• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What is your politics?

What is your politics?

  • social conservative, economic liberal, internationalist foreign policy

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    30
Sometimes I think we'd do better to take Jefferson's advice and make like Switzerland used to be: a neutral who will gladly trade with anyone but who doesn't get involved in other nation's politics or wars.

I'm not convinced that it's even possible to be neutral and be involved in international trade at the same time. Switzerland can get away with it because it's so small, but we are an economic superpower and decisions we make regarding trade will affect the entire world.

I'm a bit fuzzy on my early-U.S. history but I believe that it was Jefferson's decisions regarding international trade that led to the War of 1812... if this is true it's pretty ironic. In any case, the guy certainly wasn't very effective in the area of foreign policy so I'm not sure taking his advice on it is such a great idea.
 
I'm not convinced that it's even possible to be neutral and be involved in international trade at the same time. Switzerland can get away with it because it's so small, but we are an economic superpower and decisions we make regarding trade will affect the entire world.

I'm a bit fuzzy on my early-U.S. history but I believe that it was Jefferson's decisions regarding international trade that led to the War of 1812... if this is true it's pretty ironic. In any case, the guy certainly wasn't very effective in the area of foreign policy so I'm not sure taking his advice on it is such a great idea.


:applaud

A well-made point sir.

You may be right. Given the fact that we export a lot, and import a huge amount, it may not be possible to avoid playing world-politics...since those politics can have a huge impact on our economy, and since our trade policies can have a huge impact on the world.

As it is though, we've made a lot of poor choices in international diplomacy and statesmanship over the last five decades... if we're going to play the game, we need to get a lot better at it. Also, if we're going to play that game, we'd better just accept the fact that sometimes we're going to have to go to war, not for some "noble cause", but to protect our own economic intrests...ie we might have to decide that "blood for oil" is not a dirty word.
 
You left out social liberal, economic conservative, "stay-out-of-other-countries'-business" foreign policy.;)

Thats right where I would fit in.
 
I'm an anti-federalist so none of the options apply to me accurately.

Basically, while many people are mentioning a non-interventionist foreign policy, I'm in favor of a non-interventionist domestic policy.
 
Last edited:
Also, if we're going to play that game, we'd better just accept the fact that sometimes we're going to have to go to war, not for some "noble cause", but to protect our own economic intrests...ie we might have to decide that "blood for oil" is not a dirty word.

Well, I've been there all along. Just think it's important to remember that if we're trading blood for oil, then the people giving their blood need to get a taste of the oil, too-- and we need to make sure it's the whole country profiting.
 
I am interested in breaking down the binary liberal-conservative split into more meaningful categories.

I selected social liberal, economic conservative, aggressive foreign policy.

I think that as long as it physically hurts no one else then a person should be able to do anything that they want to do.

I believe that "spending will fix our economy" is about as idiotic as teets on a boar hog. I believe that the government should spend only what is needed to be spent for absolute survival. Beyond that leave it up to the people and free market.

I believe that if we are going to go to war then everything and anything should be used in order to not only survive the war but also win it as quickly as possible with as little of our blood being spilt as possible. Even if it means using a nuke or two. That kind of agressiveness I think will deter anyone else from messing with us....at least until people forget and need to be reminded again.
 
This has been a great thread so far and I just want to thank everyone for their contributions and for not being an ideologue! Amazing how much interesting information can be exchanged when people aren't yelling at each other. I expect to be in disagreement in some areas with anyone I meet. That's not to say my views are out there on the fringe, but it's a healthy mixture. I expect the same for others, unless they are an ideologue. The proof is somewhat demonstrated by the spread of answers to this limited poll. I wish I had thought to add "non-interventionist foreign policy" and just dropped the social and economic classifications. Sorry about that.
 
Congratulations, you've created the most generic thread in the history of message boards. No easy task.
 
For what it's worth, the 4th selection from the top is most in line with the constitution.

You mean: social liberal, economic conservative, internationalist foreign policy? So, I have to ask, how does the constitution specify an internationalist foreign policy?
 
You mean: social liberal, economic conservative, internationalist foreign policy? So, I have to ask, how does the constitution specify an internationalist foreign policy?
It outlines a stance of non-interventionism. The foreign policy views described in the Constitution are very similar to those of Ron Paul.

It's too bad that view is outdated, being that our greatest threat is nuclear proliferation.
 
Last edited:
It outlines a stance of non-interventionism. The foreign policy views described in the Constitution are very similar to those of Ron Paul.

It's too bad that view is outdated, being that our greatest threat is nuclear proliferation.

