Silkroad Online Forums

we're learning this in civics class

so theres these three foreign policy ideas that america can take.

Free economy
United States bases its foreign policy around keeping the economy up. So it would only interfere with other countries if it affects the United States economy. The US would also only do things such as FTAs or treaties that benefit our economy.

So for example, if we get oil from saudi arabia and then suddenly some dictator becomes president of saudi arabia and decides to cut oil from us, that would endanger our economy. So then we would try and make a deal with the dictator or attack it so we can get oil and not have an energy crisis. Basically, with this foreign policy America would be more of a anti-war nation and do things that are beneficial to our economy.

Idealist
The United States uses its power to make everything better for all nations. With this foreign policy, the US would send aid to nations that don't have food, or if there is a dangerous nation, we would go attack it and disarm it. Basically, the United States would try everything in its own power to keep the world safe and free from communism or a dictatorship. For example, the United States would make a huge military assault into Sudan and kill the warlords there and try to set up a democratic government there. Or we would attack north korea. Basically, idealists believe that the United States has enough power to make the world a better place to live in.

Keep in mind that George W. Bush has a foreign policy leaning toward this.

Realist
With this foreign policy, the United States would only do things that would benefit itself. the US would only take action that benefits its own economy or power. So even if there is a genocide going on in Darfur, the US wouldn't be willing to try to stop the killings because it has nothing to do with us. Realists believe that the US is not strong enough to help everyone and that if we try to help everyone, it will only weaken us and stretch our military forces all over the planet. The US would only attack another country if it is clear that that country is going to attack us or threatens us.

What do you think is the foreign policy that America should take? If you don't agree with any of the ones above you can describe your own. Also you don't have to be American to answer the question. I'm sure there are many europeans with fairly strong opinions about the current US foreign policy. Keep in mind that the foreign policies that I learned and stated are the most extreme, America would probably have a mix of all three but probably lean toward one or two.

IN MY OPINION, America should lean toward the realist school. This is because that there are several examples why we should. In 1993, we went into somalia to try and stop the violence there. Guess what it did nothing but waste american lives and our money, and our attempt to make somalia better did nothing. Somalia today is still out of control. Also iraq is another example. They had absolutely no WMDs and posed no threat to us yet we attacked it. All we're doing is wasting money and lives. I think America should do everything to maintain its superpower status and make sure that no one can challenge us. It sounds selfish, but I think that we can't do everything by ourselves. Somalia definitely didn't accept our help, thats there problem, why should we try to help them? If they are not willing to stop fighting, we shouldn't give a dang about them at all.

Jstar1 wrote:we're learning this in civics class

so theres these three foreign policy ideas that america can take.

Free economy
United States bases its foreign policy around keeping the economy up. So it would only interfere with other countries if it affects the United States economy. The US would also only do things such as FTAs or treaties that benefit our economy.

So for example, if we get oil from saudi arabia and then suddenly some dictator becomes president of saudi arabia and decides to cut oil from us, that would endanger our economy. So then we would attack it.

Idealist
The United States uses its power to make everything better for all nations. With this foreign policy, the US would send aid to nations that don't have food, or if there is a dangerous nation, we would go attack it and disarm it. Basically, the United States would try everything in its own power to keep the world safe and free from communism or a dictatorship. For example, the United States would make a huge military assault into Sudan and kill the warlords there and try to set up a democratic government there. Or we would attack north korea. Basically, idealists believe that the United States has enough power to make the world a better place to live in.

Keep in mind that George W. Bush has a foreign policy leaning toward this.

Realist
With this foreign policy, the United States would only do things that would benefit itself. the US would only take action that benefits its own economy or power. So even if there is a genocide going on in Darfur, the US wouldn't be willing to try to stop the killings because it has nothing to do with us. Realists believe that the US is not strong enough to help everyone and that if we try to help everyone, it will only weaken us and stretch our military forces all over the planet. The US would only attack another country if it is clear that that country is going to attack us or threatens us.

What do you think is the foreign policy that America should take? If you don't agree with any of the ones above you can describe your own. Also you don't have to be American to answer the question. I'm sure there are many europeans with fairly strong opinions about the current US foreign policy. Keep in mind that the foreign policies that I learned and stated are the most extreme, America would probably have a mix of all three but probably lean toward one or two.

IN MY OPINION, America should lean toward the realist school. This is because that there are several examples why we should. In 1993, we went into somalia to try and stop the violence there. Guess what it did nothing but waste american lives and our money, and our attempt to make somalia better did nothing. Somalia today is still out of control. Also iraq is another example. They had absolutely no WMDs and posed no threat to us yet we attacked it. All we're doing is wasting money and lives. I think America should do everything to maintain its superpower status and make sure that no one can challenge us. It sounds selfish, but I think that we can't do everything by ourselves. Somalia definitely didn't accept our help, thats there problem, why should we try to help them? If they are not willing to stop fighting, we shouldn't give a dang about them at all.

anything but idealest we cannot police the world its just messed up

When America first started it was leaning towards free market isolationist (that would be Free Market Realist) with little to no socialist influences. Now we have this Idealist BS that all started with the Mex-Am war and Manifest Destiny BS. America is not the world Police WE CAN'T FIX ALL THE WORLD'S PROBLEMs, we are overextending our power and that will be our inevitable downfall.

Free Market Capitalism is win

@vin +1

I say we just go back into isolation and let all the crazy dictators kill their own people. At least we're fine, but stop dragging us down with every other shit hole out there.

America is already basically Idealists.

Agree w/Barotix. Non-intervention is win. Two major things wrong with financial help. 1)Pretty sure it's not constitutional. 2)Most of the time we just end up helping the people in power or make people stronger that **** shit up, ie Osama & Hussein. Our people are the most generous in the world. If you want to help don't force politics into it and just donate dammit.