be right through time
@@kpl775 Then Galloway supported Russias invasion of Ukraine. Hacks can occasionally be right
@@kpl775professional sophist. He was wrong about near everything he ever argued, but persuaded many with his silver tongue
@@kpl775It's interesting that galloway won the debate and was proven right too
@dribblesg2 I agree that Hitchens was wrong here, and yet he still managed to win the debate (imo), thanks to his oratory skills and intellectual superiority over Galloway. He didn't win because he was right, but he won by giving strong and articulated arguments, whereas Galloway spent most of the time insulting him.
@PostNothingness
this is super awesome! Thank you for uploading!
THANK YOU Mister George Galloway FOR YOUR COURAGE AND FOR YOUR COMMITMENT TO FREEDOM
I'm a huge admirer of Hitchens and have read his work, but sadly I have to admit that Galloway had him time and time again here, to the point that Hitchens was reduced to arrogant aloofness in the face of awkward facts and a whole variety of straw man arguments that were beneath a writer of his calibre. It's also notable that such an impassioned debate about humanity and the deaths of a million people in horrendous wars should end with a glib announcement to form three lines in order to buy products that are for sale. God Bless America.
I read Hitchen's autobiography. He devoted a few pages to the experience of being present while victims of Saddam were exhumed, and of the discomfort at the cloying nature of the odours and sights of death. He used this as a weapon to attack Saddam. And I have heard him reuse this experience since. I found this dishonest, a trick. The victims of the Iraq civil war that resulted from the removal of Saddam would have resulted in equally grisly scenes. Many of his arguments over Iraq have this same quality. They are almost as bad as Bush's justifications. That Saddam was a "bad man" and do you really want to defend him? The younger Hitchens would have ripped this assimilated, entitled, compromised Hitchens to shreds.
@@kevinmcinerney1959 no, I wouldn't defend him on that issue, in fact his opinion on Iraq was what caused the split between Hitchens and his hero Gore Vidal, who refused to engage with him subsequently. I think it is possible to admire someone's intellectual abilities and agree with them on many issues whilst also fundamentally disagreeing on certain other points they make. You think Hitchens should be wholly negated because of his view on Iraq?
@@grebo65 I wouldn't wholly negate him, no. But I get frustrated when I read people say "I love Hitchens. We need him now". (I am not referring to your good self here). I want to say "you love the early trotskyist Hitchens or the later Bush-supporting right-wing one?".
I admire his eloquence and his lived life. I envy his ability to martial arguments and to recall quotations. But when he migrated to the right he seemed to become obsessive. Were the Clintons really a dark force that had to be traduced? Or just more slightly-dishonest politicians? And over Iraq, could he really be so confident?
I also find his tendency to beat the audience up (as here and in Hitchens v Hitchens) quite unpleasant.
Apologies I can see I was unclear with "defend him".
I meant that Hitchens' argument (as was Bush's) a pretence that opponents of the war were blind to the obvious faults of Saddam. (Bush always used to say "But he's a bad guy!"). Whereas opponents of the war were quite aware of the evils of the Baathist regime and were not of course DEFENDING or misunderstanding Saddam. But they saw more clearly how intervention was likely to lead to a civil war and an insurgency.
Yes it is tragic that such a marvellous thinker as Hitchens should have gone so far astray. Even more so that he died before he could have the opportunity to see the fault in his argument.
Amazing summary 👏🏾
The moment when hitchens was exposed to the world!
Lol, how so? Galloway is a scumbag that takes money from dictatorships
I wouldn’t say exposed. He was a genius but he was wrong about the war.
@@billy9497able Einstein was a genius. Beethoven was a genius. Charlie Chaplin, too. Hitchens was lightyears away from being or becoming a genius per se, but specifically because he chose to be on the wrong side of history for way too many times, e.g. in the context of the illegal war of aggression against Iraq in 2003. And it doesn't even take a genius to choose the right historical side. All it takes is historical literacy and a moral center. And it seems to me, that Hitchens wasn't equipped with at least either of them. Or he was bought and paid for to ignore both of it. Because he wouldn't be the first (or last) "upright liberal" to eventually turn into a silver-tongued warmonger and snake oil salesman.
@@BostonRedSoxForever He was never a liberal dumbfuck. He was a socialist. You don’t even know the man you are smearing.
