POLL: What should be America's foreign policy?

[Guest]

I am genuinely interested in your opinion.

P.s Let's not "accidentally" start WW3.

 

[Robert E Lee]

Spreading democracy.

 

[Awesomeface1122]

Being nice tourists. I hate American tourists at the falls... They are actually generally rude. I've met a few nice ones but most are rude.    

 

[Guest]

Being nice tourists. I hate American tourists at the falls... They are actually generally rude. I've met a few nice ones but most are rude.    

Just think of them as they are, invaders scouting out their soon to be new territory, and take appropriate action. 

 

[Augustus Caesar]

All of the above(minus choice 1), since WW3 is inevitable, might as well just join in and cause as much anarchy before you get taken out.

 

[Khilafah]

Stop being so pessimistic, it's not inevitable in the short to medium term, maybe in the far off distant future but why hasten it's arrival?  

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Throughout history war is always there, worldwide peace is a myth, there will always be people who want power and control over the weak, the US is an Empire and all great Empires eventually fall, its not a matter of if there will be another great war but when, with world tensions on the rise it is bound to one day reach it breaking point and a new war will happen.

P.S. I agree lets not "accidentally" start WW3

 

[Khilafah]

It should not have a foreign policy and it should keep its nose out of other nation's affairs, and stop acting like it is the world's police.

(Coming from someone born in Cuba. Nuff said.)

Then you really should have voted for: Non-Interventionism.

Throughout history war is always there, worldwide peace is a myth, there will always be people who want power and control over the weak, the US is an Empire and all great Empires eventually fall, its not a matter of if there will be another great war but when, with world tensions on the rise it is bound to one day reach it breaking point and a new war will happen.

P.S. I agree lets not "accidentally" start WW3

I agree with you entirely. However it is not too late for the US to stop acting like an empire and to take a hands off approach. It's either that or very possibly no more planet earth; we simply can not afford the next "great war" (WW3) you speak of. Hence the urgent need to try and avoid it at all costs by adopting a non-interventionist foreign policy.

 

[Khilafah]

I don't JUST mean not intervening militarily. Everyone is tired of America now, no one wants to hear their screwed up foreign policy, no matter how peaceful it is.

I'm with you all the way, don't get me wrong  

 

[Khilafah]

Assad is an evil scum of a tyrant, murdering his own civilian population, just to cling on to power and so far 300,000 people have been killed.

Do I think Obama, the wedding party bomber (Yemen), or Putin are any better? Nope but there are no words to fully describe Assad's wickedness.

Does the US have any role in this conflict militarily? No. They should stop sending the few weapons they do send, training the few rebels they do train (only 60 soldiers and 6 recently got captured by other rebels lol) and stay out of it. Their hearts aren't in it & they don't really care. Abandon the war with ISIS who are fighting against Assad, instead of providing Assad's army with air-cover. Sooner or later his people will kill him and establish their own government (which the US will hate but oh well). Just send humanitarian aid, and when the dust finally settles, leave whoever takes power to take power, and try to have diplomatic relations with them.

 

[Big Brother]

I don't believe that Assad will lose the war. If that was the case, he would have lost by now. The moderate rebels are losing power, and while the Syrian military is weakening too, it's not weaker than the rebels and it's not fighting on as many fronts as IS.

There's not a lot of green left.

Syria is a difficult situation, but I believe the main antagonist is the Islamic State and even though I'm a European, I believe that the United States and every other enemy of the Islamic State should intensify the struggle against them, and send more troops, vehicles and materials. There should be no rest until the Islamic State is no more than a whisper of history. It doesn't matter if it comes across as imperialistic, IS needs to be destroyed, at whatever cost necessary.

A Syria led by Assad is better than a Syria overtaken Daesh. A Syria led by a new, democratic government would be even better. but this seems unlikely and how long would such a democracy really last? It didn't last long in Iraq and we all see the results of that.

Don't get me wrong, Assad is like.. the worst person but in this case it's a matter of choosing the lesser out of two evils.

 

[Infinite Citadel]

I find it sad that 2 people voted for option #5.

I find it very strange that the U.S. continues to condemn Assad, despite the fact that in fair and free elections (determined to be so by observers from more than 30 countries), Assad received 88.7% of the vote with a 73.42%.

I was trolling Khilafah on my vote  

 

[Khilafah]

 I don't believe that Assad will lose the war. If that was the case, he would have lost by now. The moderate rebels are losing power, and while the Syrian military is weakening too, it's not weaker than the rebels and it's not fighting on as many fronts as IS.

I have been following the Syrian conflict very closely since the start and to this day Assad remains on the back foot. The recently formed rebel coalition called "Jaysh Al Fateh" (Army of Conquest) has made big gains against the regime, conquering all of Idlib province very rapidly. As for the Islamic State, it already controls more than 50% of Syria and has been fighting on all fronts since it's very existence, that's how it operates, i wouldn't exactly call it a disadvantage for them specifically. However, right now they are mostly consolidating their gains.

 There's not a lot of green left.

There is not a lot of red either and the fact that Turkey has now just entered the conflict could dramatically shake things up in the rebels favour. The planned "Islamic State Free Zone" in the north could get a ton of weapons through to the rebels and give them a secure haven inside the country from which to conduct major operations. I personally doubt it would work unless IS chooses to give it up which is very unlikely or Turkey sends in tens of thousands of ground troops to secure it. 

 Syria is a difficult situation, but I believe the main antagonist is the Islamic State and even though I'm a European, I believe that the United States and every other enemy of the Islamic State should intensify the struggle against them, and send more troops, vehicles and materials. There should be no rest until the Islamic State is no more than a whisper of history. It doesn't matter if it comes across as imperialistic, IS needs to be destroyed, at whatever cost necessary.

You may have seen an IS beheading (cause a poor westerner was the victim) but clearly you have not seen Assad's use of mass starvation, torture on a wide scale so unimaginably cruel that the victims always die from it, use of chemical weapons which suffocated hundred of children to death slowly (Obama's "so-called" red line which he failed to honour), use of barrel bombs that flattened entire cities to the ground killing and wounding in ways you would never imagine until you see it. The sheer scale and cruelty of the Assad Regime pales into insignificances anything IS has done. I am not going to post any images or videos here of Assad's crimes but even if you don't have twitter this link should work: https://twitter.com/search?q=assad crimes&src=typd 

Don't get me wrong, Assad is like.. the worst person but in this case it's a matter of choosing the lesser out of two evils.

You can't claim Assad is the worst and then say he is the lesser of two evils. IS for the most part has killed soldiers.

 

[Vitaris Liguritio]

All of these options are ludicrous republicanism. I think we should still play an important international role, enough at least so that we are not "non-interventionism". However, I believe that the vast majority of our foreign role is based upon diplomacy. WE NEED MORE CARTER AND LESS BUSH!

 

[Big Brother]

@Khilafa
 
If the rebels can win in Syria, that's great, but I still have my doubts and as long as the Islamic State doesn't "win", then it doesn't matter much to me. I don't deny Assad's crimes and what he has put his own people through, he is a tyrant clinging onto power, and tyrants clinging onto power will often use malign measures. However, I am still more concerned about the Islamic State, simply because they have a larger chance of exporting their organization to other countries (like Libya) and because they threaten to do things like "burn the city of Rome to the ground and enslave all your women and children". I'm sorry if it seems like I care more about the West than I do about the people of Syria, I wish no harm would come to either, but I am a Westerner after all, and it's only natural to care most about what is closest to you. Assad is an awful threat towards the people in Syria, but on a larger scale the Islamic State is a threat to the entire Middle East and even Europe. Whether the actions of Assad or the Islamic State are the worst, doesn't really matter, it only really matters that they're both pretty awful and ideally, the atrocities of both should be stopped.

 

[Khilafah]

@Khilafa
 
If the rebels can win in Syria, that's great, but I still have my doubts and as long as the Islamic State doesn't "win", then it doesn't matter much to me. I don't deny Assad's crimes and what he has put his own people through, he is a tyrant clinging onto power, and tyrants clinging onto power will often use malign measures. However, I am still more concerned about the Islamic State, simply because they have a larger chance of exporting their organization to other countries (like Libya) and because they threaten to do things like "burn the city of Rome to the ground and enslave all your women and children". I'm sorry if it seems like I care more about the West than I do about the people of Syria, I wish no harm would come to either, but I am a Westerner after all, and it's only natural to care most about what is closest to you. Assad is an awful threat towards the people in Syria, but on a larger scale the Islamic State is a threat to the entire Middle East and even Europe. Whether the actions of Assad or the Islamic State are the worst, doesn't really matter, it only really matters that they're both pretty awful and ideally, the atrocities of both should be stopped.

Okay but do not conflate IS with Al Qaeda, unlike Al Qaeda who are a genuine terrorist organisation mainly interested in targeting the west because of their foreign policy, the Islamic State is trying to be just that an Islamic State and has NO interest in the west what-so-ever. They are interested solely in trying to take over all the "Muslim Countries", and if they show any interest in the west it is because the west is forcing them to take interest by bombing them! Do they have a long term interest in fighting the west after they take over all the Muslim world (which is a VERY distant prospect)? Yes, but only if the West was still supporting Israel and that would have been a long way away but instead the conflict is now and they will likely do reprisal attacks against western targets. 

As for Assad, he is supported by Russia and Iran, that should tell you enough about weather or not his remaining in power would serve the west's interests or harm them. If the choice was between Assad and IS who have no country or group backing them and are fighting the world, and anyone were to look at this objectivity they would tell you that Assad is the bigger threat.

 

[Big Brother]

Okay but do not conflate IS with Al Qaeda, unlike Al Qaeda who are a genuine terrorist organisation mainly interested in targeting the west because of their foreign policy, the Islamic State is trying to be just that an Islamic State and has NO interest in the west what-so-ever. They are interested solely in trying to take over all the "Muslim Countries", and if they show any interest in the west it is because the west is forcing them to take interest by bombing them! Do they have a long term interest in fighting the west after they take over all the Muslim world (which is a VERY distant prospect)? Yes, but only if the West was still supporting Israel and that would have been a long way away but instead the conflict is now and they will likely do reprisal attacks against western targets. 

As for Assad, he is supported by Russia and Iran, that should tell you enough about weather or not his remaining in power would serve the west's interests or harm them. If the choice was between Assad and IS who have no country or group backing them and are fighting the world, and anyone were to look at this objectivity they would tell you that Assad is the bigger threat.

No, I disagree. Just because a country is backed by Russia or Iran, doesn't necessarily make them a threat to anyone. The interests of the West are not always in conflict with the interests of Russia and Iran, as proven by numerous past and ongoing cooperative projects between the West and Russia, and the recent nuclear deal with Iran. Regardless, how could a Syrian government backed by Iran and Russia be capable of harming the West significantly in realistic terms? What could they do? Why would they have any interest in causing any such harm?

As for the Islamic State, they are very much interested in hurting the West in any way they can and have already been responsible for numerous attacks. They are not fools, they know how big a part the West plays. If you take a look at their newsletter, they are very clear about their intentions regarding the West.

 

[Khilafah]

No, I disagree. Just because a country is backed by Russia or Iran, doesn't necessarily make them a threat to anyone. The interests of the West are not always in conflict with the interests of Russia and Iran, as proven by numerous past and ongoing cooperative projects between the West and Russia, and the recent nuclear deal with Iran. 

I just need to point to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine to demonstrate how deeply mistaken you are, Russia and America, are very much back into another cold war confrontation. They have conflicting interests in the region and Assad along with Iran are just pawns in the hands of Russia to use against the west by causing instability in the Middle East whenever they feel threatened. The nuclear deal with Iran was nothing more than Obama's attempt at creating a legacy for himself, wishfully thinking he could kill two birds with one stone, by on one hand making Iran stronger so they can fight the Islamic State and on the other stopping them from getting nukes (unlikely), and i doubt he can get the deal through congress as it essentially throws all of Americas allies under the bus.

