Briefing 2.0: U.S. National Interests

This video is a question for the third State Departments Briefing 2.0 on 12/10/2008; I may be too late in posting this but hopefully not.

I am a big fan of this project as it creates an enhanced and bidirectional channel for the sharing of information and offers the potential for growth in public understanding of foreign policy issues. Further, I think that it offers a model for one tool toward political reform in the Middle East based upon the Arab tradition of the Majlis.

Of course, I know the answers to these questions, but I think that it is important that the State Department be public, explicit, and detailed on this issue. If an answer is given, but is inadequate, I may provide the correct answer for the benefit of my subscribers.

Before anyone asks in comments: Yes, that is Shadow's tail at 20 seconds, because he is such a camera hound; also, he is in search of TheGiggler1.

The script for my question follows:

I am Jim from Virginia.

Substantial public confusion exists both internationally and domestically about American foreign policy.

This can be mitigated by explicitly expounding on something fundamental, which has been the basis for continuity and bipartisanship in our policy.

U.S. national interests, in general, what are they?

What is the relationship between our interests and values?

How do our interests relate to policy?

What is the difference and hierarchy between our vital, important, and humanitarian interests?

Given multiple interests, how does linkage affect our negotiations with another country?

Finally, as a detailed example, what are Americas interest relative to Iran?

Given the broad nature of this inquiry, please provide references and links to relevant State Department publications.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• US
• State
• Department
• Briefing
• 2.0
• American
• Interests
• Iran
• linkage
• vital
• important
• humanitarian
• foreign
• policy
• interests
• values
• mccormack
• question
• youtube
• Russia
• China
• Venezuela
• Syria
• Israel
• Palestine
• Iraq
• Sudan
• Libya
• North
• Korea
• Mexico
• Canada
• UK
• NATO
• India
• Pakistan

[chris3443]

Countries don't exist, wake up!!

[jwoodswce]

Are you serious?

If so, you must have a blockbuster thesis that will not only reorganize our ideas about current events but also substantially rewrite human history.

Please keep everyone up to date of your publication, which should prove your radical hypothesis.

[chris3443]

The burden of proof is actually on you to prove they exist, but I'll ask you anyways whether you think there is a fundamental difference between someone living in the US, in Canada, or in Saudi Arabia. If so, what? If not, then what is a country but an arbitrary line in the sand? The idea of "country" is a mask that governments throw onto their immoral use of violence in a particular area.

[jwoodswce]

Oh my, no god! You are serious. Detached from reality, but serious.

I have no problem accepting the burden of proof in something so abundantly manifest, but seriously wonder what epistemological evasions are needed to arrive at your conclusion. Utterly fascinating, when will you be publishing your revolutionary thesis?

cont...

[jwoodswce]

I notice that your question assumes the existence of something that you claim not to exist, you go further to define attributes that you consider essential of that thing that does not exist, and essentially it is whether or not you agree with something that determines whether it exists or not. How very primacy of consciousness of you! Further, necessary to your argument is that the man-made, as opposed to the metaphysically given, does not exist.

cont...

[jwoodswce]

As for the various people in different countries, while they are fundamentally the same type of entity qua man, they do differ in many man-made characteristics like language, culture, and values. However, fundamentally, they differ in the constitutional and statutory framework by which their individual rights are, or are not, defended.

cont...

[jwoodswce]

I have no patience for evil fools who argue that by definition government is an immoral initiation of force. Are you ignorant or stupid? Fortunately, ignorant can be fixed with some rigorous work on your part; stupid is a choice, a choice to evade reality.

[Beethovens7th]

Are words arbitrary? Essentially, the sounds themselves are (there's not much of a fundamental reason I couldn't call a rose a duck and vice versa). But the concepts that these sounds refer to are NOT arbitrary. It's the same thing with these "lines in the sand" (the sounds) and the countries that are within these lines (the meaning of the concepts the sounds refer to).