NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't know if this has been done before...BUT out of the following three..Which is your favorite and why?

1)Active Conservatism. This basically means intervention comes into play to protect a nations intrests...Much of the cold war was based on this. and so was the first gulf war

2) New Isolationism. Only intervene when directly attacked..The basic domestic problems only, pre ww2 attitude

3)I forget the official name of this one..but it is intervention when human rights are violated. Like what happened in Somalia..or Yugoslavia...


I personally like a combo of 2 and 3...first take care of #2..then help out a bit with #3....

So what do you think?

I don't know if this has been done before...BUT out of the following three..Which is your favorite and why?

1)Active Conservatism. This basically means intervention comes into play to protect a nations intrests...Much of the cold war was based on this. and so was the first gulf war

2) New Isolationism. Only intervene when directly attacked..The basic domestic problems only, pre ww2 attitude

3)I forget the official name of this one..but it is intervention when human rights are violated. Like what happened in Somalia..or Yugoslavia...


I personally like a combo of 2 and 3...first take care of #2..then help out a bit with #3....

So what do you think?
Not very pre-WWII...much of 19th century foreign politics was 'Hey, it's none of our business, but what the hell! Let's go poke our noses in!' I point you to the Crimean War as just one example, the Scramble for Africa as another, and that small matter of World War One (without which there'd never have been WWII...because it would have been the first).

1 and 3.

Not very pre-WWII...much of 19th century foreign politics was 'Hey, it's none of our business, but what the hell! Let's go poke our noses in!' I point you to the Crimean War as just one example, the Scramble for Africa as another, and that small matter of World War One (without which there'd never have been WWII...because it would have been the first).


By pre ww2 i mean like the 20s and 30s...as far as that..also we didn't have much to do(if anything at all) with the colonialization of Africa(this is from a US perspective..sorry for consfusion if you are different nationality)

And we entered WW1 only at the end and very reluctantly..When we entered there was still a goodly ammount of Americans not wanting to interfere.

I don't know if this has been done before...BUT out of the following three..Which is your favorite and why?

1)Active Conservatism. This basically means intervention comes into play to protect a nations intrests...Much of the cold war was based on this. and so was the first gulf war

2) New Isolationism. Only intervene when directly attacked..The basic domestic problems only, pre ww2 attitude

3)I forget the official name of this one..but it is intervention when human rights are violated. Like what happened in Somalia..or Yugoslavia...


I personally like a combo of 2 and 3...first take care of #2..then help out a bit with #3....

So what do you think?

A combo of one and three... we will only have to luxury of defending human rights if we protect our own intrests...

The Big Stick foreign policy is my favorite. With a little Gun Boat Diplomacy mixed in.

By pre ww2 i mean like the 20s and 30s...as far as that..also we didn't have much to do(if anything at all) with the colonialization of Africa(this is from a US perspective..sorry for consfusion if you are different nationality)

And we entered WW1 only at the end and very reluctantly..When we entered there was still a goodly ammount of Americans not wanting to interfere.
Ok, I was looking at it from a British perspective. And yes, 20s and 30s were pretty much isolationist, again with a few notable exceptions (Japan, Italy, Germany)

Not very pre-WWII...much of 19th century foreign politics was 'Hey, it's none of our business, but what the hell! Let's go poke our noses in!' I point you to the Crimean War as just one example, the Scramble for Africa as another, and that small matter of World War One (without which there'd never have been WWII...because it would have been the first).

I think he was implying the period post-WWI but pre-WWII, where most nations were so desperately afraid of having another World War, that they did their best to ignore what was happening everywhere else. Part of that was European nations being too busy rebuilding, and part of it was hands-off politics.

Of course, we all see how well THAT worked out...

Granted, even the Monroe Doctrine of the US didn't really support non-interventionism - while it suggested that the US would stay out of European politics, it also claimed that the US would be entirely responsible for "peace-keeping" in the Western Hemisphere.


Personally, I tend to think that Active Conservatism is the way to go, but then again, I've also felt for quite some time that morality has no place in politics. Certain nations seem to want to maintain a sort of "moral superiority", by not resorting to the dirtier tactics used by other nations... but, in general, that rarely seems to ever have a concrete benefit. Much better off to do what needs to be done, and worry about PR afterward.

Then again, my pet nation is basically a totalitarian police-state, where political freedom is outlawed and both corporal and capital punishment are not only accepted, but common... as is slave labor as a form of discipline. So I'm not sure I'm the person you want to ask.

;)

I'd go for #3, but then again, the US doesn't always make things better when it intervenes...