I know about the boycott of the Olympics, but what else? Was the U.S. sort of dragged into a conflict?
What implications did this have? Also, do you know of any websites where I can find more information about the United States' involvement and policies during this war?
Thanks.|||Does 9/11 ring any bells. It was a direct result of the Soviet/Afghan war.
Washington, in its infinite wisdom, decided that it needed a local rebel army to fight the Russians because it was scared to get US troops involved in case it turned into another Vietnam (Or even a nuclear war) so it trained and armed the local Islamic resistance groups to fight the Russians by proxy.
These groups eventually became the Taliban and the wider structure around them became Al Quaida.
Both groups were initially pro US, but after the war Washington screwed them over. It was supposed to help them to rebuild their country even better than before and to help them to transform it into an independent Islamic homeland. But Washington just pulled out and left them to starve. This resentment made them turn against the US and open to people like Osama Bin Laden who eventually got them to fly planes into US landmarks.
Funny isn't it? That an army that America built to fight the Soviet and then abandoned became the biggest threat to US lives after the fall of the Soviet Union.|||Poor judgment on the behalf of Charlie Wilson(another Texas Chicken Hawk) secured the replenishment and supply the Jihad militants against the Soviet incursion into Afghanistan caused many problems we have today.Western military adventurism in any "STAN has often
ended in disaster for the West from the British during the reign in India to more recent examples of the Soviet and USA.To suggest that Soviet
incursion caused the collapse of the Soviet is a simple minded level of misinterpretation of what dynamic was involved.|||as this was the time of the cold war, the USA supported afghani
fighters including taliban. now the USA have to carry the
consequences and have inflicted the rest of the world with this
plague.|||Yes, the American involvement in the Soviet caused the breakup of the soviet russia and created the taliban which in turn helped alqaeda which in turn did 9/11 which in turn created about around 4-5 million refugees in pakistan.... :)|||The Russians "departed" Afghanistan after 10 years with nothing achieved, the US should have learned from that.|||The American athletes couldn't go to the Olympics. Among other things, like those mentioned by some of your other Answers.|||proved that the Afghans cant be messed about with with impunity.However, it's going to take a new lesson in bloody noses to re iterate that again.|||Try reading Charlie Wilson's War.|||9/11 and the rise of Osama Bin Laden
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
What movies have minority civil war soldiers?
I'm doing a project about the memory of the civil war, and i'd like to take a look at minority soldiers specifically. I already know of Glory which is about black soldiers, and Gangs of New York has Irish immigrants, but beyond those two i'm stuck. I'm looking for at least one more with black soldiers and one with German immigrants perhaps. If you have any ideas, please please please help. Thanks!|||All I can come up with is "Sergeant Rutledge"... Not exactly civil war, but about an African American cavalry officer on trial for his life . Good movie. Excellent performances...Check it out to see if works for you...Hope that helps!...|||i think the tuskeegee flyers i cant rememer the name but its about the first black men to fly airplanes
How does the story of war between the Greeks and Trojans still affect us today?
How does the story of war between the Greeks and Trojans,with use of the Trojan horse still affect us today?
I need to write a 200 word essay on this. I don't need it all just other ideas to spark my ideas.|||HAHAHHAHAHAHHAH THIS IS AMW. im in his class too, i looked this up cause i need helpp and his came upp. this is SOOOOO someone from his classs shahahhahaaaaa. htown highscoool, mr gillespies class|||The term Trojan horse is still used to describe computer viruses where the creator of the virus sets it up to look like a legitimate program to get it installed on the victims computer, it's the only virus that in theory Mac and Linux PCs can be infected by.
The term Achilles heel comes from that story as Achilles was an undefeatable warrior, then he was shot through the heel and it proved to be is one fatal weakness.|||wow thats weird i have to do the same exact thing for my english class for mr. gillespie. and thats the same exact question i have on my paper....hm|||look for the moral of the story and connect that moral with a situation during todays times...idr the story that clearly tho..sorry...|||Please do your own homework, For believe it or not you just might learn something interesting............|||Yo i'm in your class, idk who u r, but..ya im doin the journals...(htown)
I need to write a 200 word essay on this. I don't need it all just other ideas to spark my ideas.|||HAHAHHAHAHAHHAH THIS IS AMW. im in his class too, i looked this up cause i need helpp and his came upp. this is SOOOOO someone from his classs shahahhahaaaaa. htown highscoool, mr gillespies class|||The term Trojan horse is still used to describe computer viruses where the creator of the virus sets it up to look like a legitimate program to get it installed on the victims computer, it's the only virus that in theory Mac and Linux PCs can be infected by.
The term Achilles heel comes from that story as Achilles was an undefeatable warrior, then he was shot through the heel and it proved to be is one fatal weakness.|||wow thats weird i have to do the same exact thing for my english class for mr. gillespie. and thats the same exact question i have on my paper....hm|||look for the moral of the story and connect that moral with a situation during todays times...idr the story that clearly tho..sorry...|||Please do your own homework, For believe it or not you just might learn something interesting............|||Yo i'm in your class, idk who u r, but..ya im doin the journals...(htown)
What is the best website to research Civil War soldiers from my local area?
My husband and I are very interested in researching our local connections to the Civil War. We have gone to a few local cemeteries and gotten the names of soldiers who fought during the war, but we aren't sure where to look to find out more info about them and where they came from. Anyone who might know a website or two that could aide us in our research, please let me know.
It is our dream to help preserve our local history for our children and future generations.|||These may be helpful, but I really don't know!
eHistoryArchive
HistoryNet.com
britanica.com
http://www.nps.gov
http://www.civilwarhome.com/civilwarweap鈥?/a>
Ohio History Central .org
Spartacus School Net .com
American Civil War .com
Naval Historical Center
GlobalSecurity.org
http://www.socyberty.com/History/The-Kor鈥?/a>
Antietam on the Web
strategypage.com
americancivilwar.com
suite101.com
britanica.com
historynet.com
also:
http://govmilitaryrecords.com/|||If the men buried in the local cemeteries are local to the area, you should be able to find information about them from a local historical society. There's one in just about every community in the United States--you just have to figure out where it is. The first place to check is with the librarian at your local library. He or she should be able to help you both with locating local historical societies and should also know if there are any books about the history of your area which touch on the Civil War era.
Your next stop should be the local college or university. I know that "local" is relative, and you may just have a junior college, but that's a fine place to go. You can either speak to a librarian there, or you can ask if they have a history department, and speak to someone there. Both should be able to direct you.
Going a bit higher up the ladder (if it wasn't already covered in the previous step), there should be a state university which has a really, really big library, and which has the private collections of people from your state. Often, it's the oldest public university in a state, but sometimes it isn't--sometimes it's the one which had an in-house scholar who managed to get all the materials moved to their location. A bit of research and a few phone calls will help you track it down. What you are looking for is private collections dealing with the Civil War era.
Often, just a visit to your local library will do it. If you live where the libraries are very small and not well-funded, you may need to go to a larger system associated with a bigger city or with a county. The important thing to remember is that even at the state university level, you will be able to get information about the soldiers from your local level. And no matter how small your community is, do start with the local librarian--people don't realize how much librarians know, and how well they are trained to find information. In smaller communities, the librarian may have been in that position for the last 30 years, and may have a good idea about where private documents are held, etc... That's why that should be your first stop.
One other place to check is your local newspaper's morgue or, if you are lucky, their microfilm vaults. I live in Utah, and we pretty much missed the Civil War out this way, but our oldest newpaper has microfilm going back to when the newspaper was founded. As they modernized, they simply put the really old stuff on microfiche, and they have the films and readers at the county library. When I worked at the library, I looked up information from the WWI era more than once. Since you must be in the East somewhere if you are looking into the Civil War (and it doesn't matter if it's North or South where you are), I am certain that there was a newspaper around during the war. The same newspaper may not be around now, but someone will have bought them out, most likely, and will have kept their morgues. Since you have names and dates from the cemetery, it should be very easy to find more information on the men in a newspaper, even if you find yourself in a basement room looking through dusty boxes.
As for starting out, the best thing to do is try googling the names you have. Often, private people will have done research and shared it on the web. I have found regiment information for people before just by doing web searches. I would say that and contacting people in your local area would be the best places to start. There used to be a site called Civil War Gateway, which had a gazillion links to all sorts of useful information, but I can't seem to find it now.
Oh, one more place to look is to check with your local authorities and find out if there's a website for vital statistics. Civil War Era names and such are no longer protected, so if there is one in your area, you may be able to do research there.
It's a big undertaking, but it should be a fun one. Best of luck!
It is our dream to help preserve our local history for our children and future generations.|||These may be helpful, but I really don't know!
eHistoryArchive
HistoryNet.com
britanica.com
http://www.nps.gov
http://www.civilwarhome.com/civilwarweap鈥?/a>
Ohio History Central .org
Spartacus School Net .com
American Civil War .com
Naval Historical Center
GlobalSecurity.org
http://www.socyberty.com/History/The-Kor鈥?/a>
Antietam on the Web
strategypage.com
americancivilwar.com
suite101.com
britanica.com
historynet.com
also:
http://govmilitaryrecords.com/|||If the men buried in the local cemeteries are local to the area, you should be able to find information about them from a local historical society. There's one in just about every community in the United States--you just have to figure out where it is. The first place to check is with the librarian at your local library. He or she should be able to help you both with locating local historical societies and should also know if there are any books about the history of your area which touch on the Civil War era.
Your next stop should be the local college or university. I know that "local" is relative, and you may just have a junior college, but that's a fine place to go. You can either speak to a librarian there, or you can ask if they have a history department, and speak to someone there. Both should be able to direct you.
Going a bit higher up the ladder (if it wasn't already covered in the previous step), there should be a state university which has a really, really big library, and which has the private collections of people from your state. Often, it's the oldest public university in a state, but sometimes it isn't--sometimes it's the one which had an in-house scholar who managed to get all the materials moved to their location. A bit of research and a few phone calls will help you track it down. What you are looking for is private collections dealing with the Civil War era.
Often, just a visit to your local library will do it. If you live where the libraries are very small and not well-funded, you may need to go to a larger system associated with a bigger city or with a county. The important thing to remember is that even at the state university level, you will be able to get information about the soldiers from your local level. And no matter how small your community is, do start with the local librarian--people don't realize how much librarians know, and how well they are trained to find information. In smaller communities, the librarian may have been in that position for the last 30 years, and may have a good idea about where private documents are held, etc... That's why that should be your first stop.
One other place to check is your local newspaper's morgue or, if you are lucky, their microfilm vaults. I live in Utah, and we pretty much missed the Civil War out this way, but our oldest newpaper has microfilm going back to when the newspaper was founded. As they modernized, they simply put the really old stuff on microfiche, and they have the films and readers at the county library. When I worked at the library, I looked up information from the WWI era more than once. Since you must be in the East somewhere if you are looking into the Civil War (and it doesn't matter if it's North or South where you are), I am certain that there was a newspaper around during the war. The same newspaper may not be around now, but someone will have bought them out, most likely, and will have kept their morgues. Since you have names and dates from the cemetery, it should be very easy to find more information on the men in a newspaper, even if you find yourself in a basement room looking through dusty boxes.
As for starting out, the best thing to do is try googling the names you have. Often, private people will have done research and shared it on the web. I have found regiment information for people before just by doing web searches. I would say that and contacting people in your local area would be the best places to start. There used to be a site called Civil War Gateway, which had a gazillion links to all sorts of useful information, but I can't seem to find it now.
Oh, one more place to look is to check with your local authorities and find out if there's a website for vital statistics. Civil War Era names and such are no longer protected, so if there is one in your area, you may be able to do research there.
It's a big undertaking, but it should be a fun one. Best of luck!
How did the persian gulf war increase the use of drugs in the 1980s?
I read somewhere that the persian gulf war increased the use of drugs in the 1980's. Why?|||If by the Persian Gulf War you mean the US-led intervention after Iraq invaded Kuwait, this happened in 1990-1991, so I don't see how it could have affected drug use (or anything else) in the 1980s...
On the other hand, before that event took place, the Iran-Iraq war, which took place over most of the decade of the 1980s (1980-1988) could have had such effects, maybe by disturbing the trade and normal industry production and livelihood of many people in these two countries and forcing some of them to start growing drug-producing crops.
I don't know this for a fact, but am only speculating based on the little history of this region that I know.
Also, more generally, in the proxy wars during the Cold War the US and the USSR often turned a blind eye to the ways in which their respective local supporters ("proxies") chose to fund their military operations, so it is well known for other conflicts that drug production was a major revenue source.|||Don't believe everything you read, especially from newspapers.
Which war are you referring to?
There are quite a few.
If your referring to the tanker war of 1988 that was about oil.
If your referring to desert storm that happened in 1991.
I think your talking about the Iran Iraq war of 1980-1988.
Most wars in this region are about oil and religion.
Almost never drugs.
Although the conflicts in this area also gave rise to the taliban.
They increased the poppy harvests in Afghanistan many times the normal because it was an easy way to raise money.
This also meant that the market was flooded with cheap potent Heroin from Columbia.
I think that's what you mean....
On the other hand, before that event took place, the Iran-Iraq war, which took place over most of the decade of the 1980s (1980-1988) could have had such effects, maybe by disturbing the trade and normal industry production and livelihood of many people in these two countries and forcing some of them to start growing drug-producing crops.
I don't know this for a fact, but am only speculating based on the little history of this region that I know.
Also, more generally, in the proxy wars during the Cold War the US and the USSR often turned a blind eye to the ways in which their respective local supporters ("proxies") chose to fund their military operations, so it is well known for other conflicts that drug production was a major revenue source.|||Don't believe everything you read, especially from newspapers.
Which war are you referring to?
There are quite a few.
If your referring to the tanker war of 1988 that was about oil.
If your referring to desert storm that happened in 1991.
I think your talking about the Iran Iraq war of 1980-1988.
Most wars in this region are about oil and religion.
Almost never drugs.
Although the conflicts in this area also gave rise to the taliban.
They increased the poppy harvests in Afghanistan many times the normal because it was an easy way to raise money.
This also meant that the market was flooded with cheap potent Heroin from Columbia.
I think that's what you mean....
What are some examples of foreign influence in a civil war?
What are some examples of foreign influence in a civil war? Foreign countries sometimes get involved in civil wars, don't they? How many foreign troops can get involved before people deny it's still a civil war? Wouldn't just one be enough?|||The Spanish Civil War (1936-1939)
Nationalists led by General Franco
%26gt;Nazi Germany (approx 19,000)
%26gt;Fascist Italy (approx 75,000)
%26gt;Portugal (logistical support)
%26gt;Moroccan Muslims (moors)
%26gt;Irish Blueshirts (approx 700)
Republican
%26gt;Soviet Union (approx 700)
%26gt;International Brigades (approx 30,000 volunteers from 53 nations)|||Look at the the Kosovo War and the Bosnian War, they where both civil wars.|||WEAPONS CAN BE SUPPLIED
MILITARY ADVISIORS
MILITARY INTELLEGENCE AKA SPIES
MERCINARIES ( PAYED ARMY OF FORIEGN NATIONALS)
MONITARY AID
SHARED TECHNOLOGY
Nationalists led by General Franco
%26gt;Nazi Germany (approx 19,000)
%26gt;Fascist Italy (approx 75,000)
%26gt;Portugal (logistical support)
%26gt;Moroccan Muslims (moors)
%26gt;Irish Blueshirts (approx 700)
Republican
%26gt;Soviet Union (approx 700)
%26gt;International Brigades (approx 30,000 volunteers from 53 nations)|||Look at the the Kosovo War and the Bosnian War, they where both civil wars.|||WEAPONS CAN BE SUPPLIED
MILITARY ADVISIORS
MILITARY INTELLEGENCE AKA SPIES
MERCINARIES ( PAYED ARMY OF FORIEGN NATIONALS)
MONITARY AID
SHARED TECHNOLOGY
How should the Allies deal with the Nazi war criminals after the war?
What would be appropriate action for the Allies to use when dealing with those accused of being Nazi war criminals?|||
Time travel is illegal.|||
Auschwitz ?|||We usually gave a fair trial and if found guilty a reasonable sentence was carried out.|||Past tense.
Nuremberg trials. Nazis hanged and imprisoned.
They handled it correctly.|||I think that we should hold war crimes trials in Nuremberg and if sentenced we should imprison and/or hang those convicted of war crimes.|||well we should treat them like all others that have committed a crime but if we're going to bring charges to some we should bring charges to everyone that was involved like many who where in the USA, do to the fact that most people dont know the true facts the presedent at the time aloud for the men in the federal reserve to finance the Nazi war and to sell them fuel that could only be delivered by the USA!!!! why have they not brought these facts up even though its against all war laws!!!! hum WHY are some to be brought to justice but others still have control over the US economics ????|||They should have been forced to burry the mounds of dead in the death camps one by one, and forced to rebuild the countries they destroyed.
