Mr Christopher Hitchens

a reply to: pavmas

I think I should remind you that he didn't start the war nor bomb anyone personally lol. I already said I didn't agree with his stance on it. Yes, everyone is entitled to mistakes.

a reply to: luthier

Sometimes Harris almost comes across as a Diest.

Had to respond, and agree with you on this. He has said some things that make me think he has leanings in that direction, as well as the metaphysical. Which is fine with me, so do I. Though solid evidence may be lacking, I admittedly, still have my spiritual leanings.

originally posted by: BelowLowAnnouncement
a reply to: pavmas

I think I should remind you that he didn't start the war nor bomb anyone personally lol. I already said I didn't agree with his stance on it. Yes, everyone is entitled to mistakes.

Also I think he was guilty of idealism not war mongering. He thought sadam was a real danger to his people and we should do what we can to get him out and create a democracy.

I don't think he and Cheney had the same motivation let's just get that out there.

a reply to: luthier

Well with reports like this that came later on we will never know how the world could have turned out otherwise.

NEW YORK – In his final years in power, the late Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein reached out to North Korea for help to obtain missiles, according to several U.N, U.S. and International Atomic Energy Agency officials.

Had he not been stopped, those channels might have been used to obtain nuclear weapons from North Korea, the sources said.

Saddam had been negotiating the purchase of banned rockets and possibly technology that could have revived his dormant nuclear weapons program, the sources report.

The meetings between Saddam and the North Koreans were facilitated by the current government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who himself is fighting to remain in power.

“There were several meetings between the Iraqis and North Korea in Damascus from 2001-2003,” explained David Kay.

www.wnd.com...

a reply to: luthier


Well the guy is dead so I'm not going to say anything bad about him and i suppose he is allowed mistakes like us all. he did not hide his views but he never won all the arguments and a lot of people are convinced he was never wrong and won every argument hands down

a reply to: pavmas

He won every argument, and frankly you can make a moral case for being in the Middle East period end of story, sorry this is the real world.

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: pavmas

He won every argument, and frankly you can make a moral case for being in the Middle East period end of story, sorry this is the real world.

He was a good philosophers but he did not win all his arguements. Nobody does. If you were to read objective reviews of his debates he did not win all his debates. More goes in to a win then just proving things you agree with. He had some problems for instance in the Craig debate. Not right or wrong stuff but logical fallacies.

a reply to: luthier

Well it's my patriotism and loyalty speaking, as far as I'm concerned he won every debate I've watched.

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: luthier

Well it's my patriotism and loyalty speaking, as far as I'm concerned he won every debate I've watched.

No I get that and it's fine. (Except the patriot and what that has to do with debating)

I probably shouldn't have commented.

It's just my nature as a philosopher myself to be objective. It's the only way to improve your debating skills. I was skewered more than once by apologists. They set traps and are good philosophers (academically speaking).

Hitchins was a great philosopher and human.