Foreign Policy.

[Napkiraly]

Pragmatic interventionism.

[Rio Cana]

I think that sometimes violence is the only solution though I grant we skip to violence far too often.
I don't think however that it is the United State's job to police the world, I think that is a collective responsibility.
That and other reasons are why I support a world government.

I couldn't agree more.
I'd actually very much like it if we grabbed Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the EU
and all the other genuinely westernized and democratic nations and made a Super-NATO, and just straight up admitted it was committed to spreading democracy/preventing tyranny and genocide by any means necessary.

A Super Nato! Who would pay for that. And it would only force the creation of a Super Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

[The Union of the West]

With the headlines being dominated by events in Syria and calls for the west to intervene and earlier this year with tensions over Russia due to the country's harsh policies towards homosexuals
foreign policy has been thrust into the spotlight. Despite threads for both these events I thought it would be interesting to ask for the views of NationStates General in regards to foreign policy,
I have not put up a poll as they always seem to be unrepresentative someone's point of view.

It would of course be useful if people put what nationality they are given the topic.

I personally favor a strictly pragmatic foreign policy where military or covert actions should only be deployed in the interests of the British people and state,not the interests of America,the UNO or internal
groups within the "target" country. Overall I therefor lean slightly towards the isolationist end of the spectrum.
So NSG what's your ideal foreign policy.

Isolationism

[Genivaria]

I couldn't agree more.
I'd actually very much like it if we grabbed Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the EU
and all the other genuinely westernized and democratic nations and made a Super-NATO, and just straight up admitted it was committed to spreading democracy/preventing tyranny and genocide by any means necessary.

A Super Nato! Who would pay for that. And it would only force the creation of a Super Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

Everyone, that's the point.

[Seleucas]

My foreign policy is one of non-intervention on one hand, and unlimited free trade on the other. (I feel that the latter is the best guarantor of the former, as Bastiat put it, "When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will.") I am not much for states, but when they are in existence, they should respect one another's sovereignty and not interfere with internal policy.

[Blasveck]

My foreign policy is one of non-intervention on one hand, and unlimited free trade on the other. (I feel that the latter is the best guarantor of the former, as Bastiat put it, "When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will.") I am not much for states, but when they are in existence, they should respect one another's sovereignty and not interfere with internal policy.

What if one state commits genocide against its own people?

[Seleucas]

My foreign policy is one of non-intervention on one hand, and unlimited free trade on the other. (I feel that the latter is the best guarantor of the former, as Bastiat put it, "When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will.") I am not much for states, but when they are in existence, they should respect one another's sovereignty and not interfere with internal policy.

What if one state commits genocide against its own people?

My preference is not to set a precedent for international belligerence and tit-for-tat reprisal than permit intervention of dubious effectiveness.

[The Corparation]

If elected my foreign Policy platform will be the immediate begin of a course of actions to launch WWIII, and shortly afterwords MAD. Its been to long since we had a good world wide smashdown, and starting MAD would make things more interesting for future generations.

[Cameroi]

in general it is my belief that nations 'should' treat each other much as they would demand or expect their citizens to do so.
as a species and a world, i do not believe we can still afford to allow sovereignty to remain a 'free pass'.

also leaders of nations should realize that the behavior of their nations sets examples which influence the behavior of individual persons everywhere. within their borders and without.

[Red Team]

Relative isolation. The United States is hated worldwide for getting involved too much. Of course, we should honour our current treaties and defend our allies, but we shouldn't be world police unless directly asked for help.

[Distruzio]

How would intervention be democratic?

not just intervention, but military planning, organized along democratic lines, not some congress or monarch

Ah... I see your point now. Interesting concept. Would this appeal for democratic national decisions be representative or majoritorian?

[Distruzio]

My foreign policy is one of non-intervention on one hand, and unlimited free trade on the other. (I feel that the latter is the best guarantor of the former, as Bastiat put it, "When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will.") I am not much for states, but when they are in existence, they should respect one another's sovereignty and not interfere with internal policy.

What if one state commits genocide against its own people?

Non-intervention, bubba. Every time.

[Empire of Vlissingen]

Non-Intervention the Government should concentrate on free trade and diplomacy instead of war.

[Ylhkainplypktkos]

not just intervention, but military planning, organized along democratic lines, not some congress or monarch

Ah... I see your point now. Interesting concept. Would this appeal for democratic national decisions be representative or majoritorian?

belligerents could request individual squadrons on a voluntary basis. for supply factories would form bureaus at the request of referendums of war/intervention.

