What Role(s) Should the USA Play on the International Stage?

It would be interesting to see what DP posters think might be the appropriate role(s) for the USA to play at the international level in the future. Weighing the costs and benefits of any role should be considered in posting. It might also be informative if posters included whether they live within the USA or whether they live outside the USA. So an American citizen living in Mexico would be outside and a Vietnamese citizen living in America would be inside.

Here is a partial list of roles but please feel free to add to or ignore the list.

1. Sole Global Military Superpower and Hegemon.
2. World Cop and Peace Enforcer.
3. Peaceful Mediator and Arbitrator of International Disputes.
4. Regional or Hemispheric Military Hegemon.
5. Just a Another Country in the International Community.
6. A Centre for Promoting Free-Market Capitalism and Democracy by Peaceful Means.
7. A Centre for Promoting Free-Market Capitalism and Democracy by All Means Necessary.
8. A Neo-Colonial Hinterland of a Global Corporate Empire of Commerce and Finance.
9. A Centre of Learning, Invention and Innovation that Draws the Best And Brightest from Around the Globe.
10. An Isolationist Regional Superpower with Limited Internation Commitments.
11. A Hermit Nation which Excludes itself as Much as Possible from International Entanglements.
12. A Generator of Instability and War/Conflict which Drives Arms and Munitions Production and Profits from Reconstruction.

I am from outside the USA and I would like to see the US gravitate towards numbers 3, 6, 8 and 9 on the list eventually, but I'm aware that might be unrealistic given the role it's playing internationally now. What say you? Feel free to copy and add to the list in future posts. Feel free to ignore items but please, for the sake of a standard numeration, don't delete items from copied lists. Please add any commentary you wish.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Evilroddy said:

It would be interesting to see what DP posters think might be the appropriate role(s) for the USA to play at the international level in the future. Weighing the costs and benefits of any role should be considered in posting. It might also be informative if posters included whether they live within the USA or whether they live outside the USA. So an American citizen living in Mexico would be outside and a Vietnamese citizen living in America would be inside.

Here is a partial list of roles but please feel free to add to or ignore the list.

1. Sole Global Military Superpower and Hegemon.
2. World Cop and Peace Enforcer.
3. Peaceful Mediator and Arbitrator of International Disputes.
4. Regional or Hemispheric Military Hegemon.
5. Just a Another Country in the International Community.
6. A Centre for Promoting Free-Market Capitalism and Democracy by Peaceful Means.
7. A Centre for Promoting Free-Market Capitalism and Democracy by All Means Necessary.
8. A Neo-Colonial Hinterland of a Global Corporate Empire of Commerce and Finance.
9. A Centre of Learning, Invention and Innovation that Draws the Best And Brightest from Around the Globe.
10. An Isolationist Regional Superpower with Limited Internation Commitments.
11. A Hermit Nation which Excludes itself as Much as Possible from International Entanglements.
12. A Generator of Instability and War/Conflict which Drives Arms and Munitions Production and Profits from Reconstruction.

I am from outside the USA and I would like to see the US gravitate towards numbers 3,6 and 8 on the list eventually, but I'm aware that might be unrealistic given the role it's playing internationally now. What say you? Feel free to copy and add to the list in future posts. Feel free to ignore items but please, for the sake of a standard numeration, don't delete items from copied lists. Please add any commentary you wish.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

Impartial mediator (maybe not even that). That's it.

We aren't and should not be the world's policeman.

I don't advocate a hermit nation either. We should actively pursue our national goals on the international stage, with the idea "America First."

Captain Adverse said:

Impartial mediator (maybe not even that). That's it.

We aren't and should not be the world's policeman.

Click to expand...

Captain Adverse:

Wow, that was so fast you copied me before I got finished editing. How about in terms of commerce and trade, self-sufficient or internationally connected and inter-dependent?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Evilroddy said:

It would be interesting to see what DP posters think might be the appropriate role(s) for the USA to play at the international level in the future. Weighing the costs and benefits of any role should be considered in posting. It might also be informative if posters included whether they live within the USA or whether they live outside the USA. So an American citizen living in Mexico would be outside and a Vietnamese citizen living in America would be inside.

Here is a partial list of roles but please feel free to add to or ignore the list.

1. Sole Global Military Superpower and Hegemon.
2. World Cop and Peace Enforcer.
3. Peaceful Mediator and Arbitrator of International Disputes.
4. Regional or Hemispheric Military Hegemon.
5. Just a Another Country in the International Community.
6. A Centre for Promoting Free-Market Capitalism and Democracy by Peaceful Means.
7. A Centre for Promoting Free-Market Capitalism and Democracy by All Means Necessary.
8. A Neo-Colonial Hinterland of a Global Corporate Empire of Commerce and Finance.
9. A Centre of Learning, Invention and Innovation that Draws the Best And Brightest from Around the Globe.
10. An Isolationist Regional Superpower with Limited Internation Commitments.
11. A Hermit Nation which Excludes itself as Much as Possible from International Entanglements.
12. A Generator of Instability and War/Conflict which Drives Arms and Munitions Production and Profits from Reconstruction.