Then they should have been taken out in barge in the middle of the ocean with -40 degree water, and forced to sing. The boat towing the barge will tell them to sing louder, and say you suck while sinking the barge with a bomb. Then a tank of sharks would set free, and a trail of animals blood spread around the wreck. A lounder speaker would them play the Yiddish classics, and a search lights would be acting as flash bulbs.
The boat would cirlce the area to pick up the dead, and the remains would be burried in the sewers.
Time travel is illegal.|||
Auschwitz ?|||We usually gave a fair trial and if found guilty a reasonable sentence was carried out.|||Past tense.
Nuremberg trials. Nazis hanged and imprisoned.
They handled it correctly.|||I think that we should hold war crimes trials in Nuremberg and if sentenced we should imprison and/or hang those convicted of war crimes.|||well we should treat them like all others that have committed a crime but if we're going to bring charges to some we should bring charges to everyone that was involved like many who where in the USA, do to the fact that most people dont know the true facts the presedent at the time aloud for the men in the federal reserve to finance the Nazi war and to sell them fuel that could only be delivered by the USA!!!! why have they not brought these facts up even though its against all war laws!!!! hum WHY are some to be brought to justice but others still have control over the US economics ????|||They should have been forced to burry the mounds of dead in the death camps one by one, and forced to rebuild the countries they destroyed.
Then they should have been taken out in barge in the middle of the ocean with -40 degree water, and forced to sing. The boat towing the barge will tell them to sing louder, and say you suck while sinking the barge with a bomb. Then a tank of sharks would set free, and a trail of animals blood spread around the wreck. A lounder speaker would them play the Yiddish classics, and a search lights would be acting as flash bulbs.
The boat would cirlce the area to pick up the dead, and the remains would be burried in the sewers.
1) An impending war leads the government to purchase war supplies. What effect does this have on the aggregate?
1) An impending war leads the government to purchase war supplies. What effect does this have on the aggregate supply or aggregate demand curves?|||Is it too late to help with your homework?
Good.
First it drives up the demand curve. After all, you can't fight a war without plenty of pencils. That means that there may be a temporary increase in the cost and decrease in the available supply of unsold pencils.
Then, the pencil companies may decide to manufacture more pencils to fill the void and take advantage of the increase in price of pencils. This will increase the supply of pencils until they reach a state of equilibrium at a higher price and demand point.
This of course may lead to inflation.
Does this help with your homework or is it too late?
Love,
The Homework Fairy.
Good.
First it drives up the demand curve. After all, you can't fight a war without plenty of pencils. That means that there may be a temporary increase in the cost and decrease in the available supply of unsold pencils.
Then, the pencil companies may decide to manufacture more pencils to fill the void and take advantage of the increase in price of pencils. This will increase the supply of pencils until they reach a state of equilibrium at a higher price and demand point.
This of course may lead to inflation.
Does this help with your homework or is it too late?
Love,
The Homework Fairy.
How come during the cold war the only superpowers were white countries?
During the cold war, the superpowers on earth were soviet union and united states, the thing is though, both these countries had a white-majority population. So how come only white people can create super-power nations how come other races cant achieve as much as white do?|||Because the American and British government did an excellent job during WWII by placing puppet regimes in the middle east, therefore eliminating them from ever becoming super powers..|||Well, it relies more upon the location, not the makeup of the population. These things include, natural resources, the ability to be accessed to trading, ability not to be invaded militarly easily (that is, having mountains, rivers, oceans, tundra, desert, etc. these things block the way to be invaded). Also some other important factors include population, having bloc/allies, having enemies gone(most were because of WW1), and a large standing military and having a large amount of people willing to volunteer for that military(many were willing to do so after the russian revolution)
The notion that white people can only build surperpower is wrong. Be ready for China :D
I used to have this same notion as a child weird lol!|||Yeah, you have to read your Nazi literature more carefully. The USSR was full of Slavs and Asians. Hitler would not have considered them white. Today China and Japan are rising world powers. Quit being such a racist!
Moreover, the US is one of the most racially diverse countries on earth! Yes the majority was "white" during the Cold War, but we have millions from every race and ethnic group who contribute to the success of this country! Consider World War II. Ever hear of the Tuskegee Airmen? The Navajo Code Talkers? The Japanese 442nd? The many Jewish scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project? All these people helped kick Hitler's lilly white ***.|||Do you really need to ask that question? The United States is now the only successful country ever to be run by someone other than a white man. And we don't have to mention whats going on now. That is a great question though. I am going to bookmark this page because I want to see what the other races have to say. An explanation would be nice.|||Enter the new century China and India. These countries by the way and the Middle East were super powers before Europe or the USA ever was. There were great civilizations in Asia and Africa before Europe ever became relevant.
There were great civilizations in the American continent before the Europeans came and destroyed them.
In any case the first respondent is correct.
Thumbs down? Am I going to have to name them? o.k. some of them here it goes:
The Egiptians
The Babilonians
The Turks
The Huns
The Chinese
The Japanese
The Persians
The Mayans
The Aztecs
The Teotihuacans
The Incas
In November 2008, the National Intelligence Council (NIC), an affiliate of the Central Intelligence Agency, issued the latest in a series of futuristic publications intended to guide the incoming Obama administration. Peering into its analytic crystal ball in a report entitled Global Trends 2025, it predicted that America's global preeminence would gradually disappear over the next 15 years .
That, of course, was then; this -- some 11 months into the future -- is now and how things have changed.
Many of the broad, down-the-road predictions made in Global Trends 2025 have, in fact, already come to pass. Brazil, Russia, India, and China are already playing far more assertive roles in global economic affairs.
Six Signs That the American Empire Is Coming to an Early End
1. At the global economic summit in Pittsburgh on September 24th and 25th, the leaders of the major industrial powers, the G-7 (G-8 if you include Russia) agreed to turn over responsibility for oversight of the world economy to a larger, more inclusive Group of 20 (G-20), adding in China, India, Brazil, Turkey, and other developing nations.
2. According to news reports, America's economic rivals are conducting secret (and not-so-secret) meetings to explore a diminished role for the U.S. dollar in international trade.China, Russia, Japan, Brazil, and the Persian Gulf oil countries -- are considering the use of the Euro, or a "basket" of currencies, as a new medium of exchange.
3. On the diplomatic front, Washington has been rebuffed by both Russia and China in its drive to line up support for increased international pressure on Iran to cease its nuclear enrichment program.
4. Exactly the same inference can be drawn from a high-level meeting in Beijing on October 15th between Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao and Iran's first vice president, Mohammed Reza Rahimi. "The Sino-Iran relationship has witnessed rapid development as the two countries' leaders have had frequent exchanges, and cooperation in trade and energy has widened and deepened," Wen said at the Great Hall of the People.
5. From Washington's point of view, efforts to secure international support for the allied war effort in Afghanistan have also met with a strikingly disappointing response. In what can only be considered a trivial and begrudging vote of support for the U.S.-led war effort, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced on October 14th that Britain would add more troops to the British contingent in that country -- but only 500 more.
6. Finally, in a move of striking symbolic significance, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) passed over Chicago (as well as Madrid and Tokyo) to pick Rio de Janeiro to be the host of the 2016 summer Olympics, the first time a South American nation was selected for the honor. Until the Olympic vote took place, Chicago was considered a strong contender.|||The Soviet was a Slavic population. Hitler considered them to be just another inferior people (which is partially why he thought that invading the Soviet Union would be a relatively simple task)|||China, USA, Soviet Union, are the big three in the super power list and have been so since the founding of the UN. Last time I checked, China was not considered a white nation.|||Well see, during the Cold War there was this itty bitty, completely unknown country with only a handful of people called China. Ever hear of them?|||That's irrelevant. If you watch national geographic we all originated from one place and expanded.
We are all 99.9% genetically the same.|||Colored countries are not interested in world domination|||I thought it was between America and Russia.
The notion that white people can only build surperpower is wrong. Be ready for China :D
I used to have this same notion as a child weird lol!|||Yeah, you have to read your Nazi literature more carefully. The USSR was full of Slavs and Asians. Hitler would not have considered them white. Today China and Japan are rising world powers. Quit being such a racist!
Moreover, the US is one of the most racially diverse countries on earth! Yes the majority was "white" during the Cold War, but we have millions from every race and ethnic group who contribute to the success of this country! Consider World War II. Ever hear of the Tuskegee Airmen? The Navajo Code Talkers? The Japanese 442nd? The many Jewish scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project? All these people helped kick Hitler's lilly white ***.|||Do you really need to ask that question? The United States is now the only successful country ever to be run by someone other than a white man. And we don't have to mention whats going on now. That is a great question though. I am going to bookmark this page because I want to see what the other races have to say. An explanation would be nice.|||Enter the new century China and India. These countries by the way and the Middle East were super powers before Europe or the USA ever was. There were great civilizations in Asia and Africa before Europe ever became relevant.
There were great civilizations in the American continent before the Europeans came and destroyed them.
In any case the first respondent is correct.
Thumbs down? Am I going to have to name them? o.k. some of them here it goes:
The Egiptians
The Babilonians
The Turks
The Huns
The Chinese
The Japanese
The Persians
The Mayans
The Aztecs
The Teotihuacans
The Incas
In November 2008, the National Intelligence Council (NIC), an affiliate of the Central Intelligence Agency, issued the latest in a series of futuristic publications intended to guide the incoming Obama administration. Peering into its analytic crystal ball in a report entitled Global Trends 2025, it predicted that America's global preeminence would gradually disappear over the next 15 years .
That, of course, was then; this -- some 11 months into the future -- is now and how things have changed.
Many of the broad, down-the-road predictions made in Global Trends 2025 have, in fact, already come to pass. Brazil, Russia, India, and China are already playing far more assertive roles in global economic affairs.
Six Signs That the American Empire Is Coming to an Early End
1. At the global economic summit in Pittsburgh on September 24th and 25th, the leaders of the major industrial powers, the G-7 (G-8 if you include Russia) agreed to turn over responsibility for oversight of the world economy to a larger, more inclusive Group of 20 (G-20), adding in China, India, Brazil, Turkey, and other developing nations.
2. According to news reports, America's economic rivals are conducting secret (and not-so-secret) meetings to explore a diminished role for the U.S. dollar in international trade.China, Russia, Japan, Brazil, and the Persian Gulf oil countries -- are considering the use of the Euro, or a "basket" of currencies, as a new medium of exchange.
3. On the diplomatic front, Washington has been rebuffed by both Russia and China in its drive to line up support for increased international pressure on Iran to cease its nuclear enrichment program.
4. Exactly the same inference can be drawn from a high-level meeting in Beijing on October 15th between Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao and Iran's first vice president, Mohammed Reza Rahimi. "The Sino-Iran relationship has witnessed rapid development as the two countries' leaders have had frequent exchanges, and cooperation in trade and energy has widened and deepened," Wen said at the Great Hall of the People.
5. From Washington's point of view, efforts to secure international support for the allied war effort in Afghanistan have also met with a strikingly disappointing response. In what can only be considered a trivial and begrudging vote of support for the U.S.-led war effort, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced on October 14th that Britain would add more troops to the British contingent in that country -- but only 500 more.
6. Finally, in a move of striking symbolic significance, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) passed over Chicago (as well as Madrid and Tokyo) to pick Rio de Janeiro to be the host of the 2016 summer Olympics, the first time a South American nation was selected for the honor. Until the Olympic vote took place, Chicago was considered a strong contender.|||The Soviet was a Slavic population. Hitler considered them to be just another inferior people (which is partially why he thought that invading the Soviet Union would be a relatively simple task)|||China, USA, Soviet Union, are the big three in the super power list and have been so since the founding of the UN. Last time I checked, China was not considered a white nation.|||Well see, during the Cold War there was this itty bitty, completely unknown country with only a handful of people called China. Ever hear of them?|||That's irrelevant. If you watch national geographic we all originated from one place and expanded.
We are all 99.9% genetically the same.|||Colored countries are not interested in world domination|||I thought it was between America and Russia.
What are some examples of war where terrorism was succesfully used as means to achieve goals?
Can anyone think of some conflicts where one side used terrorism, perhaps even justifiably to win a war?|||The IRA in the 20's. Up until that time the Irish would revolt against the British using conventional military tactics every generation or so.
They were often sold out to the British by spies within the ranks and unable to deal with the better trained British forces.
The IRA began targeting Irish that were working with the British for termination as a warning to others. It helped them eventually bring the British to the bargaining table|||The Jewish population that migrated from Europe after World War II successfully launched terrorist attacks against the British, who at the time were occupying land that the European Jewish population was settling on. Jewish groups bombed a lot of targets, including the King David hotel, which eventually led to the British leaving the area. Terrorism can work, it worked for the Israeli's, thats why the Palestinians think it will work for them.|||During the American revolution, the american rebels fought in a guerrila style, which is used today by the 'rebels' we are fighting today. ironic eh..? strike and hide.
but terrorism in the form of flying planes into a building full of 4000 innocent people, for reasons such as 'my religion is better than yours' will never be justifiable in my books. that's just cowardly, lame, and attention-hungry.|||Terrorism isn't meant to win a "war" its aim is to achieve a certain political means.
Guerilla warfare is another story all together and there are many instances of guerilla warfare being successfully used against a superior force. (Vietnam, Panama, 1980s-Afghanistan, etc.)|||Algerian Revolution is a big one that I just learned about.
You may want to put the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, because as they were retreating, they set fire to the oil wells (look up Fires of Kuwait).... This is pretty relevant.
A lot of the genocides in Africa have terrorism. Sierra Leone, Darfur - terrorism in my book.
They were often sold out to the British by spies within the ranks and unable to deal with the better trained British forces.
The IRA began targeting Irish that were working with the British for termination as a warning to others. It helped them eventually bring the British to the bargaining table|||The Jewish population that migrated from Europe after World War II successfully launched terrorist attacks against the British, who at the time were occupying land that the European Jewish population was settling on. Jewish groups bombed a lot of targets, including the King David hotel, which eventually led to the British leaving the area. Terrorism can work, it worked for the Israeli's, thats why the Palestinians think it will work for them.|||During the American revolution, the american rebels fought in a guerrila style, which is used today by the 'rebels' we are fighting today. ironic eh..? strike and hide.
but terrorism in the form of flying planes into a building full of 4000 innocent people, for reasons such as 'my religion is better than yours' will never be justifiable in my books. that's just cowardly, lame, and attention-hungry.|||Terrorism isn't meant to win a "war" its aim is to achieve a certain political means.
Guerilla warfare is another story all together and there are many instances of guerilla warfare being successfully used against a superior force. (Vietnam, Panama, 1980s-Afghanistan, etc.)|||Algerian Revolution is a big one that I just learned about.
You may want to put the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, because as they were retreating, they set fire to the oil wells (look up Fires of Kuwait).... This is pretty relevant.
A lot of the genocides in Africa have terrorism. Sierra Leone, Darfur - terrorism in my book.
Which of the following statements about life in America during the Second World War is not accurate?
Which of the following statements about life in America during the Second World War is not accurate?
A. To help the war effort, African Americans were hired to perform many high-paying, skilled factory jobs that had previously held by white men.
B. Thousands of Japanese Americans were rounded up and sent to internment camps.
C. To help the war effort, women were hired to perform many high-paying, skilled factory jobs that had previously held by men.
D. Consumer goods such as gasoline and silk, and food items such as bread, butter, milk, and sugar were rationed to ensure adequate supplies for the war effort.
please help, thank you.|||A and C, nothing high paying about those jobs... but your teacher probably wants answer A.|||Since B, C, and D are all true, I'd guess A.|||The Answer is A.;.|||A
(Though African-American Males were given lots of low paying semi skilled jobs )
Peace////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/鈥?/div>
|||The option that you are most likely seeking is:
A. To help the war effort, African Americans were hired to perform many high-paying, skilled factory jobs that had previously held by white men.
This is by process of elimination because the other three are clearly reflective of the times. However, while 'A' is generally true there were exceptions.|||A. WWII was before the civil rights movement got rolling.|||"A" is the only logical choice, because the rest are true.|||A is not accurate. B, C and D are.|||It has to be "A". We know that the Japanese, at least those on or near the West Coast were interned and consumer goods as set forth in "D" were rationed.
I'm having a problem with "C". Although women were then "allowed" to work at jobs previously held only be men, I sure don't know of any where they were getting any better jobs than African American men and/or women during this period.|||A is false|||Your teacher probably wants A but don't think for a minute that they would pay a "dame" back then anything near what a man was making. Hey, my mother saw the same thing when she started working back in 1951. A woman would be very lucky to make even 75 percent of a man's salary!!
Good luck on your test or paper!!|||The answer is A. Back during WWII blacks were still treated poorly in the U.S., even in the military where they were fighting for our country. They were usually segregated in the military due to much predjudices by other soldiers.
