In a democracy, what is the proper relationship and balance between security and liberty?
How would you evaluate President Bush's decision to go to war in Afghanistan
and Iraq?
How does the Global War on Terror compare to past military conflicts, such as
World War II or Vietnam?

Policies that make the nation more secure, particularly against foreign threats, do not necessarily undermine its people's liberty. Protecting individual liberty does not invariably hobble the nation's defense.

Explanation:

I would say that President Bush's decision to invade Afghanistan and Iraq was a poor one, we have been at war for more the 17 years and have lost many soldiers. It put American soldiers in needless danger.

The war against terror is different than the WWII mostly because we started the war on terror, it became an offensive fight rather than a defensive one. Especially since all the allies started this war together, led mainly by the U.S.

Vietnam is an entirely different thing on it's own, we should have never gone to Vietnam, we broke more then we fixed. If you want specifics about any of the reasons I'm talking about, you'll need to actually read so articles about all of these wars, the mentality behind them and the outcome can only be fully understood by reading about them.

"the royal proclamation of 1763"

the civil war was a fulfillment and completion of the constitution, not a revolution against it. changes in culture and society surely affected political life. lincoln hoped to bring the north and south together after the war by healing the nationand making people lose their resentment.

hope this you out just took thus test a min go and mad a 100