Law School Discussion

Off-Topic Area => General Off-Topic Board => Topic started by: strouse on February 26, 2005, 06:36:22 PM

Title: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: strouse on February 26, 2005, 06:36:22 PM
I know this forum is mostly a liberal place.  I would like to address the role of military force in International relations.  Do liberals believe that there will come a time when power is no longer determined by the capability, size, and strength of your military force?  How do liberals suppose the world will exist in a state of Anarchy without war while lacking a global hegemon such as the United States to enforce norms?  Do liberals really believe that an International Organization such as the UN does not seek the same rational interests for itself that other states do?

just curious......
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: VinnyMyCousin on February 26, 2005, 07:12:58 PM
Phanatic, I take it you are aware of Hunter Thompson's last book. FYI it doesn't jibe well with your avatar...
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684873192/qid=1109470028/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-1963926-3523343?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

That being said, great point re: the UN.  Why don't people see that an organization that is mostly comprised of non-democratic member states cannot by definition qualify as a democratic entity as a whole? 
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: BigBadBo on February 26, 2005, 07:15:28 PM
Though Bush may not be everything you think he is...

I'm still with you Phanatic.  The realist tradition will always be primary.


Though interestingly democrats in the United States have always been quasi-realist.

To really be successful they must toughen up though - a poontang like kerry will never be a great president.

Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: Jackson Smith on February 26, 2005, 07:17:34 PM
I know this forum is mostly a liberal place.  I would like to address the role of military force in International relations.  Do liberals believe that there will come a time when power is no longer determined by the capability, size, and strength of your military force?  How do liberals suppose the world will exist in a state of Anarchy without war while lacking a global hegemon such as the United States to enforce norms?  Do liberals really believe that an International Organization such as the UN does not seek the same rational interests for itself that other states do?

just curious......


Every president in American history has been "realist" IMO. And no, Bush isn't a "good" man.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: BigBadBo on February 26, 2005, 07:18:32 PM
IMO?


by the way - my post was written while drunk
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: strouse on February 26, 2005, 07:19:12 PM
Phanatic, I take it you are aware of Hunter Thompson's last book. FYI...
 

LOL, I know he was very very anti bush.  In fact, I believe he said that he would rather vote for Nixon than Bush.  I don't mind other people's views differing with mine.  I can still appreciate talent. Hunter Thompson was a talented writer, so I felt I would give him some props for a while.


Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: giffy on February 26, 2005, 07:32:59 PM
Liberals or progressives take the same approach to IR that was taken to government in the 1700's. Prior to that the notion that one could have a government that was limited, democratic, and accountable was seen as crazy. It was widely assumed that the only way to maintain order was for a strong sovereign to use force to enforce law. Now, many thought that the sovereign could and perhaps should be "moral" but it is not a requirement. Might made right.

Now there are many successful governments based on popular sovereignty. Leaders are elected and rights are respected. Force is still sometimes necessary, but it is bounded, lawful and democratically granted.

What many are saying is that the same principles could work in IR. A global governmental entity such as the UN could function the same way as the federal government did and odes in the US. While more sovereignty would be vested in the individual countries then is currently vested in to the states the general principles would be the same. Certain things such as resolving disputes, maintaining international order, and protecting rights would be granted to the UN like body.  Just as force is still used in the US to maintain order, force would still be needed under a world government. However as in the US it would be by a dictator, benevolent or otherwise, but by a restrained and accountable popular government.

I am not saying this would work, I have my doubts that it could work at this point in history, but I do think it is an admirable and possible goal for the future.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: strouse on February 26, 2005, 07:41:34 PM
A global governmental entity such as the UN could function the same way as the federal government did and odes in the US.

That's a pipedream. Imagine the factions!  Not only that, but there is NO WAY you would get even a continent under the same banner, let alone the world.  Who would lead this World Organization?  A white guy, black guy, indian, russian, sumerian, persian, canadian, german, italian, pol, chinese, japanese, korean, egyptian, et al?
This is some star wars *&^%, dude.  I am not trying to be a smartass, but can I try what you're smoking? 
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: BigBadBo on February 26, 2005, 07:52:13 PM
in my drunken state...


as i see it - states, factions, tribes, etc..  have all formed due to outside threats

the problem with the existence of world government is that until an alien invasion there will never be an outside threat....  no reason to become unified as one...

until then.. and i will never say that can't happen... i just dont' see it ever functioning even in an efficient form


the closest we will get is Hedley Bull's The Anarchical Society - we abide by common rules and norms generally (though war is not excluded)
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: strouse on February 26, 2005, 07:57:08 PM
in my drunken state...


as i see it - states, factions, tribes, etc..  have all formed due to outside threats

the problem with the existence of world government is that until an alien invasion there will never be an outside threat....  no reason to become unified as one...

until then.. and i will never say that can't happen... i just dont' see it ever functioning even in an efficient form


the closest we will get is Hedley Bull's The Anarchical Society - we abide by common rules and norms generally (though war is not excluded)

*hiccup* Yeah *hiccup* I agree. *hiccup*  Bring on those f-ing aliens!!!!! *goes to get another beer*
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: giffy on February 26, 2005, 07:57:25 PM
A global governmental entity such as the UN could function the same way as the federal government did and odes in the US.

That's a pipedream. Imagine the factions! Not only that, but there is NO WAY you would get even a continent under the same banner, let alone the world. Who would lead this World Organization? A white guy, black guy, indian, russian, sumerian, persian, canadian, german, italian, pol, chinese, japanese, korean, egyptian, et al?
This is some star wars *&^%, dude. I am not trying to be a smartass, but can I try what you're smoking?

I agree it is pretty unlikely, especially now, but I think it may at some point be possible. Very few thought the US federal system would be able to function, but it did, It took a bloody civil war and some pretty tenuous periods of civil disturbance, but it HAS worked. The EU also seems to working and once again who would have thought say fifty or a hundred years ago that Europe would be one the road to unification. Once again I am not saying it will happen, but I think that would be the goal of liberal internationalists. Conversely you could say the goal of realist or militaristic internationalist, to prevent war by overwhelming force is equally unlikely to work completely.

Being a bit of a moderate, I recognize the importance of a strong military, I just think that we should be restrained in its use, and work to support institutions like the UN.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: strouse on February 26, 2005, 08:01:03 PM
A global governmental entity such as the UN could function the same way as the federal government did and odes in the US.

That's a pipedream. Imagine the factions! Not only that, but there is NO WAY you would get even a continent under the same banner, let alone the world. Who would lead this World Organization? A white guy, black guy, indian, russian, sumerian, persian, canadian, german, italian, pol, chinese, japanese, korean, egyptian, et al?
This is some star wars *&^%, dude. I am not trying to be a smartass, but can I try what you're smoking?

I agree it is pretty unlikely, especially now, but I think it may at some point be possible. Very few thought the US federal system would be able to function, but it did, It took a bloody civil war and some pretty tenuous periods of civil disturbance, but it HAS worked. The EU also seems to working and once again who would have thought say fifty or a hundred years ago that Europe would be one the road to unification. Once again I am not saying it will happen, but I think that would be the goal of liberal internationalists. Conversely you could say the goal of realist or militaristic internationalist, to prevent war by overwhelming force is equally unlikely to work completely.

Being a bit of a moderate, I recognize the importance of a strong military, I just think that we should be restrained in its use, and work to support institutions like the UN.

I don't think a realist even consider preventing war.  War in inevitable and happens.  The analogies about the US and EU is one thing, but that cannot be applied on a global scale imo.  You're talking about regions with majority ethnic populations.  I agree that it was once considered lunacy to believe people could govern themselves, but that doesn't equate with a world governing body. Like I said before, that is like Star Wars.  Even they were broken into galaxies I think   ;)
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: VinnyMyCousin on February 26, 2005, 08:06:21 PM
Liberals or progressives take the same approach to IR that was taken to government in the 1700's. Prior to that the notion that one could have a government that was limited, democratic, and accountable was seen as crazy.

Are you saying Americans took this approach in the 1700s? If not, who? I will take it you mean Americans to which I will answer that the Founders would be mortified by your suggestion, giff. There would be no such thing as a popular, accountable world leader b/c the statesmen-philosophers that est. the U.S. were aware that simply electing one's rulers was not the means by which a nation where power lay in the hands of its citizens was to be formed. The only way to limit govt. would be to limit the govt.'s power via a written Const., which would effectivly be rendered obsolete if your ideal world ever materializes. Remember, in the 1700s Americans realized that govt. was a necessary evil and were wary of the centralization of power.  The more locally-based that necessary evil, the less threatening, a far cry from the one-world govt. you suggest. Also, the fed. govt is a horrible role model for this, if nothing other than b/c it, itself, has expanded so far outside the box into which the Const. places it, and has exhibited a trend of ever-increasing encroachment on the lives of its citizens. I cannot begin to imagine this on a worldwide scale. Globalism is nothing short of tyranny!

HTH
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: strouse on February 26, 2005, 08:12:27 PM
Liberals or progressives take the same approach to IR that was taken to government in the 1700's. Prior to that the notion that one could have a government that was limited, democratic, and accountable was seen as crazy.

Are you saying Americans took this approach in the 1700s? If not, who? I will take it you mean Americans to which I will answer that the Founders would be mortified by your suggestion, giff. There would be no such thing as a popular, accountable world leader b/c the statesmen-philosophers that est. the U.S. were aware that simply electing one's rulers was not the means by which a nation where power lay in the hands of its citizens was to be formed. The only way to limit govt. would be to limit the govt.'s power via a written Const., which would effectivly be rendered obsolete if your ideal world ever materializes. Remember, in the 1700s Americans realized that govt. was a necessary evil and were wary of the centralization of power.  The more locally-based that necessary evil, the less threatening, a far cry from the one-world govt. you suggest. Also, the fed. govt is a horrible role model for this, if nothing other than b/c it, itself, has expanded so far outside the box into which the Const. places it, and has exhibited a trend of ever-increasing encroachment on the lives of its citizens. I cannot begin to imagine this on a worldwide scale. Globalism is nothing short of tyranny!

HTH

This is true. No rational state would give away its authority to another actor. The only plausible world govt. would come in a fascist dictator who managed to nuke all his enemies.  That would be insane.  Then most of the planet would be uninhabitable due to the fallout anyway. 
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: giffy on February 26, 2005, 08:15:21 PM
Liberals or progressives take the same approach to IR that was taken to government in the 1700's. Prior to that the notion that one could have a government that was limited, democratic, and accountable was seen as crazy.

Are you saying Americans took this approach in the 1700s? If not, who? I will take it you mean Americans to which I will answer that the Founders would be mortified by your suggestion, giff. There would be no such thing as a popular, accountable world leader b/c the statesmen-philosophers that est. the U.S. were aware that simply electing one's rulers was not the means by which a nation where power lay in the hands of its citizens was to be formed. The only way to limit govt. would be to limit the govt.'s power via a written Const., which would effectivly be rendered obsolete if your ideal world ever materializes. Remember, in the 1700s Americans realized that govt. was a necessary evil and were wary of the centralization of power.  The more locally-based that necessary evil, the less threatening, a far cry from the one-world govt. you suggest. Also, the fed. govt is a horrible role model for this, if nothing other than b/c it, itself, has expanded so far outside the box into which the Const. places it, and has exhibited a trend of ever-increasing encroachment on the lives of its citizens. I cannot begin to imagine this on a worldwide scale. Globalism is nothing short of tyranny!

HTH
It wasn't just Americans. Notions of popular sovereignty also flourished in Europe and eventually Asia. Previously limited examples could be found in tribal societies. However the idea of a limited federalist style of government was rather unique to America.

As for the whole limited government being impossible on a global scale, you may be right. It will be interesting to see how it works out with regard to the EU. I for one am a bit of a optimist and tend to think that at some point we will be able to overcome our differences and create some sort of global government. I would not bet on it though.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: strouse on February 26, 2005, 08:17:58 PM
I would not bet on it though.


