In international relations theory, there are 3 main schools of thought. They are:

Realism: Everything a state does is centered around security, survival, and the quest to achieve hegemony over nearby states and ultimately the world. Most realists believe that nations are in a constant state of anarchy, with no true higher order than the nations themselves. For example, a realist would say the reason we invaded Iraq was because the supposed WMDs posed an active threat to our national security.

Liberalism*: State ideals, preferences, and international institutions drive nation behavior. Often, this translates into domestic policy influencing foreign policy. i.e. The US adopts a policy to encourage lower government influence on the market economy in other countries because of our own policies here. It's primarily centered around economic power and domestic policy. Neoidealist/neoliberal scholars also point to the influence of institutions such as NATO and the UN in shaping state behavior. In contrast to realism, liberals believe that institutions can force and encourage governments to cooperate on more than just security issues, and the institutions ultimately hold more power than the states themselves. Example: Liberals would believe we invaded Iraq because by turning Iraq into a western democracy, we would both gain a trade partner and decrease the likelihood that we would go to war with them again because of the idea that democracies do not fight each other.
*not associated with left-wing politics.

Constructivism: Social norms, values, and identities shape international relations. Supporters of constructivist theory often cite the removal of the Berlin wall as evidence of the influence of social constructs, as both liberal and realist scholars were unable to predict this event.
An example of constructivism would be us tomahawking the shit out of Syria's air base because they violated international norms, laws, and values by using chemical weapons. Another example would be how Russia might view a US military buildup differently than the UK might.

Which is the most prevalent in driving state behavior in the international environment? I'm interested to hear Arfcom's opinions on an area that is not directly tied to right and left wing politics. Each is convincing in its own right, if you all can take the time to read them and not get your jimmies rustled by the idea of supporting a view that is called "liberalism."

TL;DR: Read the underlined sentences.

Life ain't nothin but bitches and money.

Word.

Titties and beer.

FPNI & SPNI

This gonna be fun. I may or may not have a Graduate degree in this subject

I expected nothing less.

Awesome! Though this thread may not go as planned GD is a little resistant to intellectual stimulation, after all

Behavior is driven by the indoctrination students receive in gubmint skoolz.

Teach leftism and nothing else and you have a population of leftists.

Teach sharia and nothing else and you have a population of suicide bombers.

Morality or immorality, it truly is as simple as that.

Society is a mirror of the behavior it tolerates.

Getting the most with the least amount of effort.  It is in our nature.  And is why there is not one true free market on Earth, and likely never will be.

Culture, different cultures have shades of differences of what is accepted and not accepted

international relations are poker games. the players are obviously the nation states. some are good players, some are bad players, some are lucky and some are unlucky. good players calculate the odds and generally know when to bluff, fold or raise. what you really dont want at your table is a crazy person who for no apparent reason and goes all in with nothing when you have a hand that is a potential winner and there are other players at the table who could drag the pot. idiot goes all in, and drags everyone along for the ride. think adolph hitler/germany, think fatboy in nk.

its poker bluff, fold, raise and often you cannot cash in and move on, you gotta play to the end. and the stakes are often high. and there are no 'friends' in a poker game.

Television and social media