The Importance of Youth in Politics #4 – Check out our latest video!
Remember to subscribe to our YouTube channel!
Thanks for watching and please do share/comment,
Digestible Politics
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Digestible-Politics/476112109093593?ref=hl
https://twitter.com/Digest_politics
What are pressure groups?
Check out our latest video explaining pressure groups!
Please like, share, comment and subscribe for more fun, easy to understand, videos 🙂
Thanks,
Digestible Politics
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Digestible-Politics/476112109093593?ref=hl
We have recently had a request for a post on the war on terror… Anyone is able to request a post idea by emailing me at digestiblepolitics@gmail.com – thanks 🙂 This topic is clearly very extensive, but of great interest and importance, so please read, enjoy and share!
This phrase, the war on terror, has been popularised by ex-president George Bush as a result of the 9/11 attacks in 2001. These attacks mobilised many countries to eliminate a number of terrorist organisations, including Al-Qaeda. This term is no longer used by Obama’s administration, but they have a similar objective of combatting terrorism by using a different phrase: Overseas Contingency Operation.
Al-Qaeda can be seen to have originated from the Soviet War in Afghanistan (1979-89). In this war the USA, UK, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and China gave their support to the Islamist mujahadeen guerillas who were fighting against the Soviet Union and the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. In the 1990s Al-Qaeda developed following sponsorship by Osama Bin Laden in the World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders (WIFJAJC). In 1998, Bin Laden declared war on the West and Israel. Later in 1998, the embassies of Kenya and Tanzania were bombed, leading to Bill Clinton – the then US president – commenced Operation Infinite Reach which aimed to bomb locations in Afghanistan and Sudan where members of WIFJAJC were believed to be. However, this operation was deemed a bit of failure as no leaders of WIFJAJC or the Taliban were killed. Just before 9/11 there was the 2000 millennium attack plots, which included an attempted bombing in LA airport and the USS Cole (a military ship) bombing.
The Authorisation for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) was brought into US law within a week of the 9/11 attacks. It allowed the American military to use any necessary force against those responsible for the attacks. Bush defined the war on terror as having the following objectives:
– Defeat terrorists and their organisations
– Identify, locate and demolish terrorists along with their organisations
– Deny sponsorship, support and sanctuary to terrorists
– Diminish the underlying conditions that terrorists seek to exploit
– Defend citizens at home and abroad
Operation Active Endeavour = NATO operation to stop movement of militant/weapons in mediterranean
Operation Enduring Freedom = this is what the Bush administration called the war in Afghanistan, alongside 3 smaller global conflicts explained below:
Afghanistan = US demanded the handing in over Bin Laden, but they refused after the US did not give evidence that Bin Laden was linked to 9/11. So, war was commenced with Taliban in Afghanistan, forcing the Taliban out of the cities to the more mountainous areas of the country. Operation Anaconda set up to kill any remaining Taliban in certain mountainous regions leading to heavy Taliban casualties. The Taliban regrouped in west Pakistan and have since kept the pressure on the USA, UK and other coalition forces. In 2010, Operation Moshtarak established to finish off the Taliban. Today, it is hoped forces will be withdrawn from Afghanistan by the end of the year.
Philippines = In 2002 forces were sent out to help the Armed Forces of the Philippines in their conflict against Filipino Islamist groups.
Horn of Africa = Although there is no specific goal, forces have been deployed here to prevent disruption and militant activity. A group called Task Force 150 was set up to control, inspect and stop shipments, if they wish, from entering the Horn of Africa. It was reported in 2006 that Bin Laden was said to have told militants to set up an Islamic state in Somalia and if anyone intervened Al-Qaeda would fight against them. Issues of terrorism (especially linked to Al-Qaeda) have continued to this day with far too many incidents to report here.
Trans Sahara = Counter-terrorism efforts and the control of arms/drugs trafficking has been set up. January 2012 saw the start of the conflict in northern Mali with islamic militants trying to overthrow the government. In January 2013 France sent troops to the area and launched Operation Serval, which aimed to remove the radical Islamists from the area.
