morally superior foreign policies

[Bullmoose Bailey]

Most People Think Their Nation's Foreign Policy Is Morally No Better Than Average: Global Poll

And Roger.

This may be, in the case of the so named "Western Democracies" an extension of our focus on the democratic theory which GW Bush so perfectly elocuted in his second inaugural (much better weather effects that time), namely that democracies do not fight each other.

Not entirely true but divorced from this theory the US would likely forsake the mantle of neo-conservatism and regress splendidly into non-interventionism if not isolationism.

As such your above posting would need to re-assess for the body of believers that there is no good foreign policy except none at all, which is a legitimate and widely held undercurrent of US Populism and Nationalism both.

[jkm_101_fso]

Not entirely true but divorced from this theory the US would likely forsake the mantle of neo-conservatism

Good.

and regress splendidly into non-interventionism if not isolationism.

I think that's somewhat of an extreme assumption, if not borderline silly.

As such your above posting would need to re-assess for the body of believers that there is no good foreign policy except none at all, which is a legitimate and widely held undercurrent of US Populism and Nationalism both.

Again, I believe this is an incorrect assumption. Granted, a small portion of the population would probably like our nation to be isolationist (extreme pacifists). I think most people just want our leaders to do the right thing; i.e., send our military to fight only when necessary and spend our tax dollars on worthwhile endeavors.

[Bullmoose Bailey]

whilst being in your later "most people just want our..." group I perceive a great many non-interventionists as not exactly pacifists.

Have many in my own family & respect their hatred of the waste that so often occurs as SOP in foreign entanglement.

General Washington said it best;

"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a 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 collisions of her friendships or enmities."

[120mm]

I would say that "Joe Six Pack" wants the US to be isolationist, but at the slightest insult to the US, he wants to see lots and lots of dead furriners on the evening news, in order to show them gooks what for.

The majority of citizens that I've met that want the US isolationist are a bloodthirsty lot. They want isolationism, but with the military ability to kill foreigners and lay waste to foreign cities at the slightest provocation.

Not quite a pacifist, them.

[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.