Wise choice.  That's the realist in you   ;)


EDIT: and those notions of popular sovereignty are for regional, cultural, or ethnic affiliated peoples.  I would doubt you could recreate that to include all people. (actually, I would just about guarantee you couldn't) 
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: BigBadBo on February 26, 2005, 08:23:46 PM
The EU will work as an economic power - it will rival the U.S. - though not likely surpass it (that will come with India, Korea, China, and Southeast Asia) However I am very dubious that it will work as a political/military power - the militaries of Europe are not compatible as of yet... though PM Blair has it right, a joint strike force is necessary.

I wrote a paper on this actually - most people believe if Europe becomes militarily powerful they will challenge the U.S. -

No.  This is incorrect - As two major powers with similar interests, Europe will become more aggressive militarily, likely producing a favorable situation for the United States also.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: VinnyMyCousin on February 26, 2005, 08:23:57 PM
It wasn't just Americans. Notions of popular sovereignty also flourished in Europe and eventually Asia. Previously limited examples could be found in tribal societies. However the idea of a limited federalist style of government was rather unique to America.

But for example, the French conception of this differed quite a bit from the American one. The vastly different character of the French revolution from the American one can partially be explained by this.  America's conception of IR was also quite diff. from that of European countries at the time. The intentions were that the U.S. would be more isolationist, so that its citizens would not be embroiled in foreign wars, some of the worst of which had occurred in Europe in the 1600s. Also, the U.S. was more free market-oriented and Europeans still quite protectionist. Obviously, these aspects of American IR didn't last too long.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: strouse on February 26, 2005, 08:27:16 PM
LOL, French idea of Democracy=  Kill everyone who disagrees with the idea of everyone being aloud to disagree.  Then let a strongman take control and go to war with all your neighbors.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: BigBadBo on February 26, 2005, 08:32:47 PM
Though it was 30 years ago... i did find it hard to trust a french government about iraq when they slaughtered their Algerian neighbors so recently...

France has been so contradictory about its foreign policy in the last 50 years it is tough to believe anything they suggest (based on history).  Perhaps they have had a serious change of heart - however I would suggest that is based on the fact that they have no serious power in the world today.


*I voted for Kerry.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: VinnyMyCousin on February 26, 2005, 08:34:28 PM
The EU will work as an economic power - it will rival the U.S. - though not likely surpass it (that will come with India, Korea, China, and Southeast Asia) However I am very dubious that it will work as a political/military power - the militaries of Europe are not compatible as of yet... though PM Blair has it right, a joint strike force is necessary.

I wrote a paper on this actually - most people believe if Europe becomes militarily powerful they will challenge the U.S. -

No.  This is incorrect - As two major powers with similar interests, Europe will become more aggressive militarily, likely producing a favorable situation for the United States also.

http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/hanson/hanson200412100841.asp
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: giffy on February 26, 2005, 08:35:09 PM
Though it was 30 years ago... i did find it hard to trust a french government about iraq when they slaughtered their Algerian neighbors so recently...

France has been so contradictory about its foreign policy in the last 50 years it is tough to believe anything they suggest (based on history).  Perhaps they have had a serious change of heart - however I would suggest that is based on the fact that they have no serious power in the world today.


*I voted for Kerry.

Like on most issues, princibles and poltics come into play. Often with princibles justifying the political.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: strouse on February 26, 2005, 08:37:49 PM
Though it was 30 years ago... i did find it hard to trust a french government about iraq when they slaughtered their Algerian neighbors so recently...

France has been so contradictory about its foreign policy in the last 50 years it is tough to believe anything they suggest (based on history).  Perhaps they have had a serious change of heart - however I would suggest that is based on the fact that they have no serious power in the world today.


*I voted for Kerry.


Like on most issues, princibles and poltics come into play. Often with princibles justifying the political.

Giffy- I think you meant Political justifying the principle. If not then you are the most idealist person I have ever spoke to.  :D
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: BigBadBo on February 26, 2005, 08:38:28 PM
Last year I had 2 French roommates at LSE - very awesome people - they both were anti-US foreign policy.  But what struck me was that they said Chirac was huge politically solely based on his anti-Iraq war policy.  

Honestly it makes sense - if i were at a lesser power i would want to challenge the U.S. also -

the goal, of course, is to reach a higher point...a place of less war (if not peace)...  i just don't see this happening soon
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: strouse on February 26, 2005, 08:41:47 PM
Last year I had 2 French roommates at LSE - very awesome people - they both were anti-US foreign policy.  But what struck me was that they said Chirac was huge politically solely based on his anti-Iraq war policy.  

Honestly it makes sense - if i were at a lesser power i would want to challenge the U.S. also -

the goal, of course, is to reach a higher point...a place of less war (if not peace)...  i just don't see this happening soon

Yes, I feel a bit crass for saying it but:  The French are jealous of our economy and the wealth in the US. I am not saying they think our way of life is the best, but they have a pretty crappy economy over there.  Chirac played up the "I am gonna stick my nose up to them" card and won big politically.  Whatever, more power to him.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: giffy on February 26, 2005, 08:43:02 PM
Though it was 30 years ago... i did find it hard to trust a french government about iraq when they slaughtered their Algerian neighbors so recently...

France has been so contradictory about its foreign policy in the last 50 years it is tough to believe anything they suggest (based on history).  Perhaps they have had a serious change of heart - however I would suggest that is based on the fact that they have no serious power in the world today.


*I voted for Kerry.


Like on most issues, princibles and poltics come into play. Often with princibles justifying the political.

Giffy- I think you meant Political justifying the principle. If not then you are the most idealist person I have ever spoke to.  :D

No I meant principle justifying the political. One takes a position because of politics then comes up with some principles to make it seem like its more then just a political decision. For example it is not in Frances interest for the US to invade Iraq or for Chirac to lend support to the US. He then comes up with some principles of internationalism and rule of law to back up his political decision. I am not saying it always works this way. Sometimes people take positions that re politically negative because of principle.

I mean political in a broad sense, including things like office politics, interpersonal politics, etc.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: strouse on February 26, 2005, 08:45:04 PM
Though it was 30 years ago... i did find it hard to trust a french government about iraq when they slaughtered their Algerian neighbors so recently...

France has been so contradictory about its foreign policy in the last 50 years it is tough to believe anything they suggest (based on history).  Perhaps they have had a serious change of heart - however I would suggest that is based on the fact that they have no serious power in the world today.


*I voted for Kerry.


Like on most issues, princibles and poltics come into play. Often with princibles justifying the political.

Giffy- I think you meant Political justifying the principle. If not then you are the most idealist person I have ever spoke to.  :D

No I meant principle justifying the political. One takes a position because of politics then comes up with some principles to make it seem like its more then just a political decision. For example it is not in Frances interest for the US to invade Iraq or for Chirac to lend support to the US. He then comes up with some principles of internationalism and rule of law to back up his political decision. I am not saying it always works this way. Sometimes people take positions that re politically negative because of principle.

I mean political in a broad sense, including things like office politics, interpersonal politics, etc.


LOL at myself.  Yeah, you had it right the first time.  Forgive me, I have had a few...................
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: giffy on February 26, 2005, 08:45:25 PM
Last year I had 2 French roommates at LSE - very awesome people - they both were anti-US foreign policy.  But what struck me was that they said Chirac was huge politically solely based on his anti-Iraq war policy. 

Honestly it makes sense - if i were at a lesser power i would want to challenge the U.S. also -

the goal, of course, is to reach a higher point...a place of less war (if not peace)...  i just don't see this happening soon

Yes, I feel a bit crass for saying it but:  The French are jealous of our economy and the wealth in the US. I am not saying they think our way of life is the best, but they have a pretty crappy economy over there.  Chirac played up the "I am gonna stick my nose up to them" card and won big politically.  Whatever, more power to him.

They also had nothing to gain from the invasion. I think Chirac new it would not be as easy as the Bush Admin. made it out to be and that the regardless of if they took part most of the contracts would go to US corporations. Plus the French populus would probably not be patient with a long occupation as many former partners of the coaltion found out.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: giffy on February 26, 2005, 08:46:16 PM
Though it was 30 years ago... i did find it hard to trust a french government about iraq when they slaughtered their Algerian neighbors so recently...

France has been so contradictory about its foreign policy in the last 50 years it is tough to believe anything they suggest (based on history).  Perhaps they have had a serious change of heart - however I would suggest that is based on the fact that they have no serious power in the world today.


*I voted for Kerry.


Like on most issues, princibles and poltics come into play. Often with princibles justifying the political.

Giffy- I think you meant Political justifying the principle. If not then you are the most idealist person I have ever spoke to.  :D

No I meant principle justifying the political. One takes a position because of politics then comes up with some principles to make it seem like its more then just a political decision. For example it is not in Frances interest for the US to invade Iraq or for Chirac to lend support to the US. He then comes up with some principles of internationalism and rule of law to back up his political decision. I am not saying it always works this way. Sometimes people take positions that re politically negative because of principle.

I mean political in a broad sense, including things like office politics, interpersonal politics, etc.


LOL at myself.  Yeah, you had it right the first time.  Forgive me, I have had a few...................

Sooooo you get a bit idealistic when you drink huh.  ;)
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: BigBadBo on February 26, 2005, 08:48:32 PM
haha, giffy, you sound like a good guy


so why Tibet?

I'd like to go there..
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: strouse on February 26, 2005, 08:50:09 PM
Quote

Sooooo you get a bit idealistic when you drink huh.  ;)
Quote


No, just a bit less analytically capable   ;)
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: giffy on February 26, 2005, 08:54:06 PM
haha, giffy, you sound like a good guy


so why Tibet?

I'd like to go there..

Thanks. I think most of the regular politicos here are good people.

As for Tibet, it was part of a backpacking trip though Asia that I did last winter. I am interested in Buddhism and in remote locations, so Tibet seemd like a good place to go. I would highly reccomend it to anyoine. We took a land cruiser form Kathmandu to Lhasa and it was the most amazing drive I have ever been on, and I have been to about 20 countries. It was stressful at times. Poor food, no heat in the room, bad roads, but well worth it. Got to see Everest and some of the other big mountains as well as visit many monostaries and chat with some Tibetians. If you get the chance you should most certainly go.

Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: VinnyMyCousin on February 26, 2005, 08:56:33 PM
They also had nothing to gain from the invasion. I think Chirac new it would not be as easy as the Bush Admin. made it out to be and that the regardless of if they took part most of the contracts would go to US corporations. Plus the French populus would probably not be patient with a long occupation as many former partners of the coaltion found out.

I would go further and suggest that the French actually had much to lose from the invation. France as a whole, but esp. Chirac's cronies and UN buddies were getting rich from OFF and breaking the embargo. Some of this is from an op-ed I wrote in my univ. newspaper: In Oct., the CIA’s Iraq Survey Group released the Duelfer Report to examine U.S. intelligence failures in pre-war Iraq.  Although some allowance is made for the fact that WMD that might have crossed over to Syria, it points out that Saddam most likely did not possess WMD at the time of the invasion.  But what it highlights is Saddam’s intent on acquiring WMD by reviving the relevant research, undermining the UN inspections, and persuading Security Council members to end the economic sanctions imposed on his regime.

The report also reveals much about Saddam’s relations with other members of the UN Security Council, particularly as manifested through the Oil-For-Food program, in place between 1996 and 2003...Saddam was effectively bribing our “allies”—France, China, and Russia—countries that received the highest percentage of oil vouchers and illegal payments.  

The Duelfer Report mentions that this continued “to the point where sitting members of the Security Council were actively violating resolutions passed by the Security Council.”  Saddam Hussein paid off high-sitting French officials, including two of Jacques Chirac’s personal aides as well as his spokesman, along with officials in the Russian presidential office and foreign ministry.