Iraq
Since Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait countries have dramatically increased their concerns of terrorism in Iraq. A no fly zone was set up by US forces but after Operation Desert Fox (1998) Iraq said they would no longer respect the no fly zone and simply shoot down US aircrafts. Ex-president G.W.Bush sent people into Iraq to locate weapons of mass destruction and destroy them. However, it was said that they could find no weapons of mass destruction. In 2003, war was declared on Iraq. Although the main combat was believed to be over within 2 months, terrorist groups contributed to an even greater number of casualties than the initial invasion. At the end of 2003 Hussein was captured and was later killed in 2006.
Pakistan
After the 9/11 attacks the then president of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, declared he was on the side of the USA against the Taliban in Afghanistan. In 2002, Musharraf gave a speech stating his opposition to Islamist extremism and said he would contribute to stop it. A number of US-Pakistan operations led to the capturing of a number of terrorists. In 2004, the Pakistan Army sent int 80,000 troops to one location of Pakistan to remove Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organisations from that region. Drone attacks and on-foot conflict still exists in this region with an estimated 15 US deaths here. On 2 May 2011 Bin Laden was killed by the US special operations forces in Pakistan.
Yemen
Al-Qaeda are also prominent in Yemen and a number of military strikes have been made against members of the organisation there.In counter terrorism efforts the US government has provided millions of dollars of support to combat terrorism here.
The war in Afghanistan began with the USA, UK and the Afghan Northern Alliance. Later Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand and Norway (amongst others) joined the war. Less than 24 hours after 9/11 it was said the attacks were against all 19 NATO member state countries. NATO also set up Operation Active Endeavour explained above. Pakistan also joined the US on the war on terror, especially seen in the Waziristan War in Pakistan.
NATO set this up in 2001 to assist the establishment of the first post-Taliban elected government. In 2006 ISAF said they would replace US forces in the area as part of Operation Enduring Freedom.
– 2002 bombing in Bali, Indonesia
– 2003 Istanbul bombings
– 2004 Madrid Train Bombings
– 7 July 2005 London bombings
– 2007 Glasgow International Airport Attack
– 2011 Marrakech bombings
– 2012 US Consulate attack in Benghazi
Failed Attacks
– 21 July 2005 London Bombings
– 2006 Hudson River bomb plot
– 2007 John F. Kennedy International Airport attack plot
– 2010 cargo plane bomb plot in USA
– 2013 VIA Rail Canada terrorism plot
In 2002 the US Department of Homeland Security was set up to protect the USA. The USA Patriots Act 2001 allowed law enforcement agencies greater access to personal information, ease intelligence gathering, and makes it easier to deport immigrants etc. However, some interest groups have said such powers encroach civil liberties. In 2005 Bush gave a speech stating that over 400 people had been charged, with over half being convicted, of offences as a result of the Patriots Act. By 2003, 12 major conventions/protocols were set up to continue making changes to combat terrorism. A Continuity of Operations Plan was established so the country/government could continue to run smoothly in case any major event happened.
There are no exact number of casualties since the war on terror began but there are some predictions:
– In Iraq it is estimated that between 100,000 and 1 million people have died – a clearly very wide estimate coming from a wide number of sources! E.g. compare the statistics of the Iraq Body Count Project to the Opinion Research Business poll.
– In Afghanistan it is estimated between 10,960 and 49,600 people have died
– In Pakistan it is estimated between 1,467 and 2,334 were killed in drone attacks since 6 May 2011, whilst tens of thousands have been killed by terrorist attacks
– In Somalia there has been an estimated 7,000+ deaths
Official documents are not often – if at all – released. But in a congress report in 2011 estimated spending on the war on terror in the 2011 fiscal year at $1.2 trillion. However, a different academic report estimated it to be closer to $2.7 trillion.
Some said that Obama’s speech on May 23, 2013, marked the end of the war on terror as it appeared to sound like a speech declaring the mission had been accomplished. One analyst, Peter Beinart, suggested that most people thought the war on terror was over.
Do you think the war on terror is over? What are your views/concerns about terrorism?
Thanks for reading and please do share,
Digestible Politics
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Digestible-Politics/476112109093593?ref=hl
Here it is:
Please do check it out (I will be adding a new word every day!)
Hard/complex political words, explained in an easy to understand format 🙂
Digestible Politics
For your chance to win an apple macbook air and a 32GB ipod touch either share our Facebook photo and like our facebook page or RT our photo on twitter and follow us.
