Re: Re: Baca Baiting? 
Originally posted by Hotpoint
2 - I didn't mean order and stability in terms of equillibrium per se, in fact the balance of power in a multipolar or even bipolar situation is constantly shifting its just that when it becomes too offset other players tend to step in or swap sides to restore the balance (for a while)
(A) As for "Law" I include international agreements since they are traditionally supposed to be binding and in most cases they are. Maybe you disagree with as broad a definition as myself but thats your perogative
(B) 3 - Okay the Poke wasn't aimed at you... then what was the Poke and who or what was it aimed at? Still in the dark I'm afraid
4 - The Democracy/Republic issue may be semantics to you but its not to me because Political Science is my academic speciality and I take the terminology seriously. Maybe its just my cross to bare that others don't... ho hum
(C) I think you should reread my original post. My second point was to say that it was in the national intersts of each power to limit American influence not just for stability (first point) but also so that their own influence could be more widely felt and they could therefore "steer events in its own favour"
(D) What I was saying with this second point was that the dominance of the US is limited the ability of other states to project their own will/power/influence. Surely this is in keeping with Neo-Realist thought by your own admission that "the Neo-Realist position ought to focus on the projection of state power..."?
As for how you perceive Neo-Realist thought as being primarily concerned with Security if you mean by that defence issues that would be more true of old-style Realist thinking IMHO. Security issues are certainly a major part of it but economics is of major import too.
(E) I wouldn't therefore disagree with the idea that French, German & Russian views are clouded by Oil Contracts which is why I also said later "It is a happy coincidence that the peoples will here coincides with the percieved interests of the governments of the three powers"
6 - ... and the bitter taste of insult (backhanded or otherwise)
7 - If I niggle the points trust me its more down the fact I'm so damn anal than what you may see as points scoring. I can be a monumental pain in the neck when it comes to detail... probably to the point of pure pedantry to tell the truth
As for not believing in things... nah I'm quite opinionated and faithful to my ideals
2--didn't think you did, in which case 'order' implies a moral hierarchy that 'balance' in a Neo-Realist context doesn't. So it seemed to me you were making an admittedly subtle political statement couched in non-judgemental terms.
A--in which case such agreements bear more on contract law than on criminal or civil law. So how, if one party is not a signatory to an agreement can they be held to be outside the "law"? And while I certainly wouldn't argue the benefits of upholding contracts and being consistent I took your statement to have a pejorative subtext which wasn't really appropriate.
B--well obviously the whole tenor of your replies have a latent anti-American flavor. Which is fine, just come out and say it.
4--my only point is most folks use "democracy" as a catch-all kinda term as you did in characterizing France and Germany as they are no more democracies than the US is.
C--I tend to assign import to the sequence in which points are made particularly when one point doesn't directly lead to the next.
D--I suppose my principle objection is such a view reduces situations and actions and choices to a rather mechanistic, sterile equation that removes any moral component (and serves to disguise your own beliefs on the relative merits of one position over another)
E--but by the same token it wasn't deemed a sufficient factor to be mentioned. And, I must say, using the term, "happy coincidence" might lead one to presume you're taking a side--which is all well and good, except on the other hand you seem to be denying taking sides.
6--Funny. Last time I called Duffy a crackhead he took it as a compliment.
7--Well, that explains that . . .
