Law School Discussion

The Realist Perspective of International Relations

strouse

Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
« Reply #30 on: February 26, 2005, 07:50:09 PM »
Quote

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


No, just a bit less analytically capable   ;)

giffy

  • ****
  • 1578
  • Mo
    • View Profile
Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
« Reply #31 on: February 26, 2005, 07:54:06 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.


VinnyMyCousin

  • ****
  • 314
  • Say you'll do the job.
    • View Profile
Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
« Reply #32 on: February 26, 2005, 07:56:33 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.”...


VinnyMyCousin

  • ****
  • 314
  • Say you'll do the job.
    • View Profile
Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
« Reply #33 on: February 26, 2005, 08:00:09 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.

strouse

Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
« Reply #34 on: February 26, 2005, 08:01:15 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)

A.J

Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
« Reply #35 on: February 26, 2005, 08:03:52 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

strouse

Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
« Reply #36 on: February 26, 2005, 08:06:46 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.

Jennaye

Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
« Reply #37 on: February 26, 2005, 08:10:45 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?

Jennaye

Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
« Reply #38 on: February 26, 2005, 08:12:05 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*.

strouse

Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
« Reply #39 on: February 26, 2005, 08:12:34 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.