The winner will be announced next thursday and we must have over 50 shares or 50 retweets! So get sharing/retweeting now and you could have these 2 fantastic items by the end of next week!
The links are:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Digest_politics
Good luck,
Digestible Politics
Digestible Politics is a blog with a big ambition to help you become more informed with politics and current affairs in an easy-to-understand format. In the short amount of time we have been running we have already had hundreds of comments, thousands of page views and likes.
We just hope that you appreciate and enjoy this blog as much as we do publishing it and if you get spare a penny, pound or dollar for us would be very kind – but, of course, you DO NOT have to! We have a long term ambition of publishing a weekly/monthly magazine on politics made easy, to help those, who, like me, desired to have access to simple politics and not the confusion we can often face with other news/political sources! So please do help us to fund this if you can. Also, please do tell us if you like the idea of having a ‘Digestible Politics Magazine’!
You can donate in US dollars or British pounds below or in the sidebar. Thank you.
US Dollars:
British Pounds:
Thank you in advance,
Digestible Politics
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Digestible-Politics/476112109093593?ref=tn_tnmn
Ray Nagin, the ex-mayor of New Orleans, has faced a series of charges including fraud, bribery, filing false tax returns and money laundering. So far two former city officials and two businessmen have pleaded guilty for similar charges. The ex-mayor, Nagin, is accused of abusing his power and position in office for personal gain and of accepting bribes while the city of New Orleans reeled in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Nagin had been mayor from 2002-2010 but had been facing his indictment in the case for a while. According to the federal indictment, Mr Nagin accepted more than $160,000 (£100,000) in bribes for his family business.
Do you fear that people with power abuse their position and authority?
Although this article is to do with America, it is clear similar situations occur elsewhere on a daily basis and we shall create a post on similar situations around the world soon. We fear that abusing powers is one of the greatest fears in politics and democracy.
Thanks for reading,
Digestible Politics
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Digestible-Politics/476112109093593?ref=hl
https://twitter.com/Digest_politics
https://www.youtube.com/user/DigestiblePolitics?feature=mhee
What is happening?
Prime Minister David Cameron is to deliver a speech on the UK’s future in the European Union on Friday in the Netherlands.
Why the big deal if it’s just a speech?
Mr Cameron has been facing mounting pressure from within the Eurosceptic ranks of his own Conservative Party, and the UK Independence Party, who are unhappy with the current relationship between the UK and the European Union. There have been calls for a referendum to be held, and his own MPs want to see action on the Conservative election pledge to “bring back” powers to Westminster from Brussels. For months now, the promise has been that these questions will all be answered in a big speech. And this Friday, we get that speech.
What do we think Cameron will say?
Based on a BBC radio interview this week, we can expect Mr Cameron to say that he plans to renegotiate parts of the UK’s relations with Europe and, if and when that is achieved, promise to put that changed membership package to the British people after the next general election. So that referendum, obviously, also depends on the Conservatives winning a majority in 2015.
What sorts of powers does the UK want back?
There is a cross-government audit under way looking at where the EU has powers over life in the UK. The idea is that each one will then be examined to see whether it is necessary or whether the power could be “brought back” to the UK. Areas it might include are the Working Time Directive, which imposes employment rules such as limiting the working week and giving EU workers a minimum number of holidays each year. The UK is also keen on opt-outs from policing and criminal justice measures. The 2010 Conservative manifesto said: “We will work to bring back key powers over legal rights, criminal justice and social and employment legislation to the UK.”
So if we know all that, why watch the speech?
There are still a host of unanswered questions, not least about what would happen if the rest of Europe refused to agree to the UK’s demands. Will the prime minister threaten to hold an in/out referendum on EU membership, if new terms of membership aren’t agreed? And if they are agreed, what would happen if the British people then rejected them in a referendum – would that lead to an in/out vote?
Why does Cameron think he can agree changes with EU leaders?
The recent eurozone crisis has led those countries using the single currency to believe that they need closer integration in future – a move which will further increase the gap between the euro and non-euro EU members. Mr Cameron says there needs to be a new EU treaty to facilitate the eurozone integration, so, as part of negotiations, there is a chance to redefine the membership rules for countries like the UK.
So does this all mean that the UK’s going to leave the EU?