I will generally concur with this. Much like liberals take the "general welfare" clause out of context....Hawks take the "provide for the national defense" out of context as well.

Nukes are the single most dangerous threat to Americans.

A nuke captured by terrorists, put in a connex and shipped into NY Harbor.

Our worst nightmare.
 
It outlines a stance of non-interventionism. The foreign policy views described in the Constitution are very similar to those of Ron Paul.

It's too bad that view is outdated, being that our greatest threat is nuclear proliferation.

I see. I have heard of this policy preference before. A quik websearch found Constitution Party Platform Policy:

"Europe has a set of primary interests, which have to us none, or very remote relation. Hence, she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collusions of her friendships or enmities. "Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?" (George Washington's Farewell Address)

"I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one] which ought to shape its administration,…peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Thomas Jefferson-First Inaugural Address. Bergh 3:321. (1801.)

"America has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when the conflict has been for principles to which she clings....She goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." (John Quincy Adams, Speech Delivered in Washington DC 04 July 1821)

"In the wars of European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy so to do....Our policy in regard to Europe...is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers..." (James Monroe, Monroe Doctrine)

I note that the Monroe Doctrine was all about intervening in Latin America, was it not?

These quotes specify an aversion to European entanglements, because "Hence, she [Europe] must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns". For reasons like you mention: nuclear proliferation, as well as economic concerns like access to oil and free shipping lanes, our interests are entwined with countries especially like the ME which impacts all three example reasons.

The Foreign Policy Agenda of the US Dept of State is:
to create a more secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community.
So from my perspective, and I could be forcing this a bit, is that we can assume an aggressive foreign policy to nation build and spread democracy, in geopolitically important areas like the ME, with countries that have the capacity for democracy, like Iraq. It is in our interests.

Would that not be inline with the constitution? Do you have a link which could explain this?
 
So from my perspective, and I could be forcing this a bit, is that we can assume an aggressive foreign policy to nation build and spread democracy, in geopolitically important areas like the ME, with countries that have the capacity for democracy, like Iraq. It is in our interests.

Would that not be inline with the constitution? Do you have a link which could explain this?

Ok, well why not Somalia? Sudan? What about Yemen?

Where does it end?

North Korea has an insane and rogue dictator WITH NUKES! Why not him?

We don't have enough troops for all of your plans, bro.
 
I see. I have heard of this policy preference before. A quik websearch found Constitution Party Platform Policy:



I note that the Monroe Doctrine was all about intervening in Latin America, was it not?

These quotes specify an aversion to European entanglements, because "Hence, she [Europe] must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns". For reasons like you mention: nuclear proliferation, as well as economic concerns like access to oil and free shipping lanes, our interests are entwined with countries especially like the ME which impacts all three example reasons.

The Foreign Policy Agenda of the US Dept of State is:

So from my perspective, and I could be forcing this a bit, is that we can assume an aggressive foreign policy to nation build and spread democracy, in geopolitically important areas like the ME, with countries that have the capacity for democracy, like Iraq. It is in our interests.

Would that not be inline with the constitution? Do you have a link which could explain this?
So from my perspective, and I could be forcing this a bit, is that we can assume an aggressive foreign policy to nation build and spread democracy, in geopolitically important areas like the ME, with countries that have the capacity for democracy, like Iraq. It is in our interests.

Would that not be inline with the constitution? Do you have a link which could explain this?
By your logic, the constitution's meaning can be defined by whoever is in power at any given time. This outlook requires a willful ignorance of the constitution. In the passage you just quoted, it states in no uncertain terms that America is to not concern itself with the affairs of others on the international stage.
__________________
 
By your logic, the constitution's meaning can be defined by whoever is in power at any given time. This outlook requires a willful ignorance of the constitution. In the passage you just quoted, it states in no uncertain terms that America is to not concern itself with the affairs of others on the international stage.
__________________

This is predicated on the fact that it is not in our interest. I am saying that the political well-being of the ME is in our economic and security interest.

Ok, at least George Washington said so, though not the others (I already pointed out where Monroe said one thing about Europe and did another regarding Latin America).

So where in the constitution does this get specified?
 
Last edited:
Ok, well why not Somalia? Sudan? What about Yemen?

Where does it end?

North Korea has an insane and rogue dictator WITH NUKES! Why not him?

We don't have enough troops for all of your plans, bro.

Somalia, Sudan and Yemen are not in geopolically important areas. North korea I am not sure about. I think it is better if China handles the situation, with our assistance.