The Report notes, “in May 2002, Iraqi Intelligence Services (IIS) correspondence addressed to Saddam stated that a minister of foreign affairs (quite possibly an IIS officer under diplomatic cover) met with French parliamentarian to discuss Iraq-Franco relations. The French politician assured the Iraqi that France would use its veto in the UNSC against any American decision to attack Iraq, according to the IIS memo.”...

Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: VinnyMyCousin on February 26, 2005, 09:00:09 PM
haha, giffy, you sound like a good guy


so why Tibet?

I'd like to go there..

Thanks. I think most of the regular politicos here are good people.

As for Tibet, it was part of a backpacking trip though Asia that I did last winter. I am interested in Buddhism and in remote locations, so Tibet seemd like a good place to go. I would highly reccomend it to anyoine. We took a land cruiser form Kathmandu to Lhasa and it was the most amazing drive I have ever been on, and I have been to about 20 countries. It was stressful at times. Poor food, no heat in the room, bad roads, but well worth it. Got to see Everest and some of the other big mountains as well as visit many monostaries and chat with some Tibetians. If you get the chance you should most certainly go.

That's badass. I'm planning something similar for this summer to blow off some steam b4 LS.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: strouse on February 26, 2005, 09:01:15 PM
Some of this is from an op-ed I wrote in my univ. newspaper:

Wow, your univ. newspaper actually printed it?  My Alma mater was the most left institution I have ever seen (not including CBS)
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: A.J on February 26, 2005, 09:03:52 PM
As an aside, why is it that anti-war types like to carry signs that say "wage peace" etc.?  Do people really think that sitting on our collective asses and not doing anything about one of the most evil dictators the world has ever known is "waging" or somehow promoting peace?


Oh, I flipped off some people on the overpass today holding "bring our troops home" signs.  Not that I dont want them home but still, I know the type.

hth
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: strouse on February 26, 2005, 09:06:46 PM

Oh, I flipped off some people on the overpass today holding "bring our troops home" signs.  Not that I dont want them home but still, I know the type.

hth

You're a good American Preacher Boy.

Next time, bash their teeth down their throat.   Just kidding Giffy.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: Jennaye on February 26, 2005, 09:10:45 PM
As an aside, why is it that anti-war types like to carry signs that say "wage peace" etc.?  Do people really think that sitting on our collective asses and not doing anything about one of the most evil dictators the world has ever known is "waging" or somehow promoting peace?


Oh, I flipped off some people on the overpass today holding "bring our troops home" signs.  Not that I dont want them home but still, I know the type.

hth

You mean the "type" that doesn't want our troops sent off in harm's way (without proper equipment) for some reason that turned out to be untrue and doesn't want our foreign policy dictated by corporate interests?
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: Jennaye on February 26, 2005, 09:12:05 PM
Though Bush may not be everything you think he is...

I'm still with you Phanatic.  The realist tradition will always be primary.


Though interestingly democrats in the United States have always been quasi-realist.

To really be successful they must toughen up though - a poontang like kerry will never be a great president.



Ah yes, Kerry, a decorated war veteran certainly cannot match up to Bush's duty-dodging DUI as*.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: strouse on February 26, 2005, 09:12:34 PM
As an aside, why is it that anti-war types like to carry signs that say "wage peace" etc.?  Do people really think that sitting on our collective asses and not doing anything about one of the most evil dictators the world has ever known is "waging" or somehow promoting peace?


Oh, I flipped off some people on the overpass today holding "bring our troops home" signs.  Not that I dont want them home but still, I know the type.

hth

You mean the "type" that doesn't want our troops sent off in harm's way (without proper equipment) for some reason that turned out to be untrue and doesn't want our foreign policy dictated by corporate interests?

*Vomits twice*

Yet I still gotta forgive ya.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: strouse on February 26, 2005, 09:13:38 PM
Though Bush may not be everything you think he is...

I'm still with you Phanatic.  The realist tradition will always be primary.


Though interestingly democrats in the United States have always been quasi-realist.

To really be successful they must toughen up though - a poontang like kerry will never be a great president.



Ah yes, Kerry, a decorated war veteran certainly cannot match up to Bush's duty-dodging DUI as*.

So you supported the war in Vietnam Jennaye?  That's interesting. 
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: VinnyMyCousin on February 26, 2005, 09:14:10 PM
Some of this is from an op-ed I wrote in my univ. newspaper:

Wow, your univ. newspaper actually printed it?  My Alma mater was the most left institution I have ever seen (not including CBS)

Ha...nope. I submitted it, but this one wasn't actually printed. I should have clarified above. Major lefty paper as well. Although I will give them credit for the few occasions that my pieces do make it to press. Ha CBS...Calif. Berkeley School? or Rathergate?

Mind if I take a shot?

Harvard, Princeton, NYU, U. Wisc., Antioch, Brown, or any in the UC system?
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: A.J on February 26, 2005, 09:15:10 PM


You mean the "type" that doesn't want our troops sent off in harm's way (without proper equipment) for some reason that turned out to be untrue and doesn't want our foreign policy dictated by corporate interests?

Tell Michael Moore to let you type for a while.  ::)
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: Jennaye on February 26, 2005, 09:16:02 PM

So you supported the war in Vietnam Jennaye?  That's interesting. 

Of course not, but that doesn't take away from the fact that he volunteered for what he thought was a good cause and served bravely.  So if we're talking about "toughness" I think  Kerry had Bush beat by a long shot. 
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: strouse on February 26, 2005, 09:16:36 PM
Some of this is from an op-ed I wrote in my univ. newspaper:

Wow, your univ. newspaper actually printed it?  My Alma mater was the most left institution I have ever seen (not including CBS)

Ha...nope. I submitted it, but this one wasn't actually printed. I should have clarified above. Major lefty paper as well. Although I will give them credit for the few occasions that my pieces do make it to press. Ha CBS...Calif. Berkeley School? or Rathergate?

Mind if I take a shot?

Harvard, Princeton, NYU, U. Wisc., Antioch, Brown, or any in the UC system?

No, but don't feel bad 'cause you had a lot to choose from.

Temple University, Philly
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: strouse on February 26, 2005, 09:17:27 PM

So you supported the war in Vietnam Jennaye?  That's interesting. 

Of course not, but that doesn't take away from the fact that he volunteered for what he thought was a good cause and served bravely.  So if we're talking about "toughness" I think  Kerry had Bush beat by a long shot. 

So then you will admit that our soldiers in Iraq are heroes too, right?
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: VinnyMyCousin on February 26, 2005, 09:18:56 PM
Tell Michael Moore to let you type for a while.  ::)

I saw that butterball speak at my school. What a travesty. All the commies came out of the woodwork (I spotted more than one hammer-and-sickel t-shirt) Signs included:

"Buy Holy Land Olive Oil! Support Palestinian Farmers!"

"Get the U.S. out of the Philippines"

Guys, are we in the Philippines?

Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: strouse on February 26, 2005, 09:20:50 PM

Quote

Guys, are we in the Philippines?


Quote

LOL, yeah but I am pretty sure they want us around.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: VinnyMyCousin on February 26, 2005, 09:21:10 PM
Of course not, but that doesn't take away from the fact that he volunteered for what he thought was a good cause and served bravely.  So if we're talking about "toughness" I think  Kerry had Bush beat by a long shot. 

Even he knows by now that running on his war record was a mistake. You shouldn't push the issue.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: giffy on February 26, 2005, 09:21:21 PM

So you supported the war in Vietnam Jennaye?  That's interesting. 

Of course not, but that doesn't take away from the fact that he volunteered for what he thought was a good cause and served bravely.  So if we're talking about "toughness" I think  Kerry had Bush beat by a long shot. 

So then you will admit that our soldiers in Iraq are heroes too, right?

I would say that.

and Jennaye YOU TOTALLY ROCK. If you lived in Seattle I would so be your firend.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: strouse on February 26, 2005, 09:23:19 PM

So you supported the war in Vietnam Jennaye?  That's interesting. 

Of course not, but that doesn't take away from the fact that he volunteered for what he thought was a good cause and served bravely.  So if we're talking about "toughness" I think  Kerry had Bush beat by a long shot. 

So then you will admit that our soldiers in Iraq are heroes too, right?

I would say that.

and Jennaye YOU TOTALLY ROCK. If you lived in Seattle I would so be your firend.

You just think she's hot

Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: VinnyMyCousin on February 26, 2005, 09:24:27 PM

So you supported the war in Vietnam Jennaye?  That's interesting. 

Of course not, but that doesn't take away from the fact that he volunteered for what he thought was a good cause and served bravely.  So if we're talking about "toughness" I think  Kerry had Bush beat by a long shot. 

Jennaye supported the war in Vietnam until Forrest volunteered, at which point she became a coke whore.  :o
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: giffy on February 26, 2005, 09:24:59 PM

So you supported the war in Vietnam Jennaye?  That's interesting. 

Of course not, but that doesn't take away from the fact that he volunteered for what he thought was a good cause and served bravely.  So if we're talking about "toughness" I think  Kerry had Bush beat by a long shot. 

So then you will admit that our soldiers in Iraq are heroes too, right?

I would say that.

and Jennaye YOU TOTALLY ROCK. If you lived in Seattle I would so be your firend.

You just think she's hot



Perhapse  :-[, but in an intellectual way.  ;D
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: lawbuddy on February 26, 2005, 09:30:09 PM
The whole "unified earth" idea is viable, as long as the rule of law is viable.  Unfortunately, because so many people are so hideously corrupt, it just ain't gonna happen.  Taking a collection city-states and forging a nation was a difficult task, but was achieved because of a common ethnic/geographic identity--separate from others--and provided for a common defense.  It was actually in the best interests of city-states to join together in order to fend off the wolves (take the principalities of Italy mentioned in "the Prince" standing side by side to fight off the French king, despite mutual hatred and jealousy).

We just don't have that kinda thing going on with this world.  The EU does, against the US, and can create an "us vs. them" mentality which goes a long way towards creating political solidarity, of which Chirac is a poignant example.  Muslim radicals are doing the same, originally with OPEC, and now with the anti-western philology.  But remember how this turned out at the turn of the last century.  Alliance building is not a good idea, no matter how powerful you are.  America is not an isolationist as in the past century, able to march in as a second wind after everyone else had tired out.  Things are going to be much different this time, and I assure you that there will be strange alliances formed.  NKorea, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and many other nations would have no problem seeing the US destroyed, despite any invested economic interests.  There will always be someone else to buy oil...

There will also always be an enemy.

So long as a man stands proudly alone, there will always be several others banded together to pull him down.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: Jennaye on February 26, 2005, 09:31:21 PM


So then you will admit that our soldiers in Iraq are heroes too, right?

This is an interesting question...  On one hand, they're doing their job bravely and presumably signed up to defend our country, etc. etc. and they have no choice of mission.

On the other hand, they did sign up to be part of a branch that engages in killing and stupid wars such as the current one, and such actions cannot be justified under the "just following orders" rationale.  If they're asked to do something that's wrong (such as being part of this stupid war), they should object.

Of course, it's much easier said than done.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: A.J on February 26, 2005, 09:32:51 PM


On the other hand, they did sign up to be part of a branch that engages in killing and stupid wars such as the current one, and such actions cannot be justified under the "just following orders" rationale.  If they're asked to do something that's wrong (such as being part of this stupid war), they should object.

Of course, it's much easier said than done.

This must be that intellectual side that Giffy spoke of.  :P
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: strouse on February 26, 2005, 09:33:34 PM


So then you will admit that our soldiers in Iraq are heroes too, right?

This is an interesting question...  On one hand, they're doing their job bravely and presumably signed up to defend our country, etc. etc. and they have no choice of mission.

