This week's blog post focuses on foreign policy.
In public discussions of foreign policy, the word "neoconservative" is often used. While having older roots, this word and way of organizing foreign policy became very popular during the George W. Bush administration--and is associated with the launching of the US 'war on terror' and the subsequent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. While not as prominent in the Obama administration, neoconservatism continues to be an important philosophy shaping American foreign policy today.
Here are five neoconservative positions regarding US foreign policy:
1. Internationalism: Neoconservatives argue that the US should play an active role in world politics today by maintaining and extending the current global order that is in line with our national interests. This means that the US should, in general, be more interventionist in its foreign policy outlook.
2. Primacy: Neoconservatives argue that American dominance in world politics is good fortune for the world and for the US. US global dominance should therefore be maintained and no other power should be able to militarily and economically rival the US.
3. Unilateralism: Neoconservatives argue that American power is the source of global stability, not the UN Security Council or NATO or the European Union. So, US foreign policy should not be afraid of acting alone (unilaterally) to maintain US national security interests and global stability.
4. Militarism: Neoconservatives argue that because the US should be able to maintain global stability and spread democracy abroad, a strong US military is needed.
5. Democracy: Neoconservatives argue that it is in US national interest to spread democracy abroad.
Do you agree with all five of these neoconservative foreign policy positions? Do you disagree with all five of them? Or, do you agree with some of them? Which do you agree with and which do you disagree with? Why do you agree and/or disagree with them?
If you disagree with one or more of them, what problems can you imagine might arise with these neoconservative aims? For instance, could policies aimed at spreading democracy abroad create problems for the US? Could unilateral US intervention abroad cost the American tax payer too much? Etc.
If you agree with more than one of these neoconservative foreign policy position, which do you feel is the most important? Why is this the most important position? Which position is the least important? Why is it the least important?
I feel like all of these are nessisary for a government to be sucessful. HOWEVER there are certain times when selected ones should and should not be used. i feel like this is the only problem with these ideas, is that they are used in the correct context. Colin Springer 100.03
ReplyDeleteI disagree with democracy because I believe the U.S should be run by a government not by several people because not everyone is capable of making such big decisions. I do believe this could create problems with putting power into the hands of the wrong people. I do not believe unilateralism is correct because if the U.S. acted solely upon itself it wouldn't embark upon so many foreign policies with other nations. Involving other nations could cost the tax payer too much versus our nation acting upon itself.
ReplyDeleteBrandi Parsons PSCI 100.04
I agree that all of these are needed for a successful government but i diagree with number three in that American power is the source of global stability becuase in order to have global stability, all countries must be able to work together on important issues and not just depend on one to hold everything together. I also somewhat disagree with number five because it should not be up to the US to spread democracy abroad. as long as each country is functioning properly and are not a threat to any other, each country should be left to deal with their own issues instead of new issues being created to try and change them. I dont think that it would even be possible for the US to try and manage other countries and spreading demacracy because it would cost American tax payers too much monay and then our own country would fumble. I belive that primacy is the most important of neoconservative aims because we do need a very strong military and economy that way no matter what happens between other countries, we will be able to hold our ground and not rely on other contries for our stability. If one could be dropped I would have to choose the spreading of democracy abroad because I think it would cause more harm than good in trying to change another government.
ReplyDeleteKassi Gardner
100.05
I disagree with all of these.
ReplyDelete1. The US does not need to be interventionists. To be honest, doing so only causes harm to our own country. At this time we can not afford to intervene with other places, especially because we can not even solve our own problems.
2. There should be no dominance in terms of global politics. Dominance only leads to a downfall. Hitler wanted that sense of dominance over the world, he wanted control and in the end he lost. There should be no dictatorship, only equality.
3. Anyone that argues that the US makes other places stable is.. a little uninformed. If our country causing sweat shops in other countries makes them stable then I'm not too sure what stable is. true i guess that since we have such a high supply demand we create jobs for other countries - but how can we say those jobs are stable when they would not be accepted in our own land?
4.As our founding fathers said, we do not need a large army. We only need to be able to protect ourselves. Having a large army implies that we have to force others to believe what we believe.
5. I understand that there are horrible governments out there, but one should also understand that ours is not perfect. It is not our place to tell others how to govern themselves. If they hate the government so much then they WILL find a way to leave that country. We should let other places solve their own problems instead of forcing our opinions on them causing more issues for ourself and the other place.
conclusion: neoconservatives are.... perhaps ill-informed?
Yasmin Modica
PSCI 100.04
I also disagree with all the neoconservative positions on foreign policy. It is good to have global order but it shouldn't just be enforced by one country on everyone else, it should be a sort of agreement; and no one country should have dominance over all the others. Acting alone is a stupid thing to do because it has the potential to create a lot of friction if opposed by other countries and if we had the support of other countries would be cheaper. Lastly, it is no one's job to tell other courtiers what type of government they have to have, especially when the US hasn't exactly figured out how to work democracy in the right way. All of these positions could lead other countries to perceive the US as tipping the power scale and it is always uncomfortable when someone else has more power than the others. And friction creates conflict so it's best to avoid the superior attitude.
ReplyDeleteJessica Hall, 100.04
Neoconservative, in other words we help and maintain a some kind of order globally, right? In my personal opinion I suggest we should maintain ourselves before we go heroically changing the world with our millions that we don’t even have. I’m all for aiding countries that need it and definitely all for the ‘war on terror’ because that’s us defending our nation and our boundaries, and also making a point to protect our own country.
ReplyDeleteNothing on the list is completely would shut down. Obviously it’s not perfection, although it could be straightened up.
I do agree with Militarism, which means a strong military, yes; nowadays a strong military is needed. Events happen (ex. 911) that for our countries sake has to be taken into the militaries hands. And if we didn’t have that reliability then we may be even worse off than we might think.
