I don’t want to talk about Donald Trump. I’m tired of hearing about Donald Trump. I don’t care what he said 10 years ago or 10 seconds ago. “We need to go after their families” and “use nuclear weapons” are the ramblings of a drunk man in a bar trying to get high fives from his buddies, not a serious foreign policy prescription of any kind.

His words are not important to me because he’s not going to be president. This article is not designed to “change your vote,” because your individual vote in Hawaii is not going to affect the outcome of this particular presidential election (or, arguably, any presidential election). I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Hillary Clinton will be our next president.

Which is why I’m so concerned about her insane foreign policy that nobody seems to care about. Just last week, Clinton reiterated her support for a no-fly zone in Syria. For those of you who don’t know what a “no-fly zone” is, it basically means that she wants to shoot down airplanes in Syria. Which airplanes? Russian airplanes.

For some background, Russia and Syria have been allies more or less since World War II. There are over 30,000 Russian citizens living in Syria. Russia maintains several bases in Syria, including a large permanent naval facility in Tartus and an airbase in Palmyra hosting several dozen Russian aircraft.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has recently sent the Northern Fleet to the region — including the nuclear-powered battlecruiser Pyotr Velikiy (Peter the Great) and the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov — in order to support the Syrian government’s campaign against ISIS and Al Qaeda-backed rebels.

I can’t even begin to relate to you how catastrophic an American-imposed “no-fly zone” in Syria would be.  As an analogy, imagine if Russia suddenly decided to support, arm, train and fund Muslim terrorists and rebel groups in Israel who were determined to overthrow the Israeli government and create an Islamic caliphate in it’s place. Imagine if, when the government was about to fall, America intervened to stop the terrorists from taking over the entire country.

Now imagine if America actively joined in the fight to push the terrorists back to their last major city stronghold in the country. And in the midst of all of this, Putin then declared that any U.S. planes that fly over that city are going to be shot down. Would any reasonable person suggest this to be anything other than pure madness? What kind of lunatic would threaten to shoot down allied airplanes in a country where the lunatic’s forces aren’t even welcome in the first place?

The current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff stated in no uncertain terms that controlling Syrian airspace would require us to go to war with both Syria and Russia.

And yet, this scenario accurately describes Clinton’s foreign policy position on Syria. Hillary is the only presidential candidate calling for a no-fly zone in Syria. In the last presidential debate, Trump accurately criticized her foreign policy in regards to the Aleppo question, but this received scant media attention.

When Clinton criticized Trump’s position on allowing Syrian refugees into the country, Trump correctly pointed out that it was the same kind of “regime change” policy that she supports, which helped lead to the refugee crisis in the first place! This is Clinton’s “Aleppo moment,” which the media largely ignores.

One would be hard pressed to find a war in recent memory that Clinton has not enthusiastically supported.

She supported “regime change” in Iraq and refused to join with half of her Democratic colleagues to vote no (including both Hawaii Senators). She has expressed support for a war with Iran.

She supported “regime change” in Honduras and continues to defend it to this day. She played a decisive role in the rape of Libya — or as the Washington foreign policy apparatchik would say, “regime change” in Libya —  a decision that both the then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Defense Secretary opposed because they knew it to be based on false reports (just like Iraq).

Indeed, leaked tapes reveal that the Pentagon engaged in “unprecedented” secret negotiations with Gaddafi’s regime in a last-ditch effort to prevent a catastrophe, but they were unsuccessful, as Clinton caught wind of it and abruptly ended the talks. Ultimately, she was able to convince President Obama to support the “no fly zone” (war) in Libya.

Both officials have since been replaced, but they were right, and Libya was an unmitigated disaster. The  country is now overrun by terrorist organizations and Islamic fundamentalists. President Obama has since stated that Libya was the “biggest regret” of his entire presidency, whereas Clinton believes it was “smart power at its best.”

If ever there were a stark contrast between the two, it is over interventionism in the Middle East. Even President Obama, who has bombed seven countries during his presidency, looks dovish compared to Hillary Clinton. She was described as a “neoconservative” and an unapologetic “war hawk” by several journalists on both the left and right. Worst of all, leaked emails show Clinton knew all along that this was not a “humanitarian” intervention, but rather, a throwback to French colonialism and Western imperialism — gold, oil, money and power.

Although Clinton’s well-greased political machine has placed immense pressure on everyone in Washington to fall in line, President Obama has thus far resisted growing calls for a Syrian no-fly zone, calling the idea “half-baked.” Clinton herself admitted in a leaked speech to Goldman Sach’s executives that a no-fly zone “would kill a lot of Syrians.”

The current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff stated in no uncertain terms that controlling Syrian airspace would require us to go to war with both Syria and Russia. The previous chairman stated it would require 70,000 U.S. troops to execute.

Intelligence Director James Clapper has said that Russia would shoot down American planes if they were to attack Russian planes or ground forces. He also noted the recent deployment of the highly mobile Russian S-300 and S-400 anti-aircraft batteries in Syria, which he described as “very advanced” and “very capable.” For all intents and purposes, a “no fly zone” in Syria means war with Russia.

Politically, Putin has no incentive to walk away from Syria. Aside from economic and military ties to the Assad regime, Putin has also vowed to protect Christians around the world, and domestically this is seen as him delivering on that promise. ISIS has already executed, crucified, and tortured thousands of Christians in Syria, and the terrorists have more than decimated the Christian population in Iraq.

In the case of Syria, this is not a situation where Putin can be intimidated by military and political posturing. Putin is “all-in” on Syria in the same way that we are “all-in” if our NATO allies are attacked. Is it wise to call Russia’s bluff? What should we expect from Putin when our president is threatening to kill Russians? Is Putin not, as president of the Russian Federation, expected to do everything he can to protect the lives and livelihood of his people?

Anyone concerned with peace and avoiding a potential nuclear war should be worried about the grave threat to humanity that is posed by Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy, and in particular, her “no-fly zone” in Syria. The media has remained silent on this issue due to their obsession with Trump and his reality television antics. Our own congresswoman and veteran, Tulsi Gabbard, appears to be the leading voice against Syrian intervention in Congress.

For your sake and for our children’s sake, all Hawaii and the world must join together to oppose intervention in Syria.  The future of this planet may depend on it.