[Rio Cana]

A Super Nato! Who would pay for that. And it would only force the creation of a Super Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

Everyone, that's the point.

They do say the US has been paying more then its fair share when it comes to NATO. Would the European NATO nations be willing to pay more in taxes to pay for this Super NAtO. I do not think most US citizens want anymore of there money being spent on things like this, especially when the economy is sluggish and unemployment a problem.

[Malfyria]

My foreign policy is one of non-intervention on one hand, and unlimited free trade on the other. (I feel that the latter is the best guarantor of the former, as Bastiat put it, "When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will.") I am not much for states, but when they are in existence, they should respect one another's sovereignty and not interfere with internal policy.

What if one state commits genocide against its own people?

Unless those people happen to be citizens of the UK then it is not our problem.

[Wind in the Willows]

We should not get involved in situations unless they endanger our own country. For example, Syria has not threatened to attack Britain, so I think we should stay out of it completely.

[The Parkus Empire]

What if one state commits genocide against its own people?

Unless those people happen to be citizens of the UK then it is not our problem.

Are you one of those people who doesn't concern themselves with the neighbor engaging in child abuse?

[Distruzio]

Unless those people happen to be citizens of the UK then it is not our problem.

Are you one of those people who doesn't concern themselves with the neighbor engaging in child abuse?

Are you one of those people who believes concern for the welfare of a child involves murdering their parents?

[Wind in the Willows]

Unless those people happen to be citizens of the UK then it is not our problem.

Are you one of those people who doesn't concern themselves with the neighbor engaging in child abuse?

What does child abuse have to do with foreign policy?

[Malfyria]

Unless those people happen to be citizens of the UK then it is not our problem.

Are you one of those people who doesn't concern themselves with the neighbor engaging in child abuse?

Clever.

But while an interesting philosophical point in practice intervening in a situation like that is quite different from being expected to save entire populaces of states that only reward us with more coffins in wotton basset.
You see when you put it like that I have no problem with the theory of interventionism, but if we are not going to be serious about it and just use it as an excuse to topple anti-american regimes then I don't see any
point in it.If America was genuinely interested in bringing freedom and democracy to the world then I wouldn't be such a miser in this subject but since they pick and choose which regimes to bomb then I see pragmatic
isolationism as the only route for Britain.

[Blasveck]

Are you one of those people who doesn't concern themselves with the neighbor engaging in child abuse?

Are you one of those people who believes concern for the welfare of a child involves murdering their parents?

What alternatives do you propose, Dis?

[Distruzio]

Are you one of those people who doesn't concern themselves with the neighbor engaging in child abuse?

What does child abuse have to do with foreign policy?

He's making an appeal to emotion. Trying to say that if you don't think it's your business to kill people in order to stop them from killing people then you might as well be killing the people being killed in the first place. Because, you know, children are helpless and you'd be one cold-hearted son of a bitch for not intervening whenever a child is being abused.

The hiccup in his logic is that he is, in making that assertion, saying that since you have a moral obligation to support the killing of people to stop the killing of other people, that you also have a moral obligation to kill abusive parents who abuse their children.

[God Kefka]

With the headlines being dominated by events in Syria and calls for the west to intervene and earlier this year with tensions over Russia due to the country's harsh policies towards homosexuals
foreign policy has been thrust into the spotlight. Despite threads for both these events I thought it would be interesting to ask for the views of NationStates General in regards to foreign policy,
I have not put up a poll as they always seem to be unrepresentative someone's point of view.

It would of course be useful if people put what nationality they are given the topic.

I personally favor a strictly pragmatic foreign policy where military or covert actions should only be deployed in the interests of the British people and state,not the interests of America,the UNO or internal
groups within the "target" country. Overall I therefor lean slightly towards the isolationist end of the spectrum.

So NSG what's your ideal foreign policy.

Foreign policy?

Don't send you troops to die in far away hell holes to die for other people's ''human rights'' (which they may or may not want and which they may or may not hold on to even if you gave it to them)...

Yeah that about covers it for me.

[The Parkus Empire]

Are you one of those people who doesn't concern themselves with the neighbor engaging in child abuse?

Are you one of those people who believes concern for the welfare of a child involves murdering their parents?

You're the one who's big on "community justice" last time I checked.