Although some of America thinks of terrorists as Muslims, or people that look like Muslims, in reality, anyone could be a terrorist. Profiling just causes problems with Muslims in America. For example, if I were Muslim-looking, and I was stopped after going through security in an airport because of my skin color or the way I dressed, I would be furious. I know our country is very protective of it's citizens, but it seems that we are also stereotypical of them too.

The word "torture" sounds horrible itself. I wouldn't say torture is justified, but I do believe in karma. If your daughter is tortured to death, and you find the killer, what would you do? I don't believe people torturing others is just, but I do believe whatever you do to others will inevitabley come back to you. There may come a point in time when people think torture may be just, because they are trying to get information, but what if torture doesn't work? Will you just kill them? You can use other ways to get information out of them such as bribes.

You could also say that choosing your school is almost a bribe. Like wearing uniforms, after going through elementary school, and middle school, in highschool, you don't have to wear them. Maybe the schools are trying to bribe you to continue on, practically saying, "Don't drop out in eighth grade!, you don't have to wear uniforms next year." It's the same for this argument. Now they're saying, "Get your highschool diploma, and go to college!; You even get to choose the school of your choice." It seems as if they're teaching you patience, too.

Like others are saying, schools may become over or under populated because students get to attend the school of their choice. If every highschool student in the Irving District chose to attend MacArthur, The Academy, Irving, and Nimitz highschools would have no teens attending them. Even if all schools combined, and formed a massive school, everything would still remain chaotic. Nowadays, schools are uniform; The kids go to the school of their district, and highschools are all around the same population. This allows the highschools to be organized.

If presidents were allowed more than two terms, I think the United States would eventually become a dictatorship. Some presidents strengthen America more than others, but some weren't so good. For example, Lyndon B. Johnson. This man was President from 1968-1974 and had possible CIA involvement in the overthrow of Prince Sihanouk, which caused much controversy. If Johnson was president for eighteen years, the people wouldn't be happy. If America had a president that you didn't like, the two terms gives you a chance to change that with votes. If presidents become able to have more than two terms, the people would end up overthrowing the government. Two terms gives America a second chance after the first term, anyway.

People who are not yet citizens of the U.S. come here often to find jobs, but most people in America have to work to get food on the table. Illegal immigrants are just filling job slots out, not paying taxes, and making it, while some hardworking Americans, who cannot find a job, have families here that need food on the table, and have to pay taxes. For whatever reason, these immigrants came to America to find a better life, but while they’re creating a better life for themselves, they’re making it hard on the people who have been citizens all of their life. It also creates more tension between the people of America and the government, because while the government knows these illegal immigrants are out there taking jobs, they’re still loading taxes on American’s shoulders. Although the government can’t get every single immigrant out there, they’re trying their hardest to. Immigrants who come to America, and try to become a citizen, I have nothing against. It’s the immigrants who come to America and take our jobs away from us who I don’t support.

You might've fluffed the question by using the word "enticed", but the question used the word forced for a reason. You cross your statement, when you say at the end, "it may seem ethically wrong for the moment", because at first, you "fluffen" the question, and then you end it with something as harsh as that.

Developed countries, or any groups, or any individuals for that matter, shouldn't force anyone to do anything, under broad circumstances. If developed countries have to go to extreme measures and "force" the undeveloped countries to protect the environment, first off, the undeveloped countries are stupid for not using common sense; Generally, everyone knows that they should protect their environment. It's not the fact that "we are better, so we can force people to learn our ways", as developed countries; The fact of the matter is that because of our success in the United States, and the way we've planned out our "Environmental Programs", people sit here and try to dictate others on their "wrong way" of doing things. What if the developing countries just haven't caught up to us yet? Doesn't that refer to the definition of "developing"? Maybe, they'll get to where the United States is, in the future. Or maybe, The United States hasn't caught up with them.

Although the United States' establishments did change the world the past lived in, now, in the present, we realize that our civilizations rules have changed, but the thoughts haven't. For example, the past created rights for women so women could be treated equally, but to this day women still aren't treated the same as men. Back then, it seemed to be a big change, but as time passed, we, as the present, still think before the old change.

*delete the soggy bread &replace;it with the ciabatta. The ciabatta "will leave you wanting more of the sandwich."