Forum Thread

Hillary Clinton a war hawk?

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 9 Posts
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Max Fisher, Vox, April 27, 2016: Is Hillary Clinton really the foreign policy super-hawk she is portrayed to be?

    Hillary Clinton is largely perceived as a war hawk. New York Magazine fed that narrative recently with a lengthy article by Mark Landler. Max Fisher of Vox noted the article's findings, but also cited a simple Score Card by Global Zero which paints a different picture of her. Fisher notes:

    "On every issue that Global Zero measured, Clinton is indicated as far less hawkish than all three of the Republican candidates, and as basically tied with Bernie Sanders. She supports the Iran nuclear deal; the Republicans all oppose it. She supports using diplomacy to solve the North Korean nuclear crisis; John Kasich is the only Republican to do so. She supports negotiating with Russia to reduce nuclear weapons; no Republican candidate does.

    "This measured only policies related to nuclear weapons, and so is far from comprehensive. But on these major geopolitical challenges — including the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs, which seem among the few crises that could plausibly draw the US into war — Clinton is significantly more dovish than all three Republican candidates."

    "Clinton's policies and past record suggest that her vision of power includes military force as well as diplomacy, so that while she is more likely to act in foreign affairs, she is also more likely to do so peacefully."

    The bottom line is that Hillary Clinton's foreign policy is more complicated...a mix of dovish actions and hawkish actions depending on the specific situation. What it suggests to me personally is that she carefully thinks about actions before taking them, maybe the one exception being her vote on the Iraq war.

    Fisher's article is worth reading for those who are ready to slap the hawk label on her so readily.

  • Other Party
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I think the trouble with Mrs Clinton are the foreign policy contradictions inherent in current American doings. In particular, I cannot imagine how a fanatical Zionist like her can possible establish peace in the Middle East. We have the same problem over here, but more directly, as the Zionists attempt to destroy the Labour Party. and abolish democracy entirely.
  • Liberal
    Independent
    Durham, NH
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I think it's more whichever way the wind is blowing. On again, off again Hillary should start listening to some of Bob Dylan's old albums!
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Like Schmidt says, she's a bit unpredictable and as P.R. says "as the wind blows" ; but yeah anything is better than starting to chop off heads as Trump wants. As I said many times, (which of course Jared will defend), the US has had no decent foreign policies since WWII. Our "island" mentality prevents such. The first time the US meddled in world affairs was in WWII ( WWI we were kind of very late into it) thus never had real experience about the rest of the world and their cultures. Since all our mistakes since Korea, Vietnam etc. we refuse to learn and keep repeating our same mistakes over and over again. The UN is only used to follow up/approve our orders and for the rest we decide ourselves to invade any country what we want. Our biggest mistake is that we try to impose our "money" driven culture onto others. Communism, or Muslim run countries are not accepted or treated as anyone else. How many lives were lost just to fight just a "word" (as mentioned)which does not fit our greed culture and don't even understand such "word" today. Even Sanders gets painted as a "socialist"; that seems to be a crime here. No our foreign policies "stink". We select our own preferred countries, instead of being impartial. Like with Israel and the Palestinians, Iran versus Saudi Arabia, Russia versus China, we meddle in all of it including in the air and seas and are surprised when it moves in other directions than we want.

  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I don't see her as a Hawk. She's a powerful woman though and frankly that scares the $hit out of many people of all parties. The reason the R's have slung millions of particles of mud at her is because they fear her. She can beat them and that's like the end of the world in their eyes. Yes she voted to approve the war started by GWB. Bad decision....but sometimes you have to give POTUS the benefit of the doubt. Imagine if enough politicians didn't approve the war. Yes Mr. Pres......... we've decided that you can't have your war. I honestly believe there would have been spontaneous combustion at that moment.

    I think it should be law that all politicians and their family members can not own stock in any company who would have the ability to substantially profit from war.

    Hawk / Dove / Goat, I don't care what label you use.... she is what and who she is. If tomorrow it was determined that goats are the lowest form of life.... it would be minutes until that tag was also affixed.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    TJ Wrote:

    I don't see her as a Hawk. She's a powerful woman though and frankly that scares the $hit out of many people of all parties. The reason the R's have slung millions of particles of mud at her is because they fear her. She can beat them and that's like the end of the world in their eyes. Yes she voted to approve the war started by GWB. Bad decision....but sometimes you have to give POTUS the benefit of the doubt. Imagine if enough politicians didn't approve the war. Yes Mr. Pres......... we've decided that you can't have your war. I honestly believe there would have been spontaneous combustion at that moment.

    I think it should be law that all politicians and their family members can not own stock in any company who would have the ability to substantially profit from war.

    Hawk / Dove / Goat, I don't care what label you use.... she is what and who she is. If tomorrow it was determined that goats are the lowest form of life.... it would be minutes until that tag was also affixed.

    No T.J. how about "wolves, hyena's" that fits better here, or in FL alligators. But personally I prefer "chickens" ha, ha. (of course "fried") Goats are way too much "beeeeeeeh beeeeeeh, beeeeeeeeeeeeeh
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The easiest vote a member of Congress can make is "no". It requires little thought, no risk, no accountability, no responsibility. No one who votes no is risking political capital. A no vote is a vote for the status quo.
  • Liberal
    Independent
    Durham, NH
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    How true.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    What suits the Clinton agenda. The Clinton's policies have been more wordly than unilaterally. They don't make sensitive decisions. Their agenda has been world dominance. I can see her getting rid of what gets in their way. Military actions are more expedient and status building. Follow the money. What does the^ Clinton Foundation do?