Your Foreign Policy

[vcczar]

New poll

[vcczar]

I would seek to suspend or lower aid to nations with humanitarian violations, but I’d have to consider the impact of that. Typically, when we break off relationships with a nation China fills the vacuum. I’d have to balance my humanitarian policy without making China significantly stronger. 

[WVProgressive]

Kill the bastards.

In all seriousness, I tried to be as realistic as possible, and in an ideal world I would've chosen to be more aggressive with India, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia as well, but unfortunately we need to play nice with bad countries in order to counter even worse countries. It's hard for me to answer the second question since I'd prefer to do any foreign aid decision on a case-by-case basis, rather than eliminate all of one category. Question Seven was also a bit difficult, I definitely lean more towards what you call 'Jingoism', but if I were President I'd likely be forced to adopt something closer to Hegemony or Status Quo since Americans are so squeamish about actually using the military we spend so much on.

[The Blood]

33 minutes ago, WVProgressive said:

Kill the bastards.

 

WVP's foreign policy:

 

 

[vcczar]

33 minutes ago, WVProgressive said:

Kill the bastards.

In all seriousness, I tried to be as realistic as possible, and in an ideal world I would've chosen to be more aggressive with India, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia as well, but unfortunately we need to play nice with bad countries in order to counter even worse countries. It's hard for me to answer the second question since I'd prefer to do any foreign aid decision on a case-by-case basis, rather than eliminate all of one category. Question Seven was also a bit difficult, I definitely lean more towards what you call 'Jingoism', but if I were President I'd likely be forced to adopt something closer to Hegemony or Status Quo since Americans are so squeamish about actually using the military we spend so much on.

I'm curious what your reason would be for Jingoism. To me, it seems like one of the most senseless options, most likely because I'm not a nationalist and think the world would be better off as a single humanitarian-focused world government. 

[DakotaHale]

1. Venezuela, China, Russia only. Cuba is actually a strategic ally in modern geopolitics. Iran, Syria, and NK are possible but I don't consider them threats. Nicaragua may be an option but wasn't there.
2. Human rights violations and high tariffs. But I'd end high import tariffs on our side.
3. Maintain relationships with allies in the Indo-Pacific. SEATO failed because we don't have the same cultural ties as we do with NATO/EU and planning coups is unrealistic drags us into war. Maintain the status quo and metaphorically starve China out with their reliance on foreign goods and demographic problems. Strangle China by investing in domestic manufacturing and signing trade deals with their trading partners.
4. No
5. No this would cause too much suffering and displacement, maybe an exception for Tibet.
6. China easily. Russia is a regional partner at this point, but would likely become a global power if they win Ukraine.
7. Status-quo. But realpolitik specifically.

[Pringles]

28 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I'm curious what your reason would be for Jingoism. To me, it seems like one of the most senseless options, most likely because I'm not a nationalist and think the world would be better off as a single humanitarian-focused world government. 

I don’t think one world government is achievable, at least not in a direct governing sense. However, I am an internationalist, and a globalist. And I do believe intertwining ourselves with other parts of the globe has long term benefits. However, I also believe in having to fight to achieve that. It’s naive to think it could just spring up from “humanitarian cooperation.” As many countries clearly are not willing to adopt such democratic ideas. 

[WVProgressive]

21 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I'm curious what your reason would be for Jingoism. To me, it seems like one of the most senseless options, most likely because I'm not a nationalist and think the world would be better off as a single humanitarian-focused world government. 

I find I have the same foreign policy ideals as Reagan, in that I believe that America has a moral obligation to actively, and aggressively spread, and defend Democracy, Capitalism, and Liberalism across the globe. That includes economic, or covert methods of course, but it also includes things like regime change wars when necessary. I'm not 'pro-war' but I am pro-freedom, and unfortunately war is sometimes the best way towards spreading the proper values, and beliefs. There's this, craven fear of death in America today that prevents us from truly being what the world needs us to be, it's the same cowardice that lost us Vietnam, and prevented us from finishing the job in Iraq, which is why I said I'd probably govern more in line with 'hegemony' instead of 'jingoism'. 

As to your second point, I consider myself a nationalist-globalist, the entire world should be America 😛

[DakotaHale]

22 minutes ago, Pringles said:

I don’t think one world government is achievable, at least not in a direct governing sense. However, I am an internationalist, and a globalist. And I do believe intertwining ourselves with other parts of the globe has long term benefits. However, I also believe in having to fight to achieve that. It’s naive to think it could just spring up from “humanitarian cooperation.” As many countries clearly are not willing to adopt such democratic ideas. 

I actually see the opposite happening in the next half-century. I see de-globalization becoming mainstream, with regional unions becoming more popular, domestic manufacturing returning, protectionism becoming mainstream again, and income inequality reducing on average. Not saying these are good or bad things, just what I envision happening. I think globalization has already peaked and we're entering another 50 years of regional power due to the pandemic, Trump's trade policy, war in Ukraine, and global supply chain issues being bad for a globalized economy.

[vcczar]

34 minutes ago, Pringles said:

I don’t think one world government is achievable

I don't think it's achievable yet. I'm thinking about 100 years in the future or so. 

[DakotaHale]

4 minutes ago, WVProgressive said:

I find I have the same foreign policy ideals as Reagan, in that I believe that America has a moral obligation to actively, and aggressively spread, and defend Democracy, Capitalism, and Liberalism across the globe. That includes economic, or covert methods of course, but it also includes things like regime change wars when necessary. I'm not 'pro-war' but I am pro-freedom, and unfortunately war is sometimes the best way towards spreading the proper values, and beliefs. There's this, craven fear of death in America today that prevents us from truly being what the world needs us to be, it's the same cowardice that lost us Vietnam, and prevented us from finishing the job in Iraq, which is why I said I'd probably govern more in line with 'hegemony' instead of 'jingoism'. 

As to your second point, I consider myself a nationalist-globalist, the entire world should be America 😛

We "lost" Vietnam because we attempted to train the South to fight the war themselves. The few times Americans did fight offensively, they had decent success. But if Americans went into war, it would have turned into another Korea, and tens of thousands (or more) of Americans would have died in Vietnam, just for a status quo agreement (at best; we would have been severely outmanned and in a war of attrition). The only way to "win" would have been if the South was able to do it, but they were too corrupt, inefficient, and unpopular with the populace to ever have any possibility of doing that themselves. It was an impossible war.

[Cenzonico]

An ideal America is one where we cut back on military spending and invest what's left of it into R&D. Then we just sell it to our allies and boom, glorified arms dealer. 

[jvikings1]

Monroe Doctrine. Anti-interventionism outside of our sphere. Greater intervention inside (especially when it comes to keeping communist-friendly governments out of the Americas).

[Rezi]

1. I would try to be neutral, but I'll be aggressive with nations that've been aggressive towards us.
2. I'll generally try to suspend aid to authoritarian nations and human rights violators, and allies that don't need any. But I don't want to set any hard limits for geopolitical reasons.
3. My resolution? Airstrikes. Bomb them. Bomb them, keep bombing them, bomb them again and again.
4. Nah, free trade is good for the economy
5. In theory it could work, but 3 nations in a freshly unstable situation having nukes is not ideal.
6. Russia has proved to not be a threat in any way but nuclear in the last year and a half.
7. Protect our allies, get new ones. Arsenal of Democracy.