I understand the pedestal you're attempting to plant yourself upon, but I would love to hear your factual disagreements
"The Taliban would still have been in power in Afghanistan, if the anti war movement had been listened to"
Damn
Hitchens was shameless
@danh555yeah anti war sure won
That'a why we left in 05' right?
the taliban were created by the US govt in 1994
@danh555. The US created the Taliban in the 1980’s when it was convenient for us to use them as a tool against the USSR. And the US CIA happily did millions of dollars in annual business with the Taliban in the 1980’s, 1990’s and early 2000’s through the illegal opium trade to finance the CIA’s myriad of illegal operations around the globe during those years.
As for Saddam Hussein, I’m pretty sure he is the same Saddam Hussein of Iraq that US President Ron Reagan happily sold US weapons to in 1988 AFTER the Halabja massacre enacted by Saddam Hussein against the northern Iraqi Kurdish people in the spring of 1988. Reagan sold him those weapons because he and US military experts thought an armed Saddam could be used as a war tool against Iran.
And after he became US President, a guy named W Bush (same guy that started the Iraq War) actually sent roughly $30 million in early 2001 to the Taliban because his admin too thought they could be bought and used as a war tool against various Mid East factions in the region before 9/11 occurred that same year.
I agree with Hitch regarding many things, but it was extremely disingenuous of him here not to provide any background or context of the heavy US involvement that included both military aid and financing in building up both the Hussein regime and the Taliban long before we decided they were our enemies.
wrong. the Taliban were a 1990s creation. the 1980s rebels were the Mujahideen, not Taliban/@@ivanboesky1520
The brilliant G G who started his working life in a tyre factory.
Hitchens now a dead slug
Hitchens vs Scott Ritter on Iraq war was amazing too, it was the first time I saw Hitchens lose a debate. even though Hitchens was eloquent, he couldn’t beat the reality Ritter brought on.
Didn't know about this one. Thank you.
the kiddie porn guy? No thanks.
@@nikosvaultdebate was before the scandal but then again it’s funny almost anyone who goes against mainstream narrative gets in to some kinda scandal.
@RaNc0R same guy who lies about the Ukraine war? Didn't he say Russia would win pretty quickly? 😅
you simping for a pedophile lol
i miss hichens sophistry and gaslighting he was a master charlatan in a sea of dull failures
Goat lover?
I loved Hitchens but he was clearly in the wrong with Iraq. Galloway is a monster in debates. A man of principles his entire life always telling how things really are without any bullshit.
lol
Wow I think he comes across as a self-righteous pompous ass, and I had never heard of the guy and knew nothing about him before I followed the link to this video. I'd even describe him as dangerous. And I think of Hitchens as a tad pompous, but he's got nothing on this guy. I'm enjoying his getting heckled and booed.
@@SuperJolie2011you are on the money, despite you not knowing of him. He is just a profiteer, started extreme left, and as politics is a circle, it means he's actually always touching extreme right.
Galloway is a cringey supporter of islamic terrorists. A man of principles...yeah right. He is a scumbag of the highest order.
@davefandango1303 He is still far left. Btw politics isn’t a circle it’s an ideological terrain conditioned by the real antagonisms existing in society. Stop pushing your metaphysical nonsense onto politics.
I like listening to CH on many subjects - but he was comprehensively humiliated and exposed here.
He absolutely was not, he destroyed Galloway.
@@Xhw3288😂 NOPE
I don't understand one thing. Seeing hitchens, the so-called intellectual debater, on the wrong side of the history and even after being proven some fanboys still cheering for him. And these same guys says religious people are irrational! Irony is dead!
Hitchens was literally trembling at the end there. Well done George!
That's booze for you.
Christopher changed his tune somewhat from his position on Iraq since 1991 . In a debate with Charlton Heston at that time he definitely opposed any invasion , occupation by the United States against Iraq. What happened to change his views so dramatically.?
money, and acceptance by establishment. Happens to a lot of trots.
He went to the Right. I kind of contain elements of both left and right Hitchens, but at least the earlier leftward Hitchens didn't sound embarrassingly, desperately in denial of evidence. He could earlier just try to be on the side of the angels.
