Should the U.S. Be Sending Weapons to Ukraine? Scott Horton vs. Cathy Young at the Soho Forum
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 июл 2022
- A live debate at PorcFest, in Lancaster, New Hampshire.
reason.com/video/2022/07/06/s...
------------------------
Should the U.S. give full military and political support to Ukraine in its war with Russia, short of sending troops?
That was the subject of a Soho Forum debate held on Thursday, June 23, at the Porcupine Freedom Festival, or PorcFest, in Lancaster, New Hampshire.
Cathy Young, a writer at the Bulwark and a contributing editor at Reason, is a Moscow-native who migrated to the U.S. as a teenager, argued that the U.S. government is correct to impose sanctions on Russia and to send military and economic support to Ukraine.
Scott Horton, who's the host of Antiwar Radio, argued that U.S. backing of NATO provoked the Russian invasion and that imposing sanctions and sending weapons has brought more death and destruction.
He says the only role for the Americans is to call for an immediate ceasefire followed by negotiations.
The debate was moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein.
Narrated by Nick Gillespie; camera by Chris Silk; edited by Brett Raney and John Osterhoudt.
Photo: event photography by Brett Raney; EyePress/Newscom
Thank god for Scott Horton.
She lost me in the first minute when she said that the US was "exporting democracy" with their illegal wars. This woman is just another liberal "humanitarian" bomber.
When did she say that?
Yep. What a jingo.
@@JonathanRossRogers Around 2 minutes 50 seconds.
@@wbafc1231 I see why you were confused. You think Young was defending the attempt the "export democracy." Actually she said that it didn't work.
@@JonathanRossRogers the point is that it's blatant war propaganda
Can always count on Cathy to give us "the libertarian case for global thermonuclear war"
The fact that Young can even be employed by reason at this point.
I know, right? I can hear out a person who opposes Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. But Cathy Young repeats every CIA/State Department talking point AND she apparently agrees with every intervention the US government has had in Eastern Europe- maybe ever? At least going back to Serbia and Kosovo. Policymakers in Washington or any other capital do not deserve such fealty. It’s just nauseating
That post need a verb and object to make it a sentence
What do you mean? She fits right in there...
@@qcriverrat lol true
Pro lock down and "vaccinations" fake libertarians, what would you expect?
Timestamps
0:00:56 Gene Epstein intro
0:02:08 Cathy Young
0:14:45 Scott Horton
0:30:06 Cathy Young Rebuttal
0:35:26 Scott Horton Rebuttal
Q&A
0:41:25 Question 1 "What do you think Putin's other option would've been?"
0:44:14 Question 2 "Do you have examples of how Russia might be expanding the empire?"
0:54:15 Question 3 "Why did we put that pipeline in?" (You've spoken your piece, sit down) 56:08 - start of answer
1:03:15 Question 4 "Do sanctions work?"
1:08:51 Question 5 "Should the Ukrainians give up and surrender?"
Summary
1:12:30 Cathy Young
1:17:00 Scott Horton
1:21:18 Voting
thank you.
Thank you, God she is awful.
Some people think that 'public speaking' is just speaking in public.
I literally laughed out loud when she said "I think we can all agree that this was an unprovoked attack"
The really terrifying thing is that for sure, she actually believes that.
@@gary7vn She does not believe that. She is speaking how a propagandist speaks because she is not there to argue in good faith.
So exactly what threat did Russia face from Ukraine? Your claim is ridiculous.
@@stevealexander8010 Ukraine said it wanted to develop nukes and join NATO.
@@JoeBizzleso what? US also has nukes. Why russia won’t attack US?
The fact that she thinks the US wouldn't invade Canada or Mexico if Russia expanded their alliance to our border shows how delusional she is😂
Economic sanctions, certainly, but military action is very far from guaranteed since there would be a possibility of it blowing up in the US's face.
Right, they would’ve been blown to smithereens
@@nevink4717 You realize that destroying Mexico or Canada would mean to destroy the US
@@billiamc1969They wouldn't destroy it. They would coup it, as they've done countless times already in the Americas
“Mexico had a close relation with Castro in the Soviet Era.” So did Canadian First Lady Trudeau 😉
Yes, but their relation with USA was closer. No Ukraine case.
The important thing is for the strong to subjugate the weak so you can sit back and enjoy the movie.
@@arthuram3428 I think you missed the joke
best comment. noice.
Jeez, one of the most lopsided debates I've ever seen. I didn't know who either of them were before watching this, but Scott Horton absolutely dominated.
Check out his RUclips channel and/or audiobooks or speeches
Yeah Scott Horton is the best antiwar voice in America. He's a walking encyclopedia. Check out his podcast, the scott horton show
Watch his debate with Bill Krystol. Even more lopsided. Just a complete, embarrassing thrashing. You almost feel bad for a psychopath like Krystol.
Yes, he is better at this then she was but he is wrong in this case. It is actually very simple. You can be anti war and want to prevent war but freedom includes freedom to fight tyranny. If the people of that country are willing and want to fight and die for their chance at independent rule, who are we to tell them no. Should they be forced into subject just because the aggressor is stronger? If they want to fight and die then they should be able to do this. They should also be able to join whatever alliance they want.
I don’t think we should just give them weapons and money but we should be willing to sell them anything they want.
Imagine The US broke up like most in the freedom movement want. But then the republic started invading those liberated states to force them back in. Would we not try to make sure that state was armed to resist if they wanted to fight? Of course we would. That is why we are all so pro 2nd amendment. Not to hunt but so we can fight tyrants. Why deny that to other countries?
