Clinton's war policy is unsustainable.

Clinton's policy of course, is overthrowing foreign leaders, funding ideological rebels, and invading countries, to further the US's ideology and interests. She is also of course, the last hawk in the race. Now why is her foreign policy unsustainable? Well it's rather simple, the US can't keep the territory it previously invaded occupied, as seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it cannot effectively regime change, as seen in Libya and Syria. So while Clinton is planning invasions for Iran, and coups for the rest of the places that aren't allied to her (and of course gearing up for Operation Barbarossa Mk.II) all her accomplishments (and other presidents accomplishments in the Middle East (like ISIS)) are going to be pulled out from under her, forcing her to start throwing obscene amounts of manpower and money at the Middle East to get it to not collapse away from her plans.
This of course is not just unsustainable, occupying from the Levant to Afghanistan, this would provoke proper super powers in their own right to start fighting the US (CSTO, China) or at least funding insurgents, who would number in the millions from these invasions.
Not to mention the hundreds of retaliation attacks within the US to US warcrimes there (mass rape, mass murder, gassing, etc), and the eventual nuclear attacks on US troops in those occupied countries (Pakistan would have a reason to give nuclear weapons to the insurgents of course).

occupying from the Levant to Afghanistan

this is the least of the problems completely assuming Iran falls, but what makes you think US can win a conventional war in the first place?

this isn't Iraq; Iran is a country with double the population and 8x the size of Iraq with support from CIS and China plus arguably they *might* have nuclear warheads.

even if every single NATO member including Turkey jumps on the conflict it will be very costly and very likely to trigger WW3.

Hillary is a warmaker, and crooked, that's why I root for the Trumpster.

this is the least of the problems completely assuming Iran falls, but what makes you think US can win a conventional war in the first place?

The US military is still the best military on earth at this point, there is no real doubt of that. While it would be quite the brutal war, I think the US would eventually crush the Iranian Military proper. Assuming of course a nuclear or Third World War doesn't kick off first.

last hawk in the race

I have a message for the terrorists trying to kill our citizens: we will find you, we will destroy you, and we will win.

I would bomb the hell out of them -- I like to do one thing at a time. I would knock the hell out of ISIS.

glad there're, uh no other warhawks.

US can't keep the territory it previously invaded occupied

can't, or doesn't? It's not profitable for a war to end.

it cannot effectively regime change, as seen in Libya and Syria

some of the greatest foreign policy goals met in Obama's rule.

Clinton is planning invasions for Iran

??? source ??? after looking it up for myself, it seems that Clinton is eager for more sanctions on Iran if bits of the deal are broken, but not for outright war? (http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/294164-clinton-sides-with-dem-leaders-on-iran-sanctions-ahead-of-standoff)

Meantime Trump even disapproves of even the deal, and hasn't said what he's going to do with Iran more clearly.

proper super powers in their own right to start fighting the US (CSTO, China)

Full guesswork. These governments aren't that dumb. They're not even that friendly with Iran. Why fight a long war that ultimately everyone loses something when they can pick on smaller foes, like Ukraine and Syria? Countries don't go to war unless a very very weighty ally crucial to their success gets warred.

Like exemples:

Afghanistan (bit of the Pakistan block)
Syria (bit of China, Russia block)
PAKISTAN (bit of the China, Pakistan, Russia block)
Serbia (bit of China, Russia block)
Ukraine (bit of the America, Britain, France block)
Georgia (bit of America, Britain, France block)

US warcrimes there (mass rape, mass murder, gassing, etc)

The American army right now is a bit more professional than that. Mass rape only happens in unorganised armies and worsens relations between countries.

Also let's not forget about Donald Trump which is for giving more governments core wepaons and not against wielding them.

glad there're, uh no other warhawks.

Mmm, Trump only wants war with ISIS, I think you can call him less hawkish than Clinton.

can't, or doesn't? It's not profitable for a war to end.