He gained some common sense
9/11 dramatically altered his view. I think it hit too close to home and ultimately drove him to the neoconservative version of Hitch.
This is from 2005. His opinion on Iraq actually regressed since 91
Hitchens is such a sneaky slimeball. Master of gaslighting. No substance. The fact that so many follow him is deeply disconcerting.
I actually went to Kuwait during the first war. I have personal experience with it. The war was not founded in anything good. War is never good. The US and others put Sadam in charge then when he became uncontrollable they took him out.
Saddam was not put in charge by the US? Don't talk out your ass
I'm a huge Hitch fan, but I'm with Galloway on this one
Really? Interesting.
You know Galloway is an anti semite and supports bashar al-assad who killed 100s of thousands of people right? He's an awful person, and his arguments here aren't even good. This guy has no authority to morally lecture anyone
Why? As far as I can tell in this debate: Galloway scarcely argues on topic... perhaps preconceptions poisoned well.
Conservatives owe Cindy Sheehan an apology
Ditto to George galloway
George is a fantastic rhetorician. In his first speech he managed to bury Christopher in a grave he had dug for himself. History has proven George to be 100% correct and would make me suspicious as to what company Christopher was keeping in the latter years of his life.
How? Why do people so readily conflate the two premises? Supporting the Iraq war and the overthrowing of a dictatorship is NOT an endorsement of how the Iraq war turned out or the domino effect it had or the people it killed. How the Iraq War turned out was not the only possible contingency. Anybody who insists otherwise is lying to you.
And as far as Galloway is concerned, this is a man who, when pressed in front of a NYC audience is smart enough to readily admit Saddam had committed war crimes but the same man who in 1999 -- a full two years before 9/11 and 4 years before the Iraq War and after Saddam had presided over death camps, torture camps, chemical weapons and the Anfal genocide etc -- had gone to Baghdad on a trip organised by the Baath Party, met and enthusiastically congragulated Saddam as well as his infamous military general (who authorized the kidnapping of Kurdish children), right after being paraded on the streets of Baghdad by baathist IIS to cheering people and then holding a sword up in the middle of the palace square calling for "Jihad against western imperialism", ALL whilst he was still a British MP!
He then went on to do the same in a propaganda event oragnised by the Syrian dictatorship in Damascus.
He is truly a deplorable human being who is not anything like how he presents himself here. His rebuttal when Christopher brought it up was to slander Christopher by claiming Christopher somehow supported the Saudi and Qatari dictatorship, and in comparable terms as him supporting Saddam Hussein and Bashar-al-Assad, the butchers of hundreds of thousands
@@benaffleckisanokayactor the point of the anti-war critics was that this is how the war would have NECESSARILY turned out. And they were right.
Galloway is a miserable hypocrite boot-licking whatever comes from Islamic leaders, demanding free speech and then opposing it when it comes to criticize religion. This debate was just a case of a broken clock telling the right hour twice a day.
you are absolutely not true. clown does call for the same species as one sees
@@benaffleckisanokayactor Thanks for that comment. I don't have enough info/knowledge to make my own judgment and I am curious whether Galloway was aware of what you described regarding the Baathist part; especially the jihad part against western imperialism. From whatever snippets I've heard from him, he's not said anything incorrect. As in, the west interfering in foreign countries, puppet leaders, spawning Bin Laden in the fight against the Soviets etc etc. A lot of Americans seem to think the M.East folks hate them because of american freedoms etc. But I think that's absurd. Canada and other western nations enjoy a similar freedom. It's more about political interference and maybe the Israel factor. Also, in hindsight, I think to many, the Iraq war was bogus. A lot of money was made from that war. The Afghanistan war is also ridiculous and hard to justify. Galloway or maybe Hitchens said that there was no evidence any Afghanistan actor was involved whatsoever. So if Galloway wasn't aware of the terrible things Saddam's general (as you say) and if his visit happened BEFORE the Kurdish gas attacks, then that's different. If he did this, knowing all that, then that is despicable. I don't have a bias against either of them. Just trying to understand it..
1:33:00
George lands a final blow to this Hack warmonger.
The Taliban would still be the government of Afghanistan…laughs in 2023
which is not hitchens' fault but a complete and utter failure of politicians and their populism and the ones who suffer for it are the Afghans.
