POLS170 Blog Group 0203

Henry G International Politics Blog 5 Although it does not truly portray an accurate image of international politics, The Game of Risk can serve as a good example of how states should conduct themselves, even if said strategy does not give the highest chance of actually winning the game. Given the vast difference in complexity, The Game of Risk can only be so useful in understanding international politics. For example, every player essentially has the same goal of conquering all other players' territories. Even in our case, the goals were centered around only a few aspects, such as the number and placement of territories, troops, and resources. Obviously, the board game is an incredibly simplified picture of international affairs, but it still brings up very important strategies relevant on the global stage. To play Risk, one must learn how, when, and why to attack their opponents, and when to do the opposite. These decisions, like choosing whether to attack, align, or stay neutral

  Reed Klein Professor Shirk POLS 170: International Politics 5/4/22 Final Blog Post For my final blog post, I wanted to briefly recap my experience playing risk. When I was first introduced to the board I was a bit caught off guard with how tight the setup was. Especially starting the game already at war, I feared things would be difficult. I also was not a big fan of where we started. Most of our armies were set up at the bottom of the map in Africa. I did not like this because I was worried that without any real access to continental Europe and Asia where most of the nations were that we would be screwed from the start. Outside of Africa, we had an army in Iceland that was rather worthless, one in North America which ended up being crucial, and some armies in the Pacific which ended up being rather arbitrary. Our group's plan was rather simple, try to go to war as much as possible and kick green out of Africa, this was before we realized we only needed 12 territories thoug

  Blog Post #5 - POLS170 LoBue, Gaby How Globalization is Negatively Affected the Global Supply Chain of Oil During the Russia-Ukraine Crisis Globalization has brought the world closer together through the flow of information, goods, and services around the world. In an idealistic world, these flows would remain uninterrupted by the chaos caused by human conflict, natural disasters, etc. Unfortunately, this is not the reality, and the world is often met with the consequences of detrimental world events. Russia and Ukraine’s hold on the major industries like oil and wheat are causing major shortages and disruptions for people around the world, triggering huge price increases. This is because many countries and corporations have used globalization to their advantage to make an extremely complex and interconnected supply chain network, making any uncertainty in supply/demand spark panic, even if the countries aren’t directly connected in any way.  According to the United Nations, Russia

  Kim Magnotta Professor Shirk  May 1, 2022 How the Game of Risk is Relevant to the Discussion of International Politics:  The study of International Politics is inherently complex, as all the competing players express a different set of motives and hold a varied amount of resources. Just as members in the political scene struggle to form agreements and peacefully collaborate, the multiplayer game of Risk illustrates a similar order of events. Perhaps one of the most intriguing aspects of Risk was the impact of war. The presence of inter-state conflict encouraged allyships to be made with neutral parties that possessed strong armies. While on some occasions the allyships were formed between parties who were global “competitors” for the same share of land, the involved parties understood that collaboration would yield a beneficial result. Furthermore, in an international setting, no state is truly your “friend”, rather states only partner with one another if there is a known benefit to

  William M Kernodle Professor Shirk Pols 170 20 March 2022 Fourth Blog The influence Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) have on world issues has the potential to be quite the double edged sword. On one hand, organizations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation or the Red Cross have demonstrated a massive capacity to provide aid and do good for the marginalized citizens of the world. On the other hand, they operate with little to no oversight and are not necessarily beholden to any authority. Throughout my blog I will explore whether NGOs are a net benefit or if they're more of a risk than they're worth.  A major part of what makes NGOs such an asset is that they are free from the bureaucracy of government that almost always results in slow, delayed action. For example, the Red Cross does not have to get approval from anyone to provide aid to hurricane victims. Similarly, foundations do not need to ask permission to work on cancer research for years and years. Another

  Henry Graff  International Politics Blog 4 The universality of all human rights is seemingly an impossible goal, and might be undesirable. As a result of the intrinsic moral foundations, human rights will always spark controversy. In theory, one might idealize a standard global system of human rights, establishing a baseline for moral judgment in said state or institution. However, the versatility of rights and their implications, coupled with differing societal and cultural norms, makes this very challenging. Some rights geared to modern social issues, such as the rights to internet access or clean and sustainable environments, are good examples of this issue. Not in question until relatively recent years, such rights are justified by continual human development to argue that human rights “must start at the source of social problems” relative to their time period (McGaughey). Thus, the integration of access to knowledge, clean environments/climate, and economic equality into univers