Jump to content
Sir Blocksalot

Realism as an Aff answer to Kritik

Recommended Posts

If realism is inev. how does one explain the scandanavian countries Finalnd, Norway, and Sweden or the development of the EU, Neo-functionalism, the Bolivarian revolution or any other liberal governments or inter-governmental organizations?

 

Additionally realism is bad b/c it inev leads to war, creates violent militaristic culture, violent militaristic cultures inev collapse b/c of their violent militarism, Chalmers Johnsons recent series of books Blowback, Sorrows of Empire, and Nemesis all touch on this issue.

 

plus realism is intellectually bankrupt. realism is a theory. a theory is sapposed to have explanitory and predictive utility at the vary least. realism is lacking on both accounts- Realism fails to explain western european policy making since WWII. why did the western european nations come together to form the EU? realist theories can't explain these countries giving up individual power and ignoring their own competitve self interest to form a regional IGO that was not formed on the basis of a military alliance. Realism also fails to predict conflict, which is the whole justification for the security discourse. IF hegemonic stability theory were true and it's predictive capacity born out by history the US and Britian would have gone to war in the 1890. they did not as we all know. for a graphic depiction see: http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/295/usukpowertw5.png (the red line is britian and the blue is the US. it can also be found at the Correlates of War project.)

 

and finally far from ensuring security realist policy prescriptions cause conflicts, by encouraging arms biuld ups, secrecy, alliance biulding, limiting capacity of precieved threats, overt and covert destablization efforts ect. I mean who really thinks giving weapons to Saudi Arabia, Israel, and our Iraqi surrogates to check the rise of Iranian heg in the region will improve global security?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

congrats, i'm sure your realism blocks are awesome

 

realism doesn't say all countries will act realist, just that those who do are better off than those who don't

 

your personal distaste of realist morality doesn't really factor in to the accuracy of the theory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to what measurement is the US or any other realist states "better off" than the scandanavian countries that i identified? According to the Human Development Report Norway=#2, Sweden=#6, Finland=#11, the US=#12, the UK = 16, China=#81, and Israel =#23. Do any of these scandanavian countries have a terrorist organization seeking their annhilation? are the scandanavian countries currently in a reccesion? what currency is more valueble the $ or the Euro? name one realistic security threat possed to the three scandanvian countries I have identified.

 

it's really simple would you rather live in country that provides high degree of oppertunities (access to education, subsidized transition into adulthood, high employment oppertunities, ect.) provides a social network in the case of econ. recession, and unfortunate circumstances, and offers incredible individual security to it's citizens (low-crime rates, and no external military threat), or would you like to live in the US where access to oppertunities are severally limited, the social network is collapsing and sucked to begin with, while facing numerous external threats largely of our own making b/c of the realist policy framework.

 

Realism rejects morality so this is a complete misnomer. additionally my claims to the validty of realism have nothig to do with morality, but rather focus on Explanitory and Predictive value of the theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
. . . 'realism good' makes no sense - the cards are never saying that states acting self-interested is good, but rather, that assuming the world acts for its own interest is good . . .

 

So it looks like Derek is saying the argument is 'realism inevitable,' NOT 'realism good.'

 

. . . realism doesn't say all countries will act realist, just that those who do are better off than those who don't . . .

 

Ok, so now it looks like Synergy is saying the argument is 'realism good,' NOT 'realism inevitable.'

 

Sorry . . . which is it?

 

 

It seems to me like both these arguments (separately) would be responsive to some kritiks if properly developed. If realism is inevitable then signing a neg ballot won't actually change anything so the neg can't access any large scale implications. On the other hand, if realism is good and the neg reverses realism then that acts as separate offense on the K.

 

Do both these arguments exist maybe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

states that operate under a realist framework are better off since it is a more accurate description of IR behaviour than other theories

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
a few things

 

lil a. Mearsheimer is a bad author to read; rather, most realism inevitable authors won't get you offense. They don't assume a predictive world of a radical change like the critique OR the alternative won't be defended in the same impact framework as realism arguments.

 

lil b. realism is not responsive to the Ziz. two reasons: 1. you argue that realism is a structural necessity for nations and they will use it for personal gain. The negative will laugh and go 'thanks for the new link - we aren't pragmatic change and the bartleby ethics the alternative assumes we just choose not too. 2. you argue realism against zizeks critique of multiculturalism and the negative laughs and goes 'not responsive - our argument is a criticism of ideological constraints inclusion and how it propels violence against those who don't fit within our definition of who should be included.