Regardless, how could a Syrian government backed by Iran and Russia be capable of harming the West significantly in realistic terms? 

Just look up "Hezbollah", a powerful Shia terrorist group in Lebanon backed by Iran, and getting their weapons though Assad's Syria and this is just a basic example.

[The rebels or IS whoever takes over Syria will never allow for Iran to send weapons to them, they will probably still be at war with Hezbollah as they are currently!]

What could they do? 

They can at any given moment kidnap western tourists in Beirut and have done so on many occasions too numerous to count and you know what happens then.

Why would they have any interest in causing any such harm?

Nobody in the region is particularly fond of western meddling and have grown to hate the west as a result.  

As for the Islamic State, they are very much interested in hurting the West in any way they can and have already been responsible for numerous attacks. They are not fools, they know how big a part the West plays. If you take a look at their newsletter, they are very clear about their intentions regarding the West.

They don't like the west as much as anyone else, that's true. However their current objective is gaining territory/creating a state and not the west as much as it begs for attention. This is what distinguishes them from Al Qaeda who are obsessed with conducting "spectacular attacks" in the west as retaliation for it's foreign policy.

 

[Big Brother]

I just need to point to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine to demonstrate how deeply mistaken you are, Russia and America, are very much back into another cold war confrontation. They have conflicting interests in the region and Assad along with Iran are just pawns in the hands of Russia to use against the west by causing instability in the Middle East whenever they feel threatened. The nuclear deal with Iran was nothing more than Obama's attempt at creating a legacy for himself, wishfully thinking he could kill two birds with one stone, by on one hand making Iran stronger so they can fight the Islamic State and on the other stopping them from getting nuked (unlikely), and i doubt he can get the deal through congress as it essentially throws all of Americas allies under the bus.

The conflict in Ukraine is an anomaly and doesn't represent the full picture of West-Russia relations at all, it doesn't put years of cooperation out of the picture. Russia doesn't have the capabilities required to challenge the United States, much less the entirety of the West, on its own. Even with partners like Iran and Syria, they simply don't cut it, they can't wage a cold war like the Soviet Union (barely) managed to do. States have a limited range of options, a limited amount of courses they can take, because are they are states and that puts certain limitations on them. Organizations like the Islamic State don't have such restrictions, and even if they don't seek to do much harm to the West or anyone outside the lands they want, they will commit endless atrocities to get those lands, and once they get them, their attention will turn elsewhere. This cannot be allowed to happen, and it's more important than stopping one dictator in one country.

Just look up "Hezbollah", a powerful Shia terrorist group in Lebanon backed by Iran, and getting their weapons though Assad's Syria and this is just a basic example.

[The rebels or IS whoever takes over Syria will never allow for Iran to send weapons to them, they will probably still be at war with Hezbollah as they are currently!]

And when in the last couple of decades has Hezbollah harmed the West in any important way? Have they even done so during the time of their existence?

They can at any given moment kidnap western tourists in Beirut and have done so on many occasions too numerous to count and you know what happens then.

A few dead hostages are insignificant. There is no way that Iran/Russia/Syria could challenge, harm, or destroy Western civilization (at least not without being destroyed themselves).

Nobody in the region is particularly fond of western meddling and have grown to hate the west as a result.

But they're not fools. Just look at the picture of the Middle East, almost all of the nations there seek the support or cooperation of outside powers, because there are gains to be made by working with outside powers. What do they gain by working against Western nations, and why would they risk having to pay the costly price of doing so?

They don't like the west as much as anyone else, that's true. However their current objective is gaining territory/creating a state and not the west as much as it begs for attention. This is what distinguishes them from Al Qaeda who are obsessed with conducting "spectacular attacks" in the west as retaliation for it's foreign policy.

I never attempted to compare them to Al Qaeda and even if creating their state is their short term goal, this can't be allowed to happen. They're like a disease, spreading, and it's better to deal with them now before they have spread too far.