Tatterdemalion wrote:Well assuming he follows the realist school (I'd say 'ideology' but that's another can of worms) of international relations to the letter as he implied then yes, he probably believes it does. Basically (to the point of oversimplification) realism boils down to national self-interest being paramount.
Not quite. They believe the State is the most important actor in international relations, and that ALL states act out of self-interest. They also consider that every state is locked into a power struggle to increase their national power, which basically boils down to military strength (realists consider military to be, practically, the most important factor in determining a nation's power relative to other's). Also, they consider that the international system is inherently anarchic because there is nothing like a 'world's policeman'; this is why 'international law' isn't a workable concept to realists, because it
cannot be enforced.
I could go on at great length about WHY realists believe this is so, and the practically Machiavellian reasoning realists use to try and make this stance morally justifiable, (well some realists anyway, neorealists ignore the moral dimension all together) but if you're curious I'm sure googling for it or using wikipedia would net you a better explanation than one a first year like me could provide.
Realists consider the acquisition of power to be an activity all states take part in, no exceptions. This is not universal - I think there is one country in the world that doesn't have a military, but I don't know what it is - but another concept realism espouses is the notion of a balance of power - in this case, stability is achieved when you have two nations that are in opposition to each other but aren't fighting one another. Kind of like the USA and USSR.
To realists, the balance of power is more important than having a unipolar world, because now instability is on the rise. For that reason, I think some realists would be quite opposed to entering war with Iraq or any other small, irrelevant power, because it would increase the instability in a certain region - the middle east - while also decreasing military capability. To realists, unipolarity doesn't last. In the 19th Century, it was the British Empire as the top dog, in the 20th Century the USA took over. To realists, it doesn't matter who's on top
today, because they won't be there forever.
The Guid wrote:I guess that justifies being a schoolyard bully, invading any country that is weaker than you to steal their resources etc. does it? You're either a moron or have such opposite ideals to me to make all discussion useless.
Interestingly, some liberals welcome 'democratising' the middle-east, as it fulfills in their minds the notion of 'the democratic peace' - namely, that no democratic country in recent years has gone to war against each other, which in the long run means if more nations are liberal democracies, world peace could be possible. I think liberals don't like the methods being employed in Iraq, though. Nor the motives given. "Oh nos! Iraq has WMDS!!!!11one"
