Other - Politics & Government - October 2006

2006-10-05 14:31:35 · 18 answers · asked by wolfman 1

Desire the names of the president, executive director and board secretary of the Ohio State Medical Board or a site where I can find this information. Thank you.

2006-10-05 14:07:21 · 2 answers · asked by syrious 5

My wallet was stolen with all my credit cards, social security card, and driver's license. You cannot get a license without a social security card or birth certificate. You can't get a social security card without an ID or birth certificate. You can't get a birth certificate without an Id. What do I do??

2006-10-05 13:56:13 · 6 answers · asked by David D 1

HURRY!!!

2006-10-05 13:56:02 · 5 answers · asked by ~*Princess Snikki*~ 1

In the wake of school shootings in Wisconsin, Colorado and Pennsylvania during the last two weeks, a state legislator says he plans to introduce legislation that would allow teachers, principals, administrators and other school personnel to carry concealed weapons.

Rep. Frank Lasee, a Republican, said Wednesday that, while his idea may not be politically correct, it has worked effectively in other countries.

"To make our schools safe for our students to learn, all options should be on the table," he said. "Israel and Thailand have well-trained teachers carrying weapons and keeping their children safe from harm. It can work in Wisconsin."

In Thailand, where officials have been waging a bloody fight with Muslim separatists for the last two years, some teach

2006-10-05 13:52:27 · 34 answers · asked by Alex B 3

Why should the American taxpayers bear the burden of freeing the Iraqi people, especially when they can't control the sectarian violence in their midst?

2006-10-05 13:45:52 · 10 answers · asked by fearslady 4

Bush gets the blame for gas prices increasing ?? It's obviously coming again, right ??

2006-10-05 13:42:43 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

today .... i pumped gas, it was 2.17 about 2 weeks ago, it was 2.67 .... what is going on? what happened? I live in North Carolina.

2006-10-05 13:37:36 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous

The government of U.S.A(US budget) or the american businessmans ? may be the one and the other?

seriously. plz

2006-10-05 13:36:23 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

If they can't asimilate into our culture, why they just simply...choose a muslim country of their election and go away...leave us alone?

Everyday this eternal boo boo booo...are you not tired of this?

2006-10-05 13:32:30 · 19 answers · asked by antimuslim100000 1

I need this before this day is over..

2006-10-05 13:31:50 · 7 answers · asked by ~*Princess Snikki*~ 1

Kind of like the republicans who are basically scared of doing the right thing of fighting islamic extremists. They try to appease them, lol, yea, thats gonna work. Please, i see in 6 years, we are gonna have an islamic president who supports Islamic extremism.

2006-10-05 13:27:40 · 9 answers · asked by julean33 2

they must be happy!

2006-10-05 13:20:51 · 16 answers · asked by xiy 3

They have already forgiven the sick man that killed, now six of their children (a 6 year old was just taken off life support) and four more in the hospital... I extend my deepest sympathy to them... and my greatest respect that they have forgiven, they are better than me, that's for sure. Honestly, I don't know if my heart could forgive anybody that killed anyone close to me....

2006-10-05 13:15:59 · 41 answers · asked by Anonymous

Jack Straw has stated (according to the Media) that Islamic women wearing a face veil is affecting integration into society.

What are your thoughts?

2006-10-05 13:15:48 · 28 answers · asked by bigtruck 1

Hurry I need this answer before this day is over..

2006-10-05 13:15:48 · 3 answers · asked by ~*Princess Snikki*~ 1

LONDON - The U.S., Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia will confer Friday in London to assess Iran's defiant refusal to suspend uranium enrichment. They are expected to refer the nuclear case to the U.N. Security Council for talks next week on possible sanctions, diplomats said Thursday.

