| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "AMERICA WAR TERROR": |
|
|
America's War on Terror, 2006.
This paper examines America's ongoing battle in fighting worldwide terrorism.
1,528 words (approx. 6.1 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 50.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper analyzes America's position regarding global terror and questions whether U.S. wars foster worldwide hatred of Americans. The writer of this paper contends that the ongoing U.S. war on terrorism is misguided and can only promise more terrorism as a result. This paper examines the fundamentals of terrorism, which need to be understood as a means of waging warfare, usually adopted by those who possess significant strategic and militaristic shortcomings. This paper details President Bush's stance on terrorism, which became clear at the September 2002 national debate. In his speech, of which various portions of the text are cited in this paper, Bush laid out what he believed to be the primary function of the U.S. government. While many people have applauded Bush's active policy against terrorism and supported his reasoning behind the war in Iraq, there are those, like former president Jimmy Carter who feel differently. This paper touches on Carter's 2002 speech in which the former presidents brought up a number of problems he had with the movement towards Iraq. This paper also discusses the manner in which the Bush administration has chosen a particular perspective, that is intended to justify the employment of the U.S. military as a tool in rooting out terrorism.
From the Paper
"Not everyone has been as enchanted by Bush's war on terrorism as Charles Colson. Jimmy Carter, in his speech to the Nobel committee in December of 2002 brought up a number of the problems he sees with the movement towards Iraq as an aspect of the war on terrorism. He quotes Ralph Bunche as having said, "To suggest that war can prevent war is a base play on words and a despicable form of warmongering." A more concrete objection is the continued unilateral actions of the United States under the Bush regime. He states, "If we accept the premise that the United Nations is the best avenue for maintenance of peace, then the carefully considered decisions of the United Nations Security Council must be enforced." This is a criticism of Bush's continued assertion that the United States needs to continue working through the United Nations, while simultaneously operating without its support."
| |
|
A 'Global War against Terrorism' and Social Movements in America, 2002.
Discusses anti-war social movements in North America, focusing on the United States' all-out war on terrorism.
1,400 words (approx. 5.6 pages), 5 sources, $ 53.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper begins with an analysis of an on-line article that refers to the American "attack" on terrorism. The article assumes an anti-war stance and this essay examines the social movements of anti-war sentiments in relation to this particular article, as well as in relation to other anti-war movements in America. It is a sociological analysis of social collectives, and describes both American and Canadian anti-war movements, with direct reference to U.S. military and politics.
| |
|
Rhetoric of the War on Terror vs. the Cold War, 2008.
An analysis of the power of the definition of terms such as "Cold War" and "War on Terror."
1,288 words (approx. 5.2 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 43.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper compares the rhetoric and arguments that surround the Cold War and the War on Terror. It discusses how the definition of terms such as "Cold War" or "War on Terror" has a large impact upon how these wars are viewed. The paper argues that those who define and utilize the terms, primarily governments, often do so with ulterior motives, with the understanding that the one who controls the definition also controls the methodology of approach and influences public attitudes.
From the Paper
"The orthodox interpretation of the Cold War, for instance, stated that the beginning of the Cold War can be traced to the Soviet attempt to expand its sphere of control into Eastern Europe. This theory notes that the Soviets violated treaties made during the war to limit its reach. Thus, the U.S. is portrayed as acting in a purely defensive way to protect itself and stem the expansion of communism worldwide, through such strategies as the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan. This standard view of the Cold War, which certainly had much evidence in its favor, began to be questioned in the 1960s, as the failure of the Vietnam War, then a major theater of operations in which the U.S. faced off the communist expansion, became impossible to ignore. Some writers around that time began to argue that the U.S. itself was an "empire" with global reach, not unlike many other empires throughout history, and thus was not solely in a defensive position against its opponent. More recent writers, notably Noam Chomsky, make a similar argument. Related to this critique of U.S. actions is the argument that the U.S. economic motivation, to force all nations in the world to open themselves to U.S. trade and economic influence, is also a source of worldwide conflict and opposition, both during the Cold War and during the current War on Terror (Richelson and Evans)."
| |
|
War in Iraq War on Terror, 2007.
A discussion of how the war in Iraq and war on terror became linked as election issues.