About answer C. Women were hired to perform many high paying jobs previously held by men. Nowhere in the answer does it say they were paid the high wages, or the same as the men that previously held those positions.
A. To help the war effort, African Americans were hired to perform many high-paying, skilled factory jobs that had previously held by white men.
B. Thousands of Japanese Americans were rounded up and sent to internment camps.
C. To help the war effort, women were hired to perform many high-paying, skilled factory jobs that had previously held by men.
D. Consumer goods such as gasoline and silk, and food items such as bread, butter, milk, and sugar were rationed to ensure adequate supplies for the war effort.
please help, thank you.|||A and C, nothing high paying about those jobs... but your teacher probably wants answer A.|||Since B, C, and D are all true, I'd guess A.|||The Answer is A.;.|||A
(Though African-American Males were given lots of low paying semi skilled jobs )
Peace////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/鈥?/div>
|||The option that you are most likely seeking is:
A. To help the war effort, African Americans were hired to perform many high-paying, skilled factory jobs that had previously held by white men.
This is by process of elimination because the other three are clearly reflective of the times. However, while 'A' is generally true there were exceptions.|||A. WWII was before the civil rights movement got rolling.|||"A" is the only logical choice, because the rest are true.|||A is not accurate. B, C and D are.|||It has to be "A". We know that the Japanese, at least those on or near the West Coast were interned and consumer goods as set forth in "D" were rationed.
I'm having a problem with "C". Although women were then "allowed" to work at jobs previously held only be men, I sure don't know of any where they were getting any better jobs than African American men and/or women during this period.|||A is false|||Your teacher probably wants A but don't think for a minute that they would pay a "dame" back then anything near what a man was making. Hey, my mother saw the same thing when she started working back in 1951. A woman would be very lucky to make even 75 percent of a man's salary!!
Good luck on your test or paper!!|||The answer is A. Back during WWII blacks were still treated poorly in the U.S., even in the military where they were fighting for our country. They were usually segregated in the military due to much predjudices by other soldiers.
About answer C. Women were hired to perform many high paying jobs previously held by men. Nowhere in the answer does it say they were paid the high wages, or the same as the men that previously held those positions.
How much training did world war 2 pilots have?
mostly Australian world war 2 pilots
what did they have to do?|||during the battle of britain, some pilots has as little as 50 combined hours of in air experiance|||They trained in britan as they helped go on trainee missions. Pearl harbor is a good example but i dont really like that movie. They make it look like ben aflek won ww2. haha. Funny
|||The Wizzo has it right. In addition...towards the end of the war, the japanese were actually sending up pilots that had only trained on the ground and had never actually piloted anything more than a stick and a chair. This was done because of the lack of available aircraft to train them.|||Depends on what equipment they were on, but some had as little as 100-150 hours as I understand it.
Maybe some with a little more knowledge of the subject can narrow it down|||It really varied according to which year of the war you're referring . Once the Commonwealth air training scheme was underway in Canada, training was standardized: normally, new pilots had about 100-200 hours behind them before they showed up at a new unit. However, in early years of the war, they were flying operationally with as little as 50 hours TT, and only some 10 hours of that was solo/advanced training.
In contrast their German, Italian, Japanese opponents were averaging over 200 hours of training, but as the war drew on this was reduced to as little as 40/50 hours (20 hours for "Special Attack Squadrons" the official name of "Kamikaze" units.)
To put this in perspective, a pilot/crew with only 50 hours TT barely knew how to operate the aircraft, navigate to and from the target and land. There would be zero experience in fighting the weapon system. What's worse, and is not really written about in the popular literature, is such a crewmember jeopardizes everyone else in his flight, as he can't do his job; so other more experienced crewdogs have to cover his hinder. Personally, I would love to meet up with someone that inexperienced, means a quick kill for me.|||several weeks|||Whaa hell, we'uns hadda take the train alla way ta Chicaga, then on down to San Antone, then on out ta Frisco, then changed thar mind an BACK ta Chicagy, then down ta Wright Patt and out ta Bost'n. We wuz well TRAINED back durin the biggun, ahhl tell ya what!
what did they have to do?|||during the battle of britain, some pilots has as little as 50 combined hours of in air experiance|||They trained in britan as they helped go on trainee missions. Pearl harbor is a good example but i dont really like that movie. They make it look like ben aflek won ww2. haha. Funny
Report Abuse
|||The Wizzo has it right. In addition...towards the end of the war, the japanese were actually sending up pilots that had only trained on the ground and had never actually piloted anything more than a stick and a chair. This was done because of the lack of available aircraft to train them.|||Depends on what equipment they were on, but some had as little as 100-150 hours as I understand it.
Maybe some with a little more knowledge of the subject can narrow it down|||It really varied according to which year of the war you're referring . Once the Commonwealth air training scheme was underway in Canada, training was standardized: normally, new pilots had about 100-200 hours behind them before they showed up at a new unit. However, in early years of the war, they were flying operationally with as little as 50 hours TT, and only some 10 hours of that was solo/advanced training.
In contrast their German, Italian, Japanese opponents were averaging over 200 hours of training, but as the war drew on this was reduced to as little as 40/50 hours (20 hours for "Special Attack Squadrons" the official name of "Kamikaze" units.)
To put this in perspective, a pilot/crew with only 50 hours TT barely knew how to operate the aircraft, navigate to and from the target and land. There would be zero experience in fighting the weapon system. What's worse, and is not really written about in the popular literature, is such a crewmember jeopardizes everyone else in his flight, as he can't do his job; so other more experienced crewdogs have to cover his hinder. Personally, I would love to meet up with someone that inexperienced, means a quick kill for me.|||several weeks|||Whaa hell, we'uns hadda take the train alla way ta Chicaga, then on down to San Antone, then on out ta Frisco, then changed thar mind an BACK ta Chicagy, then down ta Wright Patt and out ta Bost'n. We wuz well TRAINED back durin the biggun, ahhl tell ya what!
How did elections of officers work in civil war regiments?
During the civil war, when units were being formed, how did companies elect officers? (such as Colonel, Major, and Captains etc)If there was a difference between the way the north and south did it, I am mainly curious about the south. A few of my ancestors were "elected" to positions at the beginning as well as during the war. Also what was they typical hierarchy of the different ranks and how many of each position was there at any given time in a typical company?
Thanks!|||The officers were usually men known to the volunteeres (it was only in volunteer regiments) as being of good character and (usuallY0 better education than most.
TheColonels of Regiments usually used there own money to outfit the regiment with weapons and uniforms.|||Have you heard of Parochialism?
The first "CIVIL WAR" in the English language happened in the 17thC between the Cavaliers and the Roundheads, even as an American that is part of YOUR history too.
If you want to talk about the Confederates and the Union, you should use the term "American Civil War"|||In theory each regiment would be 1000 men strong, lead by a Col or Lt Col, with 1 or 2 Majors below him,
The 1000 men were split into 10 companies of 100 men lead by a Captain, who had a senior Lt (1st Lt) and 1 or 2 (2nd Lt's) Companies were usually listed A-K (the letter J is not used in the US military when listing companies) some regiments would have a colour company (grenadier company made up of the biggest strongest men-veterans) and a 'light' or skirmisher company (made up of the quickest, brightest, best shots)
In reality few regiments got even close to 1000 men a large regiment would be more likely to have around 700 (larger regiments tended to come from Urban areas or heavily/densely populated NE states) with some regiments only having 200+ (mainly rural regiments)
Regiments were locally raised (i.e all the men from the same city or from the same county)
In the South there were 2 main ways a regiment was created (raised)
1)By the State, this regiment and it's men were equipped by the state (i.e the state pays for and supplies their kit) if a regiment was raised by the state then the Col would be appointed by the state, usually a professional soldier.
2) By an Individual, a regiment raised by a rich benefactor, (such as a plantation owner or politician etc) Regiments raised by individuals had their equipment brought and paid for by the rich man, because they paid for the regiment the rich man would be given a commission by the state and could end up as the Col leading the regiment. (not everyone did some just donated the money but didn't serve) In this case the state tried to ensure it provided at least one professional officer (major) to act as number 2 and help the new Col out. The Col in these regiments would often ensure key posts were given to family and friends, so would not be uncommon at the beginning of the war to see regiments with the Col's brother as a major, a son as a captain, etc in return for being made a senior officer this 'private' regiment was then handed over to the state
Each company could elect most of it's officers and Nco's
while the regiment may come from an entire county companies tended to be formed of men from local areas within the county (so you got close neighbours, relatives etc in the same company) the South had supplied many volunteers to fight in the Mexican war and against various Indian tribes so any man with previous military experience stood a good chance of getting voted for, also as the men were local to each other they would know who was a good leader and nominate them.
To get elected a man could either give a speech explaining why he felt he would be suitable or a man could be nominated by others who felt he was suitable.
After that it was election time, first vote who be on who would be Captain (or what ever the highest available post was) then votes would be held for all the positions going down the ranks down to and including Sergeant. (the only rule to be elected a man had to be able to read and write - not that common a skill back in those days) (vote could either be a show of hands or names into hats which were then counted)
you often find looking at the record books today that many men voted into officer positions were men who held decent positions of authority back home, Schoolmasters, Foremen, Mayors etc, and in 1861 a large percentage of NCO's had once been young riflemen fighting in Mexico back in the 1840's
Once the fighting started then other factors began to be considered, such as who had proved themselves steady/reliable in battle etc.
Thanks!|||The officers were usually men known to the volunteeres (it was only in volunteer regiments) as being of good character and (usuallY0 better education than most.
TheColonels of Regiments usually used there own money to outfit the regiment with weapons and uniforms.|||Have you heard of Parochialism?
The first "CIVIL WAR" in the English language happened in the 17thC between the Cavaliers and the Roundheads, even as an American that is part of YOUR history too.
If you want to talk about the Confederates and the Union, you should use the term "American Civil War"|||In theory each regiment would be 1000 men strong, lead by a Col or Lt Col, with 1 or 2 Majors below him,
The 1000 men were split into 10 companies of 100 men lead by a Captain, who had a senior Lt (1st Lt) and 1 or 2 (2nd Lt's) Companies were usually listed A-K (the letter J is not used in the US military when listing companies) some regiments would have a colour company (grenadier company made up of the biggest strongest men-veterans) and a 'light' or skirmisher company (made up of the quickest, brightest, best shots)
In reality few regiments got even close to 1000 men a large regiment would be more likely to have around 700 (larger regiments tended to come from Urban areas or heavily/densely populated NE states) with some regiments only having 200+ (mainly rural regiments)
Regiments were locally raised (i.e all the men from the same city or from the same county)
In the South there were 2 main ways a regiment was created (raised)
1)By the State, this regiment and it's men were equipped by the state (i.e the state pays for and supplies their kit) if a regiment was raised by the state then the Col would be appointed by the state, usually a professional soldier.
2) By an Individual, a regiment raised by a rich benefactor, (such as a plantation owner or politician etc) Regiments raised by individuals had their equipment brought and paid for by the rich man, because they paid for the regiment the rich man would be given a commission by the state and could end up as the Col leading the regiment. (not everyone did some just donated the money but didn't serve) In this case the state tried to ensure it provided at least one professional officer (major) to act as number 2 and help the new Col out. The Col in these regiments would often ensure key posts were given to family and friends, so would not be uncommon at the beginning of the war to see regiments with the Col's brother as a major, a son as a captain, etc in return for being made a senior officer this 'private' regiment was then handed over to the state
Each company could elect most of it's officers and Nco's
while the regiment may come from an entire county companies tended to be formed of men from local areas within the county (so you got close neighbours, relatives etc in the same company) the South had supplied many volunteers to fight in the Mexican war and against various Indian tribes so any man with previous military experience stood a good chance of getting voted for, also as the men were local to each other they would know who was a good leader and nominate them.
To get elected a man could either give a speech explaining why he felt he would be suitable or a man could be nominated by others who felt he was suitable.
After that it was election time, first vote who be on who would be Captain (or what ever the highest available post was) then votes would be held for all the positions going down the ranks down to and including Sergeant. (the only rule to be elected a man had to be able to read and write - not that common a skill back in those days) (vote could either be a show of hands or names into hats which were then counted)
you often find looking at the record books today that many men voted into officer positions were men who held decent positions of authority back home, Schoolmasters, Foremen, Mayors etc, and in 1861 a large percentage of NCO's had once been young riflemen fighting in Mexico back in the 1840's
Once the fighting started then other factors began to be considered, such as who had proved themselves steady/reliable in battle etc.
How did australia become involved in the korean war?
I've found heaps on the vietnam war, but that really doesn't help when I'm doing an assignment on the korean war. Any info is really appreciated. Thanks!|||,ANZUS Australia New Zealand United States.
Sort of a South Pacific version of NATO. Open the llnk for your answerr.|||The Korean War was actually a Peace Enforcement Mission organized and authorized by the UN Security Council under the authority granted it by Chapter Seven of the UN Charter. Under the terms of Article 45 of the UN Charter, member states are expected to put troops at the disposal of the UN Security Council for peacekeeping mission under Chapter Six of the Charter and peace enforcement under Chapter Seven. That is precisely what Australia did.|||I remember watching an educational show that it was either the Koreans were taking Australian hostages or Korea was invading Australia and they were fending them off. Sorry I couldn't be more helpfull but it's a very vague memory... also duh I was thinking but wasn't sure, they're part of the U.N. and sent NATO troops. GTA IV!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!|||They had a alliance with us called ANZUS, and that was used in the UN peacekeeping forces in NK.|||They were one of the participating countries in the U.N. Forces.|||i would go with TedEx i agree all the way|||TedEx is right.
I would suggest starting with this page though:
http://www.awm.gov.au/korea/online.asp
Sort of a South Pacific version of NATO. Open the llnk for your answerr.|||The Korean War was actually a Peace Enforcement Mission organized and authorized by the UN Security Council under the authority granted it by Chapter Seven of the UN Charter. Under the terms of Article 45 of the UN Charter, member states are expected to put troops at the disposal of the UN Security Council for peacekeeping mission under Chapter Six of the Charter and peace enforcement under Chapter Seven. That is precisely what Australia did.|||I remember watching an educational show that it was either the Koreans were taking Australian hostages or Korea was invading Australia and they were fending them off. Sorry I couldn't be more helpfull but it's a very vague memory... also duh I was thinking but wasn't sure, they're part of the U.N. and sent NATO troops. GTA IV!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!|||They had a alliance with us called ANZUS, and that was used in the UN peacekeeping forces in NK.|||They were one of the participating countries in the U.N. Forces.|||i would go with TedEx i agree all the way|||TedEx is right.
I would suggest starting with this page though:
http://www.awm.gov.au/korea/online.asp
How come during the Vietnam War we didn't draft the male hippies into the army?
During the Vietnam War as we all know there were thousands of hippies protesting, thousands of these hippies were young healthy men. How come they didn't get drafted?
If I was in charge at the time I would have drafted them in %26amp; sent them to Vietnam.|||They were drafted, they just dodged the draft. Then Carter granted them amnesty. Then one of them was elected President.|||President Carter granted amnesty to draft dodgers. Pres. Carter was a Naval Officer.
|||President Carter granted amnesty to draft dodgers. Pres. Carter was a Naval Officer.
|||Many got drafted. Of those who were drafted, some dodged and went to Canada, some applied for Conscientious Objector status, some washed out of processing and training, some became part of the army and went someplace other than Nam, some were put in non combat roles, and some hippies actually served in the jungles in combat situations.|||We did they ether went to war or went to jail (or went to Canada)
I do not think we should have a draft ever! It takes away individual liberty and lowers the morale of the force. If we can't get people to fight a war, maybe it isn't worth fighting.
Also when the people are cheap and easy to get the military doesn't work as hard to keep them alive. We spend more money on fewer people today and I think we do a better job. Not because the Soldiers weren't as good but because they didn't have the equipment and tactics we have today because of the all volunteer force.|||NUMEROUS of them were drafted. That is why the COUNTRY of Canada`s population sky rocketed during the VIETNAM WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Many that were DRAFTED HONOURABLELY served their COUNTRY. They deserve the utmost RESPECT; as we should ALL shake their hands and say WELCOME HOME BROTHER/SISTER. Sit down and twist a few cold ones with them; if they drink, or just spend some time with them. They earned to be LOVED, RESPECTED and to be cared for!!!!!!|||The Military as having pity on the soldeirs already in the Armed Forces alright picture this..... A platoon of 100 men is going in for a basic recon mission and one of the soldeirs in their platoon is a hippy they land set up camp and then are attacked while everyone is fightign the Hippy is handing out pamphlets about how war is bad and how everyone should "make Love not War" All the while smoking a joint :) how do you think the Vietnamese Commies would have looked at us? they would have laughed at our faces....this is why we didn't draft the hippies or so i like to think :) by the way ythat was complete sarcasm of course the hippies were drafted|||I was one of them long haired hippie freaks and I got drafted and did my time like a lot of other long hairs. The definition of a hippie is a jack that looks like a jill that smells like a john.
