Atheist Heroes?

[Reforged]

The purpose of a debate is not to convince your opponent but to convince your audience. If someone thinks their audience can be swayed by appealing to their emotions then I would consider that somewhat contemptible. Theater is used where substance is absent. He did it in all of his war debates, what I gave you was a prime example. 
Again; there are many ways to change a regime. We've done it in the past without war.

You mean, like we did in Iran?  Is that the kind of covert thing you had in mind, earlier?  Because that's the kind of covert thing we do.  

If someones attempting to convince people to go to war they first need to demonstrate why there is no other way but war to achieve the objective. He didn't.

That's your requirement, not -a- requirement.  I'm satisfied when someone shows it to be the most practical and achievable method.  

I honestly don't think I need to point out I never said he advocated for the death of civilians. You know I didn't. He just neatly skipped past that part which was very convenient for him. No need to go "Right, these are the potential consequences, here is why the risk is justified and here is why its the best option.". No, just go "Look how evil they are, aren't you just seething right now? You know what would make you feel better? War." and thats the debate wrapped up. Infact, even when the inevitable blunder happens don't for one second consider that a different approach might of been better. No, just keep pointing at how evil the enemy were.

They were evil, that's no joke, that -is- why we committed ourselves for all those years to begin with, at least in part.

 

I don't actually know if we should of gone to war or not, even given the consequences. Over a decade from the initial event and its still never been made clear what the reasons were for not trying something else. There isn't a checklist formed by experts illustrating how one by one the other options were eliminated based on a cost to benefit ratio. No minutes from the meeting where options were discussed by generals and the president. The thing is; I wouldn't make an outright decision about such an important thing without making sure I have all the available facts first. Hitchens approach on this subject seemed to be "Well, I've got some of them. I'll just debate total morons so I can wing it." I imagine he saw this as his big chances to help get rid of a despot.

"Given the consequences".  Hindsight is 20/20.  As I said earlier, had we closed it directly after the shock and awe campaign, like we did with the first invasion, it would have been a fantastic success, like the first invasion.   We didn't.  You're bitching that Hitchens didn't have access to facts he had no way of availing himself of, really?  We work with what we have man.  You're probably spot on with that last sentence, though.  It was his chance to be the kind of person he was always writing about, to live up to his own mythos.  Were you not entertained, lol?

If you're referring to the 1953 coup of Iran then yes. Basically like that. Turning a country against itself is the best way to win wars before they've even begun and given how much practice we've had we should be masters at it. 
Saying all out war is the most practical and achievable method is only a statement you can make with any degree of certainty if someone has illustrated why the other methods are comparatively impractical and unachievable. Noone bothered.
Yes. That they were evil was the one and only reason. We're like power rangers except with the added bonus that we get to choose who the next Lord Zed will be.
Its obvious the facts I'm referring to are things like why alternate methods that would have comparatively negligible collateral damage were not available. If he had access to such facts he did not make it apparent. I've gone to great lengths to convey that and I feel this discussion is getting stale and old.