Which candidate would be best on foreign policy and why.

[°Leprechaun]

I like Chafee because he talks about peace. I think that foreign policy is much more important than social issues and who gets to appoint Supreme Court members.
War is good for nothing. We don't need candidates who support going to war for foolish reasons or who are opposed to reasonable defense cuts especially wasteful defense spending.
If we are going to cut out waste, why not start with the defense budget.
Why should the US be the policemen of the world?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Foreign policy can be, erm, pretty profitable. Not entirely moral of course, but playing the world's policeman can be quite lucrative if you play your cards right. Of course, America is suffering intensely because a lot of cards (mostly under the reign of Bush) have been played entirely wrong since the propaganda win that was the end of the Cold War.

Anyway, nobody would be very good on foreign policy. Obama has been relatively decent - perhaps as decent as a POtUS can be on the issue - but I trust no candidate of either party to make a remotely coherent message on the issue. No wonder the Democrats are heading to familiar terrain like domestic issues.

[°Leprechaun]

Foreign policy can be, erm, pretty profitable. Not entirely moral of course, but playing the world's policeman can be quite lucrative if you play your cards right. Of course, America is suffering intensely because a lot of cards (mostly under the reign of Bush) have been played entirely wrong since the propaganda win that was the end of the Cold War.

Anyway, nobody would be very good on foreign policy. Obama has been relatively decent - perhaps as decent as a POtUS can be on the issue - but I trust no candidate of either party to make a remotely coherent message on the issue. No wonder the Democrats are heading to familiar terrain like domestic issues.

Unfortunately you are right in all of this. Peace is not a popular position at this point in world history.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I'm not opposed to intervention by any standards. Indeed there are many occasions where the world has simply ignored tragedy - Rwanda being the most obvious, and one of the darker stains on the Clinton administration. I don't accept that very Trot opinion that contemporary world politics is merely the bogeyman imperialist America and her pawns (NATO, the GCC, Japan, S. Korea, Australia) undermining the practically inert victims of Russia, China and Iran. I think America is, or at least has the potential to be, a force for good. It fought the greatest evil the twentieth century has known after all, and even though the Cold War took America down some dark paths in Latin America, SE Asia, South Africa and the Middle East, it was undoubtedly the moral of the two opposing sides. But post-Cold War America's overall "mission" has been largely disjointed. Syria and Iraq are basically two all-encompassing sources of eggs on Western faces. America is led around by its nationalistic and self-interested allies across the globe (it makes me laugh at the idea of the U.S. being some master puppet master - it's more like a dogwalker with far too many dogs)


I'll admit a lot of the Pentagon budget can be shredded off the bat. The nuclear arms program could easily be downsized for one (why the U.S. continues to have ICMB's I'll never know).

[°Leprechaun]

I'm not opposed to intervention by any standards. Indeed there are many occasions where the world has simply ignored tragedy - Rwanda being the most obvious, and one of the darker stains on the Clinton administration. I don't accept that very Trot opinion that contemporary world politics is merely the bogeyman imperialist America and her pawns (NATO, the GCC, Japan, S. Korea, Australia) undermining the practically inert victims of Russia, China and Iran. I think America is, or at least has the potential to be, a force for good. It fought the greatest evil the twentieth century has known after all, and even though the Cold War took America down some dark paths in Latin America, SE Asia, South Africa and the Middle East, it was undoubtedly the moral of the two opposing sides. But post-Cold War America's overall "mission" has been largely disjointed. Syria and Iraq are basically two all-encompassing sources of eggs on Western faces. America is led around by its nationalistic and self-interested allies across the globe (it makes me laugh at the idea of the U.S. being some master puppet master - it's more like a dogwalker with far too many dogs)


I'll admit a lot of the Pentagon budget can be shredded off the bat. The nuclear arms program could easily be downsized for one (why the U.S. continues to have ICMB's I'll never know).