 

Eh - my post was responding to if realism was inevitable to a Cap/State K that Zizek talks about. Certainly if somebody is saying "state is capitalist - leads to bad shit - coopts plan as it's intertwined in capitalism - alt is for a less self-interested form of capital", then I think realism inevitable/good is legit as long as you have O on capitalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
states that operate under a realist framework are better off since it is a more accurate description of IR behaviour than other theories

 

Oh, I see, so viewing the world under a realist framework is better because (in most cases) 'realist' behavior is inevitable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So it looks like Derek is saying the argument is 'realism inevitable,' NOT 'realism good.'

 

 

 

Ok, so now it looks like Synergy is saying the argument is 'realism good,' NOT 'realism inevitable.'

 

Sorry . . . which is it?

 

 

It seems to me like both these arguments (separately) would be responsive to some kritiks if properly developed. If realism is inevitable then signing a neg ballot won't actually change anything so the neg can't access any large scale implications. On the other hand, if realism is good and the neg reverses realism then that acts as separate offense on the K.

 

Do both these arguments exist maybe?

 

Yes. You see, when defense at the uniqueness level and offense on the impact level love eachother, they come together and make a baby - they often name this baby 'straight-turn.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, I see, so viewing the world under a realist framework is better because (in most cases) 'realist' behavior is inevitable?

 

i wouldn't use 'inevitable' - it's more like a uniqueness claim that realism is accurate because that is how states approach IR in the status quo. therefore, states that view IR under a realist framework are better off since it's a more accurate lens to conduct IR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"realism is accurate because that is how states approach IR in the status quo. therefore, states that view IR under a realist framework are better off since it's a more accurate lens to conduct IR."

 

you've said this several times and it is not true. the first premise is that the states are realist in SQ. This is not true because must of the world believes in liberal institutionalism, see the recent declaration against cluster bombs, the WTO, the UN, the ICC, these are all forms of noe-lib institutionalism. additionally you have provided no warrant as to why states that view the world through a realist lens are better off, other than "it's what everyone else is doing."

 

the fact is that "realist nations" are not better off when matched against paired examples as i have demonstrated. China is not militarily secure, and internally life sucks for the vast majority of the population. in the US our living standards are behind western europe on every measurable scale of social well-being, and we face far greater security threats. Israel faces annihalaition and life is okay if your an israeli who avoids the conflict and lives a regular suburban life, but that acounts for a small minority if any Israeli', nevermind the arab israeli pop. living under aparthied. Sweden, Finland and Norway are all better off then the US, China, or Israel, and the former believe in liberal institutionalism, while the later believe in realist realpolitik.

 

you have no backing for any of your arguments besides taglines from "realism=good" files w/ some basic theory applications. that does not mean realism is

a. accurate

or

b. a supperior F/W for giuding the decision-making process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
derek is right - you obviously haven't read very much of the literature. what you saw on some camp's a2 realism block doesn't mean much.

 

obviously. and all those counter examples/arguments you both are providing are quite convincing.

 

not that it matters anyway - the fact that you conceded that realism isnt inevitable, it is merely a f/w to evaluate policies is what i said before ...

Edited by Gianattasio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you've said this several times and it is not true. the first premise is that the states are realist in SQ. This is not true because must of the world believes in liberal institutionalism, see the recent declaration against cluster bombs, the WTO, the UN, the ICC, these are all forms of noe-lib institutionalism.

 

Just because multilateral institutions with specific objectives behave outside a realist f/w doesnt prove individual states do. There really isn't a warrant to "no realism, neolib high now" as most states are behaving as though the world is realist. Ex. China in Africa, securing oil supplies and warding off threats to those supplies; Iran building a nuclear program, etc.

 

the fact is that "realist nations" are not better off when matched against paired examples as i have demonstrated.

 

Uh....the reasons you provided as to why those countries are good have nothing to do with whether or not they are realist; rather, the success of those Scandinavian countries relies on internal economic policies...

 

 

China is not militarily secure, and internally life sucks for the vast majority of the population.

in the US our living standards are behind western europe on every measurable scale of social well-being, and we face far greater security threats. Israel faces annihalaition and life is okay if your an israeli who avoids the conflict and lives a regular suburban life, but that acounts for a small minority if any Israeli', nevermind the arab israeli pop. living under aparthied.

 

Please tell me why those things are directly related to states behaving realist.

 

Sweden, Finland and Norway are all better off then the US, China, or Israel, and the former believe in liberal institutionalism, while the later believe in realist realpolitik.

 

Again, why is realism the cause of this?

Also, what good did liberal institutionism due for denmark and norway when the nazis invaded and took over with almost no resistance?

