The Iraq Thread

[Blaegis 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 10 2003,02:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You don't think a viable democratically elected and secular government in the middle east will stabilize the region? I suppose the current theocracies, monarchies and dictatorships are more preferable.<span id='postcolor'>

Pardon my cynicism, but I'll believe the "viable democratically elected and secular government" when I see it. At the moment the vibes are more along "we'll give the Iraqis democracy when we think they're ready for it".

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As for Realpolitik, if it still dominated U.S. foreign policy, any good realist would have told the U.N. to fuck off and not have even gotten involved in the quagmire of international organizations. Under realpolitk, might makes right and to hell with the rest. We didn't exactly do that, and we still do belong to the U.N. All nations operate from a realist perspective to some extent, but they also exhibit liberalist and multi-lateralist tendencies as well. The U.S. started most of the I.O.'s after WWII at Bretton Woods. We belong to the U.N., the WTO and the IMF. None of those things would be possible under a purely realist foreign policy. U.S. participation in those organizations amounts in many cases to a public good, despite the free riders we contribute. Its a mixture of realism and liberalism. We contribute to help others and to get others to help us later on down the road. All nations do this, not just America.<span id='postcolor'>

Sorry, mate, but concept of realpolitik involves a gambit of diplomacy backed, when necessary, by military power. It would put the US on stronger footing both politically and economically if UN approval for this war had been gained. That's why the US dedicated significant efforts to gaining that approval. When it proved impossible, the US fell back to the baseline option: just war, no approval.

[ralphwiggum 6]

the conditions by Tex

[*]only a few civilians are killed (that will allay the fears of a large group who think that Iraq's people have already been subjected to more than they deserve, and more would just be too much)

[*]Iraq's military dissolves quickly, (then that will allay the fears that the war will escalate into a Vietnam-type scenario.)

[*]if we find stocks of WMD

so far only the second one(liquidation of Iraq's military) satisfies condition. #3 is still on hold.

curerntly we can contest #1. Tex said A FEW. this is another lawyer's paradise section a few. how do we define it? 1? 2? 100?, 1% of population? depending on which percentage. condition #1 can be satisfied.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

I didn't say it, Denoir did. (although I agreed, I think)

EDIT: Nevermind, I guess I did.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (LandShark-AL @ April 10 2003,02:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and as for what people that don't know what it is to be free think who gives a rats ass. <span id='postcolor'>

Very mature. Hate to break it to you bud, but not everyone shares your idea of "freedom". To Communists, Communism is freedom. To many in the Midle East, a Muslim society is freedom. Your statement is arrogant and also painfully ironic due to the fact that your country has supported some bloody dictatorships as well. "who gives a rats ass" indeed.

[whisperFFW06 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 10 2003,02:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Taken in its individuality, your arguments against my post are effective, but taken with my previous posts, not quite so.

As I said earlier, Iraq is not the worst threat to mideast stability, but it is the best possibility to start a foundation for mideast stability due to its secular nature.

As for my thoughts on Realpolitik, read my next post.<span id='postcolor'>

Yep, sorry if I jumped in the discussion... But it's very late here (02:30 AM) and I did not read everything .

I don't see any possibility to start any foundation of whatever stability. You seem to forget that middle east have seen way more years than US can remember of. It doesn't work like that here, and they know it. As I see it, it could be a good solution for a short term, until some decide it is not. Occidental model is not a miracle potion to Middle East issues.

About Realpolitik, well, the word was perhaps bad chosen, but it meant acting in the interest of your country/group/etc... prior to any other interest. This in no way implies isolationism and is perfectly compatible with UN and other organizations (when you need them).

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ April 10 2003,02:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ April 10 2003,02:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is where you are wrong in my opinion. There are other solutions - but there's never one solution to all problems. Political pressure and funding of opposition groups worked in South Africa. Diplomacy by a third party works in Sri Lanka. War might be a solution when required - but more often than not it creates a new and more complicated set of problems.<span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">yes, and now work on rest, if possible. the reason why it worked is becuase differentiation based on skin color is wrong my intrinsic nature. and all the nations on the globe went down on SA. problem is, on rest of the case, diplomacy does not have much of shining example that distinguishes itself from military action. there are self interests that even "altruisitic" nation cannot rely on diplomatic soltion alone. so saying that there are better alternatives is not the best counter argument either.

