Research Paper on:
Realist and Liberal Perspectives on the Iraq Conflict

Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
It will be unlike the war fought on the Gulf with George Senior as this time, the stakes are larger. It is no longer a military intervention to prevent Saddam  from taking over his neighbor, but rather, the imminent military action is part of the declared war on terrorism, something that occurred on September 11, 2001. Indeed, Saddam has recently  been linked--at least to a small extent--to terrorism and the attack on America. Of course, there is no clear, concrete evidence of this. There never is. However, now the political  minds are debating how to take care of the problem. What should be done about Iraq, a nation that has not fully complied with the agreement made after the Gulf  War and is now possibly linked with Al Qaeda? Although there are many who are opposed to war on humanitarian grounds, an attack on Iraq, and the dismantling of their  weapons, is the only way to create peace. An expert in international relations, who is briefing President Bush on this situation, will want to provide an overview of liberal  international relations theory and realism. The two juxtaposed points of view provide a sense of what the opinions will be on this subject. Realism is really a particular world view  that is defined by assumptions equated with the idea that the international realm is anarchic and merely consists of independent political units which are called states ("The IR Theory,"  2002). The states are the main actors and possess some offensive military capability but states really never can be sure about the intentions of other states (2002). Still,  it is assumed that states are instrumentally rational and think strategically in embracing a survivalist instinct (2002). Liberalism on the other hand, covers a broad range of perspectives that