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 answer is the letter b governor of new mexico territory

worcester v. georgia, legal case in which the u.s. supreme court on march 3, 1832, held (5–1) that the states did not have the right to impose regulations on native american land. andrew jackson refused to enforce the ruling, the decision form the basis for most subsequent indian law in the united states.