I am from outside the USA and I would like to see the US gravitate towards numbers 3, 6, 8 and 9 on the list eventually, but I'm aware that might be unrealistic given the role it's playing internationally now. What say you? Feel free to copy and add to the list in future posts. Feel free to ignore items but please, for the sake of a standard numeration, don't delete items from copied lists. Please add any commentary you wish.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

3, 5, 9 would suit me just fine. Rampant Capitlalism and Corporatism just ruin the Planet.
/

Crap!

#8 should not be one of my choices. I deleted one of the list items but forgot to delete the number, Apologies for the confusion.

Cheers and sheepish looks.
Evilroddy.

American guy in America here. I like the sound of #6, but unless we fix our own internal issues, the best we'll be able to manage is #7, assuming our efforts don't turn into #8.

We're at #1 for now, but we've ended up being #12 on and off again for decades. The world would be fortunate indeed to have us as #3, but will almost certainly end up settling for #2 if we try going that route.

#5 and #11 are both asking for trouble from China and Russia, although I'd be damn heppy if we got to the point where we could take a breat from guarding everywhere.

I believe we're headed towards #4, but that depends as much on China and Russia as it does us. #6 is my ideal future for America.

I like 3, 5, and especially 9. I'm outside the U.S. (Saskatoon, Canada) Advocacy of the free market and democracy should be the choice of sovereign nations.

1,2,3,&4 give the USA the brightest future for its people.

chuckiechan said:

1,2,3,&4 give the USA the brightest future for its people.

Click to expand...

chuckiechan:

Bright as in promising or bright as in thermonuclear explosions? The world is changing from what it was in 1945 or 1991.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Captain Adverse said:

Impartial mediator (maybe not even that). That's it.

We aren't and should not be the world's policeman.

I don't advocate a hermit nation either. We should actively pursue our national goals on the international stage, with the idea "America First."

Click to expand...

But what does "America First" actually mean, being tough but fair when pursuing interests or actively trying to screw over other countries in trade talks?

Does Trump want an actual fair deal between the US, Canada and Mexico in NAFTA talks or does he want some one sided deal that Canada and Mexico would not see in as being in their interests? The US can and should, consider other countries' interests when pursuing its own, but because often an outcome that leads to both sides being happy is the best.

Evilroddy said:

Captain Adverse:

Wow, that was so fast you copied me before I got finished editing. How about in terms of commerce and trade, self-sufficient or internationally connected and inter-dependent?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

We should be self-sufficient in areas where we have the internal resources to be, and involved in fair international trade where we don't control sufficient resources to be independent.

Yes_Minister said:

But what does "America First" actually mean, being tough but fair when pursuing interests or actively trying to screw over other countries in trade talks?

Does Trump want an actual fair deal between the US, Canada and Mexico in NAFTA talks or does he want some one sided deal that Canada and Mexico would not see in as being in their interests? The US can and should, consider other countries' interests when pursuing its own, but because often an outcome that leads to both sides being happy is the best.

Click to expand...

What Trump wants is not a question posed by this thread, it is about what each DP member thinks American diplomacy should be about.

So I'll answer your basic question as one regardless of who is at the helm of government.

America First means placing our interests first, and negotiating the best deal with other nations to achieve OUR interests in the most advantageous way. It is up to the representatives of other nations to strive equally for their own.

Captain Adverse said:

We should be self-sufficient in areas where we have the internal resources to be, and involved in fair international trade where we don't control sufficient resources to be independent.



What Trump wants is not a question posed by this thread, it is about what each DP member thinks American diplomacy should be about.

So I'll answer your basic question as one regardless of who is at the helm of government.

America First means placing our interests first, and negotiating the best deal with other nations to achieve OUR interests in the most advantageous way. It is up to the representatives of other nations to strive equally for their own.

Click to expand...

But America First is a phrase Trump has popularized, so when you use it, its fair to mention him.

Also if globalism is bad and its every country for themselves, doesn't lead to a return to the 1930s, where strong countries will dominate weaker countries and there is nothing the weaker countries can do about it?

Should the US just be belligerent in all trade talks and threaten massive tariffs if it doesn't get a totally one sided deal? The US never try to compromise and find common ground in trade talks? Do you think the US would be better off without easy access to Canada's energy resources?

Really someone who always puts their own interests above others and never considers other people's interests, is generally thought be a psychopath in a civil society.

Yes_Minister said:

1. But America First is a phrase Trump has popularized, so when you use it, its fair to mention him.

2. Also if globalism is bad and its every country for themselves, doesn't lead to a return to the 1930s, where strong countries will dominate weaker countries and there is nothing the weaker countries can do about it?

