Friday, December 10, 2010

CHINA? BECOMING THE NEXT AMERICA? REALLY?

The recession is really damaging to national self confidence: 44% of Americans now believe that China is the world’s leading economic power, as opposed to the 27% who (correctly) believe that it is the United States. Compare those latest Pew poll stats from those from February 2008, when 41% identified the US as the leading nation (with 30% identifying China).
James Fallow of the Atlantic, however, refutes these beliefs with some hard facts -- namely that despite China’s awe-inspiring rise, it's still not a superpower. China still lags in global brands, scientific innovation, and living standards. Almost no one in the United States is a peasant farmer. Most people in China are. Nearly everyone in America has indoor plumbing. Most people in China don't. Japan has one-tenth as many people as China, yet its economy is larger -- the second largest in the world. America's is of course largest of all, three times larger than Japan's and about four times larger than China's. Name 20 large American corporations that do business worldwide. Without trying, you can probably name 50. Try to name even 10 from China.
Ouch. Harsh, perhaps, but we think Fallow has a point - China is still the place to watch, and may yet become the world’s leading economic power, but it still has some way to go in terms of development.

CHINA TODAY

China is today the next global leader next to America. With trade surpluses rising to ends which nobody can think of and them buying our treasuries as if they were water it scary their prospects in life and what they actually want to do when it comes to the future. This picture is of a traffic jam in China, why am i showing this? Well when was the last time you even saw Manhattan look remotely like this? The fact is it doesnt, and never will because although we are the most busiest city in the world maybe, our population will never be a match for china. For every car in the US there are 4 in China. This is one thought that should not cross our minds in the coming future.

What does this all mean? It means we as Americans need to cut our debt to a bare minimum allowing ourselves to save money for the long run and invest into area which bring a guaranteed income into our own homes so that our futures are secure and we do not end up working like horses until we die. We need to do this invest for our own personal gain and so as a country America can stand up on its own again for the reason it was made. We need to start using a better education system, we need to adapt to the money we have as cash not credit. Until we stop using credit for everything we buy from countries like China, America will never be the great any more and we will eventually loose our title of the worlds super power. Save for the rainy days while enjoying the sunny ones modestly or else this China or maybe even another country will continue to grow until they become the America we were in the 70s. Great times I believe.

South Koreas Worst Naval "War"



A South Korean warship was destroyed by an elite North Korean suicide squad of 'human torpedoes' on the express orders of the regime's leader, Kim Jong-il, according to military intelligence reports. The attack on the 1,220-ton Cheonan, which sank on March 26 with the loss of 46 of its 104 crew, was carried out in retaliation for a skirmish between warships of the two nations' navies in November of last year, South Korea claims. The South Korean government has refused to comment officially on the reports but Defence Minister Kim Tae Young told a parliamentary session that the military believed that the sinking was a deliberate act by North Korea. Officials in military intelligence say they warned the government earlier this year that North Korea was preparing a suicide-squad submarine attack on a South Korean ship.

What is going on in Korea?

Truce talks began in July 1951, but the fighting continued until July 1953, when the negotiations at last bore fruit and the conflict ended in a cease-fire agreement.
Unlike after its previous wars, the United States did not fully and immediately demobilize after the fighting subsided in Korea. Production and spending continued at a relatively high level. In this respect, the Korean War was the most important event in the history of the Cold War, and, indeed, was a watershed in American military history. After this war, the United States embarked on the first long-term peacetime program of military and industrial preparedness. No longer would the country virtually disarm after a war; instead, it would promote the concept of readiness. No longer was the question whether or not to produce, but what to produce and how much.
In comparison to the naval forces engaged in World War II, Korea was a small war. At no time were more than four large carriers in action at the same time. Yet in the 3 years of war, Navy and Marine aircraft flew 276,000 combat sorties, dropped 177,000 tons of bombs and expended 272,000 rockets. This was within 7,000 sorties of their World War II totals in all theaters and bettered the bomb tonnage by 74,000 tons, and the number of rockets by 60,000.