2006-10-05 13:13:07 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

1993 WTC 2001


Within a decade, the World Trade Center has been attacked twice. However, where the terrorists failed in 1993, they would succeed in 2001. The purpose of this article is to illustrate the events on those two tragic days, discuss the individuals involved, and to comprehend why the 1993 attacks were not the wake up call to prepare for the 2001 attacks. Perhaps even more disturbing than the 1993 attacks, not waking up the American public to terrorism, is why the other attacks on the U.S, between 1993 and 2001, were not wake up calls themselves. This article will attempt to explore these issues in depth.
On February 26, 1993, terrorists declared war on the United States, alas, we would not realize it for another eight years. On that terrible day Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the attack, had one of his accomplices, Mohammed Salameh, drive a truck filled with 1500 pounds of explosives into the parking garage of the World Trade Center. “The bomb was made of urea pellets, nitroglycerin, sulfuric acid, aluminum azide, magnesium azide, and bottled hydrogen,”(Wikipedia). The total cost of the bomb was estimated at only $300. The plan was to rupture the foundation of Tower 1 so that it would fall over and collapse into Tower 2, effectively destroying both Towers. Luckily, the plan failed and the Towers remained intact. Unfortunately, six people were killed and over 1000 were wounded.
The evidence left behind at the World Trade Center led investigators to Mohammed Salameh, a Palestinian, who rented the truck in his own name. His arrest led investigators to the arrests of his accomplices shortly after the bombing. The perpetrators were a mix of Arabs from different countries but according to government reports, they were all under the control of Omar Abd al-Raham, a radical Egyptian cleric. The arrest of Salameh eventually led investigators to Yousef’s apartment where they would find materials to make bombs and documents with names of people within his faction. It was during this investigation that authorities would first hear the name, Osama Bin Laden. After all the arrests were complete and the sentences handed down, all of the conspirators, including Omar Abdel-Raham, were sentenced to life in prison.
However, before the arrests were made, there was much speculation into who was responsible for the attacks. “One FBI investigator recalls that he initially suspected Serbian involvement, and later the prevailing opinion was that Libyans were behind the attack. Others thought that perhaps the Iraqis were seeking revenge for Operation Desert Storm. This theory gained support when it was discovered that Ramzi Yousef traveled to the United States with a valid Iraqi passport,”(White, Jonathan). Eventually intelligence came in that disproved these theories and the true perpetrators were apprehended. The confusion that befuddled the team of investigators and our government was caused by the simple fact that these were a new breed of terrorists. They did not operate under a flag or have a specific nation for which they fought. Their unity came from a shared hatred of the United States of America.
Perhaps one of the most puzzling questions of this tragedy is why were these attacks not the wake up call for America to prevent the September 11, 2001, attacks? With the exception of poor intelligence by our government, three possible reasons come to mind. The first is that there was minimal damage done to the building, unlike the Oklahoma City Bombing of 1995. From the outside, not much damage to the World Trade Center could be seen. Another reason, there was relatively limited loss of life. Do not get me wrong, six dead is six too many, but in comparison to other tragedies, the death toll was relatively low. The final reason many people did not see the 1993 attacks as a wake up call is because the nation was too preoccupied with another newspaper headline. Incase you do not remember, the O.J Simpson trial was going on around the same time. With many Americans enamored with O.J, they simply did not notice the serious implications of the attack. This would prove to be one of the greatest blunders in American history.


OTHER ATTACKS ON THE U.S



Terrorism is nothing new in much of the rest of the world, but for Americans it is a relatively new concept. Just three years after the attacks on the World Trade Center, the United States was hit again. Only this time it would not be on our own shores. The attack that I am referring to is the Khobar Towers bombing. The Khobar Towers were being used to hold military personnel of the United States Air Force in Saudi Arabia. It is believed that the attack came from a terrorist group that was hell bent on removing the United States from the region. The attack claimed the lives of 19 Americans and left close to 400 people wounded. The investigation led to the arrest of 13 Saudis and 1 Lebanese man, yet America had still not woken up. Why? The most obvious reason for our ambivalence to the situation was the sole fact that it happened in another country far from our homeland. It is like the old adage, “out of sight, out of mind.” And the sad truth is, it really was out of mind for most of the Aamerican public.
Then, just two years later the U.S was struck by terrorists again. As with the Khobar Towers bombing, the attacks took place in a distant land. This time it was Africa and entailed simultaneous attacks on three U.S embassies. The operation, led by Al Qaeda operatives, claimed the lives of 220 people and left nearly 4,000 injured. These attacks focused international attention on Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. It was also at this point that Osama Bin Laden began to foster his Allah-like status among Islamic radicals. To put it quite simply, Bin Laden became a hero. The United State’s response was swift and led to Cruise Missile strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan. Policies were also drafted by the Clinton Administration to make it illegal to do business with Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda warriors. This was an attempt to put a strangle hold on their financial support. It was around this point that Americans began to open their eyes to this grave new danger but we were still not ready to understand fully, the seriousness of the situation that confronted us.
The final attack on the United States, before 9/11, was the attack on the USS Cole, in 2000. The destroyer was docked at a Yemeni port in Aden when a boat filled with explosives trolled up beside it and detonated a bomb, tearing a gaping hole in the side of the ship. The attack claimed the lives of 17 Americans and injured 39 others. The attack was planned by Osama Bin Laden and was carried out by Al Qaeda suicide bombers, Ibrahim al-Thawr and Abdullah al-Misawa. This would be the first terrorist attack on a U.S. Navy vessel in the history of the United States. However, the ship did not sink and was carried back to the United States for repairs.
The attack on the USS Cole was, to say the least, very different from the previous attacks on the United States. The attack was considered an act of terrorism but under law, an attack on a military target could not be deemed a terrorist attack. According to the Annual Country Report on Terrorism, “the term terrorism means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetuated against noncombatant targets by sub national groups or clandestine agents.” Now, it is true that a group of sub national agents committed the attacks but their target was a combatant target and therefore it could not be viewed as a terrorist attack. It is because of this slight technicality that the American public still had not been awakened to the terrorist threat and also, because the attack happened in a distant place like the first two and received minimal news coverage, considering the severity of the event. However, it would not be long before America would wake up to a nightmare that finally brought the fear of terrorism into our reality.



