Politics & Government - 2 March 2007

i was charged with petty theft of 30$ i go this week for sentancing..since im going toget sentanced does that mean for sure i will get time? or is it just something the court has to do..this is my first offense of petty theft ive never done it before..thank you for helping me

2007-03-02 03:36:21 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous in Law & Ethics

2007-03-02 03:36:05 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Other - Politics & Government

already there is a world bank, a world trade organization, the UN has proposed a world tax so it can raise money.. there is a world court.... in Europe the EU doctrine supersedes that of the national government in many nations.. will the same trend continue for the rest of the world?

2007-03-02 03:34:29 · 10 answers · asked by pip 7 in Politics

2007-03-02 03:34:24 · 19 answers · asked by favoritson 2 in Politics

If there were no cops, would there be no people running from them?

2007-03-02 03:33:15 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Law Enforcement & Police

what are some steps to finding a good property manager to handle our house? questions to ask, things to look for ect.

2007-03-02 03:33:08 · 4 answers · asked by k 2 in Military

I have alot of left wing and right wing views, that have became almost communist fascist. Some people say I am left wing and some say I'm right wing. The one think everyone agrees on is that I am too fanatical to be a liberal (because liberals are more layed back and listen to agrument against them)

So what is the political name for someone who is a fanatical central? Any ideas

2007-03-02 03:32:35 · 16 answers · asked by Michelino 4 in Politics

2007-03-02 03:32:16 · 7 answers · asked by Neeraj A 1 in Government

2007-03-02 03:31:37 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Immigration

I have to do a paper on school about controversial issues and I chose animal testing. I think there are a lot of people out there who are ok with animal testing but they know near nothing about it. I would like to know what other people think about animal testing and if you are for or against it.

2007-03-02 03:29:54 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Law & Ethics

2007-03-02 03:29:23 · 7 answers · asked by carl b 1 in Law & Ethics

Conservatives spent forever denying there is a civil war going on in Iraq, instead claiming that it was Iraqis killing Iraqis.

Now John Bolton has used that word on BBC World would you accept what we have known for 2 years?

2007-03-02 03:27:03 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

Will He be Under Intense Pressure More?

2007-03-02 03:26:29 · 13 answers · asked by Elizabeth C 1 in Other - Politics & Government

2007-03-02 03:25:20 · 7 answers · asked by ? 1 in Elections

Gosh, I'm terrible with history =[

2007-03-02 03:24:16 · 8 answers · asked by ? 1 in Elections

Many mistakenly call us a democratic nation when the truth is, we are considered a republic. What is the difference. In your own words! No copying and pasting!

2007-03-02 03:24:01 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Government

help :D

2007-03-02 03:23:05 · 4 answers · asked by ? 1 in Elections

he picked up a gun and puled the trigger and did not know that the gun would kill the bulliet hit

2007-03-02 03:22:04 · 7 answers · asked by me 2 in Law & Ethics

Can an executor of a will be described as "a legal and beneficial onwer" of a deceased person's property in a tenancy agreement relating to the lease of the such property

2007-03-02 03:21:17 · 2 answers · asked by Lady N 1 in Law & Ethics

If there were three things in history (before 1900) that you could change/abolish/modify/add, what would they be and why?

For me, it would be the Indian Removal Act, slavery, and...hm. I need to think about that last one.

Now I know some of you willsay it will change the entire effect of history ( i DO know that, some of us aren't idiots) but I mean if it didn't.

2007-03-02 03:21:08 · 3 answers · asked by Mood 2 in Other - Politics & Government

Can an executor of a will be described as "a legal and beneficial onwer" of a deceased person's property in a tenancy agreement relating to the lease of the such property

2007-03-02 03:19:20 · 3 answers · asked by Lady N 1 in Law & Ethics

And have him drown all the terrorists?

2007-03-02 03:18:50 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Other - Politics & Government

ANDREW J. BACEVICH
Rescinding the Bush Doctrine
By Andrew J. Bacevich | March 1, 2007

RATHER THAN vainly sniping at President Bush over his management of the Iraq war, the Democratic-controlled Congress ought to focus on averting any recurrence of this misadventure. Decrying the so-called "surge" or curbing the president's authority to conduct ongoing operations will contribute little to that end. Legislative action to foreswear preventive war might contribute quite a lot.

Article Tools
Printer friendly
E-mail to a friend
Op-ed RSS feed
Available RSS feeds
Most e-mailed
Reprints & Licensing
Share on Facebook
Save this article
powered by Del.icio.us
More:
Globe Editorials / Op-Ed |
Globe front page |
Boston.com
Sign up for: Globe Headlines e-mail | Breaking News Alerts Long viewed as immoral, illicit, and imprudent, preventive war -- attacking to keep an adversary from someday posing a danger -- became the centerpiece of US national security strategy in the aftermath of 9/11. President Bush unveiled this new strategy in a speech at West Point in June 2002. "If we wait for threats to fully materialize," he said, "we will have waited too long." The new imperative was to strike before threats could form. Bush declared it the policy of the United States to "impose preemptive, unilateral military force when and where it chooses."

Although the Constitution endows the legislative branch with the sole authority to declare war, the president did not consult Congress before announcing his new policy. He promulgated the Bush Doctrine by fiat. Then he acted on it.

In 2003, Saddam Hussein posed no immediate threat to the United States; arguing that he might one day do so, the administration depicted the invasion of Iraq as an act of anticipatory self-defense. To their everlasting shame, a majority of members in both the House and the Senate went along, passing a resolution that "authorized" the president to do what he was clearly intent on doing anyway. Implicitly, the Bush Doctrine received congressional endorsement.

Events since have affirmed the wisdom of seeing preventive war as immoral, illicit, and imprudent. The Bush administration expected a quick, economical, and decisive victory in Iraq. Advertising the war as an effort to topple a brutal dictator and liberate an oppressed people, it no doubt counted on battlefield success to endow the enterprise with a certain ex post facto legitimacy. Elated Iraqis showering American soldiers with flowers and candies would silence critics who condemned the war as morally unjustified and patently illegal.

None of these expectations has come to pass. In its trial run, the Bush Doctrine has been found wanting.

Today, Iraq teeters on the brink of disintegration. The war's costs, already staggering, continue to mount. Violence triggered by the US invasion has killed thousands of Iraqi civilians. We cannot fully absolve ourselves of responsibility for those deaths.

Our folly has alienated friends and emboldened enemies. Rather than nipping in the bud an ostensibly emerging threat, the Iraq war has diverted attention from existing dangers (such as Al Qaeda) while encouraging potential adversaries (like Iran) to see us as weak.

The remedy to this catastrophic failure lies not in having another go -- a preventive attack against Iran, for example -- but in acknowledging that the Bush Doctrine is inherently pernicious. Our reckless flirtation with preventive war qualifies as not only wrong, but also stupid. Indeed, the Bush Doctrine poses a greater danger to the United States than do the perils it supposedly guards against.

We urgently need to abrogate that doctrine in favor of principles that reflect our true interests and our professed moral values. Here lies an opportunity for Congress to make a difference.

The fifth anniversary of President Bush's West Point speech approaches. Prior to that date, Democratic leaders should offer a binding resolution that makes the following three points: First, the United States categorically renounces preventive war. Second, the United States will henceforth consider armed force to be an instrument of last resort. Third, except in response to a direct attack on the United States, any future use of force will require prior Congressional authorization, as required by the Constitution.

The legislation should state plainly our determination to defend ourselves and our allies. But it should indicate no less plainly that the United States no longer claims the prerogative of using "preemptive, unilateral military force when and where it chooses."

Declaring the Bush Doctrine defunct will not solve the problems posed by Iraq, but it will reduce the likelihood that we will see more Iraqs in our future. By taking such action, Congress will restore its relevance, its badly tarnished honor, and its standing in the eyes of the American people.

Andrew J. Bacevich is professor of history and international relations at Boston University.

© Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company.

2007-03-02 03:18:49 · 4 answers · asked by franco vita 2 in Other - Politics & Government

GOP Prosperity.

American aristrocrats enjoyed a 600% increase in personal wealth durring the Clinton years. But now they have only doubled their $$$ under Bush.

We all know the GOP is all about business wealth and personal tax free liberty. Clinton served the needs of America's wealthiest much better than Bush.

Bush seems to only serve the needs of the Huston Energy Cartel.

Who's the Best???

2007-03-02 03:16:00 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

insurgents in iraq?

2007-03-02 03:14:56 · 17 answers · asked by hadit l 2 in Politics

worked as a acct rec and acct payable amount in question is $96000.00

2007-03-02 03:14:26 · 6 answers · asked by hchkmp3 1 in Law & Ethics

Does anyone know?

2007-03-02 03:13:33 · 1 answers · asked by Willow 5 in Government

Do conservatives hate liberals because liberals are stopping conservatives from turning America into a police state with marshal law?

2007-03-02 03:13:03 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

everything was filled out correctly over a month ago, yet they have no record of it on line, and it is IMPOSSIBLE to reach anyone on the national line.

I'm beyond the point of asking what else can I do to get the passport in time ... I want REVENGE ... how do I get that?

2007-03-02 03:12:57 · 8 answers · asked by Reserved 6 in Government

Wait, this month it is called Climate Change, sorry.

2007-03-02 03:11:58 · 11 answers · asked by Chainsaw 6 in Other - Politics & Government