On the other hand, they did sign up to be part of a branch that engages in killing and stupid wars such as the current one, and such actions cannot be justified under the "just following orders" rationale.  If they're asked to do something that's wrong (such as being part of this stupid war), they should object.

Of course, it's much easier said than done.

Please explain how this is different than Vietnam and your interpretation of John Kerry's service then.  Kerry admitted to committing war atrocities, yet you commended his service.

Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: VinnyMyCousin on February 26, 2005, 09:34:19 PM


On the other hand, they did sign up to be part of a branch that engages in killing and stupid wars such as the current one, and such actions cannot be justified under the "just following orders" rationale.  If they're asked to do something that's wrong (such as being part of this stupid war), they should object.

Of course, it's much easier said than done.

This must be that intellectual side that Giffy spoke of.  :P

Nope...still not seeing it.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: VinnyMyCousin on February 26, 2005, 09:35:54 PM
j/k Jennaye, I'm still hating on you b/c of your Mazzy Star comment  ;)
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: Jennaye on February 26, 2005, 09:36:33 PM
Please explain how this is different than Vietnam and your interpretation of John Kerry's service then.  Kerry admitted to committing war atrocities, yet you called him a hero.



touche

Ok, so he wasn't a hero, but this doesn't still change the fact that he's tougher than Bush.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: lawbuddy on February 26, 2005, 09:37:42 PM
 Kerry admitted to committing war atrocities, yet you commended his service.

He did?  Which?

I mean, I'm sure his being there was one in and of itself (no pun intended) but what did he say he did?
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: strouse on February 26, 2005, 09:38:17 PM
Please explain how this is different than Vietnam and your interpretation of John Kerry's service then.  Kerry admitted to committing war atrocities, yet you called him a hero.



touche

Ok, so he wasn't a hero, but this doesn't still change the fact that he's tougher than Bush.

Shouldn't Bush be commended in your view for not participating in that war and Kerry vilified for committing atrocities?  I am just following your logic.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: VinnyMyCousin on February 26, 2005, 09:38:44 PM
Ok, so he wasn't a hero, but this doesn't still change the fact that he's tougher than Bush.

(Not to bring up the never-matched, ever-brillant, and oft-hated SBVFT) but even that is disputed by men that served with him!!!  ;D
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: Jennaye on February 26, 2005, 09:39:13 PM


Shouldn't Bush be commended in your view for not participating in that war and Kerry vilified for committing atrocities?  I am just following your logic.

If he had done it for moral reasons, yes.  But he just did it because he's a spineless little sh*t.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: A.J on February 26, 2005, 09:39:46 PM

Shouldn't Bush be commended in your view for not participating in that war and Kerry vilified for committing atrocities?  I am just following your logic.

He shoots, he scores!
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: strouse on February 26, 2005, 09:40:05 PM
 Kerry admitted to committing war atrocities, yet you commended his service.

He did?  Which?

I mean, I'm sure his being there was one in and of itself (no pun intended) but what did he say he did?

He admitted to firing on non-combatents.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: giffy on February 26, 2005, 09:40:47 PM


Shouldn't Bush be commended in your view for not participating in that war and Kerry vilified for committing atrocities?  I am just following your logic.

If he had done it for moral reasons, yes.  But he just did it because he's a spineless little sh*t.

Don't forget a coked out drunk. He was a spinless little coked out drunk ass *&^%.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: Jennaye on February 26, 2005, 09:41:38 PM

He did?  Which?

I mean, I'm sure his being there was one in and of itself (no pun intended) but what did he say he did?

They're probably referring to his testimony before the Senate.  Not at all a "confession" to war atrocities.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: VinnyMyCousin on February 26, 2005, 09:41:56 PM
Footage of Kerry's atrocities:

http://www.fivehundredwords.com/multimedia/index.htm
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: lawbuddy on February 26, 2005, 09:43:25 PM
He admitted to firing on non-combatents.

Alright then, Kerry's a female private part.  Nuff said.

If Bush had done that, he'd be labeled a Baby-killer.  I'm no Bushie at all, but hell, that's some sick *&^% Kerry did right there....
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: strouse on February 26, 2005, 09:44:04 PM

He did?  Which?

I mean, I'm sure his being there was one in and of itself (no pun intended) but what did he say he did?

They're probably referring to his testimony before the Senate.  Not at all a "confession" to war atrocities.

No, actually he confessed to it before the presidential campaign so it wouldn't be an issue.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: lawbuddy on February 26, 2005, 09:45:59 PM

He did?  Which?

I mean, I'm sure his being there was one in and of itself (no pun intended) but what did he say he did?

They're probably referring to his testimony before the Senate.  Not at all a "confession" to war atrocities.

No, actually he confessed to it before the presidential campaign so it wouldn't be an issue.

Gimme a break.  That's retarded.  Confessing to murder makes it a non-issue?  I doubt those dead Viets agree with that....
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: strouse on February 26, 2005, 09:48:33 PM

He did?  Which?

I mean, I'm sure his being there was one in and of itself (no pun intended) but what did he say he did?

They're probably referring to his testimony before the Senate.  Not at all a "confession" to war atrocities.

No, actually he confessed to it before the presidential campaign so it wouldn't be an issue.

Gimme a break.  That's retarded.  Confessing to murder makes it a non-issue?  I doubt those dead Viets agree with that....


Ha!  Who the hell cares about dead viets in a presidential campaign?  It's all about image.   :-X
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: SanchoPanzo on February 26, 2005, 09:49:53 PM
Bush certainly looked better..
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: lawbuddy on February 26, 2005, 09:50:23 PM
Ha!  Who the hell cares about dead viets in a presidential campaign?  It's all about image.   :-X

And the blood of innocents on your hands is not powerful imagery?

Politics disgusts me.


....I'm so gonna run for office!
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: Jennaye on February 26, 2005, 09:51:06 PM
Bush certainly looked better..

John Kerry was HOT back in those Vietnam pics.  Looked a bit like George Harrison.

then his face melted.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: strouse on February 26, 2005, 09:51:21 PM
Bush certainly looked better..

Well we know he didn't kill and non-combatents in Vietnam, don't we    ;)
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: SanchoPanzo on February 26, 2005, 09:51:40 PM
Ha!  Who the hell cares about dead viets in a presidential campaign?  It's all about image.   :-X

And the blood of innocents on your hands is not powerful imagery?

Politics disgusts me.


....I'm so gonna run for office!

Trust me lawbuddy. Bring the lovable monkey... and you can have any office you want.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: SanchoPanzo on February 26, 2005, 09:52:23 PM
Bush certainly looked better..

Well we know he didn't kill and non-combatents in Vietnam, don't we    ;)

Sure we do. The question is "Did you?"
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: strouse on February 26, 2005, 09:53:11 PM
Bush certainly looked better..

John Kerry was HOT back in those Vietnam pics.  Looked a bit like George Harrison.

then his face melted.

Did you find him especially attractive while he was killing those N. Vietnamese freedom fighters you identify yourself with?    ;)
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: A.J on February 26, 2005, 09:53:11 PM
(http://www.scottcsmith.net/john_kerry.jpg)

Ah yes, good old horse face.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: lawbuddy on February 26, 2005, 09:54:01 PM
Trust me lawbuddy. Bring the lovable monkey... and you can have any office you want.

I don't know.  It didn't help Jacko that much...

Then again, maybe that's why he's still not in prison...

Or maybe the monkey was what seduced the little ones...

I feel dirtier than John Kerry's karma...
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: lawbuddy on February 26, 2005, 09:55:08 PM
(http://www.scottcsmith.net/john_kerry.jpg)

Ah yes, good old horse face.

LMAO
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: lawbuddy on February 26, 2005, 09:59:49 PM
I feel so bad, because I voted for Kerry.

I hate how in US elections, we have to choose the lesser of two evils.  Why in the hell can't we choose the best of two champions?

In the US Political system, the cream doesn't rise to the surface like with wheat.

Here, we like to skim the turds off the top of the septic tank
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: strouse on February 26, 2005, 10:01:59 PM
I feel so bad, because I voted for Kerry.

I hate how in US elections, we have to choose the lesser of two evils.  Why in the hell can't we choose the best of two champions?

In the US Political system, the cream doesn't rise to the surface like with wheat.

Here, we like to skim the turds off the top of the septic tank

I agree. There are so many reasons to not want to run for office. I have pondered whether I would even want to put my family through that.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: lawbuddy on February 26, 2005, 10:07:01 PM
I agree. There are so many reasons to not want to run for office. I have pondered whether I would even want to put my family through that.

I mean, look at the people we've been putting in office!  LBJ was a murderer and a thug, who knocked off people left and right.  Nixon was a "crook".  Carter was a female private part.  Reagan was senile.  Bush puked on diplomats, and helped Reagan.  Clinton was a white collar criminal/adulterer/badass on the sax.   W is... just W is a moron (yeah, he sticks to his guns, and has sound principles, but honest to God, the guys an idiot)

We're gonna start putting Mongoloids up there next.  I can feel it.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: strouse on February 26, 2005, 10:08:33 PM
I agree. There are so many reasons to not want to run for office. I have pondered whether I would even want to put my family through that.

I mean, look at the people we've been putting in office!  LBJ was a murderer and a thug, who knocked off people left and right.  Nixon was a "crook".  Carter was a female private part.  Reagan was senile.  Bush puked on diplomats, and helped Reagan.  Clinton was a white collar criminal/adulterer/badass on the sax.   W is... just W is a moron (yeah, he sticks to his guns, and has sound principles, but honest to God, the guys an idiot)

We're gonna start putting Mongoloids up there next.  I can feel it.

OK that made me laugh.  :D :D :D
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: VinnyMyCousin on February 26, 2005, 10:28:45 PM
I agree. There are so many reasons to not want to run for office. I have pondered whether I would even want to put my family through that.

I mean, look at the people we've been putting in office!  LBJ was a murderer and a thug, who knocked off people left and right.  Nixon was a "crook".  Carter was a female private part.  Reagan was senile.  Bush puked on diplomats, and helped Reagan.  Clinton was a white collar criminal/adulterer/badass on the sax.   W is... just W is a moron (yeah, he sticks to his guns, and has sound principles, but honest to God, the guys an idiot)

We're gonna start putting Mongoloids up there next.  I can feel it.

lawbuddy, please read this article: http://fare.tunes.org/books/Hess/dop.html. I'm sure you will enjoy it ;)
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: lawbuddy on February 26, 2005, 11:01:11 PM
lawbuddy, please read this article: http://fare.tunes.org/books/Hess/dop.html. I'm sure you will enjoy it ;)

You're right, I did enjoy it.  However, I find some of its conclusions to be misguided.  The libertarian perspective is missing a few key elements, such as control over monopolies, unions, mobs, and other such issues.  For violence to be the only caveat upon which the government can act leaves a great deal of lee-way for civil rights to be trampled upon.  I'm not attempting to proffer any counterclaim against the theory, I just believe that Libertarianism is missing too many conditions necessary for the maintenance of technology, societal values, and other such issues.  In short, it is an immature philosophy (not intended to sound condescending as to childishness), whose flaws would destroy the entire ideology if corrected.

Now, when we start having a world of Saints walking around, who care for their common man, maybe I'll buy into it.  Unfotunately, as long as those XOXOHTH types are out there, I'll take my chances with a strong, centralized rule of law much like the bill of rights, a convoluted system of checks and balances, and the ability to sue some dumb m.f. under tort law who takes it upon himself to "nonviolently" tread on me--his 'liberty' to do so be damned.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: vagrant on February 26, 2005, 11:11:21 PM

We're gonna start putting Mongoloids up there next.  I can feel it.