A DAY OF INFAMY



On September 11, 2001, terrorists viciously attacked the United States of America. Nineteen Al-Qaeda operatives, under the command of Osama Bin Laden, hijacked four commercial airliners with the intent of ramming them into buildings that were symbolic of American primacy. The World Trade Center, symbolic of America’s economic wealth, and the Pentagon, symbolic of American military power, made prime targets. According to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the fourth plane was intended to hit the Capitol Building or the White House, both symbolic institutions of American control. Fortunately, the plane never reached its target but, regrettably, all on board the plane were killed. The attacks on America claimed the lives of 2,986 people and left thousands injured.
Armed with nothing more than box cutters, the hijackers took control of American Airlines Fight 11. The plane departed from Logan International Airport at around 8:00am on a transcontinental flight for Los Angeles. Within approximately 15 minutes, the terrorists took the plane. According to voice transcripts from the plane, the hijackers killed three of the passengers at the begging of the assault, claimed to have a bomb, and sprayed pepper-spray into the first-class cabin. Presumably, this was done to prevent the passengers from fighting back and possibly retaking the plane. At approximately 8:45am; the plane, carrying 92 passengers and crew, slammed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center, killing everyone on board and hundreds more in the tower instantly.
United Airlines Flight 175 also departed from Logan International. It was supposed to take off at the same time as Flight 11 but due to delays at the airport was held up. According to voice transcripts from the plane, the hijackers had box cutters and sprayed pepper spray into the front cabin as they did on AAF 11. “At approximately 9:03, Flight 175 flew into the south side of the southern tower of the World Trade Center, between floors 78 and 84. The plane was carrying 56 passengers (including the 5 hijackers) and 9 crew members”(Wikipedia). All people on board were killed including hundreds more in the building.
The two planes that hit the World Trade Center were bound for Los Angeles. Since they were making a transcontinental flight, they had both been filled to the brim with jet fuel. When the planes hit the buildings they both knocked off the fire proofing that covered the steel structures and disabled the fire sprinklers, rendering the building helpless to extinguish the fire. Experts believe that the heat created from the burning jet fuel was hot enough to weaken the support trusses of the building. After some time the floors began to sag and eventually came crashing down. The falling floors created a domino effect that brought the buildings to the ground. The South Tower was the first to go, followed by its twin. However, the buildings were able to stand for some time after the impact and did not fall for almost an hour. The collapse of the building left most of lower Manhattan covered in smoke for days. In all, seven buildings in Manhattan had been destroyed and another 25 seriously damaged.
American Airlines flight 77 departed from Dulles International Airport in Fairfax County Virginia at approximately 8:20a.m. It is believed that the flight was taken over at about 8:55a.m. because the transponder was turned off and the plane began to turn around at that point. Voice transcripts from the plane described four men with box cutters or knives forcing all the passengers and the pilots to the back of the plane. “Flight 77 crashed into the western side of the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia, just south of Washington, D.C. at 9:37 AM EDT, killing all of its 58 passengers (including the hijackers) and 6 crew members” (Wikipedia). The Pentagon sustained some serious damage but because of its design, most of the building survived the attack. Flight 77 marked the third attack of the day but would not be the last.
United Flight 93 departed from Newark International Airport at approximately 8:45a.m. Had there been no delays, the plane would have taken off at 8:00a.m like the other planes were scheduled to do. Unlike the other three planes, Flight 93 never reached its target and instead crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. The plane was carrying 37 passengers and 7 crew members. All on board were killed instantly. It is widely accepted that the intended target was either the White House or the Capital Building in Washington, DC. According to voice transcripts and phone calls taken from the plane, the passengers knew of their impending doom and made an effort to retake control of the plane. In all, 10 phone calls were made and from the statements that were recorded, we have been able to construct the possible scenario that unfolded on the plane. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, some, if not all the passengers on board were aware that terrorist had been flying planes into buildings up and down the east coast. Calls taken from the plane suggest that the passengers tried to take back control of the plane and in doing so scared the terrorists into crashing the plane. That crash would mark the final attack of the day.
After nearly eight years and half a dozen attacks on the United States, we finally got the message. The attacks made the country fully aware that we were no longer living in a safe world and that not even the United States was safe from terrorism. The attacks brought about a huge international response. Governments from all over the world condemned the attacks and vowed support for the United States. A French newspaper, Le Monde, ran the headline, “We are all Americans,” in support of our tragedy, and many other countries came to our aid. Coincidentally, George Bush’s approval rating at the time was around 86%. Most Arab countries around the world also condemned the attacks while a small majority viewed the attacks as America’s comeuppance.
The final question that needs to be answered is why we were attacked and what was the specific motivation. There is much speculation as to why the attacks descended upon our cities. The Bush Administration claimed that the attacks by Al Qaeda were spurred by their intense hatred of freedom and democracy, while other government sources said that the attacks were an attempt to unify the Muslim world and pave the way for a world under Islamic control. However, there are less radical explanations of the motivations behind the attacks. “The motivation for this campaign was set out in a 1998 fatwa issued by Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Abu-Yasir Rifa'i Ahmad Taha, Shaykh Mir Hamzah, and Fazlur Rahman”(Wikipedia). According to the fatwa, the attacks were carried out because of U.S. support of Israel, U.S. occupation of Arab lands, and previous U.S. aggression towards the Iraqi people. The fatwa goes on to state that the United States “plunders the resources of the Arabian Peninsula, dictates policy to the rulers of those countries, supports abusive regimes and monarchies in the Middle East, thereby oppressing their people, has military bases and installations upon the Arabian Peninsula, which violates the Muslim holy land, in order to threaten neighboring Muslim countries, intends thereby to create disunion between Muslim states, thus weakening them as a political force, and supports Israel, and wishes to divert international attention from (and tacitly maintain) the occupation of Palestine” (Wikipedia). According to Osama Bin Laden and his followers, attacks upon the United States will continue until these grievances have been rectified.


