Saturday, October 1, 2011
Is it possible to win a war in which the enemy strictly uses guerrilla tactics?
The coalition forces are facing this right now in Afghanistan. The Taliban (and all other Pashtuns that are joining the enemy effort) are using guerrilla tactics. They are not winning any battles but they are gambling that they will win the war by breaking the will of their opponents. Is there any way to defeat an enemy who uses guerrilla tactics and is willing to blow themselves up for their cause?|||You cant win a war against an enemy doesn't fight for a flag. You can kill many of them and you can slow their fight but you wont "win". You wont break the will of someone fighting for a god either. There is no convincing or changing there mind.
How many americans are against the war in iraq?
I'm not american, but I will like to read about your comments on the war at this time.
Thank you.|||Of course, you have posed a good question, I believe it is around 60% Had our Intel guys got it right - they did not -- we had considerable support for the war at that time when the Twin Towers were blown down by Right Wing Muslims, their theocrats.
Had the war ended when our soldiers reached Bahgdad Bush would have been a hero. We won the war as Americans at that time, however, Iraqi's as a whole did not want it that way. The Sunni's wanted the status quo and the Shiia now could finally move in and wipe out the hated Sunni.
In fact we only opened Pandora's Box and played into the hands of Ahmadinijhad. The lack of understanding of what made Iraq is unforgiveable, the history and information was available on Google. No one did their homework, they ASSUMED all Iraq would rush out and throw flowers at us not IED's. I, as an American and, have worked in Iraq feel so bad about this situation you have no idea. To keep on sying we are going to set them up to take care of themselves is also nonsense, we can't do that, The Shiia are now free to massacre and take over the country for Greater Persia and we did it. As a last resort all we should do now is protect the Kurds in the north -- I give up frustrated beyond belief!|||2|||Ten thousand, nine hunded, and seventy-two.|||nobody wants a war, nobody is " for" war, but its something that has to be done............Semper Fi...http://360.yahoo.com/lavadogmarineone|||All but the 28% still brainwashed.|||Depends on how you ask the question in the poll, When asked simply if we are against the war...75 %.. when asked if you would support the war for a positive outcome..20%|||If the polls are right 74%. What we need is to bring in Iran a Shiite nation and Saudi Arabia a Summi nation replace our troops.|||Not i its part of the over all war on world terror.|||According to yesterday's NBC Poll... over 75 PERCENT of Americans are against the war|||clearly not enough to do anything to stop it|||Less than people think .People to often listen to the liberal media which changes their thought because of their bias.
I have a cousin out in Iraq that really knows whats going on, not all the stuff that the media portrays.|||I'm against it. I didn't mind going in and kicking *** but I didn't want our troops to be bogged in there for so long..as soon as we captured Sadam we should of left that country.
We should go in and kick *** to whatever country that supports terrorist but not stay..
If other countries don't like it tuff.. If UN don't like it tuff. That'll teach other country who even thinks about harboring terrorist.|||A lot more than exposed.
I'm also against this war, but I've never been counted because I've never been asked.|||Less than you wish.
Mark me as one vote YES.
Fought those people all through Desert Storm and until the day I retired. Finish that mess or keep going. Backing off wiill cause Europe and USA nothing but catastrophe.
Ret USAF SNCO|||Only thoughs that think Iraq still have WMDs|||I'm not against the war in Iraq so much as I am against the way it is being fought.
There are things that are worth fighting for, but in Iraq, the goals are not at all clear and the justification for the war in the first place is flawed.
On the other hand, we made the mess, we ought to clean it up and not just walk away. But no one seems to have a way to do that. It is terribly frustrating.|||Many Americans are against the war, but its the big picture that is the concern. America went over initially due to the attack on the American soil, and to attempt to take out the Taliban training camps and so on and so forth, only to find that they are bigger than ever expected. America is now over there for a few reasons, one to assist in rebuild of democracy, two to ensure that the SOB's don't follow us the minute we pull out and seeing as weak. I am sure there are several other reasons and some reasons that are for political gain alone. So yes many Americans to include us troops are against the war.|||nobody is "for" war of any kind but we have to finish the job. if we pull out now no one would ever fear the USA again so we would be vulnerable to more attacks.|||I am very against this war. And from all the political polls I've read, the majority of america is starting to feel the same way.|||I am against this war but I am FOR our troops. I think that we went into that country under false pretenses and over 3500 of our brave men and women has given their lives for a lie. It's definitely time for them to come home!! God Bless our TROOPS!|||I'm not against the war. What I am against though, is the way we are fighting this war. The rules of engagements must be removed on our armed forces. If the rules of engagements had been removed, this war would've been fought a lot quicker. And more Americans would've supported it too. All the bloodshed going on now in Iraq, is a result of the rules of engagement. We (U.S.A.)must use extreme force. That includes bombing mosques too. Which is where the terrorists hide.|||the majority
Thank you.|||Of course, you have posed a good question, I believe it is around 60% Had our Intel guys got it right - they did not -- we had considerable support for the war at that time when the Twin Towers were blown down by Right Wing Muslims, their theocrats.
Had the war ended when our soldiers reached Bahgdad Bush would have been a hero. We won the war as Americans at that time, however, Iraqi's as a whole did not want it that way. The Sunni's wanted the status quo and the Shiia now could finally move in and wipe out the hated Sunni.
In fact we only opened Pandora's Box and played into the hands of Ahmadinijhad. The lack of understanding of what made Iraq is unforgiveable, the history and information was available on Google. No one did their homework, they ASSUMED all Iraq would rush out and throw flowers at us not IED's. I, as an American and, have worked in Iraq feel so bad about this situation you have no idea. To keep on sying we are going to set them up to take care of themselves is also nonsense, we can't do that, The Shiia are now free to massacre and take over the country for Greater Persia and we did it. As a last resort all we should do now is protect the Kurds in the north -- I give up frustrated beyond belief!|||2|||Ten thousand, nine hunded, and seventy-two.|||nobody wants a war, nobody is " for" war, but its something that has to be done............Semper Fi...http://360.yahoo.com/lavadogmarineone|||All but the 28% still brainwashed.|||Depends on how you ask the question in the poll, When asked simply if we are against the war...75 %.. when asked if you would support the war for a positive outcome..20%|||If the polls are right 74%. What we need is to bring in Iran a Shiite nation and Saudi Arabia a Summi nation replace our troops.|||Not i its part of the over all war on world terror.|||According to yesterday's NBC Poll... over 75 PERCENT of Americans are against the war|||clearly not enough to do anything to stop it|||Less than people think .People to often listen to the liberal media which changes their thought because of their bias.
I have a cousin out in Iraq that really knows whats going on, not all the stuff that the media portrays.|||I'm against it. I didn't mind going in and kicking *** but I didn't want our troops to be bogged in there for so long..as soon as we captured Sadam we should of left that country.
We should go in and kick *** to whatever country that supports terrorist but not stay..
If other countries don't like it tuff.. If UN don't like it tuff. That'll teach other country who even thinks about harboring terrorist.|||A lot more than exposed.
I'm also against this war, but I've never been counted because I've never been asked.|||Less than you wish.
Mark me as one vote YES.
Fought those people all through Desert Storm and until the day I retired. Finish that mess or keep going. Backing off wiill cause Europe and USA nothing but catastrophe.
Ret USAF SNCO|||Only thoughs that think Iraq still have WMDs|||I'm not against the war in Iraq so much as I am against the way it is being fought.
There are things that are worth fighting for, but in Iraq, the goals are not at all clear and the justification for the war in the first place is flawed.
On the other hand, we made the mess, we ought to clean it up and not just walk away. But no one seems to have a way to do that. It is terribly frustrating.|||Many Americans are against the war, but its the big picture that is the concern. America went over initially due to the attack on the American soil, and to attempt to take out the Taliban training camps and so on and so forth, only to find that they are bigger than ever expected. America is now over there for a few reasons, one to assist in rebuild of democracy, two to ensure that the SOB's don't follow us the minute we pull out and seeing as weak. I am sure there are several other reasons and some reasons that are for political gain alone. So yes many Americans to include us troops are against the war.|||nobody is "for" war of any kind but we have to finish the job. if we pull out now no one would ever fear the USA again so we would be vulnerable to more attacks.|||I am very against this war. And from all the political polls I've read, the majority of america is starting to feel the same way.|||I am against this war but I am FOR our troops. I think that we went into that country under false pretenses and over 3500 of our brave men and women has given their lives for a lie. It's definitely time for them to come home!! God Bless our TROOPS!|||I'm not against the war. What I am against though, is the way we are fighting this war. The rules of engagements must be removed on our armed forces. If the rules of engagements had been removed, this war would've been fought a lot quicker. And more Americans would've supported it too. All the bloodshed going on now in Iraq, is a result of the rules of engagement. We (U.S.A.)must use extreme force. That includes bombing mosques too. Which is where the terrorists hide.|||the majority
What would happen if a nuclear war start?
If there's an outburst in Iran?
North Korea send the Nukes on Japan and South Korea,
The US retaliates , China and Russia enter the nuke game
India and Pakistan start fighting
Things got worst in Iraq and Afghanistan
UEA, Palestine, Jordan and Egypt jump on Israel,
a tsunami happen in the Caribbean
and everyone start fighting .
Would this mean that the end of the world would be near?
If all the nuke countries started a nuclear war, what would happen to the rest of survivors if there is any?|||Total disaster. The rest of the survivors would be a very small amount. In a nuclear war, mass fatalities is imminent, survival is futile. The global disaster would destroy all plant life and cause more damage to the ozone layer, allowing in more of radiation. The survivors nearly about 40-50ft of ground zero where the bomb would drop would probably have at least 15 seconds until the 4,000 degree heat wave would reach and at least 30 until the shock wave does.
But it's not mainly the initial blast that kills people, but the mass radiation. Gamma rays ( deadliest form of radiation) can penetrate body tissue and flesh damaging vital organs and causing cancer. Radiation sickness would spread all over even though it's not contagious. A lot of the earth by the first week of a nuclear war would already be contaminated and a fall out is still out of the question, living underground. Any food left around with opened containers would be contaminated, animals would be too contaminated to eat and life would be unbearable for people to sustain.
It could mark the end of the world as you say. Radiation contamination can spread all over the world, infecting everyone. Maybe within the first 3 weeks or so, survivors would survive but a nuclear war can only last so long. Maybe there's hope? Maybe not. Right now, the world has more than 30x times the nuclear weapons to kill off the human race so it's not so good if a nuclear war starts. Lets hope in our life time, one won't start. But with Iran and North Korea posing a threat, were never safe. A nuclear war does not seem probable at the time but yet, a nuclear war can come at any time with no warning.
Heck, at defcon 1, the U.S. military can be kicking, firing all the nukes they can blast within the first 15 minutes that defcon 1 is issued. Lets just hope your not in the area of ground zero. If your on the other side of the globe, you're probably ok.|||Well pretty much if there were survivers, they would be living in the dark ages. Pretty much starting all over from scratch. They'd have to try and survive and move to areas that wouldn't be contaminated. How they'd find those areas, most probably wouldn't be able to. There would be a lot of fatalities from radiation sickness and cancer. Life may go on, but who knows if the radiation would alter our DNA somehow.|||alot of things would happpen...u would have global warming..and that willl mess with the ozone layer....air willl be polluted.....plants would stop growing..animals would die because lack of food...and then we would proably die..|||youd die *****
North Korea send the Nukes on Japan and South Korea,
The US retaliates , China and Russia enter the nuke game
India and Pakistan start fighting
Things got worst in Iraq and Afghanistan
UEA, Palestine, Jordan and Egypt jump on Israel,
a tsunami happen in the Caribbean
and everyone start fighting .
Would this mean that the end of the world would be near?
If all the nuke countries started a nuclear war, what would happen to the rest of survivors if there is any?|||Total disaster. The rest of the survivors would be a very small amount. In a nuclear war, mass fatalities is imminent, survival is futile. The global disaster would destroy all plant life and cause more damage to the ozone layer, allowing in more of radiation. The survivors nearly about 40-50ft of ground zero where the bomb would drop would probably have at least 15 seconds until the 4,000 degree heat wave would reach and at least 30 until the shock wave does.
But it's not mainly the initial blast that kills people, but the mass radiation. Gamma rays ( deadliest form of radiation) can penetrate body tissue and flesh damaging vital organs and causing cancer. Radiation sickness would spread all over even though it's not contagious. A lot of the earth by the first week of a nuclear war would already be contaminated and a fall out is still out of the question, living underground. Any food left around with opened containers would be contaminated, animals would be too contaminated to eat and life would be unbearable for people to sustain.
It could mark the end of the world as you say. Radiation contamination can spread all over the world, infecting everyone. Maybe within the first 3 weeks or so, survivors would survive but a nuclear war can only last so long. Maybe there's hope? Maybe not. Right now, the world has more than 30x times the nuclear weapons to kill off the human race so it's not so good if a nuclear war starts. Lets hope in our life time, one won't start. But with Iran and North Korea posing a threat, were never safe. A nuclear war does not seem probable at the time but yet, a nuclear war can come at any time with no warning.
Heck, at defcon 1, the U.S. military can be kicking, firing all the nukes they can blast within the first 15 minutes that defcon 1 is issued. Lets just hope your not in the area of ground zero. If your on the other side of the globe, you're probably ok.|||Well pretty much if there were survivers, they would be living in the dark ages. Pretty much starting all over from scratch. They'd have to try and survive and move to areas that wouldn't be contaminated. How they'd find those areas, most probably wouldn't be able to. There would be a lot of fatalities from radiation sickness and cancer. Life may go on, but who knows if the radiation would alter our DNA somehow.|||alot of things would happpen...u would have global warming..and that willl mess with the ozone layer....air willl be polluted.....plants would stop growing..animals would die because lack of food...and then we would proably die..|||youd die *****
How to stop golden retriever from playing tugo of war when is supposed to be fetching?
My golden retriever is pretty good at retrieving objects when thrown or asked to fetch. However, since she used to play tugo of war when she was younger, whenever she retrieves, she starts tugging on the object, especting to play tug of war. How do I stop this?|||Teach her the drop it/leave it command. When she brings back the object she retrieved, have her drop it and leave it so you can throw it again. Using training treats for this makes it rather easy to do. Once she brings you back the object have a treat ready and say drop it, give her the treat, if she goes to pick it up have another treat and say leave it, give the treat and pick up the toy. Doesn't take too long until they bring it back, drop it and wait for you to throw it again.|||Tug of war has become a game to her. You need to stop making it fun. If she if fetching well, when she brings the toy back, give her a command as you try to take the toy (something like "give" or "drop"). Of course, she won't do it the first couple times, she'll try to tug. At that point let go of the toy and turn your back, crossing your hands in front of you. She'll probably bring the toy to your front because she wants to tug. Reach down for it again, giving the command and every time she pulls, turn your back. This will take awhile, but at some point she will give it to you rather than pulling - if for no other reason she's trying to figure out how to please you. When that happens, FIRST AND FOREMOST TAKE THE TOY!!!! Then LAVISH her with praise and give her a treat.
Repeat.
Many many times.
And most importantly, use the command each time. Also be careful not to OVER use the command. If she doesn't do what you want after you say it once or twice tops, turn your back. Otherwise all she's going to be hearing is "Beuller... Beuller... Beuller..."|||Hi,
It takes work,..some ideas,..when she wont give it to you , you could ignor her,..when she gives it to you,..them play,..if she is like my dog,..she wants to play more,..another thing I did,..(always asking the dog to release as he gave it to me ) was though a ball,..have him bring it back, then through another,..he would drop the one ball, then go get the other,..when he dropped the one,..I reinforced, release,..One of the best things though if the dog just wont release, is believe it or not,..blow in his ear,..Trust me,..he will release,..LOL,..but they are the steps I used with my dog,..it took some time but no he sometimes wants to tug, and I ignore him,..so he drops the toy,..he knows I am serious,..but the blowing in the ear works instantly,..if you practice these enough,..your dog will get the idea!|||I dont know maybe she likes playing tugo of war better:)
Repeat.
