Walt, Friedman and Nayan. Stephen.

Walt, Friedman and Nayan.

Stephen. M.Walt (2010) says that he was among the realists who opposed the United States involvement in Vietnam on strategic rather than moral ground and also opposed the Iraq war in 2003.

Walt finds it odd that many academicians see realism as a hawkish view of world politics and thinks that realists are big fans of using military power at the expense of others.

Walt argues that the invasion of Afghanistan in 2002 was not the only past cold war military operations that realists supported. He says that most realists supported Desert storm, the 1991 liberation of Kuwait and even giving the most optimistic pre- war forecasts of how easy that war was likely to be while the doves and surprising number of hawks seemed to think that getting Saddam from Kuwait was going to be very hard.

Walt also argue that realists supported Desert storm for good balance of power reason because if Saddam had conquered Kuwait permanently, its GDP would have increased by 40% and it could have translated the additional wealth into additional military power. Although Saddam's machines were never impressive by U.S. standards, stronger Iraq might have posed a more serious long-term threat to the regional balance in the gulf and presented a more serious threat to Saudi- Arabia in particular.

He also says that it was right decision for them not to go back to Baghdad because toppling Saddam would have dragged them into precisely the same quagmire they have been dealing with since they invaded in 2003.

Walt says that since United States has always sought to prevent any single power from dominating this oil rich region, it strategized good by expelling Iraq from Kuwait and to degrade its military power in the process of which most of the rest of the world agreed and that's why they helped and the operation did not spoil their national image. He also says that realists understand that military power is crude instrument and that governing alien society is costly business.

Nayar .J.(2007) Says that people live in different worlds whereby others live in a world of legal tests in which the academic reformers, politicians, gather to promise equality, justice, prosperity and security for all people. He also says that other people live in the world of realities in which the minorities of groups of power gather to implement their visions of the world which inflict violence, humiliation and death upon the majorities who are weak and therefore they cannot defend themselves.

Nayar also argues that there is nothing natural about the present order of human societies within the scheme of the totality of global political -- legal cultural imagination. There are only few being in the public voices who have dominated as leaders.

Nayar argues that there is nothing to talk about the world apart from uncontrolled inhumanity to the people in the world, lie of the law which maintains idealism of the violent orders that govern people. Constitutions are made which are not practiced, when parliaments convene, when international leaders gather to address the latest issues of concern and priority and yet the laws are invoked.

Nayar also argues that the laws put in place to govern people are lies since they are not put into practice. For example laws are supposed to protect human rights but surprisingly human rights are being violated contrary to the laws.

Thomas. L.Friedman (2002) argues that most of the terrorists in the world originated from the least globalized, least open and least integrated corners of the world such as Saudi Arabia, Yemen Afghanistan and North West Pakistan.

Friedman also added that most of the countries which are least globalized don't trade in goods and services, pluralism or tolerance and ideas with other countries since they have no chance to interact freely or move freely without restrictions nor move their goods and services freely without being charged.

Friedman also argues that globalization has its advantages and disadvantages but for a country to succeed, it should approach it with the right institutions and governance so that it can get the best out of it .He also adds that those countries which have succeeded have globalized sensibly but steadily and they have ended up to open politically .

Friedman also added that in those countries that have globalized, some people prefer to go faster while some prefer to phase out currency controls and subsidize gradually leaving behind the west countries where some college students and academicians are still debating whether they should globalize or not.

Friedman argues that globalization should be made fairly by convincing the rich western countries to open their markets of goods and services that the poor countries are best able to sell for example, food and textiles since most poor countries have inadequate food supply.

Persuasive arguments

I find Friedman's argument persuasive since globalization has so many effects on the countries and the people of the world. Globalization is important for a country since goods from one part of the country are able to move to the other part of the world at a high speed due to lack of tariff barriers which can slow down the movement of goods and services at the borders and also the export fee is not charged.