How would Hillary Clinton answer the following question?

[Vattel]

War is an extremely costly way to achieve benefits. To give an example, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the price tag for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will soon reach 2.4 trillion dollars. If one adds in the human costs in terms of injuries, death, PTSD, and so on, it seems obvious that alternative uses of the same resources, spent on healthcare or infrastructure or education or disaster relief, would almost always be a much more cost effective way for a nation like the United States to benefit its own citizens or the citizens of other nations. So my question is this: As a nation, have we been simply irrational in resorting so often to war?

I think she would bullshit a little to seem not too hawkish, and then she would go on being a tool of the MIC.

[Scuba]

1. Are the MIC owners who reaped that $2.4 trillion irrational?

Nope, just evil and greedy.

[KoKo]

2. Not irrational. Controlled and whipped into to Panic by Manipulation

of the Military, Industrial Complex that Eisenhower warned us of. Paid Generals and Security Consultants appearing on MSM without disclosure of their affiliations. Think Tanks and Weapons manufacters "Consultants" having major voices on C-Span, MSM and Radio to steer public opinion.

War on Whistleblowers and lack of funding for Independent News Media that can reach the Mainstream American. Even our Public Radio/TV now controlled by RW and Special Interest Money to manipulate. C-Span changed so that it doesn't even cover Peace and Climate Change Demonstrations in DC. (but, then it's funded by the all powerful Cable Companies).

Hillary will run as the more appealing Republican and use the First Female President as a draw to attract many...even crossing party lines. Her war policy would be the same as what we are seeing now. In fact since our new "endless war" carries into the next Presidency...Hillary would be a seamless change. What Republican would run on "Ending these Wars" because we are now in for the long haul. And, Hillary is very tied into MIC/Wall Street/"Humanitarian Aid for our Global Villages" that we need to plunder resources from before Russia and China get too much influence.

How we will pay for all this warring is a question, though. Where is the party difference on that?

[hifiguy]

3. Deceptively and untruthfully, of that much I am sure.

[rhett o rick]

4. I believe the decision to invade Iraq was the hubris that started the end of the

Great American Empire. The disastrous decision has done untold damage to millions in the Middle East and also this country. I don't see how we can recover. And yet those that are responsible are not only free, but free to speak on talk shows. And H. Clinton seems to have brushed it off and is running for the presidency. I see her decision as the audacity of aristocracy, the American Aristocracy.

[Nye Bevan]

5. I imagine her response would be much the same as Barack Obama's (nt)