We live in a nation that is built on certain guaranteed freedoms: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as defined by Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. In addition to these freedoms comes responsiblity as well. Responsibilty to maintain this republic in the best and most suitable manner possible. As citizens and residents, we not only have the right to discuss and change this nation for the better, we have the obligation. It is this fact among others that led to the creation of this site...
Guns might seem like the end-all solution to stopping terrorist hijackings, but we can also rely on the power and anger of the fellow passengers to eliminate the threat mid-air. After 9/11, everyone on commercial planes is more alert and suspicious. I'm willing to bet that dozens of people on any given domestic flight or other U.S. flight are willing to risk being stabbed or shot to prevent the plane from being hijacked and used as a terrorist weapon. The American people are angry, and they don't need guns to eliminate terrorist activity on planes. I don't really think that airplanes will be used in the forseeable future by terrorists anyway, as that would be very predictable. We are over-reacting to the threat.
Guns are especially dangerous on planes because of the volatile nature of the craft itself. The close-quarters scuffles that result in gunshots would injure innocent passengers and put the entire plane in danger of destabilization and depressurization. I prefer riot prods if anything, because they require little training and are very effective. If planes are equipped with strong doors, thought, no weapons are needed in the first place. I'm not even sure that Sky Marshals should carry guns for similar reasons.
Well, I doubt that we’ll go into mass energy atrophy based on Hussein’s policy of using oil as a weapon against the United States (or more correctly, using the LACK of oil as a weapon. OPEC has chosen not to limit oil production to Israel supporters, which was a wise choice for them. If America was stupid enough to monopolize our oil purchasing power with one country like Iraq (which would give light to some corrupt bureaucratic standards), then we deserve to fall into serious trouble.
Recently, several drill sites around the nation (at least one) have witnessed data that suggests that oil will not be depleted, that it is in fact regenerating itself somehow. Levels of depletion are being reached later than they realistically should be. Whether this means that oil is more of a renewable resource than was previously thought, or something shady is going on in oil country (possibly a GOP cover-up), we need to make oil a serious concern before the summer prices skyrocket.
One of my favorite controversial topics is Big Oil, which I consider to be one of the most morally contemptable industries in the history of the world. It rivals that of Standard Oil and the Steel industry of years past. I believe that our government is either too blind to see what is going on here, or they receive bribes to look the other way. Big Oil has a lot of money to spend, and their profits are made through unfairly conrolling prices of a crucial product that cannot legally be obtained through any other means. Many other industries-- water and electricity namely, have certain controls put in place that seem kind of Socialist. Still, these protections are in place for a reason. Where are these restrictions on Big Oil?
Does the U.S. have the right to assassinate unsavory political leaders like Arafat and Hussein?Well, we kind of are doing something similar to this already; We're currently hunting down a certain terrorist named Osama (Usama) bin Ladin with the sole intention of bombing him to death. The only difference here is that he is not a national leader, but he does have a certain level of influence among his own people(followers, not Muslims or Afghans). As a rule, we should keep out of the business of the leaders of other countries with the following exceptions: when a leader poses a significant threat to the welfare of our nation. This could pose a problem, because perceived threats are different than real threats. We must also assassinate in the event of a Hitler or Stalin-like Holocaust if human rights violations are involved. Otherwise, I'll maintain my libertarian platform by keeping an isolationist view.
What should the U.S.'s position of the torture of captured terrorists be?
We have to ask ourselves, is Bush the President of the United States, or the President of the World? Americans have for some time seen our country as the leader of the free world, and I would have to agree in many respects. However, this doesn't change the fact that while the president may have authority over the U.S., he probably doesn't have any authority overseas. We need to learn and understand that we don't own the world. We would like to control what happens in remote locations, but otherwise we should but out. In the case of Sharon, I would like to see him pull out his tanks and troops but not just because Bush ordered him to. He should do it in order to maintain peace and order. Despite this, the Israelis are fighting a brutal and immoral enemy which has no respect for human life. The war will certainly endure for many years, whatever position the United States takes.