2,646 words (approx. 10.6 pages), 13 sources, MLA, $ 79.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this paper the author argues that the war in Iraq was utilized as a persuasive tool to win an election, in which the war was linked to the more global and less definable "war on terrorism." The author further contends that in the 2004 presidential elections the voters were seeking security, and therefore they linked the two issues. This paper demonstrates that the war on terror and the war in Iraq are not connected and in fact contraindicated for the long term safety of the US, specifically with regard to future acts of terrorism. Salient quotes from primary and secondary sources are used to support the author's thesis.
From the Paper
"The importance and reality of this link are now being questioned at every level. People, in both high and low places are questioning the validity of the connection and asking if this aggressive move, on the part of the US, even in the face of much international opposition was in fact appropriate to improve security in the US and her interests all over the world. The political positioning that has become increasingly obvious has undermined the faith of individuals in the nature and necessity of the War in Iraq, as people feel they were sold a bill of goods, rather than leveled with in regards to the strategic importance of the Iraq in the global war on terrorism in both the short and log term. In fact this work argues that the only connection between the war on terrorism and the War on Iraq is that the later has and will continue to serve to increase terrorist activities and actions against the US, no matter how the government spins it."
| |
|
The War on Terrorism and the War on Drugs, 2002.
An examination of the similarities and differences between the fight against drugs and terror.
940 words (approx. 3.8 pages), 7 sources, MLA, $ 33.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
An analysis of the relationship between the war on terrorism and the war on drugs. Part II discusses the similarities between the war on terrorism and the war on drugs. In Part III, the relationship between the war on terrorism and the war on drugs is outlined. Lastly, this paper concludes with recommendations for effectively dealing with the war on terrorism and the war on drugs.
From the Paper
"Few events in life have the potential to impact each and every single member of society, whether it is on a macro (indirect) or micro (direct) level. Even fewer such events actually do impact every single citizen. The Columbine school shootings, the Kent State university shootings, the Oklahoma city bombings, Pearl Harbor, and Vietnam are just a few of the events which are forever embedded into the psyche of millions of Americans. On September 11, 2001, two airplanes crashed into the World Trade Center buildings in New York, another airplane crashed into the Pentagon, and a fourth airplane crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. In addition to the sheer magnitude of these airplane crashes, what makes these crashes notable is the fact that all four airplanes were hijacked by suspected terrorists. As a result of these horrific terrorist attacks, thousands of individuals lost their lives in an instant, countless others were left to stand by helplessly, to learn to rebuild their lives without their loved ones."
| |
|
The War Against Terrorism, 2002.
Questions whether America's war against terrorism should be considered a 'just' or 'unjust' war.
1,150 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 7 sources, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Is there such a thing as a "just war?" We Americans mostly feel so, such as in 1941, when Pearl Harbor was attacked and in 1991, when we assisted Kuwait in its fight against Iraq. Other wars, most notably the Vietnam War, virtually tore this nation apart. Every day we were in Vietnam, there was almost as much press coverage given to the nationwide protests as to reports about the war itself. Now, Americans are once again fighting, but this time a different kind of foe. Is it a just war, as proffered by luminaries such as Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and others?
| |
|
The War on Terror - Threats to Civil Liberties, 2008.
A look at the growing concern at the loss of civil liberties in the US, which are guaranteed by the Constitution, in order to fight the war on terror.
1,024 words (approx. 4.1 pages), 5 sources, APA, $ 36.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper discusses the topic of the war on terrorism in America. Specifically it discusses how the American war on terrorism has created numerous threats to civil liberties in the USA. The paper states that many Americans fear the threat of another terrorist attack, and believe the government has the right to take any measures necessary to keep that from happening. The paper concludes that many of the government's tactics threaten the civil liberties of Americans, a topic that is often overlooked in the war on terrorism.
From the Paper
"However, there are many areas where experts show American civil liberties are being threatened or decreased. For example, recent Congressional inquiries and votes indicate the concern over loss of civil liberties when it comes to phone surveillance and records. After 9/11, the US Patriot Act modified many rules and regulations regarding gathering foreign and domestic intelligence. One of the most controversial was the ability to wiretap or listen to phone, wireless phone, and email communications. Before 9/11, there were stringent guidelines on what type of communication could be wiretapped, and suspects who were wiretapped had to be notified if the evidence collected could be used against them in court. The Patriot Act relaxed these rules, making it much easier for agencies to wiretap both foreign and domestic phone calls, with little or no provocation. This means that the government essentially can listen to any conversation they want to, whether they believe it has a relationship to the war on terror, or not, which is clearly a violation of the right to privacy guaranteed in the Constitution (Etzioni 52). A recent bill would have absolved communications companies of any liability in these wiretapping cases, but Congress defeated that bill, indicating the growing concern over the loss of civil liberties."
| |
|
Assessment of War on Terrorism, 2004.
