Which of these two statements about foreign policy do you agree with more?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 06:03:11 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Which of these two statements about foreign policy do you agree with more?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Ur chose
#1
Statement 1
 
#2
Statement 2
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 47

Author Topic: Which of these two statements about foreign policy do you agree with more?  (Read 2095 times)
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,181
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 02, 2015, 03:00:16 PM »

I think this is quite interesting in that it kind of cuts across idealogical grounds. Obviously most people would choose a compromise in practice, but I'm just curious to see what people think is a better aim.

Statement 1:

I support Realpolitik - the main purpose of foreign policy should be the pragmatic advance of the nation's interests and aims, rather than on explicit ideological grounds. Allies should be chosen for reasons of strategy rather than their sociopolitical/economic stances.

Examples: Dom Mintoff of Malta, Henry Kissinger, Ottoman von Bismarck, Lee Kuan Yew.

Statement 2:

I support a foreign policy based on ideals. My nation, even if it is not in explicit economic interest, should act in accordance with a certain ideological ideal. To that end, it should ally with those coinciding with this ideal, oppose those who deviate from it and avoid double standards where possible

Example: George W Bush, most neocons, liberal interventionists, and Trotskyites,
Logged
Chunk Yogurt for President!
CELTICEMPIRE
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,235
Georgia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 02, 2015, 03:47:48 PM »

Option 1 would lead to less bloodshed.
Logged
Yelnoc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,127
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 02, 2015, 04:06:53 PM »

Option 1 would lead to less bloodshed.

Why is that? Realpolitik concerns prompted the development of the Central and Entente alliances.

Crab, I cannot think of an example in which ideology was ever completely removed from the equation. The way states and their leaders frame "the nation's interests and aims" inevitable occurs through an ideological filter. Bismarck's Realpolitik operated to unify the Germanies into a Prussian-led Empire and sought to position that Empire atop Europe. That aim of national predominance is absolutely ideological. So too were Kissinger's diplomatic gymnastics, designed as they were to maintain US hegemony in an environment of multiple crises.

"Realism" in international relations theory aggravates me in the same way that people describing their beliefs as "rational" drives me up a wall. Advocates of a particular theory of statecraft, a theory naturally built on an underlying set of assumptions which can be traced to a particular ideology, have cornered the market on a word which suggests that all alternatives are "unrealistic." In the same way, people who describe their beliefs as "rational" imply that anyone who disagree within is irrational, or in other words, insane.

A much more intriguing question would be, "which ideological assumptions should form the basis of [US] foreign policy?" Then we could really figure out what people believe.
Logged
Chunk Yogurt for President!
CELTICEMPIRE
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,235
Georgia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 02, 2015, 04:27:53 PM »

Option 1 would lead to less bloodshed.

Why is that? Realpolitik concerns prompted the development of the Central and Entente alliances.

Crab, I cannot think of an example in which ideology was ever completely removed from the equation. The way states and their leaders frame "the nation's interests and aims" inevitable occurs through an ideological filter. Bismarck's Realpolitik operated to unify the Germanies into a Prussian-led Empire and sought to position that Empire atop Europe. That aim of national predominance is absolutely ideological. So too were Kissinger's diplomatic gymnastics, designed as they were to maintain US hegemony in an environment of multiple crises.

"Realism" in international relations theory aggravates me in the same way that people describing their beliefs as "rational" drives me up a wall. Advocates of a particular theory of statecraft, a theory naturally built on an underlying set of assumptions which can be traced to a particular ideology, have cornered the market on a word which suggests that all alternatives are "unrealistic." In the same way, people who describe their beliefs as "rational" imply that anyone who disagree within is irrational, or in other words, insane.

A much more intriguing question would be, "which ideological assumptions should form the basis of [US] foreign policy?" Then we could really figure out what people believe.

Realpolitik would probably mean that America wouldn't do nation building in the Middle East.  Spreading Democracy should never be part of our foreign policy.
Logged
Yelnoc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,127
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 02, 2015, 04:46:25 PM »

Option 1 would lead to less bloodshed.

Why is that? Realpolitik concerns prompted the development of the Central and Entente alliances.

Crab, I cannot think of an example in which ideology was ever completely removed from the equation. The way states and their leaders frame "the nation's interests and aims" inevitable occurs through an ideological filter. Bismarck's Realpolitik operated to unify the Germanies into a Prussian-led Empire and sought to position that Empire atop Europe. That aim of national predominance is absolutely ideological. So too were Kissinger's diplomatic gymnastics, designed as they were to maintain US hegemony in an environment of multiple crises.

"Realism" in international relations theory aggravates me in the same way that people describing their beliefs as "rational" drives me up a wall. Advocates of a particular theory of statecraft, a theory naturally built on an underlying set of assumptions which can be traced to a particular ideology, have cornered the market on a word which suggests that all alternatives are "unrealistic." In the same way, people who describe their beliefs as "rational" imply that anyone who disagree within is irrational, or in other words, insane.

A much more intriguing question would be, "which ideological assumptions should form the basis of [US] foreign policy?" Then we could really figure out what people believe.

Realpolitik would probably mean that America wouldn't do nation building in the Middle East.  Spreading Democracy should never be part of our foreign policy.

