-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
The very thing that should be remembered at its core. The nations of Europe will forever deal themselves in war. New, amazing, weaponry has been developed before in the past. Look at today's rifles! They are far from the inept objects we used when fighting the British. New weapons will always be made - there is no reason, especially not technology, that should drag America into a war.
My name is Sharp, not Brass, Mr. Jarvis. And it is not your belief there should be no agressive war I am arguing against. It is the fact that you say we should not attempt to turn dictatorships into democracies, but you say we should not stand against the Triple Alliance when they try to turn democracies into dictatorships. And having friends is not an entanglement.
((Bold you vote))
It is apparent that Secretary von Ritter has no major plans to stand against the Triple Alliance. So before you go about criticizing me for not acting strongly enough against the Alliance, look at the other candidates.
Having friends is certainly not entanglement, but it is not friendship I am against; I am opposed to alliances that tie us to Europe and any possible wars. And do we have any right to force out governmental views on another nation? If we do, why don't they?
Having friends is certainly not entanglement, but it is not friendship I am against; I am opposed to alliances that tie us to Europe and any possible wars. And do we have any right to force out governmental views on another nation? If we do, why don't they?
Who are you to say that the Triple Alliance will seek to turn Democracies into Dictatorships? You hav no basis for that argument.
- Secretary of State Roderick Khur
- Secretary of State Roderick Khur
We haven't really looked into military tech recently, as in we have all techs at just before 1900, but there's only about three things left to research everywhere else, so we'll be hopping in on the arms innovations soon enough. The Navy is going to get the good stuff first, and then I'll be researching land tech like mad once we enter the war to represent that US troops are getting better.
((My count puts the tally at:
Hensdale - 4
von Ritter - 2
Jarvis - 2
Family grudge, that has also passed on to the Jamous' and every. single. worker. employed by JKW.))
((I was also Congressman Manuel Armando Nuñez. Unfortunately, I deleted the bio in my original post but Projekt was kind enough to quote it immediately after, so that is the post which is linked.))
I wonder if candidates Terrance and Hensdale could elaborate on their specific actionable foreign policy goals for the next eight years; assuming election and reelection. The policies of the other candidates seem quite clear, but the stances of the two of you are less clear at the moment.
((really, all of my characters could just be linked with the same link [I did separately post a copy of the bio for each one as they entered politics, but I'm far too lazy to look for all of those] since that post has all their bios))
)).
Ah, welcome Captain Kildwell. You may remember my brother, Commodore Daniel Vallejo ((who commanded from the USS Caroline - too bad I sent that character packing for the Philippines so I can't bring him back for a cameo now
)).((about three tech's left... limited access roads, some weird philosophy tech, some banking tech? [always my last non-military ones]))
I thought I'd made myself quite clear. The basic principles of a Terrance government's foreign policy would be military deterrence and dialogue. A strong Commonwealth Alliance between ourselves, the UK and France should be formed. We should pursue better relations with the Santiago Pact, these pointless wars must end. I would not however accept aggression from them as we offer friendship. I shalln't be an aggressor; my foreign policy is both anti-isolationist and anti-war. As far as trade goes we shall seek to open the vast Chinese market.
I think von Ritter is the one whose foreign policy is unclear. He seeks to involve us in Europe, but obviously lacks a self-persuading reason as he's unable to choose a side!
I had outlined my plan in the Jarvis-Hensdale debates of recently, but alas, I shall divulge further and lay out my ambitious foreign policy plan once again.
My main goal would be to reform the Commonwealth into a tool that will no longer dampen relations with the United Kingdom, but instead use it to share a special bond with them, promote greater integration and relation between out two nations, stopping short of being dragged into a European War, that is. Under my Administration, if bestowed the honour of two terms, shall engage in fierce and friendly talks with the nations of Europe to discuss many matters, such as ways to forge new friendships and allow old animosities to die down. It should be noted, even by the greatest militarist, that the power of the pen is far mightier than the power of the sword. While I am NOT an isolationist, I do disagree with the rampant flaunting of the Nation's military outside our jurisdiction. This would mean meddling in the Affairs of Asia, Europe, and Africa.
