Posted by
arandomguy on Wednesday, November 01, 2006 11:05:49 AM
Hillary Clinton has come out and announced what her program for foreign policy is. I think it's clear at this point that she intends to run in 2008 (Lord help us). But what's more important, are the serious flaws in her foreign policy plan, which would have us engage in diplomatic, bilateral talks with enemy nations, and seek the "international community's" support in most of our actions.
"First, and most obviously, we must by word and deed renew internationalism for a new century." She said in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations. My question is, wasn't "internationalism" the entire problem of the last century? When we try to do things internationally, we run into problems.
Internationalism was totally unable to stop the Cold War. The United States was largely responsible for eventually besting the Russian's, and leading to the downfall of the Soviet Union, and of communism across the globe.
Internationalism tried to appease Hitler. This was one of the singularly stupidest acts of the 20th century. The belief that people can simply give evil dictators what they want, and then be left alone is a ridiculous notion. It is still ridiculous, but most liberals think that if we only "talk" to them, everything will be alright.
I have news. It won't. Hitler wanted more, and he eventually started a war. Will Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong Il be any different? Of course not. They're dictators, and Ahmadinejad is virtually a clone of Hitler. If we appease them, they will ask (and get) more, and when that finally doesn't work, we will have empowered them so much that the war will be brutal, long, and extremely difficult.
Some things are meant to be international. Others are not, and foreign policy, under most circumstances, is qualified under the "not international" category.