Sadam wanted to start selling oil en Euros, Gadafi wanted to introduce a gold back currency.. get the picture?
Al least Russia who has now gold a a important part of its economy won't be a pushover.
This aged well
@lolledopke How did it age well? Russia is thriving outside the US backed economic regime, and holding its annexed territories against the failed ukrainian counteroffensive.
@@jake8855 thriving lol
@@lolledopke It is.
@@jake8855will check back here in a year I think
George Galloway talks from the heart, and for the debate, we all know what happened to the 'WMD" and how primitive those 'Islamists' are when using violence on mass is mostly done by these 'civilized' saviors of the world
Because their hand is forced, if you are going to do something effective you are going to use science and not Islam
Galloway is incredible. Lots of respect and love.
He is a pro-russian hypocritical old fart who deserves nothing but to be punished.
Lol, Galloway is an anti establishment pleb who will believe any counter narrative at face value. Makes sense that he loves Putin today 💀
G. looses the thread all the time. He is not impressive.
He was. A shame he let narcissism and axis of evil money turn him into a fool.
@@emizerrihe was always a fool
What a fool Hitchens was, a child in many ways.
This in my opinion was the end of the great Hitchens. Sad but true. Hitchens was on the wrong side of history there and Galloway destroyed him.
So the world would have been better off if saddam remained the dictator of iraq?
@@alpatton5965 Absolutely, look what happened after Hussein was removed, the middle east fell apart more than ever before, ISIS ran rampant, more wars incurred etc.
@@alpatton5965 100%... the Iraqi invasion apart from murdering 1 million Iraqis, leading to the death of approx 4.4 k US soldiers and injuring around 30,000 destabilized the whole middle east and the world. And they entered the war on a pack of lies to further their own interests all the while looting the country's resources. They created a vaccum state where extremists came to power ( isis) and led to many other conflicts and wars in the region. No doubt Saddam was a dictator but also no doubt Iraq and the region was in a much better condition and at least stable before 2003. Similar Libya was also fairly stable and in a much better condition before their revolution.
Fair enough. Suppose leaving him in power would have been the lesser of two evils
I'm surprised that GG didn't point out that on four occasions Hitchens'
attempted to shame the audience for not supporting his view by stating that the debate was televised and their friends and relatives would be watching.
That came across as quite pathetic by hitchens imo.
No surprise, Hitchens was full-on asshole in this period
@@joshuamccabe7729Hitchen simp alert.
@@matthewstone1362don't feed the troll
It was a sign he was on the ropes.
Galloway got his “way” with Hitch on this one. Ashamed Hitch died before seeing the results on Iraq. As Galloway pointed out transgressions to international law, we now see with with present actors today.
Did he bollocks!
Just came back to revisit the "butterfly back to slug" bit. You can't recover after that....
Not Hitchen's best moment.
I think it's the other way around. He's never been in a more entertaining debate.
@@yevgeniyzharinov7473 I agree Hitchen's on many other issues, but this is the one I disagree.
@@Flipson456 I disagree with Hitchens on just about everything.
@@yevgeniyzharinov7473 it's only one thing that I agree about him is religion.
Hitchens destroyed by Galloway. From a butterfly back into a slug.
A correction, Iran never used chemical weapons against Iraqis. In fact, Iran refused to retaliate in kind.
Saddam however, kept using it not only in the battlefields but also in densely populated Iranian cities such as Tehran.
it's also worth to note that, as Galloway mentioned, it was Saddam's Western allies who provided Saddam with such weapons right in the middle of the war.
Iran took Iraq to the ICJ twice and twice the US vetoed their findings…
It was a disgrace that Hitchens got in bed with Bush… it goes to show that alcohol makes biatches out of men
Yea they did use them in 85 and 87
Mainly because using chem weapons in iraq which is majority Shia would have harmed fellow Shia muslims. Having said that saddam was despicable. And the US even worse for supplying both sides with weapons.
@@YA-hm5zy
US never supplied weapons to Iran. Iran was actually put under sanctions by the US and its allies throughout the war. You might be reffering to the Mcfarlane scandal. There was a secret negotiations with some pro west iranian officials to recieve some weapons from the US but that never happened.
Thou, I do agree that the west did thier best to drag the war as far as they could to cause damage to both sides of the war.
It’s rare, but Hitchens got eaten.
When Hitchens was criticized on the Iraq War all he did was hurl ad hominems. He was one of many people who lost their minds concerning 9/11. Quite unlike how he engaged on other issues.
In retrospect, Hitchens could not have been more wrong. Whatever the merits or demerits of Mr. Galloway's arguments, our war in Iraq was a complete and utter debacle. No weapons of mass destruction have ever been found and the cost of so many lives lost (primarily Iraqi) is indefensible. The only American debacle that surpasses Iraq, is Vietnam. Maybe all those Hitchens' idolaters out there should reconsider their allegiance.
I heard a short part of Hitchins and then just forwarded past his BS and listened only to George Galloway
Lol, I admit I had to do the same.... as I am also tired of all that "relativism/subjectivism" idealism/deception/manipulation/BS... Good to see that I am not the only one who is able to notice it and doesn't bear it anymore...
he was 100% right
It was brave of Galloway to make the connection between 9/11 and US foreign policy in front of an american audience.
Every sentient being in the world can make that connection except jingoist people in the USA. You have been so indoctrinated by nationalism that you say "we" and "us" when talking about the US government and military. I remember Malcolm: "what's the matter, boss? WE sick?".
Even Galloway got it wrong when he said "a swamp of hatred created by us". It was the imperialist machine who created that swamp, not the ordinary people of the US or the UK.
The people keep the machine going
@@RevDog777 yes, as cogs. But they are not the decision makers.
@@rubentala4762 they re-elected Bush so they are 100% to blame
Not brave. Its the same stupid take most masochistic British & European lefties took.
They knew America had committed some terrible atrocities in their time (either directly or via proxy), and 9/11 seemed to conveniently coincide with their pre-existing beliefs that America was sowing its own retribution.
But that had nothing to do with it. 9/11 was just the actions of an insane, evil death cult we're still dealing with to this day.
@@sadako24 and how did that death cult come to be?
Dosent matter who the most popular was ,Galloway was right given the evidence And the facts .
31:40
Anecdotal argument
Appeal to emotion (think of the children)
Strawmanning (“he wants you to believe…”)
This man has absolutely no shame
@@rckli I guess you missed the bit where Hitchens tried to gain emotional sympathy due to the location of the audience being in the same city as the 9/11 attacks. Get you hasbara-loving ass outta here.
This was like watching a boxing match. You can feel their exhaustion by the end.
galloway destroyed him
You seem to have made this exact comment several times, as if it constitutes some sort of argument.
its true though, hitchens was stunned@@krissmith7
1:37:00
Hitchens really was clueless here.
Mentioning the attributes of the Kabul Kandahar highway.
It's like saying the Brits looted and plundered India for 200 years but at least they built them a highway and taught them English language.
Hitchens out of his league here. GG got too much for him.
Hitchens got his ASS Handed to him this time BIG TIME!
Did we watch the same debate?
@@monoeye64 he did though, or are you an uneducated imbecile?
really? because he got boo'd by the zoo noises lol
@@paulhmull these debates should happen in closed room with no audience.
where is that " weapon of mass destruction " ?
Think we can say, 16 years after this debate, that George was right?
even after 16 years the hate and ignorance is still alive...
@@frozzytango9927 hate and ignorance regarding what? Could you please be more specific?
@@Ehrgeiz33 regarding iraq war you dumbwit..
@@frozzytango9927 no need to be rude, son. That would be kind of hateful and ignorant of you.
@@Ehrgeiz33 why are you being offended at the truth? cant debunk iraq so now you want to attack my rudeness? have you become so shallow and foolish as the people you hate so much, you right wing snowflake. Projecting yourself towards me is laughable.
We need more spirited, intellectual debates like this today
Particularly with BLM
31:40
Anecdotal argument
Appeal to emotion (think of the children)
Strawmanning (“he wants you to believe…”)
This man has absolutely no shame
@davveist ? Every generation has this problem idk what you mean 🤷🏾♀️ the tok tokers all talk like Galloway
@davveist yeah - it’s rhetoric they learned from other sophists. Sophistry got real popular within those crowds coz it is very effective rhetoric for tricking fools
They’re sales tactics - the stuff that a car salesman would do to get the sale
I'd say it was the most intellectual public debate Galloway has had but almost certainly the least inellectual debate Hitchens has ever participated in
Love or hate George…proved right!!