Damn Semper FI , I have never seen a platoon with 100 men and that many on a recon mission would be like a bull in a china shop. They would get their collective butts blown away.|||The were in college and draft exempt, dodged the draft (with phony claims to medical disability or that they were gay), or they ran away to Canada or Sweden.
In point of fact, we didn't really want them in Vietnam. They were not reliable, and we needed troops we could count on to cover our backs.|||The draft order was determined by lottery. If your number (birth date) hadn't come up yet you weren't drafted until it did.
There were a few ways to avoid the draft, as others have said, but everyone that met the age requirement was eligible.|||Hippies were terrified of the prospect of combat and the possibility of death or injury. Thus they invented moral objections to the war as an alibi to avoid military service. Many were so terrified they were willing to forsake family and friends and flee to Canada.|||They WERE drafted.
They ran out of the country and later got pardons, along with all sorts of people who committed crimes against the country during the war. These pardons are why people like Clinton and Kerry were legally able to run for President.|||A guy saying "peace man" and "outa sight baby" all the time wouldn't be much good in a war! Plus they'd all have to get their hair cut!|||A lot of them were drafted. They came home and grew the hair and re joined the hippies.|||I don't know where you got your information but it's incorrect.
They were drafted just the same as every other eligible male at the time.
Get your facts straight.|||they did get drafted, but instead of serving they ran off to canada.|||A lot of them did get drafted.|||Most of them refused to serve or had deferments since they were college students.|||cuz Cartman killed em all
If I was in charge at the time I would have drafted them in %26amp; sent them to Vietnam.|||They were drafted, they just dodged the draft. Then Carter granted them amnesty. Then one of them was elected President.|||President Carter granted amnesty to draft dodgers. Pres. Carter was a Naval Officer.
Report Abuse
|||President Carter granted amnesty to draft dodgers. Pres. Carter was a Naval Officer.
Report Abuse
|||Many got drafted. Of those who were drafted, some dodged and went to Canada, some applied for Conscientious Objector status, some washed out of processing and training, some became part of the army and went someplace other than Nam, some were put in non combat roles, and some hippies actually served in the jungles in combat situations.|||We did they ether went to war or went to jail (or went to Canada)
I do not think we should have a draft ever! It takes away individual liberty and lowers the morale of the force. If we can't get people to fight a war, maybe it isn't worth fighting.
Also when the people are cheap and easy to get the military doesn't work as hard to keep them alive. We spend more money on fewer people today and I think we do a better job. Not because the Soldiers weren't as good but because they didn't have the equipment and tactics we have today because of the all volunteer force.|||NUMEROUS of them were drafted. That is why the COUNTRY of Canada`s population sky rocketed during the VIETNAM WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Many that were DRAFTED HONOURABLELY served their COUNTRY. They deserve the utmost RESPECT; as we should ALL shake their hands and say WELCOME HOME BROTHER/SISTER. Sit down and twist a few cold ones with them; if they drink, or just spend some time with them. They earned to be LOVED, RESPECTED and to be cared for!!!!!!|||The Military as having pity on the soldeirs already in the Armed Forces alright picture this..... A platoon of 100 men is going in for a basic recon mission and one of the soldeirs in their platoon is a hippy they land set up camp and then are attacked while everyone is fightign the Hippy is handing out pamphlets about how war is bad and how everyone should "make Love not War" All the while smoking a joint :) how do you think the Vietnamese Commies would have looked at us? they would have laughed at our faces....this is why we didn't draft the hippies or so i like to think :) by the way ythat was complete sarcasm of course the hippies were drafted|||I was one of them long haired hippie freaks and I got drafted and did my time like a lot of other long hairs. The definition of a hippie is a jack that looks like a jill that smells like a john.
Damn Semper FI , I have never seen a platoon with 100 men and that many on a recon mission would be like a bull in a china shop. They would get their collective butts blown away.|||The were in college and draft exempt, dodged the draft (with phony claims to medical disability or that they were gay), or they ran away to Canada or Sweden.
In point of fact, we didn't really want them in Vietnam. They were not reliable, and we needed troops we could count on to cover our backs.|||The draft order was determined by lottery. If your number (birth date) hadn't come up yet you weren't drafted until it did.
There were a few ways to avoid the draft, as others have said, but everyone that met the age requirement was eligible.|||Hippies were terrified of the prospect of combat and the possibility of death or injury. Thus they invented moral objections to the war as an alibi to avoid military service. Many were so terrified they were willing to forsake family and friends and flee to Canada.|||They WERE drafted.
They ran out of the country and later got pardons, along with all sorts of people who committed crimes against the country during the war. These pardons are why people like Clinton and Kerry were legally able to run for President.|||A guy saying "peace man" and "outa sight baby" all the time wouldn't be much good in a war! Plus they'd all have to get their hair cut!|||A lot of them were drafted. They came home and grew the hair and re joined the hippies.|||I don't know where you got your information but it's incorrect.
They were drafted just the same as every other eligible male at the time.
Get your facts straight.|||they did get drafted, but instead of serving they ran off to canada.|||A lot of them did get drafted.|||Most of them refused to serve or had deferments since they were college students.|||cuz Cartman killed em all
POLL How many people actually supported going to war to kill and give a dictator more troops and power?
Speaking of the "war on terror", and virtually any other war.
I certainly did/do not support this kind of irrational behavior.|||I did/do not support the war in Iraq. It was a lie from the beginning. There were no WMD, no threat to the United States. Yes, Saddam Hussein was a bad man. So are the men in Dafur committing genocide. Our war should have been in Afghanistan where the Taliban and Al Queda were located, not a country that had no involvement with what happened on September 11, 2001.|||Which dictator are you talking about? You mean after we first went to Iraq back in the day and ended up training the militia that eventually became its government? if the government had pulled its thumbs out of its butt long enough to sign bill to fund an iraq war before saddam was allowed into power we wouldnt be at war right now. If the government had properly funded this war in the first place we would have been in and out and done by now.
For God's sake it didnt even take us half this long to nix the nazi regime.|||I proudly supported going to war against an evil dictator, Saddam Hussein. SH was given a death sentence and was hung.
Thank you Mr. Bush for protecting us against evil dictators and Islamofascist thug savages (the kind Obama wants to sit down with) who would wish harm and death to America.|||911 was pretty darn irrational from the start, messing with a country that has more fire power than you do is stupid, people that follow leaders like "dimwit with beard" and think what he has started is right needs to be evalulated by a shrink.
This was was not irrational if we had not gone over there we would still be dealing with blown up buildings and bus's and stores just like the people in Israel do today.|||WMD鈥橲 DEMOCRATS 1998 Way before Bush was President
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32鈥?/a>|||I support both the Iraq war, and the War on Terror that's going on in Afghanistan/Pakistan.
They are separate conflicts.|||What dictator has more power? I support not having another 9/11 thats what I support. Call me a fear monger but I wasn't smiles on September 11th. Anyone else?|||I support war, but I don't support the war that were in at the moment, because it was started with greed.|||At the time, it was close to 90%. Of course, many who have changed their minds would not be honest and admit it.|||Look, this is quite a naive question. Throughout history, many people have supported war in the name of the most irrational thoughts/ideals and believed it was unavoidable. In a more recent one, the world got involved in a war between to very small powers instead of letting them duke it out(WWI) but there are countless models quite similar.
To answer your question, there are plenty of bleeding hearts out there, problem is, they are nearly immediately eaten alive by propagandists and people that just wanna see what will happen if they set the world on fire. What's disgusting to you, is MARVELOUS to another. The only thing now, is to just grow up and deal with it. The sooner you are able to sign off on war, is the sooner YOU'LL be able to step up and make "a final campaign to end conflict around the world and usher in an era of" unlimited peace.
Just remember, there is "a war for everyone", meaning you will find "your" war(one that you will support). With enough people off-set in support just gives way to more war. Although I close in redundancy, I used to be like you, and I want to just throw this one out there-I'm a radical liberal, and I love war.
Have a good one man, there's one viewpoint.
I certainly did/do not support this kind of irrational behavior.|||I did/do not support the war in Iraq. It was a lie from the beginning. There were no WMD, no threat to the United States. Yes, Saddam Hussein was a bad man. So are the men in Dafur committing genocide. Our war should have been in Afghanistan where the Taliban and Al Queda were located, not a country that had no involvement with what happened on September 11, 2001.|||Which dictator are you talking about? You mean after we first went to Iraq back in the day and ended up training the militia that eventually became its government? if the government had pulled its thumbs out of its butt long enough to sign bill to fund an iraq war before saddam was allowed into power we wouldnt be at war right now. If the government had properly funded this war in the first place we would have been in and out and done by now.
For God's sake it didnt even take us half this long to nix the nazi regime.|||I proudly supported going to war against an evil dictator, Saddam Hussein. SH was given a death sentence and was hung.
Thank you Mr. Bush for protecting us against evil dictators and Islamofascist thug savages (the kind Obama wants to sit down with) who would wish harm and death to America.|||911 was pretty darn irrational from the start, messing with a country that has more fire power than you do is stupid, people that follow leaders like "dimwit with beard" and think what he has started is right needs to be evalulated by a shrink.
This was was not irrational if we had not gone over there we would still be dealing with blown up buildings and bus's and stores just like the people in Israel do today.|||WMD鈥橲 DEMOCRATS 1998 Way before Bush was President
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32鈥?/a>|||I support both the Iraq war, and the War on Terror that's going on in Afghanistan/Pakistan.
They are separate conflicts.|||What dictator has more power? I support not having another 9/11 thats what I support. Call me a fear monger but I wasn't smiles on September 11th. Anyone else?|||I support war, but I don't support the war that were in at the moment, because it was started with greed.|||At the time, it was close to 90%. Of course, many who have changed their minds would not be honest and admit it.|||Look, this is quite a naive question. Throughout history, many people have supported war in the name of the most irrational thoughts/ideals and believed it was unavoidable. In a more recent one, the world got involved in a war between to very small powers instead of letting them duke it out(WWI) but there are countless models quite similar.
To answer your question, there are plenty of bleeding hearts out there, problem is, they are nearly immediately eaten alive by propagandists and people that just wanna see what will happen if they set the world on fire. What's disgusting to you, is MARVELOUS to another. The only thing now, is to just grow up and deal with it. The sooner you are able to sign off on war, is the sooner YOU'LL be able to step up and make "a final campaign to end conflict around the world and usher in an era of" unlimited peace.
Just remember, there is "a war for everyone", meaning you will find "your" war(one that you will support). With enough people off-set in support just gives way to more war. Although I close in redundancy, I used to be like you, and I want to just throw this one out there-I'm a radical liberal, and I love war.
Have a good one man, there's one viewpoint.
What is the difference between war and major events?
What is the differences between war and major events? What are some similarities?|||I am not sure what you mean by a 'major event', but a 'war' is a declared conflict by at least one of the nations in the conflict. The Japan declared war on the United States...after bombs were fulling on Pearl Harbor. In other conflicts there is not a declaration of war, even when both sides are clearly in conflict with each other. Firing on another nations embassy, ships, aircraft or citizens can be considered 'Acts of war' and the injured party would be justified in international law on declaring war on the other party. Non-state organizations often will commit acts of war, but since they are not nation states, their actions are normally considered criminal actions and are normally treated as such.
What did african americans where during the civil war?
I'm doing a project for my mississippi studies project. I need to know what african americans (preferably slaves) war during the civil war and after (during the construction era) Also I would like to know the website you got it from. Thanks!|||Most of them, in the south, were home taking care of the women-folk.
What is the date that congress declared an official "war" during the current Bush administration?
I ask this in reference to some claiming the "War Powers Act" as an excuse for Bush to have the authority of a king.
The War Powers Act - allows the President to use military forces for 60 days, without a formal declaration of war by Congress. It also grants an additional 30 days upon a formal request by the President, regardless of Congress's agreement with the request.|||Congress never declared war against Iraq. They just gave the Bush administration permission to use force, if necessary. I'm still not quite sure what made it necessary.|||You mean the date that congress declared war after Bush and the White house lied to them about WMD????|||09/12/ 2001...remember 9/11.
EDIT: That's when we should have declared War...I hate what happened 9/11, and I want the f-cks who flew those planes into our buildings to pay...sorry, that's just me.|||There has been no official declaration of war.|||I know what you are saying, but CONGRESS has allowed this, and has granted the president superfluos powers to continue. We are pawns|||The last time Congress declared war was 66 years ago-almost to the day.|||That depends, how exactly does one declare war against a group of individuals working and living in country X (Pakistan).
Pakistan is both more numerous than us and has nuclear weapons, so declaring war against them is - not an option - furthermore it serves no good purpose for identifying and eliminating terrorism.
Other than authorizing force in respect to a UN directive, the Congress has not officially declared war. This is why every 90 days or so , the president has to go back to the Congress for additional funding.|||Did you see this? probably not since you avoid the truth.|||sept 11 2001|||Since the US has never had a monarch, the War Powers Act has nothing to do with kings.
When you see the resolution passed by both houses giving Bush the authority to do "whatever necessary", be sure to check out who voted in favor and what they're saying on the campaign trail now. That is EXACTLY what you'll get from them when they take office--two faces, and you never know which one you're voting for.|||Congress hasn't declared war since 1941. Just like they didn't declare war against North Korea, North Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Bosnia, Afghanistan or Iraq.
You are correct in saying that the Act allows the President to use military forces for 60 days without a formal declaration of war by Congress. But you forgot something: "unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, ".
If you read the War Powers Act, as I'm sure you did, you'll find that President Bush has followed the law with regard to the introduction of troops to combat.
Sec 2c(3): The United States was attacked
Sec 3: The President consulted with Congress
Sec 4. The President has reported to Congress on a regular basis
Sec 5.(b)1: Congress enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces.
Sec 5. (c) Congress has passed no concurrent resolution to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities.
President Bush doesn't have the powers of a "King", he simply has the powers granted him by the Constitution, and re-affirmed by the War Powers Act.|||The 53rd of Febtuesday... or was that the PI of Novnever? I think it has to do with declaring war on terrorism - except he supports big oil, who ARE terrorists. Uh oh, I'm running out of venom to spit at our two party system. Gotta go recharge - the 14 year old daughter's sarcasm always helps...
The War Powers Act - allows the President to use military forces for 60 days, without a formal declaration of war by Congress. It also grants an additional 30 days upon a formal request by the President, regardless of Congress's agreement with the request.|||Congress never declared war against Iraq. They just gave the Bush administration permission to use force, if necessary. I'm still not quite sure what made it necessary.|||You mean the date that congress declared war after Bush and the White house lied to them about WMD????|||09/12/ 2001...remember 9/11.
EDIT: That's when we should have declared War...I hate what happened 9/11, and I want the f-cks who flew those planes into our buildings to pay...sorry, that's just me.|||There has been no official declaration of war.|||I know what you are saying, but CONGRESS has allowed this, and has granted the president superfluos powers to continue. We are pawns|||The last time Congress declared war was 66 years ago-almost to the day.|||That depends, how exactly does one declare war against a group of individuals working and living in country X (Pakistan).
Pakistan is both more numerous than us and has nuclear weapons, so declaring war against them is - not an option - furthermore it serves no good purpose for identifying and eliminating terrorism.
Other than authorizing force in respect to a UN directive, the Congress has not officially declared war. This is why every 90 days or so , the president has to go back to the Congress for additional funding.|||Did you see this? probably not since you avoid the truth.|||sept 11 2001|||Since the US has never had a monarch, the War Powers Act has nothing to do with kings.
When you see the resolution passed by both houses giving Bush the authority to do "whatever necessary", be sure to check out who voted in favor and what they're saying on the campaign trail now. That is EXACTLY what you'll get from them when they take office--two faces, and you never know which one you're voting for.|||Congress hasn't declared war since 1941. Just like they didn't declare war against North Korea, North Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Bosnia, Afghanistan or Iraq.
You are correct in saying that the Act allows the President to use military forces for 60 days without a formal declaration of war by Congress. But you forgot something: "unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, ".
If you read the War Powers Act, as I'm sure you did, you'll find that President Bush has followed the law with regard to the introduction of troops to combat.
Sec 2c(3): The United States was attacked
Sec 3: The President consulted with Congress
Sec 4. The President has reported to Congress on a regular basis
Sec 5.(b)1: Congress enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces.
Sec 5. (c) Congress has passed no concurrent resolution to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities.
President Bush doesn't have the powers of a "King", he simply has the powers granted him by the Constitution, and re-affirmed by the War Powers Act.|||The 53rd of Febtuesday... or was that the PI of Novnever? I think it has to do with declaring war on terrorism - except he supports big oil, who ARE terrorists. Uh oh, I'm running out of venom to spit at our two party system. Gotta go recharge - the 14 year old daughter's sarcasm always helps...