 

According to what measurement is the US or any other realist states "better off" than the scandanavian countries that i identified? According to the Human Development Report Norway=#2, Sweden=#6, Finland=#11, the US=#12, the UK = 16, China=#81, and Israel =#23.

 

answered above

 

Do any of these scandanavian countries have a terrorist organization seeking their annhilation?

 

Have any of these Scandinavian countries done any thing anyone gives a fuck about in, say, the last decade?

 

are the scandanavian countries currently in a reccesion? what currency is more valueble the $ or the Euro?

 

Macroeconomic reforms relating little to those states' behaviors in international affairs is the cause of that.

 

name one realistic security threat possed to the three scandanvian countries I have identified.

 

Russia.

 

it's really simple would you rather live in country that provides high degree of oppertunities (access to education, subsidized transition into adulthood, high employment oppertunities, ect.) provides a social network in the case of econ. recession, and unfortunate circumstances, and offers incredible individual security to it's citizens (low-crime rates, and no external military threat), or would you like to live in the US where access to oppertunities are severally limited, the social network is collapsing and sucked to begin with, while facing numerous external threats largely of our own making b/c of the realist policy framework.

 

All caused by different economic systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you've said this several times and it is not true. the first premise is that the states are realist in SQ. This is not true because must of the world believes in liberal institutionalism, see the recent declaration against cluster bombs, the WTO, the UN, the ICC, these are all forms of noe-lib institutionalism. additionally you have provided no warrant as to why states that view the world through a realist lens are better off, other than "it's what everyone else is doing."

 

the fact is that "realist nations" are not better off when matched against paired examples as i have demonstrated. China is not militarily secure, and internally life sucks for the vast majority of the population. in the US our living standards are behind western europe on every measurable scale of social well-being, and we face far greater security threats. Israel faces annihalaition and life is okay if your an israeli who avoids the conflict and lives a regular suburban life, but that acounts for a small minority if any Israeli', nevermind the arab israeli pop. living under aparthied. Sweden, Finland and Norway are all better off then the US, China, or Israel, and the former believe in liberal institutionalism, while the later believe in realist realpolitik.

 

you have no backing for any of your arguments besides taglines from "realism=good" files w/ some basic theory applications. that does not mean realism is

a. accurate

or

b. a supperior F/W for giuding the decision-making process.

I don't see your point? Realism is still reponsive to critiques, even if not totally right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you've said this several times and it is not true. the first premise is that the states are realist in SQ. This is not true because must of the world believes in liberal institutionalism, see the recent declaration against cluster bombs, the WTO, the UN, the ICC, these are all forms of noe-lib institutionalism. additionally you have provided no warrant as to why states that view the world through a realist lens are better off, other than "it's what everyone else is doing."

 

Mearsheimer actually makes a response to this in The Tragedy of Great Power Politics... basically, 1) no matter how many institutions exist, they don't do shit (true) and 2) states simply use the institutions to further their own security (also true).

 

the fact is that "realist nations" are not better off when matched against paired examples as i have demonstrated. China is not militarily secure, and internally life sucks for the vast majority of the population. in the US our living standards are behind western europe on every measurable scale of social well-being, and we face far greater security threats. Israel faces annihalaition and life is okay if your an israeli who avoids the conflict and lives a regular suburban life, but that acounts for a small minority if any Israeli', nevermind the arab israeli pop. living under aparthied. Sweden, Finland and Norway are all better off then the US, China, or Israel, and the former believe in liberal institutionalism, while the later believe in realist realpolitik.

 

Extremely non-responsive. I don't think anyone has ever argued "realism key to internal quality of life", it's a question of international security. Because of US counterbalancing in Europe, the rising regional power (not hegemon), Russia, doesn't get to fuck around, so Europe can basically forget about its own security and focus its money on more personal things, like social services. However, your example of US vs Europe does nothing to disprove realism, because the presence of a securing force... ensures security.

 

you have no backing for any of your arguments besides taglines from "realism=good" files w/ some basic theory applications. that does not mean realism is

a. accurate

or

b. a supperior F/W for giuding the decision-making process.