While I don't know if there are ever times when I could support war at all, I do appreciate the fact that some positions, like yours, are closer to mine than the insanity of some people who lean toward a more aggressive and even perhaps nationalistic type of foreign policy. Call me an idealist, but more co-operation with other nations and less rigid ideology should be the basis for foreign policy. World government isn't coming any time soon and it probably wouldn't work anyway at this point in our history given the diametrically opposing philosophies of so many nations, but it seems to me that making an argument based on erring on the side of peace is more tenable than one erring on the side of war.

[Maxwell]

Any of the Democrats and Rand Paul are basically the only options for a realistic and non-nuclear holocaust foreign policy.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I support cooperation, but at what point does "cooperation" become "coddling"? True, America does look the other way at its allies' indiscretions as realpolitik demands, but at some level you have to have a moral dimension to foreign policy, otherwise you end up with Henry Kissinger.

[°Leprechaun]

I support cooperation, but at what point does "cooperation" become "coddling"? True, America does look the other way at its allies' indiscretions as realpolitik demands, but at some level you have to have a moral dimension to foreign policy, otherwise you end up with Henry Kissinger.

I think it is a question of attitude and how far you are willing to go for peace.
I think the point is that narrow self interest or rigid ideology needs to be avoided. The cost of war is high, both in lives and in money. The money could be better spent on other things. The amount of money spent by the US seems ridiculous and I am sure there is a lot of waste, as well.

[ElectionsGuy]

Rand Paul. He doesn't support the mindless 'the enemy of our enemy is our friend' foreign policy of the other Republicans, actually cares about the constitutionality of wars, is open to diplomacy, and understands that most foreign aid is a waste. No other candidate, not even Bernie Sanders, has all of those traits.

Any of the Democrats and Rand Paul are basically the only options for a realistic and non-nuclear holocaust foreign policy.

Hillary Clinton??

[Green Line]

Lindsey Graham, but he's not a realistic option.  So Christie/Rubio

[Maxwell]

Rand Paul. He doesn't support the mindless 'the enemy of our enemy is our friend' foreign policy of the other Republicans, actually cares about the constitutionality of wars, is open to diplomacy, and understands that most foreign aid is a waste. No other candidate, not even Bernie Sanders, has all of those traits.

Any of the Democrats and Rand Paul are basically the only options for a realistic and non-nuclear holocaust foreign policy.

Hillary Clinton??

Hillary Clinton is obviously much farther to the right on foreign policy than I'd like her to be, but I'd place her just short of any non-Paul GOPer, and just short of nuclear holocaust.

[Mercenary]

Paul, which is the main reason I support him since foreign policy is the most important issue for a president. Most of the candidates, especially on the GOP side seem to have war fantasies.

[Lief 🗽]

Clinton, of course. The Middle-East would be much better off today if Obama had listened to her on Syria.

[Crumpets]

My answer's probably obvious, but I'll put some numbers behind it so it's not pure hackery:

As Secretary of State, she helped restore the US's credibility abroad. Between 2008 (the last year of the Bush presidency) to 2012 (Hillary's last full year as SoS) the favorability rating of the US went up 13 points in Canada, 7 points in the UK, 27 points in France, 21 points in Germany, 2 points in China, 12 points in South Africa, and 19 points in Mexico.
http://www.pewglobal.org/database/

She launched the Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative, which so far has been a resounding success. This will probably do a lot more good for the world than it will receive credit for, simply because food security isn't as "sexy" of an issue as things like war and trade, but this is big.
http://www.feedthefuture.gov/progress

She helped save a historic treaty between Turkey and Armenia.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/10/10/clinton-helps-save-historic-turkey-armenia-accord.html

Unlike Biden, Hillary supported the raid on the Bin Laden compound.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/joe-biden-bin-laden-raid-defense-hillary-clinton-2016-campaign-121779

And as Senator, she was able to move 80,000 reserve soldiers fighting in multiple deployments in Iraq to the regular Army to ensure they received full care and benefits.
The Buffalo News. July 14th, 2007

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Out of the non-Paul GOP candidates, probably Kasich.

