Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
293,695
edits
Changes
→Another definition of liberal -2: edit
:Where should I do it then? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 22:33, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:Where should I do it then? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 22:33, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::Something might be able to be done with [[liberal democracy]], however this definition you're using goes beyond that. It attempts to refer to UN participatory states such as North Korea, the CCP, and Saddam as participants and beneficiaries of these "liberal" institutions. Frankly I'm not sure, it seems like trying to drive a square peg in a round hole. If the subject is international realtions and international affairs (which you refer to as international politics), I'd suggest focusing upon that subject, and if the term "liberal" comes up in some meaningful context, it might apply or be used. (But I get the impression your focus or interest is more upon trying to give a convoluted meaning to this term moreso than writing upon those subjects).
::Yes, the study of international relations can be systematized, but it still needs historical context to give it any real meaning, and to gain any understanding of it. I was just reading a Congressional Research Service report, ''Diplomacy for the 21st Century: Transformational Diplomacy'', and noticed that "actor" was used several times, for example, “Since 1945, the United States has conducted its foreign relations in the context of a world that practiced what can be called Classic Diplomacy. It was a world in which government-to-government relations were the principal activity....a world, in short, in which nations were '''''more sovereign and independent actors than today’s environment allows them to be''''' on the cusp of the 21st century.”2
::I do not deny this language is gaining currency, and it would be helpful to sytematize it for students of diplomacy. So we're just faced with the everyday common problem of having our words convey precise meaning. "Liberalism", for example, appears to be in some sort of disarray and crisis for a period going on several decades now. It simply would be easier to find other more descriptive words to use, than to use ambigious terminology no one agrees on.
::Finding acceptable, agreeable solutions, this at its core should be the diplomats mission. Trying to force an issue is "realism", as I've come to understand it the way you have explained. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:24, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
==pedophile Peacekeepers and the UN as a "liberal organization"==
==pedophile Peacekeepers and the UN as a "liberal organization"==