Iran and Nuclear Intellegence

Iranian officials have been talking with the United States and other countries trying to put the brakes on Tehran's nuclear program. On Sunday, the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization said Iran is now producing its own yellowcake and is self-sufficient in the nuclear fuel cycle. What is yellowcake? What does it do and why does it matter?
Yellowcake is the lifeline of any civilian and military nuclear program. The powdery, often yellow substance is uranium ore concentrate that comes from processed, mined uranium ore. Yellowcake is used to produce enriched uranium which is the fuel for nuclear power plants that generate electricity. Uranium enriched at levels between 70 to 90% can be used to build a nuclear bomb. Producing yellowcake is an achievement for Iran because theoretically it will now be able to bypass strict U.N. sanctions that ban Iran from importing yellowcake from other countries.
Why does Iran want nuclear power?Iran says it has a right to have a civilian nuclear program and enrich uranium for peaceful purposes as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Those who are suspicious about Iran's nuclear program wonder why Iran needs nuclear energy when it has among the world's largest reserves of oil and natural gas. Iran says nuclear power will free up more of its oil to export and that's more money for their struggling economy.

Monday, December 6, 2010

What Have I Learned?

I discovered that blogging is a time consuming hobby. And once you start, you canĂ¢€™t stop for a length of time or youĂ¢€™ll lose any audience you built up. I also learned that rushing to complete an entry is a mistake. Looking back, I can see the difference between posts where I took my time and where I rushed. Plus, good ideas donĂ¢€™t grow on trees. We really have to become observers of the world around us for our material.


That there are so many blogs out there designed to make money. And I've found a few that are little more than "samplers"...they just lift stuff from others and recirculate it. I write as a release...and I'm finding some friends along the way which has been a bonus. I never knew blogging was about making money...I'm so naive... I thought people want to spread their ideas. Not get paid for playing the devils advocate. This really upset me because I did not know blogging had this side to it.


If I had to do it all over agian, I would do it exactly the same way I did it now. Nothing would be different. I do not write for my audience whether it be one person or a hundred I wrote what I felt. It is hard to find something in life where not only can you vent, but throw your ideas into the world and get constructive critism. This blog has taught me a lot and I realized there is more to my thoughts than just keeping them within myself. I will most certainly contiue this blog because it allows me to be me without a specific deadline, no lines and rules like an essay, and endless boundries like so many of the classes I take right now. I am free to think the way that I want when I want to. To me this is the greatest type of education, self-realization.

Must See. Doesnt Look Like US ever want to leave IRAQ

What Are the Ramifications of Leaving Iraq too soon?

The heck with Congress' big stimulus bill. The way to get the country out of recession - and most people think we're in one - is to get the country out of Iraq, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll. Pulling out of the war ranked first among proposed remedies in the survey, followed by spending more on domestic programs, cutting taxes and, at the bottom end, giving rebates to poor people in hopes they'll spend the economy into recovery.

The $168 billion economic rescue package Congress rushed to approval this week includes rebates of $600 to $1,200 for most taxpayers, the hope being that they will spend the money and help revive ailing businesses. President Bush is expected to sign the measure next week. Poor wage-earners, as well as seniors and veterans who live almost entirely off Social Security and disability benefits, would get $300 checks. However, just 19 percent of the people surveyed said they planned to go out and spend the money; 45 percent said they'd use it to pay bills. And nearly half said what the government really should do is get out of Iraq. Forty-eight percent said a pullout would help fix the country's economic problems "a great deal," and an additional 20 percent said it would help at least somewhat. Some 43 percent said increasing government spending on health care, education and housing programs would help a great deal; 36 percent said cutting taxes.

Most Current News Of Us Finally Stopping Our Current War

Obama: U.S. to withdraw most Iraq troops by August 2010


IRAQ



February 27, 2009

Obama says he plans to keep up to 50,000 support troops in Iraq after the combat mission ends in 2010.President Obama said Friday he plans to withdraw most U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of August 2010.

