Here is an observation of mine. I am a foreign policy realist, which I took to be the centrist approach. However, I seem to be, in some ways, the hardest right-winger on the site on a number of foreign policy issues. That would be disappointing if it were true, but I wouldn't change my views even if it were. My foreign policy consists of saving the most lives possible by any means necessary. Sometimes that requires warfare, sometimes diplomacy and sometimes isolation. Most often, though, with regards to specific extremist governments, I support a policy of well-timed tariffs and truthful propaganda along with CIA subversion of brutal regimes (through coups, for example). I also strongly support funding and, at times, arming dissenting groups in such nations. Countries that come to mind include North Korea and Iran, though there are others. In my view, this has two major advantages. First, since such aid to dissenting forces would be covert, the people of countries that we were freeing would not see any foreign influence. Second, warfare inevitably results in the deaths of thousands of civilians and even more basically innocent rank-and-file soldiers who are ignorant and are given no choice but to fight us. War is sometimes necessary, but it is, to me, truly a last resort. Coups and covert aid usually, in my opinion, save the innocent from tyrants without killing other innocent people in the process.
That is my foreign policy. I would never have guessed that I was going to take so much heat from the left for such ideas. Even more surprisingly, my ideas have been deemed too extreme even by conservatives on the site. Does anyone understand why this is the case?