haha, i took IR my freshman year, best professor! 

Anyway, i can see how the realist perspective may seem explain a lot of history, but as we are increasingly becoming interdependent economically the muscle that was once needed for protection has softened into a power of cultural and idealogical influences.  If you look at Globalization as it were an ungoverned entity by nature, and it is the pursuit of self-interest that propels it.  But if you think about it it is the liberalism that perpetuates the idea that we are not citizens defined by the boundaries of out state, however we are citizens of the world, because in the end we all just want the same things. 

Also take into consideration there exists liberal realism and constructivism.  (there may be some overlay.)

I'd say everyone should just respect sovereignty and let's all live as one race, the human race... *hug me*

I'm more of a  (Neo-)Realist. To me the world is more of a constant bargaining arena where nations try to gain the most advantages they can get. With the exception in treaties where several nations can find  common benefit if they work together on certain areas, basically saving a lot of money or become more influential in the world (Something similar to the EU).

And I'm a little bit pessismistic over certain issues even when I don't want to be...

I'd be questioning your professor here.  Seems like the defintion of "Liberal" being tossed around here here would apply to Nazi Germany's actions.  Ergo, there is something wrong with this definition since Hitler/Nazis were not liberal by any standard.

Certainly the actors within Nazi Germany determed Nazi German foreign policy and Nazi Germany was particularly concerned about how it appeared to other nations (the 1936 Olympic propaganda is particularly notable here).

Thus, according to your OP, Nazi Germany was following a "liberal" foreign policy.  That's absurd.

Sorry, I just deleted my entire reply since it was proving too tedious with this particular system software to deal with the errors caused by multiple nested quotations (and the brutally slow server that hosts this forum).

Perhaps I'll reply later.

THe world has ALWAYS operated under the guise of realism...its only until the very recent years (about 50 years or so) that liberalism has had any implementation...and even then, its not a prevalent as they would hope. 

Liberalism's pillars (free trade, human rights, IGO cooperation etc) are actually supported by realists....only when they give maximum gain to your nation state though.  The bottom line is, its not in man kinds genetics to cooperate all the time and violence in part of our nature.  You have to learn to embrace that and channel it into an effective force IMO.

My key takeaway from political theory:  While I'm a staunch realist, I feel its important to be surrounded by an equal force of liberals.  Balance is paramount!

Agreed.  Though the origin of 'liberal internationalism' in foreign affairs pretty much ought to be considered as beginning with Woodrow Wilson and the establishment of the League of Nations in 1919.  This is the penultimate expression (in principle) of the idea of liberal internationalism.

That being said, it is quite debatable how much US foreign policy since WW2 has been 'realism' or 'liberal internationalism'.  I think the former has always been dominant in the USA. 

Yes, but that is because you are (perhaps) mixing up 'liberalism' as a general theory of economic policy with 'liberal-internationalism' as a general theory of foreign policy.  The two are not connected to each other in any ideological or theoretical way (other than a similarity of the term 'liberal').

That is to say, 'free trade' is a core principle of classical liberal economic theory - and usually favored by 'conservatives'.  This is always understood on the foreign policy side as a 'realist' policy (because it is self-serving - pushed by the large corporate interests), 'free trade' types of policy are never driven by 'liberal internationalists' who seem to abhor 'private-deal' trade agreements and prefer international or sectorial trade agreements (GATT and WTO) - or outright protectionism (oddly enough). 

This a good policy - and it fits your username! 

Personally, and in reference only to foreign policy issues, I've never been a liberal internationalist, but I've never been willing to accept the label of 'realist' due to the idea that 'realism' (in reality) means 'self-serving' in foreign policy lingo, and I don't accept that entirely as an ideal worthy of my support (it has plenty enough on its own because it is 'self-serving' and thus doesn't need my analytical or theoretical assistance). 

I've always described my own foreign policy position as that of realpolitique, italized to denote that it is a French word, not an English one.  Catherine d'Medici (Queen of France) has been one of the most famous original models here, as would be the author of her favorite book - the grand master of realpolitique himself, Machiavelli.  To me, realpolitique is more complicated than mere 'self-interest'.  Though, perhaps this is only my own hubris.  I'll have to give this further thought to offer a rationally-based distinction between realpolitique and 'realism' approach.

Right, and I think what I'm saying about torture is exactly what a "Liberal Internationalist" would say in defense of international liberalism (heh... that sounds ridiculous when you say it out loud).


And I never said otherwise.