We need lots of peacekeeping forces, both military and civilian, but we have to be sure to not overreach, like we are doing with Iraq and AFG together.
 
Somalia, Sudan and Yemen are not in geopolically important areas. North korea I am not sure about. I think it is better if China handles the situation, with our assistance.

We need lots of peacekeeping forces, both military and civilian, but we have to be sure to not overreach, like we are doing with Iraq and AFG together.

The Chinese are not going to help in NK. They will continue to prop up Kim, b/c if the country falls apart, they don't want all the refugees, which would be in the millions. So forget that.

I would argue Iraq wasn't geopolitically important. We already have over-reached. Are you still on active duty? I hope you are bearing the burden for everything that you are advocating.
 
This is predicated on the fact that it is not in our interest. I am saying that the political well-being of the ME is in our economic and security interest.

Ok, at least George Washington said so, though not the others (I already pointed out where Monroe said one thing about Europe and did another regarding Latin America).

So where in the constitution does this get specified?
That's the thing, though. The constitution clearly outlines what is in our best interest, at least according to the founding fathers. You quoted it a few posts earlier.
 
That's the thing, though. The constitution clearly outlines what is in our best interest, at least according to the founding fathers. You quoted it a few posts earlier.

I did? I quoted George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams and James Monroe, but not the Constitution itself. The thing is, interests change and policy needs to change with them.
 
I would argue Iraq wasn't geopolitically important. We already have over-reached. Are you still on active duty? I hope you are bearing the burden for everything that you are advocating.

Ok, I would argue that Iraq is definitely geopolitically important. It is the heart of the ME. It is the nexus where the major faultlines of the ME meet: Sunni/Shia, Persian/Arab, Arab/Kurd, Urban/Bedouin. It has a crapload of oil.

Why don't you think it is geopolitically important?

It also has capacity, with a high level of literacy and an established philosophy of democracy (the Quietist School of Ali Sistani).

We are definitely over-reaching. If we leave AFG, then it will be fine.

I am no longer on active duty. Last was 1990. Does this mean I am not allowed to have an opinion about their strategic use? I think not. They are doing a tremendous job!
 
Ok, I would argue that Iraq is definitely geopolitically important. It is the heart of the ME. It is the nexus where the major faultlines of the ME meet: Sunni/Shia, Persian/Arab, Arab/Kurd, Urban/Bedouin. It has a crapload of oil.

I think with our without our intervention, Iraq will be the same it would have been in 10 years.

Why don't you think it is geopolitically important?

Sorry, not worth 4K soldier's lives. Now we've overcommitted our forces and basically given Iran a proxy government in Iraq. Bad move. Iran always was and is more dangerous than Saddam.

We are definitely over-reaching. If we leave AFG, then it will be fine.

We won't and the problem will continue for a long time.

Does this mean I am not allowed to have an opinion about their strategic use? I think not.

You are advocating risk that you are not willing to take yourself for objectives not in the interest of national defense.

They are doing a tremendous job!

Of course. Soldiers follow orders, regardless of whether we agree with them or believe in them.
 
I think with our without our intervention, Iraq will be the same it would have been in 10 years.

Without our help, Iraq was going to magically disband their Sunni Army and reconstruct an ethnically balance force, introduce an NCO corps, introduce provential governments, revamp it's entire federal government to a democracy? In 10 years? Not in 50 years. We did it.

Sorry, not worth 4K soldier's lives. Now we've overcommitted our forces and basically given Iran a proxy government in Iraq. Bad move. Iran always was and is more dangerous than Saddam.

In Vietnam we lost some 58,000 soldiers, I think. Worth it? I don't think so.
In WW2 we stopped aggressors and spread democracy. We lost some 292,000 soldiers. Worth it? I do think so.
In Iraq we are spreading democracy and shut down a tyrant and an aggressor. We've lost some 4,000 soldiers. A very small number compared to other conflicts. Saddened by their loss. But worth it? I definitely think so, and I hope all active soldiers feel the same way.

You are advocating risk that you are not willing to take yourself for objectives not in the interest of national defense.

I tried to re-up but they said I had to pass the PT test again. At 41, I am not in that kind of shape anymore. I wanted to go into Intelligence, since COIN is an Intelligence war. Maybe learn Arabic. Saabah al Khair.

Anyone that talks about putting troops in harms way is advocating risk. All that should be asked is that the objectives be in the country's interest, though not necesarily in the interest of national defense. Transforming Iraq into a democracy is in the country's interest.