No we don’t want to risk nuclear war or get drawn in. So we probably should have sold them more arms before the invasion. But now it has started and we can give them a lot without crossing any lines. Putin has told us what weapons and equipment he would consider being an act of war if we supplied. So we sell them everything short of those items because they have a right to fight.
That being said we should be doing every negotiation tactic in our power to end Russian aggression such as pulling our military back and returning to our agreements from 1997 in exchange for him stopping.
@@jakelm4256 I feel like the squashing was equally total, but if I remember correctly, this debate had a larger win % and change %
Listening to this woman's opening statement and I realize that so few people, left or right, truly adhere to their ideological principles when it suddenly doesn't suit their immediate circumstances.
1.6% Yes vs. 96.7% No. Brutal.
To be fair, this is a libertarian event.
Scott Horton wins as usual
I agree that he wins the argument, but he took a lot of unnecessary liberties with "omission". He can condemn US Fed / MIC involvement without giving only the OpFor narrative. His claim on Serbia, his claim about Bin Laden, and his claim about Belarus were all incomplete and unprincipled. His argument is strong enough to not need these deceptive takes. The situation is glaringly bad enough already.
@@kasimirfreeman OK then tell us what was wrong about his claims about Belarus Serbia bin Laden etc. He was limited by time so he can’t give you a whole debate on Serbia, but was he misleading? Can you give an example?
I actually disagree with Scott but he appeared to win because they were not arguing the actual topic.
It is very simple. If you believe in the right to self ownership and association then it is up to the Ukrainian people whether they want to fight the war or not. Period.
I am anti war but I believe in the 2nd amendment for a reason. I believe all people have the right to obtain whatever weapon they need to defend their liberty from tyrants.
They spent the entire debate talking about hypotheticals and past examples of how the US either failed or was on the aggression side. All might be true and are areas we need to change but we are only talking about arming the Ukrainian people to maintain the right to self govern.
There are many things the US, Ukraine and Russia did wrong leading up to this point. There are many things the US should be trying to do to end Russian aggression. But at this point Russia has invaded and the Ukrainian people are saying they want to fight and are willing to die for this cause.
We should at least be willing to sell them the means(maybe not give it to them).
Putin has made it clear what weapons he considers us actively entering the war. So we should be willing to sell them anything outside of that list. But we should also be trying to make peace with the chips we control. We should offer a return to the 1997 arrangements in return for Putin stopping the invasion. Or whatever else we can do to end the war. But it is the Ukrainian peoples right to fight and we (as a freedom movement) should be supporting that.
P.S. Scott is right about most wars we get into and I donate to his website but this time we might actually be on the right side…. Probably for the wrong reasons but still.
@@gavinl4388 Lets start with Osama Bin Laden - he was a militant almost from the start, and opposed any interaction with foreigners, including peaceful developments of oil fields sustaining billions of people worldwide. He needed an external enemy to promote his dream of a unified caliphate. In Serbia the fact of mass murders on both sides should at least be mentioned, not glossed over. In Belarus there was a legitimate freedom movement from people who had the same tyrant for 25+ years (imagine being under Hillary Clinton for 25 years, and the level of 'fortification' she would reach).
His mentions of all these conflicts was on the level of a TYT clip, bad even for a time limited debate.
@@skylanh4319 There are multiple distinct cultural groups in Ukraine, and the right thing to do was to Federalize, provide regional Autonomy, before entirely dissolving all States.
No we should not be in a proxy war
Shell oil found $150T in NEW natural gas deposits in the Ukraine in 2004. PUTIN WANTS THE MONEY!!!! Shell already paid the Ukraine $10B to drill and develop these gas fields. Putin WANTS THE GAS. There is no talking Putin out of stealing this GAS!!! What do you think Hunter Biden was doing in the Ukraine!!!!!! He was cutting the deal between the EU and Ukraine for this gas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Russians started this war in my opinion yes we should continue to supply the ukrainians if we don't it will signal that the US is incapable of stopping Russia from performing any such invasion again and we will lose the confidence of many of our allies
Yes, the US should be involved.
Help the Ukrainian people ✊ 🇺🇦
@@secularsekai8910 So you go ahead and grab a gun and hop on a plane to be dropped into Donetsk. We will wait for you to retake that land for Ukraine.
@@Damonjager09 Logistics, logistics. I play my part. And Ukraine only accepts trained soldiers, unlike Ruzzia.
56:00 this seems to happen at every single event. Why don't you guys just take pre-written approved questions instead of letting nut jobs get on the mic. Audience questions are always the least satisfying part of these debates.
It seems that there are people who use the QA as a platform to say what they want to say than asking a question worth asking. That guy actually answered his own question. He really did not seem interested in asking a question that he wanted to hear answered.
@@hrearden6993 people want to try to nudge their way into the debate by refusing to shut up and think that they can demonstrate their knowledge of the debate subject like anyone gives a sh17 lol.
Better to just have a good moderator. People come with questions re their preconceived ideas rather than coming up with any thoughts in response to what's actually said at the debate.
what are you guys talking about? a lesson about the "military industrial complex" was exactly what I needed in my life. i had forgotten all about it.
@@tallesttreeintheforest lol
Scott Horton wiped out Cathy Young in this debate. She did nothing but lie about the facts. We need more debates like this.
nope hes wrong
ARyzen, literally everything she said was a lie. Big Lie #1 - "We've been supporting democracy abroad." The US-based Empire has been exporting terrorism, fascism & mass murder abroad since 1946, not democracy. America's ruling class has been trying to destroy democracy in America & everywhere else in the world for more than 70 years. Cathy Young is a lying neocon, and there are thousands of propagandists just like her in both the "Democratic" and Repub Parties. Scott Horton wiped the floor with her.
