US Foreign Policy: Which do you prefer (if you had to choose between two extremes)?

[Don]

With the Kony video going viral, a lot of groups are calling for governments to get involved and intervene. Including the US. Just like groups are calling for the US to get involved in Syria and Libya.

I always felt that the US, more often than not, shoots itself in the foot with their foreign policy when it is aggressive. Many countries always ask the US to mind their own business.... until they want them to intervene.

So if you had to choose between a very aggressive US foreign policy where they try to be the world's policeman and also expand their influence, or basically a more isolationist stance... almost Ron Paul style non-intervention (maybe just fulfill some minimum standards as needed by the UN and do not take the lead on anything) including minimal foreign aid dollars, which would you prefer?

And don't complain about no middle ground choice. I just want to see which of the two is more popular if those were the only choices.

FYI - My personal choice is the option of minimal US foreign intervention.

 

[fuji]

(3) I prefer the US to have an interventionist but co-operative foreign policy, working collaboratively with other nations through venues such as the UN and NATO

Sorry but I can't vote for either of the alternatives you offered. I would not support an aggressive policy that is not collaborative, and I do not really think it makes sense for the US to retreat into Ron Paul style isolation either.

 

[Don]

(3) I prefer the US to have an interventionist but co-operative foreign policy, working collaboratively with other nations through venues such as the UN and NATO

Sorry but I can't vote for either of the alternatives you offered. I would not support an aggressive policy that is not collaborative, and I do not really think it makes sense for the US to retreat into Ron Paul style isolation either.

Of course that is the easy answer. Which is why I wrote:

"And don't complain about no middle ground choice. I just want to see which of the two is more popular if those were the only choices."

So I take it either option is equally bad for you?

 

[groggy]

I won't complain, I'll just ignore it.
next.

 

[blackrock13]

I thought this was a classic FUJI poll, but I was wrong. Neither.

 

[asterwald]

Isolation. US citizens should see their money being spent on increasing their own standard of living. No matter what the West or the US does in other parts of the world, it will only cause people to hate the US and its allies more. As witnessed when the Libyan destroyed graves of WW2 soldiers. You cannot expect nations in which the majority of the population is illiterate to see what is rational.

 

[fuji]

Of course that is the easy answer. Which is why I wrote:

"And don't complain about no middle ground choice. I just want to see which of the two is more popular if those were the only choices."

So I take it either option is equally bad for you?

Yes, the two options you presented are both horrible.

 

[onthebottom]

I would prefer a more isolationist approach.....

OTB

 

[WoodPeckr]

I agree with bottie....:Eek:

 

[Asterix]

That makes two of us.

 

[larry]

Unless the intention is to take-over another country, which I can't recall happening, they should stay out of civil wars and conflicts.

 

[rld]

I was humming and hawing until you mentioned the Kony video.

You should know that the governments involved have already asked for US help and long before this video was out, US Special Forces had been committed to assist in dealing with this problem.

Kony is the worst of the worst and in my opinion virtually no effort should be spared in ending his crimes.

 

[WoodPeckr]

I was humming and hawing until you mentioned the Kony video.

You should know that the governments involved have already asked for US help and long before this video was out, US Special Forces had been committed to assist in dealing with this problem.

Kony is the worst of the worst and in my opinion virtually no effort should be spared in ending his crimes.

Idi Amin was pretty bad too.
Remember what happened to him?....:eyebrows:

 

[rld]

Idi Amin was pretty bad too.
Remember what happened to him?....:eyebrows:

He lived a life of exile in Saudi IIRC.

 

[WoodPeckr]

He lived a life of exile in Saudi IIRC.

Indeed!
From Wiki:
Our fine US allies Saudi Arabia took him in.
Idi Amin was forced to flee into exile by helicopter on 11 April 1979, when Kampala was captured. He escaped first to Libya, where he stayed until 1980, and ultimately settled in Saudi Arabia, where the Saudi royal family allowed him sanctuary and paid him a generous subsidy in return for his staying out of politics. On 20 July 2003, one of Amin's wives, Madina, reported that he was in a coma and near death at King Faisal Specialist Hospital in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, from kidney failure. She pleaded with the Ugandan President, Yoweri Museveni, to allow him to return to Uganda for the remainder of his life. Museveni replied that Amin would have to "answer for his sins the moment he was brought back". Amin died at the hospital in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, on 16 August 2003 and was buried in Ruwais Cemetery in Jeddah.