AMERICA RESPONDS


Following the September 11 attacks on the United States, steps were taken to ensure our safety. Increased boarder control and airline security were the first steps taken to decrease the likelihood of another attack. The creation of the Department of Homeland Security, beefing up agencies already in place, and the Patriot Act were among other measures taken by the Bush Administration. The attacks also brought about what is being called the “War on Terrorism.” This war has included an increase in satellite surveillance, increased information sharing between countries, sanctions on known terrorist states, and the 2001 Invasion of Afghanistan followed by the 2003 invasion of Iraq. All of which have created much controversy throughout the entire world including the United States. Some attest that the U.S. decision to invade Iraq has effectively squandered the international good will toward our country and has in essence made us more vulnerable to future terrorist attacks. At the other end of the spectrum, there are those who say we are safer because the invasions have the terrorists on the run, making it difficult for them to plan and carry out attacks. Only time will tell who is right and who is wrong but one thing remains certain: Americas days of ignoring terrorism are over and we can no longer stand idle while the looming threat of terrorism is upon us.

2006-10-05 12:58:20 · 15 answers · asked by quarterback 2

If the population of a town grew by 10% when 120 people moved
to town in one year. What was the population of the town before
the people moved there?

2006-10-05 12:50:55 · 6 answers · asked by adamoca@sbcglobal.net 1

One section of our country believes slavery is right, and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive slave clause of the Constitution, and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade, are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, cannot be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections, than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived without restriction, in one section; while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all, by the other.
Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced, and go out of the presence, and beyond the reach of each other; but the different parts of our country cannot do this. They cannot but remain face to face; and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory, after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you cannot fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides, and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you.
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I cannot be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the national Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it.

