Well, now I'm convinced. Good job.

He was one of us. One of us who had broken the trance put on so many others.

He was aggressive and it was sort of refreshing. I liked his accent too. lol

Sure he was immoral by many peoples standards. So what? 

Warmonger? Hardly, unless your definition of "warmonger" is anyone who supported the current war in Iraq. He was an outspoken opponent of the Vietnam War and several of the smaller engagements that have occurred since then. 

Because so many people don't give a rats ass whether or not someone is moral especially when it comes to enjoying that persons writings/speaking. Good news for Hollywood, they would be SOL if people only watched actors/actresses they considered moral.  

Do you consider Bush a warmonger? Do you consider Obama a warmonger? Then why didn't we just conquer Iraq and take it over? Guess they don't make warmongers like they used to.

My sentiments exactly. His other books, about Paine, Orwell and Kissinger were great works as well. His auto-biography was fascinating and he was a great journalist and prolific writer on many issues. He was also a great debater and could put it into laymen's terms where the ordinary public could understand it, all the while sounding very educated. 

Also, he did not follow any political party blindly. He could piss off liberals and conservatives alike because he stood up for what HE believed in and not what some political party stated. 

I thought he was awesome.

Born in Australia, but from when I was 25, lived in London for 20 years.

I was being deliberately ambiguous, as you probably noticed.

He enjoyed both at times and that's fine by me.

 I would say it was his quick wit in debates. Some publicly said they were afraid to debate him. He wasn't always right, but he knew how to turn a phrase and level his opponent. His stuff on the immorality of the blood sacrifice for forgiveness of sins really helped me and made me realize the ==core== of Christianity is evil. 

How is it that they criticize pagans for sacrificing virgins to their god but the jesus bloody sacrifice is right.  Aren't just as barbaric and just as meaningless? 

My sentiments exactly. Everybody has heard of the famous "Hitchslap". The guy was not afraid to tackle any subject. Not many people would have had the guts to expose Mother Teresa for the fraud and lunatic that she was. Hitchens showed where she accepted money from mass murdering dictators and her homes for the dying were inhumane (one former nun in his documentary even talked about them re-using syringes on several patients or simply rinsing them off before re-using them). Most of the money she collected was given to the Vatican and not to improve the poverty in India. She also pushed for laws against contraception and traveled all the way to Ireland, to make sure that divorce could not be made legal. Hitchens exposed all of that. 

Hitchens always had a swift response to any theist and could make them look like absolute fools. One of the best debaters that I have ever seen. 

Like you Brian, he was one of the first people that guided me towards being an open, out of the closet Atheist ( I used to be afraid of debating theists for a long time). 

After reading people like Hitchens and Dawkins, as well as this site, I am not afraid of telling people I am an Atheist nor am I afraid of debating anyone.

Plus, Hitchens book, god is not great, was very eloquent, but it was also written where the average person could comprehend it. Very few people can write like, that.

As much as I like Daniel Dennett, when I read his books, I have to read a page, pause for a few minutes and think about what I have read. (I even had to take notes on Freedom evolves lol).

While I like all of the four horsemen, Hitchens was my favorite. 

The man was educated on many issues. I saw him make an absolute fool out of Bill O'Reilly one time, over a foreign policy issue. 

While I agree with you about the Iraq War, even provoked/non-criminal war involves mass killing on both sides...

I never concerned myself much with celebrities in general. Atheist celebrities are no exception. But I do recognise that a significant enough portion of the population gives enough of a fuck to support hundreds of millions of dollars worth of crap, so I am glad there are atheist celebrities and I won't criticise them just because they said something controversial. Even though personally the whole celebrity worship thing never made much more sense than religion to me.

That's rarely true. Both sides are almost always equally to blame. It takes two to tango.
In fact, I can't even think of one war that all sides didn't share some responsibility for.

Amazing how every single scenario you just mentioned have two sides to blame. At least.

I'm going to plead the 5th now and suggest I hold cj's view of debates; that they are pointless, aimed at the ego of their participants and easy to render meaningless and deconstruct.