Internationalism is a maybe. I suggest our spending habits while aiding this other countries be cut back, and we should be a more “solitary” country, but maybe in the end it will come back to be of use to us. Although we do pot forth a mighty big effort to help, other countries may in return see that and become more globally active as well. I guess we will find out in the future.
Laura Elkins
PSCI 100.4
I agree with all of these "positions", but at the same time the United States need to know when and when not to put its nose in other peoples business. I don't think that the government really takes in consideration of other people when they declare war. 2 most recent is Vitenam and The Iraq war going on right now. The United States, yes had good intentions of trying to help these countries try to get back on their feet or to help break them away from their rules and become more of a demoracy like the U.S. and that is perfectly fine with helping other people. But at the same time, we are risking thousands and thousands of American Soliders lives to do so. I feel like, if a compromise can not come at a peaceful cost then the U.S. needs to just step aside sometimes and let that country deal with its issues itself. There is nothing wrong with having a stong military here in the United States, ones that we can send to help like the people in Japan with an earthquake and tsuamni; or to Hati for an earthquake. This is how I see it all comes down too. There are two parts to this, the United States can aid other countries during natural disasters or other peaceful conflcits. When it comes to rules and war in another country the United States really needs to step back and one, see if they really need to be invovled in this other countries business, then two if they do feel they need to be in their business figure out a way to help them solve their issues at peacefully as possible. War should be their very last desperate resort. Not their first. Too many Amercian Soldiers have died in the line of duty when they could have proabbaly been spared had "we" meanign the U.S. trued to approach the situation with out the thought of war.
ReplyDeleteLindsey Walls
PSCI 100.04
All of these are true, but it depends on who you have in office. There's always the possiblity of crookedness happening behind closed doors. The government needs more common sense. I feel like the US government would be a little more successful if we had more individuals that had a better sence of what they were doing and thought things out a little bit more they would do more to benifit everyone not just a small percentage of people, but when money has to do with everything that makes a difference.
ReplyDeleteLacie Sirk PSCI 100.05
I disagree with two of these: Democracy and Unilaterialism. Democracy can be dangerous if they make things more open to "everyone." I don't think everyone has the ability to make decisions for our country. The power could be put into the wrong hands and something could go wrong. I think the way the government is run now is fine. We need some type of overarching authority to make decisions but the best for our country. As for Unilateralism, US does not have global stability. Well if we had global stability then we would have this war going on right now with Afghanistan and our relationships with all other countries would be fine and dandy but in reality, they aren't. Some view the US as a bully because of the money we have and the choices we make. Our country is very unstable globally and independently.
ReplyDeleteStephanie Hudlow
psci 100.05
I disagree with the first four terms because the neoconservatives try to pass off that the U.S. got to where it is alone. And we all know this is not the case.1. Internationalism would be more effective if we didn’t take away from what is needed to fight for in our country in order to make others fear us. 2. Primacy: Others have the right to have power in their territories as we do here. Neoconservatives seem to strive on creating fear in others so we may be the biggest kid on the block.3. In order for us to stay strong it will take team work. The U.S cannot act alone without creating enemies. This would ask the U.S. to throw away the alliances needed to keep peace.4. Militarism: I do not feel we have to have a huge military in order to survive, we need only what is needed to protect ourselves.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with #5. I agree with democracy because it is what keeps the country running smoothly (even though not in all situations.
I don’t really agree with any of these. They all make it sound like America rules the world. That’s not how it should be. I think it is this attitude that forms much of the hostility against the US and creates enemies. I do think we should be helping other countries (such as Libya), but I don’t think the US should act alone. I feel this action just sets us up for a bigger failure. If America sees itself as the source of global stability that any instability is subsequently our fault. Neoconservatives looks a lot like neocolonialism to me.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I greatly disagree with all five views. Out of all of them though, the sections on Democracy and Internationalism are the ones I have the most problems with. We have our way of doing things. Just because we feel it works for us does not mean we should enforce it in other areas. While it would be fantastic for everyone to have rights, it is not our place to enforce it. The US should not feel responsible for everyone else's problems. When we do this, it doesn't help anyone. Over all these places do not want our help. Democracy does not work for everyone and the US needs to learn this. We do not have to go into every Country that we feel threatens us or we feel could use our assistance, because nine times out of ten we aren't wanted there in the first place. This being the case it is a wasted effort and puts us out of yet even more money that could have been used for our own benefit.
ReplyDeleteKatherine Martin 100.04
I agree with all of these foreign policies except for one, policy number one. I think that the US is actice enough in the world and foreign policy. We have many problems in our own country today that should be focused on. So intervening in other world issues may not be in our best interest.
ReplyDeleteAshley Everts PSCI 100.04 3/30/2011
Of course, all of these points are important for a successful government; however, I can see how some countries are "against" the US or feel jealousy because alot of these points make the US seem like they are better than everyone else. I don't disagree or agree with that, but it should not be so outright expressed. Expecially in number 3. I completely agree with number 4 the most: a strong military is needed. It is needed even more if we follow the other points in the list, such as intervening in foreign affairs and spreading democracy.
ReplyDeleteHannah Hime 100.04
I do not agree with the first position. The US has too much involvement and that is causing our nations problems now. If it's not concerning us, there should be no need for further involvment. It would be good to have the best military and to be economically stable, but to get there, again, we cannot keep going to pointless wars. The US can reach this without going about it the way we have been. As for unilateralism, the world does NOT revolve around America! I don't understand the neoconvervatives point of view. The US isn't this all high and mighty power that they claim and want it to be. I agree with the need of a strong military, but not for the same reasons as proposed above. A military is needed for protection, not to maintain "global stability." The democracy aspect is what the US is striving towards, but some countries do just fine on their own governing system. The US can't teach about democracy if the US itself doesn't truly have a democracy. We've learned about the excuses we live around in our so called democracy. Regarding all of this, I do not believe in the five positions, and they few I did, weren't for the same reasons.