<span id='postcolor'>

Which is why I wrote this:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There are other solutions - but there's never one solution to all problems.<span id='postcolor'>

---

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">see, that's why Norway don't have a chance against Sweden <span id='postcolor'>

You are obliged to support the norwegians in their struggle against the swedes - why the hell do you think we joined Nato in the first place!

[Schoeler 0]

Realpolitik means acting in your own self interests and damn the consequences. What was done, was not done from a purely realist perspective. America's foreign policy is more neo-realist in nature, otherwise we would not belong to the U.N. and would solve all of our problems with force, and none with diplomacy.

[Blaegis 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (whisperFFW06 @ April 10 2003,02:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Second, Iraq oil issue was not that US want to get oil from them, but, as stated long ago in this thread, that Iraq was the only country being paid in Euro instead of Dollars for its oil. This is a major threat to US economy (well, not Iraq alone, but the example and the possibility that many oil producer do the same).<span id='postcolor'>

I think that this is the original article dealing with the issue. The article posted in this thread was actually a not-very-good ripoff of the one above.

And: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">realpolitik, noun  

a ruthlessly realistic and opportunist approach to statesmanship, rather than a moralistic one, esp. as exemplified by Bismarck

Source: The Collins English Dictionary © 2000 HarperCollins Publishers<span id='postcolor'>

Edit: I think the definition above is right on the spot, as far as current US foreign policy is concerned.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 10 2003,02:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">otherwise we would not belong to the U.N. and would solve all of our problems with force, and none with diplomacy.<span id='postcolor'>

Sounds familiar As it is apparent now is that the UN is just a tool of convenience for the US. When it serves your interests you work with the UN, otherwise you just do what you want, without international backing.

This current war was the most apparent example. You played along with the UN as long as the necessary forces were not yet in place. Once the invasion force was ready to go you ignored the UN.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ April 10 2003,02:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">yes, and now work on rest, if possible. the reason why it worked is becuase differentiation based on skin color is wrong my intrinsic nature. and all the nations on the globe went down on SA. problem is, on rest of the case, diplomacy does not have much of shining example that distinguishes itself from military action. there are self interests that even "altruisitic" nation cannot rely on diplomatic soltion alone. so saying that there are better alternatives is not the best counter argument either.

<span id='postcolor'>

Which is why I wrote this:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There are other solutions - but there's never one solution to all problems.<span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'>

true, so as much as i can't say mil action is the answer, neither can you say it is not the solution

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">see, that's why Norway don't have a chance against Sweden <span id='postcolor'>

You are obliged to support the norwegians in their struggle against the swedes - why the hell do you think we joined Nato in the first place! <span id='postcolor'>

cause you guys thought NATO was NASA? fine, i guess your argument is correct. let's stop fighting each other and plot war against Swedes.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 10 2003,02:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">otherwise we would not belong to the U.N. and would solve all of our problems with force, and none with diplomacy.<span id='postcolor'>

Which would be suicidal in the long run. No single country can go around pissing everyone else of at all times, no matter how powerful it is and how weak the others are. The little guys would eventually have enough of it and gang up on the bully. (Which incidentally, has/is happening to some extent).

[whisperFFW06 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 10 2003,02:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Realpolitik means acting in your own self interests and damn the consequences.  What was done, was not done from a purely realist perspective.  America's foreign policy is more neo-realist in nature, otherwise we would not belong to the U.N. and would solve all of our problems with force, and none with diplomacy.<span id='postcolor'>

Bad chosen word, take out "Realpolitik" and choose a word fitting with the description I gave, you will see what I tried (and failed?) to say.

Which do not mean not being involved in UN. Which lead to solve problems by force whenever you can, and the current US political trend shows a certain tendancy to use force. Which is one of a concern of UN members. Who will be the next to fall under your sword?