2006-10-05 12:49:57 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous

This is a REAL queston!! You'd think there would such appealing photo ops of the father/son together in the Oval Office chatting or boffing on each other or WHATEVER that the White Houise PR staff would be falling all over each other to run the news media folks in to take pictures--like when Kennedy was having John-John crawling around under his desk and wrapping himself on the legs, you know?

I HONESTLY cannot remember a single pix of this type other than formal things like Christmas (I think) or 43 being assigned to run some project.

Is 41 embarrassed by the situation and cellar poll reading, and wants to protect HIS OWN legacy? --OR WHAT?

CAN YOU RECALL any "one big happy family" pictures of 41 and 43. Heck, even when 43 touted Jeb as a 2008 horse, Jeb was looking sour and was standing about a pace back and to the side of 43 !

The same can be asked of Mom Bush. She has been scarce in the White House as well as best as I can tell

Whats your memory and thoughts on this?

2006-10-05 12:35:18 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

i know i do. chinese people are awesome, and they could kick our asses if they wanted to. but to some degree i dont like em. whats your opinions?

2006-10-05 12:32:58 · 21 answers · asked by Cwistle Winn 1

2006-10-05 12:32:37 · 16 answers · asked by Luisianna 1

Mr webb states that if elected he will get us out of Iraq, but I fail to hear him say how he plans on doing it.