ReplyDelete100.4
I disagree with all of these because the US should be more concerned about what is going on with its own people. Foreign policy sounds great, but is it ideal? Obama has been talking to different countries such as Afghanistan, Russia, China etc. to make their lives a little more simple while our economy is dwiindling down day by day. Primary and Militarism sound nice, but I don't like how they mention the US is ment to bring global awareness and stability. I think we should go back to what George Washington said and be an isolated country. It would better benifit ourselves in the long run.
ReplyDeleteKatelyn Sine
100.04
I disagree with all of these neoconservative foreign policy positions. Internationalism should not be something that we should be doing in the first place. Why should anything another country is doing be any of our business. I do not see our policy makers getting into Americans business trying to fix an abusive husband, or trying to resolve violence on the streets. So why is it important what other countries do? We need to worry about United States and that’s about it. Why do we need to be dominant it is one reason why other countries dislike us and try to fly plains into buildings. Economically what has this war done for us, put us in debt. Our dominance is really working over in Iraq we are losing an uphill battle. Acting alone in a global struggle we should listen to other countries and their ideals because they aren’t in debt and not fighting everyone that attacks them. The best thing to do is when you get knocked down get back up and carry on with our lives. Just like the British did when there were terrorist attacks in their subway station. When we talk about Militarism it shows that the U.S. is insecure and we want to fight. What does that mean for other countries if they want to push our buttons they will use aggressive action to hit us where it hurts because we want to show our power. I just believe the U.S. should be concerned with the U.S. and try not to be the top dog just because we won two big wars in our history.
ReplyDeleteJoshua Labuhn PSCI 100.03
I disagree with all of the above. I think that it is completely arrogant of the neoconservatives to think that the US should be the world police. I do not want to pay my tax dollars to fund the US to be bullies and tell other countries of less fortune and riches what to do and how to do it. Since the US does not know how to manage its own proper democracy, how on Earth are they supposed to tell other countries how to do it. Spreading one idea onto other people is always a terrible thing to do in my opinion. We should all be like our first president in a sense of isolationism. What other countries do is none of our business. We should only involve ourselves with other countries if they attack us. Making up bogus excuses to invade other countries makes us not only look arrogant and stupid, it causes many other countries to dislike us and talk shit about us. And they should dislike us, and when I say "us" I do not mean the American people, I mean the American government. If many of our allies do not want to help us invade and tell other countries what to do so much that there is a word for it-Unilateralism-than clearly we should not being doing it. It will blow up in our faces soon enough, because no matter what they will keep invading and "spreading democracy" when it is not asked for and causes more destruction than construction. It will inevitably cause the US's impending doom.
ReplyDeleteSteven Orrence
PSCI 100.05
I disagree with all of them. Neoconservative aims at complete obedience and full control of the whole world. The aims are to pretty much over take everyone with completely full power of control in how they run their country and there people with no say otherwise. It’s not giving equal opportunity or freedom of choice its very undemocratic and complete totalitarianism. Our country has a problem with believing we are the only ones in control or allowed to do anything to anyone. I understand that we like to help and maintain freedom and democracy everywhere but not to the point where we are making all the decisions for them. We have too many problems of our own we do not deal with or fix and instead we trying to deal with others. I don’t mind paying higher taxes to help but not when they already hate us and don’t want our help and they don’t want to help us out either. We need to fix all our problems instead of adding to them other peoples.
ReplyDeleteKatie Clevenger, 100.05
I belive that some of the policies of neoconservative policies make the US just seem like an arrogant little kid that want all the attention. I mean really what gives us the right to intervien with everything all around the world. Policies 2 and 3 are just striaght up arrogant. There is nothing else that can describe them. I don't agree with needing to have the largest miliatry ever and I don't think that democracy necessarily needs to be spread to every country. Multiple countries operate just fine without being a democracy.
ReplyDeleteIf the US actually opperated on all of these policies we would be the enemy of every nation in the world. No one wants a bully and that's all the US would be if these policies were to be put in place.
Ben Hackett 100.03
I agree with all of these topics. We should have a strong military to defend our rivals or anything else that comes at us. We should be involved in international policies. We should be watching what is going on in other countries. Democracy is important because everyone should have the right to their opinion and have an equal share. The U.S. should be able to take care of their self without anyone else. We shouldn't have rival and we are big enough to be dominant over others.
ReplyDeleteKathryn Stevens PSCI 100.04
I disagree with all five proposals about the foreign policy. None of them would work out because the US is not stable and does not need all of that attention. There should be no more blood on our hands just because we send the most troops. We shouldn’t even be intervening another country unless the UN or NATO has informed all of the countries that they are required to send troops. For example, Lybia. If the US did somehow do all five of these things then we would be leading to self-destruct our country. One reason would be we are not even stable enough to take care of everyone in the US why should we be trying to do the same to other countries? Also, if the US does become and interventionist country then we would be in even more debt than we are now, which would make matters worse.
