I came up as “most likely a liberal”. Now let other dopers show their colors too.
It says I am a “realist”.
What a crock. 
Regards,
Shodan
realist
Neocon.
Realist.
Liberal
I couldn’t find any answers I agreed with. I’m sure that means I’m a raving loon or some such.
Neocon.
Realist.
Though I suspect I was just an answer or two from liberal.
- Tamerlane
realist
Liberal (shocker, I know).
Liberal
What is funny, is that the Neocon answers all have the “morally justifiable use of force” phrase. Nothing like being moral about dropping bombs on people.
Many of the elements in the different nutshell descriptions are things, that when qualified, I’d agree with.
For example:
It’s always good, IMHO, to be “wary” of anything with serious ramifications.
What’s in it for the US as a “global cop”?
American imperialism seems to be an unecessary activity.
The national “identity” and “character” we have have lots of good things about them. Preserve the good, change the bad.
Again, it’s good to be “wary” of anything with serious ramifications.
IIRC, both Sun Tzu and Machiavelli both agree that political solutions are superior to military solutions- cheaper and less risky for the State, and are ultimately backed up by the threat of diplomatic, economic and military force anyway.
Intl law, alliances and the UN all promote means of codifying diplomatic and trade activities among the nations of the Earth. Since I’m not in favor of conquering nor obliterating the other nations of the Earth, I’m stuck with having to live with them. A code of conduct agreed upon by principals seems like a great way of handling intl affairs.
Other than the emphasis on “unduly”, this doesn’t need qualifying.
Being an unchallenged superpower sure has its conveniences. I’m in favor of it, esp through the development of US’s capabilities.
I’m not opposed to “American unilateral action.”
If the definition of “preemption” is the one that involves an imminent threat, (opposed to the one that means preventive) how can one be opposed to that?
I’m all for seeking to “democratize democratize the Arab world” through the US’s “soft power.”
I’m all for regime change “in states deemed threats to the US or its allies” through “soft power”, xpt when there’s an imminent threat, then see above.
Of course, there’re parts of most all of these that I’d disagree with too.
Realist
Quiz says I’m a Gun Bunny. 
Ok, it really says: “Based on your answers, you are most likely a realist. Read below to learn more about each foreign policy perspective.”
I’ve found these quizzes to be mostly bullshit though.
Reguards,
XT (back from the outer darkness)
Realist.
liberal. big surprise.
Actually I thought the quiz was decent. The ten questions covered a good range of foreign policy issues. The possible answers were quite detailed and fair. There were four categories instead some simple left-right dichotomy.
Of course ultimately a short quiz and a simple label isn’t going to capture the full nuances of any individual’s position but this quiz is a useful quick tool for sorting out people’s views IMO.
I hear by call for the dismantling of the Democratic and Republican parties. They shall be replaced by the Isolationists Party of America, the Liberal party, the Realist Political Affiliation, and the National Federated Neoconservatives of the global hegemony.
I can hear the grind of grid lock now