💯 and glad to see you here Mr. Young. I wish i could do more to support you; it’s shameful how little support you have been given.
@@aryzen2781 he is totaly right 👍
@@Street_photographyGK nope
Cathy's voice is not great to listen to, content aside.
Thankfully she stutters frequently so you get a break. Not sure if she has a speech impediment or just does that when she is lying.
43:00
Regardless of topic I disregard anything said by anyone who sounds like this and I'm not going to pretend I don't.
Literally everybody is underprepared to debate Scott!
Scott is a clown and I could easily wipe his ass in debate.
She seems better than Bill Kristol at least. He knew absolutely nothing.
@@georgea.567 Right? Lol
@@georgea.567 lulz, at least she was better than her pathetic boss.
credit where it's due, she's got some chutzpa even getting up there & trying.
Horton destroyed every claim she made but 42:47 was the most entertaining part of this debate. 😂😂
And Scott H. was central to the proposition.
"Yay proxy wars" - Reason Mag
🤪
Guys you're taking the US State Department discussing who they were going to choose as the Ukrainian president after a coup totally out of context!
They were talking about the prime minister not president
Nonsense and it's almost guaranteed you haven't listened to it. "Yanukovych had just offered the pm position to Yats. Nuland was saying Yats should take the position."
@@mrwaffly2202 I guess that makes it better.
@@MiguelRuiz-vp1hu No, you liar, they were saying who they had decided would get the position. She literally says "fuck the EU", as in "we don't care what they want, we decide".
@@MiguelRuiz-vp1hu Its ridiculous people point to a phone call of Nuland saying to yats to accept being PM when the president holds more power in that country and you needed 200+ senators to confirm the position
This lady has no substantive points. Scott gets super specific and she just kinda shrugs it off with no real rebuttal.
Precisely. I think Scott finally had enough when he stated that he'd like footnotes other than anonymous CIA claims, which is basically all Young had.
Did she really just say that the United States would not invade a country that established an alliance with a power that it did not agree with. What was Vietnam and Korea? Diplomacy?...
Both South Korea and South Vietnam were nations being invaded by their northern communist counterparts. They weren’t choosing to align with Russia or china. Nicaragua currently is allowing Russian troops into there country and yet the US hasn’t invaded them.
@@mrwaffly2202 yeah and you know how Vietnam defeated communism? They stopped being communist because being communist sucks. NK is essentially a hostage situation hanging by a thread. And for Russian presence in South/Central America, I wouldn’t be surprised if the CIA was there organizing coups for pro Russian leaders. Main point, US didn’t need to get involved in these countries to fight communism. Communism is the worst way to organize society and pretty quickly citizens recognize it and fight it or leave.
@@mozartshomie09 The comment I made was not about fighting communism. The comment was about the US invading nations that would side with other alliances. South Vietnam and South Korea were invaded by their northern counterparts not the US. Nicaragua let Russian troops into their country, yet the US has not invaded them.
@@mrwaffly2202 they still invaded a country they had no business invading. US would have invaded Cuba if Russia parked missiles their during the infamous crisis.
@@mrwaffly2202 it's not true that South Vietnam and South Korea were invaded. They were both illegitimate puppets of the US, and both conducted incredibly substantial repressions not only of the people within the territory they initially controlled, but ... and I can't stress this enough, BOTH entered the territory of their opponent regime before any exchange of territory in the other direction.
David Koresh was not a psychopath and wasn't dangerous at all.
I think he was purposely borrowing rhetoric there. I’ve heard him talk about Waco a fair bit, and I think he’d pretty much agree with you on that.
take a shot every time the lady says "uhh you know" in the Q/A but dont because you'll be deader than dead.
I love Scott Horton, go figure another reason contributor simping for the state.
Don’t forget the Bull-S Work connection too
Do you have the right to obtain any weapon needed to defend yourself against tyranny? Do you have the right to self ownership, right of association and self governance? Or at least do you believe you should?
Forget about the military industrial complex making money or our corrupt governments actual motives. That isn’t the topic. Do we attack gun manufacturers for supplying us with arms? Do we care that the NRA motives (on the very few times) they actually stand up for our 2nd?
yeah, but they put this on. It's almost like they were trying to bury Cathy for some reason.
@@Uni85h they are genuinely so insulated in their own group think, just like all the liberal media, that they don’t realize how it looks to people who aren’t drunk on their kool-aid. It’s getting hard to distinguish Reason from WaPo or The Atlantic, other than one or two cultural issues that Reason adopts the opposite position on, solely for branding purposes so they can claim they are different
@BillCox I'm embarrassed I ever subscribed to them.
Commend her for going to Porcfest to debate Scott and getting absolutely destroyed. It's rare when warpigs step into the peaceful environs of sanity to actually discuss the lies that underpin their death cult. It's rare for obvious reasons. This happens.
thumbs up this comment but it literally is gut wrenching to dwell on the fact there is a death cult which seems to be supported from all facets of political and religious culture
💯
You nailed it, Dan McCall. Neocons are active, loud members of the most powerful death cult the world has ever seen.
This is why they follow the "hide Biden until November" strategy lmao. They just embarrass themselves.
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
I’m surprised Cathy left her house and mask no less.
She sure is tremulous
Saying every opposing point is a ""Kremlin talking point" is hardly an argument. Are the opinions of the war state "US hawk talking points"? Ultimately, who did what to who and when? The sheer volume of cogent points by Scott meet only a few objections from Cathy that actually cast doubt on the extent of US provocation. They don't refute the central point - The preponderance of evidence clearly demonstrates provocation, and the evidence of history show the fruits of these endless proxy wars. It's clear the US and UK want to deliver another Afghanistan to Russia. Make the MIC lose for a change. Give diplomacy a chance.
