Endless War | Scott Horton and Stefan Molyneux
Scott Horton is the managing director of the Libertarian Institute, the host of Antiwar Radio and the Scott Horton Show, the Opinion Editor of Antiwar.com and the author of “Fool’s Errand: Time to End the War in Afghanistan.”
Website: http://www.scotthorton.org
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/scotthortonshow
Book: http://www.fdrurl.com/fools-errand
Your support is essential to Freedomain Radio, which is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
Hi @stefan.molyneux! You have received 0.1 tip SBD + @tipU upvote
from @fishyculture :)
@tipU - send tips by writing tip! in the comment, get share of the service profit :)
Foreign intervention is something that conservatives have a hard time to get over with
Did not realize you were here, glad to find you. Welcome and tip!
Thank you for pounding the anti-war drum, people have to stop being numb about the horrors.
Antiwar? Didn't this idiot support Trump?
That's a piss poor conflation. Supporting Trump in no way indicates support for war or policies that support conflict. In fact, lending support to a proven businessman would indicate a preference for negotiation and diplomacy as opposed to direct conflict. Further, Trump's main competition (Hillary Clinton) directly stated her intention to enter into war with Iran which is to say she would entertain the idea of war with Russia.
I've never heard of Clinton saying she intended to go to war with Iran. I believe you're mistaken on that, especially since she played a part in the negotiation of the nuclear deal with them. It was clear throughout the entire cycle that Trump was going to be a bigger warmonger than Hillary would have been, and that's been shown to be the case.
Her track record under Obama with Libya would say otherwise.
Nope. Trump is drone-bombing a lot more civilians than Obama did, and the negative consequences of the ongoing US-supported extermination of Yemen's civilian population dwarf the negative consequences of eliminating Qaddafi while he was brutalizing his own population.
That’s factually not true!
But I respect your stance.
The link I've provided contains a quote from Hillary Clinton that states her unabashed intention to attack Iran. You clearly need to research your position. https://www.globalresearch.ca/hillary-clinton-if-im-president-we-will-attack-iran/5460484
That statement was made in the context of what would happen if Iran were to attack Israel. You clearly need to research your facts (beyond tabloid fake news sites).
Your reference to the context is laughable considering It was both Clintons that plunged the middle east into decades of war. Keep trying though, you might just figure it out.
I'm fully aware that Hillary voted to authorize Bush to wage the disastrous Iraq War. But the question is who would have been a most disastrous president in the present. The answer to that was obviously Trump, based on the words and actions of each candidate, and, now that we've got a chance to see Trump's blustering in action, it's hard to imagine how a president could possibly get any worse.
Your position is entirely subjective and your proposed question is a sophistic attempt at misdirection. Popular opinion held that Hillary would have been the most disastrous, that's why Trump won. You fail to state with specificity any word or action on Trump's part that would indicate a disastrous result. As far as imagining a worse presidency, I need not. For all I have to do is think back to Obama, Bush, and Clinton; all being worse than our current president who is attempting to clean up the mess the former three assisted in creating.
Not true
Bud but upvoted for your passion.