8. War is a blunt instrument by which to settle disputes between or within nations, and economic sanctions are rarely effective. Therefore, we should build a system of jurisprudence based on the International Court—that the U.S. has refused to support—which would hold individuals responsible for crimes against humanity. 9. If we are to deal effectively with terrorists across the globe, we must develop a sense of empathy—I don't mean "sympathy," but rather "understanding"—to counter their attacks on us and the Western World.
Since the basic of all human nature is to obtain power, we can assume that there is something that the US wants besides trying to stop the use of chemical weapons. With the past conflicts that we have had in the middle east, why do we need to try and topple a government or be the police for the area and try to neutralize the situation. When we ask ourselves what do we have to gain from this besides more power after the cost of many American lives, is it really worth to have a repeat situation like Iraq and Pakistan? “The character of a foreign policy can be ascertained only through the examination of the political acts performed and of the foreseeable consequences of these acts.” (Morgenthau) The roots of all human nature is to obtain power, so out of losing many American soldiers lives, what do we gain? If we would have been more involved when we saw the sparks of conflict start, why did we not try to neutralize the sparks instead of fighting a huge wildfire.
Rational choice is the theory that decison makers choose on the basis of what is best for themselves and their states. Nationalism is the mind set gloryfing a particular state and the nationality group living in the state which beleives the state interest is the supreme value. Realism is the thought that interstate competition is natural and all states should prepeare to go to war and compete to avoid it. Irredentism refers to the movement of an ethnic national group to regain controll of lost territory by force. Facism which is the promotion of extreme nationalism and establishment of and authoriatarian society built around a signle party with dictatorial leadership.
You cannot build up a standing army and then throw it back into a box like tin soldiers. "If this was the true feeling of militarism in America, then militarism assuredly played a role in America entering the war, because America may have subconsciously wanted to prove their strength by helping in this conflict.All in all, there is not one, certain reason that completely explains why America entered World War I. However, there are many reasons, that when combined, form a very reasonable explanation as to why Americans entered the war. This explanation includes events varying from being attacked by outside countries while they were making an attempt at neutrality, to America's relations with Britain, and even inclusive of the possibility that America may have only been trying to prove something to themselves. Conclusively, America entered the Great War because of a variety of reasons.
In essence what is war? What is a treaty? Carl Von Clausewitz, a philosopher on western military theory and the interaction with war and the state, states that, “War is thus an act to compel our enemy to do our will (83)”. In theory, war is merely a militant tool to justify an end. “The intensity of war and continued waging is controlled by the importance of political motivation (90-91)”.
At the beginning of World War I America attempted to stay neutral and focus on asserting their dominance throughout the western hemisphere, but as the war progressed it became clearer that America wanted and needed to enter the war. While many things had a profound impact on America’s entrance into WWI, American economic interests, Woodrow Wilson’s idealism, and American claim to world power, weighed heavily on the final decision to declare war on Germany. War provides a great opportunity for economic and industrial growth, a chance to change, and claim world power, as long as the country wins the war. American economic benefits of the war were not as prominent a factor as others, but nevertheless it did affect America’s decision to declare war. The economic side effects of entering a war can be beneficial to a country.
Waltz argues in favor of this reinterpretation in order to make political realism a more accurate theory of international politics. He suggests a systemic approach: the international structure acts as a restriction on state behavior, so that only states whose outcomes fall within an expected range survive. This system is comparable to a microeconomic model in which firms accept both their prices and quantity based on the market. Neorealists endeavor to simplify explanations of behavior with a view to explaining and predicting general tendencies better. They stress the structure of the international system in their analyses as a clarifying feature over states, which are emphasized by earlier realists, and over the natural characteristics of human beings.
He says that the states were on the verge of jeopardizing the union and country. Not only that but also the beginning of the war. He proceeds on stating the reasons of conflict being cautious to not blame either side. Even though the war was still in
International relations theories intend to explain international politics and its outcomes. Realism, liberalism and constructivism, together, provide us with a thorough conception of the states, and the reality of its behaviors. Far from being just opposing theories, they offer the conceptual platform without which we would not seize the behaviors of states. They allow us to assess the world where a liberal agenda can be pursued with a realist pragmatism, which processes are explained by constructivist methods (Jack Snyder ). So the debate may exist about, which theory holds the right angle to approach states actions, This paper will intend to assess the realists’ aspect of liberal states’ behaviors towards non liberal states and discuss the conceptual strength or a weakness in the liberal outlook.
Liberal internationalism Two main bases; The first is the fear of and international ‘state of nature’ Idea that self-determination is a mixed blessing, While preserves self-government it creates a world of sovereign nation states controlling own freedoms and interests, possibly at the extent of other nations. In conditions of international anarchy, self-restraint may not be enough to ensure enduring peace. Two forms of prevention have been proposed First being international independence with the intention of promoting cooperation; (this is why liberal s support free trade between free nations) material cost would be huge in conflict, war would therefore be unthinkable. Libs also proposed a supernatural body/ bodies to bring order to otherwise lawless international structure. Seen in social contract theory; government is the solution to problem of disorder.