OK.. I'm normally the last on the PC police wagon (and really hate most of that crap), but the term is Down's.  Furthermore, please don't insult them.  They don't have a choice, Nixon and slick Willy did.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: lawbuddy on February 26, 2005, 11:21:52 PM

We're gonna start putting Mongoloids up there next.  I can feel it.

OK.. I'm normally the last on the PC police wagon (and really hate most of that darn), but the term is Down's.  Furthermore, please don't insult them.  They don't have a choice, Nixon and slick Willy did.

Sorry, just using a medical term.  Just like calling them imbeciles ("someone with the IQ of an 8-12 year old") is actually quite correct, despite the negative connotation.
I misspoke though, and I apologize.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: vagrant on February 26, 2005, 11:32:36 PM
Actually.. I think it has much more sinister meaning than you might realize....

"Down syndrome and its characteristics were first described by John Langdon Down in a paper entitled "Observations of an ethnic classification of idiots." It was in 1866, at a time when Charles Darwin's theory of evolution had gained quite some attention; the British scientist, Darwin had proposed the concept of natural selection as well as the concept of ancestral descent -(Encarta 2000). Down's observations on what he called "Mongolian type of idiocy" (Down 1866: 260) emphasized the disorder's source was the result of racial degeneration.
It is clear to see that this was a period when racist theories of the evolution of man were quite common. As outlined by Lane and Stratford in their book 'Current Approaches to Down's Syndrome', in 1844, theorist Robert Chambers stated the brain's stages went "from that of a fish's, to a reptile's, to a mammal's, and finally to a human's". This last category, the human's brain, also went through stages from the "Negro, Malay, American, and Mongolian nations, and finally [the] Caucasian" (1987:4). It is no doubt that this period's ignorance was due to a lack of understanding of the two main observable characteristics of the disorder: the intellectual challenge associated to it as well as the physical appearance of the individuals."

http://www.altonweb.com/cs/downsyndrome/index.htm?page=derayeh.html
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: triumph82 on February 27, 2005, 08:45:10 AM
Liberals For the most part feel uncomfotable when there is a power inbalance. The nature and history of the conflict and principles that each side follows is For the most part "irrelevant." The United States will always be perceived as "evil" for the most part. Helpless groups such as the Palestinians will always be perceived as "righteous" for the most part. To obtain their liking, a side must be the underdog. Between 1948 and 1967, Liberals looked at the ME and saw this little nation of Israel being attacked over and over. Which side did they sympathize with? They simplified the conflict in this way, perceived underdog vs. perceived aggressor. Today, liberals look at the ME and see that one side is occupying another. Now which side do they sympathize with? The point is that it doesn't matter WHY the occupation is necessary now, the same way it didn't matter WHY back then the nations attacked Israel. Likewise, it didn't matter WHY the US sent troops to Vietnam and it doesn't matter WHY the US is currently sending troops to Iraq. The "bottomline" is that the underdog will always be righteous...and the stronger side will always be classified as morally bankrupt.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: VinnyMyCousin on February 27, 2005, 11:49:41 AM
Liberals For the most part feel uncomfotable when there is a power inbalance. The nature and history of the conflict and principles that each side follows is For the most part "irrelevant." The United States will always be perceived as "evil" for the most part. Helpless groups such as the Palestinians will always be perceived as "righteous" for the most part. To obtain their liking, a side must be the underdog. Between 1948 and 1967, Liberals looked at the ME and saw this little nation of Israel being attacked over and over. Which side did they sympathize with? They simplified the conflict in this way, perceived underdog vs. perceived aggressor. Today, liberals look at the ME and see that one side is occupying another. Now which side do they sympathize with? The point is that it doesn't matter WHY the occupation is necessary now, the same way it didn't matter WHY back then the nations attacked Israel. Likewise, it didn't matter WHY the US sent troops to Vietnam and it doesn't matter WHY the US is currently sending troops to Iraq. The "bottomline" is that the underdog will always be righteous...and the stronger side will always be classified as morally bankrupt.

Triumph...shot out to you again. This is so true.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: VinnyMyCousin on February 27, 2005, 12:01:16 PM
lawbuddy, please read this article: http://fare.tunes.org/books/Hess/dop.html. I'm sure you will enjoy it ;)

You're right, I did enjoy it.  However, I find some of its conclusions to be misguided.  The libertarian perspective is missing a few key elements, such as control over monopolies, unions, mobs, and other such issues. 

lawbuddy, if you read the whole thing, Hess addresses monopolies. His conclusions have been corroborated with other studies I've read. Monopolies are a result of govt. coming in and helping one business or cartel of businesses at the expense of others--an inherently non-competitive occurence. For example, those "railroad monopolies" that everyone's freshman history teacher taught were a natural function of laissez-faire econ. in the late 19th c. were anything but. The fed govt. decided that it was in the "public's interest" to develop the west and so doled out vast tracts of free land to the railroads.  They got more subsidies and land per mile of track, the obvious result being that track would be laid out inefficiently, and w/ redundant routes. Railroads that had already invested in land and track, etc. w/o the govt.'s help were screwed.


Hess: "Monopoly is a case in point. To suppose that anyone needs government protection from the creation of monopolies is to accept two suppositions: that monopoly is the natural direction of unregulated enterprise, and that technology is static. Neither, of course, is true. The great concentrations of economic power, which are called monopolies today, did not grow despite government's anti-monopolistic zeal. They grew, largely, because of government policies, such as those making it more profitable for small businesses to sell out to big companies rather than fight the tax code alone. Additionally, Federal fiscal and credit policies and Federal subsidies and contracts have all provided substantially more assistance to big and established companies than to smaller, potentially competitive ones. The auto industry receives the biggest subsidy of all through the highway program on which it prospers, but for which it surely does not pay a fair share. Airlines are subsidized and so protected that newcomers can't even try to compete. Television networks are fantastically advantaged by FCC licensing, which prevents upstarts from entering a field where big old-timers have been established. Even in agriculture, it is large and established farmers who get the big subsidies — not small ones who might want to compete. Government laws specifically exempting unions from antitrust activities have also furthered a monopoly mentality. And, of course, the "public utility" and "public transportation" concepts have specifically created government-licensed monopolies in the fields of power, communications, and transit. This is not to say that economic bigness is bad. It isn't, if it results from economic efficiency. But it is bad if it results from collusion with political, rather than with economic power. There is no monopoly in the world today, of which I could think, that might not be seriously challenged by competition, were it not for some form of protective government license, tariff, subsidy, or regulation. Also, there isn't the tiniest shred of evidence to suggest that the trend of unregulated business and industry is toward monopoly. In fact, the trend seems in the opposite direction, toward diversification and decentralization."



Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: amelus on February 27, 2005, 12:16:18 PM
Liberals For the most part feel uncomfotable when there is a power inbalance. The nature and history of the conflict and principles that each side follows is For the most part "irrelevant." The United States will always be perceived as "evil" for the most part. Helpless groups such as the Palestinians will always be perceived as "righteous" for the most part. To obtain their liking, a side must be the underdog. Between 1948 and 1967, Liberals looked at the ME and saw this little nation of Israel being attacked over and over. Which side did they sympathize with? They simplified the conflict in this way, perceived underdog vs. perceived aggressor. Today, liberals look at the ME and see that one side is occupying another. Now which side do they sympathize with? The point is that it doesn't matter WHY the occupation is necessary now, the same way it didn't matter WHY back then the nations attacked Israel. Likewise, it didn't matter WHY the US sent troops to Vietnam and it doesn't matter WHY the US is currently sending troops to Iraq. The "bottomline" is that the underdog will always be righteous...and the stronger side will always be classified as morally bankrupt.

this is true.

i'd be interested in someone who identifies with the liberal mindset to either concur with this assessment or show some specific counterexamples.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: lawbuddy on February 27, 2005, 01:44:51 PM
lawbuddy, please read this article: http://fare.tunes.org/books/Hess/dop.html. I'm sure you will enjoy it ;)

You're right, I did enjoy it.  However, I find some of its conclusions to be misguided.  The libertarian perspective is missing a few key elements, such as control over monopolies, unions, mobs, and other such issues. 

lawbuddy, if you read the whole thing, Hess addresses monopolies. His conclusions have been corroborated with other studies I've read. Monopolies are a result of govt. coming in and helping one business or cartel of businesses at the expense of others--an inherently non-competitive occurence. For example, those "railroad monopolies" that everyone's freshman history teacher taught were a natural function of laissez-faire econ. in the late 19th c. were anything but. The fed govt. decided that it was in the "public's interest" to develop the west and so doled out vast tracts of free land to the railroads.  They got more subsidies and land per mile of track, the obvious result being that track would be laid out inefficiently, and w/ redundant routes. Railroads that had already invested in land and track, etc. w/o the govt.'s help were screwed.


Hess: "Monopoly is a case in point. To suppose that anyone needs government protection from the creation of monopolies is to accept two suppositions: that monopoly is the natural direction of unregulated enterprise, and that technology is static. Neither, of course, is true. The great concentrations of economic power, which are called monopolies today, did not grow despite government's anti-monopolistic zeal. They grew, largely, because of government policies, such as those making it more profitable for small businesses to sell out to big companies rather than fight the tax code alone. Additionally, Federal fiscal and credit policies and Federal subsidies and contracts have all provided substantially more assistance to big and established companies than to smaller, potentially competitive ones. The auto industry receives the biggest subsidy of all through the highway program on which it prospers, but for which it surely does not pay a fair share. Airlines are subsidized and so protected that newcomers can't even try to compete. Television networks are fantastically advantaged by FCC licensing, which prevents upstarts from entering a field where big old-timers have been established. Even in agriculture, it is large and established farmers who get the big subsidies — not small ones who might want to compete. Government laws specifically exempting unions from antitrust activities have also furthered a monopoly mentality. And, of course, the "public utility" and "public transportation" concepts have specifically created government-licensed monopolies in the fields of power, communications, and transit. This is not to say that economic bigness is bad. It isn't, if it results from economic efficiency. But it is bad if it results from collusion with political, rather than with economic power. There is no monopoly in the world today, of which I could think, that might not be seriously challenged by competition, were it not for some form of protective government license, tariff, subsidy, or regulation. Also, there isn't the tiniest shred of evidence to suggest that the trend of unregulated business and industry is toward monopoly. In fact, the trend seems in the opposite direction, toward diversification and decentralization."

I respectfully disagree, but find your argument a good one.   :)
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: giffy on February 27, 2005, 05:16:15 PM
Liberals For the most part feel uncomfotable when there is a power inbalance. The nature and history of the conflict and principles that each side follows is For the most part "irrelevant." The United States will always be perceived as "evil" for the most part. Helpless groups such as the Palestinians will always be perceived as "righteous" for the most part. To obtain their liking, a side must be the underdog. Between 1948 and 1967, Liberals looked at the ME and saw this little nation of Israel being attacked over and over. Which side did they sympathize with? They simplified the conflict in this way, perceived underdog vs. perceived aggressor. Today, liberals look at the ME and see that one side is occupying another. Now which side do they sympathize with? The point is that it doesn't matter WHY the occupation is necessary now, the same way it didn't matter WHY back then the nations attacked Israel. Likewise, it didn't matter WHY the US sent troops to Vietnam and it doesn't matter WHY the US is currently sending troops to Iraq. The "bottomline" is that the underdog will always be righteous...and the stronger side will always be classified as morally bankrupt.

this is true.

i'd be interested in someone who identifies with the liberal mindset to either concur with this assessment or show some specific counterexamples.

Many liberals supported the invasion of afganastan and the bombings realting to Kosovo. There are more but these are the two msot recent I can think of.  Also most of us did not think that the invasion of Iraq was evil, only that the reasons given were flimsy(they were) and that it would not go smoothly(so far true, but still indetermined).

