- Joined
- Jun 11, 2009
- Messages
- 19,657
- Reaction score
- 8,454
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
How probable do you think this is?
In the United States, the authorities need a warrant (theoretically) to look at the content of communications in the United States.
In the United Kingdom they need a warrant (theoretically) to look at the content of communications in the United Kingdom.
But if the UK just so happened to look at US communications and share what they found and the US just happened to look at UK communications and shared what they found then they wouldn't technically be violating the law, right? Who in their right mind would turn down such information if it could stop terrorist plots and whatnot?
Could the US government outsource espionage on its own citizens to the UK in return for the UK government doing the same?
They can't. I guess France or someone else could, though. It's because of this: UKUSA Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You believe governments too much.
You believe in just whatever you want with no discernible evidence too much.
Not true. I believe plenty of things that come from the government. However, there is this thing called 'realism'. All too often, using the simple principles of realism shows that what governments around the world, like China, Russia, Israel, Britain, the U.S., etc, lie through their teeth about as often/as often as they tell the truth.
But I'm glad you acknowledge in your lack of denial that you're a government lover. How's that working out for you?
Tell me more about 'realism'. I only have a master's in international relations. This should be interesting.
There's this wonderful search engine that has just about everything under the sun, try using it if you're interested in realism, so-called master in international relations:
https://www.google.com/
lol! That's hilarious.
(By the way, realism is basically dead. It's been long subsumed by neorealism. Saying you believe in 'realism' is a good way to get yourself laughed out of a conference. You can google that if you need a source on it, lol)
Yeah, I've read up on it. It's too new and nuanced to really mean anything to me. But it is not surprising that you'd swallow down the latest theory proposed by some big head(s).
Neorealism isn't new at all. How strange of you to say that.
A lot of neorealists just refer to themselves as realists. He wouldn't be laughed out of anything.lol! That's hilarious.
(By the way, realism is basically dead. It's been long subsumed by neorealism. Saying you believe in 'realism' is a good way to get yourself laughed out of a conference. You can google that if you need a source on it, lol)
It's possible, but that would be a risk. It require both countries to trust the other in a way that I'm not sure they ever would. Not only would they have to trust the other country to not have leaks, but they would have to trust the other countries clearance system and intentions. It sounds like a lot of trouble when they can just be dishonest pricks and do it themselves at home.How probable do you think this is?
In the United States, the authorities need a warrant (theoretically) to look at the content of communications in the United States.
In the United Kingdom they need a warrant (theoretically) to look at the content of communications in the United Kingdom.
But if the UK just so happened to look at US communications and share what they found and the US just happened to look at UK communications and shared what they found then they wouldn't technically be violating the law, right? Who in their right mind would turn down such information if it could stop terrorist plots and whatnot?
Could the US government outsource espionage on its own citizens to the UK in return for the UK government doing the same?
1979 is when it hit the intellectual brain trust, no? Relatively new given the age of things.
A lot of neorealists just refer to themselves as realists. He wouldn't be laughed out of anything.
I was taught by John Mearsheimer. He called himself a realist and he referred to other neorealists as realists. If you were having a technical discussion with him where distinguishing neorealism and realism was necessary, he'd probably call himself a neorealist, but in everyday life, it was "realist." It was the same for my other instructors. In addition, Stephen Walt, Robert Art and Daniel Drezner among others still refer to "realism" rather than "neorealism" in much of their writing.I've never heard that.
I was taught by John Mearsheimer. He called himself a realist and he referred to other neorealists as realists. If you were having a technical discussion with him where distinguishing neorealism and realism was necessary, he'd probably call himself a neorealist, but in everyday life, it was "realist." It was the same for my other instructors. In addition, Stephen Walt, Robert Art and Daniel Drezner among others still refer to "realism" rather than "neorealism" in much of their writing.
Uh, yes, they do. Walt writes for Foreign Policy Mag. His tag is "A Realist in an Ideological Race" and he constantly writes about REALISM not NEOREALISM. One of my favorite books is "A Grand Strategy for America" by Art and, though he doesn't mention it a lot, Art references REALISM not NEOREALISM. Drezner also writes for foreign policy and talks a lot about REALISM while also mentioning NEOREALISM. All three of them among others also refer to neorealism as "realism" in pieces they've written for journals as well.They most certainly do not. They're very specific. Especially because who are they comparing their thoughts to? Idealists barely exist any more.
They most certainly do not. They're very specific. Especially because who are they comparing their thoughts to? Idealists barely exist any more.
How probable do you think this is?
In the United States, the authorities need a warrant (theoretically) to look at the content of communications in the United States.
In the United Kingdom they need a warrant (theoretically) to look at the content of communications in the United Kingdom.
But if the UK just so happened to look at US communications and share what they found and the US just happened to look at UK communications and shared what they found then they wouldn't technically be violating the law, right? Who in their right mind would turn down such information if it could stop terrorist plots and whatnot?
Could the US government outsource espionage on its own citizens to the UK in return for the UK government doing the same?
Uh, yes, they do. Walt writes for Foreign Policy Mag. His tag is "A Realist in an Ideological Race" and he constantly writes about REALISM not NEOREALISM. One of my favorite books is "A Grand Strategy for America" by Art and, though he doesn't mention it a lot, Art references REALISM not NEOREALISM. Drezner also writes for foreign policy and talks a lot about REALISM while also mentioning NEOREALISM. All three of them among others also refer to neorealism as "realism" in pieces they've written for journals as well.
As is the case with Mearsheimer, they probably use the "neorealist" label most often when they need to distinguish between "traditional" realism and neorealism. Beyond that, I know that where I went to school, nobody would have laughed at anybody for referring to anyone as a "realist". That is absurd.
Message boards are swamped with idealists. Many politicians are idealists. I'd consider President Obama an idealist at times.
Why did you just ignore everything I said that proved your point wrong? Did they not teach you how to respond to counterpoints at UVA? Maybe you should've come to the University of Chicago. Respond to my comments about Mearsheimer, Art, Walt and Drezner please.It's....true. It happens at U of VA every day, my friend (at least when I was there).
EH Carr was a realist. Hans Morgantheau was a realist. Their analyses are laughable. That's not what modern neorealists are.
Why did you just ignore everything I said that proved your point wrong? Did they not teach you how to respond to counterpoints at UVA? Maybe you should've come to the University of Chicago. Respond to my comments about Mearsheimer, Art, Walt and Drezner please.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?