Although the history of Haslett Community Church may not be as long and storied as other churches, it is nevertheless a rich history. The roots of our community church began to grow on March 23, 1954 when several persons met at the home of Conrad and Rose Haney to discuss the need for a new church in Haslett. An open meeting was held at the Township Hall on March 31, 1954 to plan for a church. At that meeting, forty-nine people elected a steering committee and planned for services. One month and two days later on April 25, 1954, and one week after Easter, one hundred forty five people attended the first worship service and Sunday school above the old Township Hall and fire station on the northeast corner of Haslett and Okemos Roads.
It turn, the bush administration put forth a statement to rid the middle east of their WMDs and to impose a “power house” of sorts to keep terrorism out of America. The goal was always to find WMDs in the possession of the Iraq Terrorists and to get out. Bush even said himself that we would be at war as long as it took and not a day longer. Yet one day it was announced that we had found these WMDs we were looking for... ... middle of paper ... ... all of these resources were wasted on a war that was based upon lies. Works Cited Hersh, Joshua.
With Homecoming activities approaching, my role as Student Council President increased to include more meetings and late nights preparing a fun filled week for the entire student body. My Advanced Placement classes seemed to intensify during this period and my students’ fall piano recitals neared. Bi-weekly meetings with my Girl Scout Troop and impending deadlines for the Yearbook cluttered my planner. On September 14, 2012, however, I was forced to slow down and analyze the meaning of my life when I was invol... ... middle of paper ... ...ranted. Now, I know that every second we are given is a blessing and is to be used to bring glory to God’s name.
I was nervous because I was going to participate in the youth group at my church after a long break, and worried that I might not have anyone to be with. After an infinitely long 15-minute drive I finally arrived at my church. The surroundings were the same as always. Mosaic paintings of Mary were on the ceiling and a few people were running around and making sure that everything was in order for mass. I watched them as I walked toward the first row of benches on the left side of the nave.
In his first speech as the nation's chief executive, President Bush delivered a stunning address capable of reuniting a nation bitterly divided, many say. A plethora of flags hanging behind the U.S. Capitol stage, Bush spoke to a crowd of thousands after being sworn in to office Saturday. And it was a speech lined with obvious passion and a call for all Americans to unite, especially since the Florida ballot melee has left a sour taste in the mouth of much of America. "I will work to build a single nation of justice and opportunity," he told a crowd so Republican that it heavily booed both President Clinton and Vice President Gore when the pair were introduced before the swearing-in ceremony began. "We are confident in principles that unite and lead us onward.
Although severe consequences come with the decision of war with Iraq, most blinded United States of America citizens are still yet persuaded to support such a war. The Bush Administration has covered their schemes of war with lies to gain support. While weapons of mass destruction is supposedly the reason why the United States launched military action to begin with, all the clearly ignored consequences will haunt their final decision of war, and will remind them how the war is not and never was justified. Whither the war is for the protection of the United States and their alliances, or for oil production and the spread of democracy, the United States is only intensifying the aggression of the situation. The Bush Administration’s plan for war in Iraq, violates International laws, furthermore being ethically wrong (Walton).
But none is more consequential or more prominent in the current policy debate than Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. Numerous outside analysts and (more privately) some senior Bush administration officials are already making the case that the next phase in the war on terrorism should be an effort to overthrow the Iraqi regime—if necessary, with U.S. military force. On November 26, President Bush himself appeared to raise the ante on the Iraq debate, stating that Saddam would "find out" what was in store for him if he failed to heed international demands to allow inspector... ... middle of paper ... ...ime that would crack down on Iraqi smuggling, focus sanctions more specifically on the Baghdad leadership and weapons of mass destruction capabilities, and make civilian goods available for easier import into Iraq. Meaningful searches for Iraq's WMD capabilities would also be desirable, but only if they would be more effective than those of the late 1990s. America's allies and the regional powers need to understand that if Iraq cannot be contained with sanctions and stronger nonproliferation efforts, Washington may ultimately have to use force to achieve that goal.
Instead, this is war where we can't find our enemy. Osama bin Laden is our enemy and we must eradicate him, along with his al Qaeda. In order to do so, however, we must find him. This task will be extremely arduous, regardless of the number of people we commit to its completion. We will never know if we have eliminated all of the terrorist cells that existed under bin Laden, much less those cells that exist in the rest of the Arabic world.
"The attack of September 11 will be the precipitating moment of a new kind of war that will define a new century. This war will be fought in shadows, and the adversary will continue to target the innocent and defenseless ("The Terrorism Research Center"). " The unconventional methods of terrorism make these terrorists the first formidable opponent the United States has faced in years, since the ending of the Cold War. Due to its victory in the Cold War, the United States is now the last remaining superpower in the world, and along with that supremacy comes an inherent responsibility. The responsibility of a superpower can be interpreted in two distinctly different ways.
Since the Persian Gulf War (though the seeds can be traced as far back as Vietnam), a myth has taken root among policymakers that only the costs matter -- that the publi... ... middle of paper ... ...mas, Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations. President Bush has repeatedly said this war will be long and we should get on with our lives. In other words, the terrorists started Cold War II, not World War III. The president must stir national vigilance well beyond the levels of post-Cold War complacency, but he can't have the entire country on a permanent high war footing. Yet precisely because the war will be long, it is that much harder to get on with our lives without seeing something that indicates we have started to win.