So far the WHY has mattered less to conservatives who went in four years from screaming at Clinton for nation building and being the "worlds policeman" to whole heartedly supporting the biggest attempt at nation building in a generation. If you also look at the rhetoric pre-no evidence for WMD it was all about how this is NOT a war of liberation, but one of security, now it is pretty much the oppisite.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: amelus on February 27, 2005, 05:51:47 PM
Liberals For the most part feel uncomfotable when there is a power inbalance. The nature and history of the conflict and principles that each side follows is For the most part "irrelevant." The United States will always be perceived as "evil" for the most part. Helpless groups such as the Palestinians will always be perceived as "righteous" for the most part. To obtain their liking, a side must be the underdog. Between 1948 and 1967, Liberals looked at the ME and saw this little nation of Israel being attacked over and over. Which side did they sympathize with? They simplified the conflict in this way, perceived underdog vs. perceived aggressor. Today, liberals look at the ME and see that one side is occupying another. Now which side do they sympathize with? The point is that it doesn't matter WHY the occupation is necessary now, the same way it didn't matter WHY back then the nations attacked Israel. Likewise, it didn't matter WHY the US sent troops to Vietnam and it doesn't matter WHY the US is currently sending troops to Iraq. The "bottomline" is that the underdog will always be righteous...and the stronger side will always be classified as morally bankrupt.

this is true.

i'd be interested in someone who identifies with the liberal mindset to either concur with this assessment or show some specific counterexamples.

Many liberals supported the invasion of afganastan and the bombings realting to Kosovo. There are more but these are the two msot recent I can think of.  Also most of us did not think that the invasion of Iraq was evil, only that the reasons given were flimsy(they were) and that it would not go smoothly(so far true, but still indetermined).

So far the WHY has mattered less to conservatives who went in four years from screaming at Clinton for nation building and being the "worlds policeman" to whole heartedly supporting the biggest attempt at nation building in a generation. If you also look at the rhetoric pre-no evidence for WMD it was all about how this is NOT a war of liberation, but one of security, now it is pretty much the oppisite.

i'm not entirely sure how you turned my question into a rant against conservatives but ok.

in any event, afghanistan is a lousy example unless you want to say it takes the blowing up of thousands of civilians in the most dramatic terrorist attack ever to rouse them to agree to find the mastermind behind the attack.  and kosovo might be even worse as that accomplished nothing but randomly bomb without any serious objective accomplished. i hope you have other examples.

regardless, do you not think many liberals are of this "rooting for the underdog" mentality?  do you agree with that mentality?
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: VinnyMyCousin on February 27, 2005, 06:04:57 PM
Many liberals supported the invasion of afganastan and the bombings realting to Kosovo.

Our actions in Afgh. were a necessary response to 9/11. Hardly anyone would disagree. Kosovo and the Balkans in the early-mid 90s, on the other hand, was a total waste of time and money ($15 billion spent by 1999) in an area of NO STRATEGIC INTEREST TO US. Furthermore, Clinton's policies there encouraged Islamic radicalism in the area--we even helped the transportation of Muslim radicals from the Middle East to that region b/c we thought this was such a noble cause.

So far the WHY has mattered less to conservatives who went in four years from screaming at Clinton for nation building and being the "worlds policeman" to whole heartedly supporting the biggest attempt at nation building in a generation.

This isn't quite true. Whereas all Democrats and liberals were against the Iraq war (I can think of only one exception [Lieberman] and maybe you might be able to count Kerry, who supported it only when he thought it was politically convenient), there is quite a bit of rumbling among conservatives, many of whom (myself, somewhat) see Bush's actions as reminiscent of Trotsky or Wilsonian Democrats.

If you also look at the rhetoric pre-no evidence for WMD it was all about how this is NOT a war of liberation, but one of security, now it is pretty much the oppisite.

Ok...the WMD factor. While I do not fully agree with Bush's nation-building aspirations, I find it even more ridiculous that liberals claim that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq in the first place "b/c there were no WMD", as if this could have been known by anything other than going into Iraq or taking Saddam's word for it. It's as simple as that. Trust Saddam, or trust the "flimsy" intel we had, intel that I might add was corroborated by other powers including the Brits as well as Egypt. Fact is, Saddam wanted Iran to think he had WMD and wanted us to think he didn't. Tariq Aziz and many of Saddam's closest guards and aids weren't quite sure b/c Saddam had sent mixed signals, at times implying that he had them. The only way you could have "known" was to trust Saddam. And if you would trust a man such as him, I'm glad you're not pres. After 9/11, this was simply too dangerous to take a guess on. But I will say I agree with this (http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/derbyshire/derbyshire200502080904.asp) conservative about it being time for us to get the @#!* out of there.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: giffy on February 27, 2005, 06:37:47 PM
Both Saddaam and Bush have said many things which are not true. I don't trust either of them. Yes there was intel suggesting WMD's in Iraq, but it was not as conclusive as the admin. led us to beleive. Intel is not black or white, instead it can often be used to show both sides of an arguement. I just have a higher standard of evidence and planning then the neocons do.

As for Kosovo and Afgan. I don't really want to get into the merits of either of them. My point was simply that your caraterisation of liberals was overly simplistic. Both sides view forieng policy descions both princibly and poltically. I can cite examples of conservative taking the side of the underdog and liberals doing the oppisite. 
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: VinnyMyCousin on February 27, 2005, 06:49:56 PM
Both Saddaam and Bush have said many things which are not true. I don't trust either of them. Yes there was intel suggesting WMD's in Iraq, but it was not as conclusive as the admin. led us to beleive. Intel is not black or white, instead it can often be used to show both sides of an arguement. I just have a higher standard of evidence and planning then the neocons do.

Then to be fair, you should point out that "it was not as conclusive" as Clinton's admin. led us to believe either, being that 1) The intel was largely from the Clinton years and 2) Clinton and Co. came to the same conclusion, just never acted on it.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: giffy on February 27, 2005, 06:56:42 PM
Both Saddaam and Bush have said many things which are not true. I don't trust either of them. Yes there was intel suggesting WMD's in Iraq, but it was not as conclusive as the admin. led us to beleive. Intel is not black or white, instead it can often be used to show both sides of an arguement. I just have a higher standard of evidence and planning then the neocons do.

Then to be fair, you should point out that "it was not as conclusive" as Clinton's admin. led us to believe either, being that 1) The intel was largely from the Clinton years and 2) Clinton and Co. came to the same conclusion, just never acted on it.

Right they never acted upon it. One could argue they never did becasue they new that it was not as conclusive as Bush led us to beleive. I ma not saying that we should have doen nothing. But to set it up as if the two choices were full out invasion or to do nothing is to create a false dichotomy.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: VinnyMyCousin on February 27, 2005, 07:06:28 PM
Right they never acted upon it. One could argue they never did becasue they new that it was not as conclusive as Bush led us to beleive.

Let me rephrase. Clinton launched multiple strikes against Saddam. He did act b/c he believed, as the rest of his admin. did, that Saddam had or was actively pursuing WMD. He did wrestle with the idea of a Bush-style invasion. Following your logic, if Clinton didn't think the evidence was conclusive enough, then he 1) wouldn't have launched those strikes and more importantly 2) wouldn't have fully supported Bush's invasion in '03, both of which he did.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: vagrant on February 27, 2005, 07:11:41 PM
Right they never acted upon it. One could argue they never did becasue they new that it was not as conclusive as Bush led us to beleive.

Let me rephrase. Clinton launched multiple strikes against Saddam. He did act b/c he believed, as the rest of his admin. did, that Saddam had or was actively pursuing WMD. He did wrestle with the idea of a Bush-style invasion. Following your logic, if Clinton didn't think the evidence was conclusive enough, then he 1) wouldn't have launched those strikes and more importantly 2) wouldn't have fully supported Bush's invasion in '03, both of which he did.

"Bush Lied".... Haven't you figured it out?  Its right there in the liberal talking point that the professors were all saying, so it must be true.  Go back to your hole and hide in your ignorance with all the other little people that dare to question the views of academia.  ;)
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: LaneSwerver on February 27, 2005, 07:12:39 PM
Right they never acted upon it. One could argue they never did becasue they new that it was not as conclusive as Bush led us to beleive.

Let me rephrase. Clinton launched multiple strikes against Saddam. He did act b/c he believed, as the rest of his admin. did, that Saddam had or was actively pursuing WMD. He did wrestle with the idea of a Bush-style invasion. Following your logic, if Clinton didn't think the evidence was conclusive enough, then he 1) wouldn't have launched those strikes and more importantly 2) wouldn't have fully supported Bush's invasion in '03, both of which he did.

"Bush Lied".... Haven't you figured it out?  Its right there in the liberal talking point that the professors were all saying, so it must be true.  Go back to your hole and hide in your ignorance with all the other little people that dare to question the views of academia.  ;)

Is that a Saddam spider-hole?
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: lawbuddy on February 27, 2005, 07:21:44 PM
Right they never acted upon it. One could argue they never did becasue they new that it was not as conclusive as Bush led us to beleive.

Let me rephrase. Clinton launched multiple strikes against Saddam. He did act b/c he believed, as the rest of his admin. did, that Saddam had or was actively pursuing WMD. He did wrestle with the idea of a Bush-style invasion. Following your logic, if Clinton didn't think the evidence was conclusive enough, then he 1) wouldn't have launched those strikes and more importantly 2) wouldn't have fully supported Bush's invasion in '03, both of which he did.

"Bush Lied".... Haven't you figured it out?  Its right there in the liberal talking point that the professors were all saying, so it must be true.  Go back to your hole and hide in your ignorance with all the other little people that dare to question the views of academia.  ;)

Well, actually he did lie.  He is quoted as saying that there are WMD in Iraq, and then came back earlier this year and admitted there were none.  That counts as a lie in my mind... Maybe I'm wrong.

Was going into Iraq a bad decision?  Now that's a totally different issue.  I'm just saying he lied about that justification...
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: VinnyMyCousin on February 27, 2005, 07:24:54 PM
Right they never acted upon it. One could argue they never did becasue they new that it was not as conclusive as Bush led us to beleive.

Let me rephrase. Clinton launched multiple strikes against Saddam. He did act b/c he believed, as the rest of his admin. did, that Saddam had or was actively pursuing WMD. He did wrestle with the idea of a Bush-style invasion. Following your logic, if Clinton didn't think the evidence was conclusive enough, then he 1) wouldn't have launched those strikes and more importantly 2) wouldn't have fully supported Bush's invasion in '03, both of which he did.

"Bush Lied".... Haven't you figured it out?  Its right there in the liberal talking point that the professors were all saying, so it must be true.  Go back to your hole and hide in your ignorance with all the other little people that dare to question the views of academia.  ;)

Lol! Insolent red-state plebians!

I know that politicians aren't the most trustworthy people in general but to imply that Bush and Saddam are equally untrustworthy boggles my mind.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: VinnyMyCousin on February 27, 2005, 07:28:50 PM
Well, actually he did lie.  He is quoted as saying that there are WMD in Iraq, and then came back earlier this year and admitted there were none.  That counts as a lie in my mind...

So if you're on the phone with your mom on a Sunday night during the semester and you say you have to go to bed early to go to class the next day...and then come Monday morning, your roommate informs you that it's a holiday and that there are no classes, did you lie to your mom?

Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: vagrant on February 27, 2005, 07:33:20 PM
Well, actually he did lie.  He is quoted as saying that there are WMD in Iraq, and then came back earlier this year and admitted there were none.  That counts as a lie in my mind...

So if you're on the phone with your mom on a Sunday night during the semester and you say you have to go to bed early to go to class the next day...and then come Monday morning, your roommate informs you that it's a holiday and that there are no classes, did you lie to your mom?



Of course you did!
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: lp4law on February 27, 2005, 07:34:04 PM
Well, actually he did lie.  He is quoted as saying that there are WMD in Iraq, and then came back earlier this year and admitted there were none.  That counts as a lie in my mind... Maybe I'm wrong.

I love how you conveniently ignore another very likely possibility, that Bush might have actually made his statements and decisions based upon the best information available at the time, and that information may have turned out to be inaccurate or incomplete.  To me this speaks volumes about your political persuasion.  Am I wrong?
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: VinnyMyCousin on February 27, 2005, 07:38:20 PM
Maybe I'm wrong.

You're right here  ;)
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: vagrant on February 27, 2005, 07:43:45 PM
Let's say I'm a president and I am dead set on invading a country.  I want to trump up a reason to go to war.. so I say they have toxic cottage cheese.  If I went to all that trouble to lie, knowing that it would be exposed by my invasion, don't you think the average jr. high kid would at least be smart enough to .. I don't know.. plant fake cottage cheese to make it look like my reason was valid?

Bush may not be the brightest academic in the box, but the guy had street smarts enough to pull out two elections, surround himself with strong advisors, and pick a VP that is the best insurance against assasination in our history.  I think he could figure out that he needed to plant evidence to back his "lie".
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: LaneSwerver on February 27, 2005, 07:45:41 PM
so I say they have toxic cottage cheese. 

That could just be a nasty yeast infection.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: vagrant on February 27, 2005, 07:47:34 PM
so I say they have toxic cottage cheese. 

That could just be a nasty yeast infection.

or bad cellulite (sp?)
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: lawbuddy on February 27, 2005, 07:48:46 PM
Well, actually he did lie.  He is quoted as saying that there are WMD in Iraq, and then came back earlier this year and admitted there were none.  That counts as a lie in my mind...

So if you're on the phone with your mom on a Sunday night during the semester and you say you have to go to bed early to go to class the next day...and then come Monday morning, your roommate informs you that it's a holiday and that there are no classes, did you lie to your mom?

Are you seriously asking that question?  If I say that there is class in the morning, and then there is not, then it was a lie.  I misrepresented the truth.

Now, do I feel bad about it?  No, hell no.  It was an honest mistake, even though it was a lie.

With Bush, he did lie by those guidelines, but more importantly, he didn't have an educated assumption that there were Nuclear weapons programs. In fact, the IAEA--as well as many foreign intelligence communities--had repeatedly stated exactly the opposite.  So basically, he went on a whim supported only by [barely] even circumstancial evidence presented by the CIA, since he figured it "could" be true, if all these other dominoes had fallen.

Let me rephrase that to fit the analogy.  The class schedule/syllabus, upon which everyone else in the class normally relies (think presidents=classmates) specifically stated to him that there was no school on Monday, and then he told his mom (the public) that there was school Monday, so that he could get off the phone (go to war).  Then, the next morning (after the invasion), a friend tells him that there is no class that day (the inspectors confirm no WMD), confirming what he had already known in the first place, but had chosen to disregard.

That's the president we have.

Then again, he's now getting lavished praise by his mother for having gone to bed early for school, even though there was none, because that's what good little boys do, and therefore he must be a good little boy.

I personally think he got off the phone because he had some hooker in the back seat of his car with a pound of coke, promising him the world (that hooker would be special interests including oil, 9/11 reactionaries, the religious right, and halliburton and other nationbuilding corps., to name just a few)
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: lawbuddy on February 27, 2005, 07:50:58 PM
Let's say I'm a president and I am dead set on invading a country.  I want to trump up a reason to go to war.. so I say they have toxic cottage cheese.  If I went to all that trouble to lie, knowing that it would be exposed by my invasion, don't you think the average jr. high kid would at least be smart enough to .. I don't know.. plant fake cottage cheese to make it look like my reason was valid?

Bush may not be the brightest academic in the box, but the guy had street smarts enough to pull out two elections, surround himself with strong advisors, and pick a VP that is the best insurance against assasination in our history.  I think he could figure out that he needed to plant evidence to back his "lie".

Um, no, sorry.  Not covering up your mistakes is not proof you made no mistake.

That's like saying "hey, if I had killed him, I would have washed the blood off of my clothes.  Since I didn't, I obviously just happened to be standing in the room, soaked in brain matter, with the smoking gun in my hand, at the moment you walked in."
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: vagrant on February 27, 2005, 07:51:50 PM
so first its a lie.. then its a mistake?  you don't even know, do you?
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: lawbuddy on February 27, 2005, 07:53:18 PM
so first its a lie.. then its a mistake?  you don't even know, do you?

Excuse me?

The word "mistake" can refer to a lie.  My story, nor my opinion, has not changed.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: vagrant on February 27, 2005, 07:56:31 PM
so first its a lie.. then its a mistake?  you don't even know, do you?

Excuse me?

The word "mistake" can refer to a lie.  My story, nor my opinion, has not changed.

Brainwashing runs deep.

You are making a case for "proof" where there is none.  There are two possibilities that probably both have some merit.  Are you entirelly unable to see that?
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: VinnyMyCousin on February 27, 2005, 08:03:19 PM
lawbuddy, the American intel community concluded that Saddam had WMD. If your proposition (i.e., that Bush knowingly misrepresented the truth, which is how IMO people generally define a lie, the "knowingly" part is key) is correct, then Bush somehow knew that many of Saddam's own guards, MI6, Clinton and his admin, the CIA, numerous Iraqi dissidents, and Egypt were all WRONG in their conclusions that Saddam had WMD?? Does this really seem plausible to you?
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: lawbuddy on February 27, 2005, 08:07:25 PM
You are making a case for "proof" where there is none.  There are two possibilities that probably both have some merit.  Are you entirelly unable to see that?

Actually, I in fact believe that Bush was acting upon the advice of Condoleeza Rice, not purely for the reasons espoused above.  I'm sure he felt justified by her advice and that of others, as it would be impossible for him to push such a campaign for so long without the support of such people.

At the same time, I think that is one reason (just one, not the only) why Condee is now S of State, and Powell, who didn't particularly agree with the Iraq policy, is on the lecture circuit.

I think it is also a reason why there is such a house-cleaning being done within the intelligence community, as well as the department of state.

The issue of "proof" though, is moot, since none of us have any relevant direct testimony, nor personal experience with the issue or the white house, and can do no more than speculate based upon opinions and evidence presented by the media.

So yeah, I don't hold on to any opinion of current events 100%, because I'm not even indirectly participating in what's going on.  Moreover, that's why I like having conversations about it with people like you and the MiamiVice guy, because it allows me to test my theories and gather more information and opinions from people who I feel are as educated on the subject as I am, but from a different perspective.

Please don't take that as being argumentative though. It's purely meant so that I can correct any misconceptions I might have when the preponderance of evidence shows it to be necessary.

:)
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: lawbuddy on February 27, 2005, 08:13:33 PM
lawbuddy, the American intel community concluded that Saddam had WMD. If your proposition (i.e., that Bush knowingly misrepresented the truth, which is how IMO people generally define a lie, the "knowingly" part is key) is correct, then Bush somehow knew that many of Saddam's own guards, MI6, Clinton and his admin, the CIA, numerous Iraqi dissidents, and Egypt were all WRONG in their conclusions that Saddam had WMD?? Does this really seem plausible to you?

alright, so maybe I misspoke about that one.  I've been wrong before.  Let me utilize White House testimony from now on so that I don't misstate anything.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: VinnyMyCousin on February 27, 2005, 08:16:21 PM
So yeah, I don't hold on to any opinion of current events 100%, because I'm not even indirectly participating in what's going on.  Moreover, that's why I like having conversations about it with people like you and the MiamiVice guy, because it allows me to test my theories and gather more information and opinions from people who I feel are as educated on the subject as I am, but from a different perspective.

Please don't take that as being argumentative though. It's purely meant so that I can correct any misconceptions I might have when the preponderance of evidence shows it to be necessary.

:)

I agree, lawbuddy...all in good fun. We're all wannabe lawyers. ;) BTW, I noticed your LSN indicated you were premed...why the switch, may I ask?
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: lawbuddy on February 27, 2005, 08:25:51 PM
Okay, so again, this is all in good fun, like VinnyMyCousin said.  As to proof, here's just a fraction of what I got:

"We know for a fact that there are weapons there."
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
1/9/2003
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030109-8.html

"The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it"
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Response to Question From Press
12/4/2002  
http://www.timesleader.com/mld/timesleader/news/nation/4669092.htm

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002  
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4518337,00.html

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
George W. Bush, President
Radio Address
2/8/2003  
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030208.html

"In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world -- and we will not allow it."
George W. Bush, President
Speech to the American Enterprise Institute
2/26/2003
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030226-11.html

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
ABC Interview
3/30/2003
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/t03302003_t0330sdabcsteph.html

"We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so."
George W. Bush, President
Remarks to Reporters
5/3/2003  
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030503-1.html

"You may be reading too much. I don't know anybody that I can think of who has contended that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons."
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
DoD News Briefing
6/24/2003
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030624-secdef0301.html

These two are my favorites:

"But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about."
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
4/10/2003
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030410-6.html

DIANE SAWYER: But stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons still — PRESIDENT BUSH: So what's the difference?
George W. Bush, President
Diane Sawyer Interviews President Bush.
12/16/2003
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/primetime/US/bush_sawyer_excerpts_2_031216.html
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: lawbuddy on February 27, 2005, 08:33:54 PM
I agree, lawbuddy...all in good fun. We're all wannabe lawyers. ;) BTW, I noticed your LSN indicated you were premed...why the switch, may I ask?

Well, most poignantly, it's because every doctor I ever met said "GET OUT WHILE YOU STILL CAN!!!"  Many of the women who had said so were in tears.

Most personally though, I feel that doctors can only help people one at a time, and are still subject to the law in everything they do.  I want to change the law, so that I can make life better for people as a whole.

Also, I was a part of the Tropical Storm Allison disaster in Houston, which cut power to the entire medical center.  I got to learn a lot about what medicine really is...

Another example of that is how in Texas, $250,000 is now the maximum tort relief for medical malpractice.  That is to say, if a doctor makes your 3 year old daughter a vegitable due to absurd negligence, you'll be paid a lump sum equating to about $3300/year that the loss of a normal life is worth.  Yeah.  That's REALLY screwed UP.

Not only that, but the idea of medicine as a science is total bull.  It's an art, definately, but I've seen too many botched procedures which have left people's lives in shambles.  For instance, a woman who had worked in the same law office as me will be getting a colostomy bag very soon, thanks to a doctor puncturing her colon.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: VinnyMyCousin on February 27, 2005, 08:34:23 PM
lawbuddy, browse through the Duelfer Report from the CIA's Iraq Survey Group, released last Oct. Its a good assessment of what we did know, what the intel indicated, and what we know now. I'll pull out some good sections for you, but I gotta run. Got work early tomorrow. Later.
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: lawbuddy on February 27, 2005, 09:06:46 PM
lawbuddy, browse through the Duelfer Report from the CIA's Iraq Survey Group, released last Oct. Its a good assessment of what we did know, what the intel indicated, and what we know now. I'll pull out some good sections for you, but I gotta run. Got work early tomorrow. Later.

Hey, really appreciate it.   Any info is always welcome!
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: Gummibearz on February 28, 2005, 01:41:11 PM
The following is a speech given by JFK at the American Univ's graduation 4 months before he was killed.....some say giving this speech was as good as him signing his own death certificate.....think about the time he gave this speech and think about the opposition JFK was faced with on his ideas of peace, but he still gave this speech and still passed his ideas down to young college graduates.....


before the speech, I want to give you all a quote from JFK

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."


Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: Gummibearz on February 28, 2005, 01:43:38 PM
Happy reading!



It is with great pride that I participate in this ceremony of the American University, sponsored by the Methodist Church, founded by Bishop John Fletcher Hurst, and first opened by President Woodrow Wilson in 1914. This is a young and growing university, but it has already fulfilled Bishop Hurst's enlightened hope for the study of history and public affairs in a city devoted to the making of history and the conduct of the public's business. By sponsoring this institution of higher learning for all who wish to learn, whatever their color or their creed, the Methodists of this area and the Nation deserve the Nation's thanks, and I commend all those who are today graduating.

