When Bush hatred makes you a moron...

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Kidicious
And from the same article.

He cuts, he pastes! He.... fails to grasp the basic concept yet again.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Shows how much you know. Since when is a faction a nation?

Iraq is a state with three nations within it's borders, the Kurds, the Shiite Arabs and the Sunni (Syrian) Arabs who were attached to it by the Brits after they took over for the Ottoman Empire after WW1. Seriously you are over your head arguing with me.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Kidicious


How are they different?

Realpolitik is simply doing what you think is in the interest of your state, and when this conflicts with your ideology you tend to err on the side of the best interests of the state as you see them. Kissinger (or for that matter Nixon) is a great example of a Realpolitician. He fought communism because it was in the best interest of the state to do so (in his view) and even if it wasn't the political cost of not doing so (domestically) was too high. But that didn't mean that he didn't take advantage of the rift between the Soviets and the Chinese to improve U.S. relations with both states.

One of the reasons Nixon had such a successful foreign policy is that other states are more comfortable with a realpolitik foreign policy. The commies understood Nixon and could (and did) do business with him. It is the default assumption set in foreign policy that states will act in their own interests (views of what that is vary wildly of course). States which embark on highly ideological foreign policies are hard for others to comprehend / anticipate.

Neoconservatism seems to be a muscular conservative version of Wilsoniansim, whereby America is an exceptional country who is destined to change the world for the better by propogating our political (and in the neocon case economic) ideals as far and wide as possible, even using force at times. It is willing to pay a high price in terms of the best interest of the state (see U.S. relations with the RoTW since Bush II) in order to achieve these goals.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Unfortunetly you got people making the claim that neoconservatism is an 'interests' based IR philosophy.

Thought you may have gotten a kick out of that as well.

Really? I may have to read the thread after all. I need a good laugh.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Sikander


Iraq is a state with three nations within it's borders, the Kurds, the Shiite Arabs and the Sunni (Syrian) Arabs who were attached to it by the Brits after they took over for the Ottoman Empire after WW1. Seriously you are over your head arguing with me.

Yeah yeah yeah. The Sunni faction does not have sovereignty. That makes a big difference in how they behave.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Sikander


Realpolitik is simply doing what you think is in the interest of your state, and when this conflicts with your ideology you tend to err on the side of the best interests of the state as you see them. Kissinger (or for that matter Nixon) is a great example of a Realpolitician. He fought communism because it was in the best interest of the state to do so (in his view) and even if it wasn't the political cost of not doing so (domestically) was too high. But that didn't mean that he didn't take advantage of the rift between the Soviets and the Chinese to improve U.S. relations with both states.

One of the reasons Nixon had such a successful foreign policy is that other states are more comfortable with a realpolitik foreign policy. The commies understood Nixon and could (and did) do business with him. It is the default assumption set in foreign policy that states will act in their own interests (views of what that is vary wildly of course). States which embark on highly ideological foreign policies are hard for others to comprehend / anticipate.

Neoconservatism seems to be a muscular conservative version of Wilsoniansim, whereby America is an exceptional country who is destined to change the world for the better by propogating our political (and in the neocon case economic) ideals as far and wide as possible, even using force at times. It is willing to pay a high price in terms of the best interest of the state (see U.S. relations with the RoTW since Bush II) in order to achieve these goals.

The point is that overthowing left wing dictatorships is in the best interest of the US. That makes their policy realpolitic. The Cold War was the same way. It's a matter of opinion. I personally feel that people like Bush are more rational than they let on. They take cover behind what they call values.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The point is that overthowing left wing dictatorships is in the best interest of the US.

Not always. For example if we attempted to overthrow the left wing dictatorship of North Korea, that may end up being a bad idea (Hello, China!). Realpolitik would say leave North Korea alone, it poses no threat. Neoconservativism would say this is one of the worst regimes in the world. Lets try all we can to overthrow it.

[Kuciwalker]

The point is that overthowing left wing dictatorships is in the best interest of the US. That makes their policy realpolitic.

Libertarianism and communism both assert that it would be best NOT to nuke the Earth clean of life. Doesn't mean they're the same.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The point is that overthowing left wing dictatorships is in the best interest of the US.

Not always. For example if we attempted to overthrow the left wing dictatorship of North Korea, that may end up being a bad idea (Hello, China!). Realpolitik would say leave North Korea alone, it poses no threat. Neoconservativism would say this is one of the worst regimes in the world. Lets try all we can to overthrow it.

Bush is not going to invade NK dumb****. I'm not arguing with you any more. You are already pwned.

[chequita guevara]

Watch the insults, comrade.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Watch the insults, comrade.

Ohhhh sorry. I don't want to offend any of your capitalist buddies. I wouldn't want to do anything against capitalism. That might offend you.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Oerdin
You do a ton of whining but can't come up with a single practical solution to anything, isn't that right?

The problem with the US is it is using a double standard.

I have no problems with the US doing this realpolitik stuff, but I have a problem when it starts accusing other countries from ethical grounds, e.g. human rights violations.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Ohhhh sorry. I don't want to offend any of your capitalist buddies. I wouldn't want to do anything against capitalism. That might offend you.

And make everyone ignore you (more than they already do) and get you banned.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The problem with the US is it is using a double standard.

I have no problems with the US doing this realpolitik stuff, but I have a problem when it starts accusing other countries from ethical grounds, e.g. human rights violations.

That can also be part of the realpolitik

[Imran Siddiqui]

Bush is not going to invade NK dumb****. I'm not arguing with you any more. You are already pwned.

Hey, look, once again Kid says he won't talk to anyone when he realizes he's utterly lost.

Bush is not a neoconservative. I hate to break it you. He has neoconservative elements, but he ain't Irving Kristol. A neoconservative would be great pressure on North Korea and may entertain ideas of using force to overthrow the repressive regime and advance democratic values.