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 10 2003,02:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As I said earlier, Iraq is not the worst threat to mideast stability, but it is the best possibility to start a foundation for mideast stability due to its secular nature.

<span id='postcolor'>

Apparently you forget that such a scenario places US between a rock and a hard place! What will you do when the region in fact is destabilised because of a regime change in Iraq? Undoubtedly, the rioting masses in the region that opposes the autocratic rulers will be hostile to a nation that has secured the royals of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Baharin. The very same dictators will ask for your support once again. They cannot economicly afford to transform their nations into democracies and thus they will do everything possible to remain in power. Which side will you support?

I have to say I'm a bit amused by your reasoning about peace in Israel-Palestine! You claim a different climate (less radicalism) in the middle eastern region to be a nessecity for solving the conflict. However, the rest of the middle east (except Israel) see it otherwise! They cannot see peace coming to the region untill the palestine-israel problem is solved.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 10 2003,02:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Realpolitik means acting in your own self interests and damn the consequences.  What was done, was not done from a purely realist perspective.  America's foreign policy is more neo-realist in nature, otherwise we would not belong to the U.N. and would solve all of our problems with force, and none with diplomacy.<span id='postcolor'>

Sorry to correct you - but realpolitic is by nature constituded of strategic rationality - which means you see the the benefit of cooperating with others in the political landscape. What you are claiming to be realpolitik is called instrumental rationality and is all about being ignorant of the consequenses - also called contrafinality or tradgedy of the commons.

There are also a third form of rationality called communicative rationality but let's not get into that. I have studied political science at the university myself - I would have thought you knew the basics when considering you are a major in political science?

(I'm not trying to be hostile - this time    )

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 10 2003,02:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Realpolitik means acting in your own self interests and damn the consequences.  <span id='postcolor'>

Realpolitik is more like a modern version of Machiavellian methods. It's not "screw the consequences" but "screw the methods as long as the consequences are good". This is typically examplified by making temporary deals with various dictators etc because it serves your current agenda.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ April 10 2003,02:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 10 2003,02:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As I said earlier, Iraq is not the worst threat to mideast stability, but it is the best possibility to start a foundation for mideast stability due to its secular nature.

<span id='postcolor'>

Apparently you forget that such a scenario places US between a rock and a hard place! What will you do when the region in fact is destabilised because of a regime change in Iraq? Undoubtedly, the rioting masses in the region that opposes the autocratic rulers will be hostile to a nation that has secured the royals of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Baharin. The very same dictators will ask for your support once again. They cannot economicly afford to transform their nations into democracies and thus they will do everything possible to remain in power. Which side will you support?

I have to say I'm a bit amused by your reasoning about peace in Israel-Palestine! You claim a different climate (less radicalism) in the middle eastern region to be a nessecity for solving the conflict. However, the rest of the middle east (except Israel) see it otherwise! They cannot see peace coming to the region untill the palestine-israel problem is solved.<span id='postcolor'>

Schoeler - I'd still like you to respond to this though!

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ April 10 2003,04:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ April 10 2003,02:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 10 2003,02:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As I said earlier, Iraq is not the worst threat to mideast stability, but it is the best possibility to start a foundation for mideast stability due to its secular nature.

<span id='postcolor'>

Apparently you forget that such a scenario places US between a rock and a hard place! What will you do when the region in fact is destabilised because of a regime change in Iraq? Undoubtedly, the rioting masses in the region that opposes the autocratic rulers will be hostile to a nation that has secured the royals of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Baharin. The very same dictators will ask for your support once again. They cannot economicly afford to transform their nations into democracies and thus they will do everything possible to remain in power. Which side will you support?

