User:Katherinemariem/sandbox

Forever War

 * Alternative definitions?


 * Different “Forever Wars” & why they are considered forever wars

The War on Terror

How did 9/11 lead to the longest war in US history:


 * Wanted to declare war, didn’t know who to declare it on
 * Vague legislations put in place that lead to no real defined enemies, geographies or timeframes
 * ’60 Words’ of Legislations:

“In the hours after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, a lawyer sat down in front of a computer and started writing a legal justification for taking action against those responsible. The language that he drafted and that President George W. Bush signed into law - called the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) -  has at its heart one single sentence, 60 words long. Over the last decade, those 60 words have become the legal foundation for the "war on terror.

Timothy goes to last time this was used, Iraq War and uses it as template and sends off, sets in motion crazy events
 * Important to project unity, congress declares war, pres has a clear mandate
 * Authorization to use force: AUMF


 * US starts attacks, strikes, detaining people for long time, ect. All over the place – Libya, Somalia,
 * Document is legal foundation for everything the US has done

“That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on 9/11 or harbor such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons” - Written by layer Timothy Flanagan

→ These words lead to argueably longest war In history

→ Barabara Lee (congresswoman from Berkely) * Was at Capitol when 9/11 pentagon attack * 72 hrs after reviewing the “60 words” drafts * worried about the language * concerns outweighed by desire for unity * 420-1, She was only person in senate and house to cast a NO vote * BROAD LANGUAGE


 * “Associated Forces” – term used constantly to cover pretty much everything

== Obama National Defense University Speech == * Again allowing the broad terminology * Laying new foundation for when the AUMP ends, to justfy actions
 * War Must end, wants to get rid of 60 words and end war
 * Announces only using drone strikes when there is an imminent
 * “Imminent threat”

The War on Terror
Traditionally, the term War referred to the physical and conventional act of engaging in armed conflict. However, the implications of what war entails has evolved over time. The War on Terror has often been cited as a forever war, being a war with “no specific battlefield and the enemy isn’t an army”. [4] The War on Terror has been directed at countless 'enemies' as it has no clear target. Georgetown University Historian Bruce Hoffman describes traditional war as a war that "ends with the vanquishing of an opponent, with some form or armistice or truce- some kind of surrender instrument or document". [5] In contrast, The War on Terror continues to rage on, with no end in sight.

The War on Terror arose after the September 11th Terrorist Attacks in the United States of America. As a response, the United States government were looking to declare war, unfortunately they did not know who to declare it on. In the hours following the attack, The Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) began to take form. American lawyer Timothy Flanigan was tasked with constructing the legislation that would become the framework as a basis for the War on Terror. [6] This document has been the legal justification for the United States War on Terror. With extremely vague wording and broad language, the AUMF allowed for the President to justify attacks, strikes, detainments and countless other military actions under the premise of protecting American citizens and avenging the September 11th attacks.

“That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on 9/11 or harbor such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons”[edit source] [7]

These words lead to arguably the longest war in American history. [8]

The War on Drugs Main article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs

The 1960's gave birth to a rebellious movement that popularized drug use. "Hippies" sought to expand their minds with the use of hallucinogens like LSD, whilst many soldiers returned from the Vietnam War with heroin habits. Demand for drugs skyrocketed in the 1960's.

In June 1971, President Nixon declared a “war on drugs.” He dramatically increased the size and presence of federal drug control agencies, and pushed through measures such as mandatory sentencing and no-knock warrants.

The Federal Bureau of Narcotics also used propaganda as a preventative measure. Myths and horror stories were spread about drugs. Marijuana was blamed for bizarre cases of insanity, murder, and sex crimes.

In 1971, after a failed experimental and controversial methadone maintenance program, Nixon addressed Congress and declared "as long as there is a demand, there will be those willing to take the risks of meeting the demand ." In this statement, he publicly proclaimed that all efforts of interdiction and eradication are destined to fail.

Not learning from past presidents, President Reagan gave a speech in 1981 that mirrored that of Nixon's 10 years prior. He believed it was more effective to take the customers away from the drug, rather than take the drugs from the customers. The average annual funding for eradication and interdiction programs increased from $437 million during Carter's presidency to $1.4 billion during Reagan's first term.

Reagan's initiatives focused on "getting tough" on drugs. The 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse act gave the drug user full accountability. Users were to be prosecuted for possession and accordingly penalized. This demand side of drug policy reflects a colonial, moralist view of addiction.

Since the initial declaration of a "War on Drugs" in 1971, the United States has: 1) Put half a million people in prison: $10 Billion per year 2) Spent billions on expanded law enforcement 3) Fomented violence and death (in gang turf wars, overdoses, shared needles/AIDS) 4) Eroded civil rights (property can be confiscated BEFORE you are found guilty) 5) Enriched criminal organizations

A war that seemingly has no end. A war fought for all sorts of reasons, none of them clear. This "war" was approached differently by each consecutive president, none of whom were successful to any degree in the eradication or control of drugs in the U.S..

Katherinemariem (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Article Evaluation
Article Title: Statism

I choose this article because we have studied Statism in class while studying international borders.

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic?

I found that everything in the article to be relevant to the topic, though there was not extensive information on statism directly.

is the article neutral?

I found the article to remain neutral throughout, it briefly depicts the different forms of statism.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented?

The article focuses more heavily on economic statism.

Citations work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

The citations do work, are appropriately place and seem the support the article's claims.

Is each fact reference with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from?

''The references could be better, each fact is not referenced. There is not the recommended minimum of one source per paragraph. For example, 'State interventionism' does not have a reference.''

Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

''The sources are not entirely neutral, though most are and come from reliable sources, including multiple peer reviewed journals, such as Harvard University Press. One source that may be considered bias is the repeated reference to the works of Ayn Rand in defining statism. This author "has had continuing influence on right wing politics and libertarianism" ''. This may prevent the author's work from being deemed neutral.

Is anything missing that could be added?

The article certainly has space for additions, it is not very long and has room for additions in all aspects.

Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

''I was surprised by the huge amount of behind the scenes discussion on this relatively small article. The main argument seem to stem around the opinion that the original author if trying to push an agenda and failing to remain objective. The discussions seem to get quite testy, with mud-slinging and various heated arguments. One main argument is whether the article itself deserves to be more extensive or if it would be better served as a simple definition. My understanding is that this article has been much more extensive previously, but extreme differences in opinion has resulted in it being quite small.''

Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

This article is of interest to WikiProject Socialism, WikiProject Politics, and WikiProject Libertarianism.