Idealism Is Idealist

Idealist ontology holds the belief that research knowledge is made up of subjective experiences obtained through observation that is consistently influenced by the researcher's interpretations (Giacomini, 2010). Qualitative

No matter what the situation is, humans have a tendency to create an ideal world in their minds. Their idealistic ways bring them happiness and peace. As John Lennon once dreamt “Imagine there's no countries/ It isn't hard to do/ Nothing to kill or die for/ And no religion too/ Imagine all the people/ Living life in peace.” Just as John Lennon once wished for, Chris McCandless

The democrats in the U.S. Senate block a Republican attempt to stop the nuclear deal with Iran, handing President Barack Obama a major victory. Senate Republicans do not have enough votes to end a Democratic filibuster on the resolution of approval. Iran's highest leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, says there will be no further negotiations with the U.S. beyond the nuclear deal. The Republicans in the U.S. Senate attempt to stop the nuclear deal by pushing through a resolution rejecting it. In the deal, Iran has agreed to reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium by 98%, place two-thirds of their installed centrifuges under international supervision, give the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) permanent access "where necessary, when necessary",

Former President Ahmadinejad set Iran back years by putting Iran into extreme isolation from the international community. His continued badgering with the international community, eventually lead to a nuclear stand-off with world powers. With what seems to be the Ayatollah’s blessing, President Rouhani has so far shown promise to ease the country’s relations and assume a solution on the nuclear issue. “For Washington, meanwhile, the election offered stark confirmation that its strategy is working, at least to a point. The outcome confirmed that political will for a nuclear deal exists within the Islamic Republic. In other words, the path out of isolation and economic crisis is perilous, but Iran’s new president, who has sometimes been dubbed “the sheikh of diplomacy,” may just be the right man at the right moment to walk it.” (Maloney, 2013)

This article is of interest to me because it is important subject of argument in politics and because it deals with a controversial pact that has the power to cause long term consequences if not dealt with carefully. The Iran deal consist in the agreement among the U.S., Iran, France, Germany, Britain, Russia and China would lift economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for Iran's agreement not to build nuclear weapons.

The United States and Israel would be in danger. In my opinion if a country is willing to use chemical weapons during war and threaten to destroy an entire country and commit genocide, they should not be allowed to have any sort of nuclear power at all. The supreme leader even said on a live broad cast that we had watched my senior year that said "Death to America". It is said that history repeats its self, what is happening now happened in 1938 when Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain went to speak with Adolf Hitler about negotiation. The prime minister left there thinking that Hitler's promises for peace were in good faith in exchange for Germanys annex large parts of Czechoslovakia The Nazi regime was a police state and Iran is a police state. The Nazis aim was to kill all the Jews in Europe and Iran's aim is to destroy Israel. The Nazis hated America and what it stands for and so does Iran. The alternative to this agreement was continuing and tightening the sanctions they were weakening the Iranian regime and greatly breaking down its abilities to fund terror groups. Also, the stronger Iran gets the more money they make means the more they will try and expand. The Iranian regime is a bunch of religious fanatics who are morally from ISIS, Al Qaeda Boko haram and all the other terrorist groups. Iran is the second highest country with executions right behind china. Iran is already one of the biggest funders to terrorist groups so just imagine what they can do with another $150,000,000,000. Imagine what it will do with the removal of the current weapons and missile embargo. Or the nuclear infrastructure with this deal it will do every single

Additionally, the deal with Iran will not only give relief for Iran but also give guarantee for the United States and the rest of the world that Iran’s nuclear capacity leftovers solely nonviolent with no probable military dimensions and with sufficient time for the international community to notice a breakout, should Iran ever feel the unlikely need to “dash for the

Be educated on the issue and know what’s going on. JCPOA needs to be revised or abolished. A non nuclear Iran needs to be the bottom line. The country is to dangerous to possess nuclear arms. Support lawmakers and government officials that oppose the deal and know their views. America can not afford to make a mistake. It can be the difference between life and

The first thing we have to look at is how trustworthy has Iran been in the past. If Iran cannot be trusted then a Soft Power approach will not work. "The U.N. had already found the country in violation of its international agreements in 2003"(Obama's Iran Gamble) Iran was caught red-handed violating its U.N. treaty obligations when it built a secret uranium-enrichment facility in the mountains near the town of Fordow.(Obama's Iran Gamble) This shows that Iran cannot be trusted to follow any diplomatic agreements.