I have to say I'm a bit amused by your reasoning about peace in Israel-Palestine! You claim a different climate (less radicalism) in the middle eastern region to be a nessecity for solving the conflict. However, the rest of the middle east (except Israel) see it otherwise! They cannot see peace coming to the region untill the palestine-israel problem is solved.<span id='postcolor'>

Schoeler - I'd still like you to respond to this though!<span id='postcolor'>

Well, my philsophy goes like this. In a storm, you want to be able to find a safe harbor and anchor your boat. You need a stabile base from which to operate. A democratic and stabile Iraq can act as that base and serve as an example for the people under the other despotic regimes in the middle east. It means instability and probably more war, or at least revolution in the short run, but in the long run a lasting peace and regional stability. The mid east as I see it is going through what Europe went through in the 1930's and 1940's. Its becoming a modern region and is experiencing all of the growing pains that Europe did before it took its place in the modern world and in modern foreign politics and relations.

[Pete 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 10 2003,02:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You don't think a viable democratically elected and secular government in the middle east will stabilize the region?  I suppose the current theocracies, monarchies and dictatorships are more preferable.  <span id='postcolor'>

do you think so?

number 1 democraty in the world (....yeah, right) = usa

number 1 theocraty in the world = vatican state

which of them you find more stable/peacefull??

we have a huge number of monarchies in europe, doesnt get us into bloody wars despite that.

USA as the greatest "democracy" in the world does...

Iran is a theocracy, what war do you remember Iran starting lately??

saudiarabia is a monarchy, what war do you remember them starting???

usa is a democraty, what wars do you remember being started by usa??

...........israel + arabic nations wars, all/most of them started by so called democratic nations (or dictatorships perhaps...) but not by kings or priests (maybe im wrong, not sure)

if these are the current statistics, i believe that a democratic nation is far more agressive than any other...

besides, who asked USA to free anyone in iraq/middle east anyways?...why bush keeps calling it "liberation" instead of occupation or invasion???

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ April 10 2003,03:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 10 2003,02:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Realpolitik means acting in your own self interests and damn the consequences.  What was done, was not done from a purely realist perspective.  America's foreign policy is more neo-realist in nature, otherwise we would not belong to the U.N. and would solve all of our problems with force, and none with diplomacy.<span id='postcolor'>

Sorry to correct you - but realpolitic is by nature constituded of strategic rationality - which means you see the the benefit of cooperating with others in the political landscape. What you are claiming to be realpolitik is called instrumental rationality and is all about being ignorant of the consequenses - also called contrafinality or tradgedy of the commons.

There are also a third form of rationality called communicative rationality but let's not get into that. I have studied political science at the university myself - I would have thought you knew the basics when considering you are a major in political science?

(I'm not trying to be hostile - this time    )<span id='postcolor'>

Realism or Realpolitik:

The realist approach is based upon several key assumptions about world politics: (1) the nation-state is the primary actor in world politics; (2) interest, defined as power, is the primary motivating force for the action of states; (3) the distribution or balance of power (predominantly military power) at any given time is the key concern that states must address; and (4) the quality of state-to-state relations (and not the character of domestic politics within another state) is the primary consideration that should shape how one nation responds to another. For the realist, since human nature is ultimately flawed, efforts at universal perfection in global politics are myopic, shortsighted, and ultimately dangerous. Instead, moral considerations in foreign policy are largely derived from what is good for the state and for its place in international politics.

In this view, foreign policy is a highly conflictual process between states, with each seeking to further its interests and with each warily monitoring the activities of others. Balance of power politics predominates because all states are concerned about the relative distribution of power at any one time, and all states are trying to maximize their own power and standing in international affairs.

Source: American Foreign Policy & Process by James M. McCormick. Iowa State University, 3rd Edition 1998. pp 110-11.

Heres a link to a site describing the priciples of realism according to the founder of that study of foreign politics, Hans J. Morgenthau.

Principles of Realism

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 10 2003,05:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ April 10 2003,04:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ April 10 2003,02:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 10 2003,02:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As I said earlier, Iraq is not the worst threat to mideast stability, but it is the best possibility to start a foundation for mideast stability due to its secular nature.

<span id='postcolor'>

Apparently you forget that such a scenario places US between a rock and a hard place! What will you do when the region in fact is destabilised because of a regime change in Iraq? Undoubtedly, the rioting masses in the region that opposes the autocratic rulers will be hostile to a nation that has secured the royals of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Baharin. The very same dictators will ask for your support once again. They cannot economicly afford to transform their nations into democracies and thus they will do everything possible to remain in power. Which side will you support?

I have to say I'm a bit amused by your reasoning about peace in Israel-Palestine! You claim a different climate (less radicalism) in the middle eastern region to be a nessecity for solving the conflict. However, the rest of the middle east (except Israel) see it otherwise! They cannot see peace coming to the region untill the palestine-israel problem is solved.<span id='postcolor'>

Schoeler - I'd still like you to respond to this though!<span id='postcolor'>

Well, my philsophy goes like this.  In a storm, you want to be able to find a safe harbor and anchor your boat.  You need a stabile base from which to operate.  A democratic and stabile Iraq can act as that base and serve as an example for the people under the other despotic regimes in the middle east.  It means instability and probably more war, or at least revolution in the short run, but in the long run a lasting peace and regional stability.  The mid east as I see it is going through what Europe went through in the 1930's and 1940's.  Its becoming a modern region and is experiencing all of the growing pains that Europe did before it took its place in the modern world and in modern foreign politics and relations.<span id='postcolor'>

I understand what you are trying to say, but I don't agree with comparing europe in the 30's and 40's to the current and future middle eastern situation. Most of europe was already democracies by the 20's and the political struggle was more of class struggle than a fight for democracy. However, I agree with you if you poke your finger at fascistrule by Hitler, Mussolini and Franco. But then again - that was not solely a european problem!

I also agree with you that the best outcome for the middle eastern region would be democracies in any form. However, it is up to themselves to decide, and our belief of democracy as the final product of progress and evolution might not be shared by the population of the middle east. An interesting example is from Algerie where the muslim fundamentalists actually won the elections and wanted to transform the rule of the nation into muslim law instead of continuing the "democracy" . Needless to say the presiding political power made sure that would not happen, and one of the most bloody conflicts on the african continent was the result.

If shit hits the fan in the middle east - which side do you think would get US's support?

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pete @ April 10 2003,05:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 10 2003,02:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You don't think a viable democratically elected and secular government in the middle east will stabilize the region?  I suppose the current theocracies, monarchies and dictatorships are more preferable.  <span id='postcolor'>

do you think so?

number 1 democraty in the world (....yeah, right) = usa

number 1 theocraty in the world = vatican state

which of them you find more stable/peacefull??

we have a huge number of monarchies in europe, doesnt get us into bloody wars despite that.

USA as the greatest "democracy" in the world does...

Iran is a theocracy, what war do you remember Iran starting lately??

saudiarabia is a monarchy, what war do you remember them starting???

usa is a democraty, what wars do you remember being started by usa??

...........israel + arabic nations wars, all/most of them started by so called democratic nations (or dictatorships perhaps...) but not by kings or priests (maybe im wrong, not sure)

if these are the current statistics, i believe that a democratic nation is far more agressive than any other...

besides, who asked USA to free anyone in iraq/middle east anyways?...why bush keeps calling it "liberation" instead of occupation or invasion???<span id='postcolor'>

Well Pete, I don't know if you are old enough to remember it, but the 1988-89 Iran-Iraq war comes to my mind. As does the hostage crisis in 1979 when Iranian radicals took our embassy staff hostage.

How about Beirut?

Maybe you weren't watching TV that day, but on September 11, 2001 Islamic radicals from Saudi Arabia ( a place where they are allowed to grow and propser due to a regime that keeps them in ignorance) rammed a couple of jets into the World Trade Center building precipitating an international war in the country of Afghanistan.

How about the six days war(I believe in 1967), or the 1973 war on the Sinai? Syrians and Egyptians under despotic regimes tried to obliterate a stabile democracy from the face of the earth.

Iran, Syria, Egypt, Iraq. All of them sponsor terrorism. Those hardly seem like peaceful or viable regimes to me.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 10 2003,05:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ April 10 2003,03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 10 2003,02:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Realpolitik means acting in your own self interests and damn the consequences.  What was done, was not done from a purely realist perspective.  America's foreign policy is more neo-realist in nature, otherwise we would not belong to the U.N. and would solve all of our problems with force, and none with diplomacy.<span id='postcolor'>

Sorry to correct you - but realpolitic is by nature constituded of strategic rationality - which means you see the the benefit of cooperating with others in the political landscape. What you are claiming to be realpolitik is called instrumental rationality and is all about being ignorant of the consequenses - also called contrafinality or tradgedy of the commons.

There are also a third form of rationality called communicative rationality but let's not get into that. I have studied political science at the university myself - I would have thought you knew the basics when considering you are a major in political science?

(I'm not trying to be hostile - this time  <!--emo&  )<span id='postcolor'>

Realism or Realpolitik:

The realist approach is based upon several key assumptions about world politics: (1) the nation-state is the primary actor in world politics; (2) interest, defined as power, is the primary motivating force for the action of states; (3) the distribution or balance of power (predominantly military power) at any given time is the key concern that states must address; and (4) the quality of state-to-state relations (and not the character of domestic politics within another state) is the primary consideration that should shape how one nation responds to another.  For the realist, since human nature is ultimately flawed, efforts at universal perfection in global politics are myopic, shortsighted, and ultimately dangerous.  Instead, moral considerations in foreign policy are largely derived from what is good for the state and for its place in international politics.

    In this view, foreign policy is a highly conflictual process between states, with each seeking to further its interests and with each warily monitoring the activities of others.  Balance of power politics predominates because all states are concerned about the relative distribution of power at any one time, and all states are trying to maximize their own power and standing in international affairs.

Source: American Foreign Policy & Process by James M. McCormick.  Iowa State University, 3rd Edition 1998. pp 110-11.

Heres a link to a site describing the priciples of realism according to the founder of that study of foreign politics, Hans J. Morgenthau.

Principles of Realism<span id='postcolor'>

Exactly! The rationale behind such a policy is constituted by the assumption of strategic rationality . - And not ignoring the consequences. This is why searching for allies and partners are more important than short term goals. This view of politics is (we are talking about models and perspectives) a result of the flaws of the theory behind the "economic man-theory" - a theory which claims that the rational man are able to identify: all possibilities and options, can allocate all resources, are always able to chose between alternatives and can predict the future. Max Weber and his "closed system-perspective" would be a fitting example - later challenged by open and internaly open system-theory.

Social science then moved on from maximising man to optimising man.

Your post proves my point - maybe we just misunderstood eachother  

[Pete 1]

aaahh...i was wainting for something like that

Iraq attacked Iran, i was asking for wars started by iran...

radicals? terrorists??...we are talking about nations, arent we?

besides, those 11/9 saudis were a part of al-queda, they are opposed the saudi goverment...

try again schoeler, try answering my questions instead of mentioning non-goverment decided actions done by a few, we are not claiming USA to be actively supporting terrorists only becouse the domestic problems you have there, are we?

so..what war was started by Iran (axis of evil nation)??

does Iran threaten the world peace, being a muslim religious nation?..does the vatican state pose a threat towards other nations intrests?..is USA dangerous to world peace??

and dont think im a kid schoeler, im most likely much older than you are.

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pete @ April 10 2003,06:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">aaahh...i was wainting for something like that

Iraq attacked Iran, i was asking for wars started by iran...

radicals? terrorists??...we are talking about nations, arent we?

besides, those 11/9 saudis were a part of al-queda, they are opposed the saudi goverment...

try again schoeler, try answering my questions instead of mentioning non-goverment decided actions done by a few, we are not claiming USA to be actively supporting terrorists only becouse the domestic problems you have there, are we?

so..what war was started by Iran (axis of evil nation)??

does Iran threaten the world peace, being a muslim religious nation?..does the vatican state pose a threat towards other nations intrests?..is USA dangerous to world peace??

and dont think im a kid schoeler, im most likely much older than you are.<span id='postcolor'>

What does it matter if the war was started by Iraq or Iran Pete? Both regimes were despotic, one a dictatorship, the other a theocracy. If you remember, I mentioned that it would be better to replace both types with a stabile democracy in my previous post.

Radicals and terrorists cannot operate in the world with impunity unless they have the support or aqueiscence of nation-states. Al-Qaeda recieved significant financing and support from the ruling party in Saudi Arabia. My point was however, that these corrupt regimes allow that radicalism to survive, indeed thrive withing their borders. The schooling process in the Koran in some of these nations completely replaces a secular education. Some of these people are literally brought up to hate the west. I would say those beliefs are fostered by these failed regimes because its better than the alternative. Misdirect the hate towards those who aren't like you, and have a better life than you do, and tell those who would overthrow your ass if they knew any better, that their shitty lives are due to those in the west, and you can stay safe and continue to oppress the people. The more you oppress them, the greater their rage for the other guy across the pond.

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ April 10 2003,05:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 10 2003,05:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ April 10 2003,03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 10 2003,02:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Realpolitik means acting in your own self interests and damn the consequences.  What was done, was not done from a purely realist perspective.  America's foreign policy is more neo-realist in nature, otherwise we would not belong to the U.N. and would solve all of our problems with force, and none with diplomacy.<span id='postcolor'>

Sorry to correct you - but realpolitic is by nature constituded of strategic rationality - which means you see the the benefit of cooperating with others in the political landscape. What you are claiming to be realpolitik is called instrumental rationality and is all about being ignorant of the consequenses - also called contrafinality or tradgedy of the commons.

There are also a third form of rationality called communicative rationality but let's not get into that. I have studied political science at the university myself - I would have thought you knew the basics when considering you are a major in political science?

(I'm not trying to be hostile - this time  <!--emo&  )<span id='postcolor'>

Realism or Realpolitik:

The realist approach is based upon several key assumptions about world politics: (1) the nation-state is the primary actor in world politics; (2) interest, defined as power, is the primary motivating force for the action of states; (3) the distribution or balance of power (predominantly military power) at any given time is the key concern that states must address; and (4) the quality of state-to-state relations (and not the character of domestic politics within another state) is the primary consideration that should shape how one nation responds to another.  For the realist, since human nature is ultimately flawed, efforts at universal perfection in global politics are myopic, shortsighted, and ultimately dangerous.  Instead, moral considerations in foreign policy are largely derived from what is good for the state and for its place in international politics.

    In this view, foreign policy is a highly conflictual process between states, with each seeking to further its interests and with each warily monitoring the activities of others.  Balance of power politics predominates because all states are concerned about the relative distribution of power at any one time, and all states are trying to maximize their own power and standing in international affairs.

Source: American Foreign Policy & Process by James M. McCormick.  Iowa State University, 3rd Edition 1998. pp 110-11.

Heres a link to a site describing the priciples of realism according to the founder of that study of foreign politics, Hans J. Morgenthau.

Principles of Realism<span id='postcolor'>

Exactly! The rationale behind such a policy is constituted by the assumption of strategic rationality . - And not ignoring the consequences. This is why searching for allies and partners are more important than short term goals. This view of politics is (we are talking about models and perspectives) a result of the flaws of the theory behind the "economic man-theory" - a theory which claims that the rational man are able to identify: all possibilities and options, can allocate all resources, are always able to chose between alternatives and can predict the future. Max Weber and his "closed system-perspective" would be a fitting example - later challenged by open and internaly open system-theory.

Social science then moved on from maximising man to optimising man.

Your post proves my point - maybe we just misunderstood eachother  <span id='postcolor'>

I think we must have. What you are referring to is what I have been schooled in thinking is neo-realism, and not true Morgenthau realpolitik. Under Morgenthau's orginal theory, brute force, or the threat of it was the only way of doing business in international politics. Neo-realists use economic organizations, world opinion and IO's like the U.N. to their advantage to achieve their realistic ends. Its the same strategy, only a bit more subtle, and in my opinion a truer model of how international politics really work.