David Cameron says that he opposes the idea of the UK leaving the EU (which the UK joined in 1973). However he did add during his BBC radio interview: “Would Britain collapse if we left the European Union? No, of course not. You could choose a different path. The question is, what is in our national interest? I’ve always been very clear it’s in our national interest as a trading nation to be in the single market.”
What do critics of Cameron say?
Well that depends which critics you are talking about – there are those attacking him from the pro-European viewpoint and others from the Eurosceptic viewpoint.
What do the pro-Europeans say?
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has warned that proposing a referendum at a future date would cause uncertainty and have a “chilling effect” on jobs and growth. A succession of business leaders have spoken up in favour of UK membership of the EU and the US and a range of European politicians have also warned of negative results if the UK left the EU.
What about the Eurosceptics?
There are a sizable number of MPs, mostly Conservatives, who want a straightforward referendum asking the British people whether or not the UK should stay in the EU. The UK Independence Party, whose main policy is to pull out of the EU, has also seen its poll ratings rise. They argue that there is nothing to fear, as a global trading nation, from leaving the European Union.
Why is Cameron delivering the speech in the Netherlands?
Downing Street say that he wanted to “set out his view on the EU and Britain’s relationship within it” and giving the speech in the Netherlands would allow the PM to speak in a “founder member of the European Union, not dissimilar from the UK, with a strong tradition of global trade”. He’s not the first PM to cross the channel to deliver a big EU speech – Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair both did the same when they were in No 10.
(FROM THE BBC WEBSITE)
Digestible Politics
https://twitter.com/Digest_politics
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Digestible-Politics/476112109093593
https://www.youtube.com/user/DigestiblePolitics?feature=mhee
President Barack Obama has stated that he is “determined” to tackle the issue of gun crime and prevent any further violence across America, according to the vice-president Joe Biden. By using his executive orders Obama could amend gun policy which proposes a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. This, for many Americans, is highly controversial as he is seen to be taking the constitution into his own hands with little negotiation or consultation.
The calls for greater gun control cam about after the horrific shootings in Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Aurora where a number of people died and had been injured. However, despite these shooting, gun control is a very polarising (dividing) issue in America and in Congress, with many believing it would be absurd to change the constitution and the gun lobby even declaring “more guns, less crime”. Yet Biden has told the nation that Obama will force changes and take action independently on the issue if need be, and will be the first thing on the agenda after inauguration day later this month – does this seem democratic to you?
One of the largest outcries, if amendments must be made, is for there to be follow-up checks for people with handgun licences, to make sure they are still qualified to own their weapon, and longer sentences for gun crimes. Furthermore, New Jersey’s Governor Chris Christie, called on policy-makers to examine the US mental health system and broaden access to drug treatment, as well as to examine the impact of violent video games.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) continue to stick to their hard-line belief that guns are good and benefit society. In the wake of the Connecticut school shooting, the NRA advocated for armed guards at every US school whilst also making it a plausible idea that teachers were armed too.
Should there be amendments to the laws on guns and gun usage?
Thanks for reading,
Digestible Politics
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Digestible-Politics/476112109093593?ref=hl
https://twitter.com/Digest_politics
https://www.youtube.com/user/DigestiblePolitics?feature=mhee
The British Prime Minister, David Cameron, has been facing considerable pressure to hold a referendum on the UK’s position in Europe. He has stated the Conservatives would offer “real change” and “real choice” on this issue. Cameron told the nation that he wants to remain part of Europe but there is a strong need to redefine their relationship – especially with recent moves towards further integration by countries using the single currency (the Euro).
However, the Obama administration has expressed a lot of concern about the potential impacts of holding this referendum and the UK’s future relationship with the EU. This stance was supported by a senior official in the US Senate Department, Philip Gordon, who declared that a “strong British voice within the EU” is in the interest of the American people. He went on to say that he “welcomes an outward-looking EU with Britain in it.” with fear that a referendum would turn the UK “inwards”
There is strong concern that internal debate and referendums within the EU will create a disunited union. A disunited union could ultimately create a political mess, both for the UK and the USA. This is David Cameron’s view on the subject (watch if you want to know the debate in more depth!):
What are your thoughts on the subject?
Thanks for reading,
Digestible Politics
https://twitter.com/Digest_politics
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Digestible-Politics/476112109093593?ref=hl
https://www.youtube.com/user/DigestiblePolitics?feature=mhee
Digestible Politics 