Maybe you've been running up against some shitty realism teams (wouldn't surprise me, I hit a team that made it to quarters at the TOC this year that had no idea there were any subtheories under realism, and that reading Guzzini cards and then Mearsheimer cards is stupid - shows you how versed in realism high school debate is) but realism happens to have some fantastic warrants. I won't delve into it because your argument is pretty much "uh... no warrants to some cards that this dude read" but I think you're grossly underestimating realism's responsive potential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe you've been running up against some shitty realism teams (wouldn't surprise me, I hit a team that made it to quarters at the TOC this year that had no idea there were any subtheories under realism, and that reading Guzzini cards and then Mearsheimer cards is stupid - shows you how versed in realism high school debate is) but realism happens to have some fantastic warrants. I won't delve into it because your argument is pretty much "uh... no warrants to some cards that this dude read" but I think you're grossly underestimating realism's responsive potential.

 

Eh - I think for most K's of the state, realism is responsive, although the warrants for why realism isn't really true are pretty legit (e.g. the logic of the conclusion is circular as theorists presume realism to get to realism, doesn't explain individual ethics, doesn't explain countries like Nicaragua that give tons of peacekeepers with seemingly no benefit for the nation besides some HR cred that it doesn't really use, etc.)

 

I personally find realism to be bland and non-responsive to many k's. That, and it's always the gut check of debaters that just want to debate the impact instead of taking up the link level, so it's probably the most extenisvely prepared block by most K teams. Banking on realism doesn't seem to be the best route to go, strategically, in taht sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AT:Bacon Bits

Just because multilateral institutions with specific objectives behave outside a realist f/w doesnt prove individual states do. There really isn't a warrant to "no realism, neolib high now" as most states are behaving as though the world is realist. Ex. China in Africa, securing oil supplies and warding off threats to those supplies; Iran building a nuclear program, etc.

 

you give two examples China and Iran. whether or not china is actively trying ward off other interested parties seeking oil is debatable just as teh iranian nuclear issue is, but i'll concied to you that both are persuing realist policies. Never the less I gave three example countries. and there are plenty more i.e. the EU in general. latin america is also demonstrating a new push toward authentic liberal democracy and regional intergration

 

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/27/headlines

 

"South American Leaders Form Regional Bloc

 

Twelve South American nations have signed an agreement to increase political and economic ties. On Friday, leaders signed a treaty forming the South American Union of Nations, modeled partly on the European Union. Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said the grouping would increase regional integration.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva: “What seemed impossible happened. To the eyes of the skeptical, South America is today more integrated than ever, because we have just approved by unanimity the treaty of integration, the treaty of UNASUR.”

The agreement falls short of plans to merge regional trading blocs. But ongoing proposals include the creation of a South American defense council."

 

Uh....the reasons you provided as to why those countries are good have nothing to do with whether or not they are realist; rather, the success of those Scandinavian countries relies on internal economic policies...

 

actually it has to do with econ policies like high levels of taxation combinded w/ the liberal policy-making of funding social programs over military expenditures, not having a global military infrastructure that pisses off religious fundamentalist, sapping otherwise useful funds from social welfare programs.

 

Please tell me why those things are directly related to states behaving realist.

 

China is increasingly modernizing it's military-a realist policy, which is in turn causing hightened concern in the US. additionally you point out china is behaving in realist fashion in Africa, as is the US- see africom, and a number of other programs across africa. this raises the specter of proxy wars and the risk of spill over into full fledged conflict between the US and China. thus China's realist behavior decreases china's security. same goes for the US and israel. as for social welfare being harmed by realism- in the US we spend trillions of dollars in war and the military (ie realist policies) instead of funding social programs like they do in western europe. it's easy biulding up your military leads to global insecurity for example "Iran [is] building a nuclear program." and biulding up your military takes money away form social programs internally. and this doesn't even address the issue of policy-makers playing a two-level game where in they create a threat to raise domestic support for the state and marginalize dissident voices.

 

 

Again, why is realism the cause of this?

Also, what good did liberal institutionism due for denmark and norway when the nazis invaded and took over with almost no resistance?

 

first realism has nothing to do with it. that's the point. their not realist states so their better off. and the notion of whether or not a state is "better off" using realism or an alterinative policy-making F/W is what I was responding to. I have argued the liberal instititutionalism of the scandanavian countries makes them "better off" then the US China Israel or Iran.

 

second the arguement that liberalism was smashed by hitler is silly. liberalism was weak in the 1930's- see the league of nations, compared to present day liberal institutions, for instance the EU, there is not a comprable threat in teh SQ and the EU will not fall to a hitler-esque invasion. additionally what specific hitler will invade all european neighbors scenario are you envisioning?

 

Have any of these Scandinavian countries done any thing anyone gives a fuck about in, say, the last decade?

 

talk about non-responsive. i don't know the olso accords were a pretty big happening, their standard of living setting the bar for the last decade is an accomplishment, the fact that in terms of GDP their the number one providers of aid globally, and the fact that know one wants to kill them is a pretty good feat considering the SQ fear mongering and zealotry. and what kind of argument is this "hay i don't pay attention to whats happening in other countries so fuck the scandanavian countries."

