Who is more of a warmonger?

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Graham, barely.

[DavidB.]

Graham prefers a strong America in order to prevent the world from becoming unstable. A strong America means fewer wars. Clinton, on the other hand, would continue Obama's ideological policy of aloofness and normalization of the relations with abnormal regimes, a policy that hurts America's allies, works to the benefit of America's enemies, and causes wars because the existing balance of power collapses. This makes Clinton the real warmonger.

[Maxwell]

Graham, easily. Let's not be stupid.

[Crumpets]

Obviously Lindsey Graham. The fact that Clinton is generally more accepting of going into war makes her more hawkish than many Democrats, but it almost seems like Lindsey Graham wants to get into any and every conflict he has ever heard of. He wants ground troops in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and maybe even places like Yemen, Libya, and Somalia. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if he even wanted us to send troops into Donbass at this point.

Hillary is moderately hawkish. Graham is a warmonger.

[Miles]

Graham, of course.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Graham prefers a strong America in order to prevent the world from becoming unstable. A strong America means fewer wars. Clinton, on the other hand, would continue Obama's ideological policy of aloofness and normalization of the relations with abnormal regimes, a policy that hurts America's allies, works to the benefit of America's enemies, and causes wars because the existing balance of power collapses. This makes Clinton the real warmonger.

If the US could ally with the USSR(who was more evil then any country today) in WW2 they certainly can ally with Iran to crush ISIS

[ScottieF]

What? Graham, this is a no-brainer.

[DavidB.]

If the US could ally with the USSR(who was more evil then any country today) in WW2 they certainly can ally with Iran to crush ISIS

Germany was an actual geopolitical threat, its attempts to take over Europe were initially successful. ISIS is doing bad things but it's not an actual geopolitical threat to the US: it's unlikely that they will be able to capture much more territory.

[OSR stands with Israel]

If the US could ally with the USSR(who was more evil then any country today) in WW2 they certainly can ally with Iran to crush ISIS

Germany was an actual geopolitical threat, its attempts to take over Europe were initially successful. ISIS is doing bad things but it's not an actual geopolitical threat to the US: it's unlikely that they will be able to capture much more territory.

Would you say agree if the US considers Iran an enemy they should not be allied with Saudi Arabia because they are much more extremist then Iran and probably fund more extremist groups then IRan.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Haha, Wulfric! I was going to use this to troll 6 months ago until Beet so conveniently made the comment that Paul was a bigger hawk than Hillary so I changed it to him!

Very happy this got made...obviously the entitled queen ironically is more bloodthirsty than the one nicknamed that.

[Crumpets]

Also, can you imagine what the Democratic debates would be like if Clinton brought up ISIL as much as Graham has done during the Republican debates?

[TDAS04]

Graham, easily. Let's not be stupid.

[Blair]

ah yeah Graham not's a warmonger because he'd sort out the worlds problems.

Peace is War

[ElectionsGuy]

Graham.

Graham prefers a strong America in order to prevent the world from becoming unstable. A strong America means fewer wars. Clinton, on the other hand, would continue Obama's ideological policy of aloofness and normalization of the relations with abnormal regimes, a policy that hurts America's allies, works to the benefit of America's enemies, and causes wars because the existing balance of power collapses. This makes Clinton the real warmonger.

No, strong nations are perfectly capable of participating in many wars in the delusion that they are 'defending the interests of [insert nation]" and "being a force of good (or freedom)". Wars make a country weaker, not stronger.