Do you consider yourself as having a hawkish or dovish foreign policy?

[progressive85]

I'm a realist and I do not believe in appeasement or being blackmailed.  The United States, no matter what, cannot give in to blackmail or ransom or terrorist demands - that has to be the case because once you give into these people, they'll keep doing it.  You've got to either handle the situation carefully and save the hostages, or you have to just tell the terrorists "You will rue the day you kill them."

I believe in a tough shell but a soft heart... you've got to have a balance in foreign policy between doing what has to be done when you have to do it, without any qualms or reservations or pussy-footing or dilly-dallying... and then there are times when you can afford a little more time to craft a creative response to a crisis that will undermine the enemy and at the same time send a strong message to the rest of the world that you are not to be underestimated, that you will fight like hell and not give in or be afraid of any tyrannical government or foreign leader...

The U.S. must have a policy where human rights come before profits of individual American families or our upper class here, and I'm afraid in the Middle East, the Big Bucks have always been #1, and not liberating those people from hellish rule.

Afghanistan was not a waste of time, it was not a waste of blood - because the mission is not yet completed, and we are not going to be better off by walking away, so on that I am proud to be a "warmonger" if that's what I'd be called because I do not believe in softness with the Taliban... these people are dangerous, they need to be wiped out or nuked NOW, and I said that on Reddit and I stand by it.  Our men and women here can finish the job - let us save those people in Afghanistan.... it should have been done yesterday.... we must move fast!