ReplyDeleteAlaina Meserole,
PSCI 100.05
I do not agree the categories with all of the above. I think that its egotistical of nonconservative's to think that the US should be the world police. I do not want to pay or fight to fund the US to become the bullies of the world and tell other countries what to do and how to do it. But that is exactly what we do we destroy countries during wars and conflicts and rebuild them and then just expect them to follow democratic rule, that we our selves don't follow. The US does not know how to manage its own democracy, how are we supposed to tell other countries how to do it. Imposing ideas on other people has always been a terrible idea. the catholic church did it during the crusades and ever since it has seemed like the right thing to do but there is a difference on informing people and imposing. We should all be like George Washington ans take up isolationism, and stay focused on our own affairs. What other countries do is none of our concern. We should only involve ourselves with other countries only if they attack or cause harm to us. Making up excuses to invade other countries like in Iraq, Vietnam, or Afghanistan makes us not only look like the bad guy but also causes other countries to dislike us and want to disregard us a reliable nation. We simply lose credibility.If our allied nations refuse to help us, we have no chance in changing anything an army of one is an army that falls. Our conflicts if not now will eventually blow up in our faces, because of our ego.It will inevitably cause the US to fall as a nation. The only solution is to revise our foreign policies and try to regroup as a nation before its to late.
ReplyDeleteCordova,J PSCI100:05
I agree with some of these five points and strongly disagree with others. I believe it is necessary for the US to have a strong military, have strong national defense, and should be economically stable. However, I don't think that we have a right to try and spread democracy throughout the rest of the world. I feel that each nation has its own choice to put in place the government that they feel proper. It is almost like the United States is trying to act as the ideal role model. However, democracy might not be the answer and by us trying to carry this out we have landed our nation in an economic crisis. I believe that the US should only interact with other countries when our own security is being question.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with all the neoconservative positions on foreign policy. I believe it’s great to have all this control over other countries since the US is a big target for terrorist attacks due to us trying to maintain order in foreign countries. However, there was a comment I read on here and I agree to what that person said. It talks about before to try to maintain any order in another country we should start here in the US. I do believe that the US trying to make this happen on its own it’s costing millions of dollars to Americans. It would be rather easier if other countries will help along so that the cost wouldn’t be as much. I also believe that why should the US intervene in other countries? Just to justify that we are a very powerful country?
ReplyDeleteJorge Alvarez PSCI 100.03
I don't agree with any of these neoconservative positions, except for the first one,
ReplyDeleteto an extent. I believe that the United States government needs to focus on
problems within our own country, such as education, employment, etc, before
trying to fix problems in other countries. Democracy may be the best type of
government in our eyes, but it is going to cause more problems if we try to go to
other countries to promote this type of government. The U.S. is already spending
billions of dollars in war and foreign aid, yet we hardly have enough money to
better our educational system or make more jobs. By promoting democracy in
other countries, the U.S. would just increase it's debt by billions more and create a
bigger problem within our own country. The first position, internationalism,
should be obeyed to an extent. I don't feel as if the U.S. should meddle in other
countries' affairs when it doesn't pertain to the U.S. yet if a country's actions causes
a threat to the U.S., then the U.S. should have the right to intervene. The U.S.
needs to focus on the good of their own people rather than trying to act like a
superhero to the rest of the world.
Kelly Sweeney
PSCI 100.05
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think neoconservative ideas are on target. I agree with all the ideas above. I do believe, however, that there is more than meets the eye. Just as anything, it may sound good on paper, but putting ideas into action and more importantly, being successful, takes more preparation, dedication, and enthusiasm. These “ideal conditions” assume that America is in good condition. The successes of these political ideas not only depend on political involvement but also support from citizens.
ReplyDeleteAs for internationalism, I think foreign involvement is very important, which goes along with creating primacy and democracy abroad. However, the current foreign involvement in the war in the Middle East and other affairs that has deprived and created doubt in our country isn’t helping in those factors. The condition in which the US is currently in is no way to influence other countries. Internationalism and primacy cannot be successful without the backing of a strong, stable country, and we cannot attempt democracy abroad when our country isn’t currently anything to be proud of. Only when a country can be confident with its own well-being can it effectively aid and influence others in neoconservative ways.
Secondly, the United States has, and always has had, one of the strongest armed forces. Military is the reason we feel protected in this country. If troops disarmed, would we feel as safe? So what if we have 1000 bases worldwide, we have protection. I believe that it is because of our military that we are a dominating power world-wide. This idea of militarism should be in effect no matter what kind of condition our country is in. Our military lets other countries know that we are out there and haven’t given up (even though we may need to back down for a little while). While we may not have the economic or political primacy, we have it militarily.
Lastly, unilateralism shows assurance. Right now, America has no reason to be 100% confident in any foreign affair. The UN and NATO are great international groups that deal with foreign policy, but the U.S. should not think that we are above it. After all, many UN and NATO countries are in better shape than we are ourselves. If we absolutely have to be internationally involved, we should work with these countries, not above.
All in all, neo-conservatism assumes the “ideal conditions” of a country. Right now, we are far from that “idea”. The neoconservative ideas may be a good goal for this country, but right now, it is not a good idea to base everything we are off of these points. First, we must become a stable and confident country our self, then deal with foreign issues. There is a time and a place for everything, while I agree with neoconservative ideas, it is not our time and place right now.
Cayce Martin 100.04
It's fine to have foriegn policies and all. however, I think we should fix our own country first before we worry about other people. What place do we have to impose democracy on other people when we don't have a very stable democracy our selves. If we can't remedy our own problems what place do we have to "fix" other peoples countries. We sure are one to point out other peoples problems..
ReplyDeleteMatthew Kimberlin
PSCI 100.05
I think, right now, these are bad ideas for our country. We're funneling tons of money into a war that isn't really doing anything for us, when we could put it toward something to try to ease the hurt of the recession that most families are feeling. I have the biggest issue with number five. It may be in our best interest for other countries to be democratic, for trade, but that means we would have to intervene in a non-democratic country. This is not our place. Before we became a very powerful country, people instilled democracy in a country by rebelling. If the people rebel, we can assist by selling them arms, but we should not send troops there.