     Professor Woodrow Wilson once said that every man sent out from a university should be a man of his nation as well as a man of his time, and I am confident that the men and women who carry the honor of graduating from this institution will continue to give from their lives, from their talents, a high measure of public service and public support.

     "There are few earthly things more beautiful than a university," wrote John Masefield in his tribute to English universities--and his words are equally true today. He did not refer to spires and towers, to campus greens and ivied walls. He admired the splendid beauty of the university, he said, because it was "a place where those who hate ignorance may strive to know, where those who perceive truth may strive to make others see."

     I have, therefore, chosen this time and this place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth is too rarely perceived--yet it is the most important topic on earth: world peace.

     What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children--not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women--not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.

     I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in an age when great powers can maintain large and relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces. It makes no sense in an age when a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all the allied air forces in the Second World War. It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by wind and water and soil and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations yet unborn.

     Today the expenditure of billions of dollars every year on weapons acquired for the purpose of making sure we never need to use them is essential to keeping the peace. But surely the acquisition of such idle stockpiles--which can only destroy and never create--is not the only, much less the most efficient, means of assuring peace.

     I speak of peace, therefore, as the necessary rational end of rational men. I realize that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war--and frequently the words of the pursuer fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task.

     Some say that it is useless to speak of world peace or world law or world disarmament--and that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. I believe we can help them do it. But I also believe that we must reexamine our own attitude--as individuals and as a Nation--for our attitude is as essential as theirs. And every graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace, should begin by looking inward--by examining his own attitude toward the possibilities of peace, toward the Soviet Union, toward the course of the cold war and toward freedom and peace here at home.

     First: Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable--that mankind is doomed--that we are gripped by forces we cannot control.

     We need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade--therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable--and we believe they can do it again.

     I am not referring to the absolute, infinite concept of peace and good will of which some fantasies and fanatics dream. I do not deny the value of hopes and dreams but we merely invite discouragement and incredulity by making that our only and immediate goal.

     Let us focus instead on a more practical, more attainable peace-- based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions--on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements which are in the interest of all concerned. There is no single, simple key to this peace--no grand or magic formula to be adopted by one or two powers. Genuine peace must be the product of many nations, the sum of many acts. It must be dynamic, not static, changing to meet the challenge of each new generation. For peace is a process--a way of solving problems.

     With such a peace, there will still be quarrels and conflicting interests, as there are within families and nations. World peace, like community peace, does not require that each man love his neighbor--it requires only that they live together in mutual tolerance, submitting their disputes to a just and peaceful settlement. And history teaches us that enmities between nations, as between individuals, do not last forever. However fixed our likes and dislikes may seem, the tide of time and events will often bring surprising changes in the relations between nations and neighbors.

     So let us persevere. Peace need not be impracticable, and war need not be inevitable. By defining our goal more clearly, by making it seem more manageable and less remote, we can help all peoples to see it, to draw hope from it, and to move irresistibly toward it.

     Second: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the Soviet Union. It is discouraging to think that their leaders may actually believe what their propagandists write. It is discouraging to read a recent authoritative Soviet text on Military Strategy and find, on page after page, wholly baseless and incredible claims--such as the allegation that "American imperialist circles are preparing to unleash different types of wars . . . that there is a very real threat of a preventive war being unleashed by American imperialists against the Soviet Union . . . [and that] the political aims of the American imperialists are to enslave economically and politically the European and other capitalist countries . . . [and] to achieve world domination . . . by means of aggressive wars."

     Truly, as it was written long ago: "The wicked flee when no man pursueth." Yet it is sad to read these Soviet statements--to realize the extent of the gulf between us. But it is also a warning--a warning to the American people not to fall into the same trap as the Soviets, not to see only a distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats.

     No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue. As Americans, we find communism profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and dignity. But we can still hail the Russian people for their many achievements--in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture and in acts of courage.

     Among the many traits the peoples of our two countries have in common, none is stronger than our mutual abhorrence of war. Almost unique among the major world powers, we have never been at war with each other. And no nation in the history of battle ever suffered more than the Soviet Union suffered in the course of the Second World War. At least 20 million lost their lives. Countless millions of homes and farms were burned or sacked. A third of the nation's territory, including nearly two thirds of its industrial base, was turned into a wasteland--a loss equivalent to the devastation of this country east of Chicago.

     Today, should total war ever break out again--no matter how--our two countries would become the primary targets. It is an ironic but accurate fact that the two strongest powers are the two in the most danger of devastation. All we have built, all we have worked for, would be destroyed in the first 24 hours. And even in the cold war, which brings burdens and dangers to so many nations, including this Nation's closest allies--our two countries bear the heaviest burdens. For we are both devoting massive sums of money to weapons that could be better devoted to combating ignorance, poverty, and disease. We are both caught up in a vicious and dangerous cycle in which suspicion on one side breeds suspicion on the other, and new weapons beget counterweapons.

    
Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: Gummibearz on February 28, 2005, 01:44:45 PM
 In short, both the United States and its allies, and the Soviet Union and its allies, have a mutually deep interest in a just and genuine peace and in halting the arms race. Agreements to this end are in the interests of the Soviet Union as well as ours--and even the most hostile nations can be relied upon to accept and keep those treaty obligations, and only those treaty obligations, which are in their own interest.

     So, let us not be blind to our differences--but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.

     Third: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the cold war, remembering that we are not engaged in a debate, seeking to pile up debating points. We are not here distributing blame or pointing the finger of judgment. We must deal with the world as it is, and not as it might have been had the history of the last 18 years been different.

     We must, therefore, persevere in the search for peace in the hope that constructive changes within the Communist bloc might bring within reach solutions which now seem beyond us. We must conduct our affairs in such a way that it becomes in the Communists' interest to agree on a genuine peace. Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy--or of a collective death-wish for the world.

     To secure these ends, America's weapons are nonprovocative, carefully controlled, designed to deter, and capable of selective use. Our military forces are committed to peace and disciplined in self- restraint. Our diplomats are instructed to avoid unnecessary irritants and purely rhetorical hostility.

     For we can seek a relaxation of tension without relaxing our guard. And, for our part, we do not need to use threats to prove that we are resolute. We do not need to jam foreign broadcasts out of fear our faith will be eroded. We are unwilling to impose our system on any unwilling people--but we are willing and able to engage in peaceful competition with any people on earth.

     Meanwhile, we seek to strengthen the United Nations, to help solve its financial problems, to make it a more effective instrument for peace, to develop it into a genuine world security system--a system capable of resolving disputes on the basis of law, of insuring the security of the large and the small, and of creating conditions under which arms can finally be abolished.

     At the same time we seek to keep peace inside the non-Communist world, where many nations, all of them our friends, are divided over issues which weaken Western unity, which invite Communist intervention or which threaten to erupt into war. Our efforts in West New Guinea, in the Congo, in the Middle East, and in the Indian subcontinent, have been persistent and patient despite criticism from both sides. We have also tried to set an example for others--by seeking to adjust small but significant differences with our own closest neighbors in Mexico and in Canada.

     Speaking of other nations, I wish to make one point clear. We are bound to many nations by alliances. Those alliances exist because our concern and theirs substantially overlap. Our commitment to defend Western Europe and West Berlin, for example, stands undiminished because of the identity of our vital interests. The United States will make no deal with the Soviet Union at the expense of other nations and other peoples, not merely because they are our partners, but also because their interests and ours converge

     Our interests converge, however, not only in defending the frontiers of freedom, but in pursuing the paths of peace. It is our hope-- and the purpose of allied policies--to convince the Soviet Union that she, too, should let each nation choose its own future, so long as that choice does not interfere with the choices of others. The Communist drive to impose their political and economic system on others is the primary cause of world tension today. For there can be no doubt that, if all nations could refrain from interfering in the self-determination of others, the peace would be much more assured.

     This will require a new effort to achieve world law--a new context for world discussions. It will require increased understanding between the Soviets and ourselves. And increased understanding will require increased contact and communication. One step in this direction is the proposed arrangement for a direct line between Moscow and Washington, to avoid on each side the dangerous delays, misunderstandings, and misreadings of the other's actions which might occur at a time of crisis.

     We have also been talking in Geneva about the other first-step measures of arms control designed to limit the intensity of the arms race and to reduce the risks of accidental war. Our primary long range interest in Geneva, however, is general and complete disarmament-- designed to take place by stages, permitting parallel political developments to build the new institutions of peace which would take the place of arms. The pursuit of disarmament has been an effort of this Government since the 1920's. It has been urgently sought by the past three administrations. And however dim the prospects may be today, we intend to continue this effort--to continue it in order that all countries, including our own, can better grasp what the problems and possibilities of disarmament are.

     The one major area of these negotiations where the end is in sight, yet where a fresh start is badly needed, is in a treaty to outlaw nuclear tests. The conclusion of such a treaty, so near and yet so far, would check the spiraling arms race in one of its most dangerous areas. It would place the nuclear powers in a position to deal more effectively with one of the greatest hazards which man faces in 1963, the further spread of nuclear arms. It would increase our security--it would decrease the prospects of war. Surely this goal is sufficiently important to require our steady pursuit, yielding neither to the temptation to give up the whole effort nor the temptation to give up our insistence on vital and responsible safeguards.

     I am taking this opportunity, therefore, to announce two important decisions in this regard.

     First: Chairman khrushchev, Prime Minister Macmillan, and I have agreed that high-level discussions will shortly begin in Moscow looking toward early agreement on a comprehensive test ban treaty. Our hopes must be tempered with the caution of history--but with our hopes go the hopes of all mankind.

     Second: To make clear our good faith and solemn convictions on the matter, I now declare that the United States does not propose to conduct nuclear tests in the atmosphere so long as other states do not do so. We will not be the first to resume. Such a declaration is no substitute for a formal binding treaty, but I hope it will help us achieve it.

     Finally, my fellow Americans, let us examine our attitude toward peace and freedom here at home. The quality and spirit of our own society must justify and support our efforts abroad. We must show it in the dedication of our own lives--as many of you who are graduating today will have a unique opportunity to do, by serving without pay in the Peace Corps abroad or in the proposed National Service Corps here at home.


Title: Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
Post by: Gummibearz on February 28, 2005, 01:45:06 PM
     But wherever we are, we must all, in our daily lives, live up to the age-old faith that peace and freedom walk together. In too many of our cities today, the peace is not secure because the freedom is incomplete.

     It is the responsibility of the executive branch at all levels of government--local, State, and National--to provide and protect that freedom for all of our citizens by all means within their authority. It is the responsibility of the legislative branch at all levels, wherever that authority is not now adequate, to make it adequate. And it is the responsibility of all citizens in all sections of this country to respect the rights of all others and to respect the law of the land.

     All this is not unrelated to world peace. "When a man's ways please the Lord," the Scriptures tell us, "he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him." And is not peace, in the last analysis, basically a matter of human rights--the right to live out our lives without fear of devastation--the right to breathe air as nature provided it--the right of future generations to a healthy existence?

     While we proceed to safeguard our national interests, let us also safeguard human interests. And the elimination of war and arms is clearly in the interest of both. No treaty, however much it may be to the advantage of all, however tightly it may be worded, can provide absolute security against the risks of deception and evasion. But it can--if it is sufficiently effective in its enforcement and if it is sufficiently in the interests of its signers--offer far more security and far fewer risks than an unabated, uncontrolled, unpredictable arms race.

     The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough--more than enough--of war and hate and oppression. We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it. But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success. Confident and unafraid, we labor on--not toward a strategy of annihilation but toward a strategy of peace.