Kasich is the most open-minded.  That he supports the Iran deal makes him look better to me.

[Brewer]

My answer's probably obvious, but I'll put some numbers behind it so it's not pure hackery:

As Secretary of State, she helped restore the US's credibility abroad. Between 2008 (the last year of the Bush presidency) to 2012 (Hillary's last full year as SoS) the favorability rating of the US went up 13 points in Canada, 7 points in the UK, 27 points in France, 21 points in Germany, 2 points in China, 12 points in South Africa, and 19 points in Mexico.
http://www.pewglobal.org/database/

She launched the Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative, which so far has been a resounding success. This will probably do a lot more good for the world than it will receive credit for, simply because food security isn't as "sexy" of an issue as things like war and trade, but this is big.
http://www.feedthefuture.gov/progress

She helped save a historic treaty between Turkey and Armenia.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/10/10/clinton-helps-save-historic-turkey-armenia-accord.html

Unlike Biden, Hillary supported the raid on the Bin Laden compound.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/joe-biden-bin-laden-raid-defense-hillary-clinton-2016-campaign-121779

And as Senator, she was able to move 80,000 reserve soldiers fighting in multiple deployments in Iraq to the regular Army to ensure they received full care and benefits.
The Buffalo News. July 14th, 2007

But Iraq!!!!!!!1!1!

[angus]

Which candidate would be best on foreign policy and why.

Rand Paul on foreign policy.

Mostly for the reasons you suggest, but I'd add to that: "...you know, the 50-year embargo on Cuba hasn't worked... I mean, it punishes the people more than the regime..."

(Okay, ophthalmologists are busy people and probably don't have time to develop superb writing and grammar skills, but you get the point.)

[bagelman]

Kaisch seems to be the least dogmatic on FP.

[NeverAgain]

C'mon. Let's go with rational diplomacy and go Bernie. He has 25 years of experience in helping American diplomacy abroad.

[Kingpoleon]

Kaisch seems to be the least dogmatic on FP.

A present-day Nelson Rockefeller, if you will.

He has a good eighteen years on the Foreign Relations Committee. Good questioner.

In fact, he has more foreign policy experience than any President since George H. W. Bush.

[VPH]

Jim Webb (minus on Iran). He has the experience, he's been anti war for a long time, he knows what we need to do to counter China

[Cory]

Lindsey Graham minus the anti-Iran deal nonsense.

[Crumpets]

My answer's probably obvious, but I'll put some numbers behind it so it's not pure hackery:

As Secretary of State, she helped restore the US's credibility abroad. Between 2008 (the last year of the Bush presidency) to 2012 (Hillary's last full year as SoS) the favorability rating of the US went up 13 points in Canada, 7 points in the UK, 27 points in France, 21 points in Germany, 2 points in China, 12 points in South Africa, and 19 points in Mexico.
http://www.pewglobal.org/database/

She launched the Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative, which so far has been a resounding success. This will probably do a lot more good for the world than it will receive credit for, simply because food security isn't as "sexy" of an issue as things like war and trade, but this is big.
http://www.feedthefuture.gov/progress

She helped save a historic treaty between Turkey and Armenia.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/10/10/clinton-helps-save-historic-turkey-armenia-accord.html

Unlike Biden, Hillary supported the raid on the Bin Laden compound.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/joe-biden-bin-laden-raid-defense-hillary-clinton-2016-campaign-121779

And as Senator, she was able to move 80,000 reserve soldiers fighting in multiple deployments in Iraq to the regular Army to ensure they received full care and benefits.
The Buffalo News. July 14th, 2007

Just thought of two more to add:

She oversaw the normalization of relations with Burma.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-16554415

And she is one of the most traveled diplomats in US history, visiting 112 countries as SoS.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2012/0905/Hillary-Clinton-vs.-Condi-Rice-Who-gets-the-most-traveled-crown

[OSR stands with Israel]

Kasich(Believes in Reagan's Peace through Strength and not Cheney's "Peace through war" foreign policy)

[Clark Kent]

Marco Rubio