What are the laws of war regarding invasion and occupation of a country?
What would be the laws regarding if one country A was attacked by country B, but A counter attacked and captured land from B? Is that allowed in the laws of war?
What would happen if country A invaded B and conquered part of B's land? What would happen then?|||The Rules that cover this are contained in Geneva Convention IV, Section 3
See the link below.|||See 2008 War between Georgia and Russia over South Ossetia. That is exactly what happened in your country A/B example. It's still being worked out.|||Watch Israel, with particular attention to everything they're doing in Gaza and the West Bank. 90% of it is illegal, so it'll give you a good idea of what ISN'T law!|||There are no Laws regarding the Invasion and occupation of a Country. The only Laws in doing so, is treatment of Captured troops and civilians welfare, under the Geneva Convention (Acts of War).|||''All is fair in love and war''
Basically if your powerful enough you can do whatever the **** you want
What would happen if country A invaded B and conquered part of B's land? What would happen then?|||The Rules that cover this are contained in Geneva Convention IV, Section 3
See the link below.|||See 2008 War between Georgia and Russia over South Ossetia. That is exactly what happened in your country A/B example. It's still being worked out.|||Watch Israel, with particular attention to everything they're doing in Gaza and the West Bank. 90% of it is illegal, so it'll give you a good idea of what ISN'T law!|||There are no Laws regarding the Invasion and occupation of a Country. The only Laws in doing so, is treatment of Captured troops and civilians welfare, under the Geneva Convention (Acts of War).|||''All is fair in love and war''
Basically if your powerful enough you can do whatever the **** you want
How come during the cold war the only superpowers were white countries?
During the cold war, the superpowers on earth were soviet union and united states, the thing is though, both these countries had a white-majority population. So how come only white people can create super-power nations how come other races cant achieve as much as white do?|||What white people see as achievement is not achievement for other people.|||Hahahahhahaha great observation!|||Because you rub yourself at night sweetie|||Ask your question in 5 years when China becomes a superpower.|||White people tend to be more productive.
But the Asians and Indians are definitely industrious
as for the blacks well haha!!|||Potential planetary devastation is an accomplishment ?
little side note there Adolph, there were a lot of Jews involved in creating the atomic bomb and its delivery systems.|||The Chinese are getting there. Oh and, imagine if Asians were occupying the West of Europe when the New World was discovered. It would be pretty different, huh.|||So you see making the entire population of the world live in fear of nuclear annihilation for forty years as an achievement do you?
Update: Well it seems at least 4 of you do. I wonder if you're too young to remember what life was like two or three decades ago when pretty much everyone genuinely expected that they would die in a nuclear war. I remember just how frightened people were by dramas such as Threads.|||It's not that they couldn't achieve it. It's the fact that whitey f*ed up every brown and black country beforehand.
But the Asians and Indians are definitely industrious
as for the blacks well haha!!|||Potential planetary devastation is an accomplishment ?
little side note there Adolph, there were a lot of Jews involved in creating the atomic bomb and its delivery systems.|||The Chinese are getting there. Oh and, imagine if Asians were occupying the West of Europe when the New World was discovered. It would be pretty different, huh.|||So you see making the entire population of the world live in fear of nuclear annihilation for forty years as an achievement do you?
Update: Well it seems at least 4 of you do. I wonder if you're too young to remember what life was like two or three decades ago when pretty much everyone genuinely expected that they would die in a nuclear war. I remember just how frightened people were by dramas such as Threads.|||It's not that they couldn't achieve it. It's the fact that whitey f*ed up every brown and black country beforehand.
How is the theme of War and Revolution demonstrated in the graphic novel Persepolis?
I need help coming up with 3 different groups on how War and Revolution is presented in the comic Persepolis. I then need to fill in each of these groups with 10-12 pieces of evidence (quote/frame).|||The fact that during the entire novel, sometimes she's wearing a scarf and sometimes, she doesn't
What kinds of people tend to agree with war?
I am trying to find something that influences people to either agree or disagree with war. Does religion play apart? Do religious people tend to be against war? Is it the level of prejudice? Gender?
Help is appreciated!|||Conservatives are willing to fight when necessary.
Liberals are willing to appease when necessary.|||war is ******* fun i want america to start a war with those pussy *** canadians. man canada suck monkey cock!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|||people that have been hurt|||People that don't have to fight in them.|||It depends on the purpose of the war.|||Mainly Jewish people, they pushed for the war in Iraq and now they want a war with Iran.|||War has always been decided by old men sending young ones into wars to fight their battles.
A recent survey showed that the majority of Christians in the U.S. support torture, war, and violence. I have come across VERY FEW religious people who speak against war; that's usually done by the non-religious types.
Men seem to like it more than women, probably because of their high levels of testosterone, which brings out the violence in many of them.
Women, of course, being nurturers, understand that war is a confession of ignorance and is not healthy for children and other living things.|||Sometimes war is the only solution to end oppression. There is no denying that it is undesirable, but sometimes it is the lesser of two evils. If the US had not been so opposed to war during the rise of Hitler, 6 million Jews might not have lost their lives.|||"Don't tread on me!" People with that mind set.|||those who will gain financially or politically, share holders of weapon makers ( government ministers typically ) %26amp; mr blair who thought he would become a hero like thatcher but instead became a war criminal in most peoples eyes|||dumb ***'s tend to agree with war thats who!!!|||I believe religious people are for the war, they are against change and they see where the world is headed and know day and day that religion is becoming less important, instead science is. and they fear this.
In my own opinion i believe in war if it's needed, to fight for the right cause not for oil for E.G. if people stoped for a second to think what we are capable of, what we can do, what we can influence they'd stop their wars and focus on the future before they destroy it themselves.
Help is appreciated!|||Conservatives are willing to fight when necessary.
Liberals are willing to appease when necessary.|||war is ******* fun i want america to start a war with those pussy *** canadians. man canada suck monkey cock!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Report Abuse
|||people that have been hurt|||People that don't have to fight in them.|||It depends on the purpose of the war.|||Mainly Jewish people, they pushed for the war in Iraq and now they want a war with Iran.|||War has always been decided by old men sending young ones into wars to fight their battles.
A recent survey showed that the majority of Christians in the U.S. support torture, war, and violence. I have come across VERY FEW religious people who speak against war; that's usually done by the non-religious types.
Men seem to like it more than women, probably because of their high levels of testosterone, which brings out the violence in many of them.
Women, of course, being nurturers, understand that war is a confession of ignorance and is not healthy for children and other living things.|||Sometimes war is the only solution to end oppression. There is no denying that it is undesirable, but sometimes it is the lesser of two evils. If the US had not been so opposed to war during the rise of Hitler, 6 million Jews might not have lost their lives.|||"Don't tread on me!" People with that mind set.|||those who will gain financially or politically, share holders of weapon makers ( government ministers typically ) %26amp; mr blair who thought he would become a hero like thatcher but instead became a war criminal in most peoples eyes|||dumb ***'s tend to agree with war thats who!!!|||I believe religious people are for the war, they are against change and they see where the world is headed and know day and day that religion is becoming less important, instead science is. and they fear this.
In my own opinion i believe in war if it's needed, to fight for the right cause not for oil for E.G. if people stoped for a second to think what we are capable of, what we can do, what we can influence they'd stop their wars and focus on the future before they destroy it themselves.
Why did the United States engage in a nearly disastrous war against the British from 1812 to 1814?
Why did the United States engage in a nearly disastrous war against the British from 1812 to 1814? What, if anything, did the United States gain from that war?
RESOURCES TO CONSIDER:
Consult the Making America textbook. Specifically examine the chapters that deal with Jeffersonianism, the Era of Good Feelings, and the War of 1812.|||It was about an ear, specifically Jenkin's ear!
Seriously!
The British were trying to enforce a blockade of trade with Europe, which was dominated by Napoleon. That meant they were stopping and searching ships and interefering with free trade. The Americans fought for the right to trade with whoerver they wanted. This was the main cause.
What sparked it was the ear. The British were searching ships and also taking sailors who they claimed were British to serve in their navy ( the name of this conscription was called being "press ganged"). One sailor resisted and had his ear sliced up. That was good enough to whip up support for the war.
Presto: War of 1812.|||the us gained nothing but the canadians did secure Boarders and later a Nation that is Not part of the USA
|||Because they attacked us. Look up the war of 1812 in Wikipedia.|||Tired of the kings and queens.
RESOURCES TO CONSIDER:
Consult the Making America textbook. Specifically examine the chapters that deal with Jeffersonianism, the Era of Good Feelings, and the War of 1812.|||It was about an ear, specifically Jenkin's ear!
Seriously!
The British were trying to enforce a blockade of trade with Europe, which was dominated by Napoleon. That meant they were stopping and searching ships and interefering with free trade. The Americans fought for the right to trade with whoerver they wanted. This was the main cause.
What sparked it was the ear. The British were searching ships and also taking sailors who they claimed were British to serve in their navy ( the name of this conscription was called being "press ganged"). One sailor resisted and had his ear sliced up. That was good enough to whip up support for the war.
Presto: War of 1812.|||the us gained nothing but the canadians did secure Boarders and later a Nation that is Not part of the USA
Report Abuse
|||Because they attacked us. Look up the war of 1812 in Wikipedia.|||Tired of the kings and queens.
What is a free downloadable war game that can be played on a mac?
I'm really bored and im looking for a war game that i can download onto my mac. It has to be free too, and suggestions?|||http://www.vizzed.com/vizzedboard/retro/
You should be able to find one at the above link. The above site has thousands of games that can be played online for free and they all work on a Mac.|||try the halo trial its free and has online play|||wolf squad or wolf pack cant remember which one
You should be able to find one at the above link. The above site has thousands of games that can be played online for free and they all work on a Mac.|||try the halo trial its free and has online play|||wolf squad or wolf pack cant remember which one
鈥?How would you characterise the relationship between ideas about war and how wars have been made?
Have just been given this question for a uni paper today- am trying to work out what sort of angle to tackle it from, any ideas? Thanks.
鈥?How would you characterise the relationship between ideas about war and how wars have been made?|||Hello there
I am the surfer
Political views about war and military theory about war
I.) Political views
Not always words are in match with facts , examples include:
1-.) The crusades; by the time the crusades started inside Jerusalem christians , arabs and jews did live in peace , so why to save Jerusalem or to what from?
So if jesus preached peace, why the need of war to spread his word around!?
2.) Wars of religion arabs like Intifada, christians had done many wars and the Inquisition from Spain too. so words do not match the deeds!
3.) World war one England believed of her self the savior of Europe, but it was actually imperialism , to deprive Germany from access to markets and raw materials!
4.) World war two : The western alliance was meant to eliminate tyranny of germany and bring peace, yet however no effort was made to stop the Holocaust and after the war no effort was made the help jews to fund and create Israel, the opposite happened, England tried very hard at her best to prevent the creation of Israel! (what hypocrisy!)
5.) Asian wars for communism : korea and vietnam , communist attacked south korea with the purpose to "liberate" and unite, to liberate from what, south korea was little , peaceful and not so hostile, so what was the danger posed by south!? none! if the reds attacked is to "liberate" but if they are attacked they cry martyr doom and that they are victims!
6.) Cuba called the us the imperialist aggressor, yet however they attacked Angola during 75! and Angola posed no threat of danger towards Cuba!
7.) Israel attacked Lebanon recently justifying the attacked to rescue some soldiers behind the lines!
When words match the facts
1.) National wars for Independence like Latin America from spain, usa from England and many more!
2.) When the Israelis attacked the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak
3.) When Israelis rescue their own at Entebbe!
When the us attacked Lybia for supporting terrorism !
4.) When usa blockaded cuba to remove missiles, 1961
5.) When south africa defended herself from communism aggression
6.) When south korea ws defended from China nad North korea
7.) When turkey invaded cyprus in 74 to defend turkish citizens from greek abuse and won!
II) Military ideas gone good
Clausewitz once said "war is the continuation of politics by other means!"
1.) The ideas about aerial power are very useful and accurate
2.) The ideas of use of naval air power from carriers are useful to extreme
3.) The german doctrine of submarines was very correct
4.) The theories of aerial combat are very practical
5.) Germany invented tank warfare doctrine and it did produce prominent results , up until today tank warfare is modern warfare.....
From the surfer|||You have to ask yourself - What is war? What does war achieve - what is war meant to achieve?
There are alot of thories about war - such as Clausewitz that war is a continuation of politics by other means. But what about International relations theories?
International relations theories - realists believe that nations are self centred - that nations will look after their own self interests before any other considerations. Liberals believe that nations can join together for the common good and will go to war for the good of humanity. There are those that believe that Liberal democracies will not go to war against each other - they believe that democracies fight for the common good and will seek out ways to avoid war - but is this true?
International bodies were set up - the League of Nations and the United Nations - to prevent war - the liberal ideals of U.S President Woodrow Wilson to prevent the outbreak of another World War - but was this ever possible to prevent war? As we have seen - no.
A nation would not be able to go to war against another unless it had the Means to do so - no nation would go to war knowing it couldnt win right? So war is a way of exercising power - of coercing another nation - to force another nation to do something it doesnt want to do for gain? territory / money / power or resources?
but does war happen because two nations spiral towards war? years of jealousy / hatred / rivalry - arms rivalry - spiral to such an extent - like it did between Imperial Germany and British naval rivalry or even between the Soviet Union and the U.S - that it spirals out of control into war - that no nation can back down without losing face? What would have happened in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis if Kruschev had not have backed down?
Do nations / groups go to war for other reasons? The U.S - Spanish war of 1898 - Did the U.S go to war against Spain to stop spanish brutality in Cuba? Or did the U.S really go to war against Spain to get rid of a dangerous rival in the Americas - considering Monroes Doctrine about the U.S not tolerating another European colonial power in its sphere of influence?
Why did the U.S go to war in Vietnam? To stop communism? Or to prevent the further expansion of influence of a rival - the Soviet Union and China?
What was the U.S Invasion of Iraq about? To stop Al Qaeda and terrorism, to stop Iraq's weapons of mass destruction? Humanitarian reasons? Or was it about the grab for resources? Is it possible that nations go to war for liberal reasons - for the good of humanity? Or is this just a cover for our own greed and needs?
There is a good website - IR Theory http://www.irtheory.com/know.htm - has many instances and theories of International relations - why nations act like they do. Its very good reading as i did an International Relations course for Uni 4 years ago - very interesting.
鈥?How would you characterise the relationship between ideas about war and how wars have been made?|||Hello there
I am the surfer
Political views about war and military theory about war
I.) Political views
Not always words are in match with facts , examples include:
1-.) The crusades; by the time the crusades started inside Jerusalem christians , arabs and jews did live in peace , so why to save Jerusalem or to what from?
So if jesus preached peace, why the need of war to spread his word around!?
2.) Wars of religion arabs like Intifada, christians had done many wars and the Inquisition from Spain too. so words do not match the deeds!
3.) World war one England believed of her self the savior of Europe, but it was actually imperialism , to deprive Germany from access to markets and raw materials!
4.) World war two : The western alliance was meant to eliminate tyranny of germany and bring peace, yet however no effort was made to stop the Holocaust and after the war no effort was made the help jews to fund and create Israel, the opposite happened, England tried very hard at her best to prevent the creation of Israel! (what hypocrisy!)
5.) Asian wars for communism : korea and vietnam , communist attacked south korea with the purpose to "liberate" and unite, to liberate from what, south korea was little , peaceful and not so hostile, so what was the danger posed by south!? none! if the reds attacked is to "liberate" but if they are attacked they cry martyr doom and that they are victims!
6.) Cuba called the us the imperialist aggressor, yet however they attacked Angola during 75! and Angola posed no threat of danger towards Cuba!
7.) Israel attacked Lebanon recently justifying the attacked to rescue some soldiers behind the lines!
When words match the facts
1.) National wars for Independence like Latin America from spain, usa from England and many more!
2.) When the Israelis attacked the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak
3.) When Israelis rescue their own at Entebbe!
When the us attacked Lybia for supporting terrorism !
4.) When usa blockaded cuba to remove missiles, 1961
5.) When south africa defended herself from communism aggression
6.) When south korea ws defended from China nad North korea
7.) When turkey invaded cyprus in 74 to defend turkish citizens from greek abuse and won!
II) Military ideas gone good
Clausewitz once said "war is the continuation of politics by other means!"
1.) The ideas about aerial power are very useful and accurate
2.) The ideas of use of naval air power from carriers are useful to extreme
3.) The german doctrine of submarines was very correct
4.) The theories of aerial combat are very practical
5.) Germany invented tank warfare doctrine and it did produce prominent results , up until today tank warfare is modern warfare.....
From the surfer|||You have to ask yourself - What is war? What does war achieve - what is war meant to achieve?
There are alot of thories about war - such as Clausewitz that war is a continuation of politics by other means. But what about International relations theories?
International relations theories - realists believe that nations are self centred - that nations will look after their own self interests before any other considerations. Liberals believe that nations can join together for the common good and will go to war for the good of humanity. There are those that believe that Liberal democracies will not go to war against each other - they believe that democracies fight for the common good and will seek out ways to avoid war - but is this true?
International bodies were set up - the League of Nations and the United Nations - to prevent war - the liberal ideals of U.S President Woodrow Wilson to prevent the outbreak of another World War - but was this ever possible to prevent war? As we have seen - no.
A nation would not be able to go to war against another unless it had the Means to do so - no nation would go to war knowing it couldnt win right? So war is a way of exercising power - of coercing another nation - to force another nation to do something it doesnt want to do for gain? territory / money / power or resources?
but does war happen because two nations spiral towards war? years of jealousy / hatred / rivalry - arms rivalry - spiral to such an extent - like it did between Imperial Germany and British naval rivalry or even between the Soviet Union and the U.S - that it spirals out of control into war - that no nation can back down without losing face? What would have happened in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis if Kruschev had not have backed down?
Do nations / groups go to war for other reasons? The U.S - Spanish war of 1898 - Did the U.S go to war against Spain to stop spanish brutality in Cuba? Or did the U.S really go to war against Spain to get rid of a dangerous rival in the Americas - considering Monroes Doctrine about the U.S not tolerating another European colonial power in its sphere of influence?
Why did the U.S go to war in Vietnam? To stop communism? Or to prevent the further expansion of influence of a rival - the Soviet Union and China?
What was the U.S Invasion of Iraq about? To stop Al Qaeda and terrorism, to stop Iraq's weapons of mass destruction? Humanitarian reasons? Or was it about the grab for resources? Is it possible that nations go to war for liberal reasons - for the good of humanity? Or is this just a cover for our own greed and needs?
There is a good website - IR Theory http://www.irtheory.com/know.htm - has many instances and theories of International relations - why nations act like they do. Its very good reading as i did an International Relations course for Uni 4 years ago - very interesting.
Why was the French and Indian War considered the first world war?
Why was the French and Indian War considered the first world war?
I have ideas already. it included the three most major countries of the time (the french, english and spanish). The indians also fought in this war. But how did it affect the different countries in order to make it a World war. Please help!|||Previously, the wars had been fought on European soil. This was the first war that involved major European powers fighting a war for profit in Europe, and North America, They enlisted support of the different Native Nations in their war, thus spreading war across the world on two continents.|||it makes sense that, if the major countries of the world are at war, the smaller countries around the world whose economies depend on trade and products/supplies from those larger countries would also be affected. and definitely be rooting for their ally country!
I have ideas already. it included the three most major countries of the time (the french, english and spanish). The indians also fought in this war. But how did it affect the different countries in order to make it a World war. Please help!|||Previously, the wars had been fought on European soil. This was the first war that involved major European powers fighting a war for profit in Europe, and North America, They enlisted support of the different Native Nations in their war, thus spreading war across the world on two continents.|||it makes sense that, if the major countries of the world are at war, the smaller countries around the world whose economies depend on trade and products/supplies from those larger countries would also be affected. and definitely be rooting for their ally country!
What is the nuclear war movie called that ends with a family taking drugs to die before radiation comes?
I am trying to find a movie that I watched awhile back, but can not remember the name. The movie has to do with the after effects of a nuclear war scenario. At the end of the movie a family takes some sort of drug to die so that they don't die from the radiation headed their way (i think they are in australia at the end of the movie). I watched it in various parts on youtube.|||It might be "On the Beach".
What were the roles of the Korean and Vietnam Wars during the Cold War?
What was the point to these wars, and how did they affect the Cold War?|||the point of the Korean and Vietnam wars during the cold war was to contain communism and to not allow the "domino theory" to occur. The domino theory was that if Vietnam fell to communism, all of Southeast Asia would fall to communism. As a result of the Vietnam War, Cambodia did fall to communism, but luckily, the rest of Southeast Asia was fine.|||Basically what the first person said. Although it should be noted that Vietnam was a civil war that America should never have gotten involved in.
What is the difference between blood diamond war and invisible children?
Hello,
I am wondering what the difference is between the war going on about blood diamonds and the invisible children in Uganda?
Are they just in different locations? I know that the war about the diamonds are all about diamonds but do they capture only children? or families?
I am just wondering if they have anything to do with each other? any relations?|||The Blood Diamond and Invisible Children movies deal with two separate conflicts. While many conflicts and wars in Africa have many similarities, they are still distinct. I don't know much about the movie Blood Diamond, but I do know a bit about the war with the Lord's Resistance Army in northern Uganda and surrounding areas. The LRA rebels capture children, adults, families, anyone really. While it is the children who are usually recruited as soldiers and sex slaves, other community members (adults) are often abducted and forced to become porters, carrying the things that the rebels looted from the villages they attacked. If you want more information about what's going on in Uganda, some organizations that deal with the conflict are Invisible Children, Resolve (formerly Resolve Uganda), and Enough (with John Prendergast). Hopefully this helps answer your question a little bit.
I am wondering what the difference is between the war going on about blood diamonds and the invisible children in Uganda?
Are they just in different locations? I know that the war about the diamonds are all about diamonds but do they capture only children? or families?
I am just wondering if they have anything to do with each other? any relations?|||The Blood Diamond and Invisible Children movies deal with two separate conflicts. While many conflicts and wars in Africa have many similarities, they are still distinct. I don't know much about the movie Blood Diamond, but I do know a bit about the war with the Lord's Resistance Army in northern Uganda and surrounding areas. The LRA rebels capture children, adults, families, anyone really. While it is the children who are usually recruited as soldiers and sex slaves, other community members (adults) are often abducted and forced to become porters, carrying the things that the rebels looted from the villages they attacked. If you want more information about what's going on in Uganda, some organizations that deal with the conflict are Invisible Children, Resolve (formerly Resolve Uganda), and Enough (with John Prendergast). Hopefully this helps answer your question a little bit.
Is there any good war novels that start from bootcamp to the war?
any detailed good war novels
futuristic war novels, and world war 1 and 2?
if you can could you please list them thanks :)|||STARSHIP TROOPERS|||stanley kubrick
full metal jacket|||For W.W.II , I recommend
"The Winds of War" and "War and Rememberance"(War and Rememberance is a two volume set. ) by Hermann Wouk. They follow the career of fictional admiral Pug Henry.
Another set of war novels, but not WW1, WW2 or futuristic is the Horatio Hornblower series by C.S. Forester. They are well written and follows his career from Midshipman to Admiral.|||Try one called ARMOR.
futuristic war novels, and world war 1 and 2?
if you can could you please list them thanks :)|||STARSHIP TROOPERS|||stanley kubrick
full metal jacket|||For W.W.II , I recommend
"The Winds of War" and "War and Rememberance"(War and Rememberance is a two volume set. ) by Hermann Wouk. They follow the career of fictional admiral Pug Henry.
Another set of war novels, but not WW1, WW2 or futuristic is the Horatio Hornblower series by C.S. Forester. They are well written and follows his career from Midshipman to Admiral.|||Try one called ARMOR.
How did the Cold War affect the political and social climate in the United States during the 1950s?
How did the Cold War affect the political and social climate in the United States during the 1950s? In particular, how do you explain McCarthyism and the Red Scare? Can you think of any parallels to these events in today鈥檚 society?|||The Cold War caused a huge tension between the Soviet Union and the United States - neither countries knew who was going to attack first, or when/where it was going to happen, if it ever was going to happen. It was a non-fighting expansion of time from the late 1940s - the early 1990s. Both countries wanted to avoid break-outs and nuclear destruction. McCarthyism is the practice of making accusation of disloyalties or wrong-doings without proper evidence. During the post-World War II, Americans were accused of being Communists, questioning the acts of government privates, officials, and rulers. The Red Scare is split into two parts: The First Red Scare from 1917-1920, and the Second Red Scare from 1947-1957. The term 'Red Scare' denotes two distinct periods of strong anti-communism, and both McCarthyism and the Red Scares are connected within issues of Communism during World War II.
How many republicans would actually go to war and fight if there happened to be a draft?
We know cons are all about the war in Iraq, but percentage wise, I would guess less than 14% would actually go. The other 86% would intentionally disable themselves to not go to war, but yet preach "drill baby drill."
Anyone agree? Now I would fight for this country for a good cause, but not for oil. |||No one , They are just coward, They want your money.|||Stallion... if there is a draft, and you're called up, you GO.. They don't care if you agree with th cause or not.|||I think it's Tom Tomorrow who's done the series of comic strips on the 18-to-30 Year Old Republicans!, who spend most of their time talking about how to get other kids to sign up and go fight the war, because they're far too busy with their internships and think-tank work.
Anyone agree? Now I would fight for this country for a good cause, but not for oil. |||No one , They are just coward, They want your money.|||Stallion... if there is a draft, and you're called up, you GO.. They don't care if you agree with th cause or not.|||I think it's Tom Tomorrow who's done the series of comic strips on the 18-to-30 Year Old Republicans!, who spend most of their time talking about how to get other kids to sign up and go fight the war, because they're far too busy with their internships and think-tank work.
What happened in Indonesia during the cold war?
I need to the years that the cold war affected Indonesia
for example: 1965-1968
What affected indonesia that was cold war related?|||The main independence movement, the Indonesian Nationalist Party (PNI), emerged in the 1920s under the leadership of Ahmed Sukarno. It was thoroughly suppressed by the Dutch and remained largely underground until the Dutch East Indies were overrun by the Japanese during World War II. The Japanese installed a puppet PNI government for the duration of their occupation. Following the Japanese defeat in 1945, the PNI declared independence. This was quickly challenged by the Dutch who dispatched a military expeditionary force to Indonesia and arrested Sukarno. However by 1949, under international pressure, they were forced to concede the country鈥檚 sovereignty.
The colonial powers had depleted much of Indonesia鈥檚 wealth while contributing little to its development. The Sukarno government had a massive development task ahead of it. It also had to forge a national consciousness among dozens of mutually suspicious tribes and ethnic groups. The leaders chose as their national motto the phrase Bhineka Tunggalika, meaning 鈥榰nity in diversity鈥?
The new Government planned a federal structure for the country, but in 1950 reverted to a unitary state. This concentrated political and economic power in Java, and produced resentment elsewhere. Sukarno鈥檚 growing authoritarianism at home was accompanied by an activist foreign policy which attracted, in particular, the enmity of the USA and its allies, who were suspicious of Sukarno鈥檚 Cold-War neutrality.
Economic difficulties further fuelled the growth of the opposition, in particular the powerful Indonesian Communist Party (PKI). In September 1965, a coup was launched by sections of the army with full PKI support. The immediate political struggle, which the Government eventually won, was one of the closest in recent history. With discreet support from the Western powers, the army Chief of Staff, General Suharto, backed Sukarno, and saved the regime. Between 400,000 and one million were massacred by the army in the aftermath of the coup. Sukarno was now politically crippled and, in March 1967, was replaced by Suharto.
Suharto remained as President until his (forced) resignation in May 1998. Under the Suharto government, the army always held ultimate political power while a technocrat class was left to run the country day-to-day. The Golkar (Partai Golongan Karya) party was established as the regime鈥檚 official political vehicle. Until the fall of Suharto in 1998, Golkar and its candidates won every election with with comfortable majorities.
The regime brought Indonesia relative peace and stability and steady economic growth. Manifestations of Muslim fundamentalism 鈥?Indonesia is the world鈥檚 largest Muslim country 鈥?were rigorously controlled by the Government: both Sukarno and Suharto adhered to a policy of allowing religious diversity as a guarantor of social stability, although attempts to enshrine this formally in an official doctrine of Pancasila were dropped and the Government introduced various stop-gap pro-Islamic policies.
Sukarno鈥檚 foreign policy was determinedly neutralist: Indonesia was a founding and active member of the Non-Aligned Movement. His successor, Suharto, steadily tilted his country towards the West and joined the pro-Western ASEAN bloc (Association of South East Asian Nations). From the mid 1980s onwards, he also made some efforts to improve relations with the Soviet Union and China.
The trigger for the fall of Suharto was the Asian financial crisis of 1997. Indonesia suffered particularly badly, as the structural flaws in the economy were laid bare As thousands were thrown out of work, months of rioting and protest followed. The army, which was already struggling with several insurgencies on Indonesia鈥檚 outlying territories (see below), began to show signs of dissent. In May 1998, once the influential Muslim leader Amien Rais and various senior military figures had lent their voices to the clamour already demanding Suharto鈥檚 departure, the President was left with little choice but to resign (years of bottled-up resentment at the extended Suharto clan鈥檚 general freeloading and wholesale corruption also played its part in this scenario).
Suharto鈥檚 deputy, Jusuf Habibie, took over until presidential elections were held under new rules in November 1999; national assembly elections were held five months earlier, in June. These saw Golkar pushed into second place by the principal opposition party, the Partai Demokrasi Indonesia Perjuangan (PDIP, the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle) headed by the daughter of former President Sukarno, Megawati Sukarnoputri.
for example: 1965-1968
What affected indonesia that was cold war related?|||The main independence movement, the Indonesian Nationalist Party (PNI), emerged in the 1920s under the leadership of Ahmed Sukarno. It was thoroughly suppressed by the Dutch and remained largely underground until the Dutch East Indies were overrun by the Japanese during World War II. The Japanese installed a puppet PNI government for the duration of their occupation. Following the Japanese defeat in 1945, the PNI declared independence. This was quickly challenged by the Dutch who dispatched a military expeditionary force to Indonesia and arrested Sukarno. However by 1949, under international pressure, they were forced to concede the country鈥檚 sovereignty.
The colonial powers had depleted much of Indonesia鈥檚 wealth while contributing little to its development. The Sukarno government had a massive development task ahead of it. It also had to forge a national consciousness among dozens of mutually suspicious tribes and ethnic groups. The leaders chose as their national motto the phrase Bhineka Tunggalika, meaning 鈥榰nity in diversity鈥?
The new Government planned a federal structure for the country, but in 1950 reverted to a unitary state. This concentrated political and economic power in Java, and produced resentment elsewhere. Sukarno鈥檚 growing authoritarianism at home was accompanied by an activist foreign policy which attracted, in particular, the enmity of the USA and its allies, who were suspicious of Sukarno鈥檚 Cold-War neutrality.
Economic difficulties further fuelled the growth of the opposition, in particular the powerful Indonesian Communist Party (PKI). In September 1965, a coup was launched by sections of the army with full PKI support. The immediate political struggle, which the Government eventually won, was one of the closest in recent history. With discreet support from the Western powers, the army Chief of Staff, General Suharto, backed Sukarno, and saved the regime. Between 400,000 and one million were massacred by the army in the aftermath of the coup. Sukarno was now politically crippled and, in March 1967, was replaced by Suharto.
Suharto remained as President until his (forced) resignation in May 1998. Under the Suharto government, the army always held ultimate political power while a technocrat class was left to run the country day-to-day. The Golkar (Partai Golongan Karya) party was established as the regime鈥檚 official political vehicle. Until the fall of Suharto in 1998, Golkar and its candidates won every election with with comfortable majorities.
The regime brought Indonesia relative peace and stability and steady economic growth. Manifestations of Muslim fundamentalism 鈥?Indonesia is the world鈥檚 largest Muslim country 鈥?were rigorously controlled by the Government: both Sukarno and Suharto adhered to a policy of allowing religious diversity as a guarantor of social stability, although attempts to enshrine this formally in an official doctrine of Pancasila were dropped and the Government introduced various stop-gap pro-Islamic policies.
Sukarno鈥檚 foreign policy was determinedly neutralist: Indonesia was a founding and active member of the Non-Aligned Movement. His successor, Suharto, steadily tilted his country towards the West and joined the pro-Western ASEAN bloc (Association of South East Asian Nations). From the mid 1980s onwards, he also made some efforts to improve relations with the Soviet Union and China.
The trigger for the fall of Suharto was the Asian financial crisis of 1997. Indonesia suffered particularly badly, as the structural flaws in the economy were laid bare As thousands were thrown out of work, months of rioting and protest followed. The army, which was already struggling with several insurgencies on Indonesia鈥檚 outlying territories (see below), began to show signs of dissent. In May 1998, once the influential Muslim leader Amien Rais and various senior military figures had lent their voices to the clamour already demanding Suharto鈥檚 departure, the President was left with little choice but to resign (years of bottled-up resentment at the extended Suharto clan鈥檚 general freeloading and wholesale corruption also played its part in this scenario).
Suharto鈥檚 deputy, Jusuf Habibie, took over until presidential elections were held under new rules in November 1999; national assembly elections were held five months earlier, in June. These saw Golkar pushed into second place by the principal opposition party, the Partai Demokrasi Indonesia Perjuangan (PDIP, the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle) headed by the daughter of former President Sukarno, Megawati Sukarnoputri.
What are the effects of a foreign war on a home city?
I'm writing a paper on the effects of a foreign colonial war back home in Britain. My question is, typically not specifically, what are the effects - so far I'm thinking of political effects, such as political opposition; also thinking of economic/industrial, such as increased orders because of the war. Any others? Suppose loss of life if a regiment from the city is involved but this isn't the case here. Any help appreciated.|||There are two very famous playwrites who wrote plays about foreign wars and their effect[s] upon the folk back home.
The first and foremost is William Shakespeare and in more recent time the world famous Irish playwrite George Bernard Shaw [Socialist].
George Bernard Shaw
During his long career, Shaw wrote over 50 plays. He continued to write them even
in his 90s. George Bernard Shaw died at Ayot St. Lawrence, Hertfordshire, ...
http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/gbshaw.htm
YouTube - George Bernard Shaw %26amp; Albert Einstein
George Bernard Shaw pays tribute to professor Albert Einstein at a dinner at the
Savoy Hotel, London.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocSgz_AeS鈥?/a>
Oscar Wilde once said of Bernard Shaw - "Mr. Bernard Shaw has no enemies, but is intensely disliked by all his friends."
Nicholas Grene. Shakespeare's Serial History Plays
Foreign war and civil war govern the Henry Vi-Richard III series in which ...
identity of land and nation dissolves: "What we witness in the play is a fall ...
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o%26amp;se=ggl鈥?/a>
Royal Shakespeare Company : Press releases
They include: the start of a new cycle of Shakespeare鈥檚 history plays; the return of
.... exploring the flickering moral compass of faith in a foreign land. ...
http://www.rsc.org.uk/press/420_2145.asp鈥?/a> - Cached
Using Shakespeare's Henry V to Teach Just-War Principles
In what follows, I鈥檒l explain how I鈥檝e found Shakespeare鈥檚 play helpful in my own.
university courses in illustrating specific just-war concerns, ...
http://www.ethicsineducation.com/HenryV.鈥?/a>
Here then is the famous St.Crispian's Day speech from Wm. Shakespeare's play, "Henry V" - this time given by Laurence Olivier : -
YouTube - Shakespeare's Henry V Act IV, Scene III by Lawrence Olivier
Crispian's Day speechafter that is several minutes of the battle scenes at Agincourt.
Not the most accurate battle scenes, of course, but the importance of ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jXFnQUU7鈥?/a>|||you just need to read the history of india and the hitory of bangladesh then you will highlly surprised and you will get all the answer you want.you also can follow this www.banglabook.com and go t5o the history book dr.muhyammod hannan.
The first and foremost is William Shakespeare and in more recent time the world famous Irish playwrite George Bernard Shaw [Socialist].
George Bernard Shaw
During his long career, Shaw wrote over 50 plays. He continued to write them even
in his 90s. George Bernard Shaw died at Ayot St. Lawrence, Hertfordshire, ...
http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/gbshaw.htm
YouTube - George Bernard Shaw %26amp; Albert Einstein
George Bernard Shaw pays tribute to professor Albert Einstein at a dinner at the
Savoy Hotel, London.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocSgz_AeS鈥?/a>
Oscar Wilde once said of Bernard Shaw - "Mr. Bernard Shaw has no enemies, but is intensely disliked by all his friends."
Nicholas Grene. Shakespeare's Serial History Plays
Foreign war and civil war govern the Henry Vi-Richard III series in which ...
identity of land and nation dissolves: "What we witness in the play is a fall ...
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o%26amp;se=ggl鈥?/a>
Royal Shakespeare Company : Press releases
They include: the start of a new cycle of Shakespeare鈥檚 history plays; the return of
.... exploring the flickering moral compass of faith in a foreign land. ...
http://www.rsc.org.uk/press/420_2145.asp鈥?/a> - Cached
Using Shakespeare's Henry V to Teach Just-War Principles
In what follows, I鈥檒l explain how I鈥檝e found Shakespeare鈥檚 play helpful in my own.
university courses in illustrating specific just-war concerns, ...
http://www.ethicsineducation.com/HenryV.鈥?/a>
Here then is the famous St.Crispian's Day speech from Wm. Shakespeare's play, "Henry V" - this time given by Laurence Olivier : -
YouTube - Shakespeare's Henry V Act IV, Scene III by Lawrence Olivier
Crispian's Day speechafter that is several minutes of the battle scenes at Agincourt.
Not the most accurate battle scenes, of course, but the importance of ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jXFnQUU7鈥?/a>|||you just need to read the history of india and the hitory of bangladesh then you will highlly surprised and you will get all the answer you want.you also can follow this www.banglabook.com and go t5o the history book dr.muhyammod hannan.
What were the main reasons that Italy lost a war to Ethiopia?
In 1896, Italian soldiers were defeated at the Battle of Adwa by the soldiers of the Empire of Ethiopia.
This was the final battle in the First Italo-Ethiopian War. Italy lost the war, and became the first European country to lose a war to Africans.
What were the main reasons for Italy's loss? Why did Italians fight so poorly in Africa compared to their British, French, and German counterparts?|||There were 4 main reasons:
Firstly, the Italians were hugely outnumbered; at Adowa 20,000 Italians faced over 100,000 Ethiopians.
Secondly, Britain and Russia had supplied the Ethiopians with modern rifles and even some artillery - Adowa was not a case of European troops shooting down tribal hordes armed with spears and shields. The large Ethiopian army was a well armed, properly organized,trained,drilled and uniformed all arms regular force.
Next Menelek, the Ethiopian emperor who led the army was an able general and leader. He devised a strategy whereby the separate Italian columns were attacked individually,each being quickly overwhelmed by sheer weight of numbers,the whole Ethiopian army then moving on rapidly to attack the next deteachment before they became aware of what had happened to their comrades. Menelek thus defeated the Italian army in detail as part of a well thought out and executed campaign strategy.
Finally, oblivious of the size,organization, armament and leadership skills of the Ethiopian army,the Italian commander Baratieri was overconfident,believing the campaign would be a simple matter of walking in and defeating African tribesmen with superior European weaponry and organization. He failed to keep his forces concentrated or carry out proper scouting, and was caught by surprise by the Ethiopian offensive.|||The Italian soldiers were dragged into this war,which they certainly did not want to fight. Some of the Italians had quickly stricken up friendship with locals and many would actually get married there and stay in the country. Italians hated the war,apart from the fascist "Camiche Neri" and they saw no reason why they should go and kill innocent people for the greater glory of one Megalomaniac.
So they fought as little and as bad as they possibly could. Whole regiments refused to obey the orders they received when it involved hurting the local population. The same happened in Greece on Kefalonia (read Capitan Morelli's Mandolin) .
The Italians found themselves under a Fascist Regime without the majority of the people's agreement.They were therefore driven to fight a war they did not agree with. This the reason why they lost over and over again.|||Money. Italians were poorly equipped and organized, because Italy was a third world country at that time, from a purely economic point of view.|||Italy underestimating Ethiopians military capability
This was the final battle in the First Italo-Ethiopian War. Italy lost the war, and became the first European country to lose a war to Africans.
What were the main reasons for Italy's loss? Why did Italians fight so poorly in Africa compared to their British, French, and German counterparts?|||There were 4 main reasons:
Firstly, the Italians were hugely outnumbered; at Adowa 20,000 Italians faced over 100,000 Ethiopians.
Secondly, Britain and Russia had supplied the Ethiopians with modern rifles and even some artillery - Adowa was not a case of European troops shooting down tribal hordes armed with spears and shields. The large Ethiopian army was a well armed, properly organized,trained,drilled and uniformed all arms regular force.
Next Menelek, the Ethiopian emperor who led the army was an able general and leader. He devised a strategy whereby the separate Italian columns were attacked individually,each being quickly overwhelmed by sheer weight of numbers,the whole Ethiopian army then moving on rapidly to attack the next deteachment before they became aware of what had happened to their comrades. Menelek thus defeated the Italian army in detail as part of a well thought out and executed campaign strategy.
Finally, oblivious of the size,organization, armament and leadership skills of the Ethiopian army,the Italian commander Baratieri was overconfident,believing the campaign would be a simple matter of walking in and defeating African tribesmen with superior European weaponry and organization. He failed to keep his forces concentrated or carry out proper scouting, and was caught by surprise by the Ethiopian offensive.|||The Italian soldiers were dragged into this war,which they certainly did not want to fight. Some of the Italians had quickly stricken up friendship with locals and many would actually get married there and stay in the country. Italians hated the war,apart from the fascist "Camiche Neri" and they saw no reason why they should go and kill innocent people for the greater glory of one Megalomaniac.
So they fought as little and as bad as they possibly could. Whole regiments refused to obey the orders they received when it involved hurting the local population. The same happened in Greece on Kefalonia (read Capitan Morelli's Mandolin) .
The Italians found themselves under a Fascist Regime without the majority of the people's agreement.They were therefore driven to fight a war they did not agree with. This the reason why they lost over and over again.|||Money. Italians were poorly equipped and organized, because Italy was a third world country at that time, from a purely economic point of view.|||Italy underestimating Ethiopians military capability
What is the longest war to ever have took place?
I have heard the Korean War (1950-53) is still ongoing due to it ending in a truce?|||I came across this by chance, I dont think anyone can beat this
Three Hundred and Thirty Five Years' War (1651鈥?986)
(They formally declared peace in 1986, that makes it an official war)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Hundr鈥?/a>
Also heres the worlds shortest war, all of 45 min!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Zanzi鈥?/a>|||There is also the Three Hundred and Thirty Five Years' War, which lasted from 1651鈥?986 between the Netherlands and the Isles of Scilly (part of the UK).
It's technically considered a war, as war was declared, and it ended when peace was declared. (I think the parties involved forgot they were at war!)|||hundred year war|||The Hundred Year war between England and France in the Middle Ages.|||The Three Hundred and Thirty Five Years' War (1651鈥?986) was a war between the Netherlands and the Isles of Scilly (located off the southwest coast of the United Kingdom). It is said to have been extended by the lack of a peace treaty for 335 years without a single shot being fired, which would make it one of the world's longest wars and the war with the fewest casualties. Despite the uncertain validity of the declaration of war, peace was finally declared in 1986.|||The hundred years war between England and France,Agincourt and all that.|||haha, the kind-of war i have with my friends :P|||Yes, that is absolutely true. But you want to know what war lasted longer? The Star Wars!!!|||the hundred year war against england and france in the middle ages|||2 points|||the hundred year war between fance and britan and the middle finger...we got it from there too|||the war of attrition|||world war 2 only ended when the berlin wall came down (technically!) But I would say that he 100yr war was a little longer|||1337-1450 England v France known as the Hundred Years War"|||The one hundred years war, England v France.
Hundred Years' WarThat was really the end of the One Hundred Years war so far as England was concerned , though a formal treaty to end the war between England and France was ...
http://www.theotherside.co.uk/tm-heritag鈥?/a>
Hundred Years' War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe Hundred Years' War accelerated the process of transforming France from a feudal monarchy to a centralised state. The conflict became one of not just ...
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred鈥?/a>|||The longest continuous war was the THIRTY YEARS WAR (1618-1648), involving various European countries.
The HUNDRED YEARS WAR (between England and France) actually lasted 116 years--1337 to 1453.
The longest , most unpopular war for the USA was the VIET NAM WAR (1955-1973): the first US advisors sent to S. Viet Nam (to help support their government from collapsing) arrived in 1955; the first combat-ready troops arrived in 1965 and until Jan. 1973, when the cease-fire was signed, over 2 MILLION US troops served over there. Of these, some 58.226 troops were killed (their names are etched in the black granite wall in Washington DC, including my cousin's), another 304,000 were wounded, 3-4 million Vietnamese on either side were killed, 1.5 to 2 million Laotian and Cambodian troops were drawn into the "conflict" (as it was known), and the financial cost to the US alone was $150 BILLION. The last American to get out of VietNam before Hanoi's government took over occurred in April 1975. There were probably thousands of half-American children left behind over there because their fathers were either killed or they didn't care about them. Vietnam veterans are still fighting today to get the respect other US veterans got in other wars, as well as needed medical care, affordable housing, etc.|||THE 100 YEARS WAR....
It took 116 years to end.|||The "Battle of the Sexes" since time immemorial
Three Hundred and Thirty Five Years' War (1651鈥?986)
(They formally declared peace in 1986, that makes it an official war)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Hundr鈥?/a>
Also heres the worlds shortest war, all of 45 min!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Zanzi鈥?/a>|||There is also the Three Hundred and Thirty Five Years' War, which lasted from 1651鈥?986 between the Netherlands and the Isles of Scilly (part of the UK).
It's technically considered a war, as war was declared, and it ended when peace was declared. (I think the parties involved forgot they were at war!)|||hundred year war|||The Hundred Year war between England and France in the Middle Ages.|||The Three Hundred and Thirty Five Years' War (1651鈥?986) was a war between the Netherlands and the Isles of Scilly (located off the southwest coast of the United Kingdom). It is said to have been extended by the lack of a peace treaty for 335 years without a single shot being fired, which would make it one of the world's longest wars and the war with the fewest casualties. Despite the uncertain validity of the declaration of war, peace was finally declared in 1986.|||The hundred years war between England and France,Agincourt and all that.|||haha, the kind-of war i have with my friends :P|||Yes, that is absolutely true. But you want to know what war lasted longer? The Star Wars!!!|||the hundred year war against england and france in the middle ages|||2 points|||the hundred year war between fance and britan and the middle finger...we got it from there too|||the war of attrition|||world war 2 only ended when the berlin wall came down (technically!) But I would say that he 100yr war was a little longer|||1337-1450 England v France known as the Hundred Years War"|||The one hundred years war, England v France.
Hundred Years' WarThat was really the end of the One Hundred Years war so far as England was concerned , though a formal treaty to end the war between England and France was ...
http://www.theotherside.co.uk/tm-heritag鈥?/a>
Hundred Years' War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe Hundred Years' War accelerated the process of transforming France from a feudal monarchy to a centralised state. The conflict became one of not just ...
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred鈥?/a>|||The longest continuous war was the THIRTY YEARS WAR (1618-1648), involving various European countries.
The HUNDRED YEARS WAR (between England and France) actually lasted 116 years--1337 to 1453.
The longest , most unpopular war for the USA was the VIET NAM WAR (1955-1973): the first US advisors sent to S. Viet Nam (to help support their government from collapsing) arrived in 1955; the first combat-ready troops arrived in 1965 and until Jan. 1973, when the cease-fire was signed, over 2 MILLION US troops served over there. Of these, some 58.226 troops were killed (their names are etched in the black granite wall in Washington DC, including my cousin's), another 304,000 were wounded, 3-4 million Vietnamese on either side were killed, 1.5 to 2 million Laotian and Cambodian troops were drawn into the "conflict" (as it was known), and the financial cost to the US alone was $150 BILLION. The last American to get out of VietNam before Hanoi's government took over occurred in April 1975. There were probably thousands of half-American children left behind over there because their fathers were either killed or they didn't care about them. Vietnam veterans are still fighting today to get the respect other US veterans got in other wars, as well as needed medical care, affordable housing, etc.|||THE 100 YEARS WAR....
It took 116 years to end.|||The "Battle of the Sexes" since time immemorial
How did the vietnam war alter the american psyche in the years after the 1975 defeat in Hanoi?
and what were the main factors in the Vietnam War which contributed to America's protest movement in the late 1960's and 1970's?
Considering:
President Nixon and LBJ
and the Congress Policy
and other things too.
=] Ta|||North Vietnam's government truly was Vietnamese. South Vietnam just represented the USA, which was an alien culture to the Vietnamese. As the war escalated, the bombing of innocent people only proved that the USA and South Vietnam government were not Vietnamese.
In the Vietnam War, the costs overwhelmed the benefits over the long-term, for Americans. I include death and injury as well as expenses as costs.
In the end, it is the American people who paid for this war. If you see the economy is in bad shape, are you going to favor spending on a war with no end? If you know someone who was killed or injured, would you favor a war with no end?
What were the benefits of this war? Control of a region with a culture most Americans do not understand? How does that benefit most Americans? The benefits seem insubstantial and fleeting.
Since at some level most Americans know that the costs overwhelm the benefits, then it was in our best interests to end each of this war even if it results in a lost.
The Pentagon claims that they were successful in killing more of the enemy than American allies were killed. This may be true but the enemy did not surrender.
The Vietnamese believed they were fighting for their country's survival and the Americans and their allies were not. The Americans gave up because they did not have as much at stake as the Vietnamese.|||The Vietnamese won in 1975. The defeat of the southern forces occurred in Saigon on April 29th, not in Hanoi.
