There is not enough national interest in such actions for the United States to sacrifice the American lives. The Afghanistan might have been seen as a country opened for a democracy, but as the attacks from 11 September showed, the American view of the spread of democracy is not viewed by the affected nations in the same light. Probably because these interventions had not yet ended by the time Kirkpatrick finished her book, she focused only briefly on these issues. She did nevertheless consider the US involvement as potentially unsuccessful. In the case of Afghanistan, there would be a point of trying to institute a democratic regime if it was right after the won Afghan war from 1980’s.
Leadership Transformational-charismatic Before the election, President Barack Obama attracted the attention of American's and foreigners alike with a seemingly charismatic nature. A charismatic leader has an uncanny ability to draw others to his side and move them to accomplish a cause bigger than themselves. A charismatic approach is transformational if it invokes a permanent change in the people who embrace the leader's vision. During his first term, President Obama wooed at least some to his vision by showing the potential to make a huge difference in both domestic and foreign affairs. Cross-Cultural-Global Leadership Under the Bush Administration, America's image lost much of its shine.
In other cases, the state lacks the capacity or will to take action. And it’s also not possible for America to simply deploy a team of Special Forces to capture every terrorist. Even when such an approach may be possible, there are places where it would pose profound risks to our troops and local civilians -- where a terrorist compound cannot be breached without triggering a firefight with surrounding tribal communities, for example, that pose no threat to us; times when putting U.S. boots on the ground may trigger a major international crisis.” (President Obama, 2013) There are several international events in the past that can be traced back to a foreign policy created after the Civil War. * Platt Amendment of 1901, which allowed the U.S. to militarily intervene in Cuba whenever revolution threatened, would be one of the earlier actions that serve as an example of the U.S. interfering when we were not wanted. There was a lot of resentment from Cubans because they argued that it took away their independence.
Well the answer to this questions is no. According to CNN, “The CIA had quite a bit of information about two of the hijackers and their presence in the United States before 9/11,” and their threat reports was shared with Bush administration official but even after multiple warnings, the Bush administration was not able to respond to these threats appropriately (Bergen P). Even though it is clear that NSA spying would not resolve in the prevention of such a detrimental terrorist attack, it is still their reason on continuing the program. The NSA also did not prevent the Boston bombing on April 15, 2013, which killed three people and wounded more than 260 people (Levitz J). The NSA spends around $2 billion each year but the results that the government is getting is not quite promising (Sahadi J).
The first amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…” (Bill of Rights). Freedom of speech is a good example of the limitations we have as US citizens because we are not permitted to use that amendment if it affects public safety. For example, we are not allowed to say that we have a bomb in an airplane when it is not true. As long as it does not provoke any other consequences in other people we can use the first amendment. The second amendment works the same way; we have the right to have a gun as long as it does not interfere with public safety,
I think that this attack didn’t cause a dramatic effect as 9/11 because the thought was that Mr. McVeigh acted alone and he was an American so nobody thought that there was a need for a forming of an agency such as the Department of Homeland Security. This attack was still early in the terrorist threat in America. I think since he was an American no one thought much of it. At first they did think it was connected to the first world trade center attack, but later it was determined that it was not. The first attack on the world trade center was an active of terrorism from someone who was not of American decent.
With the election of President Barack Obama, some that oppose that weapons ban are fearful of the impending changes in the law, which has affected gun owners such as me. The assault weapons ban that may possibly be reinstated in the coming years will infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens to bear arms, and will not prevent criminals from criminal uses of guns. First and foremost, I must state that I am a law abiding gun owner, however I do not own an assault rifle. In addition, I have no plans nor desire to own an assault rifle in the future. However, I have family and friends who are law abiding citizens who do own assault rifles which were purchased legally with background checks.
Throughout the better part of the 1950′s, Eisenhower’s national security strategy insured that there was no military superpower confrontation. Because Eisenhower had doubts that a “limited war” would remain such, his over-all national security policy, called the “New Look,” was based on the unstoppable nuclear striking power of Strategic Air Command. During this period of relative peace, Democrat political opponents and social-science civilian theorists were in constant chorus that the New Look Massive Retaliation was simply too risky for the country and the world. In spite of the Massive Retaliation doctrine’s success in preventing conflict between the U.S. and Soviet Union, in 1961 President Kennedy and his civilian social-science theorists rewrote the rules of war, conceiving and implementing a replacement doctrine they dubbed “Flexible Response” to counter client proxy warfare. It was at this point that we completely departed from the strategic thinking that had won World War II.
A person can either allow a person to harm them or fight and in some cases even kill. The stand your ground rule is very controversial. Many argue that just because a person is being attacked does not give them the right to kill. Although, two wrongs don’t make a right, but when protecting yourself, the only thing that is on a person’s heart is making it out of the situation alive. In my opinion, the rule does not lead to more crime, simply because "There's nothing in the statute that provides for any kind of aggressive action in terms of pursues and confront”.
We can control our own actions whether they are right or wrong and be held accountability for them. We can teach others from right and wrong. We cannot control the actions of others even if they are good, but we can definitely hold them accountability for the wrong actions. Having more information about the timeline and events of 9-11 makes me wonder if the President would have acted on some of the information would so many people have died that day. President George W. Bush declared, “Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America.