Law School Discussion

The Realist Perspective of International Relations

lawbuddy

Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
« Reply #90 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.

Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
« Reply #91 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

Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
« Reply #92 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.

VinnyMyCousin

  • ****
  • 314
  • Say you'll do the job.
    • View Profile
Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
« Reply #93 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.

VinnyMyCousin

  • ****
  • 314
  • Say you'll do the job.
    • View Profile
Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
« Reply #94 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."




amelus

  • ****
  • 1340
    • View Profile
Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
« Reply #95 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.

lawbuddy

Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
« Reply #96 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.   :)

giffy

  • ****
  • 1578
  • Mo
    • View Profile
Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
« Reply #97 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.

amelus

  • ****
  • 1340
    • View Profile
Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
« Reply #98 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?

VinnyMyCousin

  • ****
  • 314
  • Say you'll do the job.
    • View Profile
Re: The Realist Perspective of International Relations
« Reply #99 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.