Where are you on the hawk dove spectrum?

[DavidB.]

Voted 2, but definitely closer to 1 than 3.

This. But I'm also skeptical of interventionism in general.

[Classic Conservative]

Depends on who its against.

[Pyro]

No war but class war. No person should die in the name of war profiteering.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

4.5

[VPH]

4-I'm primarily a realist.

[tpfkaw]

3/not the right way to look at the issue

As Lenin said: "The whole question is - who will overtake whom?"

[ScottieF]

3.5

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

3.5

Non-interventionist.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Internationalist.

[Crumpets]

"Not the right way to look at the issue" (IR major)

[Figueira]

Not a helpful way to look at things IMO

[President Johnson]

In the middle. Prefer diplomacy but sometimes military action is needed.

[Boston Bread]

Definitely a 4

[Clark Kent]

Voted 2, but definitely closer to 1 than 3.

[politicallefty]

Probably around 3.5. I'm probably predominantly non-interventionist and I wouldn't call myself pacifist. I'd probably put myself somewhere on the left of a leftist realpolitik viewpoint.

[TNF]

Within the present context, I am a revolutionary defeatist. Every blow inflicted upon US imperialism is in some sense a victory for the international proletariat. Whenever the US puts its tentacles elsewhere on the planet, I root for whomever actively resists it imposing its will upon said region. For example, where I around during the Vietnam War, I wouldn't be so much in favor of unconditional peace as total victory by the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese armed forces, which (thankfully) ended up happening, in part aided by desertion and the collapse of morale among American draftees, who (rightfully) began to see the war for what it was - an attempt to prop up a neocolonial regime.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Please don't tell me that this means that you currently back ISIS?

[TNF]

Insofar as ISIS acts in a manner that impairs the ability of the US to execute it's will in the Middle East, yes. If the United States suffers enough defeats in the region at the hands of any of the powers involved (chiefly ISIS, of course), that might persuade the US ruling class to withdraw, which would on the whole be better for everyone involved. I'm not convinced that the prospect of the temporary victory of ISIS in the region is anywhere near as bad as the definitive victory of American imperialism and the subsequent remaking of the region in its own image.

Obviously I don't support any of the things that ISIS is doing politically (i.e. imposing fundamentalist Islam, etc.), but the primary conflict is between US imperialism and its opponents in the Middle East, and that's why I'm for the military defeat of the United States. The US losing would open up possibilities for radical change in both the Middle East (where ISIS would no longer be able to pose as the alternative) and the US (where the ruling class would be utterly discredited, opening up the possibility of change ala the tumult of the late 1960s-early 1970s).

[100% pro-life no matter what]

One, especially when domestic policy like surveillance is factored in (a staunch defender of the Patriot Act).

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

4.9

[Blair]

3; support air strikes in Syria, Libya and Iraq. I was rather vocal about getting rid of Assad early on, and seem to be the only uni student who supports some form of military action against ISIS (that's from across the spectrum)

[Sumner 1868]

5

[Enduro]

I would say I'm 4. Not pacifist, not isolationist, but

Non-interventionist.

[pho]

1