It is in our interest for more than just internally seeing Iraq a democracy, and getting rid of Saddam. It is the impact Iraq will have regionally that makes it particularly geopolitically important. We see some of what is happening in Iran recently. Basically a power struggle between groups of clerics. This is because of Iran. So not only is Iran influencing events in Iraq, but Iraq is influencing events in Iran. It is the Quietist School gaining influence in Qom.

Of course. Soldiers follow orders, regardless of whether we agree with them or believe in them.

I would hope that enough perspectives of the world are discussed with soldiers, so that they can find that belief. Are you active? Are you in or heading to Iraq or AFG? Your service means a lot to me. At least some brave men and women are willing to serve.

Afghanistan worries me. Iraq is doing well, I think. Waiting for negotiations to complete on the election law regarding Kirkuk and the "Open Lists".
 
Without our help, Iraq was going to magically disband their Sunni Army and reconstruct an ethnically balance force,

Not really. The BNs are still relatively ethnic. Particularly the police. When I was an advisor to the IA, my BN was about 40% Kurd, 15% Turkomen and the rest Arab. However, because of the geographical location, most of the non-Kurds were "Kurdified", if you get my drift. My BN was an exception, most are exclusively ethnic.

introduce an NCO corps,

Uhhhhh...I wouldn't put to much stock in that

introduce provential governments, revamp it's entire federal government to a democracy?

We allowed the power-grabbers to get into position to further their respective ethnic causes and steal money. They are and always have been completely corrupt. I wouldn't call it a democracy. The Shia's are running the show and the Kurds are going to get theirs. The Sunnis? I'll let you use your imagination. Iranian influence should be an extreme concern. I've got some contacts in the know....their observations aren't good their predictions are scary.

In 10 years? Not in 50 years. We did it.

You don't know that. They would have cleansed each other just like they did with our presence. We sped up the process with bribes, compromises and security.

In Vietnam we lost some 58,000 soldiers, I think. Worth it? I don't think so.

Agree

In WW2 we stopped aggressors and spread democracy. We lost some 292,000 soldiers. Worth it? I do think so.

Agree

In Iraq we are spreading democracy and shut down a tyrant and an aggressor. We've lost some 4,000 soldiers. A very small number compared to other conflicts. Saddened by their loss. But worth it? I definitely think so,

Disagree

and I hope all active soldiers feel the same way.

Some do. Some don't. Some don't care. Some aren't alive to have an opinion.

I tried to re-up but they said I had to pass the PT test again. At 41, I am not in that kind of shape anymore.

Aw, come on; I got plenty of NCOs in my unit that old.

I wanted to go into Intelligence, since COIN is an Intelligence war. Maybe learn Arabic.

We need civilian interpreters with clearances. You would be perfect. I'd recommend pursuing it. Teach yourself Arabic on Rosetta Stone and then contact the State Dept. I'm serious. American terps with clearances are gold.

Saabah al Khair.

Sabah al-noor, sayydi.

Anyone that talks about putting troops in harms way is advocating risk. All that should be asked is that the objectives be in the country's interest, though not necesarily in the interest of national defense.

I'll die defending. But if my men die for "interest", I'll be pissed.

Transforming Iraq into a democracy is in the country's interest.

Disagree, sorry.

It is in our interest for more than just internally seeing Iraq a democracy, and getting rid of Saddam. It is the impact Iraq will have regionally that makes it particularly geopolitically important. We see some of what is happening in Iran recently. Basically a power struggle between groups of clerics. This is because of Iran. So not only is Iran influencing events in Iraq, but Iraq is influencing events in Iran. It is the Quietist School gaining influence in Qom.

The only influence is Iranians growing influence into Baghdad. They are going to get their way, trust me.

I would hope that enough perspectives of the world are discussed with soldiers, so that they can find that belief.

Generally, no. I've seen BN, BDE and DIV commanders try to explain why we were in Iraq. It was ugly and unconvincing.

Are you active?

Yes.

Are you in or heading to Iraq or AFG?

Yes, for a third tour.

Your service means a lot to me. At least some brave men and women are willing to serve.

As does yours. I hope that I didn't offend you. At least your a Hawk that has put on the uniform. Unlike Wolfowitz, Perle and Cheney.

Afghanistan worries me.

It should. Iraq was a cakewalk compared to that nightmare.

Iraq is doing well, I think. Waiting for negotiations to complete on the election law regarding Kirkuk and the "Open Lists".

Kirkuk is going to be ugly, but the Kurds are going to get theirs, trust me on that one. Been there many times. I have written several papers on Kirkuk for my masters. Predictive analysis mostly. I would like for you to read them.
 
Back
Top Bottom