- 18 Mar 2018 21:43
#14897726
To not refer to anyone as a foreigner, or immigrant or refugee. I'd even consider not calling anyone an American or Russian
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods
Dave wrote:Realpolitik
[1] The purpose of our foreign policy should simply be to maximize our security, power, and wealth.
[2] The USA has pursued a foreign policy directly opposite of those aims since the mid-1930s.
[3] As I've grown older I've become very skeptical of military aggression, as even if our assaults on foreign countries were carried out in the national interest (they're not) the theoretical benefits are almost never worth the cost.
How would you describe your foreign policy philosophy?
mikema63 wrote:What foreign policy philosophy do you subscribe to and how would you describe it?
Saeko wrote:Conquer the world.
Dave wrote:
Realpolitik
The purpose of our foreign policy should simply be to maximize our security, power, and wealth.
The USA has pursued a foreign policy directly opposite of those aims since the mid-1930s.
As I've grown older I've become very skeptical of military aggression, as even if our assaults on foreign countries were carried out in the national interest (they're not) the theoretical benefits are almost never worth the cost.
hartmut wrote:First point should be peace, by what means ever.
As it's absence is growingly risky in modern times of accelerating technical potential for killing human fellow members .
(Even a complete wipe out is possible since about 50 years, … a short time after two unprecedented World Wars.)
Secondly we should enhance UN, not neglecting her authority, but developing that permanent global interchange of interests, which could be crucial in upcoming time.
A bad thing to do, would be a elusive belligerent policy of national strength by a major power.
About that.
mikema63 wrote:What foreign policy philosophy do you subscribe to and how would you describe it?
Politics_Observer wrote:My foreign policy if I were somebody in power for the United States would be a policy of having a strong military while preventing the costs of war. Having a strong military is essential for deterrence and the prevention of the astronomical costs of war. However, our military should not be used for misguided adventurism. Military might should only be used as an absolute last resort and only used to protect only our vital interests. Another aspect of our foreign policy I would want is a policy of multilateralism if military might is required as an absolute last resort to safeguard our vital interests.
Multilateralism where we receive assistance from our allies helps to spread the costs of war to our allies instead of us shouldering the costs all alone. That of course means, we will be required to assist our allies if they need protection or help from our military in return, but I would insist on our allies to only use military might as only an absolute last resort and only when it is truly necessary. Part of our vital interests is safeguarding our commitments to our allies so they will be there for us too. I would want allies who understand the importance of preventing the costs of war and view the use of military might as only an absolute last resort and only when vital interests are at stake.
Politics_Observer wrote:My foreign policy if I were somebody in power for the United States would be a policy of having a strong military while preventing the costs of war. Having a strong military is essential for deterrence and the prevention of the astronomical costs of war. However, our military should not be used for misguided adventurism. Military might should only be used as an absolute last resort and only used to protect only our vital interests. Another aspect of our foreign policy I would want is a policy of multilateralism if military might is required as an absolute last resort to safeguard our vital interests.
Multilateralism where we receive assistance from our allies helps to spread the costs of war to our allies instead of us shouldering the costs all alone. That of course means, we will be required to assist our allies if they need protection or help from our military in return, but I would insist on our allies to only use military might as only an absolute last resort and only when it is truly necessary. Part of our vital interests is safeguarding our commitments to our allies so they will be there for us too. I would want allies who understand the importance of preventing the costs of war and view the use of military might as only an absolute last resort and only when vital interests are at stake.
Political Interest wrote:The zero sum game approach needs to end. Life is not a zero sum game.
Politics_Observer wrote:It could also be "Asian pride" but this sort of pride is very dangerous when nuclear weapons become involved and could quite literally lead to the end of all of mankind globally.
I think the current Chinese political leadership might under-estimate this reality and how dangerous that really is.
You didn't watch the video I posted earlier which[…]
“Whenever the government provides opportunities […]
The GOP is pretty much the anti-democracy party a[…]
I just read a few satires by Juvenal, and I still[…]