Realists and Liberalists Views

Liberalists and Realists conception Views Liberalists and realists have completely different views on the world stage. Liberalists views atomic number 18 base on liberty and equality while Realists views are based on cherishive covering and relationships with great powers. Liberalists believe that an international society rotter bl cobblers last together to resolve problems. This involves trade between each nations and struggle would end so that everyone could live in peace and service of process each separate out. Liberalists also believe that contend should scarce occur when it is an absolute sine qua non and not on the dot to acquire new land or to rectify their economy.The realists on the other hand believe that warfare is inevitable and that the go around way of avoiding war is to be voiceless and let your enemies know that you are ready for eachthing. Realists believe that if we swan on reason to resolve war that nothing go out ever get resolved. After Worl d state of war Two, realists views were favored by the majority of the world. Realists argued that in world politics thither is no government to set rules or protect states, so that each state must look after its own because you fagnot everlastingly rely on other states for help. I believe that in that respect has to be a happy medium that the liberalists and the realists can come too.Why cant we alone work together to provide security for the whole world. There is no reason why our world has to be going to war all the time over territory or because we involve to help an ally. state of war never really solves anything it usually just leads to more than strength and more problems. I say this because even when war sometimes does solve a problem between two nations those nations people will never be able to live the same way. The consequences of war can be terrible people can lose their homes, schools can be destroyed, peoples food sources can be cut off, and ultimately peop le can lose their whole families due to war.The nations are not only financially weaker moreover now you have ruined peoples lives on top of it. Both views can be favored at any time in the world this depends on what is going on in the world. Liberalism is obviously going to be favored if the whole world was at peace. The reason I say this because if in that location were no wars going on people would not be so worried about security and power of their nation. They wouldnt have to side with the realists view of security because there is no threat to their nation. While on the other hand if there are wars going on around the world people are going to favor realists iews because they are afraid of what could breathe without a strong enough military to protect them. I cannot blame the realists views on security because there is a lot of violence in the world and if you do not have a strong enough military tragedies could happen to your nation. I feel that the only reason why Realist s views sboulder clay uphold is because there are so many worries in the world. There is eternally going to be conflict over new global challenges such(prenominal) as worry of HIV, climate change, nuclear weapons and even cyber-attacks.We will never be able to eliminate all of the global challenges that arise scarcely I get dressedt see why there has to be so much violence in the world. Every day in the news more and more innocent people die for no reason whether its in the United States or Cairo it doesnt matter, the violence needs to stop. It is blunt to have nations flush billions of dollars down the feed every year over the dumbest things. Nations should keep their money that they get from taxes and help out their own nation and work to eliminate internal problems sooner of always focusing on external problems.Who cares if other nations want to feature themselves up let them work out their own problems, other nations dont need to jump in and make the problem worse. The o nly thing that comes out of war and violence is death and death to me doesnt solve any problems. If it were up to me every nation would have to glom their weapons and talk there problems out. The problem with this though is violence has been in the accounting of every nation at some point, so everyone just knows violence as a way to solve a problem.I am not saying that we should never again raise a weapon to protect ourselves but we cannot always rely on violence to solve our problems it is just a huge waste of money and just creates a high death toll. The thing is people think that when two nations go to war over a certain issue that the outcome will lead in a resolution of that issue but that is not always true it usually ends in a temporary resolution but then sometime in the near future that issue will rise again whether it is between the same countries or different ones.All nations need to work together to resolve world problems so that those problems will not have to arise again. We should not have to use violence to process with our issues we should just simply talk it out and combine our ideas to have a resolution for that problem. I know that it is not that easy to do, but we can talk things out without people dying and spending billions on pointless firearms. Yes, talking out our problems may take a while till we can agree on a resolution but war isnt exactly a fast resolution either.