3. Should the US just be belligerent in all trade talks and threaten massive tariffs if it doesn't get a totally one sided deal? The US never try to compromise and find common ground in trade talks? Do you think the US would be better off without easy access to Canada's energy resources?

4. Really someone who always puts their own interests above others and never considers other people's interests, is generally thought be a psychopath in a civil society.

Click to expand...

1. The phrase "America First" did not originate with Donald Trump. Do some research.

2. Fallacy of appeal to consequences.

3. Complex question fallacies.

4. Moralistic fallacy.

See my tagline. :coffeepap:

Captain Adverse said:

1. The phrase "America First" did not originate with Donald Trump. Do some research.

2. Fallacy of appeal to consequences.

3. Complex question fallacies.

4. Assertion based on an appeal to popularity.

See my tagline. :coffeepap:

Click to expand...

I said popularized the phrase, not coined it, I know the phrase started before that.

I am just asking about consequences of this world view and where it could lead, if you are going to ignore me because of that, it just seems like you don't want your world view to be challenged.

I support an economic and humanitarian role. No one nation is the global police and fire department. Regional hegemons are going to have to invest more in stabilizing their regions. The US would have a proper role in working with Mexico to address the drug gang problem, for example.

Over the course of several decades post WWII the US has taken the initiative to be the world’s policeman, judge, and jury. The US has supported dictators, questionable & rogue regimes, involved itself with the overthrow of governments & assassinations, and we have either initiated, or participated in wars that were completely unnecessary. Via these actions the US now finds itself, hated by much of the world.

Instead of running around the globe for decades inserting ourselves into everyone else’s business, telling others how to act, or what to do, the US could have utilized all of that energy, and effort into building up our own nation, from within. If the US would have gone that route the US would currently be one of the most respected nations on the planet. We however failed to do that, and now the US is one of the most hated nations on the planet because so many see the US as nothing more than a big bully.

IMO it is too late for the US to now go forward in any legitimate attempt to be seen as the ‘good guy.’ We made our own bed within the eyes of the international community, and we now have to live with that fact. The US will now have to live with the reality of constantly being on the defensive, and to continue furthering the concept of preemptive military actions around the globe in an effort to do nothing more than to survive as a nation.

The US failed to live up to its own founding ideals. The positive windows of opportunity for the US have been closed, and we did that to ourselves.

Evilroddy said:

It would be interesting to see what DP posters think might be the appropriate role(s) for the USA to play at the international level in the future. Weighing the costs and benefits of any role should be considered in posting. It might also be informative if posters included whether they live within the USA or whether they live outside the USA. So an American citizen living in Mexico would be outside and a Vietnamese citizen living in America would be inside.

Here is a partial list of roles but please feel free to add to or ignore the list.

1. Sole Global Military Superpower and Hegemon.
2. World Cop and Peace Enforcer.
3. Peaceful Mediator and Arbitrator of International Disputes.
4. Regional or Hemispheric Military Hegemon.
5. Just a Another Country in the International Community.
6. A Centre for Promoting Free-Market Capitalism and Democracy by Peaceful Means.
7. A Centre for Promoting Free-Market Capitalism and Democracy by All Means Necessary.
8. A Neo-Colonial Hinterland of a Global Corporate Empire of Commerce and Finance.
9. A Centre of Learning, Invention and Innovation that Draws the Best And Brightest from Around the Globe.
10. An Isolationist Regional Superpower with Limited Internation Commitments.
11. A Hermit Nation which Excludes itself as Much as Possible from International Entanglements.
12. A Generator of Instability and War/Conflict which Drives Arms and Munitions Production and Profits from Reconstruction.

I am from outside the USA and I would like to see the US gravitate towards numbers 3, 6, 8 and 9 on the list eventually, but I'm aware that might be unrealistic given the role it's playing internationally now. What say you? Feel free to copy and add to the list in future posts. Feel free to ignore items but please, for the sake of a standard numeration, don't delete items from copied lists. Please add any commentary you wish.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

With all due respect, NONE. Not until you get your **** together.

Evilroddy said:

[*]A Centre for Promoting Free-Market Capitalism and Democracy by All Means Necessary.

Click to expand...

Democracy - yes. Free-Market Capitalism - no, thanks, keep it to yourself.

artursk said:

Democracy - yes. Free-Market Capitalism - no, thanks, keep it to yourself.

Click to expand...

artursk:

See post #5 please. I foolishly made an error in numeration and corrected it in that follow-on post.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Evilroddy said:

artursk:

See post #5 please. I foolishly made an error in numeration and corrected it in that follow-on post.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

Hmm, your post #5 talks about item #8 whilst I am talking about the item #7.

artursk said:

Hmm, your post #5 talks about item #8 whilst I am talking about the item #7.

Click to expand...

artursk:

Oh. OK. Fair enough. I misunderstood you. My bad. Sorry for wasting your time.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.