Many many times.
And most importantly, use the command each time. Also be careful not to OVER use the command. If she doesn't do what you want after you say it once or twice tops, turn your back. Otherwise all she's going to be hearing is "Beuller... Beuller... Beuller..."|||Hi,
It takes work,..some ideas,..when she wont give it to you , you could ignor her,..when she gives it to you,..them play,..if she is like my dog,..she wants to play more,..another thing I did,..(always asking the dog to release as he gave it to me ) was though a ball,..have him bring it back, then through another,..he would drop the one ball, then go get the other,..when he dropped the one,..I reinforced, release,..One of the best things though if the dog just wont release, is believe it or not,..blow in his ear,..Trust me,..he will release,..LOL,..but they are the steps I used with my dog,..it took some time but no he sometimes wants to tug, and I ignore him,..so he drops the toy,..he knows I am serious,..but the blowing in the ear works instantly,..if you practice these enough,..your dog will get the idea!|||I dont know maybe she likes playing tugo of war better:)
What is the name of the war movie which follows a battalion of african americans soldiers?
I remember seeing a movie about this, I believe it was a movie that takes place in WWI, or maybe a earlier war. I believe the movie was made around the mid 70's and up. I can't remember none of the actors names either.|||There was glory but that's the civil war with denzel Washington and Matthew Broderick|||You are probably asking about the WW11 movie directed by Spike Lee called the Miracle at St. Anna. Please click on the link below for my full review of this very good film.
http://www.tvmoviequotes.com/fatwayne/mi鈥?/a>
Hope this helps you.
http://www.tvmoviequotes.com/fatwayne/mi鈥?/a>
Hope this helps you.
What strategy did the American military adopt from the French and Indian War?
The French and Indian War, a worl war that was fought primarily ont he soil of American colonies, broght about the development of American military strategy known as WHAT? This would be later utilized int eh American Revolutionary War.|||Hit and run. Later, this would be called 'guerrilla' (little war) tactics. Sun Tzu wrote about it loooong before Indians and Americans used it!|||Well technically, the French and Indian War was part of the larger-scale Seven Years War between Britain and France and involving their colonies in North American as well as a number of Native American tribes. So it was not an ‘American’ war per se. That being said, I think the defining tactic that the American colonists introduced was the use of militia as a major component of their fighting force. Colonists living on the frontier fought alongside regular British Army units against the French. George Washington was an American Colonial commissioned in the British Army during this war. The use of irregular tactics was not unique, but the use of a “citizen army” of part-time volunteers, which would later enter American historical lore as “Minutemen” during the Revolution was.
What is some interesting connected information between the civil war, and today's presidential election?
I'm writing a journalism style news story on the civil war, and I need some connecting information or facts on the civil war and today's presidential election. Please help me!|||Connecting information, blacks %26amp; whites still disagree with one another, white people continue to view skin color, while black people are still fighting for equality.
Has unprovoked war with the sovereign state of Iraq undermined the opposition to Russia's attack of Georgia?
And, in effect, cause a situation where the Cold War will now resume? So, in effect, did the USA let its guard down and ignore the real threat it faces, as an expense for the pursuit of war against Iraq?|||At the time, Iraq was the real threat. Not direct, but indirect. When the US was bombed on september 11th, Iraq stated it will allow terrorists to train and be funded if they would carry out another attack on the US. Also, Iraq (as well as many other middle eastern countries) has declared war on the US more times than we can count. Sadam was a terrorist. You can say unprovoked if you want, but others see it differently. There is no real comparable aspect between the two wars except that the fact that they are both wars. Russians are looting Georgia and just flexing their muscle, with no real reason to be there other than to "punish" and "teach the world a lesson". The US in Iraq had a mission, to stop Sadam. Afterwards, we are rebuilding. You can bet that Russia will not help in the rebuilding efforts.
As far as us not being able to do anything, your partially right. We can do stuff though. Our air force and navy at the time being do not have a main force in Iraq. We could set up defence in Georiga (our strong ally). The length of the war in Iraq has hurt us military, not allowing us to send troops to help in threats to our allies. But, the length of the war was unforseeable.|||It's seems so except in US|||Most people outside of Iraq couldn't give a brass nickel what happens there. And the same applies to Georgia. Didn't they belong to the Russians in the old days?|||Nothing to do wirh Iraq!!
In 1953 the Russians executed Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria the head of the NKVD (forerunner to the KGB) before he could take the presidency knowing what such a man would do.
Pity they did not recognise the same problem with Putin who is now allowing his megalomania not just to attack Georgia but to threaten to use nukes on Poland!!!!|||you bet ye.|||The politics and the power struggle between opposing nations does matter in every conflict and the US would never confront the Russian federation directly and for any revival of cold war, Russia would never keep quiet and may go mad in attacking the United States or the NATO forces, BRUTALLY!
However in the near future, the real threat to USA is not Russia but a wealthy and powerful CHINA!|||No.
Don't think so.
It has nothing to do with Iraq.
Just blunders and slip-ups with human errors.
With internal conflicts and self lack of knowledge.
Living in misery with faulty education and communication system.
That ended up in throwing pots and pans.
Over a woman's error created back in the past without being aware of it being exposed in time.
In bashing up one another among their own kind in own backyards.
Luke 9.25,55-56,60
What do you think?|||Nice try, but NO.
Russia is still broke. Missles are in Poland. Saddam is dead. Bush won twice.
Russia is the loser here.
Be careful which side you support.|||Yes. Iraq has never ever been a threat. In fact Iraq should have been an ally. Saddam hated terrorist and could keep his people in line.
As far as Russia is concerned they were defending their people from a tyrant. Bottom line is that Georgia is not a democracy. It is nothing more than a dictatorship made out to be a democracy backed by the USA and now bush and mcbush. They also have had numerous human rights violations. That is what started this whole thing. Georgia slaughtered thousands of innocent people in SO.
Russia may have an alternative motive like the oil pipeline, but thus far its attack was far more justified than the one we launched on Iraq.
As far as us not being able to do anything, your partially right. We can do stuff though. Our air force and navy at the time being do not have a main force in Iraq. We could set up defence in Georiga (our strong ally). The length of the war in Iraq has hurt us military, not allowing us to send troops to help in threats to our allies. But, the length of the war was unforseeable.|||It's seems so except in US|||Most people outside of Iraq couldn't give a brass nickel what happens there. And the same applies to Georgia. Didn't they belong to the Russians in the old days?|||Nothing to do wirh Iraq!!
In 1953 the Russians executed Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria the head of the NKVD (forerunner to the KGB) before he could take the presidency knowing what such a man would do.
Pity they did not recognise the same problem with Putin who is now allowing his megalomania not just to attack Georgia but to threaten to use nukes on Poland!!!!|||you bet ye.|||The politics and the power struggle between opposing nations does matter in every conflict and the US would never confront the Russian federation directly and for any revival of cold war, Russia would never keep quiet and may go mad in attacking the United States or the NATO forces, BRUTALLY!
However in the near future, the real threat to USA is not Russia but a wealthy and powerful CHINA!|||No.
Don't think so.
It has nothing to do with Iraq.
Just blunders and slip-ups with human errors.
With internal conflicts and self lack of knowledge.
Living in misery with faulty education and communication system.
That ended up in throwing pots and pans.
Over a woman's error created back in the past without being aware of it being exposed in time.
In bashing up one another among their own kind in own backyards.
Luke 9.25,55-56,60
What do you think?|||Nice try, but NO.
Russia is still broke. Missles are in Poland. Saddam is dead. Bush won twice.
Russia is the loser here.
Be careful which side you support.|||Yes. Iraq has never ever been a threat. In fact Iraq should have been an ally. Saddam hated terrorist and could keep his people in line.
As far as Russia is concerned they were defending their people from a tyrant. Bottom line is that Georgia is not a democracy. It is nothing more than a dictatorship made out to be a democracy backed by the USA and now bush and mcbush. They also have had numerous human rights violations. That is what started this whole thing. Georgia slaughtered thousands of innocent people in SO.
Russia may have an alternative motive like the oil pipeline, but thus far its attack was far more justified than the one we launched on Iraq.
How do you prevent a nuclear war? I need ideas for a proposal to reduce or eliminate the chances of one.?
I also have to describe the devastation a nuclear war would result in.|||Have a strong, just country that takes a leadership position in the world, and believes in non-proliferation.
There were all kinds of descriptions in the 70s and 80s about nuclear winter, and what would happen if a nuclear war occurred. You can probably Google them.|||i think the idea is usually some type of agreement between leaders of countries. most countries have people that place some value on life. terrorists are the only real risks left. communists were thought to be a big risk years ago before Russia governmetn changed. North / South korea current risks. And terrorists / middle east , who knows what is going on. believe the current warfare might be thought of as more chemical in nature ? not sure if that is better or worse than nuclear sort of a war.
regarding devastation:
we had a book in school / title The Beach , i think. required reading of every student. we then discussed book and wrote papers to document / provide viewpoints
it was basically a story of how a young family coped during a nuclear war. the deaths are slow / painful. lots of description was said to be accurate although the work book was fictional.|||Condy, is that you? Just kidding, the only way to prevent a nuclear war is to keep nukes out of the hands of Rouge nations such as Iran or North Korea. The only way you can ultimately do this is by using military force. If they already have nuclear weapons, attacking them might inadvertently result in them using a nuclear weapon. The President sure has an easy job doesn't he. We should all criticize him some more instead of standing behind him.|||Mutually assured destruction prevented nuclear war for over 40 years. The problem arises when one side doesn't fear the consequences.|||Well seeing as how it has never happened, I'd say the odds are already pretty low.|||One word, deterrence. If you have more nukes than your enemy and yours are bigger, can travel farther, and can cause more damage...then they will probably not attack you.|||ground surface at 3,800 degrees,molten mass.use of cia in covert hits,the best way to eliminate it|||Well we've done a good job so far.|||Use the NRA logic: give everybody a nuke, so that every country can defend itself.
Let's test some slogans:
* If you outlaw nuclear weapons, only outlaws will have nuclear weapons.
* You'll take my nuke when you can pry my hot, glowing hand from it.|||To reduce or eliminate the possibility of nuclear war, keep nukes out of the control of irrational individuals. For example, neither the Soviet Union nor the U.S. wanted to have their major cities destroyed. On the other hand, someone like bin Laden might not care if if a few Muslim cities were destroyed.
The devastation is like any other bomb, just bigger. The radiation aspect is overblown, it is gone in a about a month. But a big bomb can do alot of damage, look for pictures of Hiroshima.|||Most people would go on a rant about nuclear disarmament. Problem with disarmament is (assuming you somehow managed to actually get countries to give up their nuclear arms), you still need to get rid of the nuclear materials. Thus far the only idea for getting rid of nuclear waste is by digging a shallow ditch, dropping it in, and trying to forget about it.
I advocate the construction of a national anti-ballistic missile shield using lasers. But, seeing as how we don't yet have an abundance of lasers yet, use interception missiles, like non-nuclear kinetic warheads. As long as any Nuclear ICBM can be taken out before atmospheric descent (terminal phase), they can be neutralized.
It would depend on the nature of the war, if we're talking typical nuclear holocaust, it could result in human extinction, or at least to modern civilization on Earth due to the effects of nuclear fall-out, the loss of much modern technology due to electromagnetic pulses, or nuclear winter, which is even worse.|||you don't that is a political decision made by politicians
There were all kinds of descriptions in the 70s and 80s about nuclear winter, and what would happen if a nuclear war occurred. You can probably Google them.|||i think the idea is usually some type of agreement between leaders of countries. most countries have people that place some value on life. terrorists are the only real risks left. communists were thought to be a big risk years ago before Russia governmetn changed. North / South korea current risks. And terrorists / middle east , who knows what is going on. believe the current warfare might be thought of as more chemical in nature ? not sure if that is better or worse than nuclear sort of a war.
regarding devastation:
we had a book in school / title The Beach , i think. required reading of every student. we then discussed book and wrote papers to document / provide viewpoints
it was basically a story of how a young family coped during a nuclear war. the deaths are slow / painful. lots of description was said to be accurate although the work book was fictional.|||Condy, is that you? Just kidding, the only way to prevent a nuclear war is to keep nukes out of the hands of Rouge nations such as Iran or North Korea. The only way you can ultimately do this is by using military force. If they already have nuclear weapons, attacking them might inadvertently result in them using a nuclear weapon. The President sure has an easy job doesn't he. We should all criticize him some more instead of standing behind him.|||Mutually assured destruction prevented nuclear war for over 40 years. The problem arises when one side doesn't fear the consequences.|||Well seeing as how it has never happened, I'd say the odds are already pretty low.|||One word, deterrence. If you have more nukes than your enemy and yours are bigger, can travel farther, and can cause more damage...then they will probably not attack you.|||ground surface at 3,800 degrees,molten mass.use of cia in covert hits,the best way to eliminate it|||Well we've done a good job so far.|||Use the NRA logic: give everybody a nuke, so that every country can defend itself.
Let's test some slogans:
* If you outlaw nuclear weapons, only outlaws will have nuclear weapons.
* You'll take my nuke when you can pry my hot, glowing hand from it.|||To reduce or eliminate the possibility of nuclear war, keep nukes out of the control of irrational individuals. For example, neither the Soviet Union nor the U.S. wanted to have their major cities destroyed. On the other hand, someone like bin Laden might not care if if a few Muslim cities were destroyed.
The devastation is like any other bomb, just bigger. The radiation aspect is overblown, it is gone in a about a month. But a big bomb can do alot of damage, look for pictures of Hiroshima.|||Most people would go on a rant about nuclear disarmament. Problem with disarmament is (assuming you somehow managed to actually get countries to give up their nuclear arms), you still need to get rid of the nuclear materials. Thus far the only idea for getting rid of nuclear waste is by digging a shallow ditch, dropping it in, and trying to forget about it.
I advocate the construction of a national anti-ballistic missile shield using lasers. But, seeing as how we don't yet have an abundance of lasers yet, use interception missiles, like non-nuclear kinetic warheads. As long as any Nuclear ICBM can be taken out before atmospheric descent (terminal phase), they can be neutralized.
It would depend on the nature of the war, if we're talking typical nuclear holocaust, it could result in human extinction, or at least to modern civilization on Earth due to the effects of nuclear fall-out, the loss of much modern technology due to electromagnetic pulses, or nuclear winter, which is even worse.|||you don't that is a political decision made by politicians
How & why did the soviet union and the united states turn from war time allies to cold war enemies?
How %26amp; why did the soviet union and the united states turn from war time allies to cold war enemies? I basically have a good knowledge, but i am still am a little unclear. i also need 5 primary sources to present in class, 3 of them text and 2 of them illustrations. Thanks.|||What the first poster said but i'll add that although they were allies during the second world war, the russians were seen more as a necessary evil rather than allies. We needed the Russians to help defeat Germany but they were never truly liked by any of the allies.|||The Cold War began as World War II was ending, 1945. American leaders saw the power and ambitions of the Soviet Union as a threat to our national security. The Cold War was a war of words and ideologies rather than a shooting war, although at times the Cold War turned “hot” as in Korea and Vietnam. Basically, the Cold War was a rivalry between the United States as leader of the western democracies, and the Soviet Union and the nations that were controlled by the communists.
The site below will have links to primary sources. Use the table of contents to find the primary links you want.|||The cold war practically started before WW2. When Russia went communist, a lot of communist rhetoric was generated talking about starting revolution in other capitalist countries. This was seen as threatening to the US.