31:40
Anecdotal argument
Appeal to emotion (think of the children)
Strawmanning (“he wants you to believe…”)
This man has absolutely no shame
Galloway destroyed Hitchens on this one.
I went to a college in that city. It is totally dominated by those who oppose all Arab nations. If a vote was taken at the venue where this debate was held it would be 99% against Iraq. On the other hand, George Galloway is a brilliant orator, that part of the world is lucky to have somebody like him to speak the truth about that area.
Europe is much closer and we have direct impacts from all that what's going on in the arab world - ask us.
Look how almost all current problems of Europe are originated by arabs here. Can't you just think about all that? Why all of you won't try to settle things there and maybe even lead by example?
@@Saeglopur89 well, if you westerns did not intervene in the Middle East from as early as in the 50s you wouldn’t have this issues, enjoy your cooking.
@@bgg3046 Who? I'm from Poland in Central Europe, 20+ countries have nothing to do with Middle East problems.
Also who is blamed for making absurd amounts of kids and ZERO decent level of live in not only Middle East but also whole Africa. Why they can't govern, manage, work and improve their own lives?
It's easy to blame everybody else
Poland was an active member of the invasion forces in Afghanistan. During WWII, 100,000 Poles received sanctuary in the Mid-East especially in Iran. They were very well treated there. Apparently, one good turn doesn't deserve another. @@Saeglopur89
@@Saeglopur89 Poland sent thousands of soldiers in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Don't pretend Poland has nothing to do with Middle East problem.
Even if "they can't govern, manage, work and improve their own lives?", it's no justification for Western interference.
And why can't Polish stay in their country instead of migrating to UK? Can't find jobs in Poland?
George galloway is completely right
He says so much nonsense in the debate and you say he is totally right.
@@yevgeniyzharinov7473 Ignorance at it’s finest.
“These Al-Qaeda chaps” 😂😂
I want to see Galloway debate Republicans on Iran. I doubt they would show up.
I'm from Iran, and the Republicans are right on the issue. This regime can not be negotiated with. It must be pressured.
Galloway is a moron who only uses strawman, ad hominem attacks and appeals to emotion. Hitch was right, at least he was supporting the secularist movements instead of the terrorist side mr Galloway was meeting with and applauding, the same group that murdered women and children in gruesome ways for nothing
Dan crenshaw and Tom cotton would
@@thedoctor.a.s1401 would be fun to watch.
@@RevDog777 I mean they're nowhere near as articulate or precise or as highly researched for lack of a better term as Christopher but they are of the same opinion as Christopher.
that question that Amy asked Hitchens about if the media is more friendly to him because of his stance on the war was beautiful ! his stupefied answer spoke volumes!
Yes, and he was scanning the audience like nothing else trying to gauge whether his denial/lies were being accepted.
Too bad today Amy is a shill just like Hitchens..
Can't even be bothered to watch democracy now..
hitch got bitchslapped
Ah, another America First supporter I see
@@rudyard3343Ooo, sick burn
Love how he says Mr ... About people. Mr Ben Laden. Mr Zarkawi. 🤣
What a true gentleman XD
Love Hitchens, but Galloway suprised me, incredible speaker
Galloway speaks pure politician, the language of nothing. He was paid oil money from the oil for food scam.
If Galloway yells it must be true, right?
Hitches defended a crime here. a true crime on a massive scale. Just look at Ukraine today. Iraq invasion was more unjustified.
I love Hitchens too, but he was sadly wrong on the Iraq invasion and he knew it, and Galloway always got under his skin.
@squiddley100 My biggest issue with Hitchens in this debate is that he conveniently failed to mention the extreme level of involvement the US had in building up both the Saddam Hussein regime and the Taliban in the 1980’s and 1990’s.
The US effectively armed and financed the Taliban in the 1980’s when it was convenient for us to use them as a tool against the USSR. And the US CIA then happily did millions of dollars in annual business with the Taliban in the 1980’s, 1990’s through the illegal opium trade in Afghanistan to finance the CIA’s myriad of illegal operations around the globe during those years.