 

Macroeconomic reforms relating little to those states' behaviors in international affairs is the cause of that.

 

this contradicts your last post which assumes economic systems are the motivation behind domestic and foreign policy-making.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bakunin+Debordxhash=Bey

it's really simple would you rather live in country that provides high degree of oppertunities (access to education, subsidized transition into adulthood, high employment oppertunities, ect.) provides a social network in the case of econ. recession, and unfortunate circumstances, and offers incredible individual security to it's citizens (low-crime rates, and no external military threat), or would you like to live in the US where access to oppertunities are severally limited, the social network is collapsing and sucked to begin with, while facing numerous external threats largely of our own making b/c of the realist policy framework.

All caused by different economic systems.

 

so which is it?

 

 

Russia.

 

HA.

yeah russia the country that can't even maintain control of chechneya is now going to invade scandanavia, facing the EU's rapid response force, and the Full force of NATO which is bound by security gaurentees to intervene thus facing total nuclear annihlation. and for what again? Russia cares about the artic, runaway republics, and centeral asia, and the US not scandanavia.

 

 

now for synergy

I don't see your point? Realism is still reponsive to critiques, even if not totally right.

 

my point is that you're wrong when you say realism is accurate, or it is the way states behave in the SQ, and that realist states are better off. a claim i have supported with warrants HST fails to predict conflict and realism fails to accurately describe the behavior of western europe post-WWII, there are plenty of state actions that can;t be explained via realism and non-realist states Finland-Norway-Sweden are better off then realist states US-CHina-Iran-Israel. it may be responsive to some K's but that is not what i'm responding to. I'm arguing that the assumptions made by those claiming realism=good are flawed as you have repeatedly demonstrated.

 

 

and now for Needs More Consult Japan

 

Mearsheimer actually makes a response to this in The Tragedy of Great Power Politics... basically, 1) no matter how many institutions exist, they don't do shit (true) and 2) states simply use the institutions to further their own security (also true).

 

no shit a realist says international institutions are inneffective, besides none of this is true. institutions do shit all the time all over the world. the World health organization saves lives, the UN helped the world avoid armogendon in the cold-war, they have a huge effect, the EU has taken europe form two world wars and realist realpolitik that cost the world millions of lives and turned europe into the most stable region in the world. if we got rid of these inst's all the security threats realist talk about would be magnified because there would be no institutional framework for solving conflict the have not's of the world would be stroming the gates (which some are doing in the SQ. see-Gaza.) its not true state involment in international instituitons is self intersted as dziegler points out in teh case of nicuragua.

 

 

Extremely non-responsive. I don't think anyone has ever argued "realism key to internal quality of life", it's a question of international security.

 

I'm responding to synergy' post that realist states are "better off" and I demonstrate they are niether better off interms of interal QL or international security.

 

Because of US counterbalancing in Europe, the rising regional power (not hegemon), Russia, doesn't get to fuck around, so Europe can basically forget about its own security and focus its money on more personal things, like social services. However, your example of US vs Europe does nothing to disprove realism, because the presence of a securing force... ensures security.

 

this is true to the extent russia wont fuck with europe, but too bad russia isn't a threat that would invade western europe as i have articulated above, additionally the US is putting Europe at risk from both Russia (Missile Defense in eastern europe) and terrorist (british and spanish bombings.) thus europe is trying to shift away from nato and increase self reliance via the europaen rapid response force.

 

 

but I think you're grossly underestimating realism's responsive potential

 

it may be responsive to some K's. I'm arguing that it is a shitty theory and that synergy is wrong when he asserts "Realism is accurate" "Realism is how states behave in the SQ" and "Realist states are better off"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you give two examples China and Iran. whether or not china is actively trying ward off other interested parties seeking oil is debatable just as teh iranian nuclear issue is, but i'll concied to you that both are persuing realist policies. Never the less I gave three example countries. and there are plenty more i.e. the EU in general. latin america is also demonstrating a new push toward authentic liberal democracy and regional intergration

 

Among the nations anyone listens to the foreign policies adopted are generally realist.

 

actually it has to do with econ policies like high levels of taxation combinded w/ the liberal policy-making of funding social programs over military expenditures, not having a global military infrastructure that pisses off religious fundamentalist, sapping otherwise useful funds from social welfare programs.

 

All your arguments prove that the socialist economic system in Scandinavian focuses on social welfare issues. Explain to me why socialism=rejection of realist policies.