But it doesn't. The provocation was Russian all along, from before the dissolution with their forced relocation plans. Russia uses these Soviet era policies as a way to be a crybully and invade neighboring countries.
Scott makes cogent points, but only if you assume that Russia is acting in good faith and Putin is telling the truth about his intentions.
If you don't assume that, then the picture is far more muddled. Would diplomacy have prevented his seizure of the Crimea? If so, what diplomatic carrots would have needed to be offered? You can't just wave the diplomacy flag and pretend that it will prevent conflicts by aggressively hostile powers.
Scott literally said all her points were CIA lies and US Empire talking points. 😂 lol
They both did this and are both right. That is literally how the war on narratives work. There are two sides to every story and every narrative can be twisted to meet your goal. Debating normally just comes down to who knows more random facts and stories that they can claim support their position.
Scott just so happened to be way way more ready for this position. Even though most of what they talked about has nothing to do with the actual debate.
@@skylanh4319 Yeah, not a great debate. The problem with Scott's argument is that he seems bent on excusing Russia's inexcusable actions. I don't see how you can keep saying that the "US made them do it".
@@erc9468 IF by diplomacy, you mean not having coup in Ukraine, in order to install neo-nazis. Than yes, diplomacy would have helped.
People of Crimea VOTED to join Russia, because they didn't feel like getting burned alive by neo-nazis. Like they did to Russian speaking people in Odessa.
Oliver Stone documented it all in his "Ukraine on fire" (by Oliver Stone).
This video would be 10 minutes shorter if they just cut out every time this lady said "uhhhhhhh."
Who wants war, should go and fight himself.
Some of us have more balls than Russians like you.
Many have. Many will.
Ignoring war. Going for peace. Remaining neutral. Worrying about your own problems is cute. Until they blow up at your doorstep.
This is going to blow up at our doorstep. And one needs to be utterly blind not to see it.
The parallel with WWII is evident. But the stakes are higher, and N.Korea + China are taking copious notes.
The US non-intervention will cost us all. It will cost the world everything we hold for granted and shit on regularly.
We'll speak again in some 10 years or so. Check on how the world is doing by then.
And this will be a key moment.
Who don't want one, should help the other to win... or give back all 3000 ukrainian nukes)
@@balvsmalvs5425 It sounds so right what you say, except that "war" (one of 12 currently running in the world) is not about people, it's about US Dollar dominance.
The US is printing Dollar like there's no tomorrow. That causes global (hyper)inflation and some countries - like Russia, China, India etc. simply don't want to be robbed by using and holding devaluating currency that once used to be World Reserve Currency based on Gold standard.
All that sanctions, fines, removing US companies and US Dollar is the goal itself. Of course people suffer, they always do. But one should not shake pants being afraid Russia will knock at his doorstep, because Russia won't attack NATO. Simple as that.
The war goes on, but not war of countries, a war on economies. And while one calls it cute to worry about own problems, please don't tell me you enjoy 100% higher gasoline prices, 35% higher food prices and so on. Luckily one world government has already a solution that is CBDC, even worse currency that current fiat being used.
So instead of sending heavy artillery to 1 of 12 currently running military conflicts, maybe it would be better to not hyperinflate Dollar in the first place? Not remove gold standard in 1971?
It's so cute to talk about sending heavy tanks to the country you're not living in. But since US and Russia share common border - why don't they fight there? Have you asked yourself? It's not about war. It's about money. And securing the US interest to remain as global reserve currency while printing the shit out of it's value, basically robbing the world.
@@dawidblachowski Gosh... the Ukranian invasion by 300 thousand Russian troops... is to be blamed on the US printing of currency?
Absurdity, thou are named Blachowski.
Did she not see the Bill Kristol debate?
EXACTLY what I thought when this started....and while it was happening .....and when it ended. Lol !!!
I love how us Americans are watching tens of billions of dollars burn while we struggle because of a war that isn't even ours.
I love how some American hypocrites like you forgot that our nation's land is painted with the blood of foreign allies. The French used their treasure and blood for the US, without them our nation would not exist as it is today.
Shell oil found $150T in NEW natural gas deposits in the Ukraine in 2004. PUTIN WANTS THE MONEY!!!! Shell already paid the Ukraine $10B to drill and develop these gas fields. Putin WANTS THE GAS. There is no talking Putin out of stealing this GAS!!! What do you think Hunter Biden was doing in the Ukraine!!!!!! He was cutting the deal between the EU and Ukraine for this gas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We’ve spent more on Ukraine’s military this year than Russia spent on it’s own.
@@drunklibertarian8749 aware US can give everyone medicare+lower inflation so wages regain value but need to punish all those whom want to stay in Syria like Schiff/pelosi? remain illegally in syria etc=constant print money
george bush 14 years ago said he wants ukraine in nato foreshadow nuland f word 2014 coup
ruclips.net/video/nTQ3D1a-j20/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/V9rnoe18q3s/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/L2XNN0Yt6D8/видео.html
current ukraine gov is proxy since obama drew red line just like he did in syria arming rebels prior to ukraine gov bomb eastern ukraine on nuland orders
ruclips.net/video/ta9dWRcDUPA/видео.html
wesley clark foreshadow reveal 2000 to 2012 all rig for kill iraq to syria
ruclips.net/video/_mrJRHwbVG8/видео.html
dnc kill 50 in vegas/portland, thugs attack with stand down cops san jose/charlotte, burn loot several months, sabotage afgan withdraw using russia bounty smear to give taliban equip, blm crash car in to wisconsin parade thanks to nbc follow jury bus smearing ritten house too
ruclips.net/video/UxoL8tHSa7g/видео.html
The Army Corp of Engineers estimated the cost of fixing the entire water system of Flint, Michigan was between $1-1.5 billion. That was 8 years ago.
