Hawks And Doves

[FairBol]

Which one are you, would you say? Traditionally, I'm a bit more hawkish....but I call myself an "eagle", because I want to do whatever is best for the country. 

[TheSaint250]

Dove. War, unless absolutely necessary, is horrible.

[Kingpoleon]

I am a Scowcroft-Powell-Rice realist. I definitely lean more towards being a dove in principle, though.

[Tekken_Guy]

I'm on the hawkish side. I feel we need a strong foreign policy focused on defending Israel and eliminating ISIS. Domestic problems are my main concern.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

It's not a particularly useful way of distinguishing foreign policies.

[Kingpoleon]

It's not a particularly useful way of distinguishing foreign policies.

Mainly because no one in the mainstream openly calls themselves a dove.

[Crumpets]

More hawkish than the average Dem but more dovish than the average voter.

[Cashew]

It's not a particularly useful way of distinguishing foreign policies.

I support hawkishness for people with views like myself and favor dovishness for everybody else.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It's not a particularly useful way of distinguishing foreign policies.

This. I'm basically a Wilsonian internationalist hack tbh.

[SATW]

I'm a foreign policy hawk, for sure, but my views come in different shades of hawk.

My foreign policy views breakdown into three categories, pretty much:

1. Maintaining American influence/dominance on the international stage: I believe American exceptionalism is a real thing and that America's involvement in international affairs is a major benefit to us and the world. This includes being active at the UN, NATO, OAS and other international organizations (examples include combating UN corruption, calling out human rights abuses like Venezuela at the OAS, and promoting the idea of a strong, united and proportionally funded NATO*). We should cherish our seat on the UN Security Council, it is a great deal of power that we need to use to create net positive situations in the world.

* By this I mean promoting the idea that all NATO countries should contribute more to the institution but also realizing that America should have a leading role in funding the organization as it benefits us, in terms of influence and national security, to do so.

Also, I think the U.S. Constitution is a solid model for countries seeking to become more democratic and free. Our 1st amendment protections make us one of the most pro-free speech countries in the world.

2. Maintaining American alliances and reevaluating bad alliances: America has an obligation to maintain and strengthen it's alliances. These alliances are national security interests for our country and also creates goodwill for us abroad. We can maintain and support these alliances by increasing military aid and non-military foreign aid to our most important allies. We should seek to increase defense cooperation w/ these allies, as well, and have strong cybersecurity/intelligence relationships w/ certain countries.

Like many hawks, I also believe that the U.S. has no obligation to be "neutral or impartial" in terms of conflicts and certain international situations.

Allies I think we should continue to strongly support and align with: Canada, UK, Israel, Italy, France, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Azerbaijan, Taiwan, the Kurds, Czech Republic, Egypt, Saudi Arabia etc...

Alliances we need to reevaluate: Turkey, Pakistan, Qatar, the Philippines etc...

3. Protecting American foreign policy and national security interests, via fighting against terrorism and other threats: I am most hawkish on fighting against terrorism, protecting the American people, opposing dictatorships militarily and financially and protecting American interests abroad from these threats.

This includes opposing countries like Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, and to a slightly lesser extent, Russia. This also includes supporting American allies in their attempts to fight against these same threats.

[Mr. Smith]

To use Adventure Time for just a moment, SunriseAroundTheWorld and America are Princess Bubblegum, many other nations are Flame Princess....I am in agreement with Flame Princess.

[SATW]

To use Adventure Time for just a moment, SunriseAroundTheWorld and America are Princess Bubblegum, many other nations are Flame Princess....I am in agreement with Flame Princess.

lmaoo best analogy ever

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

It's not a particularly useful way of distinguishing foreign policies.

Rather like defining oneself primarily as in support of "big"/"small" government.

[Lumine]

Hawk. Not to "General Ripper" levels, but still pretty hawkish (in a Chilean context, this is focused on Bolivia).

[Santander]

Imperialist.

[The Govanah Jake]

Dove. War, unless absolutely necessary, is horrible.

[Goldwater]

It's not a particularly useful way of distinguishing foreign policies.

This. I'm basically a Wilsonian internationalist hack tbh.

Apparently this is the one political area we agree on.

[°Leprechaun]

I am 100% pacifist, unlike most Democrats and Republicans.

Pro-war = anti-life.

[Lechasseur]

It's not a particularly useful way of distinguishing foreign policies.

[Beet]

I only support war if the United States or a treaty ally has been attacked, or if there is an ongoing or imminent genocide/mass slaughter of civilians and intervention would be not costly in comparison to the lives saved. I could be persuaded to support war if there is attempted conquest of the territory of a UN member state, ala Kuwait 1990. But other than that I resolutely oppose war, and I oppose war between nuclear states above all. Apparently that makes me a big dove.

[°Leprechaun]

I only support war if the United States or a treaty ally has been attacked, or if there is an ongoing or imminent genocide/mass slaughter of civilians and intervention would be not costly in comparison to the lives saved. I could be persuaded to support war if there is attempted conquest of the territory of a UN member state, ala Kuwait 1990. But other than that I resolutely oppose war, and I oppose war between nuclear states above all. Apparently that makes me a big dove.

Nuclear weapons are disgraceful waste of money.

[RINO Tom]

I'll play along with the binary choice and say, "Hawk."

[ApatheticAustrian]

It's not a particularly useful way of distinguishing foreign policies.

This. I'm basically a Wilsonian internationalist hack tbh.

this

especially post 2013.

[Zioneer]

I consider myself fairly hawkish, though it depends on the conflict. Throwing America's weight around is different than pure military action. You can be aggressive and decisive without boots on the ground or drones in the air.

[Cactus Jack]

I tend to lean more hawkish than most of my Bernie-backing kinfolk. The barely-excused wars we've been stuck in since Vietnam have been unspeakably terrible, and in no universe do we need upwards of $700 billion worth of defense spending, but we need to keep our guard up and be a good ally.

In other words: the last thing I want is to go to war with Russia or North Korea, but under no circumstances can we allow ourselves to become their gimps.