As for Saddam Hussein, I’m pretty sure he is the same Saddam Hussein of Iraq that US President Ron Reagan happily sold US weapons to as well as provided large amounts of financing to in 1988 AFTER the Halabja massacre enacted by Saddam Hussein against the northern Iraqi Kurdish people in the spring of 1988. Reagan sold him those weapons and gave that financing because he and US military experts thought an armed Saddam could be used as a war tool against Iran.
And after he became US President, a guy named W Bush (same guy that started the Iraq War) actually sent roughly $30 million in early 2001 to the Taliban because his admin too thought they could be bought and used as a war tool against various factions in the region before 9/11 occurred that same year.
I agree with Hitch regarding many things, but it was extremely disingenuous of him here not to provide any background or context to the heavy US involvement in building up both the Hussein regime and the Taliban long before we decided they were our enemies.
@@ivanboesky1520 Hitchens was a silver-tongued demagogue for the U.S. and British war machine. No more, no less. Because for most of the time, he was on the wrong side of history - and Galloway so brilliantly has pointed that out throughout that debate.
Heston was wrong, now Hitchens is wrong. God bless George Galloway.
Time has shown that Gallawy was right about everything he argued for and Hitchens was just either naive or someone with blood in his hand
Every person has blind spots, for Hitchens, it was Iraq.
Hitchens fostered his blind spots like no one else.
For Hitchens, it was pretty much anything he famously spoke on. Dude had style, but that's really it.
@@mohamedalahmadani5174Everything he said about religion still holds true though
@@ProsecutorZekrom Like what?
@@mohamedalahmadani5174like the fact that it's bullshit
If Hitchens didnt have d posh accent he would have been booed of the stage after 5 mins
scottish accent has an air of freedom and straight forwardness compared to the accent of the british eloquent slug.
Galloway: “because we intervened, now they’re going to spread!”
So we should intervene? 🤪
Stay the fuck out of the Middle East, you’re not welcome, neither as a guest nor as a citizen.
They really scraped the bottom of the intellectual barrel to find this audience. What a shameful display for a debate
31:40
Anecdotal argument
Appeal to emotion (think of the children)
Strawmanning (“he wants you to believe…”)
This man has absolutely no shame
@@myusername2607 ?
He didn’t use anecdote as his argument for anything
He didn’t demand we ignore reality and instead think of the children
He didn’t misrepresent his opposition and argue against his misrepresentation
If you think he did any of these things, feel free to time stamp. I can point to all these things the dishonest Galloway did
All you can do is just say “that’s hitchens, not Galloway!” 😂 your comment is about as substantive as saying hitchens ate a baby on stage ahahahaha
Pack of juveniles. Israel defends its actions by claiming that every criticism of them is anti-Semitism.
I love Christopher, originally I cheered him on in this debate. I disliked Galloway (and still do).
However it's now painful to watch him defend such an exposed position. We were both wrong on this one.
@Terry Owens Well, some points I agree with him on (being anti-Zionist for example). However at times he appears dishonest, hiding his faith even after he was married with an Islamic ceremony. Likely a serial monogamist. He supported Venezuela's Hugo Chávez, and lauded Fidel Castro, tweeting "You were the greatest man I ever met, Comandante Fidel" - Marxist and Communist, Socialist society pusher.
@@GT-hy2wm you're damn right
Save Evropa ツ Serial monogamist doesn't mean anything further than having multiple respective relationships in one's lifetime (not at once) instead of sticking to the first ever person you ever get romantically involved with, if that's what you mean by serial monogamism. Meanwhile I don't know about his private life.
Certainly a person who got married thrice and with Muslim women on top, can't possibly be a good man. Can't think of a more vile thing to do.
@@GT-hy2wm Cubans have higher literacy and life expectancy than the average US citizen in spite of crippling sanctions imposed by the US. I'd say Fidel did well with limited resources. But I do understand why human rights activists would take issue with him.
Come on, chair, use that gavel. This is not a whooping contest.
I wonder if Christopher has a semblance of a conscience as he spills conjectures, lies and propaganda.
You shouldn’t wonder as he clearly didn’t.
Hitches should stick to religion. History shows Galloway was right.
This was classic, I must say Galloway destroyed Hitches, and in hindsight he was clearly in the right.