Are you a robot?
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,181
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 02, 2015, 04:54:03 PM »

Yelnoc. I think it comes down to a utilitarian vs deontology all perspective to foreign policy. Of course Bismarck et al. had an idealogical aim, but the steps to achieve that aim was up in the air. Similarly Nixonian policy wanted to isolate the Soviets, but not through some idealogical opposition to communist parties (see:China) but through the "pragmatic" desire to increase the US's global power to further the ultimate aim. I think that's a direct contrast to Reaganesque policy, where the enemy was not just a rival but "evil" and Bush-era machinations about 'axis of evil'.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,260


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 02, 2015, 04:55:15 PM »

Statement 1
Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,026
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 02, 2015, 06:02:15 PM »

Both. Be realistic and pragmatic in advancing the respect of human rights and democracy throughout the world.
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,585
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 02, 2015, 06:04:34 PM »
« Edited: October 02, 2015, 06:08:50 PM by DavidB. »

2. While being a realist when it comes to analyzing foreign policy and international relations, I don't think this should be something prescriptive. A country should hold its values and its ideals dear, domestically as wel as internationally. That being said, there should always be a balance, for a country cannot afford a policy too ideological, without taking into account its interests.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 02, 2015, 06:12:53 PM »

Both. Be realistic and pragmatic in advancing the respect of human rights and democracy throughout the world.

Sounds like a sensible approach. It should always be a mix, but preferably with a strong element of idealism.
Logged
Goldwater
Republitarian
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,039
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 02, 2015, 07:49:17 PM »

While balance is good, I think should err to the side of the second statement.
Logged
Intell
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,817
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: -6.71, S: -1.24

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: October 02, 2015, 07:58:25 PM »
« Edited: October 02, 2015, 08:35:19 PM by Intell »

Statement 2 always, ideals beat pragmatism.

Edit: I also doubt neo-cons are option 2, neo-libreals in foreign policy probably are.
Logged
SWE
SomebodyWhoExists
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,220
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: October 02, 2015, 08:03:10 PM »

Option 1 would lead to less bloodshed.
I doubt the United States following a "pragmatic" policy of propping up murderous dictators when it's in their strategic interests to do so (i.e. Pinochet, Suharto, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, the Saudi Royal Family, Apartheid South Africa, Ngo Dinh Diem, the Shah of Iran, etc.) is going to result in any less bloodshed than "idealistic" nation building.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,891
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: October 02, 2015, 09:58:57 PM »

2, obviously.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,991
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: October 02, 2015, 11:10:03 PM »

I agree with the majority here, for the reasons given.
Logged
Chunk Yogurt for President!
CELTICEMPIRE
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,235
Georgia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: October 02, 2015, 11:15:22 PM »

Option 1 would lead to less bloodshed.
I doubt the United States following a "pragmatic" policy of propping up murderous dictators when it's in their strategic interests to do so (i.e. Pinochet, Suharto, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, the Saudi Royal Family, Apartheid South Africa, Ngo Dinh Diem, the Shah of Iran, etc.) is going to result in any less bloodshed than "idealistic" nation building.

Most of America's interventions in the last 25 years didn't involve American interests.
Logged
SATW
SunriseAroundTheWorld
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,463
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: October 03, 2015, 12:36:05 AM »

Option 2.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,260


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: October 03, 2015, 12:37:49 AM »
« Edited: October 03, 2015, 12:43:06 AM by Moderate Hero Republican »

Option one has a better proven track  record of success. We teamed up with Stalin's USSR to take down Nazi Germany and the USSR clearly  didnt match out ideal but it was in our best interest to do so, and then we armed the mujahdeen who didnt share our ideals but was in our interests as it bankrupted the Soviet Union. Option 2 was tried with Iraq and Libya with Saddam Hussain(Who also kept Iran at bay) who didnt match our ideals and were  horrible horrible tyrants but the were enemies to radical militant Islamist groups but since we removed them groups ISIS have taken those places over and have created choas.

If we want to stop ISIS we need to work with Syria and Iran as they are ISIS's two biggest enemies .  Of Course this may mean angering Saudi Arabia(who by the way are more Fundamentalist then either of these countries) but they are part of the problem as they funded these groups as they thought they could weaken Iran and Syria to such points which allows Saudi Arabia to sweep in and put Saudi puppets in charge of Iran and Syria in charge.
Logged
Zioneer
PioneerProgress
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,451
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: October 03, 2015, 01:36:49 AM »

Realpolitik, but with more emphasis on the long term and on satisfying the domestic opponents of a given ally so that when things inevitably go wrong for said ally, not everything is lost.
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,038
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: October 03, 2015, 08:28:17 AM »

Sentiment 2 easily.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: October 03, 2015, 09:07:13 AM »

In reality I think the answer is "both" but since I always try to respond to topic questions in good faith I'll say 2. But even so I think the only reasonable response is a mix of the two depending on circumstances.
Logged
The Last Northerner
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 503


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: October 03, 2015, 09:44:35 AM »

Option 1 for reasons Zioneer and Moderate Hero Republican stated. I generally dislike foreign intervention but Bismark's rationale for war was a lot better and successful than the likes of Dubya and Cheney.

I also blame idealism for the horrors of Iraq and Viet Nam.
Logged
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,948
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: October 03, 2015, 02:22:10 PM »

Option 1 for reasons Zioneer and Moderate Hero Republican stated. I generally dislike foreign intervention but Bismark's rationale for war was a lot better and successful than the likes of Dubya and Cheney.

I also blame idealism for the horrors of Iraq and Viet Nam.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.056 seconds with 14 queries.