2006-10-05 12:22:23 · 4 answers · asked by fred markham 1

The Global War on Terrorism

In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, the United States found itself caught in a precarious position. All of a sudden, the country was no longer safe, and steps had to be taken to assure the safety of the American people. On September 18, 2001, the U.S Congress authorized the president to: “use all necessary force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons” (U.S Congress). The Bush Administration took initiatives in securing the safety of the country by creating the Department of Homeland Security, implementing the Patriot Act, invading Afghanistan and invading Iraq in 2003. This paper entails information on the “War on Terrorism” and isolates objectives, strategies, and preventative measures taken in the aftermath of September 11.
Israel’s Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabbin first coined the phrase, “War on Terrorism” in 1992 to describe the conflict with Palestinian nationalism. However, there is a problem with the phrase “War on Terrorism,” stemming from the confusion and controversy surrounding the word “terrorism.” There are a multitude of definitions that describe terrorism yet some of them are in direct conflict with one another. The FBI defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (FBI 1999). Another similar definition comes from the UN, whom describes terrorism as, “the act of destroying or injuring civilian lives or the act of destroying or damaging civilian or government property without the expressly chartered permission of a specific government, thus, by individuals or groups acting independently or governments on their own accord and belief in an attempt to effect some political goals” (White). The definitions are very much the same but are also very distinct in context. The UN’s definition of terrorism is very specific in describing the context of terrorism while the FBI’s definition is relatively vague and lacks the necessary detail in defining the threat. According to the FBI, almost any act of aggression could be deemed as terrorism. It does not specify whether the use of force is coming from; civilians, the domestic government, or another country. Inevitably, this will lead to confusion over which events could be considered terrorist attacks and which ones cannot. The UN on the other hand makes very clear who the force has to come from, leading to less confusion, when identifying terrorist attacks. The point that is trying to be made here is that there are many different perceptions of terrorism and what it is. Different definitions of the term create confusion over how to handle the situation as well as confusion over who the terrorists really are.
One of the first initiatives the Bush Administration took in response to the September 11 attacks was the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. The department was created nine days after the attacks on America. The government stated that, “the mission of the Office will be to develop and coordinate the implementation of a comprehensive national strategy to secure the United States from terrorist threats or attacks. The Office will coordinate the executive branch's efforts to detect, prepare for, prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks within the United States”(Wikipedia). The department is comprised of 22 agencies already in existence. The idea behind creating the department was to increase interoperability between agencies and increase information sharing among the various groups. The agencies under the Department of Homeland Security umbrella include the U.S Coast Guard, the U.S Secret Service, U.S Customs and Border Control, and the Transportation Security Administration to name a few. Although the department has had much success in the last few years, it is not without its own problems.
There is much confusion over what the definition of the Department of Homeland Security is. According to Jonathan White, the confusion stems from the fact that the United States is dealing with a new concept. In the past, homeland security was considered a military responsibility. Through our military might and unique capability to project power around the globe, the United States Armed Forces were seen as the most potent weapon in protecting the homeland. However, the world has changed and the methods of protecting the Continental U.S have had to adapt as well. We are no longer fighting a war with a specific state or country; we are fighting a faceless enemy that acts under a flag and ideology of their own. This has led to an increased need for information sharing between existing agencies and the ability to react quickly through advanced communication. The purpose of the Department of Homeland Security is to create a network, so that our agencies will become interoperable and can react to terrorist threats swiftly and decisively.
Perhaps one of the most controversial policies created by the Bush Administration after the September 11 attacks is the Patriot Act. The intention of the Act is to help cut out the bureaucratic red tape, that very often hinders investigations, and to allow authorities to gain sensitive information from sources, that without the Patriot Act, might take months to receive. The act allows us to be able to move on information quickly, which is essential when dealing with these dynamic terrorist groups. However, there are people who are weary about the extended power the government has under the act. “Much controversy has arisen over section 215, which allows judges to grant government investigators ex parte orders to look into personal records (including financial, medical, phone, Internet, student or library records) on the basis of being "relevant for an on going investigation concerning international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities", rather than probable cause as outlined in the fourth amendment”(White). People who are skeptical about the act state that the Patriot Act will lead to an infringement of civil liberties such as; freedom of speech, human rights, and the right to privacy. True as this may be, it may be necessary to combat the threat of terrorism within the United States.
The 2001 Invasion of Afghanistan marked the opening shots of the United States “War on Terrorism.” The purpose of the invasion was to seek and destroy Al Qaeda warriors operating in the region, and to oust the Taliban Government that had supplied and funded Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. The attack commenced on October 7th when American and British forces began raining down Tomahawk Missiles on Al Qaeda training camps and air defense systems throughout the country. “The strikes initially focused on the area in and around the cities of Kabul, Jalalabad, and Kandahar. Within a few days, most al-Qaeda training sites had been severely damaged and the Taliban's air defenses had been destroyed” (Wikipedia). The Taliban forces quickly fell to the superior firepower of the United States and by November 2nd ,most of the Taliban forces had been completely decimated. However, this did not mean the fighting was over and in fact, is still going on. It is widely accepted that the U.S invasion has done wonders in the “War on Terrorism.” The idea behind it is that if the terrorists are on the run and are loosing their footing in their own homeland, they will not be able to plan and carry out future attacks on the United States and her allies. At the other end of the spectrum, there are those that say the invasion has made us less safe. Their thinking is that by attacking Afghanistan, we have done nothing more than enrage the Arab world, which in turn, will lead to more terrorist attacks on the United States.
On March 17 2003, President Bush addressed the nation and the world. As part of the ongoing “War on Terrorism,” he announced that war with Iraq was virtually immanent. Under the premise that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and ties to Al Qaeda, the United States felt it was necessary to remove Saddam from power. The President stated in his address that, “All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict commenced at a time of our choosing (George Bush).” The attack began shortly after the deadline passed. Within two hours of the expired deadline, explosions could be heard in Baghdad. The opening attack was called “Shock and Awe,” an idea loosely based of the German Blitzkrieg. It was thought that overwhelming fire power would shatter the resistance’s will to fight and would allow for a quick take over of the country. Within three weeks, the Iraqi government fell and most of the Iraqi Armed Forces were either killed, captured, left combat ineffective, or defected from their army. Major combat operations were declared over on May 1st 2003. However, the fighting was long from over and coalition forces are still engaged in combat with insurgents.
Supposedly, the invasion of Iraq was intended; to remove a vicious dictator who wielded WMD, liberate an oppressed people, and create a safer America in doing said objectives. According to government reports, nary a weapon of mass destruction was found, further decreasing U.S approval and support throughout the world. The War in Iraq was met with strong criticism from the very beginning. Cries of human rights abuses were heard and the fact that “the Bush administration failed to get a U.N. endorsement for war against Iraq on March 17, 2003 and began the invasion on March 20, 2003, which is seen by many as a violation of international law, breaking the UN Charter”(Wikipedia). This led to many people being against the war. Just like the war in Afghanistan, the War in Iraq was intended to make America safer. Though much of the country is now against the war, there are still many who believe we are safer for it.