ReplyDeleteRebecca Herbert, 100.05
I disagree with all 5 neoconservative positions. Why should the U.S. take an interventionist approach when discussing events oversees when within our own country people are not being taken care of. In the U.S. we have less than great education, hungry and homeless children and a large majority of uninsured people who cannot get adequate healthcare. If you cannot help yourself, what makes you so qualified to help another? As far as primacy and unilateralism goes, I believe those ideas stem from nothing more than pure arrogance. To me, the need to place oneself above another shows nothing but insecurity and a very large ego. I think these two undesireable qualities is why the U.S. feels like it must have a large military. Fear or the desire for power is what motivates people to take up arms. Clearly our government hungers for more and more power and I think our government instills fear of the "enemy" in American citizens so a large military can be justified and supported by the public. As for spreading democracy, this seems like a parent (the U.S.) saying to a child (other countries) "Do what I say, not what I do." Our government is not exactly a good example of democracy. I think instead of sticking our noses in everyone elses business, the U.S. would be better off to adhere to the old saying, practice what you preach.
ReplyDeleteChristina Page psci 100-04
When I read the five positions of US foreign Policy, it is clear to me that as with any situation, the ruling elite (for the purposes of this response, this is the United States), are trying to maintain status and power. When I look at the wording of our policies, we are far to involved with conflict than actually contributing to the solution. Do we get our rocks off by sending teenage boys and young men to fight all over the world? Look at #1. “Interventionist” does not mean we are going to send psychologists to help the suffering soldiers and their families in countries under attack, nor does it mean our focus will be providing food aid or shelter, it more less implies that anywhere in the world, so long as they are not a US rival, we will contribute our soldiers to battle and protect that country. Good thought, but considering our own issues with the Middle East, I believe we become too involved in international conflicts. “no other power should be able to militarily and economically rival the U.S.”, well this has me worried as China and India are growing rapidly, what will we do to maintain that status with those countries? Hopefully we won’t ever end up going to war with China, as strongest our military is, we can only handle so much conflict at one time- policing and conflict in Somalia, North Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, ect. My point for this argument is that the U.S. takes far to aggressive of an approach to global affairs. I would like to see more of an effort for world peace, and providing aid to suffering countries other than our own soldiers lives.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of the neoconservative US Foreign Policies. One of the ones, I do not agree with is the first one which is internationalism. I believe that we should stay out of everyone else’s business and solve the problem in our own country. We should do what George Washington suggested and stay away from getting involved with everyone else’s business. I also don’t agree with the third one which is Unilateralism. I don’t think that only the U.S should be the one making sure of global stability.
ReplyDeleteAshley Mellott
PSCI 100.03
I personally do not care for any of the five neoconservative positions. It seems to me that while following these guidelines the American policy makers and the implementers are putting their noses in everyone else’s business and forcing other countries into become something they might not necessarily want to be. While caring out these intrusive rules the military is acting like a big bully and resembles, to me at least, they were are terrorizing other nations just in order to maintain our big headedness. A nation that stands alone, unilateralism, will eventually use up all their resources leading to a massive downfall, and with the U.S. being the biggest player in the world games it’s fall could lead to total world destruction.
ReplyDeleteI agree with some of these positions but I also disagree with some of them because while Obama is trying to help other countries out, the United States is suffering and nothing is being done. Although our economy is not suffering as much as it was, jobs are still hard to fine and the unemployment rate is still high. Obama could be doing a lot to try and make more jobs, but instead he is in other countries trying to make their country better. George Washington first said that we should be an isolated country and I think he was right. If we were to be isolated from all other countries, and we just dealt with our problems everything would be a lot easier and better.
ReplyDeleteLeigh Ann Nelson PSCI 100.03
I disagree with number one, internationalism. It states that the US should play an active role in world politics by maintaining global order. I think that unless the US in directly involved they should not interfere. I feel like all the US does it meddle in other countries businesses causing wars that no one has a legit reason for being there. Why are our troops in Iraq? There was a theory that there were weapons of mass destruction, well we went and found nothing but we are still over there. Why? There’s no reason for the US to still be over there. I feel as though the US likes to be involved in everyone else’s business and it's ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteEmmi Shambeda
PSCI 100.05
I do not agree with all five views of the neoconservatives. I do not believe that we need to be on top of all world politics. While we do need to be involved sometimes, we do not always need to be. For example is it really necessary for us to be in Libya right now? I feel that we are spending money while we are still in a war of our own. I agree with their view on militarism. We need a strong military power so that we will not be vulnerable like so many other countries are today.
ReplyDeleteWayne Fleming 100.4
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with all five positions. I don’t believe we have a right to tell other countries how they should be run. If other countries were trying to tell the United States how to run its government we would feel that they were a threat to our country. If we felt that other countries were trying to tell other countries how to run their government we would feel that they were trying to take over those countries and feel the need to step in to stop this action. This way of thinking is doing exactly what we would “have a cow about” if another country was doing it to us. It is very hypocritical for our country to take action on another country because we don’t like their government. The United States and other countries have different cultures and beliefs, just because we don’t agree with each other does not give us the right to attack their country.
ReplyDeleteWe have so many problems within our own country that we cannot afford to spend so much money trying to fix other countries that don’t even want to be fixed. We are spending countless amounts of money to be at war, while we are cutting education and vital resources that the American people so desperately need. Our government needs to get their priorities straight and start thinking about the American people.
Karen Martin
PSCI 100.04
I Definitely agree that a strong military is needed. That is about the only one I agree with out of those. It made me kind of realize how and why other countries may not think fondly of us. It gives the US a vibe that we're better than everyone else. I feel like this regards a little to what I said the other week. As a country we need to focus on us. We're, well not us but Obama, is sending out money to help all these other countries when we truly need it ourselves. So therefore I do not believe in the first one. The others I don't agree nor do I disagree. Im neutral.