Assesses the war on terrorism through the application of the most appropriate and relevant concepts in international relations theory.
991 words (approx. 4.0 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper proposes that the best assessment of the war on terror must apply the appropriate and relevant concepts in international relations theory and that such an application will encourage a consensus and commitment to the basic ideology underlying the war on terrorism. Further, the paper suggests that there is a strong case to establish that the war on terrorism has seen the United States practicing hegemonic stability theory, and then goes on to expound on this theory and explain why this approach is in the interests of the U.S. and democracy worldwide.
From the Paper
"America?s ideology and consequently, foreign affairs policy changed dramatically in the aftermath of the security dilemma created by September 11th. Ever since Vietnam, the American public?s reluctance to engage in military intervention overseas has been an influential factor in foreign policy decisions. September 11th changed that view and opinion polls showed more than 90% approval for the placement of ground troops in Afghanistan, while 87% showed understanding that this unconventionally defined war will be a long one (Pobst)."
| |
|
The Presidential View on the War on Terrorism, 2004.
A discussion of the 2004 Presidential candidates and their views on the war on terrorism.
2,521 words (approx. 10.1 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 76.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The 2004 presidential campaign illustrated the disparity in opinions on exactly what the war on terrorism should include. The major political candidates, Ralph Nader, John Kerry and George W. Bush, all had strong opinions on what they felt should be done, in order to keep America safe. It is these three positions that this paper analyzes. The paper includes a detailed explanation of each candidate's position on the war on terrorism. In addition, the reasoning behind their positioning is discussed. The strengths and weaknesses of their views on terror are evaluated. The paper finally looks at the impact their position had on the outcome of the 2004 election.
From the Paper
"Since September 11th, 2001, the war on terrorism has been an important part of American security and American candidate's political strategy. Although most Americans would agree that they do not wish America to fall victim to another terror attack, whether at home or abroad, there is a wide chasm of how this war should be conducted and what it should entail. From pacifists to war mongers and the majority of mainstream Americans somewhere in between, the war on terrorism is still a topic, even three years after the attacks on September 11th, and will continue to be for the foreseen future."
| |
|
Just Wars and Terrorism, 2001.
A brief description and analysis of just war theory, with particular emphasis on 9/11 and the subsequent and renowned 'War on Terror' in Afghanistan.
1,376 words (approx. 5.5 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 46.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper provides a definition of war and terrorism and debates whether war should happen at all and if so by what means. It looks at how the controversy also centres on who or what the war is against, giving rise to speculation about the nature of terrorism and its definition. It uses as an example the attack on 11th September 2001 and examines whether war was the most effective and tangible means of eradicating the immediate terrorist network in Afghanistan.
Outline
Can There Ever Be A Just War?
A Case in Question - The 'War on Terrorism' in Afghanistan
Can War Ever Be Just?
From the Paper
"The sheer scale of the attack on 11th September is perhaps the most commanding case for the justifiability of commencing a war on the perpetrators. War certainly seems the most effective and tangible means of eradicating the immediate terrorist network in Afghanistan-ostensibly terrorist leader Osama Bin Laden and his associates. Yet the public are far from convinced. It seems that, since the Enlightenment, people tend to have an inhumane concept of war-a bloody evil to be avoided at all costs. "
| |
|
The War on Terror, 2004.
An essay on Bush's war on terror hinting at the hypocrisy behind Bush's motivation for the war.
2,726 words (approx. 10.9 pages), 5 sources, APA, $ 81.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This essay discusses the motivations behind Bush's war on terror and the role the U.S. plays in a global war. The paper suggests that the 'war on terror' is not altruistic and that there are ulterior motives behind it and, in pursuing these goals, the actions of the U.S. government are not far removed from terrorism.