PERSONAL RESPONSE


September 11 2001, was an incredibly powerful and devastating event that has affected, and will continue to affect the United States and the world as a whole. The ramifications of that day reverberate in the day-to-day events; most of us took for granted, before the attacks. The paranoia and uncertainty that was felt in the wake of the attacks was unparalleled, and for once, Americans felt unsafe in their own country. This of course, was completely unacceptable and measures had to be taken to rectify the situation. Among these measures were the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. All of which fall under the scope of initiatives created by the United States to wage a “War on Terrorism.”
There is no doubt that the Department of Homeland Security is a beneficial agency for protecting the United States against terrorist activity. One of our major weaknesses against preventing terrorist attacks came from the inability to coordinate strategic operations with coexisting agencies. Quite simply, the Department of Homeland Security paved the way for this unity. All of our agencies working independently proved to be far less affective than when they work together. This is why a system was devised to bring the agencies together. For example, it is argued by some that the police force is our most important and effective weapon in combating terrorism. Their unique ability to respond to calls of terrorist activity or attacks rapidly is unmatched by any other agency involved in homeland security. The police are more likely to come across terrorists than anyone else is because they are constantly, “out in the mix,” so to speak. When you unite a group like this with other agencies involved with homeland security priorities, you increase the effectiveness and power the two groups’ project. The same goes for all of the other agencies in the web of the Homeland Security initiative.
There is no doubt that the Patriot Act is somewhat of a hypocritical policy, in terms of what the U.S Constitution states. It does allow the government to pry into peoples affairs and does allow them to invade people’s privacy. The main reason the act has caught so much criticism is because of the increased power the government now holds because of it. In my opinion, the Patriot Act is not a threat to the typical American citizen and is probably a necessity in giving authorities the ability to respond to imminent attacks before they happen. The Patriot Act does not affect law-biding citizens and for that matter, does not effect minor criminals either. The purpose of the act is to give the freedom to investigate and too monitor known terrorist threats. The Patriot Act, properly administered, will assist in the prevention of future terrorist attacks on the homeland, creating a safer climate for all of us to live in.
Perhaps the most controversial and extreme efforts inspired by the “War on Terrorism,” are the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Above all other initiatives implemented by the Bush Administration, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq are the most direct approaches the United States has taken toward combating terrorism. It is my contention that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have made the United States safer from terrorist attacks. By going after the terrorists, instead of letting them come to you, you keep them on the run and effectively limit their ability to plan and carry out terrorist attacks. The fact of the matter is, that the terrorists are to busy fighting the U.S, to strike us again. This is not to say that they are unable to hit us, but the war makes it considerably more difficult for the terrorists to carry out an offensive. Ultimately, the United States will prevail in Iraq and lay a foundation for a democratic Iraqi Government. Once this is achieved, the terrorist networks will begin to unfold and the likelihood of attacks will decrease. It will take patients, but at the end of the day, the world will be a safer place for having dismantled two terrorist countries.

2006-10-05 12:16:33 · 15 answers · asked by quarterback 2

We all know the Democrats are against Bush. That has been well documented for over 5 years.
I have yet to hear any ideas or plans from the Democrat leadership on the war on terror, illegal immigration, domestic spending.....or anything else that could be debated. So what are Democrats actually voting for?

2006-10-05 12:10:58 · 22 answers · asked by babe 2

2006-10-05 12:02:29 · 10 answers · asked by Docktor Worm 2

That the USA is about to enter a totalitarian state?

I mean our constitutional rights are being chipped away, and police are allowed to overstep their boundries to catch crime, but most people are okay with it?

Am I missing something or are we handing away our lives to what we hoped would never happen to this country?

2006-10-05 11:58:07 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

Hey Fans.

For those who didn't see the News, it has been all but confirmed today that the IRA has ceased all terrorist activites and clamped down on Illegal activites.

Now, for those who don't know the history, the British army and Royal Ulster Constabulary,aided by Loyalists, have been at a state of Guerilla War with the IRA for several decades, known as the 'Troubles'. However, under a policy change by succesive British governments, their has been a prolonged, and enforced, ceasefire. a peace-process and now a full Disarmament of the IRA's milita.

Now, i know this isn't exactly the same as the 'Global War on Terror', but does this beg the question that we need to actually talk to these people to stop this bloodshed getting any worse?

2006-10-05 11:57:38 · 10 answers · asked by thomas p 5

2006-10-05 11:50:56 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous