response to question 5

In our game of Diplomatic Risk I was a neutral country. My objective was to neutralize all wars completly. If I could not do that I had to double the number of wars with bi-lateral alliances. I didn't need resources as much as I needed oppurtunities. I think if I would have been able to create more alliances it would have been better for me. I mean Taylor and Ellen created a tight alliance. I guess I would have needed some type of like trust to be broken in between them for me to create alliances with them. It's tough to tell though because you never know what's going to happen. Everything is so unpredictable. Yes, you can negotiate but you have to trust that the person is going to hold up their end of the bargain. If Ellen and Taylor would have broken their alliance it would have possibly made it easy for my to allie with them. Although, it could have made it more difficult for me because another war would have been created. I think that if I would have used my super power sooner it would have opned more oppurtunities for me. Like I said though it is really difficult to determine something like that though. International dealings are tricky. You can't predict what's going to happen next.

i am answering question number 9

As a diplomat is it more importand to advance the issues at home or is it better to help the world as a whole? if the two conflict how do you decide which to support? It is a two sided coin. if you put your country first then your country as a whole would be better suited to help the world later. However if you help the world then you are also helping your country which is a part of the world. In the end it all depends on your countries leaders. If they decide what the country wants then if you want to keep your job and continue representing said country then there is no conflict. You are representing your countries views not your own.

Response to question nine

I disagree that soveriegnty is the best way to keep people safe. You may be there because you all look the same or you all speak the same language, but it's not going to work. You may all look the same but you think differently. Religions come into play alot and so does ethinicity. In Germany during the Holocaust over six million Jews were murdered because Hitler didn't like they're religion. So, now here let's give the Jews Palestine so they can be separated and have their own homeland. That didn't work because the Arabs said their ancestors were there first. So, now you have just created another conflict. When, Europe divided Africa they were just carving the land and not looking at where they were placing people. Rwanda ended up with two ethnic groups fighting for power. That created yet another genocide that spilled into the Congo. Even if you were to separate all ethnic groups and give them their own land there wouls still be problems. People would be fighting over how much land they got, and where it's located. You're never goingto satisfy everyone. Separating everyone isn't going to work either. Mary Rosenblum's idea of separating people was only based off of apperance. We already did that and look where we are today

I am responding to question 7

Countries with more power do not have a particular obligation to less powerful countries. Why should it be their duty to help them? Obviously, the countries with more power have it for a reason. They were albe to establish themselves and jump into the political pool. These countries with less power are always unstable. they have interstate issues that disable them from having power. I know then you get the well lets go help them. They don't want help half the time. Look at Iraq, theywere a less powerful country who had what we wanted. Our abligation to help them had to do with the fact that they had oil. We're there now trying to force their ethnic groups to get along. How did that end up our problem? It never was. Less powerful countries need to learn to deal on their own. Once we start to support them it's never going to end. obviously, tp the Untied States seems to be the only country to think we have this obligation. Do you see other countries rushing in to help other people. The same goes for rich countries helping poorer countries. The United States is supposed to be a rich country yet we're what 13+ trillion dollars in debt. I don't see where we're getting the money to help less fortunate countries. I do feel bad for them, but there is no way that we should be obligated to help them when we can't help oursleves.

I am answering question number 7

Powerful countries have a moral obligation to poor countries. they are morally obligated to assist and establish. not my means of hand outs that only help for days weeks or months but by helping to establish a self reliant way of life. In 1903 there was a poet named George R. Sims he wrote a poem called Christmas day in the work house. In the poem he wrote of the pleasantry of Christmas and of the feast he also wrote of a man who choked on the pudding that came once a year, the starvation of the remaining days, of how people came so proud of what they had brought with their money. Money that came from the rates they charged the poor. they set up a system of hand outs that were paid for by the people who had no way to sustain them selves.

The powerful obligating to the poor people is to help establish and sustain themselves for future generations to come. The rich countries also have an obligation to the poorer ones they are obligated the follow the same rules as everyone else. To not have breaks because of who they are and what they make. they need to follow the rules and are morally obligated to help but that is the extent.

Response to Question 9

Rosenblum notes on p. 245 of the paperback edition: "The only way to keep them [the space-residing humans, who are phenotypically different even though they are genetically the same] safe is to be separate. A nation with the power to protect its own." Hence, sovereignty protects difference, in this way of thinking about things. Do you agree?

If sovereignty is defined as a political body not under external control, then yes I think that I would say that it protects difference. The reasoning behind this is that if an area is controlled by the local population and not by people from some far off place than they will be more able to keep their specific identity because outsiders with different ideas or practices will not influence it.

I feel that the flip side of this idea is illustrated by the Colonial Era. During this time period, powerful countries ere using military force to impose their way of life on other parts of the world in order to gain economic and political advantages over their competitors. The result was often that people in the colonized areas were forced to take on many aspects of the cultures of the colonizer countries, and in turn lost parts of their own culture. In addition the cultural side of this, the colonized people were being ruled by governments and rulers that had no idea what life in that area was like and so, often laws and political lines were made that did not make any sense to the people of the colonized area.

That happened it Africa and no we are seeing the outcome. The lines of the current countries did not correspond necessarily with where traditionally tribes had identified with. This issue has lead to many conflicts over the years. It is possible that many o these conflicts would have been avoided if Africa and other colonized areas had been allowed to develop on their own into individual sovereign states.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:sovereignty&sa=X&ei=JnZxTIuEBYGClAeW76i_CA&ved=0CBYQkAE

Response to Question 6

What might it mean to "win" in actual world politics (as opposed to in a board game simulating some aspects of world politics)?

In world politics I don’t think that winning is that much different to what it was like in our Diplomatic risk board game. I think that winning in world politics is getting through the diplomatic process and ending up with the most important interests of the body that you represent intact. It was very similar in our Diplomatic Risk game, you had to make it through the game and try to be as close to your objective as possible by the end. It is similar to the game also because you probably would have to make compromises to what you wanted along the way and change your course of action.

Although the game is decidedly less complicated than real life because in reality you can’t just attack another country because they are in your way. In actual world politics you would probably have to get involved with even more negotiations with the country in your ay in order to keep moving towards the goal of whatever government or group you represent.

Also the goals and ideals of a particular group might change in world politics where, in the game everything was fixed. Winning in the real world of world politics is also a lot more complicated because someone rarely gets through the process of negotiations with the exactly what they started out with as a goal at the end. Finally, there are a lot more different groups out there all with different interest in real world politics than there were in the game.