assess the logic of national security policies including war on a variety of problems?
547660
there is no policy, only vested interests
337472
Whatever you are planning : military attack or business\nI think you need to read "The Art of the War" by Sun Tzu.
634881
War costs money!\n\nOne complete sentence.
784186
Option 1: take a controversial topic and defend one side. (like abortion, immigration, national security, homosexuality, etc.)\n\nOption 2: take a ridiculous topic and defend one side (like "the sky is purple" "people should eat elephants" "convicts should eat each other" "Canada should annex Zimbabwe" etc"\n\nOption 3: take a mediocre topic and talk about it (like "people are good" "I should have an A on this presentation" etc.)
206376
Military: collateral damage\nMafia: Fixed that leaky faucet\nPolitics: Plausible Deniability
215172
http://humanitiesconference.com/ProposalSystem/Presentations/P001314\nhttp://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/\n\nHope it helps :-)
58655
whether you feel going to war is ever right or wrong or even reasonably justificative historically most policies of entering armed conflict were necessary including the current war on terror. Those that have the power to take a nation into war undoubltly realize the horribleness of extending the military to fullfill policy. War drains national resources and most importantly it drains on the citizens. Its obvious that the war currently going on in Iraq and Afghanistan are wars of vindication and weren't jumped into because Soldiers just needed someplace new to go hang out in. There has always been bad blood with Iran and the US. At one time in the 70s US citizens where held violently by the Iranian government. Saying this would the US policy makers run their tanks across the borders? No more than the President would attack China.  A country just having WMD isn't the only reason to go to war. A blockade and diplomatic pressure would be enough to remove a perceived threat in this case.
79610
specify the debate topic please...if you have to make one up i would say either birth control/abortion rights, women's rights/feminism, the necessity of the war in iraq, or same-sex marriage/homosexiality...all of which are good topics which could create a nice debate
4830
Nope. Let's look at the different rationales for war:\n1) WMDs: none found.\n2) Link with Al Qaeda: none proven.\n3) Make Iraq safe for democracy: not accomplished.\n4) Take the fight to the enemy: well, perhaps, but invading an arbitrary Middle Eastern country is hardly the way to go about doing this.\n5) Fight the war on terror: nope. The war in Iraq hasn't decreased terrorist attacks at all; rather, Iraq has become a magnet for terrorists.\n6) Make America safer: it's impossible to prove one way or the other, but any added safety we have is at the cost of the lives of American troops and Iraqi civilians.
370976
1) Correctly implemented policy for proper economic growth. Slow growth based on actual production is preferable to boom growth based off of hype. The economy is in good shape. Granted more has to be done now that the economy is on the right track, to cut spending back down in certain areas, but the spending was necessary to properly boost the economy and support the military actions.\n2) Has a focus on homeland security and taking the battle to terrorists instead of giving them more opportunities to attack on American soil.\n3) Sticks to his guns. Follows through. Not every decision is right, but he follows through on actions til conclusion.
366183
politic:presidents\n\npolicy:someting you have to be polite and follow like honsty is the best POLICY
409244
military is a tool. like a hammer, its used for force when all other options are exhausted. origonally it was strictly for defense only. war is profitable to the few who have the power & authority to wage it. entangling alliances is always the excuse to get into war, profit is the motive. somehow we strayed from individual liberty to a proactive intrusionist mentality.
187088
1.  I wouldn't cut taxes and increase spending at the same time.\n\n2.  I wouldn't start a war with a country that did nothing to us.\n\n3.  I wouldn't go out of my way to insure the terrorists become even more angry at us.\n\n4.  I wouldn't lie about a major point of fact when there is a tape proving the statement is a lie.\n\n5.  I would try to avoid breaking the law whenever possible (wiretaps anyone?).\n\n6.  I wouldn't work to errode our consitutional rights.\n\n7.  I wouldn't try to appoint justices how are likely to work to set civil rights back 100 years.\n\n8.  I wouldn't take so many damn vacactions.  Then again, we're probably better off when he isn't in the White House.\n\n9.  I wouldn't surround myself with neo-nazis and warmongers.\n\n10. I wouldn't pretend that science doesn't exist.\n\n11.  I would appologize to the allies we've already pissed off and try to avoid doing any more harm to international politics.  We need our allies.  Especially when we're running around the Middle East starting wars.
721484
Because when you are dealing with politics you must not expect things to be logical.
1152712
For all global conflicts see:\n\nhttp://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/
849989
National Interests overides any ethical issues im afraid. its how the game works if somebody can help you, no matter how bad they may be as long as the state acheives its aims, the means is of little consequence. Look at the current "friendship" with Pakistan. Look at how we have always supported Saudi Arabia. And with regards to Iraq we supported both Iran & Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, where is the logic in that? the logic is all about the $ my friend its what this whole sorry affair is about.\n\nAnd if you havent seen it I advise you watch "loose Change" its available for free all over the internet you seem like someone who would take quite an interest in this Documentary.
957384
Realism an inclination toward literal truth and pragmatism?  Is that your understanding of the word?\nIf so, I would hope it excludes wishful thinking.  \nThat seems to be the driving force in our Iraq policy.\nEdit - \nA little extra, maybe the root  of the question.\nRealism promotes short-term gain, often at the expense of long-term security.\nhttp://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009239\n\nAfter reading this I should change my answer.