 

 

China is increasingly modernizing it's military-a realist policy, which is in turn causing hightened concern in the US. additionally you point out china is behaving in realist fashion in Africa, as is the US- see africom, and a number of other programs across africa. this raises the specter of proxy wars and the risk of spill over into full fledged conflict between the US and China. thus China's realist behavior decreases china's security.

 

O RLY? Then why doesn't the "spector of proxy wars" cause war now? O ya, its because each side knows it would be to their disadvantage. realist policy making avoid a war right there.

 

as for social welfare being harmed by realism- in the US we spend trillions of dollars in war and the military (ie realist policies) instead of funding social programs like they do in western europe. it's easy biulding up your military leads to global insecurity for example "Iran [is] building a nuclear program." and biulding up your military takes money away form social programs internally.

 

Right, but we still spend billions each year on social welfare programs.Why can't money be spent on both?

 

and this doesn't even address the issue of policy-makers playing a two-level game where in they create a threat to raise domestic support for the state and marginalize dissident voices.

 

Wow thats stupid. States deciding to protect their interests "marginalizes voices"? Whose? Are you talking about hippies? Well they can protest and speak all they want.

 

second the arguement that liberalism was smashed by hitler is silly. liberalism was weak in the 1930's- see the league of nations, compared to present day liberal institutions, for instance the EU, there is not a comprable threat in teh SQ and the EU will not fall to a hitler-esque invasion. additionally what specific hitler will invade all european neighbors scenario are you envisioning?

 

You misunderstand the argument- my point is that the countries not investing in defense spending were easily taken over by a brutal tyrant. How good would the being world's highest provider of foreign aid per GDP be then?

 

And i'm not talking about a "specific hitler" (though i'd still watch putin) i am merely providing an example of how lack of defense spending allowed countries to fall to a tyrant.

 

 

talk about non-responsive. i don't know the olso accords were a pretty big happening,

 

Oh no you got me, you can cite 1 example of something important (that failed to actually do much) that norway did fifteen years ago. Please cite me something recent of golbal relevency.

 

their standard of living setting the bar for the last decade is an accomplishment, the fact that in terms of GDP their the number one providers of aid globally,

 

They may be the highest per GDP but we still give more-

U.S. official development assistance (ODA) in 2005 was $28 billion, the largest of all official donations by an individual country.

 

and the fact that know one wants to kill them is a pretty good feat considering the SQ fear mongering and zealotry.

 

Im pretty sure Russia would take over Scandinavia if they knew the US wouldn't stop them.

 

and what kind of argument is this "hay i don't pay attention to whats happening in other countries so fuck the scandanavian countries."

 

I watch the news everyday and keep up with news on on google news. I hear of goings-on in other countries, yet norway, and other scandanavian countries, are conspicuously absent.

 

this contradicts your last post which assumes economic systems are the motivation behind domestic and foreign policy-making.

 

No it doesn't. My point was the each economy is run differently, which explains the difference in standard of living etc.

 

so which is it?

 

Cut the hippie bullshit or make an argument.

 

Which is it?

 

yeah russia the country that can't even maintain control of chechneya is now going to invade scandanavia, facing the EU's rapid response force, and the Full force of NATO which is bound by security gaurentees to intervene thus facing total nuclear annihlation. and for what again? Russia cares about the artic, runaway republics, and centeral asia, and the US not scandanavia.

 

Read the lit- many authors conclude that Red Spread is real and russia is moving to reintegerate europe into the motherland. Also, i find it interesting that you point to the organizations which provide security and the realist ideal of mutal destruction preventing conflict to prove non-realist frameworks are better....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no shit a realist says international institutions are inneffective, besides none of this is true. institutions do shit all the time all over the world. the World health organization saves lives,

zero impact on international politics

 

the UN helped the world avoid armogendon in the cold-war, they have a huge effect,

re-read history. The UN has never done shit, all it's functioned as was another arena of power play between the US and the USSR.