It obviously couldn't have; while it is indeed profitable to keep wars going, there's been wars that it makes a whole lot more sense to just go and win (I.E Vietnam). If the US could have truly ended the insurgency in South Vietnam, they would have.

??? source ??? after looking it up for myself, it seems that Clinton is eager for more sanctions on Iran if bits of the deal are broken, but not for outright war?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/9/hillary-clinton-threatens-war-enforce-iran-deal/

Full guesswork. These governments aren't that dumb. They're not even that friendly with Iran. Why fight a long war that ultimately everyone loses something when they can pick on smaller foes, like Ukraine and Syria? Countries don't go to war unless a very very weighty ally crucial to their success gets warred.

Warmongering is reciprocal, you warmonger to another country, to them it justifies more warmongering to you.

The American army right now is a bit more professional than that. Mass rape only happens in unorganised armies and worsens relations between countries.

Mmm, in the American-Filipino War, the Marines were all volunteer and trained. That didn't stop them from massacring entire villages.

Mmm, Trump only wants war with ISIS, I think you can call him less hawkish than Clinton.

Your words:

"She is also of course, the last hawk in the race."

it makes a whole lot more sense to just go and win (I.E Vietnam)

I don't know much about the war, but as far as I know, America could have won, but it wouldn't be worth it, with all the losses and how wrecked Vietnam would be afterwards and how many more folk would be angry to ship their brothers and sons away.

Warmongering is reciprocal, you warmonger to another country, to them it justifies more warmongering to you.

Sure, it gives China and Russia more of a grounds to hate America, but I don't think they need much more. Not Russia, anyway.

in the American-Filipino War

in uh...1899...

Can you find an example of bulk rape in the last 20 years by American army? They wipe whole towns off the map, sure, but they don't bulk rape.

"She is also of course, the last hawk in the race."

How much hawkishness makes a hawk?

I don't know much about the war, but as far as I know, America could have won, but it wouldn't be worth it, with all the losses and how wrecked Vietnam would be afterwards and how many more folk would be angry to ship their brothers and sons away.

The US occupied the south while bombing the North, Cambodia and Laos(and occasionally invading those countries). After a very large bombing campaign, there was a two year peace and then the North invaded the South, then fought China over some stuff in Cambodia.

Sure, it gives China and Russia more of a grounds to hate America, but I don't think they need much more. Not Russia, anyway.

It gives more ground the hawkish political forces that do want war, and that gives more ground to the hawks in America.

in uh...1899...

Mmm, lasted until 1913.

Can you find an example of bulk rape in the last 20 years by American army? They wipe whole towns off the map, sure, but they don't bulk rape.

Don't try to find the videos;

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_rape_and_killings

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse

In 2004, Antonio Taguba, a major general in the U.S. Army, wrote in the Taguba Report that a detainee had been sodomized with "a chemical light and perhaps a broomstick."[35] In 2009, Taguba stated that there was photographic evidence of rape having occurred at Abu Ghraib.[36] An Abu Ghraib detainee told investigators that he heard an Iraqi teenage boy screaming, and saw an Army translator raping him, while a female soldier took pictures.[37] A witness identified the alleged rapist as an American-Egyptian who worked as a translator. In 2009, he was the subject of a civil court case in the United States.[36] Another photo shows an American soldier apparently raping a female prisoner.[36] Other photos show interrogators sexually assaulting prisoners with objects including a truncheon, wire and a phosphorescent tube, and a female prisoner having her clothing forcibly removed to expose her breasts.[36] Taguba supported United States President Barack Obama's decision not to release the photos, stating, "These pictures show torture, abuse, rape and every indecency."[36] Obama, who initially agreed to release the photographs, later changed his mind, as he believed their release would put troops in danger and "inflame anti-American public opinion".[36]

In other instances of sexual abuse, soldiers were found to have raped female inmates, and senior U.S. officials admitted that rape had taken place at Abu Ghraib.[38][39] Some of the women who had been raped became pregnant, and in some cases, were later killed by their family members in what were thought to be instances of honor killing.[40] In addition, children were raped in front of watching women.[41]

Edited 9/11/2016 18:53:18

Eh what you described isn't Clinton's policy but the american foreign policy as a hole. Ever since WW2 the US has been doing this shit, it's not like Clinton is inventing anything new...

