Quote:
What aspect of their foreign policy are you speaking of?
Preemption?
Unilateralism?
Treaty Abandonment?
Bribery (Uzbekistan)
Failed bribery (Turkey)
Finger pointing (UK and Uranium claims)
Strategic abandonment (Aghanistan)
Quagmirism (Iraq)
Ignorification (All of Africa)
Nuclear redherringism (Iraq vs. North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan)
Blind eyeism (Pakistan's Nuclear blackmarket leadership
|
I respect the hard-line stance now. We can't afford to continue pussyfooting in foreign policy if we want to ensure that the world is safe for our way of life. If mere multilateral negotiations and weak diplomacy (the prevailing "wisdom" of most Democrats) actually
worked, then 9/11 would never have happened. The solution to terrorism obviously isn't going to be doing the same things that failed in the past.
As for the list.. Well, preemption is not a bad idea in and of itself, actually. If regimes refuse to comply with mandates to disarm and/or stop harboring terrorists, then they must be forcibly removed. As for the decision to act "unilaterally," well.. we haven't really
lost allies, have we? There are some tensions with France, Germany, and Russia, but ties aren't completely broken. If America senses a threat, it can't wait forever for a few malcontent "allies" (France is most definitely a grudging ally) and the ineffectual United Nations to give their blessing.
And Iraq is not a "quagmire," despite how desperately the hard left wants it to be. It is not a "Vietnam" or even a "Lebanon." We are having difficulties in Fallujah, which is what was expected to happen, since it has always been a center of the most reactionary elements of Iraqi society. The vast majority of the country is firmly behind the idea of democracy.
All this being said, Bush has made many mistakes (your list) with this new approach, and I'm not denying that. I'm merely saying that the general idea is the right one.
Threaded Mode