 

the EU has taken europe form two world wars and realist realpolitik that cost the world millions of lives and turned europe into the most stable region in the world. if we got rid of these inst's all the security threats realist talk about would be magnified because there would be no institutional framework for solving conflict the have not's of the world would be stroming the gates (which some are doing in the SQ. see-Gaza.) its not true state involment in international instituitons is self intersted as dziegler points out in teh case of nicuragua.

oh fuck, Nicaragua is off the map in international politics. That sure is a relief. Meanwhile, all the states that matter are off playing the international arena like they mean it. As for the EU, Mearsheimer even says that a European superstate is still a state. It's one thing to unite a couple of smaller entities within a larger arena into simply one bigger player, but another thing entirely to enfold everyone into one entity that truly functions like an entity... namely, the former is actually possible. The EU, should it truly succeed (obviously there are still some spurts of nationalism within it) would still just operate as another player in the global system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zero impact on international politics

My F/W = liberal institutionalism impacts out to world where:

-International co-operation systemically saves millions of lives annually

-Security risks are systemically reduced through the habitat of co-operation and an institutional framework to address global security threats and resolve conflicts. (And the biggest barrier to effective security risk reduction is US realism and rejection of the international communities efforts to reduce the risks posed by realist perspectives-see Chomsky, Failed States.)

-Additionally liberalism provides away to get out of the security dilemma created both by Terrorism and nuclear war. For example incorporation of Hamas and Hezbahla in the political process marginalizes more extreme voices w/ in these org’s, additionally there is a growing non-violent movement w/ in Palestine and increasing Israeli-Palestine co-operation in this movement. This movement presents a liberal alternative to Islamic extremism and Israeli Zionism. And it has been created by the people must affected by the conflict in the hope of producing a lasting peace. on nuke the international community and the Soviet Union all gave the US the opportunity to completely dis-arm we can’t blame any other country for the threat of nuclear holocaust in the SQ.

YOUR F/W = Realism impacts out to world where:

-the US and the rest of the world is forced into a zero sum game of winners and losers

-makes war inevitable

-increases the risk of nuclear annihilation

-and inevitable leads to collapse of the societies that practice it.

 

re-read history. The UN has never done shit, all it's functioned as was another arena of power play between the US and the USSR.

 

So what. read your history w/ some nuance. Yeah the UN was used by both for power politics. But the UN and liberal institutionalism subordinated the realist pursuits of the US and the USSR, thus there was never an apocalyptic hot war between the two and the UN and lib institutionalism provided the F/W for ending the Cold war.

 

oh fuck, Nicaragua is off the map in international politics. That sure is a relief. Meanwhile, all the states that matter are off playing the international arena like they mean it. As for the EU, Mearsheimer even says that a European superstate is still a state. It's one thing to unite a couple of smaller entities within a larger arena into simply one bigger player, but another thing entirely to enfold everyone into one entity that truly functions like an entity... namely, the former is actually possible. The EU, should it truly succeed (obviously there are still some spurts of nationalism within it) would still just operate as another player in the global system.

 

First To say my examples don’t matter is non-responsive. and nicaragua is mot off the map in international politics read Tariq Ali's recent book Pirates of the Carribean, see chomskys work on latin america, Znet also has indepth coverage of what is happening across latin america where the washington consensus is being rejected and Nicaragua is one of many contries involved in this movement away from the US.

Second my examples are more representative of international behavior than the US is, for proof look at UN resolutions and note the number of lone dissenting votes cast by the US or of those cast by the US and a few proxies. (William Blum has compiled a list in Rogue States.) the us is the exception see our military budget, and military footprint.

Third my examples do matter the best way to find answers to the problems of the SQ is to look at alternatives for instance Scandinavian countries, Costa Rica where they have a better healthcare indicators than the US, is far more secure than most of it’s regional counter-parts, Cuba is another example they have one of the worlds best medical systems despite limitations on access to foreign produced medicines. It is a good idea to seek solutions in countries that have alternative policy approaches.

Fourth this concedes the point that states don’t behave in realist fashion. Just because you don’t care/read about these countries doesn’t mean anything.

 

And finally the EU is presenting an alternative to the US even if it is a player in the international community that doesn’t mean that EU efforts to curb global warming for instance is a selfish zero-sum act that they will wield over the US and the rest of the world as a tool to decrease the rest of teh worlds military power while increasing the EU’s. The EU suprastate organiztion is animated by a liberal institutional decision making process the EU is trying to institute collective security as a model that provides a greater degree of security and a better Quality of living than any other socio-political security organizational structure in the SQ. fuck Mearsheimer realist scholarship is crap and as a policy-making F/W it will only lead to ruin. a fact no-one has responded to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is slightly off-topic, but I didn't want to start a new thread so...

 

Can realism be used to N/U a war DA? Can it be argued that because states will always seek to be hegemons, that they will eventually collide in war at some point in time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is slightly off-topic, but I didn't want to start a new thread so...

 

Can realism be used to N/U a war DA? Can it be argued that because states will always seek to be hegemons, that they will eventually collide in war at some point in time?

