4 ms·

This is a transparent might makes right argument. USG employees frequently threaten countries that merely possess resources USG wishes to add to its base. These

This is a transparent might makes right argument. USG employees frequently threaten countries that merely possess resources USG wishes to add to its base. These countries are unable to take action against USG due to a massive power differential. While you’re sadly correct, that doesn’t mean a rules based international order can survive when the most powerful actors think this way, greatly increasing global instability.

_8j50 4y ago
I was not justifying the US, in international relations all you have is reality. There is no law nations have to follow, only treaties. Both the US and Russia ignore "rules of war" and get away with it. The reality is might is all a country has, either directly or via alliances to determine its fate and guarantee the security if its people. And it is incredibly reckless to act mighty without having actual might. And tbh, I was ranting there a bit, gadaffi was very terroristy until he saw what happened to saddam the he started to act in accordance to his strength. His downfall was how he treated his own people, the US would have at least avoided taking part in his invasion had he not been so hostile in the past.
- simple-thoughts 4y ago
  >in international relations all you have is reality. This is transparently false. International relations are deeply driven by both popular and elite opinion, which is why national agents constantly work closely with media to justify their narratives. If the narratives fail to sway the opinion of key actors (whether individuals or populations) there can be severe consequences if the policies are followed anyway. That’s why we have lots of small states around the globe - even though it would be a profitable action to colonize those states in theory, in practice limitations on both elite and popular opinion prevent these activities.
  - _8j50 4y ago
    You're talking about diplomacy there, those opinions matter so long as the mighty cares about them, everyone is at the mercy of the whims of the strongest

_8j50 4y ago

I was not justifying the US, in international relations all you have is reality. There is no law nations have to follow, only treaties. Both the US and Russia ignore "rules of war" and get away with it. The reality is might is all a country has, either directly or via alliances to determine its fate and guarantee the security if its people. And it is incredibly reckless to act mighty without having actual might. And tbh, I was ranting there a bit, gadaffi was very terroristy until he saw what happened to saddam the he started to act in accordance to his strength. His downfall was how he treated his own people, the US would have at least avoided taking part in his invasion had he not been so hostile in the past.

simple-thoughts 4y ago
>in international relations all you have is reality. This is transparently false. International relations are deeply driven by both popular and elite opinion, which is why national agents constantly work closely with media to justify their narratives. If the narratives fail to sway the opinion of key actors (whether individuals or populations) there can be severe consequences if the policies are followed anyway. That’s why we have lots of small states around the globe - even though it would be a profitable action to colonize those states in theory, in practice limitations on both elite and popular opinion prevent these activities.
- _8j50 4y ago
  You're talking about diplomacy there, those opinions matter so long as the mighty cares about them, everyone is at the mercy of the whims of the strongest