In terms of South America and the Santiago Pact, we simply shouldn't be making enemies here at all. I supported the PPSA simply because the situation had already spiraled out of control too much, and we needed to go in an correct it. It was through no fault of President Carr or myself that this had to happen, it was a necessary procedure in my eyes. Now - that being said I must touch upon the fact that brought us to this point, we should never let the nations of South America spiral down to rampant Anti-Americanism, so we must promote our best interests through diplomatic and friendly ways. As both Vice-President and the former Secretary of State under President Harrison, I feel that I am comfortable with America's place in the World to be able to achieve our goals through peaceful and diplomatic means.
The PPSA was just Congress ceding powers it ought not be surrendering! Why should the President have unlimited power in a certain region, completely independent of Congress? I don't care if the Congressmen saw fit to cede that power to Carr or Cameron or anyone; the Constitution clearly shows that only Congress can declare war! And that this surrender of power was merely made by those who didn't want to admit they supported the war (which may very well include Vice-President Hensdale).
Is our rampant interventionism in Peru, or in Cuba, or anywhere in Latin America going to endear us to the leadership of the Santiago nations? Is our interfering in their affairs going to either? Obviously, the answer to both is 'No;' only friendly interaction, not strong armed tactics that Hensdale and Terrance would likely use, and von Ritter would almost certainly use. My method of actually getting out of their lands, and opening trade and diplomatic channels with them, completely and unilaterally, will bring them closer to us!
If Hensdale can justify actions in South America, what is to keep him from justifying action in Asia, or Africa, or Europe. Certainly some occurrences will be relevant to our interests (especially with the Commonwealth still in place), and he could very well follow the path of the men he served over the past decade, Harrison and Carr, both interventionists.
Only I, amongst all these candidates, have proven myself to truly support non-interventionism, and have a record of opposing the expansion of governmental power through those brutal, and illegal conflicts.
Is our rampant interventionism in Peru, or in Cuba, or anywhere in Latin America going to endear us to the leadership of the Santiago nations? Is our interfering in their affairs going to either? Obviously, the answer to both is 'No;' only friendly interaction, not strong armed tactics that Hensdale and Terrance would likely use, and von Ritter would almost certainly use. My method of actually getting out of their lands, and opening trade and diplomatic channels with them, completely and unilaterally, will bring them closer to us!
If Hensdale can justify actions in South America, what is to keep him from justifying action in Asia, or Africa, or Europe. Certainly some occurrences will be relevant to our interests (especially with the Commonwealth still in place), and he could very well follow the path of the men he served over the past decade, Harrison and Carr, both interventionists.
Only I, amongst all these candidates, have proven myself to truly support non-interventionism, and have a record of opposing the expansion of governmental power through those brutal, and illegal conflicts.
It is not the President's decision to declare an Act of Congress is Unconstitutional, it must go to the Supreme Court to be determined, this has been the precedent since Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Let I remind you, I have never been a member of Congress and my time inside there was residing as President of the Senate. I expressed my support from a position of Secretary of State, being at the helm of the Foreign Affairs department opened me up to this realization.
Now, I am not trying to justify my actions in supporting and using the PPSA, I am simply saying it was need to fix the mess that was created previously. Under my Administration, no such mess shall emerge, and there will be no need for any other PPs. I shall not use this method of fixing problems in dealing with Europe, Asia, and Africa. It is those places that I will reserve for Diplomacy. Anything more is simply an untruth.
Now, I am not trying to justify my actions in supporting and using the PPSA, I am simply saying it was need to fix the mess that was created previously. Under my Administration, no such mess shall emerge, and there will be no need for any other PPs. I shall not use this method of fixing problems in dealing with Europe, Asia, and Africa. It is those places that I will reserve for Diplomacy. Anything more is simply an untruth.
Gentlemen, I find your positions interesting. I wouldn't classify either of you as internationalists, but you are certainly not unilateral militarists in the looming concern of the European question.
Mr. Hensdale, you appear to want the US to have a special relationship with Britain continued through the Commonwealth but to also engage Europe as a whole. How do you think the US will be best able to the time available to you as President repair Anglo-American relations while maintaining open trade and diplomatic relations with the Triple Alliance? Also, can you elaborate on what you see as the major differences between the United States' role in the Americas as opposed to in Asia, Africa, and other colonized parts of the world? Do you feel that wars in Latin America, kept separate from the major European colonial possessions, are more desirable as a tool of American foreign policy than military interventions elsewhere?