The US and USSR were allies out of convenience, since they both had the desire to stop Hitler. After Hitler went down, there wasn't much need to keep the alliance going. In fact the US rushed the atomic bombs to Hiroshima and Nagasaki as they wanted to dissuade the USSR from invading Japan, as they were mobilizing troops in that direction after the major fighting ended in Europe. From there, the USSR refused to relinquish control of the Eastern European countries it gained from the falling Nazis, and it reached a real head in the showdown over Berlin which led to the Berlin airlift.
The site below will have links to primary sources. Use the table of contents to find the primary links you want.|||The cold war practically started before WW2. When Russia went communist, a lot of communist rhetoric was generated talking about starting revolution in other capitalist countries. This was seen as threatening to the US.
The US and USSR were allies out of convenience, since they both had the desire to stop Hitler. After Hitler went down, there wasn't much need to keep the alliance going. In fact the US rushed the atomic bombs to Hiroshima and Nagasaki as they wanted to dissuade the USSR from invading Japan, as they were mobilizing troops in that direction after the major fighting ended in Europe. From there, the USSR refused to relinquish control of the Eastern European countries it gained from the falling Nazis, and it reached a real head in the showdown over Berlin which led to the Berlin airlift.
What are war games and military exercises?
Because of the recent flare up with North Korea, I have read that South Korea and the U.S. would be carrying out "military exercises" and participating in "war games" to delineate power. My question is, what exactly are these war games and military exercises, and what do they actually do?|||The military has exercises every year in Korea, they are called Team Spirit. Sometimes this exercise is moved up or back. It is to ensure that all branches of the military are up to the task of protecting the freedom. I can speak from experience that those exercises are down right miserable cold and wet. I have never gone down range and stayed dry. But is a small price for a soldier to pay for your freedom.|||They are when forces collaborate with each other to train and up-skill their service personnel in the act of war. They are, on the whole, as close to the real thing as one can get. Also, it gives the Generals much needed practice in gathering their forces, feeding, clothing, arming them and directing them in the arft of war. Think of a General as a Director in a theatre and all the soldier as Actors.|||show of force, threat deterrence. training
How is war a means by which government secures control over its people?
1984-related topic for my English class.
So far, these are my ideas:
1. War creates fear. We give up liberties for "safety"
2. Creates an opposition, a public enemy that channels annoyance, thought, or anger away from government
3. War provides the ruling class with unconditional support, therefore, unlimited power
Does anyone have any other ideas? And please, if anyone knows of any online sources about my topic, tell me!|||You have the rock based foundation laid to the way it works !!
Simply add to this mixture -- an element where the government turns "self-serving" and KNOWS that extraordinary powers come from having people Terrified --
as so, turns Fear into a tool -- with which they dismantle any
existing restrains ON them -- NOW, you have Absolute Power and Authority
Need more on how this is done
Contact the White House
Almost anyone there can give you an outline and explaination
That is, if you can get anyone there to Admit it !!!|||Any dissent or disagreement with government is branded "unpatriotic". The best example of this is FDR'd persecution of the America First Committee who tried to keep us out of WW2.
Anyone who looks like the enemy, or shares the same religious faith is subject to persecution. Example, Japanese-Americans during WW2, Muslims today.
Many "temporary" measure to help the war effort that become permanent.
In short, war is NEVER a good thing, although sometimes it is necessary. War is started by the criminal class - the politician. But the politicians are not the ones who die in war.|||Deception, distraction, misdirection! So the public never knows what one hand is doing while the other is picking and emptying their pockets!|||You smacked the nail on the head my friend. These are all the means by which Gov.s lock down on their citizens through war. In this, the war in Iraq a new angle is being pushed. If you do not support the war, you do not support our troops and you then cannot possibly be a patriot. This is powerfull motivation for congress members to support the war and prolong it, less they should be considered "un-patriotic". Hope this helps.
P.S George Orwell is a great author and much can be learned from 1984 enjoy.|||These all sound good, and quite defensible from stuff in 1984, as well as modern life, whether you look at home or abroad. I typed "war and control of public opinion" into Yahoo! search and came up with quite a few hits, but the first was this one, which is a series of excerpts from a book. If you use them, you should track down the actual book (public library?). Yahoo site: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Nancy_鈥?/a>
So far, these are my ideas:
1. War creates fear. We give up liberties for "safety"
2. Creates an opposition, a public enemy that channels annoyance, thought, or anger away from government
3. War provides the ruling class with unconditional support, therefore, unlimited power
Does anyone have any other ideas? And please, if anyone knows of any online sources about my topic, tell me!|||You have the rock based foundation laid to the way it works !!
Simply add to this mixture -- an element where the government turns "self-serving" and KNOWS that extraordinary powers come from having people Terrified --
as so, turns Fear into a tool -- with which they dismantle any
existing restrains ON them -- NOW, you have Absolute Power and Authority
Need more on how this is done
Contact the White House
Almost anyone there can give you an outline and explaination
That is, if you can get anyone there to Admit it !!!|||Any dissent or disagreement with government is branded "unpatriotic". The best example of this is FDR'd persecution of the America First Committee who tried to keep us out of WW2.
Anyone who looks like the enemy, or shares the same religious faith is subject to persecution. Example, Japanese-Americans during WW2, Muslims today.
Many "temporary" measure to help the war effort that become permanent.
In short, war is NEVER a good thing, although sometimes it is necessary. War is started by the criminal class - the politician. But the politicians are not the ones who die in war.|||Deception, distraction, misdirection! So the public never knows what one hand is doing while the other is picking and emptying their pockets!|||You smacked the nail on the head my friend. These are all the means by which Gov.s lock down on their citizens through war. In this, the war in Iraq a new angle is being pushed. If you do not support the war, you do not support our troops and you then cannot possibly be a patriot. This is powerfull motivation for congress members to support the war and prolong it, less they should be considered "un-patriotic". Hope this helps.
P.S George Orwell is a great author and much can be learned from 1984 enjoy.|||These all sound good, and quite defensible from stuff in 1984, as well as modern life, whether you look at home or abroad. I typed "war and control of public opinion" into Yahoo! search and came up with quite a few hits, but the first was this one, which is a series of excerpts from a book. If you use them, you should track down the actual book (public library?). Yahoo site: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Nancy_鈥?/a>
What separates war art and domestic practise based on suicide bombers and terrorism.?
War has many well known photographic images. But what does the painter have when war is in his home and on the battle front.What distinctions can be made between a warzone and safe home territory by the artist. Is their a well known subject or category to use?|||If you can't think in the abstract then your not testing your own abilities as a artist.|||not entirely sure what you meen?.....are you looking for simularities like...... a suicide bomber would be in the same situation as a soldier in a trench. as in...the trench is in fact hes safe home territory and!!within the war zone at the same time? in the way a suicide bomber would obviously reside in enemy territory for months in the planning ect in! what he considers to be he's war zone making no distinction between home and war zone?? try a composition involving mixtures of the two elements ie....sand bag rent book barbed wire binoculars ect....tea bags religiouse paraphinalia. window in the flat. what would he see and what would it meen to him. i'm probably way off the mark but as i say. your not very clear on what exactly it is your looking for?|||the suicide pilots were known as the "fu fighters" in my opinion they were brainwashed into wet brain state|||Just paint a load of crap , it'll probably sell these days anyway .
How was the Cold War different from earlier wars?
A. The Cold War was more brutal and deadly, with millions of casualties.
B. The Cold War lasted for a shorter time than either World War I or World War II.
C. The Cold War involved long years oftense relations between the two
superpowers, but little or no direct fighting.
D. The Cold War was fought with nuclear weapons.|||C of course.|||C. The Cold War involved long years oftense relations between the two
superpowers, but little or no direct fighting.
It is a 'mangoose'.
It was a term coined derisively and not to be taken seriously. If you take it seriously like many history students do ("Oh, its a War") the sarcasm is lost. The answer is like explaining a joke; the fizz is out.|||E. the cold war was colder.|||C - this all sounds a bit like homework
B. The Cold War lasted for a shorter time than either World War I or World War II.
C. The Cold War involved long years oftense relations between the two
superpowers, but little or no direct fighting.
D. The Cold War was fought with nuclear weapons.|||C of course.|||C. The Cold War involved long years oftense relations between the two
superpowers, but little or no direct fighting.
It is a 'mangoose'.
It was a term coined derisively and not to be taken seriously. If you take it seriously like many history students do ("Oh, its a War") the sarcasm is lost. The answer is like explaining a joke; the fizz is out.|||E. the cold war was colder.|||C - this all sounds a bit like homework
How long do you think the war in Afghanistan will take to complete?
I'm thinking it could go well into the next decade.
Do you think liberals trumpeting about being in "the right war" will see it to its conclusion.
Honestly, I've never known a liberal to be that dedicated; they shift their priorities every few weeks.|||About as long as it takes for the US to realise that it will not win and that they are wasting lives for nothing|||Probably forever since Washington DC has started micro managing it like LBJ did. Give McCrystal what he originally asked for or pull the troops OUT! Turn the military loose. Quit tying their hands behind their back.|||Longer than Viet Nam!|||we defeated japan and germany in 4 years
Do you think liberals trumpeting about being in "the right war" will see it to its conclusion.
Honestly, I've never known a liberal to be that dedicated; they shift their priorities every few weeks.|||About as long as it takes for the US to realise that it will not win and that they are wasting lives for nothing|||Probably forever since Washington DC has started micro managing it like LBJ did. Give McCrystal what he originally asked for or pull the troops OUT! Turn the military loose. Quit tying their hands behind their back.|||Longer than Viet Nam!|||we defeated japan and germany in 4 years
How did the French and Indian war affect the relationship between Britain and the colonies?
How did the french and indian war affect the relationship between Britain and the colonies? What were some of the effects?
I just want to make sure I cover all the relevant topics in my essay...
Thanks.|||first off afterward i gave britain the remainder of canada (quebec and most of the maritime provinces today)
in order to pay off the debt accrued during the fighting of this war the british parliament decided on a series of taxes and tariffs and trade regulations greatly resented by the colonies which eventually led to american revolutionary war|||It cost the British a small fortune, a small fortune they didn't have and were forced to borrow. When the war was over, they expected the colonies to foot the bill, since the war happened on their doorstep. The colonies weren't in agreement with them on that concept, asserting that they had not been consulted in the decision to go to war, since they had no representatives in Parliament, nor any real diplomatic rights, and weren't going to foot the bill for a war they didn't want in the first place. It was the beginning of the end for the relationship between the two, and was what started the "No taxation without tepresentation" slogan in earnest.
I just want to make sure I cover all the relevant topics in my essay...
Thanks.|||first off afterward i gave britain the remainder of canada (quebec and most of the maritime provinces today)
in order to pay off the debt accrued during the fighting of this war the british parliament decided on a series of taxes and tariffs and trade regulations greatly resented by the colonies which eventually led to american revolutionary war|||It cost the British a small fortune, a small fortune they didn't have and were forced to borrow. When the war was over, they expected the colonies to foot the bill, since the war happened on their doorstep. The colonies weren't in agreement with them on that concept, asserting that they had not been consulted in the decision to go to war, since they had no representatives in Parliament, nor any real diplomatic rights, and weren't going to foot the bill for a war they didn't want in the first place. It was the beginning of the end for the relationship between the two, and was what started the "No taxation without tepresentation" slogan in earnest.
Why did the World Wars break out in the 20th Century followed by the cold war?
Given that the European international soceity of states had its inception as long ago as 1648, why did two unthinkably violent world wars break out in the 20th century,f ollowed by a Cold War that threatened nuclear annihiliation of the human race? That hardly sounds like the kind of thing you would expect to see in the "society." What went wrong?|||World War 1 [the Great War, so-called] was a tragic, terrible and stupid diplomatic accident. Since 1815, there had been no Europe-wide conflict and people had forgotten how destructive and painful wars could be. All that remained after 1815 was a rising nationalism and patriotism in the new countries that emerged during the 19th century. This included Germany, Italy, Belgium, Poland, Greece and so on. To "protect" themselves, all European countries formed alliances with neighbours and pledged support in time of attack. It was this system of alliances that led directly to WW1. When a Serbian nationalist assassinated the Austrian Archduke Ferdinand and his wife in Sarajevo in June 1914, Austria mobilised an army to take revenge. But Russia had a treaty of protection with Serbia, and mobilised its army in the East. France had a commitment to support Russia in any conflict, and so mobilised the French Army also. In response, the new Germany invoked a particular strategy we now call the Schlieffen Plan - when France mobilises an army, attack immediately and go for Paris. The German army did this and attacked France through Belgium. But Britain had a treaty of protection with Belgium since 1829. Suddenly, by the end of August 1914, the whole of Europe was caught up in a war that had no purpose and no legitimate objectives. Also, for various reasons, Germany had an alliance with Ottoman Turkey and agreed to split the Balkans, Greece and Mesopotamia from European control [France and Britain] in return for assistance.
World War 2 came about because WW1 did not finish with a peace treaty; but with an Armistice - a cease-fire. Germany was ascribed the full blame by the Versailles Conference of 1918-19, and ordered to pay massive reparations to the French. The German army was limited to a few battalions for civil defence, and the navy to small flotillas of little ships. Neither USA nor Britain wanted the reparations to be so large, but both sets of politicians chickened out. The effect was a growing resentment in Germany, which developed into extreme political attitudes including Nazism. [As a matter of interest, the final payment of the 1919 reparations was made on Sunday 3 October 2010. During the Nazi period from 1933 and after the split of Germany between East and West until 1989, no payments had been made.]
In this sense, WW2 was the second part of the unfinished Great War of 1914-18. Also in the same way that Germany allied to Turkey in 1914, Germany allied to Japan in 1940 with the intention of keeping USA out of the European war. It didn't work, of course, because USA had various treaties with the United Kingdom and felt threatened by all members of the Axis. The situation of Italy is a military and diplomatic anomaly, over which historians are still arguing. Italy was formed as a single country over the period 1859-71, and never had a warlike history. How it came to be mixed up with Adolf Hitler is is still a mystery to many Italians and other Europeans.
The Cold War was an undeclared [mostly non-shooting] war that grew out of WW2 because of American fear and USSR distrust after the splitting of Europe from Danzig [now Gdansk] on the Baltic Sea to Trieste on the Adriatic Sea, by the "Iron Curtain" in 1945. It came to an end when USSR collapsed in 1991, to become the Federation of Independent States and the Russian Federation.
The people, mostly politicians, who dashed into WW1 and WW2 were pretty much the same kind of people that we see today. They were excessively proud of their own countries, talked about "making the world safe", thought they had the technology for a quick and easy war, and could whip up anti-foreign feeling. Hate the Germans, the Turks, the Japanese, the Russians, the Chinese, the Arabs. Not much has changed.
OK?|||They has never been a real era of peace full development. Every civilization that has ever appeared upon the planet used force to foster its means, take what it needed, defend it's civilization, or fail and fall.
WW1 really became with the unification of the Germans states/kingdoms in 1871. Europe had an quasi establish balance of power between Great Britain, France, %26amp; Russia. The Defeat of Napoleon place Great Britain as top dog in Europe, France was regulated to dog 2. By 1910 Germany had become more far more powerful than France. This upset the balance of power in Europe. As Great Britain and France aligned themselves with one another Germany aligned herself with Austrian and Ottoman Empires. The rivalry for dominance in Europe along with the fear created by the rapid growth of Germany just needed a spark and you had WW1. WW2 was a result of WW2, as was the Cold war a result of WW2. The reunification of Germany in 1990 was the end of that long line of tragic events.|||It was really a continuation of the previous state of affairs. We call the 1914-18 war the "First World War" but that is a misnomer. Ever since European powers had colonies in the New World, there were "world wars". The Thirty Years War, Seven Years War and the Napoleonic Wars spilled over into the Americas, Africa and Asia.
The Cold War was based on the realization that neither side would win in a mass war like WW2 with the nuclear weapons and long range delivery systems available. The US/USSR fought it out by proxy in places like Vietnam and Afghanistan, with the tacit understanding that they would not face each other directly.|||First, it wasn't until the 20th century that standing armies were large enough and technology sophisticated enough to allow true world wars. The Napoleonic wars of the 19th century came close.
Second, World Wars I %26amp; II are essentially two phases of the same war, particularly in Europe.
It's easy to see how the U.S. emerged from WWII as a superpower, but it is not so easy to understand how the U.S.S.R. also emerged. The U.S. was relatively unscathed by the war (although 400,000 dead are not to be taken lightly), unlike every other major power in the world. The U.S.S.R. arguably suffered more than any other country.
I guess that's where ideology and diplomacy enter.
So, the war ended with the emergence of two ideologically opposed superpowers. The threat of war and the fear of mutual annihilation was so great that their conflicts were almost guaranteed to be of the "cold" kind rather than direct confrontation. If that hadn't been true, we wouldn't be here today to discuss it.|||The european powers had been at each others throats since the Napoleonic wars of 1800's and well before. World War I and II was just a result of tensions and events boiling to the surface that had been in play for decades.
War is in human nature.... As long as there is Oil or Money or something for us to fight over there's going to be a fight somewhere.|||Becouse of massive struggle for power.
And stupid people, too prown of their flag|||What went wrong was human nature not being listened to in the first place. make war not peace.|||The political institutions and their ideological offshoot are to be credited for this state of affairs.
'Battleaxe' has succintly summarised it. I'd emphasise on the main aspects. The real empire in the modern sense was 'Roman Empire'. European Empires all were set in that mold.
Europeans have discovered the New World (Americas; Western Hemisphere) and as is their wont, established Empires there and exploited the people, who had no link with Eastern Hemisphere. So Imperial way has been set and that bred a hunger for raw materials and markets. Whether Industrial revolution (nominally dated 1750 in England) fed the Empires or Empires fed Industrial revolution, both grew in tandem. This led to rivalry amongst the various Imperial powers and led to chronic wars. It has become a philosophy even amongst the average populace to extoll and glorify the Empires, Wars, Man's irresistible urge to 'fight', national pride and all that. Amongst the powers it bred competition. Though I don't intend trivialising it became no different from the Football World Cup.
Technological advancements like discovery of electricity and engineering methods to generate and distribute, followed by electronics and electronic means of communications on one side and transport feeding on Petroleum as a new resource on the other side, kept up this state and rate of hunger at high levels. Empire is the only means to secure for a nation the raw material resources and markets available in far coners of the world. Invariably it implies exploitation, plunder and loot of regions and peoples unable or too weak to defend themselves. Nationalism too has become an accomplice.
Things came to a head by the early part of XX century. Contending parties needed to come to a new settlement either by nagotiations or by war. War in any case becomes inevitable. It also became heavy on cost to the people, who naturally abhor it after tasting it once. But the Empires always can tell them that the War is imposed on them.
WW I was the result of friction between Ottoman Empire and Astro-Hungarian if one is looking for a 'reason' to explain it. But WW I which ought to have reduced such a possibility by reducing the rancour of German people, actually enhanced it, being an unfinished job. WW II was the war to finish all the wars and it did that to an extent. It did it by inadvertantly reducing the role of Empires and finally winding them up altogether. It was not in the design but it just happened as an inherent process. It is as if that no sooner they bent they found their b a l l s missing.
In a way the greatest gift of WW II to mankind is the winding up of Empires, a trend that was set from Roman Empire. Instead of forcing the issue, the Empires were allowed to decay under their own weights. But the ideological tangle was still to be resolved. It grew instead to become a fashionable, modern trend. The setting of Cold War is relevant here. Without provoking each other, the two camps (First and second worlds) tested, probed and executed the rapier thrusts with each other using the third world as the proving ground and the people there as gunfodder. It explains why there were no wars in Europe even in the face of intense miltary confrontation, right in the middle of Germany, across the heart, Berlin. For whatever reason the second world succumbed ideologically after 45 years of continuous low-level warfare and bloodshed, sparing no region of globe. Still they need to be congratulated for not pushing the world into a nuclear inferno, for if it starts once there is no chance that the conflagration would stay contained. World is thankful for such small mercies.
Even now the world is not out of the strait jacket of European thinking and blue-prints for the world. In that sense the Euro-motivated series of Cold-War wars fought in third world countries were not of their making. Even now these countries are yet to take charge of their detinies with responsibility (witness the way governance is running amock in Africa) fully.
World War 2 came about because WW1 did not finish with a peace treaty; but with an Armistice - a cease-fire. Germany was ascribed the full blame by the Versailles Conference of 1918-19, and ordered to pay massive reparations to the French. The German army was limited to a few battalions for civil defence, and the navy to small flotillas of little ships. Neither USA nor Britain wanted the reparations to be so large, but both sets of politicians chickened out. The effect was a growing resentment in Germany, which developed into extreme political attitudes including Nazism. [As a matter of interest, the final payment of the 1919 reparations was made on Sunday 3 October 2010. During the Nazi period from 1933 and after the split of Germany between East and West until 1989, no payments had been made.]
In this sense, WW2 was the second part of the unfinished Great War of 1914-18. Also in the same way that Germany allied to Turkey in 1914, Germany allied to Japan in 1940 with the intention of keeping USA out of the European war. It didn't work, of course, because USA had various treaties with the United Kingdom and felt threatened by all members of the Axis. The situation of Italy is a military and diplomatic anomaly, over which historians are still arguing. Italy was formed as a single country over the period 1859-71, and never had a warlike history. How it came to be mixed up with Adolf Hitler is is still a mystery to many Italians and other Europeans.
The Cold War was an undeclared [mostly non-shooting] war that grew out of WW2 because of American fear and USSR distrust after the splitting of Europe from Danzig [now Gdansk] on the Baltic Sea to Trieste on the Adriatic Sea, by the "Iron Curtain" in 1945. It came to an end when USSR collapsed in 1991, to become the Federation of Independent States and the Russian Federation.
The people, mostly politicians, who dashed into WW1 and WW2 were pretty much the same kind of people that we see today. They were excessively proud of their own countries, talked about "making the world safe", thought they had the technology for a quick and easy war, and could whip up anti-foreign feeling. Hate the Germans, the Turks, the Japanese, the Russians, the Chinese, the Arabs. Not much has changed.
OK?|||They has never been a real era of peace full development. Every civilization that has ever appeared upon the planet used force to foster its means, take what it needed, defend it's civilization, or fail and fall.
WW1 really became with the unification of the Germans states/kingdoms in 1871. Europe had an quasi establish balance of power between Great Britain, France, %26amp; Russia. The Defeat of Napoleon place Great Britain as top dog in Europe, France was regulated to dog 2. By 1910 Germany had become more far more powerful than France. This upset the balance of power in Europe. As Great Britain and France aligned themselves with one another Germany aligned herself with Austrian and Ottoman Empires. The rivalry for dominance in Europe along with the fear created by the rapid growth of Germany just needed a spark and you had WW1. WW2 was a result of WW2, as was the Cold war a result of WW2. The reunification of Germany in 1990 was the end of that long line of tragic events.|||It was really a continuation of the previous state of affairs. We call the 1914-18 war the "First World War" but that is a misnomer. Ever since European powers had colonies in the New World, there were "world wars". The Thirty Years War, Seven Years War and the Napoleonic Wars spilled over into the Americas, Africa and Asia.
The Cold War was based on the realization that neither side would win in a mass war like WW2 with the nuclear weapons and long range delivery systems available. The US/USSR fought it out by proxy in places like Vietnam and Afghanistan, with the tacit understanding that they would not face each other directly.|||First, it wasn't until the 20th century that standing armies were large enough and technology sophisticated enough to allow true world wars. The Napoleonic wars of the 19th century came close.
Second, World Wars I %26amp; II are essentially two phases of the same war, particularly in Europe.
It's easy to see how the U.S. emerged from WWII as a superpower, but it is not so easy to understand how the U.S.S.R. also emerged. The U.S. was relatively unscathed by the war (although 400,000 dead are not to be taken lightly), unlike every other major power in the world. The U.S.S.R. arguably suffered more than any other country.
I guess that's where ideology and diplomacy enter.
So, the war ended with the emergence of two ideologically opposed superpowers. The threat of war and the fear of mutual annihilation was so great that their conflicts were almost guaranteed to be of the "cold" kind rather than direct confrontation. If that hadn't been true, we wouldn't be here today to discuss it.|||The european powers had been at each others throats since the Napoleonic wars of 1800's and well before. World War I and II was just a result of tensions and events boiling to the surface that had been in play for decades.
War is in human nature.... As long as there is Oil or Money or something for us to fight over there's going to be a fight somewhere.|||Becouse of massive struggle for power.
And stupid people, too prown of their flag|||What went wrong was human nature not being listened to in the first place. make war not peace.|||The political institutions and their ideological offshoot are to be credited for this state of affairs.
'Battleaxe' has succintly summarised it. I'd emphasise on the main aspects. The real empire in the modern sense was 'Roman Empire'. European Empires all were set in that mold.
Europeans have discovered the New World (Americas; Western Hemisphere) and as is their wont, established Empires there and exploited the people, who had no link with Eastern Hemisphere. So Imperial way has been set and that bred a hunger for raw materials and markets. Whether Industrial revolution (nominally dated 1750 in England) fed the Empires or Empires fed Industrial revolution, both grew in tandem. This led to rivalry amongst the various Imperial powers and led to chronic wars. It has become a philosophy even amongst the average populace to extoll and glorify the Empires, Wars, Man's irresistible urge to 'fight', national pride and all that. Amongst the powers it bred competition. Though I don't intend trivialising it became no different from the Football World Cup.
Technological advancements like discovery of electricity and engineering methods to generate and distribute, followed by electronics and electronic means of communications on one side and transport feeding on Petroleum as a new resource on the other side, kept up this state and rate of hunger at high levels. Empire is the only means to secure for a nation the raw material resources and markets available in far coners of the world. Invariably it implies exploitation, plunder and loot of regions and peoples unable or too weak to defend themselves. Nationalism too has become an accomplice.
Things came to a head by the early part of XX century. Contending parties needed to come to a new settlement either by nagotiations or by war. War in any case becomes inevitable. It also became heavy on cost to the people, who naturally abhor it after tasting it once. But the Empires always can tell them that the War is imposed on them.
WW I was the result of friction between Ottoman Empire and Astro-Hungarian if one is looking for a 'reason' to explain it. But WW I which ought to have reduced such a possibility by reducing the rancour of German people, actually enhanced it, being an unfinished job. WW II was the war to finish all the wars and it did that to an extent. It did it by inadvertantly reducing the role of Empires and finally winding them up altogether. It was not in the design but it just happened as an inherent process. It is as if that no sooner they bent they found their b a l l s missing.
In a way the greatest gift of WW II to mankind is the winding up of Empires, a trend that was set from Roman Empire. Instead of forcing the issue, the Empires were allowed to decay under their own weights. But the ideological tangle was still to be resolved. It grew instead to become a fashionable, modern trend. The setting of Cold War is relevant here. Without provoking each other, the two camps (First and second worlds) tested, probed and executed the rapier thrusts with each other using the third world as the proving ground and the people there as gunfodder. It explains why there were no wars in Europe even in the face of intense miltary confrontation, right in the middle of Germany, across the heart, Berlin. For whatever reason the second world succumbed ideologically after 45 years of continuous low-level warfare and bloodshed, sparing no region of globe. Still they need to be congratulated for not pushing the world into a nuclear inferno, for if it starts once there is no chance that the conflagration would stay contained. World is thankful for such small mercies.
Even now the world is not out of the strait jacket of European thinking and blue-prints for the world. In that sense the Euro-motivated series of Cold-War wars fought in third world countries were not of their making. Even now these countries are yet to take charge of their detinies with responsibility (witness the way governance is running amock in Africa) fully.
What will the world become if the third world war breaks out?
Which country will probably start the third war?Which country will try to calm down the quarreling countries and reduce the risks of the war? What are the nuclear weapons or the big warships used for? Can they be used to build democracy?|||World war three is upon us.
Now things happen in a more subtle way. Muslims are trying to take over American schools and government. America has embassy in ... just Google the list of countries.
Trade sanctions, embargoes, treaties. The world's power is being redistributed daily. Its just a mostly bloodless war. Or bloodless in the way we typically think of war.
With so many countries borrowing money from one another and buying stock in each other's countries we as a world community cannot afford to attack anyone.
Its bad business to destroy your investments.
China cannot attack the US. they own to many of our businesses, banks in specific. The Saudis support terrorism but they want us to buy oil.
and too many countries depend totally on American aid to feed their populations.
So the war is here, its just a cultural and political war, moving like a slow acting poison.
Seriously though, Google the list of American foreign embassies.|||North Korea might start the next one. China might take over the world anyway. Their economy is getting stronger, and they are heavily populated.|||Bloody. Iran may try something stupid.
Now things happen in a more subtle way. Muslims are trying to take over American schools and government. America has embassy in ... just Google the list of countries.
Trade sanctions, embargoes, treaties. The world's power is being redistributed daily. Its just a mostly bloodless war. Or bloodless in the way we typically think of war.
With so many countries borrowing money from one another and buying stock in each other's countries we as a world community cannot afford to attack anyone.
Its bad business to destroy your investments.
China cannot attack the US. they own to many of our businesses, banks in specific. The Saudis support terrorism but they want us to buy oil.
and too many countries depend totally on American aid to feed their populations.
So the war is here, its just a cultural and political war, moving like a slow acting poison.
Seriously though, Google the list of American foreign embassies.|||North Korea might start the next one. China might take over the world anyway. Their economy is getting stronger, and they are heavily populated.|||Bloody. Iran may try something stupid.
How to delete storm8 account world war and start anew one on iphone?
I downloaded app world war n really didnt star well want to delete it and start again. Any1 help??|||That`s unfortunately not possible.
When you made there an account you can`t use another instead.
Greetings The Freak
When you made there an account you can`t use another instead.
Greetings The Freak
What battle during the civil war is considered the turning point when it became clear that the north would win?
What battle during the civil war is considered the turning point when it became clear that the north would win?|||Homework?|||Vicksburg. Although Gettysburg is more familiar it had no strategic value while Vicksburg gave the Union control of the Mississippi River, splitting the Confederacy in two and knocking out a major supply line.|||It was Gettysburg. After this battle the South never invaded the North again. The lose of men was huge on both sides, total was 50,000. This was also the one of the first times that Gatling guns were used.|||Gettysburg. After the Confederate defeat at Gettysburg, the South never again ventured into Northern territory and were on the defensive until the end.|||Gettysburg, some could argue Antietam, but historically Gettysburg is recognized as the turning point.|||Gettysburg and Battle of Vicksburg since it took place at about the same time
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?|||you already asked this question...
As I said before:
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.|||"god" is racist|||Wow really you had to ask this question here? sad.|||Ahem...Red China?|||your right, we need to fix things and bring change, we need affirmative action so in the next cold war we can have a black super power be a part of it, lets use kenya and supply them with all our money, weapons and then let them help the worlds starving and depressed. uhh huh and that will show the world that were not racist|||had nothing to do with race. had much to do with nukes and economic strength.|||For the past 1000 years, whites have been leading the technology. That is now changing with Asia emerging.|||So...
What are you going to say in 20 years, when the Chinese are the world's greatest superpower?
Won't that pretty much shoot down your white racist theory?|||How many European Countries are williing to take on Japan.......or China?|||Living in cooler, northern climates that didn't constantly have to fight disease and famine allowed them the leisure time to study science and, from it, develope the technology necessary for a huge war. It's more about geography than skin color (and, actually, skin color is also a result of geography and the need for more melanin due to greater or lesser exposure to the sun.)
Kinda undermines your racist idea -huh.|||What an incredibly stupid question. It is clear that you need to
go back to school...|||Perhaps the so called White nations are more war like - most come from harsh climates and had to fight and pillage to survive in the distant past . That is No excuse for all out war - how ever .
As I said before:
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.|||"god" is racist|||Wow really you had to ask this question here? sad.|||Ahem...Red China?|||your right, we need to fix things and bring change, we need affirmative action so in the next cold war we can have a black super power be a part of it, lets use kenya and supply them with all our money, weapons and then let them help the worlds starving and depressed. uhh huh and that will show the world that were not racist|||had nothing to do with race. had much to do with nukes and economic strength.|||For the past 1000 years, whites have been leading the technology. That is now changing with Asia emerging.|||So...
What are you going to say in 20 years, when the Chinese are the world's greatest superpower?
Won't that pretty much shoot down your white racist theory?|||How many European Countries are williing to take on Japan.......or China?|||Living in cooler, northern climates that didn't constantly have to fight disease and famine allowed them the leisure time to study science and, from it, develope the technology necessary for a huge war. It's more about geography than skin color (and, actually, skin color is also a result of geography and the need for more melanin due to greater or lesser exposure to the sun.)
Kinda undermines your racist idea -huh.|||What an incredibly stupid question. It is clear that you need to
go back to school...|||Perhaps the so called White nations are more war like - most come from harsh climates and had to fight and pillage to survive in the distant past . That is No excuse for all out war - how ever .
How far has American opinion of the Vietnam War changed over the period from the start of the War until today?
Im doing a History Asessment in school and need to do my research. Ive got a few sources from the internet but need some more. So I was wondering if anyone could help me. Could someone please tell me the American opinion of the Vietnam War DURING the war, American opinion of the Vietnam war AFTER the war, and American opinion of the Vietnam War TODAY
Any help will be much appreciated, thanks|||I was a high school kid when the war was on. I hated that it was happening.
After the war, I was embarrassed by our government (what's new), and disturbed over the displacing and murdering of civilians of Vietnam %26amp; Cambodia (and destroyed lives of young teen US soldiers).
Today I'm still embarrassed by our government's history.
Our neighborhood donut shop is owned %26amp; operated by a Cambodian family. Delightfully sweet and humble people, they're still suffering to help family left behind in their homeland.
But I'm just a mom, what would I know?
Grrrr.
Any help will be much appreciated, thanks|||I was a high school kid when the war was on. I hated that it was happening.
After the war, I was embarrassed by our government (what's new), and disturbed over the displacing and murdering of civilians of Vietnam %26amp; Cambodia (and destroyed lives of young teen US soldiers).
Today I'm still embarrassed by our government's history.
Our neighborhood donut shop is owned %26amp; operated by a Cambodian family. Delightfully sweet and humble people, they're still suffering to help family left behind in their homeland.
But I'm just a mom, what would I know?
Grrrr.
Why did we start the war in Afghanistan and travel in to Iraq?
The started in the war in Afghanistan because of the terrorists. Then we went to Iraq why?|||Iraq is smack dab in the middle of the richest oil reserve on the planet. As of 9/11 Sadams army was in shambles , his brutality was legendary, and after over 8 years of sanctions the civilian population was undergoing a humanitarian crisis.
Bush and the majority of his cabinet disapproved of Bush senior leaving Sadam in power after the first Gulf war.
All this coupled with a reasonably logical assumption that Sadam probably had some WMD stashed away some where made for a relatively easy sell to the American people that a military invasion was justified on the heals of the 9/11 attack and the administration correctly ascertained that a military victory over Sadams army would be a cake walk.
They incorrectly assumed that once Saddam was removed the Iraqi people would unite to rapidly adopt a democracy that would be a model for the mideast and friendly to the US. Had this gone off as planned it would not only have solved the US energy needs for decades it would also have provided an ideal strategic military base of operations to strike Iran and Syria if military action should be required to bend them to the Administrations will.
Once the Oil reserves of Iraq were secure as well as oil reserves in Iran coupled with oil reserves in Saudi Arabia the US would essentially control the well head in the Mideast and pretty much any country on the planet that the Administration found to be in contention would find it鈥檚 energy supply cut off and that would be a very powerful weapon indeed.
Of course the possibility remains that the Administration will go ahead with their plan and invade Iran regardless of the failure to produce a viable friendly democracy, he has the air power sitting idle and he has the ground troops in place and battle hardened if a ground assault is required to destroy military resistance in Iran and or Syria.
The Idea that such shenanigans are a war against terrorism is laughable in that if such actions are taken they will justify the terrorists cause world wide.
Our children鈥檚 children鈥檚 war to which they speak.
This doesn鈥檛 have to be, this environment is being created by wealth and power seeking ever more wealth and power that鈥檚 producing the poverty and inequity and warfare that in turn produces the terrorist鈥檚.|||America stated war in Afghanistan to have control on central Asia and countries around them. and Stated war in Iraq for oil. to steal iraqs oil and save the oil which they already have in USA. Americans are Thieves and war lovers they do not bring peace to world but destroying it.
peace :@
|||i agree. The entire war in The middle east is stupid IMO. There were no WMDs but we stuck around anyway? Well of course, more people are pissed off at us now. the war also encourages extreme racism . They report every time a soldier dies? This is not war, this is just theft.
|||everything started because the us troops invaded Muslim holy land and messed with its religion
|||We didn't find who we were looking for so we decided to use Iraq to continue the WAR. Saying it is War in Terrorism. I know if we leave we are screwed but I just cant grasp out spending millions on WAR when we so many issues to deal with in America. We don't have our priorities straight|||For oil sweety, oh and to kick start the economy. Record stock market.|||bush wanted revenge on saddam cuz saddam tried to kill his father in bush's words "that man tried to kill my daddy!"|||Because mr. bush wanted to impress his daddy. Interesting how Afghanistan seems to take a back seat to the war we're really fighting.|||cuz mr prezident is a DA|||oil %26amp; money|||i was just talkin about this today that damn bush just wanted to finish what his daddy couldnt,,ya know saddam tried to get ol man bush killed along time ago and bush from texas baby we take that sh-t personally and we might wait awhile baby but best believe you gonna get yours unfortunately he used our troops to do it ,,,if you want the truth about some sh-t go to infowars.com|||The attacks of 9/11 caused the people of the US to become more aware of our terrorist enemies.
Iraq was a terrorist state at the time. In order to make it not a terrorist state, the terrorist government had to be removed. This (as Colin Powell pointed out before the invasion) meant that the US "owned" Iraq until a non-terrorist government could be put in place. Unfortunately but predictably, members of the former terrorist government of Iraq started fighting to regain power. In addition, the terrorist government of Iran took advantage of the situation to support Shia terrorists in Iraq, in hopes that a Shia terrorist state could replace the former secular-Sunni terrorist state.
Bush and the majority of his cabinet disapproved of Bush senior leaving Sadam in power after the first Gulf war.
All this coupled with a reasonably logical assumption that Sadam probably had some WMD stashed away some where made for a relatively easy sell to the American people that a military invasion was justified on the heals of the 9/11 attack and the administration correctly ascertained that a military victory over Sadams army would be a cake walk.
They incorrectly assumed that once Saddam was removed the Iraqi people would unite to rapidly adopt a democracy that would be a model for the mideast and friendly to the US. Had this gone off as planned it would not only have solved the US energy needs for decades it would also have provided an ideal strategic military base of operations to strike Iran and Syria if military action should be required to bend them to the Administrations will.
Once the Oil reserves of Iraq were secure as well as oil reserves in Iran coupled with oil reserves in Saudi Arabia the US would essentially control the well head in the Mideast and pretty much any country on the planet that the Administration found to be in contention would find it鈥檚 energy supply cut off and that would be a very powerful weapon indeed.
Of course the possibility remains that the Administration will go ahead with their plan and invade Iran regardless of the failure to produce a viable friendly democracy, he has the air power sitting idle and he has the ground troops in place and battle hardened if a ground assault is required to destroy military resistance in Iran and or Syria.
The Idea that such shenanigans are a war against terrorism is laughable in that if such actions are taken they will justify the terrorists cause world wide.
Our children鈥檚 children鈥檚 war to which they speak.
This doesn鈥檛 have to be, this environment is being created by wealth and power seeking ever more wealth and power that鈥檚 producing the poverty and inequity and warfare that in turn produces the terrorist鈥檚.|||America stated war in Afghanistan to have control on central Asia and countries around them. and Stated war in Iraq for oil. to steal iraqs oil and save the oil which they already have in USA. Americans are Thieves and war lovers they do not bring peace to world but destroying it.
peace :@
Report Abuse
|||i agree. The entire war in The middle east is stupid IMO. There were no WMDs but we stuck around anyway? Well of course, more people are pissed off at us now. the war also encourages extreme racism . They report every time a soldier dies? This is not war, this is just theft.
Report Abuse
|||everything started because the us troops invaded Muslim holy land and messed with its religion
Report Abuse
|||We didn't find who we were looking for so we decided to use Iraq to continue the WAR. Saying it is War in Terrorism. I know if we leave we are screwed but I just cant grasp out spending millions on WAR when we so many issues to deal with in America. We don't have our priorities straight|||For oil sweety, oh and to kick start the economy. Record stock market.|||bush wanted revenge on saddam cuz saddam tried to kill his father in bush's words "that man tried to kill my daddy!"|||Because mr. bush wanted to impress his daddy. Interesting how Afghanistan seems to take a back seat to the war we're really fighting.|||cuz mr prezident is a DA|||oil %26amp; money|||i was just talkin about this today that damn bush just wanted to finish what his daddy couldnt,,ya know saddam tried to get ol man bush killed along time ago and bush from texas baby we take that sh-t personally and we might wait awhile baby but best believe you gonna get yours unfortunately he used our troops to do it ,,,if you want the truth about some sh-t go to infowars.com|||The attacks of 9/11 caused the people of the US to become more aware of our terrorist enemies.
Iraq was a terrorist state at the time. In order to make it not a terrorist state, the terrorist government had to be removed. This (as Colin Powell pointed out before the invasion) meant that the US "owned" Iraq until a non-terrorist government could be put in place. Unfortunately but predictably, members of the former terrorist government of Iraq started fighting to regain power. In addition, the terrorist government of Iran took advantage of the situation to support Shia terrorists in Iraq, in hopes that a Shia terrorist state could replace the former secular-Sunni terrorist state.
What were the long and short term causes of the war of independence?
I believe this war is actually called the French and indian war or the Revolutionary war, thanks for helping!|||The French / Indian wars are completely different to the Rev wars,
The former was against the French and Indians, the later was against the British, almost a civil war but fought overseas rather than domestically, from a Brit point of view anyway.
|||The following events, while not the only events, may be considered major causes of the conflict that developed between Great Britain and the American colonies resulting in the Americans declaring independence from the Mother Country and the American Revolutionary War. For more detailed information about each event, see the sites listed below.
1. The Colonial wars for Empire, in the 1600-1700s, ending with the French and
Indian War (Seven Years War) 1763.
2. The British Policy of Salutary Neglect--failure to enforce the Navigation Laws.
3. The slow but steady erosion of British control over the American Colonies.
4. Pontiac鈥檚 Rebellion and the Proclamation of 1763.
5. The Sugar Act of 1764
6. The Stamp Act of 1765 and the Stamp Act Congress in the colonies.
7. Colonial virtual representation versus actual representation in Parliament.
8. The Boston Massacre, 1770.
9. The Gaspee Affair, 1772
10. The Tea Act of 1773 and the Boston Tea Party.
11. The Intolerable (Coercive) Acts, 1774.
12. Meeting of the Continental Congress in 1774.
13. The Battles of Lexington and Concord.
The former was against the French and Indians, the later was against the British, almost a civil war but fought overseas rather than domestically, from a Brit point of view anyway.
|||The following events, while not the only events, may be considered major causes of the conflict that developed between Great Britain and the American colonies resulting in the Americans declaring independence from the Mother Country and the American Revolutionary War. For more detailed information about each event, see the sites listed below.
1. The Colonial wars for Empire, in the 1600-1700s, ending with the French and
Indian War (Seven Years War) 1763.
2. The British Policy of Salutary Neglect--failure to enforce the Navigation Laws.
3. The slow but steady erosion of British control over the American Colonies.
4. Pontiac鈥檚 Rebellion and the Proclamation of 1763.
5. The Sugar Act of 1764
6. The Stamp Act of 1765 and the Stamp Act Congress in the colonies.
7. Colonial virtual representation versus actual representation in Parliament.
8. The Boston Massacre, 1770.
9. The Gaspee Affair, 1772
10. The Tea Act of 1773 and the Boston Tea Party.
11. The Intolerable (Coercive) Acts, 1774.
12. Meeting of the Continental Congress in 1774.
13. The Battles of Lexington and Concord.
What is the importance photography in the United States Civil War?
I have to make a slide show of no less than 5 slides explaining the importance of photographs during the U.S. Civil War. I cannot find enough information to fill up even two slides.
What I do have already is that this war was the first war to have ever been photographed and that Americans all over the continent were able to see horrifying and vivid pictures of their own people murdering each other.
If you know anymore important facts relating to this topic, please post below.|||You are going to make a bad start with your show if you begin by saying that it was the first war to be photographed. This is wrong. The first war photographs were taken by Roger Fenton during the Crimean War in the previous decade. I think you need to do quite a lot more research; this is fairly easy as I imagine that there have been one or two articles, nay, books even, written about Matthew Brady and the American Civil War. It's possible that you may find references to this subject on the Internet if you look hard.|||The most important reason for photography was not just to have a reminder, but also to help keep military records, medical records, and to aid in history books for their future.
Melinda Matthews, Queen of Knows-a-Lot, and Professional Hug-Giver|||You cannot answer this question without learning about Mathew Brady, the pre-eminent photographer of the conflict.
See what he saw, and you will have no shortage of info.|||I just typed in civil war photos into my search bar and plenty of websites came up:
http://www.civil-war.net/cw_images/index鈥?/a>
http://www.wildwestweb.net/cwphotos.html
http://www.civilwar-pictures.com/g/civil鈥?/a>
http://www.archives.gov/research/civil-w鈥?/a>
And here is the search results page:
http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8%26amp;鈥?/a>|||Photographs back then had to be of complete still objects or else the photo would just come out blurry. That explains why the only pictures we have of the Civil War are pictures of dead bodies and not action shots.
What I do have already is that this war was the first war to have ever been photographed and that Americans all over the continent were able to see horrifying and vivid pictures of their own people murdering each other.
If you know anymore important facts relating to this topic, please post below.|||You are going to make a bad start with your show if you begin by saying that it was the first war to be photographed. This is wrong. The first war photographs were taken by Roger Fenton during the Crimean War in the previous decade. I think you need to do quite a lot more research; this is fairly easy as I imagine that there have been one or two articles, nay, books even, written about Matthew Brady and the American Civil War. It's possible that you may find references to this subject on the Internet if you look hard.|||The most important reason for photography was not just to have a reminder, but also to help keep military records, medical records, and to aid in history books for their future.
Melinda Matthews, Queen of Knows-a-Lot, and Professional Hug-Giver|||You cannot answer this question without learning about Mathew Brady, the pre-eminent photographer of the conflict.
See what he saw, and you will have no shortage of info.|||I just typed in civil war photos into my search bar and plenty of websites came up:
http://www.civil-war.net/cw_images/index鈥?/a>
http://www.wildwestweb.net/cwphotos.html
http://www.civilwar-pictures.com/g/civil鈥?/a>
http://www.archives.gov/research/civil-w鈥?/a>
And here is the search results page:
http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8%26amp;鈥?/a>|||Photographs back then had to be of complete still objects or else the photo would just come out blurry. That explains why the only pictures we have of the Civil War are pictures of dead bodies and not action shots.
Is war a natural human phenomenon or just a plain result of disagreement?
I sensed that even some animal groups/species had war between the other specie of their likelihood. I suspected that war could be both natural and contractual.|||War, competition over limited resources for the process of natural selection. Seems that way, I certainly hope not. I would like to believe that humanity is basically good, however we have historical evidence for 10s of thousands of years saying otherwise.|||war is natural, after all the only reason we developed big brains was to kill things because we lack the size and strength to take on a animal head on. its in our blood
|||The people who have produced the offspring that survived had to take resources from others to do it. That is basic competition. In humans it also includes large scale conflicts because of our increased social structures. I think the larger social structures were developed primarily to aid in wars. It has given us our greatest civilizations.|||Let's define war as intraspecific group aggression. Essentially all that is required for this is a species that forms groups with multiple males (typically) and small defendable resource patches. Most notably chimpanzees are seen in engaging in "war."|||Both|||it's the natural result of human disagreement.|||Based on our collective actions as a species for the past several thousands of years, I would have to agree that it must be a natural human phenomenon. I have often waxed philisophical over the root cause of the (male[?]) human's apparent need to wage war upon itself. Does it go back to our pre-human ancestor's, and the drive of their young male's needing to expand their feeding territories and search for non-related females to breed with? Could the reasons for warlike behavior being hard-wired into our brains really be this simple? Just a thought I wanted to share with everyone.|||War is a result of overpopulation and oppression. Many indian cultures did not war. They had sufficient resources to all lead fulfilled lives and they distributed those resources equitably. In most of the rest of the world, there have traditionally been more people than resources so the most violent and aggressive people take, usually, all the resources and then basically enslave everyone else. This makes for a lot of angry serfs and a few ignorant and arrogant leaders. Historically, most wars have been to eliminate internal competition and distract the citizens from the misery inflicted by the rulers. It is not innate behavior, though. A civilized country never needs to make war. Look at Switzerland.|||The Indians (native americans) were constantly at war. Being a warrior was the greatest honor. Switzerland maintains a neutral stance but has a substantial well trained army and is located in a place that makes going to war there pointless. War is the result of human ingenuity versus limited resources. Even when the resources are numerous, someone will want more or, for example, the best farmland, rather than just good land.|||War is a childish behave when one can't get what one want and at once. Unfortunately the voters have no possibility to withdraw their votes when those they have vote for show signs of paranoia and other psychological defects.|||I agree. We are animals, therefore we have instinct to be on top. Take people who are in a child custody battle. These battles can go on over seemingly nothing over there welfare of their child for years. Why? Well, because both want the best fot there child and both are also intellegent enough to have opinions.
An opinion is something that the animal world lacks, which makes our battles seem more complex, giving argument to anyone on the favor that we are 1) not animals, and 2) that we disagree due to being human.
However, chemically, if you look at DNA, we are only a few strands from a common house fly, and closer to a lion, and even closer to a monkey.
Being animals, I have to deduce that we will behave in the similar way they they do in the natual world.
The difference? Opinion and intellegence of thought.|||War is just a result of ballistic egos of men. The pursuit of becoming the superior country, race, etc. As long as there are greedy men and miscommunications, there will be wars. Wars are pointless. Men get killed. Millions of money spent on warfare that should have been used to help millions of others.|||It must be a natural occurrence, as they can't or won't give non war a chance.|||Yeah, like she said you can pretty much figure some of it has to with instinct but why are some people more warlike than others? Instinct overdose? I claim rights to that term.
Report Abuse
|||The people who have produced the offspring that survived had to take resources from others to do it. That is basic competition. In humans it also includes large scale conflicts because of our increased social structures. I think the larger social structures were developed primarily to aid in wars. It has given us our greatest civilizations.|||Let's define war as intraspecific group aggression. Essentially all that is required for this is a species that forms groups with multiple males (typically) and small defendable resource patches. Most notably chimpanzees are seen in engaging in "war."|||Both|||it's the natural result of human disagreement.|||Based on our collective actions as a species for the past several thousands of years, I would have to agree that it must be a natural human phenomenon. I have often waxed philisophical over the root cause of the (male[?]) human's apparent need to wage war upon itself. Does it go back to our pre-human ancestor's, and the drive of their young male's needing to expand their feeding territories and search for non-related females to breed with? Could the reasons for warlike behavior being hard-wired into our brains really be this simple? Just a thought I wanted to share with everyone.|||War is a result of overpopulation and oppression. Many indian cultures did not war. They had sufficient resources to all lead fulfilled lives and they distributed those resources equitably. In most of the rest of the world, there have traditionally been more people than resources so the most violent and aggressive people take, usually, all the resources and then basically enslave everyone else. This makes for a lot of angry serfs and a few ignorant and arrogant leaders. Historically, most wars have been to eliminate internal competition and distract the citizens from the misery inflicted by the rulers. It is not innate behavior, though. A civilized country never needs to make war. Look at Switzerland.|||The Indians (native americans) were constantly at war. Being a warrior was the greatest honor. Switzerland maintains a neutral stance but has a substantial well trained army and is located in a place that makes going to war there pointless. War is the result of human ingenuity versus limited resources. Even when the resources are numerous, someone will want more or, for example, the best farmland, rather than just good land.|||War is a childish behave when one can't get what one want and at once. Unfortunately the voters have no possibility to withdraw their votes when those they have vote for show signs of paranoia and other psychological defects.|||I agree. We are animals, therefore we have instinct to be on top. Take people who are in a child custody battle. These battles can go on over seemingly nothing over there welfare of their child for years. Why? Well, because both want the best fot there child and both are also intellegent enough to have opinions.
An opinion is something that the animal world lacks, which makes our battles seem more complex, giving argument to anyone on the favor that we are 1) not animals, and 2) that we disagree due to being human.
However, chemically, if you look at DNA, we are only a few strands from a common house fly, and closer to a lion, and even closer to a monkey.
Being animals, I have to deduce that we will behave in the similar way they they do in the natual world.
The difference? Opinion and intellegence of thought.|||War is just a result of ballistic egos of men. The pursuit of becoming the superior country, race, etc. As long as there are greedy men and miscommunications, there will be wars. Wars are pointless. Men get killed. Millions of money spent on warfare that should have been used to help millions of others.|||It must be a natural occurrence, as they can't or won't give non war a chance.|||Yeah, like she said you can pretty much figure some of it has to with instinct but why are some people more warlike than others? Instinct overdose? I claim rights to that term.
How does Hillary know the war will start breaking down March 9, 2009 ?
60 days after she takes office her and the joint-chiefs-of-staff will start brining home troops, hmm.
Is she selling us a war to get elected ?|||She's doing what she always does. She's pandering for the anti war vote. No surprise there...if the war were popular she's be pandering the other way.|||She doesn't know when we'll be leaving Iraq. In order for us to leave Iraq, we have to escalate the war to three times what it is now to set the conditions for withdrawal.|||No, she's bargaining cowardice to prey upon the fears of soldiers' families and play up to those too apathetic or scared to help... The easy way is never the easy way and if she is elected she will sell out what our men and women have been fighting for. Some of our good citizens have given their lives to defend not just our freedom, but the hope of freedom for others... let's not ler her sell that out for her own personal gain.|||Just can't say it any better than the above lady....|||i dont think so. though it is true that she originally voted for the war, since then she has been an advocate for taking troops out and ending the war. if it is to be believed that she were selling us the idea, then it could also be said of obama who wants to set a date for withdrawl.
Is she selling us a war to get elected ?|||She's doing what she always does. She's pandering for the anti war vote. No surprise there...if the war were popular she's be pandering the other way.|||She doesn't know when we'll be leaving Iraq. In order for us to leave Iraq, we have to escalate the war to three times what it is now to set the conditions for withdrawal.|||No, she's bargaining cowardice to prey upon the fears of soldiers' families and play up to those too apathetic or scared to help... The easy way is never the easy way and if she is elected she will sell out what our men and women have been fighting for. Some of our good citizens have given their lives to defend not just our freedom, but the hope of freedom for others... let's not ler her sell that out for her own personal gain.|||Just can't say it any better than the above lady....|||i dont think so. though it is true that she originally voted for the war, since then she has been an advocate for taking troops out and ending the war. if it is to be believed that she were selling us the idea, then it could also be said of obama who wants to set a date for withdrawl.
Is war monger Obama and the rest of the Democrats to blame for the shootings at Ft Hood yesterday?
After promising to bring all troops home, these WAR MONGERS keep MONGERING on in 2 MONGERING wars causing too much stress for the MONGERS at home.
Sound familiar Liberals?|||The Fort Hood incident would never have happened if 0bama would have kept his promise to withdraw from the Middle East.|||I'm a conservative, and I don't believe Obama was at fault for the shootings at Ft. Hood.
However, I do believe that Obama is too soft on the Muslims, and that his Islamic tendencies have lead him to make bad decisions regarding both the war in the Middle East and at home.|||I suppose pinning the responsibility of such actions upon the perpetrator (and any possible psychological afflictions) is simply too much to ask from reactionaries who look for convenient scapegoats.|||I've got a question right here, just for you:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;鈥?/a>|||Yes. War mongers keep making our country more unsafe and unstable by the day. Obama is the same as George W Bush.|||your own fingers|||Yes! He should have never decided to invade Iraq and Afghanistan! Oops, wait a minute...
Sound familiar Liberals?|||The Fort Hood incident would never have happened if 0bama would have kept his promise to withdraw from the Middle East.|||I'm a conservative, and I don't believe Obama was at fault for the shootings at Ft. Hood.
However, I do believe that Obama is too soft on the Muslims, and that his Islamic tendencies have lead him to make bad decisions regarding both the war in the Middle East and at home.|||I suppose pinning the responsibility of such actions upon the perpetrator (and any possible psychological afflictions) is simply too much to ask from reactionaries who look for convenient scapegoats.|||I've got a question right here, just for you:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;鈥?/a>|||Yes. War mongers keep making our country more unsafe and unstable by the day. Obama is the same as George W Bush.|||your own fingers|||Yes! He should have never decided to invade Iraq and Afghanistan! Oops, wait a minute...
How much does a World War 2 fighter cost?
I see World War Two fighters at air shows, etc... They are all privately owned. I was wondering, how much does one cost? I know there are less than 10 flyable P-51 Mustangs left. But some planes are much more plentiful. How much would a functioning Messerschmitt 109 sell for? I know there are companies that make full scale replicas. How much would one of those cost? Its been a dream of mine to own one. Either a F4U-1 Corsair or a ME-109. Any info on replicas, originals, or cost would be appreicated!|||The Spanish built Me109Gs postwar using an hispano-suiza engine. They look identical to a "wartime" Me unless you look very closely (larger nose, and radiators in the wrong place). You can find those occasionally in Trade-a-plane.
You would have to restore a wartime Me otherwise-this will run into the millions of dollars for a fully flyable version.
Something else to consider is parts/maintenance. You've got find someone who's fully qualified on your engine to do annuals-AND you gotta scrounge to get parts. An acquaintance of mine has a P51N: Annuals run him about $7-8000. He had to zero-time his engine about 15 years ago: once he actually found someone qual'd to work on Merlins with parts: $55000. Fuel's actually not that expensive-he often gets airshow organizers to help out with that.
Finally, as far as Me's go, their flying characteristics are not great. A little known fact about the Luftwaffe was they lost more new fighterguys to accidents in the first 3 years of the war, than to enemy action. That poor downward vis, plus a narrow gear, combined with a relatively high approach speed... Personally I'd rather get either an Me-262, or a repro Fw190D.|||Yes, when I win Powerball/Megabucks, I'm going to get an Me-262...
|||You'll need about a Million dollars (US) to start with, then go up from there. It's not only the purchase price of the aircraft but the maintenance costs are also astronomical! The average WWII fighter plane required 3-4 hours of maintenance for each hour flown in combat.|||There are way more than 10 P-51's flying.
They trade in the 4-15 million range based on history.
The Glacier gal P-38 must have cost nearer 20 million to get her flying.
Me-109/FW-190 are real rare and I would seek a replica just because they never come on the market. I guess we shot 99.9 percent of them down and scapped the rest?
Google it and they are out there, but very spendy
Ret. USAF SNCO|||All the Me-109's I know of are being restored in the UK. They come from salvageable wrecks found in Russia.
The most valuable WWII fighter flying today, is "Glacier Gal," the only P-38F Lightning in existance. Priceless, cost over $7m just to dig her up out of the ice in Greenland.|||There are many more than 10 flyable mustangs left. I'll bet there are more than that in southern California alone. a good one ready to go will cost about a half million or so. The biggest cost besides fuel is the short time between overhaul for the RR Merlin engines. Less than a thousand hours so most people own a spare and they ain't cheap. I keep trying to tell you guys but you won't listen. I've owned airplanes, sailboats and been married twice so take it from me. If it FLIES, FLOATS OR FORNICATES RENT IT.|||You should just search the Internet for war birds sales. You will find them in a wide range. I have seen P-51's going from $350gs (highly modified cockpit interior) up to 2 mil for rare models in original set-up. Rare planes (anything enemy) will bring a super premium if you can even find them. Replicas can cost but you have the advantage of a new airframe with a longer service life. Many WWII aircraft were only designed to have about a 300 hour life span. Corsairs are very pricey and are rarely seen on the open market. Many are finding their ways into museums or are being bought by organizations as the single ownership of these craft is becoming beyond the means of all but the wealthiest.
You would have to restore a wartime Me otherwise-this will run into the millions of dollars for a fully flyable version.
Something else to consider is parts/maintenance. You've got find someone who's fully qualified on your engine to do annuals-AND you gotta scrounge to get parts. An acquaintance of mine has a P51N: Annuals run him about $7-8000. He had to zero-time his engine about 15 years ago: once he actually found someone qual'd to work on Merlins with parts: $55000. Fuel's actually not that expensive-he often gets airshow organizers to help out with that.
Finally, as far as Me's go, their flying characteristics are not great. A little known fact about the Luftwaffe was they lost more new fighterguys to accidents in the first 3 years of the war, than to enemy action. That poor downward vis, plus a narrow gear, combined with a relatively high approach speed... Personally I'd rather get either an Me-262, or a repro Fw190D.|||Yes, when I win Powerball/Megabucks, I'm going to get an Me-262...
Report Abuse
|||You'll need about a Million dollars (US) to start with, then go up from there. It's not only the purchase price of the aircraft but the maintenance costs are also astronomical! The average WWII fighter plane required 3-4 hours of maintenance for each hour flown in combat.|||There are way more than 10 P-51's flying.
They trade in the 4-15 million range based on history.
The Glacier gal P-38 must have cost nearer 20 million to get her flying.
Me-109/FW-190 are real rare and I would seek a replica just because they never come on the market. I guess we shot 99.9 percent of them down and scapped the rest?
Google it and they are out there, but very spendy
Ret. USAF SNCO|||All the Me-109's I know of are being restored in the UK. They come from salvageable wrecks found in Russia.
The most valuable WWII fighter flying today, is "Glacier Gal," the only P-38F Lightning in existance. Priceless, cost over $7m just to dig her up out of the ice in Greenland.|||There are many more than 10 flyable mustangs left. I'll bet there are more than that in southern California alone. a good one ready to go will cost about a half million or so. The biggest cost besides fuel is the short time between overhaul for the RR Merlin engines. Less than a thousand hours so most people own a spare and they ain't cheap. I keep trying to tell you guys but you won't listen. I've owned airplanes, sailboats and been married twice so take it from me. If it FLIES, FLOATS OR FORNICATES RENT IT.|||You should just search the Internet for war birds sales. You will find them in a wide range. I have seen P-51's going from $350gs (highly modified cockpit interior) up to 2 mil for rare models in original set-up. Rare planes (anything enemy) will bring a super premium if you can even find them. Replicas can cost but you have the advantage of a new airframe with a longer service life. Many WWII aircraft were only designed to have about a 300 hour life span. Corsairs are very pricey and are rarely seen on the open market. Many are finding their ways into museums or are being bought by organizations as the single ownership of these craft is becoming beyond the means of all but the wealthiest.
What is an interesting current war or conflict that I can write about?
I just want a war/conflict that I can write about that isn't too long to explain - it has to be quite a short homework, just where it is and why they are fighting. Not too complex please!
Thank you!|||india and pakistan. two countries fighting for land ( kashmir ), armed with nuclear weapons and no hope for any reconciliation in the near future|||The Colombian internal conflict, the war in Chechnya. Here's the list of ongoing armed conflicts from wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ongoing_war|||The fighting going on in Sri Lanka between the Tamil seperatists and the government.
The war between Russia and Cheknya?|||What war/conflict isnt complex? How about the ongoing hatred between china and taiwan? Perhaps the recent clash between Sadia Arabia's army and rebels to their south?|||Papua conflict|||Iraq
Thank you!|||india and pakistan. two countries fighting for land ( kashmir ), armed with nuclear weapons and no hope for any reconciliation in the near future|||The Colombian internal conflict, the war in Chechnya. Here's the list of ongoing armed conflicts from wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ongoing_war|||The fighting going on in Sri Lanka between the Tamil seperatists and the government.
The war between Russia and Cheknya?|||What war/conflict isnt complex? How about the ongoing hatred between china and taiwan? Perhaps the recent clash between Sadia Arabia's army and rebels to their south?|||Papua conflict|||Iraq
How did the Mexican drug war get so bad?
I am researching for a history paper about the Mexican drug war and I'm trying to look into how it got so bad, when the drug trade really originated, when it escalated, who was involved, etc.
Does anybody have any primary sources they can suggest? Secondary sources?|||Watch this on you tube, it's in spanish, but it's a very accurate history report on the drug cartles going back to El Rey De Los Cielos who really started it all, he used to rule all the drug cartels in Mexico so everything was calm cause they had 1 leader, but when he was killed the drug cartles broke off and all started to battle each other for power continuing to today. If you want a full translation of this email me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0msKyfzi鈥?/a>|||In the 1990s Clinton sent US Special Forces to help train Mexican Special Forces. At first it worked out quite well, with the Mexican SF troops putting a dent in the drug trade. Then the drug cartels simply started offering a choice of a suitcase full of money or dead family members to the SF soldiers and they took the money.
So now, you have US trained SF troops working for the drug cartels.|||mexico has always had a greedy government and corruption was an accepted necessity to maintain power,when drug dealers and growers were bribing the officials things were al right every body shared in the loot,also it was not to bad for Mexico because 99% of those drugs were destined for the northern gringos,and most all Mexicans have a hatred that's been going on since we ran them clear down to Mexico city.but when we started pressuring mexico to stop the drug flow and destroy poppy fields they said they couldn't cause they didn't have the money or equipment to do it,so we gave them the stuff needed to do the job,but still they didn't seem to accomplish any good,but when drug addiction in america rose to such great heights we put more and more pressure on them,finally they started doing some real work stopping the drug cartells,that pissed of the cartels and they started fighting the government,also they started shipping guns back to mexico and that is considered a threat to the government so now that they are reaping an unwanted reward from drug trade they want us to stop the guns from getting into mexico,we have also been trying to get mexico to stop illegal entry in to america,but they wont cooperate.they couldn't stop 10,00 illegals per day from crossing but expect us to stop 18,00 guns per year from going in to mexico,finally the drug disputes have spilled over in to our country,drug Lords vieing for top dog and murder and killing is their way of doing things they don't care if you are an innocent bystander or an american citizen|||Because the gringos are the world biggest drugs consumers. The Colombians are the world largest drug producers. Mexico is a country that stand between the suppliers and the consumers of drugs.
Does anybody have any primary sources they can suggest? Secondary sources?|||Watch this on you tube, it's in spanish, but it's a very accurate history report on the drug cartles going back to El Rey De Los Cielos who really started it all, he used to rule all the drug cartels in Mexico so everything was calm cause they had 1 leader, but when he was killed the drug cartles broke off and all started to battle each other for power continuing to today. If you want a full translation of this email me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0msKyfzi鈥?/a>|||In the 1990s Clinton sent US Special Forces to help train Mexican Special Forces. At first it worked out quite well, with the Mexican SF troops putting a dent in the drug trade. Then the drug cartels simply started offering a choice of a suitcase full of money or dead family members to the SF soldiers and they took the money.
So now, you have US trained SF troops working for the drug cartels.|||mexico has always had a greedy government and corruption was an accepted necessity to maintain power,when drug dealers and growers were bribing the officials things were al right every body shared in the loot,also it was not to bad for Mexico because 99% of those drugs were destined for the northern gringos,and most all Mexicans have a hatred that's been going on since we ran them clear down to Mexico city.but when we started pressuring mexico to stop the drug flow and destroy poppy fields they said they couldn't cause they didn't have the money or equipment to do it,so we gave them the stuff needed to do the job,but still they didn't seem to accomplish any good,but when drug addiction in america rose to such great heights we put more and more pressure on them,finally they started doing some real work stopping the drug cartells,that pissed of the cartels and they started fighting the government,also they started shipping guns back to mexico and that is considered a threat to the government so now that they are reaping an unwanted reward from drug trade they want us to stop the guns from getting into mexico,we have also been trying to get mexico to stop illegal entry in to america,but they wont cooperate.they couldn't stop 10,00 illegals per day from crossing but expect us to stop 18,00 guns per year from going in to mexico,finally the drug disputes have spilled over in to our country,drug Lords vieing for top dog and murder and killing is their way of doing things they don't care if you are an innocent bystander or an american citizen|||Because the gringos are the world biggest drugs consumers. The Colombians are the world largest drug producers. Mexico is a country that stand between the suppliers and the consumers of drugs.
Is there even any doubt that without US intervention, World War II would have ended dramatically different?
I have seen some pretty disturbing comments recently that it was SOVIET RUSSIA who beat the Germans and essentially won World War II for the allies. I don't recall them fighting a 2-front war with Germany AND Japan! So can there honestly be any denying that without the United States, that World War II would have ended a lot differently? Both in Europe AND the far East?|||Ofcourse it would have altered history dramatically! Soviets were actually dying and fighting and millions of lives were lost. The greatest threat to Germany was the US, w/o us supplying them the Allied powers would have no weapons or any other form of back up.|||It would have taken longer if the US hadn't entered, but Germany had no chance against the Soviet Union without developing the bomb and they were no where close. The dramatic difference would have been that all Germany would have become a province of the USSR and not just East Germany. Study history objectively, not the propaganda taught in public schools.|||It would have been different yes but 80% of german troops died on the russian front so i dont know if the germans would have won it but i dont think they would have lost it as soon as they did either or at all. Other if's would have to be ansewered such as did america still go to war with japan because the only country Hitler declared war on was America after america declared war on japan so that would matter.|||It was Russia that did the most damage to Nazis. Look where they went to...from Russia, all the way to Berlin, Germany, all on the ground, no air force to speak of. The other Allies...from France to next door (Germany).
That doesn't diminish US, England, France's contribution, just brings the Russians' exploits up to where they should be.|||Actually it was Russia that prevented the Germans from invading into their country, many historians believed Hitler made the same mistake as Napoleon. And the Russians were the ones that overthrew Berlin. As for the war in the west? I'm not sure.|||If you ask Obama he'll probably claim that the US was RESPONSIBLE! Unless of course Germany would have been called "Israel", then he probably would have nuked Germany before the war even started!|||The USSR would have been irrelevant in an alternate history where Germany didn't invade it. "Little Boy" would have been dropped on Berlin, thus ending the war.|||...Nope. There can be no denying.|||Yes. It would have been an extremely different outcome.
That doesn't diminish US, England, France's contribution, just brings the Russians' exploits up to where they should be.|||Actually it was Russia that prevented the Germans from invading into their country, many historians believed Hitler made the same mistake as Napoleon. And the Russians were the ones that overthrew Berlin. As for the war in the west? I'm not sure.|||If you ask Obama he'll probably claim that the US was RESPONSIBLE! Unless of course Germany would have been called "Israel", then he probably would have nuked Germany before the war even started!|||The USSR would have been irrelevant in an alternate history where Germany didn't invade it. "Little Boy" would have been dropped on Berlin, thus ending the war.|||...Nope. There can be no denying.|||Yes. It would have been an extremely different outcome.
How about a war tax on gasoline of a buck a gallon to help pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
These wars are dragging us deeper into debt with no plan for paying off that debt. Sacraficing some now will keep us from having a worse debt later. A war tax would also help ease demand for gasoline. Make it so the tax comes off when the troops come home and it might help speed things up there too.|||I see what you are saying but I think the people are being taxed too much already. Quit the pork barrels and all the corruption and this country would make a heck of a gain.|||Top idea! People seem to have forgotten that wars cost money. If we are fighting for national survival, as some say, how come half the nation is spending money on hair dye and pets?|||We don't need any more taxes. The polititions need to cut spending. The gasoline tax would hurt the working class.|||Yes by golly, taxes are the solution to every problem. My state just passed a buck a pack tax on cigarettes. The money will be used to provide health care to the lazy class who don't bother to get jobs with health care. What a great idea. And since when did liberals suddenly become concerned with government spending? When that concern advances one of their agenda items, that's when.|||Heads up for ya! Not everyone who has to drive is an SUV owning uber consumer. I have a elderly shut in father who lives 50 miles from me. He'd like to see me once in while. I have a 50 minute commute to work each way because this is the only place I could find a decent job. And I can't move closer to the job because my son is in school system that is doing a great job with his special needs. So, no, I wouldn't like the kick in the head that your tax would give me.|||Several issues.
If the cost of the war is made less painful for the nation's leaders, then we could rapidly find more wars not less ... next invasions to be Iran %26amp; Venezeuala?
Taxes can be used to force change. By increasing cost of living to people in one area, we result in more people using public transportation, less people driving cross country. Is that what is desired?
How would we enforce a rule that SUVs have to pay twice as much for gas as compact cars?|||So nice to see that some folks have a surplus of funds to piss away...how about pissing some of it at me?
If the cost of the war is made less painful for the nation's leaders, then we could rapidly find more wars not less ... next invasions to be Iran %26amp; Venezeuala?
Taxes can be used to force change. By increasing cost of living to people in one area, we result in more people using public transportation, less people driving cross country. Is that what is desired?
How would we enforce a rule that SUVs have to pay twice as much for gas as compact cars?|||So nice to see that some folks have a surplus of funds to piss away...how about pissing some of it at me?
Which side of the civil war used the rifle scope? What was their advantage from using the rifle scope?
I need to look or who invented the rifle scope and it's history but I can't find it anywhere on the Internet. I also spent many hours searching for it but none mentioned about which side of the Civil War, the Union or Confederate, of who used the rifle scope first and it's advantage against the other side. Please help me on this! Thank You!|||Both sides used rifles equipped with telescopic sights.
http://www.berdansharpshooters.com
Yes, I know most of the 1st %26amp; 2nd were issued/used the Sharps. The Berdan units were famous for their shooting ability**, and some men were issued scoped rifles.
**it seems like, if memory serves, that to get in the Berdan regiments you had to shoot 10 for 10 on a 10in circle at 300 yards.
Perhaps the most famous incident during the Civil War occured at the battle of Spotsylvania. Union General John Sedgwick(on horseback) was inspecting his lines. When told that it wasn't a good idea to ride in open sight of the Confederates. Sedgwick said "They could not hit an Elephant at this dist...." Sedgwick fell dead, shot from his horse. %26gt;Killed at an estimated 800 yards by Sgt Grace of the 4th Georgia Infantry. Because of Sedgwick's death the Union attack was delayed, giving Lee the time he needed to win the battle|||confederate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sniper_rifl鈥?/a>
took me less than a minute to find
http://www.berdansharpshooters.com
Yes, I know most of the 1st %26amp; 2nd were issued/used the Sharps. The Berdan units were famous for their shooting ability**, and some men were issued scoped rifles.
**it seems like, if memory serves, that to get in the Berdan regiments you had to shoot 10 for 10 on a 10in circle at 300 yards.
Perhaps the most famous incident during the Civil War occured at the battle of Spotsylvania. Union General John Sedgwick(on horseback) was inspecting his lines. When told that it wasn't a good idea to ride in open sight of the Confederates. Sedgwick said "They could not hit an Elephant at this dist...." Sedgwick fell dead, shot from his horse. %26gt;Killed at an estimated 800 yards by Sgt Grace of the 4th Georgia Infantry. Because of Sedgwick's death the Union attack was delayed, giving Lee the time he needed to win the battle|||confederate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sniper_rifl鈥?/a>
took me less than a minute to find
How come during war time, people can only protest the war and not the soldiers?
Like people protest the war in Iraq and stuff, they say they don't protest the soldiers, just the war.
Why don't they protest the soldiers also? Is it against the rules?|||During the Vietnam War, a lot of people did protest the soldiers, most of whom were drafted. When those soldiers came home, often traumatized by horrible experiences, many wounded in spirit as well as in body, they were spat upon, denied jobs and housing, treated as less than human, because they had done their duty and fought for their country just as their fathers and grandfathers had done in World War II (only they had been called heroes).
Soldiers are generally fighting for what they believe to be a good cause. They are fighting for their lives, for the lives of their buddies, fighting to defend freedom. Why would you want to protest them? It is the leaders of the countries who deploy the soldiers. They are the ones who set policy. They are the ones we should protest.|||They did during Vietnam, all that did was cause soldiers to become depressed and living off the government while the protesters became humiliated and couldnt get a job, much less a beautiful woman to give them the time of day|||They can't, they just say that to make it seem like they are patriotic and don't really hate soldiers.|||Why protest the unfortunate ones who actually have to deal with real problems and face death every day while we sit here and criticize the situation?
Weither you support the war or not, you should have respect for the majority of soldiers, esp young ones, who are trying to do the right thing for our country.|||After Nam,I for one won't let it happen again.|||Why should they protest the soldiers? The soldiers are doing a job, keeping freedom alive. Is school out or something?|||You're free to try. There's a base near you I'm sure. Stand outside the gate and protest. You'll make the news...and likely the obituaries.|||If it were without the soldiers the war wouldnt be as interesting.|||It is not the soldiers faults that they were sent to war. However do not get me wrong i am against any hired killers.|||Protesting the soldiers has always been foolish.
Soldiers and marines on the ground have taken an oath to defend us with their lives. Even die for us if necessary.
Most of us protesting the war don't wish to be joined by sentiment foolish enough to protest all things military.
I understand some people dislike all things military but for most of us that way-too-badly misses the point.
It's like trying to punch a post officer because he or she delivers a phone bill that's too expensive.
Most people who have served in really consequential combat come out wanting future generations to avoid large scale combat with extensive human death tolls even more than people who haven't been there first hand. Many Americans know this because they have family members who have come back from war and feel that way.
It is not retired military personel who want us to rush into more combat so much as civilian Chickenhawk leadership who avoided being in military service in harms way.
And there are veterans like McCain who are more opposed to our use of torture than nearly anyone.|||I don't think it is necessary to protest the soldiers. Because, They are just doing their Job as they have been commanded by their commander in Chief
Why don't they protest the soldiers also? Is it against the rules?|||During the Vietnam War, a lot of people did protest the soldiers, most of whom were drafted. When those soldiers came home, often traumatized by horrible experiences, many wounded in spirit as well as in body, they were spat upon, denied jobs and housing, treated as less than human, because they had done their duty and fought for their country just as their fathers and grandfathers had done in World War II (only they had been called heroes).
Soldiers are generally fighting for what they believe to be a good cause. They are fighting for their lives, for the lives of their buddies, fighting to defend freedom. Why would you want to protest them? It is the leaders of the countries who deploy the soldiers. They are the ones who set policy. They are the ones we should protest.|||They did during Vietnam, all that did was cause soldiers to become depressed and living off the government while the protesters became humiliated and couldnt get a job, much less a beautiful woman to give them the time of day|||They can't, they just say that to make it seem like they are patriotic and don't really hate soldiers.|||Why protest the unfortunate ones who actually have to deal with real problems and face death every day while we sit here and criticize the situation?
Weither you support the war or not, you should have respect for the majority of soldiers, esp young ones, who are trying to do the right thing for our country.|||After Nam,I for one won't let it happen again.|||Why should they protest the soldiers? The soldiers are doing a job, keeping freedom alive. Is school out or something?|||You're free to try. There's a base near you I'm sure. Stand outside the gate and protest. You'll make the news...and likely the obituaries.|||If it were without the soldiers the war wouldnt be as interesting.|||It is not the soldiers faults that they were sent to war. However do not get me wrong i am against any hired killers.|||Protesting the soldiers has always been foolish.
Soldiers and marines on the ground have taken an oath to defend us with their lives. Even die for us if necessary.
Most of us protesting the war don't wish to be joined by sentiment foolish enough to protest all things military.
I understand some people dislike all things military but for most of us that way-too-badly misses the point.
It's like trying to punch a post officer because he or she delivers a phone bill that's too expensive.
Most people who have served in really consequential combat come out wanting future generations to avoid large scale combat with extensive human death tolls even more than people who haven't been there first hand. Many Americans know this because they have family members who have come back from war and feel that way.
It is not retired military personel who want us to rush into more combat so much as civilian Chickenhawk leadership who avoided being in military service in harms way.
And there are veterans like McCain who are more opposed to our use of torture than nearly anyone.|||I don't think it is necessary to protest the soldiers. Because, They are just doing their Job as they have been commanded by their commander in Chief
How did the first world war affect food prices?
For my history project i am wondering how ww1 affected the food prices.
Any help? Could you include a link to source or exact prices before and after the war for instance?|||I can't be more specific, but it is a fact that food prices always go up when there is a war. This is due to interruption of production or imports, problems with transportation, damage to infastructure, mobilisation of labourers etc
Any help? Could you include a link to source or exact prices before and after the war for instance?|||I can't be more specific, but it is a fact that food prices always go up when there is a war. This is due to interruption of production or imports, problems with transportation, damage to infastructure, mobilisation of labourers etc
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?|||Great Britain, United States,Ireland, France, Canada and other countries all intervened in the Russian Civil War of 1918 - 1920.
The main reason the Spanish Republic lost the Spanish Civil War of 1936 - 1939, was because the U. S., Great Britain, and France remained neutral while Germany and Italy sent massive aid to the fascist rebellion.
P.S.
Although the Neutrality Act prevented Americans from selling any weapons of war to Spain, it did not apply to food or oil and massive quantities of oil were actually sent to the fascist rebels in Spain by American oil companies such as Texas Oil.|||Over the decades there has been way too many civil wars %26amp; too much blood spilt.|||Many Englishmen were involved in the Greek Civil War
The main reason the Spanish Republic lost the Spanish Civil War of 1936 - 1939, was because the U. S., Great Britain, and France remained neutral while Germany and Italy sent massive aid to the fascist rebellion.
P.S.
Although the Neutrality Act prevented Americans from selling any weapons of war to Spain, it did not apply to food or oil and massive quantities of oil were actually sent to the fascist rebels in Spain by American oil companies such as Texas Oil.|||Over the decades there has been way too many civil wars %26amp; too much blood spilt.|||Many Englishmen were involved in the Greek Civil War
How does Hillary know the war will start breaking down March 9, 2009 ?
60 days after she takes office her and the joint-chiefs-of-staff will start brining home troops, hmm.
Is she selling us a war to get elected ?|||Hillary stated she would start bringing the troops home in six months, if elected---does she know something we don't?---I don't think it's possible within six months (2009) we need a plan to get equipment and troops out of Iraq---it's just another political ploy for votes. She also wants to permit some Iraqi people to come to America (those who aide and abet the troops) to live--I think this is dangerous they could be sleepers, we know how that works it is dangerous to forgive our enemies. Hillary is a part of the pack and knows how to obtain information, more of the same with Hillary--she cannot be trusted.|||I can't vote for Mccain cause he wants us to be in Iraq for 100 years.
I can't vote for Billary cause she is conveniently against the war during election time and will be for it if she gets elected.
I know for sure that Ron Paul will try his darnest to get the troops out of Iraq and other nations and bring all the wasted resources overseas home and rebuild our nation domestically.
Is she selling us a war to get elected ?|||Hillary stated she would start bringing the troops home in six months, if elected---does she know something we don't?---I don't think it's possible within six months (2009) we need a plan to get equipment and troops out of Iraq---it's just another political ploy for votes. She also wants to permit some Iraqi people to come to America (those who aide and abet the troops) to live--I think this is dangerous they could be sleepers, we know how that works it is dangerous to forgive our enemies. Hillary is a part of the pack and knows how to obtain information, more of the same with Hillary--she cannot be trusted.|||I can't vote for Mccain cause he wants us to be in Iraq for 100 years.
I can't vote for Billary cause she is conveniently against the war during election time and will be for it if she gets elected.
I know for sure that Ron Paul will try his darnest to get the troops out of Iraq and other nations and bring all the wasted resources overseas home and rebuild our nation domestically.
How can america win a war over countries where people would literally die for there country?
Without nukes, how can a western country like america overcomes countries where people are prepared to sacrifice themselves and there children to win a war. You cant hold up against that sort of commitment. Australia lost there 10th soldier in Afghanistan a few days ago, and even that was a big loss for us, so how will we ever win against it|||I wonder if Australians or Americans would be willing to do the same if we were attacked in our own countries?
Would we be as fanatical and sacrifice as some people do?
I know that our military sacrifice themselves or risk death when going to was on foreign soil - 4000 Americans killed in the Iraq war alone.
Would I personally be a suicide bomber? Would I let my son or daughter? I don't think so! That's what we are up against.|||exactly... what i dont understand is why we are in war with Iraq when other countries have the same problems... it kind of makes me sad.|||Start sending people to war that we don't need:
Rednecks
KKK members
Madoff
Would we be as fanatical and sacrifice as some people do?
I know that our military sacrifice themselves or risk death when going to was on foreign soil - 4000 Americans killed in the Iraq war alone.
Would I personally be a suicide bomber? Would I let my son or daughter? I don't think so! That's what we are up against.|||exactly... what i dont understand is why we are in war with Iraq when other countries have the same problems... it kind of makes me sad.|||Start sending people to war that we don't need:
Rednecks
KKK members
Madoff
How the hell did the war between Iraq and America even start?
I know Iraq didnt just wake up one day and decided to be a dick and just started the war. So who started it first, when did it start and how did it start?|||"I know Iraq didnt just wake up one day and decided to be a dick and just started the war."
Yeah, they pretty much did. Rolled down into Kuwait and dicked the place up until we chased them out. Then dicked over the Kurds, the Marsh Arabs, American and British no-fly zone enforcers, the UN Oil for Food program, and the UN weapons inspectors. Dick, dick, dick.|||Which one?
The first war (1991) was when Iraq invaded Kuwait and we attacked and drove them out.
The second war (2003-now) was when... OK, we invaded them, and we still haven't settled on a real reason for it. The cover story was that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that the United States was entitled somehow to invade any country that could conceivably ever attack us. Whatever.|||At 8:00 PM on 17 March 1987, a Mirage F-1 fighter jet took off from Iraq's Shaibah military airport and headed south into the Persian Gulf, flying along the Saudi Arabian coast. An Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) plane, in the air over Saudi Arabia and manned by a joint American-Saudi crew, detected the aircraft. Aboard the USS Stark, a Perry-class frigate on duty in the gulf, radar operators picked up the Mirage when it was some 200 miles away; it was flying at 5,000 feet and traveling at 550 mph. Captain Glenn Brindel, 43, commander of the Stark, was not particularly alarmed. He knew it was fairly common for Iraqi and Iranian warplanes to fly over the gulf. Earlier in the day, Iraqi jets had fired missiles into a Cypriot tanker, disabling the vessel. But no American vessel had been attacked.
In keeping with standard procedure, Captain Brindel ordered a radio message flashed at 10:09 PM: "Unknown aircraft, this is U.S. Navy warship on your 078 for twelve miles. Request you identify yourself." There was no reply. A second request was sent. Still no answer. Brindel noted that the aircraft's pilot had not locked his targeting radar on the Stark, so he expected it to veer away.
At 10:10 PM, the AWACS crew noticed that the Mirage had banked suddenly and then turned northward, as though heading for home. What they failed to detect was the launching by the Iraqi pilot of two Exocet AM39 air-to-surface missiles. The Exocets had a range of 40 miles and each carried a 352 lb. warhead. For some reason, the sea-skimming missiles were not detected by the Stark's sophisticated monitoring equipment. A lookout spotted the first Exocet just seconds before the missile struck, tearing a ten-by-fifteen-foot hole in the warship's steel hull on the port side before ripping through the crew's quarters. The resulting fire rushed upward into the vessel's combat information center, disabling the electrical systems. The second missile plowed into the frigate's superstructure.
A crewman sent a distress signal with a handheld radio that was picked up by the USS Waddell, a destroyer on patrol nearby. Meanwhile, the AWACS crew requested that two airborne Saudi F-15s pursue the Iraqi Mirage. But ground controllers at Dhahran airbase said they lacked the authority to embark on such a mission, and the Mirage was safely back in Iraqi airspace before approval could be obtained.
As fires raged aboard the Stark, Brindel ordered the starboard side blooded to keep the gaping hole on the port side above the waterline. All through the night the fate of the stricken frigate was in doubt. Once the inferno was finally under control, the Stark limped back to port. The Navy immediately launched an investigation into an incident that had cost 37 American seamen their lives. The Stark was endowed with an impressive array of defenses -- an MK92 fire control system that could intercept incoming aircraft at a range of 90 miles; an OTO gun that could fire three-inch anti-aircraft shells at a rate of 90 per minute; electronic defenses that could produce bogus radar images to deceive attackers; and the Phalanx, a six-barreled gun that could fire 3,000 uranium rounds a minute at incoming missiles. Brindel insisted that his ship's combat system was fully operational, but Navy technicians in Bahrain said the Stark's Phalanx system had not been working properly when the frigate put out to sea. (Brindel was relieved of duty and later forced to retire.)
Yeah, they pretty much did. Rolled down into Kuwait and dicked the place up until we chased them out. Then dicked over the Kurds, the Marsh Arabs, American and British no-fly zone enforcers, the UN Oil for Food program, and the UN weapons inspectors. Dick, dick, dick.|||Which one?
The first war (1991) was when Iraq invaded Kuwait and we attacked and drove them out.
The second war (2003-now) was when... OK, we invaded them, and we still haven't settled on a real reason for it. The cover story was that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that the United States was entitled somehow to invade any country that could conceivably ever attack us. Whatever.|||At 8:00 PM on 17 March 1987, a Mirage F-1 fighter jet took off from Iraq's Shaibah military airport and headed south into the Persian Gulf, flying along the Saudi Arabian coast. An Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) plane, in the air over Saudi Arabia and manned by a joint American-Saudi crew, detected the aircraft. Aboard the USS Stark, a Perry-class frigate on duty in the gulf, radar operators picked up the Mirage when it was some 200 miles away; it was flying at 5,000 feet and traveling at 550 mph. Captain Glenn Brindel, 43, commander of the Stark, was not particularly alarmed. He knew it was fairly common for Iraqi and Iranian warplanes to fly over the gulf. Earlier in the day, Iraqi jets had fired missiles into a Cypriot tanker, disabling the vessel. But no American vessel had been attacked.
In keeping with standard procedure, Captain Brindel ordered a radio message flashed at 10:09 PM: "Unknown aircraft, this is U.S. Navy warship on your 078 for twelve miles. Request you identify yourself." There was no reply. A second request was sent. Still no answer. Brindel noted that the aircraft's pilot had not locked his targeting radar on the Stark, so he expected it to veer away.
At 10:10 PM, the AWACS crew noticed that the Mirage had banked suddenly and then turned northward, as though heading for home. What they failed to detect was the launching by the Iraqi pilot of two Exocet AM39 air-to-surface missiles. The Exocets had a range of 40 miles and each carried a 352 lb. warhead. For some reason, the sea-skimming missiles were not detected by the Stark's sophisticated monitoring equipment. A lookout spotted the first Exocet just seconds before the missile struck, tearing a ten-by-fifteen-foot hole in the warship's steel hull on the port side before ripping through the crew's quarters. The resulting fire rushed upward into the vessel's combat information center, disabling the electrical systems. The second missile plowed into the frigate's superstructure.
A crewman sent a distress signal with a handheld radio that was picked up by the USS Waddell, a destroyer on patrol nearby. Meanwhile, the AWACS crew requested that two airborne Saudi F-15s pursue the Iraqi Mirage. But ground controllers at Dhahran airbase said they lacked the authority to embark on such a mission, and the Mirage was safely back in Iraqi airspace before approval could be obtained.
As fires raged aboard the Stark, Brindel ordered the starboard side blooded to keep the gaping hole on the port side above the waterline. All through the night the fate of the stricken frigate was in doubt. Once the inferno was finally under control, the Stark limped back to port. The Navy immediately launched an investigation into an incident that had cost 37 American seamen their lives. The Stark was endowed with an impressive array of defenses -- an MK92 fire control system that could intercept incoming aircraft at a range of 90 miles; an OTO gun that could fire three-inch anti-aircraft shells at a rate of 90 per minute; electronic defenses that could produce bogus radar images to deceive attackers; and the Phalanx, a six-barreled gun that could fire 3,000 uranium rounds a minute at incoming missiles. Brindel insisted that his ship's combat system was fully operational, but Navy technicians in Bahrain said the Stark's Phalanx system had not been working properly when the frigate put out to sea. (Brindel was relieved of duty and later forced to retire.)
Who participated in the following war anectdote and when did it occur?
The gist of the anecdote: due to an ongoing war a detachment of soldiers were ordered to return home and father children to bolster a plummeting population.
I'm quite certain it involves Ancient Greece somehow. Can anyone please tell me any specifics, such as which Greek city-state was involved or the time period?
Any leads would be greatly appreciated. Thanks to all who reply.|||Are you refering to the " lebensborn " program ? In WW2, they were German SS baby farms.
I'm quite certain it involves Ancient Greece somehow. Can anyone please tell me any specifics, such as which Greek city-state was involved or the time period?
Any leads would be greatly appreciated. Thanks to all who reply.|||Are you refering to the " lebensborn " program ? In WW2, they were German SS baby farms.
How did the economy help start the civil war?
How did the economy (before the civil war) help to cause the war?|||The North wanted to free the Slaves. The South wanted to keep the Slaves as Slaves.
Slaves were paid very little, if anything. To Free the Slaves would mean they would be paid the same as a White person. This would increase the cost-of-production on Southern Farms/Plantations by an amount that would drive most out of business.|||North: Pro-Tariffs (to support Northern industrialism, to oppose foreign markets in America)
South: Anti-Tariffs (to support foreign markets in America, to oppose Northern industrialism)
Answer mine: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;鈥?/a>
Slaves were paid very little, if anything. To Free the Slaves would mean they would be paid the same as a White person. This would increase the cost-of-production on Southern Farms/Plantations by an amount that would drive most out of business.|||North: Pro-Tariffs (to support Northern industrialism, to oppose foreign markets in America)
South: Anti-Tariffs (to support foreign markets in America, to oppose Northern industrialism)
Answer mine: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;鈥?/a>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)