When it comes to international relations there are three main theories and they are: Realism, Liberalism, and Marxism. Each with their own set of ideals and perspectives on the international system. All three have pros and cons to them of course, there are no wrong theory, any one of them can be the right answer it just depends on individual. However if I were to pick one, it would be realism, as I believe it provides the best lens for thinking about international relations. Realism dates back 2,500 years ago with Thucydides, a Greek historian, who came up with the core idea of the realist theory by observing the conflict between Sparta and Athens. According to the realism PowerPoint realist theory in international relations is the, “focus
…show more content…
“According to the theory, the capitalist class controlled the government, and thus all policies, foreign and domestic, were made to benefit the capitalists.” (Scott, p.92) This excerpt is basically saying all non-socialists states are terrible, since their agenda will only benefit the bourgeoisie. Capitalism is heavily criticized for having politics driven by economics, and that greed by the bourgeoisie is why there are wars. Instead of fighting for territory or security, wars are fought in order to bring in profit for the bourgeoisie. Thus the best type of state would be a socialist one, where the government controls the economy and redistribute the wealth equally amongst …show more content…
What’s a better reason for president George W. Bush to declare war on Iraq in 2003 then for security and oil? Saddam Hussein the leader of Iraq at the time was believed by many states to have possessed weapons of mass destructions (WMDs). Next is oil and according to the Iraq War PowerPoint, “We demand ‘free access’ to oil because it’s to our national interest and national security.” (Iraq PP, p.11) The US never did found any WMDs and although the WMDs never existed, the fact that the US invaded Iraq to protect its security remains. Plus it was in the US best interest to secure oil, since America is a consumer-driven
“According to the theory, the capitalist class controlled the government, and thus all policies, foreign and domestic, were made to benefit the capitalists.” (Scott, p.92) This excerpt is basically saying all non-socialists states are terrible, since their agenda will only benefit the bourgeoisie. Capitalism is heavily criticized for having politics driven by economics, and that greed by the bourgeoisie is why there are wars. Instead of fighting for territory or security, wars are fought in order to bring in profit for the bourgeoisie. Thus the best type of state would be a socialist one, where the government controls the economy and redistribute the wealth equally amongst …show more content…
What’s a better reason for president George W. Bush to declare war on Iraq in 2003 then for security and oil? Saddam Hussein the leader of Iraq at the time was believed by many states to have possessed weapons of mass destructions (WMDs). Next is oil and according to the Iraq War PowerPoint, “We demand ‘free access’ to oil because it’s to our national interest and national security.” (Iraq PP, p.11) The US never did found any WMDs and although the WMDs never existed, the fact that the US invaded Iraq to protect its security remains. Plus it was in the US best interest to secure oil, since America is a consumer-driven