Mr. Terrance, the greatest question is to what extent are you willing to avoid "pointless wars" if it means being unable to establish ourselves in the Entente Cordial otherwise? And can you answer why you feel your policy towards Latin America versus Europe, which seems the opposite of Mr. Hensdale's, is superior to the well being of the United States? Does it serve the United States to avoid war with the Santiago Pact only to risk war in Europe, which even if your administration did not put on the table in our agreement with France and Britain, could still break out if we conflict with Germans interests in China?
Mr. Hensdale, you appear to want the US to have a special relationship with Britain continued through the Commonwealth but to also engage Europe as a whole. How do you think the US will be best able to the time available to you as President repair Anglo-American relations while maintaining open trade and diplomatic relations with the Triple Alliance? Also, can you elaborate on what you see as the major differences between the United States' role in the Americas as opposed to in Asia, Africa, and other colonized parts of the world? Do you feel that wars in Latin America, kept separate from the major European colonial possessions, are more desirable as a tool of American foreign policy than military interventions elsewhere?
Mr. Terrance, the greatest question is to what extent are you willing to avoid "pointless wars" if it means being unable to establish ourselves in the Entente Cordial otherwise? And can you answer why you feel your policy towards Latin America versus Europe, which seems the opposite of Mr. Hensdale's, is superior to the well being of the United States? Does it serve the United States to avoid war with the Santiago Pact only to risk war in Europe, which even if your administration did not put on the table in our agreement with France and Britain, could still break out if we conflict with Germans interests in China?
The solution is quite simple, really. By repairing the Commonwealth, we will ensure Britain that they are indeed a good friend of America's, one we won't so easily cast aside as some would want us to. The Commonwealth is, if nothing else, the reassurance of our commitment to establish a long lasting and friendly relation with Britain. I say this not to shy away from the Triple Alliance, but our relation with Britain is special to the point of being ingrained in our very history. I see no reason why we cannot look towards the Triple Alliance while we are patching the Anglo-American relations. If anything, I view this move will be seen as a thawing of tensions. Having the great United States approaching Triple Alliance, looking for trade and diplomacy, might motivate and inspire these nations of the ideal of American Exceptionalism, the astounding and vast idea of Equality under the law, under one nation - that we, a friend of Britain, will not rebuke these nations because of the shared animosity in Europe, but in fact, that we are acting in our own regard, forging the path of righteousness. It has been stubborn grudges and past wrongdoings that have caused countless European Wars. America is not interested in that, we are far above that. By establishing ties with all of Europe, they can truly see the beauty of the American way.
Now, the pressing issue you have set forth, of the United States view of the important of the Americas versus Asia, Africa, and the rest of the colonized world. This should be quite simple. I look to it as an issue of proximity. I am more ready to defend the United States, by using our great Military, against nations that could pose an immediate threat to us. On that same now, I prefer to establish long-lasting relations and friendly dialogue with those nations whom we share a continent with because of our location, and the idea that a local friend is better than a far away friend. It is simply more simple and practicable to support those closest to us, for the sake of maintaining relations, trade, and all other aspects of governmental affairs.
As for your last question, yes. I would have to agree that any military intervention at all, would be most best used inside Latin America. I would like to make it clear that I have no grudge against Latin America, nor do I wish to send our military roaming the Earth like a bunch of bandits. I would use this as a tool of last resort, simply for the reason I outlined above why I favor the befriending and influencing of American nations. I'd much rather have diplomatic ties broken off with, lets say, a small Asian nation than Chile. Its effects would be immediate and seen instantly.
Now, the pressing issue you have set forth, of the United States view of the important of the Americas versus Asia, Africa, and the rest of the colonized world. This should be quite simple. I look to it as an issue of proximity. I am more ready to defend the United States, by using our great Military, against nations that could pose an immediate threat to us. On that same now, I prefer to establish long-lasting relations and friendly dialogue with those nations whom we share a continent with because of our location, and the idea that a local friend is better than a far away friend. It is simply more simple and practicable to support those closest to us, for the sake of maintaining relations, trade, and all other aspects of governmental affairs.
As for your last question, yes. I would have to agree that any military intervention at all, would be most best used inside Latin America. I would like to make it clear that I have no grudge against Latin America, nor do I wish to send our military roaming the Earth like a bunch of bandits. I would use this as a tool of last resort, simply for the reason I outlined above why I favor the befriending and influencing of American nations. I'd much rather have diplomatic ties broken off with, lets say, a small Asian nation than Chile. Its effects would be immediate and seen instantly.