The last time we ignored military aggression of authoritarian Powers we got suckered into world wars 1 and 2 we have the option of either ending a threat now or dealing with the fallout later
This lady embodies the idea that everything after the word "basically" is a lie.
True, chuckle chuckle
Cathy Young may or may not be a good writer, but she is a horrible speaker. It's hard to hear her arguments through all the "uh's" and "um's" and her run-on sentences with frequent higher vocal pitches after each phrase . It's agonizing to listen to her. Scott, otoh, is well-modulated and reasoned (maybe HE should write for "Reason" magazine?) in his presentation. He's interesting, easy to listen to, and grabs one's attention.
Anyone who regularly uses "I think we can all agree" or "Everyone is doing x" makes my skin crawl and it makes me immediately disagree with what is being said. This argumentation tactic sucks, and it's annoying.
Yeah, "I think we can all agree it was an unprovoked attack"
No, I don't think so actually, since that's the point of the funking debate.
If someone said "I think we would all agree that 2+2 =4" you'd immediately disagree?
@Rusty Winter I can temporary disagree
@@rustywinterful correct, 1 because I'm a stubborn asshole, 2 because there are definitely people who don't think 2+2 is 4
Not only that, but then she watered it down with a subjective qualifier: "excessive" intervention
50:38 "There would be a lot of very strong diplomacy." -Cathy Young
Wow Cathy... I'm all in for russia after this.
“We can all agree it was an unprovoked attack”
Ummm… no?? 🤦🏻♂️
"If it was unprovoked they wouldn't be calling it unprovoked all the time," Noam Chomski.
@@colibriverde Noam Chomsky, the geriatric socialist who hates freedom and america.
Lol yeah it's like "Lady you do realize you're at a debate right? If we all agreed there would be no debate." So strange.
Whenever I hear that term, it's a huge red flag. It's coordinated. All of the parrots start saying "unprovoked attack" at the same time. You would think that one of them might just say attack, or unwarranted attack, or irrational aggression. Nope. They're all reading from the same cue cards.
@ScottHorton ...I wish I knew about you back in early 2000's. I was such a fool back then. You and @JoelMcDurmon have had such a big impact on my thinking related to military and war. You probably won't see this but putting it out there anyway ...thank you.
Honkey Bear :-) Great name.
Here is a great convo Scott had on the podcast I work with, if you're interested!
ruclips.net/video/K6p0em78GyE/видео.html
Go Scott!!!
If this was a boxing match they would have stopped the fight
Lol
There have been plenty of examples of genocide where the United States did not intervene... remember Rwanda?
We're all still trading with China while they round up the Uyghurs.
Do you know what the cause of that ethnic genocide was? Belgium divided them... Do your Research. Google. America didn't have to intervene as the seeds of death had already been planted by the colonialists...
Cathy was not well prepared for this debate. Her delivery and her appearance needed to be much sharper. She came across like someone who just rolled out of bed.
There she goes again. Russia never objected to Ukraine joining the EU
No more bankers wars!
The US should be giving assistance to its Citizens and residents first, which it hasn't done currently or previously, in a competent or consistent manner from years ago (from previous engagements or disasters). 🇺🇲
Here, hear!
56 Billion dollars doesn't really feel like much until you assess it as what it really is:
Fifty six THOUSAND Million dollars. It's unreal.
@@ikenosis8160 Our Jerry Springer government..
It's unconstitutional to give money to foreigners.
The United States was clear and away the world leader in public assistance during the covid 19 pandemic. No other country comes even close in terms of rent assistance, cash payments, eviction moratoriums, unemployment compensation, food stamps ect. Every single category America gave more. The United States has also provided it's citizens with the safest nation In the world in terms of outside invasion.
@@dominicvioli7098 Typical American brainwashing, do you work for the government?
After a few minutes of Cathy Young, I just skipped to all of the Scott Horton bits. Pillory me for selecting information that confirms my political bias. Scott Horton really knows foreign policy backwards and forwards. His depth of understanding allows him to draw insights that others miss.
I try. I try so hard to listen to these establishment types and really get into their ueadspace and understamd the best arguments they have.
Never works. Their arguments are always crap. There's a reason they're the ones doing censorship and paying for propaganda.
I'm just having a hard time getting through Cathy's "umms" and "uhhhs"
@@SquareNoggin it’s usually impossible if you take what they say seriously. It’s because their positions are based on things that they won’t say out loud; their stated reasons are always manufactured ad hoc, because the real reasons would be too repulsive and psychopathic to the majority of people.
he compared russia's LEASE on a naval base to San Diego. He said all of Russia's aggression is the US's fault. He's a putin tool
as an Indian, this tactic used by the us is all too familiar.
during the Nixon era, they continued the support of the Pakistani's and supplied them with weapons so the could "genocide" the Bangladeshis.
same for afganistan, which came to bite them back in the ass.
This also happened with Iraq when the initially supported Saddam, even when he was committing war crimes but decided to kill him once he stepped Outta line.
they supported the Saudis for god knows what reason to commit even more war crimes.
there are more examples but if you know, you know
it's like, they're pretending to be the good guys whilst simultaneously doing the most heinous shit imaginable.
I think you are forgetting that Ukraine is not an Islamic dictatorship with no regard for human rights, supporting Ukraine is quite different.
@@Ushakov_Mykyta is it tho?
They were treating Ukranian separatists the same way Pakistan treated Bangladesh (albeit at a much smaller scale).
