Hillary Clinton Shows Dangerous Tendency to Go to War No Matter the Consequences

AMY GOODMAN: And what do the U.S. elections mean for what’s taking place now?

VIJAY PRASHAD: Well, look, I mean, it’s—you can see from your news report at the beginning that, in domestic terms, there is a great difference between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump has not only been absorbed by the white nationalists, but he himself appears to be a white nationalist. But seen from the rest of the world, the difference between the two is minimal. You know, here you have Donald Trump, who is, in many ways, erratic. God knows what he’ll do once he becomes president. He will lead a party—

AMY GOODMAN: Do you think God knows what he’ll do, once he—

VIJAY PRASHAD: Yeah, I think God knows what he’ll do. You know, I mean, I think that if the Republican Party was at such a place where Ted Cruz, who said that he would like to bomb Syria, to see the desert essentially be irradiated—if the Republican Party can see somebody like that as normal, as rational, then, you know, God help us if the Republicans are in charge of things.

But let’s take the case of Hillary Clinton. You know, here’s somebody who actually pushed Obama to go into the Libyan operation. You know, Obama was reticent to enter the operation in Libya. The French were very eager. And Hillary Clinton led the charge against Libya. This shows, to my mind, a profound dangerous tendency to go into wars overseas, you know, damn the consequences. And I think, therefore, if you’re looking at this from outside the United States, there’s a real reason to be terrified that whoever becomes president—as Medea Benjamin put it to me in an interview, whoever wins the president, there will be a hawk in the White House.

Click to expand...

Abbazorkzog said:

Transcript:



This is a dangerous precedent. Both party establishments have shown a blatant tendency to support and enable the very thing that is crippling American credibility in the geopolitical realm — as is apparent in the rise of Trump and the Clinton Dynasty. We live in an era of adulation and adoration of authoritarianism, militarism, extremism, and a lack of compassion for human life by governments — not just in the United States — but everywhere. Maybe the global establishment and media would be opposed to Hillary Clinton if Trump weren't the nominee, but I find it unlikely. Traditionalism is the enemy here, it has become a bane to the very world order it claims to be in favor of.

Because, you can't have a world order with perpetual warfare...

...period.

Get ready for Bush III, we as Americans are about to get the first landslide President we don't want.

Click to expand...

Abbazorkzog said:

Transcript:



This is a dangerous precedent. Both party establishments have shown a blatant tendency to support and enable the very thing that is crippling American credibility in the geopolitical realm — as is apparent in the rise of Trump and the Clinton Dynasty. We live in an era of adulation and adoration of authoritarianism, militarism, extremism, and a lack of compassion for human life by governments — not just in the United States — but everywhere. Maybe the global establishment and media would be opposed to Hillary Clinton if Trump weren't the nominee, but I find it unlikely. Traditionalism is the enemy here, it has become a bane to the very world order it claims to be in favor of.

Because, you can't have a world order with perpetual warfare...

...period.

Get ready for Bush III, we as Americans are about to get the first landslide President we don't want.

Click to expand...

Casper said:

Is that better or worse than carpet bombing the middle east and wondering why if we have nukes we cannot just use them?

Click to expand...

joG said:

That's about as correct as saying you couldn't have a social order with perpetual police action.

Click to expand...

Abbazorkzog said:

It is "not as bad" as carpet-bombs and nukes; 'better' is certainly not the word I'd use to describe ANY FORM of perpetual warfare.

Click to expand...

Abbazorkzog said:

Look around. There's no social order.
Police getting sniped on American soil is not order. It isn't borderline civil war, either.
But there is certainly nothing remotely orderly about the social landscape of 2016.

Click to expand...

Abbazorkzog said:

Look around. There's no social order.
Police getting sniped on American soil is not order. It isn't borderline civil war, either.
But there is certainly nothing remotely orderly about the social landscape of 2016.

Click to expand...