|
Hillary Clinton: We would be able to totally obliterate Iran Ah, more of the same: politicians acting like they know and understand history, the concept of liberty, or the role of government intended by the framers of the U.S. Constitution. Last month, Hillary Clinton made an enlightening statement about Iran on ABC's "Good Morning America." A brief look may be worth one's time. "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran [if it attacked Israel]," Clinton said. "In the next ten years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them." This statement is just one of the latest in a long string of similar statements designed to warn and intimidate Iran (not to mention prove to the American voter than Hillary can be as tough as any man?). And it's statements like hers that prove, once again, that when it comes to voting for a president, there isn't much difference between the new crop of hopefuls and any of the old ones. I guess I can understand the position that defending another sovereign nation is noble, is moral. That's one perception, and I can see where it comes from. We want to be the good guy, we want to see the world in black and white. Poor Israel is stuck out there in the middle of a sea of hostile states. We need to help her out, defend her. Or so the arguments go. My question is...why? Israel is loaded with nuclear firepower, and boasts a top-notch military feared throughout the region. Thus, in terms of the ability to defend herself against her enemies, Israel is more than capable. The U.S. government, however, insists on stepping into the middle anyway. Our leaders tell everyone else's leaders what to do. This is interesting, since our leaders tend to know very little about the region's history or cultures and rarely make accurate predications about what this move or that move might mean for the future. Perhaps power is too much fun not to use it as often as possible. So we "manage" Israel (even if the petulant child does forget itself from time to time), we give her money and weapons, we rattle our sabers in her defense. Meanwhile, we're giving millions and millions in "aid" to almost all of her worst enemies. We tell them what to do, too. Foreign interventionism makes so much sense, doesn't it? It's a winning strategy, really. All we have to do is make sure we are involved in every local conflict in the Middle East and we can make it all better. After all, that's what the Constitution calls for... ...Wait, no it doesn't. If we were to follow that antiquated sheet of paper, I guess we wouldn't be there, after all. Hillary Clinton certainly wouldn't come off sounding "tough" after uttering harsh words against Iran; on the contrary, she'd sound like a war-baiter. And so she should. Let these nations work out their own problems. That's not to say that individuals and non-governmental organizations can't be there striving to help out in whatever way they feel would be best. But to the Federal Government I say, along with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, among many others: "Please stay out of it!" This is unlikely to happen. I seems that whether McCain or Hillary or even Obama wins, a war with Iran is likely. Ah, more of the same indeed.
|