ReplyDeleteRebekah Knipe
PSCI 100.04
I agree with all of the foreign polices for the most part. Although I feel that if any that I am not 100% for would be number one. I feel that the United States had involved themselves in enough things with the foreign policy and war. We have enough problems of our own that we need to spend more attention on than worrying about other issues around the world.
ReplyDeleteMegan Long
PSCI 100.03
With the five listed neoconservative positions, it all seem to refer back to or revolve around how the U.S. or whatever nation it may be, to be the dominating one and should be the only one. That everything revolves and should go according to what the nation deems right or otherwise it’s wrong? I feel like what I take from the list is that everything is according to the nation’s standards. Yes, a nation should stand strong but while standing strong I don’t think it should be a push over either. I think that these policies are good to an extent where it is accepted and not forced because that’s when the nation creates a problem for itself.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with all five of the neoconsertive views. If we would outwardly enforce all of our ideas how are we any better than than an oppressive communist government making everyone els adhere to our rules. I feel there is importance in some of these ideas but they are all taken to the extreme. For example we can and should act independently to protect other countries but only if they ask for it. I feel like we are over zealous and rude in the way we interact with other countries. Demo racy is a good form of government when it's working but trying to enact it on other countries just makes it faulty and makes it look like the U S is trying to take control. I don't know I'm not a policy maker and don't plant to ever be but I feel the government is a dangerous power. Anthony harler 100.05
ReplyDeleteI agree with just a few of these positions of neoconservatism. I feel that the United states gets to far into foreign politics and being the "world police". I feel that if were to try and enforce democracy and tell other people how to live their lives then that would be very undemocratic in my eyes and almost totalitarian. A strong military should be the goal of any government, it is a neccesity in keeping a country safe and not going under. A strong military is what gives the united states the power to be the world police and keep our status top tier.
ReplyDeleteDillon Berger psci 100.4
So far, the only one I would agree with is the military view. EVERY government needs a good size military to stay secure. If the U.S. didn't have all of the military we have today, I guaruntee many countries would take that opportunity to walk all over us. The military is what helps us to feel safe from possible invading countries.
ReplyDeleteHeather Reynolds
100.04
I strong agree with militarism and strong disagree with democracy. I believe we should have a strong military and we should maintain global stability. The only problem is if we are going to have a strong military we can’t abuse that power. We should have it for the reason and use it for that reason. I don’t agree with number five democracy we do not really have one and we should not act like we are interested in spreading it until we start have more of a democracy here in our own broader.there are plenty of other country that are more democratic than the US, why not let then go spread democracy? All five really sound like great ideas and would be if the US did them, but we don’t. We need to focus on fixing this country before go jumping in to other countries where we don’t belong.
ReplyDeleteSusan Stout
100.05
While I feel the U.S. should stay up to date with world politics, I don't feel it is our country's right to try and control and dominate the politics of other countries. This policy hasn't worked very well so far and has caused America to gain many enemies in regards to other countries instead of the proposed stability that according to the Neoconservative views should have resulted. I agree somewhat with having a large military, but I don't feel we shold be so quick to put our troops to action(Vietnam, Lybia). They should however always be prepared for the times that the U.S. is directly threatened. The military should be used for protection, not for forcing our views and democracy on other countries.
ReplyDeleteMiranda Beahm
PSCI 100.05
i disagree with all of these. The U.S. should stay out of other countries affairs unless they drastically effect us. We shouldn't even be worrying about foreign affairs with our countries current situation. Our military doesn't need to be as big as it is today we could cut half our military budget and still have the strongest military by far. We don't have to spread Democracy across the globe, if other regimes take hold and threaten our security then we can take action.
ReplyDeletenick mullican PSCI 100.05
ReplyDeleteI believe the neoconservative ways are ethical and unethical for many reasons. I believe that the United States should stay out of other countries domestic and military affairs. I feel the only time it is acceptable to intervene is when the opposing country is threatening multiple countries or global affairs. If the United States always intervenes in other countries problems then that brings negative attention to the United States. I believe democracy is the best type of government, but if other states want to go about there governance differently then they have all the right to do that
ReplyDeleteI agree with some of Neoconservative opinions to an extent. I don’t believe we should be the dominant nation. We should be strong enough to protect ourselves but we do not need to be the only powerful nation. I do agree we need a strong military. However, again I believe we don’t necessarily need the strongest military; rather we just need to build it up to a point where it is strong enough to protect us from potential enemies. This means we need to fund new innovations in military technology so that we are ready to protect ourselves. In fact it may be to our advantage to form alliances with other nations and share our military strength for own protection as well as theirs.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the neoconservative view on Democracy. Democracy should only be spread so far as the citizens of the state desire it. Although democracy or a republican form of democracy might seem like a good system for our own country, it does not mean it is the only system that should exist. Just because as Americans we are satisfied with our system it does not mean that citizens of other nations cannot be happy and prosperous under other systems. If a people truly desire democracy and it seems unlikely they can achieve it on their own it may be in our interests to help them achieve this goal; however we shouldn’t try to force our system upon others.
Internationalism is a bit of a tough topic. We shouldn’t be so quick to funnel resources and money into other nation’s problems when we can’t even fix our own. However if our country is stable and we have enough resources to lend, I don’t believe it always a bad thing for us to send aide in the form of resources or troops. It really depends on the level of need for our aide and how much good it can do in comparison to how much we might lose in supplies, money, or men. Sometimes it is simply better for us to let the country work out its own problems.
I don’t think we should be the sole source of “global stability”; however, I also don’t believe this title can be claimed by the UN or NATO. No power or institution can claim that role. Each county has a responsibility to help its neighbors as well as itself. That’s why we send aide to other nations and sometimes intervene in foreign situations. However, a country should not send aide when that aide is needed to fix its own problems. Also, a country should not involve itself in someone’s business simply because it doesn’t like something. It definitely should not get itself involved in a situation where that aide is undesired. It needs to make wise decisions that will benefit itself as well as its neighbors. An institution can help, but should not be trusted to take care of all of the world’s problems by itself.