 

You'd probably need a card saying that realism implies endless warfare, because to me at least that doesn't seem inherently obvious. The war you get might also not be large enough to set off their internal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My F/W = liberal institutionalism impacts out to world where:

-International co-operation systemically saves millions of lives annually

-Security risks are systemically reduced through the habitat of co-operation and an institutional framework to address global security threats and resolve conflicts. (And the biggest barrier to effective security risk reduction is US realism and rejection of the international communities efforts to reduce the risks posed by realist perspectives-see Chomsky, Failed States.)

-Additionally liberalism provides away to get out of the security dilemma created both by Terrorism and nuclear war. For example incorporation of Hamas and Hezbahla in the political process marginalizes more extreme voices w/ in these org’s, additionally there is a growing non-violent movement w/ in Palestine and increasing Israeli-Palestine co-operation in this movement. This movement presents a liberal alternative to Islamic extremism and Israeli Zionism. And it has been created by the people must affected by the conflict in the hope of producing a lasting peace. on nuke the international community and the Soviet Union all gave the US the opportunity to completely dis-arm we can’t blame any other country for the threat of nuclear holocaust in the SQ.

YOUR F/W = Realism impacts out to world where:

-the US and the rest of the world is forced into a zero sum game of winners and losers

-makes war inevitable

-increases the risk of nuclear annihilation

-and inevitable leads to collapse of the societies that practice it.

 

Liberal institutionalism, while more desirable than realism, fails to explain international politics as well as realism does. Mearsheimer makes several arguments as to why realism is always more accurate than your view of the world. First, he argues that international cooperation isn't precluded by a realist view of the world. Nation-states come together all the time in order to maximize their own interests, the best example being counterbalancing a regional hegemon (both World Wars). Second, this cooperation rhetoric is also promoted by leaders of great powers in order to pacify the public. Mearsheimer gives the example of how America's propaganda machine responded to our rapidly changing relations with the Soviet Union. Finally, their are "rogue" states and "failed" states that are ostracized from the international community for some reason or another. These states don't follow your framework of liberal institutionalism. Rather, they follow the rules of realism to the letter. Many of these states are examples of stable democracies that backslide into totalitarianism. Mussolini proves that some of the most stable states could potentially backslide. At the end of the day, realism is still the most valid way to evaluate international relations.

 

 

So what. read your history w/ some nuance. Yeah the UN was used by both for power politics. But the UN and liberal institutionalism subordinated the realist pursuits of the US and the USSR, thus there was never an apocalyptic hot war between the two and the UN and lib institutionalism provided the F/W for ending the Cold war.

 

 

 

First To say my examples don’t matter is non-responsive. and nicaragua is mot off the map in international politics read Tariq Ali's recent book Pirates of the Carribean, see chomskys work on latin america, Znet also has indepth coverage of what is happening across latin america where the washington consensus is being rejected and Nicaragua is one of many contries involved in this movement away from the US.

Second my examples are more representative of international behavior than the US is, for proof look at UN resolutions and note the number of lone dissenting votes cast by the US or of those cast by the US and a few proxies. (William Blum has compiled a list in Rogue States.) the us is the exception see our military budget, and military footprint.

Third my examples do matter the best way to find answers to the problems of the SQ is to look at alternatives for instance Scandinavian countries, Costa Rica where they have a better healthcare indicators than the US, is far more secure than most of it’s regional counter-parts, Cuba is another example they have one of the worlds best medical systems despite limitations on access to foreign produced medicines. It is a good idea to seek solutions in countries that have alternative policy approaches.

Fourth this concedes the point that states don’t behave in realist fashion. Just because you don’t care/read about these countries doesn’t mean anything.

 

And finally the EU is presenting an alternative to the US even if it is a player in the international community that doesn’t mean that EU efforts to curb global warming for instance is a selfish zero-sum act that they will wield over the US and the rest of the world as a tool to decrease the rest of teh worlds military power while increasing the EU’s. The EU suprastate organiztion is animated by a liberal institutional decision making process the EU is trying to institute collective security as a model that provides a greater degree of security and a better Quality of living than any other socio-political security organizational structure in the SQ. fuck Mearsheimer realist scholarship is crap and as a policy-making F/W it will only lead to ruin. a fact no-one has responded to.

 

I didn't read all of this and assume most of it is answered above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is slightly off-topic, but I didn't want to start a new thread so...

 

Can realism be used to N/U a war DA? Can it be argued that because states will always seek to be hegemons, that they will eventually collide in war at some point in time?

 

I don't think realism says that war is inevitable. Either way, the other team will still argue that war later is better than war now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...