While it is true the two approaches to international relations share some common beliefs, these beliefs are greatly outweighed by their differences. Their fundamental beliefs about how the world should function are in opposition, and they place varying levels of importance on power. Yes, military power is seen as crucial for both – but realists see the military as being the sole, relevant type of power, while idealists see the opposite. They do not think military power is the most important type, and it even takes a backseat to moral and economic powers. Another major difference is their view on total world government. On one hand, idealism seeks to create a united world government, which would help create peace around the globe. On the other hand, realism believes this would not be successful as it is impossible to coerce all countries to cooperate and participate in this. Realists realize countries will be primarily looking out for themselves, and unless it greatly benefitted them, would probably not do something just to help out other countries.

Hope, as an idea, is a very powerful psychological booster. It creates a mental narrative which makes human actions based on the idea that things eventually do get better - if one attempts to try just one more time. Hope, as a concept, can also be a charming deceiver and has an unassuming ability to hide certain undeniable realities on the ground especially when dealing with the realities of geopolitics. When hope replaces the reality of geopolitics and territorial domination; it just prolongs the magnitude of a disaster. It does not eliminate it. Hence, when one must assess the durability, credibility and effectiveness of the recently concluded Persian nuclear deal, one must look at the geopolitical realities of the Mid-East and the role outsiders and those within the region, play to mutate those realities. That is a tough analytical order to conduct. But, it must be undertaken in order to provide a credible assessment of this diplomatic venture. A simple approval or disapproval - eloquent or otherwise of the nuclear deal, is a shallow response to a very serious and complicated matter in a very volatile region. A serious and solemn assessment always avoids an ideological lens. Additionally, the ideological rhetoric regarding the Iranian nuclear issue obscures and trivializes the broader issue of nuclear proliferation especially in the Middle-East.

The theories of realism and idealism are as old as politics, itself. There has always been one group looking as things as they are, asking finite questions like how much will it cost, examining actions over intentions and another group aiming for how things should be while asking is this morally right, just or conscionable?. How does realism and idealism affect our international political landscape? Although theory suggests that politicians operate from one camp or another, is it impossible to navigate life supporting every initiative of one camp or another? One may in fact possess an idealistic viewpoint or attitude overall but, cast a vote for a more realistic solution of a particular situation.

The definition of ideal refers to the act of being perfect. While an ideal society may not be a perfect one, it should be one that is most beneficial to its communities and citizens. It should also be one with good social and political order. Currently in the world, there is corruption that comes with power, poverty and homelessness, and detrimental foreign relations. If there was an ideal society it would be one with non-materialistic values, a respect for others, good opportunities, and a sense of security for all its people

As ironic as it sounds, the fulfilment of ideals rest a lot on pragmatism. Ideals could not manifest into physical reality without pragmatic approaches. To illustrate, a society might have an ideal of taking care of the unfortunate and needy. However, the welfare of the unfortunate and needy could not be taken care of without resources needed to fund the movement, and those resources have to come from somewhere. Support from the people or government can only be available if they have enough resources to extend them to the needy. The only way to ensure that is to ensure they have the ability to provide for themselves. This is where pragmatism comes in, ensuring that the effort is sustainable and beneficial to everyone in the long run. Without this, resources, support, and passion would fizzle out and the people would be left to fend for themselves

Exploring the Differences Between Idealism and Representative Realism The two differences between idealism and representative realism are, realists believe that objects properties such as smell and taste exist in the object but representative realists disagree and believe that these need to perceive to exist. The second difference between idealism and representative realism is for idealists things only exist when perceived, whereas representative realism means things exist if perceivable. Explain and illustrate how an idealist distinguishes between a real and hallucination experience