From the Paper
"September 11th 2001 was considered, by most, to be the day that the worst ever terrorist attack took place. Millions of people throughout the world watched as the media brought us live coverage of the events unfolding in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. Our TV's were dominated with visions of people jumping from extreme heights in a desperate attempt for a chance of survival and then, with the eventual collapse of the twin towers of the World Trade Centre and the knowledge that thousands of lives had been taken right before our eyes. We heard the calls made by those on the flight that was brought down in Pennsylvania, as they phoned family members to say goodbye, aware that they were going to die. For most of us, this was the type of act that occurred in films and the only emotion that outweighed the shock was anger, as there appeared to be no reason for this atrocity. The sympathy of people all over the world went out to the Americans as the media coverage of the aftermath continued."
| |
|
Just War and Fighting Terrorism, 2002.
Looks at the seven criteria of the Just War theory and how the theory applies to the present war against terrorism.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 2 sources, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This essay discusses how the Just War theory applies to the present war against terrorism. Its seven criteria apply to the just war against terrorism.
| |
|
Media and the War on Terror, 2006.
An essay looking at media representation of the War on Terror.
2,250 words (approx. 9.0 pages), 6 sources, $ 89.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This essay discusses the role of media in the war on terrorism. The paper asserts that media provides a pre-packaged hysteria that has dominated both U.S. rhetoric and mainstream media, who, at times, are joining forces to create cynicism about the global war on terror. In short, it is a business, a product. If people are scared, they are going to want to know what is going on, driving both the medium and the message; even if it is, at times, difficult to tell exactly who is wagging the dog.
From the Paper
"At a media event last fall, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told soldiers at a Florida base how to combat growing confusion about the war on terror. Acknowledging that soldiers could find themselves fielding queries about America's goals, Rumsfeld briefed soldiers like a spin-doctor, printing off a figurative sound bite to keep handy in their hip pockets. "Tell those who ask such questions that you...are standing on the front lines to protect them and to safeguard their freedoms... And you can tell them something else: America is not what's wrong with this world."
| |
|
The War on Terror, 2003.
A discussion on whether Bush's 'War on Terror' can be considered a fight for freedom or a fight for supremacy.
2,716 words (approx. 10.9 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 81.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper considers how the power and supremacy of the U.S. was threatened by the September 11th attacks and how the resulting 'war on terror' is simply revenge by the U.S. for threatening their status as a superpower. It outlines the events the occurred after the attacks and argues that the so-called, ?war on terror? appears to be nothing more than a mission to re-assert the dominance of the U.S. over nations. It puts forward the stance that the attack on Afghanistan was unjust to hold a whole country responsible for the actions of one group.
From the Paper
"Bush portrayed his ?war on terror? as a fight for freedom and justified his attack on Afghanistan by suggesting that ridding the country of Taliban rule and terrorist activity would free its citizens and benefit citizens all over the world. However, Hudson (2002) suggests that freedom of citizens is not at the forefront of US policy: ?Human rights violations are likely to be ignored if they take place in a country that does not have any material or strategic importance to the US.? (Scraton, 2002, p197). This issue is backed further by the sudden US acknowledgement of the suppression caused by the Taliban. Soon after the September 11 attacks Cherie Blair and Barbara Bush started lecturing the world about the suppression of women under Taliban rule."
| |
|
The War against Drugs and Terror, 2005.
A detailed, opinionated policy proposal addressing the global wars on terror and drugs.
1,557 words (approx. 6.2 pages), 8 sources, MLA, $ 51.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the domestic and international drug and terror war reform. he paper attempts to illustrate the link between the war on drugs and the war on terror, explaining that these are becoming a unified, global dilemma. The paper presents a policy proposal that will improve investigation and prevention techniques used internationally and domestically, with the goal of decreasing drug trafficking in countries also known to be high terrorist breeding grounds.
From the Paper
"Throughout the years numerous policy attempts have been made to subdue the threat of terror as well as the global drug problem; however combined efforts have fallen short of achieving their goals. This, in part has to do with the accompanying factors to global problems such as; current events, the media and constituent's beliefs. These all weigh heavily and influence the agenda of policy makers and administrations. After September 11, 2001, the democratic world was shaken and the true threat of terrorism was unmistakably evident. This created a global demand for justice against Afghanistan's Taliban regime, claimed to be protecting Al-Qaeda, the organization responsible for the terrorist acts. Now, there are new actors in the realm of mass terror, and this includes Columbia."
|
|
|