-Aaron M. Ladd
PSCI 100.05
Yes, I agree that all of these are neccessary. I think that our government needs to be careful however. I dont think that our government should intervene in places unless it is unavoidable. America is a very powerful nation, and I think that sometimes politicians and such people simply want to flex their foreign policy muscles as it were which is really not necessary and can have lasting effects on American citizens.
ReplyDeleteI don’t really agree with any of the five neoconservative positions. The U.S. does not need to dominate the world militarily or democratically.
ReplyDeleteIn regard to the military, I believe it is in our best interest to have a military presence which will protect our country and territories from invasion. The U.S. government should not be involved in conflicts of other countries unless they ask, or it is done through NATO or the UN. By constantly intruding into the affairs of others, the U.S. stirs the animosity of others towards us, not only as a nation, but as individual Americans.
In regard to democracy, who is to say that this is the best way? There are other countries who may do as well or better with other political systems. Why should the U.S. decide what another country should do, when clearly, we have many complaints from citizens in America who feel under-represented, misled, and unheard?
Rather than try to use our military presence to assert our dominance, the U.S. government should instead divert those dollars used for military intervention toward education. What a difference it would make if our schools all had equal funding regardless of the geographical income bracket – and imagine the gain our country would have in the world if ALL of our citizens were educated fully according to their abilities and aptitudes? Estimates for the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars vary, but even at a conservative 2 trillion dollars combined (and this doesn’t take into consideration the lives lost and the permanently disabled American soldiers for which a price tag can’t be attached), where would our education system be if 2 trillion dollars were funneled into it?
Overall, I believe the U.S. has made itself known around the world, and it's time for the government to step back and allow the American citizens themselves choose whether to continue in this way or spend our money on something more beneficial.
Dee Pierce
PSCI 100.03
I disagree with all 5 of the neoconservative tendencies. I mean, just look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Those are two failed wars, and they are just taxing the population for it everyday those two wars continue. And now with this whole other third war going on in Libya, I just don't know how our country will be able to continue at this rate. All of these actions our neo conservative politicians have implemented will one day affect us very negatively in the long run if they haven't already.
ReplyDeleteRoss Tamaccio 100.03
I do agree somewhat with the positions of Neoconservative Americans. There is also a limit to what we need to involve ourselves with. Such things as invading Iraq and Afganistan were totally unescessary. There was believed to be weapons of mass destruction there when in reality there was nothing. We can not just interfere with another country on a "hunch". That is completely unacceptable because we end up spending millions and billions of dollars for no reason. Not to mention we are losing the lives of many valuable and important men. So there should be an equal balance of this power, someone to check over the decisions, and a way to overlook the operation that the constiutuion says there should be.
ReplyDeleteDerek Buckley PSCI 100.03
I disagree with all five of the Neoconservative opinions. It is a good thing that we like to help other counties that are in need and to keep the worlds countries from suffering but I dont like how it says how everything should fall under the United States Government. Other countries must learn to do well on their own and some countires wouldnt want the help at all and hate America. When we are able to help others who's resoures are using? Our own. We put our own country into a huge debt just because we are worried about others.
ReplyDeleteTrae Tinsman 100.04
Sam Beatty
ReplyDelete100.4
Neoconservatism sounds like a very patriotic thought process and almost reminds me of colionzation in the 19th century. When the European countries colonized all of Africa and the reason for it was the "white mans burden". I believe that unilateralism is a bad idea. Many problems would arise if the US was the sole power in the world and controlled all foreign policy. Eventually other countries would join up and try to take down the US. This would lead to wars in which we would have to grow are military even bigger. So in my opinion there needs to be balance in the world between nations and thats why the UN is a good idea. I do believe that the US should have a lot of influence in the world because we have the power and supplies to help countries. But the US should not interfere in every country and should not be the sole source of power in the world and control everything like a dictator.
I disagree with all five of the Neoconservative ideas. I believe that these ideas will only not only cause problems for the U.S. but also other countries. Many countries do not want the U.S. mingling in their affairs and we need to recognize their independence. I believe that if the U.S. follows the Unilateral beliefs it is only going to make our national debt increase drastically and will in turn make our taxes higher. I believe we should follow the principle of isolationism and avoid foreign affairs as much as possible. I do however slightly agree with number 4. I do think that we should maintain a large army so if we get attacked we are able to protect ourselves and be able to go into war if it is necessary.
ReplyDeleteJenna Peck 100.04
What would the world be like if every government was just like the U.S. government it wouldn't be the outcome that we think. But i do believe that it is a good thing to help other countries that are truly in need. but their is a fine line in helping and trying to force something that they really dont want. But just like this current war we are trying to force something and in doing so we are pushing our country further and further into debt.
ReplyDeleteAbove Robert Hayes Psci 100:04
ReplyDeleteI agree with the notions of Internationalism and Democracy, most importantly democracy because if other countries in the world were able to have a similar government to that of the United States, it would follow that things like trade, peace, and stability would be more easily reached among a diversity of nations. While I believe that yes, nations should be free to practice governments of their choosing, but if that government poses a threat to the U.S. we as a nation should have the right to do something about it. This brings me to the importance of Internationalism; Without some sort of international infuence, the U.S. would not be a thriving nation. There must be global politics in every country throughout the world for it to prosper and be truly livable for it's citizens. For example, North Korea has nearly no Internationalism, making it one of the worst, most oppressive places on the planet to live. Without Democracy and Internationalism, The United States would be a very different place, and in my opinion, it would not be a better place to live than it currently is.
