Alf's view was a cut and paste article from the Washington Post.
The race as you say is Clinton v Trump. If you think Clinton is not a menace to the Middle East situation refer back to when she was Secretary of State and William Hague was our Foreign Secretary.
I'm not sure which aspects you are referring to specifically.
A broad, and somewhat critical, interview with Robert Gates on her hawkish tendencies: http://swampland.time.com/2014/01/14/hillary-clintons-unapologetically-hawkish-record-faces-2016-test/
It's not clear however to what extent his views may be biased, however.
Here's an article that I found to be a fairly balanced view of the intervention in Libya: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/07/libya-intervention-daalder_n_6809756.html
In a Sky TV programme on Hillary, one commentator stated that the US election wasn't really about who people wanted the most, but about who they disliked the least. That's quite probably true, but then it often is.http://news.sky.com/video/the-hillary-clinton-problem-10512717
On the other hand, her hawkish tendencies appear to be within the context of military intervention, but also diplomacy and support for local development, particularly the education and empowerment of women, as a longer-term force for stability.
Whatever one thinks of her track record (and no one will agree with everything), she does have political and diplomatic experience... and a brain.
On the other side, I haven't been able to find a reasoned explanation so far of why a number of people believe Trump to be the best option as president of one of the world's most powerful nations.