morally superior foreign policies

[jmm99]

In this and other areas, too many terms are used which mean one thing to the writer and another thing to the reader.

Not picking on anyone - just as an example. An "extreme pacifist" is not necessarily (IMO, often not) an "isolationist" - e.g., various World Peace movements.

Similarly (this is somewhat self-descriptive), a "reluctant interventionist" in military matters can be a "militarist" when military interventions occur. Yet, the same person can be an "avid interventionist" in foreign trade and commerce by private entitites - but can view governmental intervention in those matters as being negative.

So also with polls, which often are built on pithy aphorisms. What is meant by "moral superiority" ? I suspect that the practical examples of that, if given by various respondents, would cover a broad spectrum.

PS: 120mm - wouldn't quite phrase it as your "Joe Six Pack" example does. But, yes, find, fix and kill our brethren who hit us, say a prayer for their souls, and if they show up dead on TV, OK. Also can see hitting them before they hit us (targeted killing), but that has to be done with great discernment. Laying waste to cities seems extreme (even though I can see an example of that in a retaliatory nuclear strike).

Thus, the need for concrete examples - as 120mm has done with Joe, and BB with GW.

[Bullmoose Bailey]

In this and other areas, too many terms are used which mean one thing to the writer and another thing to the reader.

Not picking on anyone - just as an example. An "extreme pacifist" is not necessarily (IMO, often not) an "isolationist" - e.g., various World Peace movements.

Similarly (this is somewhat self-descriptive), a "reluctant interventionist" in military matters can be a "militarist" when military interventions occur. Yet, the same person can be an "avid interventionist" in foreign trade and commerce by private entitites - but can view governmental intervention in those matters as being negative.

So also with polls, which often are built on pithy aphorisms. What is meant by "moral superiority" ? I suspect that the practical examples of that, if given by various respondents, would cover a broad spectrum.

PS: 120mm - wouldn't quite phrase it as your "Joe Six Pack" example does. But, yes, find, fix and kill our brethren who hit us, say a prayer for their souls, and if they show up dead on TV, OK. Also can see hitting them before they hit us (targeted killing), but that has to be done with great discernment. Laying waste to cities seems extreme (even though I can see an example of that in a retaliatory nuclear strike).

Thus, the need for concrete examples - as 120mm has done with Joe, and BB with GW.

Exactly.

Very well said.

This is why I totally confuse people when I say that George W Bush was a "Liberal Internationalist who advocated Pre-emptive Strikes."

Also; can all this be true if I have no objection to "Joe Six-Pack" or "Furriners" ? Or does it just make me a moderate ?

[William F. Owen]

PS: 120mm - wouldn't quite phrase it as your "Joe Six Pack" example does. But, yes, find, fix and kill our brethren who hit us, say a prayer for their souls, and if they show up dead on TV, OK. Also can see hitting them before they hit us (targeted killing), but that has to be done with great discernment. Laying waste to cities seems extreme (even though I can see an example of that in a retaliatory nuclear strike).

There is something more valid here. If you are going to harm your enemy you should do so, in a way that ensures he never recovers, or cannot recover in a useful amount of time. Yes, pure Nick Machiavelli, and history shows it as being generally true. Better to get 30 years of peace, than 5.

[Nathan Hale]

It's interesting that China is often lauded as the up-and-coming superpower as much for its spreading soft power as for its rising economic might. This study suggests that China may yet lag behind the US in this area as well.

[William F. Owen]

It's interesting that China is often lauded as the up-and-coming superpower as much for its spreading soft power as for its rising economic might. This study suggests that China may yet lag behind the US in this area as well.

I'd actually suggest that China does not use "soft power".

It uses real and actual power, and what it is doing in Africa is a very good example. They seek all out competitive advantage, purely in their own interest, and with little in the way of ideological or diplomatic constraints. They get a very good return for every $ they put into Africa, and they don't care who they deal with, or what that involves.

[120mm]

There is something more valid here. If you are going to harm your enemy you should do so, in a way that ensures he never recovers, or cannot recover in a useful amount of time. Yes, pure Nick Machiavelli, and history shows it as being generally true. Better to get 30 years of peace, than 5.

Of course, if your "enemy" is either not really your "enemy" or is not "hittable" militarily, you, my friend, are screwed.

[William F. Owen]

Of course, if your "enemy" is either not really your "enemy" or is not "hittable" militarily, you, my friend, are screwed.

Concur. Gross stupidity and impossible dilemmas should be avoided. Let history be your guide, not your master.