Groups that oppose the WTO?
International opposition to the WTO is growing. Massive protests in Seattle of 1999 brought over 50,000 people together to oppose the WTO—and succeeded in shutting the meeting down. When the WTO met in 2001, the Trade negotiators were unable meet their goals of expanding the WTO's reach. In Cancún, Mexico and Hong Kong, China, the WTO met thousands of activists in protest. Developing countries refused to give in to the rich countries' agenda of WTO expansion. Some organizations include UK's Labour Party, SA Business, Global Exchange, many Islamic groups, humanitarian groups, environmental groups, and many more. There are as many reasons to oppose the WTO as there are to support it, and this gathers great potential for opposition.
Why do many liberals oppose the Second Amendment?
Well, the problem with your reasoning is that you assume that the Second Amendment guarantees the inalienable right to bear arms. It doesn't. In fact, the only way it does guarantee that is if you change some of the words around. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The words "well regulated Militia" appear in the first part of the sentance. Do you think the framers were talking about six guys in a Dodge Durango? Do you think they meant that guns should be so easily accessable that ANYONE... children, teenagers, mentally disturbed college students and other undesirables... should be able to get their hands on a firearm should they really desire one? If you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia you've got a population roughly the size of the United States. We had 32,000 gun deaths last year and they had 112. Do you think it's because Americans are more homicidal by nature? Or do you think it's because those other nations have strict gun control laws? I don't think hunting is evil. It would be quite hypocritical of me to think this when I eat steak prepared from a cow that was mutilated in a slaughterhouse. I don't think we should ban guns entirely either. This is a violation of freedom. But when I can't seem to turn on my television or read my newspaper without hearing about an abominable tragedy involving a gun and some psychopath, I can't help but to wonder why we cannot agree with some sort of strong policy about putting guns in the wrong hands. Maybe it's because too many politicians have gun manufacturers in their pockets. Maybe it's because too many Americans look at guns as a tradition passed down from generation to generation. And yes, a lot of it has to do with the stereotype that rednecks love guns and backwards southerners wish to keep the tradition alive. I'm not necessarily sold on this theory. The backwoods rednecks aren't shooting children in the schoolyards. They're not commiting horrible acts of violence in office buildings and shopping malls. It's children and mentally disturbed people who are doing that. I just don't think it should be so easy for them to get guns. And I know that the Second Amendment has NOTHING to do with the fact that they can so easily get them.
Why scientists opposed the decision of dropping the atomic bomb on Japan?
America is the ONLY country to have ever used an atomic bomb on another country (and we only did it TWICE - in Hiroshima & Nagasaki in Aug. 1945) The scientists that actually built the bomb actually knew how it worked. They had MULTIPLE tests, and they saw firsthand how the bomb blew up, and how much destruction it caused. (In fact, although he did have a very big hand in the creation of the bomb, Albert Eistein regretted his actions, and wished that he never took part BECAUSE of the bomb's capacity to destroy. The government (the Truman administration) that ordered the bombings had multiple purposes - during the time, America had made a LOT of advances in the Pacific War - it had taken back pretty much ALL of the "sattelite" islands around Japan, and if the atom bomb had not been unleashed, the troops were to invade the island of Japan itself. There was a LOT of death throughout the Pacific War (compared to war in the Pacific, NOT a lot of AMERICAN soldiers died in European warfare). So, it could be justified that the bomb was used to end the war - and it did (Japan surrendered less than a month after the 2 bombs were released). I'm not sure what your sources are, but you idea of the "short term consequences" seems a little off. NOBODY knew that a nuclear war would come out of the 2 bombings, because the Soviet Union did not have any bombs whatsoever, so when the bombs were dropped, that wasn't a possibility. But mutliple factors (one, that USSR was Communist and America wanted to tear down the Communist govt, second that USSR had a LOT more death in the war, and third) even that the USSR got to Germany first in the liberation process) led to the 2 superpowers. So yo might want to research the part where you said, "politicians argued with the short term, drop the bomb then war is over." While many scientists did disagree with the bombing - because of the damage it could cause to human life. After 1945, NEVER did ANY nation use an atomic bomb against another nation (but there was a lot of atomic BUILD-UP and testing!) HOPE THAT HELPS (: