| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "WAR TERRORISM": |
|
|
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 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."
| |
|
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 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."
| |
|
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 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. "
| |
|
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.
| |
|
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."
| |
|
The War Against Terrorism, 2004.
This paper focuses on the language and rhetoric used after September 11 and throughout the war on terror.
1,800 words (approx. 7.2 pages), 8 sources, MLA, $ 63.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the language and rhetoric used after September 11 and throughout the war on terror. The paper studies the remarks and the choice of language used by government leaders and the Bush Administration and analyzes their effects.
From the Paper
"Like any avalanche this one started at the top and likely dates back to the moment after when President Bush warned the world's nations: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists." From Bush on down in the months that followed, government officials drew limits around acceptable speech. Alisa Solomon quotes White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer in "The Nation" who told Americans to watch what they say."
| |
|
War On Terrorism, 2002.
A comparison of 2 country's policies towards the war on terrorism, Russia and the USA.
1,150 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 3 sources, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This is a paper comparing the United States and Russia's "war on terrorism". The paper looks at whether there will be cooperation between Russia and the United States.
| |
|
War on Terrorism, 2004.
An analysis of the book, "Before and After: U.S. Foreign Policy and the War on Terrorism", by Phyllis Bennis.
1,401 words (approx. 5.6 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 46.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to introduce, discuss, and analyze the book, "Before and After: U.S. Foreign Policy and the War on Terrorism", by Phyllis Bennis. Specifically it presents a book report, including a summary. "Before and After" is a book about the terrorist attacks, but it is also a book about a nation's arrogance and how the United States has turned into a world power with 'attitude'. The author shows how that is affecting our global presence and our global situation.
From the Paper
""Before and After" is a compelling book about the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States. Reading it is difficult, because it does not always convey the same sense of "patriotism" that pervaded America after the terrorist attacks, but it portrays another side of the attacks ? what led up to them ? and their aftermath. The author's main thesis for writing the book was to give a deeper understanding of the events surrounding the September 11 terrorist attacks. What actions by the US led up to the attacks, and what will the US's insistence on the pursuit terrorists on a global scale mean to us, and to the world? Bennis hopes to create more understanding of the US policies that mean so much to the entire world, and give an inkling of why so many people around the world see us as a threat and a menace."
| |
|
The War on Terrorism - Is it Justified?, 2002.
A paper which questions the justification of the United States' declaration of war on terrorism and its difficulty in defining who exactly the enemy is.
1,400 words (approx. 5.6 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 46.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
After the September 11th attack by terrorists on the World Trade Center in New York, President George Bush declared war on terrorism. But, unlike past wars where the enemy was known by face or nationality, this new form of warfare, with terrorist cells in a multitude of countries, makes the enemy much more difficult to identify. The question is therefore asked whether a declaration of war on these "evildoers" is justified.
From the Paper
"One major concern, even in the face of all the senseless horror that started this "War on Terrorism," is that we haven't found a way to clearly define exactly who the enemy is, and how and when the war will be done. This is new and uncertain territory; any of us can go to the library and find a picture of our country's leaders signing pacts with both Germany and Japan, signifying that both sides agree the war is over. Our history books show specific dates, and they are often printed on calendars. We don't have this for the "War on Terrorism." As the fighting in Afghanistan waxes and wanes, we hear government officials debating who the next targets of our warfare will be. We know the fight against the Al-Queda will continue; we are assisting the Philippines in their fight against terrorists to the benefit of both governments. But we no longer have a clear focus."
| |
|
War on Terror and Food Supply, 2002.
Discusses the effects of the War on Terror on the global food supply.
1,206 words (approx. 4.8 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 41.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explores how the War on Terror effects the citizens of the country under attack and how the people of Iraq are the ones most harmed in their day-to-day lives by the ongoing war. It discusses the issues of humanitarian aid and sanctions and how bombings can disrupt the food supply of the citizens of Iraq.
From the Paper
"The world is currently undergoing and experiencing a war waged by the United States against Iraq in the country?s (USA?s) protest and action against Iraq?s weapons of mass destruction, or WMD. This new war is talked about not only because of the destructions that are happening in Iraq, but also because of the possible effects that this event may have on all nations, especially Iraq as a nation and its people. For Iraq, the declared war against the nation implies many things to its people. Chaos became not only probable, but a reality, and with this reality comes the various detrimental effects that war can bring to humankind. One of the primary effects that war can bring to humankind is death and destruction; death to millions of innocent civilians and soldiers who fought for the war. Destruction of physical geography is also inevitable since war is primarily done to disable the enemy, and this was done by bombing all of the government buildings and significant establishments related to Saddam Hussein?s regime."
| |
|
Media and the War on Terrorism, 2002.
A paper which discusses the media?s manipulation of the war on terrorism.
3,200 words (approx. 12.8 pages), 16 sources, MLA, $ 92.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
A paper which presents a detailed discussion about the war on terrorism and the media?s manipulation of the war. The writer outlines the societal views of the US attacks on Middle Eastern soil. The writer also describes the way the media has manipulated society members regarding the attacks by refusing to cover certain issues and cooperating with the US government.
From the Paper
"One of the earliest ways that the media began to manipulate the world opinion about the United States attack in the Middle East was its coverage of Bin Laden?s reaction to the attacks on 9-11. The media on an almost world wide basis began to claim in November that Bin Laden had proclaimed credit was his for the attacks(Truth pg 10). Media in the United States, Britain, New Zealand and other nations insisted that he had admitted, ?we did it? (Truth pg 10). It was reported that he confessed on a news network in England. This would have a very heavy impact on the way society would view Bin Laden and the war against the Middle East. Until this occurred, America as well as other nations were outraged at the attacks on America which killed thousands of civilians but there was a hesitation about who to attack. "
|
|
|
