I am halfway through the semester and my professor still hasn't bothered taking a few minutes to explain the basics of IR to us. I think I might actually do well on my midterm thanks to you :)
Both theories may well have been explained accurately, but the premises regarding russia's responce to Bush's call IS totally wrong. You wouldn't expect anyone behave differently if that person has witnessed so many times pure agression toward weaker ones. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the first in a warmonger's list.
Idealism is synonymous with pacifism. Given that International Relations came into being after ww1, and ww2, is its existence justified as an honest discipline that doesn't take an ideological stance. It seems to me it has an idealist bias, cause that's the only way you can justify "international" and supranational organizations like the UN that exist out of the realm of the nation state. IR more often than not seems to see the weaknesses of national sovereignty (each state to its own "interest") and is pretty skewed towards the radical concept of "a borderless world", an idea advocated by globalist agendas. I gess it depends what IR means to each person, realist or idealist. But Is it increasingly possible that idealism dominates IR, and the conclusion is some globalist utopia with a "world government". Seems to me that realism isn't popular with the field of IR. It isn't popular with Left wing politics either. Coincidence or not. To me , Political science is a much broader and intellectual field, IR is a brand of Polsci, but along with political philosophy and comparative politics, so it does have more depth.
I am not a biblical believer, I don't want to be entangled in HolyBook-inspired matters. Pragmatic International Politics is always practised. Non-Pragmatic philosophisizing are for mouthshows. Theorizing funner on campus of the west. Nightclubs and Lubricants available.