31:40
Anecdotal argument
Appeal to emotion (think of the children)
Strawmanning (“he wants you to believe…”)
This man has absolutely no shame
You’re right - he destroyed the strawman he made of hitchens and ignored the arguments hitchens actually presented.
When a person says "somebody dEsTroYeD somebody", Its usually a red flag that they are not a serious person and that we may therefore outright reject any and all opinions they profess
@@benaffleckisanokayactor I don't know about any of that, but I do know what I saw and what we saw was Hitchens get his ass kicked. You don't like destroyed, how about demolished.
@@ericday4505 Well I'm not inclined to respond to a person like you, I think you're about as smart as you come off
How wrong Hitchins was.
About what?
@@1984isnotamanualEverything he said here - have you read or seen anything over the last 20 years?
Hitchens lost this debate, as much as I liked him when best debating religion apologetics with wits and charm. He looked beat by his own conscience that betrayed his character. A hypocrite here? Mmmm-yes.
Its sad to see hitch has agenda with the knowlegde he got. Galaway was right all the way.
Where was this debate held? Audience is lit 🔥
The grapple in the apple (New York)
In his later years Hitchens went all out to demonstrate how despicably dishonest he had become. He gives an excellent performance here as a slippery, smug upper class turncoat.
Oh no, what did he do to you?? There seems to be some projecting going on in your comment... might you be some God-fearing faith-based individual, or just an isolationist who cares nought for anything beyond his own? Grow up, sir!
Well said.
The one debate that Hitchens lost (obliterated would be more accurate). Simply, he was on the wrong side of history and supporting what proved to be a destructive war to further U.S. hegemony. Galloway saw that and annihilated Hitchens. It's easy arguing against God with dimwits who live in the stone age. Here he looked vulnerable, and frankly, an apologist for imperialists. Kudos to Galloway.
Spot on.
The very fact that Galloway praised Asad and called the resistance in Iraq “heroic” negates any argument he had.
@@Xhw3288 That’s a stupid comment. You see the world through the prism of a couple of incorrect or questionable comments.
@@Nousmourronsseuls what I meant to say is that he is a massive hypocrite and therefore I won’t hear from someone as foolish as Galloway that he supports the Iraqi people, is that more specific for you? You can argue that starting the war in Iraq was a mistake, but anyone who thinks that withdrawing would have solved the problem are absolutely deluded.
@@Xhw3288 The war has been proven to be fundamentally misconceived, illegally prosecuted and, to most right thinking people, morally wrong. George recognised that early on. Hitchens did not. End of argument. Whatever your personal opinion is of George is irrelevant to the original comment.
A devil is always a devil, And those who destroyed Iraq, Syria, parkistan,Afghanistan, Libya and Yemen are all the devil 🤘😈
Arabs and Muslim dictatorships?
What a pleasure it is to watch and listen to such superb speech-makers debate!!!
I like that you can appreciate both sides instead of vilifying one. I like both these men as well.
@@dimitrioskantakouzinos8590i like them to, but this was a bad debate. To many personal attacks and anecdotes
Thankfully Hitchens did not live long enough to see Afghanistan fall under Taliban control in ONE WEEKEND after a 20 year illegal occupation by the U.S. that cost the American citizens $4 billion per month. Christopher should have asked himself what events PRECEDED the "necessary" illegal invasions perpetrated by the U.S. One can argue if military action is needed (or not) all day long, but he seems to ignore the deliberate, calculated actions of imperialism that created these awful situations throughout the world (and continue to) for profit. According to him, we had to bring ruin to Iraq to avoid something far worse. Who was it then who created Saddam? Who kept him in power & supplied him with weapons? Who propped him up for nothing more than oil money? You can't ignore all those questions and have a leg to stand on for pro-war rhetoric.
you're simplifying everything too readily and too excessively
Afghanistan didn't collapse in one weekend it happened over the course of 4 months I watched day by day, it wasn't an occupation what the afghan people are experiencing now is an occupation by the taliban-al qaeda military junta. And to bring it back to a question of money is as hitchens said the most based parochial chauvinistic and isolationist guttersnipe abuse, (why did we spend money on these A-rabs ....) and thats the whole point we had a responsibility to remove saddam because the CIA put him there