I don't know if it's Russian propaganda but the Donbas issue exists and it predates the invasion of Crimea (who were facing a similar situation as Donbas).
Now, don't get me wrong, this feels like it's out of Russia's classic playbook, they did something similar in Georgia but back then nobody cared because the USA didn't have any vested interests there.
@@jeanniemaycrawford4466 I understand your concern fully, we all do here in Ukraine. I can assure you that the post-2013 government of Ukraine has not committed more war crimes than either UN observers or the russian side can prove, and that's a really small number for a conflict of this scale.
The thing that many people forget is the extent of russian infiltrations into various Ukrainian government institutions. To engineer a conflict and even a separatist identity is not a problem for russia. They would only need a concerted, prolonged propaganda effort and enough collaborators in administration.
Yes, they usually grow these movements on fertile soil, but the movements would not go violent if not for russian intelligence and military officers, there would be no armed conflicts if not for them, and no separatist identity. You may not know it, but the post-Maidan govt. in Kyiv incorporated a lot of Donbass oligarchs, and the L/DPR are governed by russians, by actual russian intelligence and military officers.
@@jeanniemaycrawford4466 aware US can give everyone medicare+lower inflation so wages regain value but need to punish all those whom want to stay in Syria like Schiff/pelosi? remain illegally in syria etc=constant print money
george bush 14 years ago said he wants ukraine in nato foreshadow nuland f word 2014 coup
ruclips.net/video/nTQ3D1a-j20/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/V9rnoe18q3s/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/L2XNN0Yt6D8/видео.html
current ukraine gov is proxy since obama drew red line just like he did in syria arming rebels prior to ukraine gov bomb eastern ukraine on nuland orders
ruclips.net/video/ta9dWRcDUPA/видео.html
wesley clark foreshadow reveal 2000 to 2012 all rig for kill iraq to syria
ruclips.net/video/_mrJRHwbVG8/видео.html
dnc kill 50 in vegas/portland, thugs attack with stand down cops san jose/charlotte, burn loot several months, sabotage afgan withdraw using russia bounty smear to give taliban equip, blm crash car in to wisconsin parade thanks to nbc follow jury bus smearing ritten house too
ruclips.net/video/UxoL8tHSa7g/видео.html
The Army Corp of Engineers estimated the cost of fixing the entire water system of Flint, Michigan was between $1-1.5 billion. That was 8 years ago.
@@jeanniemaycrawford4466 no they were not the Russians had been actively sending in soldiers with no iconography on them remember the little green men they turned the area into a war zone so of course people were getting killed
Brilliant point Scott made about Lithuania and the Baltic states!
No, it's moronic and untrue.
Isn't it funny how you can guess who is on which side of these debates just by seeing them in the thumbnails? Like, consistently? Isn't that odd?
What side am I on?
Scott absolutely destroyed her. She didn't stand a chance!
Scott is the man.
Mary, I agree and am stoked that I got to meet him at Porcfest! Invited him to our podcast, if you'd like to see his conversation with forensic historian Richard Grove 🙌
ruclips.net/video/K6p0em78GyE/видео.html
RIP Cathy. Next time don’t bring NATO’s stale talking points to a debate.
Scotts response to her at 52:40 is an absolute smackdown. She had no answer for it
Expect she had. She said that this guys is talking hypothetical situation. Also we already have nukes that could blow up Moscow.
This guy's idiotic argument is basically that Russia should be allowed to invade every country next to it just because they can become military threat one day. His argument is no different from what Hitler used as justification for his wars. He is trying to justify brutal genocide that is happening right now.
Scott is a joke and enemy to humanity just like you are.
Never thought I'd see the day when Cathy Young was a warmonger. Guess I never really knew her.
Is that her name? I thought we were listening to Scott debate a McCain.
This is all about about Russia, where she was born and raised (Soviet Union at the time). There's some hang-ups there.
Covid proved that there really are no distinctions between political labels.
I am not a Trumper, voted for Johnson in 2016.
But his moves with North Korea surprised me, as well as his reluctance t house military intervention compared to the past several Murder Masters.
I cannot help but think he would have exhausted all negotiation options, unlike Biden Grabass.
Weirdly, Putin didn't do this while his pawn was in office. What a blunder! Sad!
Same
His greatest accomplishment was turning a large swath of modern republicans anti-war. He wasn't always anti-war himself but I think it was a blend of indifference and placating one or two of his billionaire warmonger donors.
The argument that USA would not tolerate another military alliance on its border is certainly true but also misleading in the debate about Nato and EU expansion. USA though a hegemon does not demand ceding autonomy from other countries the way Russia does. Compare Canada and Belarus and see the difference. USA does not tell France what political system it should have or Mexico what its government is acceptable. If you are in Russian sphere of influence your sovereignty is gone. Russia will not tolerate democratic system, freedom of press and other liberties in neighboring countries if they were not in NATO or EU.
Ty Scott Horton. We all need peace on earth! Truth has to be absolute! Do Ty for speaking the truth❤
I don't know how anyone can disagree that the US should be pushing for a ceasefire and peace negotiation. Unfortunately we are currently led by the "most popular president" who sleeps through major world events, is given a list of approved journalists with pre-approved questions, and struggles to read a teleprompter that tells him what to say.
1:08:00 this is the heart of the debate and differences in perspectives from either side. Cathy's whole premise is Russia is doing this only because of political differences which completely ingores Horton's whole argument
3 words for the lady : facts , comb , dentist….
Smith/Horton 2024.
With Malice as press secretary.
Smith/Toure or Smith/Sharpe but close
@@TheCruxy New York keep their sharpe
@@TheCruxy Nothing against Maj, but what makes him a better VP candidate?
