Hitchens vs Blair Debate

[Ken2468]

I don't know if everyone has seen the recent debate between Christopher Hitchens and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair at the Munk Centre in Toronto Canada. The topic was "Is Religion A Force For Good In the World?". Hitchens was at his best and handily won the debate by a wide margin as voted by the audience in attendance.

If anyone hasn't seen the debate and wants to watch it (or others who wish to see it again), go to Youtube and do a search using the keywords "hitchens blair cspan". It's was posted by "CSPANJUNKIEdOtORG" on December 27, 2010 and is just under two hours long....very interesting and entertaining from start to finish in my opinion.

[McQ]

Thanks, Ken. I haven't seen this debate and will definitely watch it. You confirmed what my best guess at the outcome would be. Almost no one could be prepared for Hitchens. I can't think of a single person I'd put money on against him in this type of debate.

[hackenslash]

I'm not convinced Blair even tried to prepare. Frankly, I think the only votes he got afterward were sympathy votes and die-hards. Hitch marmalised him, and he wasn't even trying that hard. Blair just kept re-asserting the same nonsense, which amounted to 'but christians do some good things', even after Hitch eviscerated it. In the end, I almost felt sorry for Blair.

[Ken2468]

I'm not convinced Blair even tried to prepare. Frankly, I think the only votes he got afterward were sympathy votes and die-hards. Hitch marmalised him, and he wasn't even trying that hard. Blair just kept re-asserting the same nonsense, which amounted to 'but christians do some good things', even after Hitch eviscerated it. In the end, I almost felt sorry for Blair.

Blair did have a very hard time countering Hitchens arguments while Hitchens seemed to be having a blast making his case. The audience really ate Hitchens' arguments and humor up (even when he wasn't trying to be funny). I bet Blair would've rather been back in the House of Commons fielding questions from opposition parties than in front of an audience debating religion with Hitchens.

[karadan]

Many thanks for posting this. I absolutely love seeing that smarmy a-hole Blair get his just deserts, especially as it's hitchens handing over the custard pie.

[The Magic Pudding]

I'd like to see either one of these guys defend their Iraq stance.
I have heard both state their views, but not really challenged.
Does either of them ever admit error?

[Ken2468]

I'd like to see either one of these guys defend their Iraq stance.
I have heard both state their views, but not really challenged.
Does either of them ever admit error?

Magic,

Hitchens did in fact defend his stance on Iraq in this debate. IMO he did a wonderful job of showing how Saddam needed to be removed and how it was religious leaders who were the ones in favor of allowing Saddam to remain in power. Blair, however, was at odds with the leader of his own Roman Catholic faith, as Blair was in favor of the invasion while the Pope was opposed.

[hackenslash]

Let me just say that, for the first time in my life, I was really conflicted about Iraq.

I'm a pacifist, and always have been. I joined the CND at the tender age of 9, and was staunchly anti-war, and still am, really. When I was very young, I even felt that I couldn't defend the actions of the men who fought against Hitler, mostly because I struggled to understand what was really going on.

As I grew older, my views changed. Not on being a pacifist, which I still am, but on what constituted justification for war, or for invasion. I began thinking that there was no such thing as said justification, but now I know better, not least because I am now aware that my, and our, duty is the needs of the many, which outweigh the needs of the few.

I was still a reasonably young man in 1992 (and I still am, really, at only a shade under 42), and still something of an idealist. I have since learned that ideals will only get you so far, because you still have to deal with the real world as it actually is. I still think that the justification provided to the general populace for the 1991-92 incursion into Iraq was woefully inadequate. I remember one of the ironic UK catchphrases of the time being 'Free Kuwait with tiger tokens' (a pun on 'free Kuwait' with the usual gifts that were available when buying Esso products, such as 'free torch with tiger tokens', etc).

On occasion, there comes along a situation that shatters the way you think about things. For me, it was Serbia, and Slobodan Milošević. This was our modern-day Hitler, and finally brought home to me the justification for war, which was something I didn't think I'd ever understand or appreciate.

Getting back to the topic at hand, Hitchens has provided his justification for the second incursion into Iraq in the same terms, according to what I have heard and read, and it isn't something I can really argue with. Indeed, when it came time for the sentencing of Hussein, I came to similar conclusions. If Hussein had simply been imprisoned for what can only be described as his crimes (which would generally have been my preference), we would have been faced with a problem. All his supporters would have made him a target for terrorist acts to get him released, while all his enemies would have made him a target in terms of getting rid of him. This would have put lives at risk, regardless of what other considerations there might have been.

In short, keeping him alive would have almost certainly cost lives.

So, Hitchens' response has been largely what I have laid down here, both for the incursion and the subsequent execution of Hussein, and I think that the justification is clear in that respect.

Blair, on the other hand, has a much more difficult job justifying his position, because he stated his reasons for the incursion up-front, and he did so dishonestly. I suspect I know the reasons for that, but that doesn't let him off the hook.

Blair's justification, at root, was Hussein's refusal to comply with UN imposed inspections. This would have been all well and good, and indeed this situation was exascerbated by the French and German representatives at the UN, because they were selling arms to Iraq, and obviously wanted to block any sanctioned incursion. As a result, the US and UK governments, a.k.a. Dubbya and Bliar, had to take on the problem themselves. The outcome was that they felt they had to lie to their constituents, and fabricate a threat of WMD that, it turns out, was entirely unjustified.

Here's the thing:

Had they just cited 'threat to the populace' as a reason, they'd have been backed pretty unilaterally, I suspect, but they couldn't do that, for several reasons, including these two:

1. North Korea
2. Robert Mugabe

Had they simply cited a refusal to comply with UN dictats concerning weapons inspections, they would have had to do the same with North Korea, which was not something they really wanted to take on. Similarly, had they cited atrocities against the populace, they would have had to deal with Mugabe. I actually remember Mugabe coming to power, and the independence of Zimbabwe. Indeed, I was off sick from school, and watched the whole episode on TV, along with the Iranian Embassy seige. This was an event (the independence of Zimbabwe) that had largely been supported and indeed engineered by the British government, so he was our friend, and having to face him in this manner was and is an embarrasment. That, indeed, is why he's still in power.

SO Blair has a much harder job to do in justifying the incursion into Iraq. Hitchens has provided a justification that is at least reasonably compelling, while Blair has the added problem of actually being one of the instigators, and more importantly, having lied to do so.

[The Magic Pudding]

Let me just say that, for the first time in my life, I was really conflicted about Iraq.

I'm a pacifist, and always have been.

I can't say I'm conflicted about it at all.
What's been gained by the Iraq debacle?
Saddam's gone, and it turns out he wasn't much of a threat to us anyway.
Are his people better off?  Many outspoken Iraqis don't seem to think so.
Al-Qaeda is active where it wasn't before.
Iraq used to be a counter to Iran, I don't think this applies now.
The US has done it's image immense harm, I remember when it was the bad guys who did the torturing.
Many people would assume the reason Zimbabwe doesn't rate such action is a lack of oil.
The whole business has cost a fortune, what could have been done with this money?
Too many people have been killed or crippled, both from the coalition of the willing and Iraqis.  
Other countries learn that the best way to avoid Iraq's fate is to go nuclear.
I think it could be assumed Afghanistan would be in better shape if a second war hadn't been started.

[Achronos]

Can't stand them both.

[SSY]

Blair in all spin no substance Shocker!