ReplyDeleteSarah Jeffries PSCI 100.05
I agree with all five standings to a certain degree. I believe the United States should be the biggest and most powerful country in the world. By doing so you naturally have few enemies that would rise up against you because they face emanate defeat. I disagree partially with number four. I believe we need a strong military but don’t need to constantly need to be trying to spread democracy on other countries, unless they cry out for our help and want change in their country. Otherwise we would be fighting a pointless war where the people there hate us anyways and unless we keep our soldiers constantly in the country they will fall back to their old ways.
ReplyDeleteMatt Santmier PSCI 100.03
I agree that the United States should have a strong military government, not because it needs to intervene or stick its nose into other countries governments, but because it's necessary to have a large, powerful military nowadays or risk being taken over. I don't agree that we should spread democracy, unless we are sought out to help a certain nation. I think the US has enough problems of its own that should be taken care of before it goes trying to help out other nations. As far as primacy, internationalism, and unilateralism, I agree to some extent. I think that Americans live more comfortably since the US is at the top of the totem pole, but I don't think that all competition is bad and that the US should entirely dominate over all other countries.
ReplyDeleteJessica Meyers 100.05
The US does stick its nose into other countries' business. I agree what we talked about in class, with how countries we have helped have turned on us. How we gave a country aid and taught it to fight in the went to war with it. I believe the US sometimes does a little too much, even if it is for a good cause.
ReplyDeleteChristopher White
PSCI 100.03
I strongly disagree with the primacy aspect of the neoconservative viewpoint. Upon reading that I couldn't help but understand how some countries hold such contempt for Americans. If such global dominance would continue and increase then what would stop the leaders of America from becoming the leaders of the world? It sounds like a bit much and I'll grant its a farstretch, but I can't understand how one could write about global dominance and not instantly think of tyranny. And for the stereotypical patriot who would support their nation in this aspect to think that they would be better off if their country ruled the world is ridiculous. If anything it levels the playing field so that the citizen would then be treated just as poorly as any former outsider.
ReplyDeleteI strongly agree with some of the above points and disagree with others. I do believe that the US needs to have a strong military, have strong national defense. The part I do not agree with is that government can spread democracy throught the rest of the country.
ReplyDeleteAshley Eckenrode 100.05
Like majority of the people posting before me, I believe that these five positions are fairly important but that doesn’t mean I agree with them. I feel that we do need a strong military but only to protect ourselves. Not to go spread democracy around the world. We are a powerful country and we do have enemies because of this which is why we need a strong military but I think we should use it correctly and not use it to convert peoples government to democracy.
ReplyDeleteBrittney Butler 100.03
I feel in a way all of these are necessary, but at the same time, not all the time. I feel that US is always getting involved in foreign policies when i feel that we need to be worried about our own country more. Just like GW said not to get involved in foregin policy well I think some times were more worried about the other countries more than the one we live in and the American people.
ReplyDelete100.03
I agree with these rules, but I feel that the U.S. has taken it too far. They are not all needed at the same time, and sometimes, we cannot always try to fix everything. Sometimes we need to worry about our country as well. It is great to help others, but we have alot to fix in our country.
ReplyDeleteAmy Sultner PSCI 100.03
I agree with the neoconservative view on internationalism. I believe that the US should definitely play an active role in world politics today. I disagree with their view on primacy. There should be no dominance in global politics. The US should not be above anyone else. The US also needs to have a strong military because it is necessary. I believe that alot of these views would cause the US problems.
ReplyDeletemorgan gabriel psci 100.05
I believe that the US should play a role in politics today, politics are what make the united states, the united states. It is about democracy and free speech and that is what it is about. I believe everyone should be on a equal level and that no one else is above or below anyone else.
ReplyDeleteCourtney Pepperling
100.04
I agree and disagree with most of all of these policies. I think that it is good to help people and have a military to protect ourselves, but we shouldnt be fighting with everyone over every little different thing. And we should also fix things within the united states before we work on fixing the other countries.
ReplyDeleteCourtney Owens PSCI 100.03
I feel as though these are all true but can be faulty depending on who's in power behind the policies. The people need to have common sense and a good background that leads them to want to do the right thing. Maybe if there were more people of higher power that could help make sure the right decision was being made, then there would be less of a chance of wrong-doing and a higher chance good decision making would occur. These policies for the most part are pretty accurate and substancial.
ReplyDeleteKindra Bittle
PSCI 100.03
I dont really agree with the internationalism one because the United States has enough problems as it is and I do not feel that we should be worrying about other countries problems while our country is busy at war and millions of dollars in debt. Then again if the U.S does not help out other countries then it looks bad on us because everyone looks towards the U.S for help.
ReplyDeleteMorgan Himmighoefer
PSCI 100.05
I disagree with militarism- I feel like it's not our jobs to involve ourselves that much with other countries. Helping them out is one thing but each country should learn to work it out some how, I know we would be completely against another countries form of government coming over here trying to fix things and telling our government how to run America. At times, yes it's needed, but some times I think America intervenes too much with other countries.
ReplyDeleteTheoni Kontos
PSCI 100.03
i feeel like all of these properties are all neccesary in order to create a functioning government, if they are used correctly. Militarism is the only one that I am back and forth about. The problem is, we only get involved usually in the countries that would be a benefit to us. Sometimes we just need other countries just deal with some problems by themselves without us intervening.
ReplyDeleteDillon Berger psci 100.4
The only point I really agree with is the military one. I do feel that we should have a strong military system so that we can protect our country. We also need one to sometimes help other places who have a weaker military who may need someone to step in and help train them and better them. I don't feel as if we should do this all the time, but we should pick and choose our battles.
ReplyDeleteSecily Butts
PSCI 100.05