Argument for the Persian Gulf War the U.S. Clean Air Act

¶ … Liberal and Realist in the Debate on the Persian Gulf War and the U.S. Clean Air Act The liberal view of the U.S. Clean Air Act would be of the nature of appointing the government as the entity holding responsibility to correct the problem resulting from the perceptual view in which carbon dioxide of which the U.S.

comprises 25% of the total of carbon emissions worldwide and that regulations should exist to govern said carbon emissions while the conservative view holds that global temperature naturally shifts but over very long continuum of time and that if laws were implemented they would fail to reduce carbon emissions and will result in price increase and significantly across the entire globe. It is reported that the Democrats in congress viewed terrorism as directly resulting from arrogance of the U.S. In foreign policy matters.

The other widely held view is that terrorism is one of the world most fear-invoking potential threats to the United States over all else.

The worldview of the neorealist in the 1990s decade was one of the nature of a 'interwar period" since the collapse of the former Soviet Union had resulted in what Craig terms a "…multipolar world in which preexisting rivalries between nation-states would continue to disrupt world tranquility and stability." (Craig, 2004) Conflict as well as the potential for conflict perturbed the world destroying stability and tranquility as independent states emerged in the former Soviet Union and throughout the world and according to Craig the result is the creation of: "fault lines" in human society based on fundamental differences in culture and social fabric would produce unresolvable tensions leading to a reversal of peace and peaceful uses of resources.

The facts of this issue are hotly debated and specifically in terms of the Persian Gulf War and the "subsequent quagmire in the former Yugoslavia…[viewed] in the cooperation of advanced industrial societies with the United States against rogue states, ethnic conflict and civil war…" (Craig, 2004) At opposite ends of the debate in the case of the Persian Gulf War are the same opponents and proponents or specifically those known as 'realists' and those who oppose them known as 'liberals' both existing in traditional, historical and contemporary American society.

Craig (2004) writes that today's world politics from all appearances defy "basic assumptions of American International relations realism. American realists believe that international relations are dominated by a political power struggle among sovereign nation-states. These states must rely on their own devices to survive this struggle, which they attempt to do by acquiring economic and military power.

Realists stipulate that the anarchical international condition formed by this state security seeking is difficult or even impossible to overcome." Craig states that there are many realists in America who have followed the path of Kenneth Waltz in attempting to assume an objective approach "…eschewing moral assessments of international relations and foreign policies in favor of positivist analysis of interstate systems.

Their realism nevertheless is driven by clear normative concerns, as they have usually sought to promote foreign policies or at least political worldviews that enhance international security and order for the purpose of avoiding major war.

Believing that insecurity and fear are the root causes of conflict and war, American realists have consistently over the past half century advocated policies and ideas designed to reduce the insecurity of both the United States and its adversaries." (2004) Craig (2004) questions the continued existence of the 'Cold War Realism" of yesterday and states that empiricism has been the cold war realist continuing existence in today's American politics. Just as hotly debated is the U.S. Clean Air.