Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

What is your view on Foreign Policy? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    At here:
    https://www.helloquizzy.com/tests/th...cy-school-test



    My results: (moderate) realist https://www.helloquizzy.com/results/...=1&var_Force=9
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I suspect that it will call me a neo-con hawk but who knows..
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wilsonian

    You scored 9 Force, 1 Institutions, and 3 Ideals!




    As expected, i was strongly supportive of the use of force.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I suspect that it will call me a neo-con hawk but who knows..
    I probably would be as well. I think I've just grown extra cynical of late. Still support Afghanistan and Iraq. I think I'm a very moderate neocon.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Neo-Nazi, d'oh!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Realist. I'll take that!

    You're definitely not swayed by proletarian notions of ideals and values. No, you are out to protect your country's strategic interests, and you aren't afraid to use the military to do it. But what separates you from the Cheneys of the world is your desire to to use diplomacy if at all possible. Your paramount value (heh, heh) is stability.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    the stupid website won't let me see my results unless I sign up with an account - **** that
    basically I am a non-interventionist nationalist - and I don't need a quiz to tell me that
    I believe in not using force against other nations generally, and I believe in pursuing free trade and good relations whenever possible
    I do not believe in war until it is necessitated via self-defence. and there are circumstances when pre-emptivity may form the basis of it, but it is hardly ideal.
    I do not believe in spreading democracy. democracy is a responsibility of the citizens of each state. if they don't like their government, it is not the duty of a foreign state to change it for them. many western nations had bloody revolutions for their democracy and we in the UK were pretty lucky not to have had a serious revolution that massacred us, although people sometimes don't realise that the death toll of the glorious revolution (i.e. the war between the parliament's army and the king's army in the 17th century) actually got more people killed as a perentage of the national population than WWI.
    ultimately - we should pursue stability and peace, and capitalism. not war and tension. we should adhere to enlightenment values of brotherhood amongst nations, not aggressive state hobbesianism.
    we should always be on guard too against rogue states like north korea - if we do not have strong defences (and offences, to an extent), they will threaten our security.

    I also, against the views of most people, do not believe in war rules - if I was given the choice between killing a million foreign citizens and 1 soldier from our own nation, I would choose to save our own soldier. our duty as a state is to protect ourselfves, not foreign populations. it's difficult to contexctualise this though. i.e. if we had to either nuke japan in WWII or send in our army (which would have got british soldiers killed unnecessarily), then I'd drop a nuke to spare our men's lives. the fault in the japanese case is the japanese government's. even if foreign citizens are innocent as can be, that is irrelevant. our policy is national security and defence of our own citizens, and our military are citizen-soldiers.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PurpleNerple)
    the stupid website won't let me see my results unless I sign up with an account - **** that
    basically I am a non-interventionist nationalist - and I don't need a quiz to tell me that
    I believe in not using force against other nations and I believe in pursuing free trade and good relations whenever possible
    I do not believe in war until it is necessitated via self-defence. and there are circumstances when pre-emptivity may form the basis of it, but it is hardly ideal.
    I do not believe in spreading democracy. democracy is a responsibility of the citizens of each state. if they don't like their government, it is not the duty of a foreign state to change it for them. many western nations had bloody revolutions for their democracy and we in the UK were pretty lucky not to have had a serious revolution that massacred us, although people sometimes don't realise that the death toll of the glorious revolution (i.e. the war between the parliament's army and the king's army in the 17th century) actually got more people killed as a perentage of the national population than WWI.
    ultimately - we should pursue stability and peace, and capitalism. not war and tension. we should adhere to enlightenment values of brotherhood amongst nations, not aggressive state hobbesianism.
    we should always be on guard too against rogue states like north korea - if we do not have strong defences (and offences, to an extent), they will threaten our security.

    I also, against the views of most people, do not believe in war rules - if I was given the choice between killing a million foreign citizens and 1 soldier from our own nation, I would choose to save our own soldier. our duty as a state is to protect ourselfves, not foreign populations. it's difficult to contexctualise this though. i.e. if we had to either nuke japan in WWII or send in our army (which would have got british soldiers killed unnecessarily), then I'd drop a nuke to spare our men's lives. the fault in the japanese case is the japanese government's. even if foreign citizens are innocent as can be, that is irrelevant. our policy is national security and defence of our own citizens, and our military are citizen-soldiers.
    Agree with your later point. I do not subscribe to the rules of a Just war (the aim is to win) and therefore if wiping out everybody in Damascus would bring me the head of Bashir Al Assad, i would make that choice.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I got "Classic" Neocon lol.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Agree with your later point. I do not subscribe to the rules of a Just war (the aim is to win) and therefore if wiping out everybody in Damascus would bring me the head of Bashir Al Assad, i would make that choice.
    I agree to some rules when it is reasonable - for example, if it can be shown that our adherence to rules in limited warfare meant that it was more likely that our opponents also adhered to those rules, then that can be suitable. but if they torture our men, we'll happily torture theirs in return.

    ...but why do you necessarily want to kill assad to this extent?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PurpleNerple)
    I agree to some rules when it is reasonable - for example, if it can be shown that our adherence to rules in limited warfare meant that it was more likely that our opponents also adhered to those rules, then that can be suitable. but if they torture our men, we'll happily torture theirs in return.

    ...but why do you necessarily want to kill assad to this extent?
    Assad is an ally of Russia, we must remove that pawn in our grand game of foreign policy chess.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Assad is an ally of Russia, we must remove that pawn in our grand game of foreign policy chess.
    1) isn't that just going to provoke russia?
    2) why think of foreign policy like chess? this costs us money and british blood. how does this relate to our national interests? are you suggesting that economic gains should be pursued at the cost of military action? I don't subscribe to that view at all.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PurpleNerple)
    1) isn't that just going to provoke russia?
    2) why think of foreign policy like chess? this costs us money and british blood. how does this relate to our national interests? are you suggesting that economic gains should be pursued at the cost of military action? I don't subscribe to that view at all.
    No more than they have provoked us in Georgia and Eastern Ukraine. There's little risk of a hot war.

    Open and free markets are in our economic interests and generally so is a belief in democracy (few nations actually vote for war). Russia is closed, nationalistic and corrupt with a questionable comittment to democracy (the 2012 election was not deemed entirely free and fair).

    I don't desire gunboat economics but if you get a situation like the Arab Spring and other nations jumping in then its important to make sure events go your way.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Career diplomat, not entirely sure how it arrived at that conclusion.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jape)
    Career diplomat, not entirely sure how it arrived at that conclusion.
    Your plan to preserve peace is always complete capitulation?

    You'd not be the only one. Whenever somebody tells me we should negotiate with Russia it usually involves the following idea that we should be the ones to withdraw (we being the west) from x or y.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Your plan to preserve peace is always complete capitulation?

    You'd not be the only one. Whenever somebody tells me we should negotiate with Russia it usually involves the following idea that we should be the ones to withdraw (we being the west) from x or y.
    I'd have fought pretty much every major war of the 20th Century (maybe not Vietnam) as well as Iraq and Afghanistan. Might have just answered the questions without reading them thoroughly, but I'd consider myself a Douglas Murray-type character.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Classic neo-con.


    You want to change the world for the better, you're willing to use force to do it, and you don't particularly care what the rest of the world thinks. On behalf of the world, I hope that your notion of changing it for the better agrees with mine, or, if it doesn't, that you don't live in a country with the means to pursue your agenda. You are probably a disgruntled former liberal who writes angry editorials that are published in the very newspapers you denigrate as elitist and liberal.

    Not really
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I got chickenhawk lol


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jape)
    I'd have fought pretty much every major war of the 20th Century (maybe not Vietnam) as well as Iraq and Afghanistan. Might have just answered the questions without reading them thoroughly, but I'd consider myself a Douglas Murray-type character.
    Very good. I'd have still supported the war in Vietnam, it would become a Soviet foothold if not.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Very good. I'd have still supported the war in Vietnam, it would become a Soviet foothold if not.
    I don't think that would have been that bad. I think I agree with Jape although obv hindsight is 20/20.

    I think I'm a NeoCon Realist
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.