I'm also going to suggest that CP hangs out with unapologetic reactionists who have difficulty crawling out of a mud hole they land themselves into. One of them lives near Mason, Georgia.

I'd also suggest many couldn't contemplate their way out of a paper bag, because it requires too much rationalism for their temperamental ways.

Any man that can sit in the same room with a religious windbag, debate him like a professional, tolerate his backwards views and petty jabs from the audience Q&A has my respect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPYxA8dYLBY

A few old powers and America have used the Middle East as their playground for centuries (though the Americans have only been involved since WWII to my knowledge, they've still arguably fucked the region over more than any power since the crusades). That has caused epic resentment and instability in the region.
Hell, it was America that installed Hussein.
Not to mention the hypocritical hoarding of nuclear technology by the West.

"true"

It's been the distinctly "American" attitude that intelligence actions, even towards their own citizens, are justified.

The phrase "MK ULTRA" comes immediately to mind.

Yes but ... What did to cause the 2003 invasion and conquest?

Heh. OIF/Iraqi occupation/civil war was a lost cause in 2007, and most of the "administration" at the time, knew it. We were basically at war with Iraq's people, rather than their faction leaders.

How many lives have been fucked  up or thrown away senselessly because one group of idiots couldn't admit they were wrong?

Far too many, in my mind.

then getting pushed out.

Lemme ask you something: how many American wars have been fought over a lie a la "Curveball"?

To be honest, I believe Iraq was just a distraction from the US failure to bring the 9/11 criminals to justice after many many months and a large number of US casualties.
Many people think oil was the goal, but I can't believe that Bush and co. were so crazy as to think they could secure Iraq's oil without a complete conquering of the country. The kind of conquering that hasn't happened in centuries. It just doesn't add up.

It worked (in the US anyway, though not so much outside the US) for a number of reasons, primarily because Hussein was still in power despite the results of the Gulf war. And he was still refusing to cooperate with the UN inspectors.
Though I'd argue he had every right to refuse to cooperate. Iraq's signature isn't present on the non-proliferation treaty, and Iraq was an independent nation, under no power's authority.

Where the hell have you been?

Well you've heard it before because good reasoning is just as good the second time it's said.  About the logic...well I'm sure he mader some mistakes, we all do.  I can offer you a specific real and personal example of what hitchens did for the movement.  About 5 years ago I thought I was the only peron on the planet who had serious issues with religions and their dogma.  I knew some people were athiests, but I had no idea so many people thought like me and spoke out loud what they felt and debated fiercy.  One day I randomly decided I would type "religious debate" on youtube search, I thoght i wouldn't hit much, I had no idea how huge an issue it was, and how many people were discussing and strongly arguing it.  I seriously had it figured that religion was a non issue to everyone, and people were just religious and that was that and nobody cared or thought in to the actual teachings.  The very first video I watched from my youtube search was the debate between hitchens and boetech that incredibly annoying jewish rabii.  Their I was, 2 am couldn't sleep, being intoxicated by hitchens' wordplay and vinigar.  The way he made his points and voiced his objection... it was awesome... I just had no idea people out their were thinking like me, and arguing their positions in official and public events.  I was glues to that debate, the first religious debate I ever watched, like a piece of maceronni to you kids kindergarden artproject.  And I was hooked, I had to hear more.

From their I spent years watching more and more debates, which led me to the athiest experience show from austin which offered a neverending source of discussions.  From their I came accross the debate between sapient/kelly and religitards cameron and bananaman which then ofcourse led me hear, where I have hung around for quite a while now and learned so much.  This long journey and change for me started with christopher hitchens, it surely would have happened somehow in another way but it might not have been so quick if I haden't have been so drawn in to the rockstar that was Hitchens.  Hitchens will always be a rockstar, very few people in the world can attract peoplewith their character and wordplay like Hitchens, and so for that alone he s done a shitload for the cause.  I imagine many have been inspired by something he said, or simply by him in some way at some time.   

      I've always been captivated by Stephen Hawking and his voice synthesizer.  Nothing captures an audience more than someone who sounds like an emotionless android.