Vietnam was finally unified and independent of either French colonial masters, or the 550,000 United States "military advisers" supporting the "nation" called "South Vietnam."
The American psyche was altered in some ways - the American people began to blame the media, "traitors" in their midst, and other scapegoats for their own government's mismanagement, failed "nation-building," and "Domino Theory" foreign policy.
It is now deep within their psyche, and for over 30 years now the American people cannot think of the nation of Vietnam without thinking of the Second Indochina War...no recognition is ever given to the people of Vietnam for their victory, instead you will see degrading comments about their military being "third-rate."|||Americans like to tell themselves that they never lost a war. And here they "lost" to a third rate army. It was a shock to the national confidence.
The protesting was because people felt that it wasn't America's fight. It was thought that winning or losing really wouldn't affect America. But it did. Tens of thousands of Americans were killed, more wounded physically and mentally. Billions of American tax dollars were poured down that hole instead of supporting people at home. It wasn't a volunteer army, there was a draft and young men were being forced to go or face jail.
LBJ had the war dropped in his lap when Kennedy died. Because Kennedy had sent "advisors" and a few troops, LBJ felt bound to finish what Kennedy had started, (domestically and internationally.) LBJ was ill served by military advisors that kept telling him to throw a few more troops and a little more money at the problem, because how hard could it be to beat a bunch of "spooks" with primitive training and equipment? It became a matter of pride to them that they could win this war. Because it was in reality going so badly, the generals started under reporting casualties and hiding their intrusions to other nations.
The war and the national hatred of it kept Johnson from running for a second term and opened the way for Nixon.
Nixon pulled the plug, but botched in such a manner that America felt little relief.|||Check your facts first.
It wasn't a defeat in Hanoi so much as as a surrender of Saigon. There was no battle in Hanoi except to drop bombs on them.
That war dragged on too ******* long with too many lives lost to prop up a corrupt government, just to keep it from becoming a Communist government.
That was the only real reason the American soldier was in there.
Big Hairy Deal. Now everyone knows how to beat us is to wear us down.
As for the other stuff you need, go to Wikipedia and look it up.
The reason I say this is that you are asking someone to write a book to explain all that. None of it was simple. None of it was a "black and white" explanation. There were a lot of "gray" areas.
Considering:
President Nixon and LBJ
and the Congress Policy
and other things too.
=] Ta|||North Vietnam's government truly was Vietnamese. South Vietnam just represented the USA, which was an alien culture to the Vietnamese. As the war escalated, the bombing of innocent people only proved that the USA and South Vietnam government were not Vietnamese.
In the Vietnam War, the costs overwhelmed the benefits over the long-term, for Americans. I include death and injury as well as expenses as costs.
In the end, it is the American people who paid for this war. If you see the economy is in bad shape, are you going to favor spending on a war with no end? If you know someone who was killed or injured, would you favor a war with no end?
What were the benefits of this war? Control of a region with a culture most Americans do not understand? How does that benefit most Americans? The benefits seem insubstantial and fleeting.
Since at some level most Americans know that the costs overwhelm the benefits, then it was in our best interests to end each of this war even if it results in a lost.
The Pentagon claims that they were successful in killing more of the enemy than American allies were killed. This may be true but the enemy did not surrender.
The Vietnamese believed they were fighting for their country's survival and the Americans and their allies were not. The Americans gave up because they did not have as much at stake as the Vietnamese.|||The Vietnamese won in 1975. The defeat of the southern forces occurred in Saigon on April 29th, not in Hanoi.
Vietnam was finally unified and independent of either French colonial masters, or the 550,000 United States "military advisers" supporting the "nation" called "South Vietnam."
The American psyche was altered in some ways - the American people began to blame the media, "traitors" in their midst, and other scapegoats for their own government's mismanagement, failed "nation-building," and "Domino Theory" foreign policy.
It is now deep within their psyche, and for over 30 years now the American people cannot think of the nation of Vietnam without thinking of the Second Indochina War...no recognition is ever given to the people of Vietnam for their victory, instead you will see degrading comments about their military being "third-rate."|||Americans like to tell themselves that they never lost a war. And here they "lost" to a third rate army. It was a shock to the national confidence.
The protesting was because people felt that it wasn't America's fight. It was thought that winning or losing really wouldn't affect America. But it did. Tens of thousands of Americans were killed, more wounded physically and mentally. Billions of American tax dollars were poured down that hole instead of supporting people at home. It wasn't a volunteer army, there was a draft and young men were being forced to go or face jail.
LBJ had the war dropped in his lap when Kennedy died. Because Kennedy had sent "advisors" and a few troops, LBJ felt bound to finish what Kennedy had started, (domestically and internationally.) LBJ was ill served by military advisors that kept telling him to throw a few more troops and a little more money at the problem, because how hard could it be to beat a bunch of "spooks" with primitive training and equipment? It became a matter of pride to them that they could win this war. Because it was in reality going so badly, the generals started under reporting casualties and hiding their intrusions to other nations.
The war and the national hatred of it kept Johnson from running for a second term and opened the way for Nixon.
Nixon pulled the plug, but botched in such a manner that America felt little relief.|||Check your facts first.
It wasn't a defeat in Hanoi so much as as a surrender of Saigon. There was no battle in Hanoi except to drop bombs on them.
That war dragged on too ******* long with too many lives lost to prop up a corrupt government, just to keep it from becoming a Communist government.
That was the only real reason the American soldier was in there.
Big Hairy Deal. Now everyone knows how to beat us is to wear us down.
As for the other stuff you need, go to Wikipedia and look it up.
The reason I say this is that you are asking someone to write a book to explain all that. None of it was simple. None of it was a "black and white" explanation. There were a lot of "gray" areas.
How does the civil war in Mexico effect the United States?
There is and has been a civil war going on between the government and the drug cartels for years. Civilians and vigilante groups who want the drug cartels to stop murdering their people are involved. It is brutal.
Most people are unaware, oblivious, and just hate Mexicans for any and every reason. What is the solution?|||sounds like more corruption to me.|||Thanks for best answer I DINO was serprised!!!!
|||There will be an influx of Corn shells in our groceries stores to feed the illegals.|||We have to pay for it.
As a New Mexico resident, I have come to the conclusion that we should give Israel a 20-mile wide strip of land on either side of the border from Brownsville/Matamoros all the way to San Diego/Tijuana. I'd like to see an undocumented worker, a coyote, a Mexican criminal, an American criminal fleeing prosecution, a dope pedaler or an Arab terrorist posing as a Mexican get across THAT.|||You mean the drug wars that we are funding?
Most people are unaware, oblivious, and just hate Mexicans for any and every reason. What is the solution?|||sounds like more corruption to me.|||Thanks for best answer I DINO was serprised!!!!
Report Abuse
|||There will be an influx of Corn shells in our groceries stores to feed the illegals.|||We have to pay for it.
As a New Mexico resident, I have come to the conclusion that we should give Israel a 20-mile wide strip of land on either side of the border from Brownsville/Matamoros all the way to San Diego/Tijuana. I'd like to see an undocumented worker, a coyote, a Mexican criminal, an American criminal fleeing prosecution, a dope pedaler or an Arab terrorist posing as a Mexican get across THAT.|||You mean the drug wars that we are funding?
Why do we favor war on the Mexican border over gun control and urban planning?
Why is there no plan for
prosperity in that region? Like gun control, legalization of drugs
and wise urban planning might bring? Why do you favor war instead?|||Perhaps you should read the Second Amendment some time.|||Frank Capoano: The only studies ever done in this area conclude that in areas with higher levels of illegal immigrants, there is lower overall crime. FACT. The researchers attribute it to not wanting to get in any trouble so as not to be deported.
"A study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas has discovered that while property-related crime rates have not been affected by increased immigration (both legal and illegal), in border counties there is a significant positive correlation between illegal immigration and violent crime. [53] However, crime rates from 1994 to 2005 have declined slightly, despite the fact that both legal and illegal immigration have increased.[54][55] Robert Sampson, Professor in Social Sciences at Harvard University, writes in Harvard Magazine in 2006 that being in the country illegally gives illegal aliens an "extra incentive to keep a clean record and not commit crimes, in order to avoid deportation"
Anyway, to answer the question, it's because people need scapegoats. Why else do you think everyone is so mad at poor people risking everything for a below minimum wage job when the problem clearly lays with the Americans hiring them? No jobs, no illegals, simple as that and yet it's the Mexicans fault, point the finger over there! Everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too.
EDIT: Joe in Texas - It is nearly impossible to keeps guns out of Mexico and Canada because Americans keep selling guns to the criminals there. Only a mentally challenged person would think that adding guns into a society would lower murders instead of increase them. Not that you care, but you can look at the stats of any other western country and clearly see the correlation between guns in America and higher murder rates.|||Mexico has the strictest gun control anywhere. There was a Texan a few years back that drove into Mexico not realizing he had a few shotgun shells from his last hunting trip. He spent two years in a Mexican jail and needed the intervention of the White House to get him free.
So tell me ....how is that Gun Control working out for the Mexicans?
Fizzy Bubbler.. it is impossible to keep criminals from getting guns anywhere. You can pass all the gun laws you want..criminals wont obey them.
Where is it easier for Mexican gangs to get guns?
My guess is they easily get them from corrupt military. We give Mexicans guns to fight the drug cartels and then they sell them.
Did you know that the zeta's one of the two biggest drug cartels was formed by Mexican Special forces personel.
You can take guns away from law abiding citizens, but the criminals will always get them.|||Illegal aliens from Mexico kill more americans than are lost in Afghanistan and Iraq combined every year
FACT
And I am not turning my country into a crackden just to placate Mexico, even if it did help them out. I would sooner see them wipe their worthless country out and kill themselves off before I saw everyone in this country walking around with needles hanging out of their arms, and 50% unemployment with third world status...LIKE MEXICO|||Gun control doesn't work and with hippie liberals in charge of urban planing nothing good can come of it. As for war...what the F are you talking about? The only war is the one against the invaders from the south.|||These are criminals to begin with. Murderers. If you think they won't escalate once they gain ground, take a look at our own fight against mobsters.
Turn them loose into our politics with all of that money?
I pray we don't.|||Because we can't control Mexico's inability to give their people a quality life, so we can only stop them from coming in, so that our quality of life isn't interfered with.|||The Mexican government needs to address these questions, not the US.|||2nd amendment|||I think your name is Stu Pidasso
prosperity in that region? Like gun control, legalization of drugs
and wise urban planning might bring? Why do you favor war instead?|||Perhaps you should read the Second Amendment some time.|||Frank Capoano: The only studies ever done in this area conclude that in areas with higher levels of illegal immigrants, there is lower overall crime. FACT. The researchers attribute it to not wanting to get in any trouble so as not to be deported.
"A study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas has discovered that while property-related crime rates have not been affected by increased immigration (both legal and illegal), in border counties there is a significant positive correlation between illegal immigration and violent crime. [53] However, crime rates from 1994 to 2005 have declined slightly, despite the fact that both legal and illegal immigration have increased.[54][55] Robert Sampson, Professor in Social Sciences at Harvard University, writes in Harvard Magazine in 2006 that being in the country illegally gives illegal aliens an "extra incentive to keep a clean record and not commit crimes, in order to avoid deportation"
Anyway, to answer the question, it's because people need scapegoats. Why else do you think everyone is so mad at poor people risking everything for a below minimum wage job when the problem clearly lays with the Americans hiring them? No jobs, no illegals, simple as that and yet it's the Mexicans fault, point the finger over there! Everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too.
EDIT: Joe in Texas - It is nearly impossible to keeps guns out of Mexico and Canada because Americans keep selling guns to the criminals there. Only a mentally challenged person would think that adding guns into a society would lower murders instead of increase them. Not that you care, but you can look at the stats of any other western country and clearly see the correlation between guns in America and higher murder rates.|||Mexico has the strictest gun control anywhere. There was a Texan a few years back that drove into Mexico not realizing he had a few shotgun shells from his last hunting trip. He spent two years in a Mexican jail and needed the intervention of the White House to get him free.
So tell me ....how is that Gun Control working out for the Mexicans?
Fizzy Bubbler.. it is impossible to keep criminals from getting guns anywhere. You can pass all the gun laws you want..criminals wont obey them.
Where is it easier for Mexican gangs to get guns?
My guess is they easily get them from corrupt military. We give Mexicans guns to fight the drug cartels and then they sell them.
Did you know that the zeta's one of the two biggest drug cartels was formed by Mexican Special forces personel.
You can take guns away from law abiding citizens, but the criminals will always get them.|||Illegal aliens from Mexico kill more americans than are lost in Afghanistan and Iraq combined every year
FACT
And I am not turning my country into a crackden just to placate Mexico, even if it did help them out. I would sooner see them wipe their worthless country out and kill themselves off before I saw everyone in this country walking around with needles hanging out of their arms, and 50% unemployment with third world status...LIKE MEXICO|||Gun control doesn't work and with hippie liberals in charge of urban planing nothing good can come of it. As for war...what the F are you talking about? The only war is the one against the invaders from the south.|||These are criminals to begin with. Murderers. If you think they won't escalate once they gain ground, take a look at our own fight against mobsters.
Turn them loose into our politics with all of that money?
I pray we don't.|||Because we can't control Mexico's inability to give their people a quality life, so we can only stop them from coming in, so that our quality of life isn't interfered with.|||The Mexican government needs to address these questions, not the US.|||2nd amendment|||I think your name is Stu Pidasso
Why did the British burn down the White House during the War of 1812?
I'm doing a persuasive paper on the War of 1812. I'm a war hawk (for the war) and I need some ideas on how to say why we should go to war with Britain because they burned down the White house. Thanks for helping!|||You have a major problem with your argument. The Burning of the White House was not a cause of the war. It happened during the war in 1814.
As for the burning of the White House, the Brits did it for 2 reasons...
1) There was no one to stop them. The US Army was in shambles. (While the Navy performed brilliantly, the Army was an embarrassment against the Brits, but that's another story)
2) Retribution....Earlier in the war, the US Army, in one of their rare victories against the Brits, attacked and conquered the town of York in Ontario. (Now called Toronto) Unfortunately, the US Army after their victory, went and burned the town down. So the Brits chose to return the favor. The White House wasn't the only Govt building burned down. The US Capitol, the Library of Congress, and the US Treasury, were also burned down.|||Retribution for the burning of York earlier in the war had nothing to do with it, and was just a pretext.
The British war strategy was to force US into a negotiated peace by crippling its economy. One part of the strategy was a naval blockade; the other was a series of destructive raids on economic targets.Standing general orders for British forces in 1814 were "to destroy and lay waste such towns and districts... as you may find assailable."
It wasn't just the White House that was burned;the Capitol,the Library of Congress, and the Treasury building were also set alight,as these were political and economic targets. Private property military facilities were left entirely alone, further indications that the target of the raid was government buildings.
The reason for burning the White House was political and economic,not mere revenge.|||They did it because they could. The British were still trying to exercise control over their former colonies and they treated the Americans as though they were wayward children. Burning down the White House had great significance to us, but to them is was likened to a parent withholding a misbehaving child's favorite toy.|||You need to read the following web page, we had already declared war on Britain in 1812, the White House was burned in 1814...........http://www.sparknotes.com/history/americ鈥?/a>
As for the burning of the White House, the Brits did it for 2 reasons...
1) There was no one to stop them. The US Army was in shambles. (While the Navy performed brilliantly, the Army was an embarrassment against the Brits, but that's another story)
2) Retribution....Earlier in the war, the US Army, in one of their rare victories against the Brits, attacked and conquered the town of York in Ontario. (Now called Toronto) Unfortunately, the US Army after their victory, went and burned the town down. So the Brits chose to return the favor. The White House wasn't the only Govt building burned down. The US Capitol, the Library of Congress, and the US Treasury, were also burned down.|||Retribution for the burning of York earlier in the war had nothing to do with it, and was just a pretext.
The British war strategy was to force US into a negotiated peace by crippling its economy. One part of the strategy was a naval blockade; the other was a series of destructive raids on economic targets.Standing general orders for British forces in 1814 were "to destroy and lay waste such towns and districts... as you may find assailable."
It wasn't just the White House that was burned;the Capitol,the Library of Congress, and the Treasury building were also set alight,as these were political and economic targets. Private property military facilities were left entirely alone, further indications that the target of the raid was government buildings.
The reason for burning the White House was political and economic,not mere revenge.|||They did it because they could. The British were still trying to exercise control over their former colonies and they treated the Americans as though they were wayward children. Burning down the White House had great significance to us, but to them is was likened to a parent withholding a misbehaving child's favorite toy.|||You need to read the following web page, we had already declared war on Britain in 1812, the White House was burned in 1814...........http://www.sparknotes.com/history/americ鈥?/a>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)