I'd rather Scott be SecDef
@@danarchism-dissident Definitely a good position for him, as well. Who then for VP, though? Woods?
Why do people like Cathy even call themselves libertarian? What is the point of libertarianism if it supports what the war state is doing?
What's the point of libertarianism if we're just going to let authoritarian governments steamroll us over?
subversion
Excellent question, SquirrelandOwl. I would never call Cathy Young (no relation to me) a Libertarian. She's an imperialistic, terrorist-supporting, Nazi-supporting, ignorant, savage neocon like most current US senators & representatives - both dominant parties.
She not only supports this world war 3 provocation, but she also supports authoritarian and fascist lockdowns, mask mandates, vaxxxxine mandates, and just about every other authoritarian D. C. establishment BS put out there! And she uses libertarians rhetoric to justify all of it! A classic subversionist.
Wild to me that Cathy can’t simply acknowledge that Putin may be a rational actor based off decades of US intervention. Any explanation Scott offers of how we got here is simply dismissed as kremlin talking points….
He's a rational actor on decades of US complacency. We didn't do anything when he invaded Chechnya, Georgia, crimea, Syria, etc...
Well... may be because they are straight up Kremlin talking points... Putin was a very simpleminded thieve who was making billions and building kitsch palaces for himself and his circle of friends. Now at the end of his life (he is turning 70 and battling cancer) he wants to get in the history books as a restorer of Russian empire. If you want to call it rational, sure...
There are no rational actors who have real security interests or concerns that should be taken at face value other than the United States and her allies -- Neocon law 451
@@matthewj3892 it seems to be a rule for some antiwar "libertarians" too
Maybe because they are? She don't seem like a lier to me.. and also seems to know more then the people talking in these comments...
Time lines ;so important . always neglected by most.
I wonder if Cathay regrets this debate with the legend that is Mr Horton on foreign policy
Going into this, I always feel bad for those who have to go up against Scott. The man knows foreign policy better than about anyone on the planet.
But watching this lady stumble her way through her opening remarks to build a narrative to go neocon/neolibing across Europe was rough.
Idk about anyone, he has some blind spots as we all do but GODDAMN that boy is good. He’s always impressive.
Idk about anyone, he has some blind spots as we all do but GODDAMN that boy is good. He’s always impressive.
I feel quite complimented by this, because so far he hasn't mentioned anything I'm actually unaware of in the two debates I've seen him in.
Oh, except the Mohammad Atta thing about the massacre in Lebanon.
@@Sincerely_MrX who could beat him in this debate? Mr Nobody, that’s who!
No, we shouldn’t support Ukraine
Yes, we should support Ukraine
Should we support Poland if it's turn comes?
@@johnsullivan5101 absolutely not, he can take the whole continent for all I care. They don't have the resources to do so, but absolutely.
@@secularsekai8910 We should support Ukraine. But sending arms was not supporting Ukraine. Most of the people wanted peace. Zelenski won because he promised an end to the civil war.
"He won an enormous mandate to make peace. So, that means he has to negotiate with Vladimir Putin," But Ukrainian fascists said that they would remove and kill Zelensky if he continued negotiating with Putin. "His life is being threatened literally by a quasi-fascist movement in Ukraine," Russia studies professor Stephen F. Cohen, (Siding with Ukraine's far-right, US sabotaged Zelensky's mandate for peace, Aaron Mate)
US armed Kiev, they broke the peace accords and attacked Donbas, forcing Russia to decide whether to let the people of Donbas get massacred with US weapons, or send Russian troops to rescue them.
The goal of the US wasn't to help the people of Ukraine, it was done to draw Russia into the conflict. US oligarchs wanted Russia to invade so they'd have an excuse to impose economic sanctions on Russia, "weaken Russia," (see "The Strategic Case for Risking War in Ukraine", John Deni, (NATO think tank researcher), WSJ, Dec. 22, 2021 )
This war was foretold and preventable.
US oligarchs don't care about the people. Ukrainians are just pawns on the chessboard in their quest for global hegemony.
This woman is so out of her league it actually makes for uncomfortable viewing
Russia-Brazil coalition? I'm from Brazil and I never heard of it!
Yes, there's economic trade between the nations, but there's economic trade with pretty much every country.
President Dave Smith, I think that Mr Horton would make a great Sec of State.
Yes! If not that, at least the Senior Foreign Policy Advisor.
Dave might be running for president but if you expect a libertarian candidate to be elected president in the next decade, you haven't been listening to Dave very well. If he runs, it's to grow the party. Give it more exposure. (point being, if you are talking about his appointments, you are cosplaying politics)
@@ModeratelyAmused At least we're not boring. 😉
@@ModeratelyAmused Dave has mentioned quite a few times that he's making Michael Malice his press secretary and has been considering other appointments.
@@mystifiedoni377 what's Dave's occupation again?
Scott Horton is a legend
There had to be another way, but I have no idea what it is
Hahahaha
A quick physiognomy check is all it takes to know who was in the right and who was in the wrong here.
The cuban missile crisis wasn't imminent either, Karen. They were just parking it at a mate's place.
The problem I have with both sides of this debate is the assumption that the US can and should decide the fate of Ukraine.
No sending weapons allows it to determine its own fate by not having soldiers invading it.
@@Ueiksg I think it's a bit more complicated than that. I mean that the decision of how to deal with Russia should be up to Ukrainians. Of course helping Ukraine with weapons gives them a stronger position, but there's still a range of possible compromises.
How is Scott saying the US should decide the fate of Ukraine? His position is the opposite.
@@JonathanRossRogers people like scott expect Ukraine to give in to russians demands.
Isn't Scott's point that the US should not intervene? Meaning that it is not up to the US what happens in Ukraine
The Young woman is wiggling and wriggling and has no answer. Pathetic
America and NATO would readily support who 1% of the population wants in power if they also agree with that candidate. Disregarding the desires on the other 99%. Even if no one wanted that person. America still couldn't care less. Selective democracy as we've seen often that people win elections and America refuses to recognise them.
Just like this lady here. It matters not what the people want. It matters what she she thinks should happen. The disease of American supremacy and thinking they are perfect and never wrong.
40:20
> Russia
> Republic
Pick one
Its a federation, and the only republics are its autonomous regions.
This is joe providing for joe
She is in disillusion.
This woman gets on my last nerve
Just getting to this. Finished up the opening statements and it's clear that Scott is playing on home turf based on that applause break after his statements. I hear Cathy showed up unprepared. Guess I'm about to see if this is real.
I agree more with Scott's position and it seemed like Cathy tended towards redirecting the conversation and alluding to needing more time. I think Scott made s good point that she was obscuring the nazi talk about the azov brigade and obfuscation really bothers me. Still, I'd like to see this debate or conversation with a lot more time given to it. Truthfully, I almost want infinite time given to the conversation. It ends when it ends. It should end, but don't put arbitrary barriers on it if it isn't warranted.
@@BLINK4444 PorcFest has a schedule of events… presumably it needs to end on time so the next event can start, or to leave enough time between events
@@streetracer2321 the conversation doesn't have to continue at porcfest. It could be a series of podcasts after that.
@@BLINK4444 I don’t see why anyone would want it to; seems like Cathy came to regurgitate the media’s position, that’s all. I could literally just turn on CNN if I wanted to hear more about that. And Horton does his own show.
@@streetracer2321 that's why the interaction is interesting. I thought she at least had points. I'm sketchy on the reality behind her positions because she neglected the details so often but I think her heritage to the conflict in discussion bares more time to draw out. I'll still probably agree with Scott but I think her POV deserves more time. Which was my original point.
Wait, so Scott won?
well he started out with over 80% openly on his side so how does the result have any meaning at all?
@@dervakommtvonhinten517 Oxford style voting is how many people change their mind after the debate. Having 80% of the audience at the beginning is actually usually harder to win.
@@shellbanger1210 the problem isnt the opinion the people hold but the fanboys who agree with a person, not an argument.
@@dervakommtvonhinten517 so you don’t think he absolutely smacked her down?
I thought the beat down Scott delivered to Bill Kristol was epic, until I saw this. Wow. This was like Alabama football taking on a pee wee league team. Sheesh. How can anyone take this woman seriously?
“They love Hitler 10” lol
This is really painful, it is clear America has previews this war and is now making it worse. I don’t have to like Putin or Russia to say this.
Shell oil found $150T in NEW natural gas deposits in the Ukraine in 2004. PUTIN WANTS THE MONEY!!!! Shell already paid the Ukraine $10B to drill and develop these gas fields. Putin WANTS THE GAS. There is no talking Putin out of stealing this GAS!!! What do you think Hunter Biden was doing in the Ukraine!!!!!! He was cutting the deal between the EU and Ukraine for this gas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How do you "preview a war"?
Scott Horton gave a truthful and insightful analysis of the events. Very informed, judicious, invaluable account!
why does not she speak about Ukrainian forces shelling Donbas villages and towns for eight years?
This woman speaks just like a person who will never have to fight for their beliefs.... she expects you to. Every one is an expert in something, doesn't mean they are right. Scott is a voice of reason,
That was clear and I have zero background. Does it sound like she uses a lot of emotional and narrative language in her summary? That's the type of language that is a massive red flag to me.
They have nothing else, that's all they can rsspond in a xenophobic hateful way . Banning Russian cats, dogs, trees, athletes and ecen disabled people.
Damn! Jo Jorgensen really let herself go
No!
Funny how so much can be explained by a detailed and comprehensive look into our history. To explain the enemy’s choices you must understand his circumstance.
Crimea had been petitioning to rejoin Russia since before the SU broke up, by 75%, coincidentally the percentage of Russians in the population. Khrushchev never had authority to give it away in the first place. Self determination, anyone?
It was not Kruschev who accepted the decision to transfer Ukraine to Russia. This was the decision of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR.
At the end of 1953 and the beginning of 1954, Khrushchev was not yet the sole leader of the USSR and simply could not make such a decision on his own. Much more influential at that time were Malenkov, Voroshilov, Kaganovich, and other members of the Presidium of the CPSU Central Committee, and they played more important role in the Crimea transfer than Kruschev. The reasons for the transfer of the Crimea to Ukraine were purely economic. Crimea was in stagnation and the RSFSR could not rectify the situation.
After the transfer the economic situation was improved by Ukrainian specialists and Ukrainian recources.
Also Crimea petitioning to rejoin russia? xDD Prior to 2014 annexation nobody invited russia to Crimea, there is no document.
All pro Russian people living in occupied territories are brainwashed fucks regardless. So you can cope all you want. Ukraine will retake its territories at is has been doing since your comment.
@@taras4435 bs too
@@taras4435 "Ukrainian specialists and Ukrainian resources."
The USSR carried out colossal infrastructure and industrial projects at the expense of common resources. Including on the territory of the Ukrainian SSR (For example, Azovstal). And here he could not live, he needed specialists and resources of a single Ukrainian SSR. Don 't you find it funny ?
LETS GO SCOTT!
Yeah for team sports… 😒
I was waiting in line to ask a question. I was the last in line.
She seems to have learned fairly well about Russia but she doesn’t know a bit about the US and NATO