About conventional warfare, the US wins any war for sure and could crush any army in the world. The big problem comes with unconventional warfare (guerillas, terrorism and nuclear conflicts). Although I do not doubt America could also win any of these, the methods recquired for doing so would be inhuman and cost millions if not billions (for nuclear) of human lives.

Eh what you described isn't Clinton's policy but the american foreign policy as a hole. Ever since WW2 the US has been doing this shit, it's not like Clinton is inventing anything new...

All presidents have their own twist on foreign policy, F.E, Obama was a bit more apprehensive on intervention. Also, when the majority of candidates are not hawks, it defintely counts as a larger hit against her than normal.

How much hawkishness makes a hawk?

Hawk: a warmonger.

uh, they both are, by quite a big margin.

The US occupied the south while bombing the North, Cambodia and Laos(and occasionally invading those countries). After a very large bombing campaign, there was a two year peace and then the North invaded the South, then fought China over some stuff in Cambodia.

Ok, point still stands.

Mmm, lasted until 1913.

1913...back when heroin was still legal in all Europe and America, and when racism was official policy and common...more than 100 years ago...before even the Genève or even the (started before) Haag regulations were written.

Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse

Mm, I forgot about that one. But does it qualify as bulk rape? ~7500 folk were held in the gaol when it was under American controle, and most were crimes, either believed to be crimes. While many these gaolers may have been put in arbitrarily (and that's unacceptable), there's plenty of other real crimes. This could and was streteched to be as "retaliation".

This isn't like the flood of Americans in Okinawa or Operation Polo, where homes were broken into, folk were killed on the street, and anyone was raped.

majority of candidates are not hawks

what? Donald Trump may say that Hilary Clinton is getting into too many wars and that she's a horrible politician and he's going to stop that, but if you look at what he actually proposes, he's for more concrete warmongering than Clinton.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/9/hillary-clinton-threatens-war-enforce-iran-deal/

Yeah, I saw something like this, too, but then read another article in 2016 saying that Clinton changed her policy to that. Get me 2016 that says something like that.

Hawk: a warmonger.

uh, they both are, by quite a big margin.

What wars is he starting or wants to start? The US gov is already fighting ISIS

Mm, I forgot about that one. But does it qualify as bulk rape?

Yes. Lots of folk getting raped is bulk rape.

~7500 folk were held in the gaol when it was under American controle, and most were crimes, either believed to be crimes.

Three kinds of folk were held here: Regular criminals(who should not be raped, beaten and tortured), leaders of terrorist cells (the smallest section, who still should be given a fair trial and not raped) and folk who committed crimes against the occupation troops (frankly, the person is exercising just force if they rob or attack a occupying soldier). None of whom should be raped.

This could and was streteched to be as "retaliation".

If someone from another neighborhood robbed me, does that justify me kidnapping a family from that neighborhood, waterboarding the husband and raping the child in front of the wife?

what? Donald Trump may say that Hilary Clinton is getting into too many wars and that she's a horrible politician and he's going to stop that, but if you look at what he actually proposes, he's for more concrete warmongering than Clinton.

I've looked at Trump and he's for one war: War against ISIS. Clinton is for three wars at least: War with ISIS, War with Syria, War with Russia in Ukraine. So 3 non-hawks, and one hawk, I.E a majority are not hawks.

Yeah, I saw something like this, too, but then read another article in 2016 saying that Clinton changed her policy to that. Get me 2016 that says something like that.

Hitler said he would not attack Stalin.