Between 35,000 to 50,000 troops will remain in Iraq, he said. They would be withdrawn gradually until all U.S. forces are out of Iraq by December 31, 2011 -- the deadline set under an agreement the Bush administration signed with the Iraqi government last year.

"Let me say this as plainly as I can: By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end," Obama said in a speech at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.
"By any measure, this has already been a long war," Obama said. It is time to "bring our troops home with the honor they have earned."

Obama's trip to Camp Lejeune, a Marine Corps base, was his first trip to a military base since being sworn in.

Administration officials, who briefed reporters on the plan, said the remaining troops would take on advisory roles in training and equipping Iraqi forces, supporting civilian operations in Iraq and conducting targeted counterterrorism missions, which would include some combat.

But the ultimate success or failure of the war in Iraq, Obama said, would rest with the Iraqi people themselves. The U.S. "cannot police Iraq's streets indefinitely until they are completely safe," the president said.

It is up to the Iraqis, he said, to ensure a future under a government that is "sovereign, stable and self-reliant."

"We sent our troops to Iraq to do away with Saddam Hussein's regime and you got the job done," he said, referring to the troops.

The U.S. military had also "exceeded every expectation" suppressing the insurgency in the years that followed.

Al Qaeda in Iraq had been dealt "a serious blow," the president added. "The capacity of Iraq's security forces has improved, and Iraq's leaders have made strides toward political accommodation" through steps such as January's provincial elections.

"Iraq is not yet secure and there will be difficult days ahead," he said, but the Iraqi people now have a "hard-earned opportunity ... for a better life."

Obama said he made his decision after reviewing several options presented by key military and civilian advisers.

He said that he acted with "careful consideration of events on the ground, with respect for the security agreements between the United States and Iraq, and with a critical recognition that the long-term solution in Iraq must be political, not military."

The Most Recent War: IRAQ, what is the reasoning behind this one?

Thousands of people are demonstrating world-wide against the war in Iraq. They cry out, "No War!" They block traffic. They march back and forth across the street. They hold up anti-Israel signs showing swastikas. They smash car windows. They shake their fists. Their opposition to the war seems to be that they think the U.S. chiefs are imperialist bullies, or they just seek to control and profit from oil, or that the U.S. chiefs have just gone berserk. I don't know where people go to get brainwashed, but wherever it was, the propaganda has been brilliantly effective. There is almost no intellectual content to the war opposition. The true reasons why the U.S. chiefs have chosen war are strategic. The U.S. was viciously attacked on September 11, 2001. The attackers claim this was in response to American acts against Muslims, mainly the blockage of trade with Iraq, which has resulted in many deaths and sickness, and the U.S. military base on the holy Islamic ground of Saudi Arabia.

The U.S. could simply abandon that military base and end the trade restrictions. But that would be bad strategy. First, it would be seen as giving in to terror. Second, this would strengthen the military capability of Iraq, which is an aggressive threat to the region. Also, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, another grievance of the anti-US terrorists, is impossible to solve while the current regime of Iraq is in place. The Iraqi regime pays Palestinian terrorists to murder Israelis. Iraq thus presents an intolerable situation. There are great benefits from ending the Iraqi regime, not the least being the ending of the torture that some Iraqis suffer from. The U.S. chiefs have decided that these benefits are greater than the cost of the war. I believe that the costs of this war are greater than the benefits. There are more direct ways to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the U.N. inspectors could have kept Iraq from continuing their weapons program.

Why did America loose the Vietnam War, PART II

The United States Armed Forces relied too much on their great fire power and modern weaponry and equipment. Tactics of conventional battle were mainly applied against the enemy's unconventional warfare, while American leaders seemed to be overconfident in their "know-how" in fighting a war that required the more know-how on psychological strategy than just on modern technology.
The South Vietnamese and the American military leaders tried some effective formulas with limited success. In Military Region I, the U.S. Marines and RVN Popular Force (village militia) joined together in mixed combat platoons which proved significant efficiency in counter-guerilla efforts. But it was difficult for other American infantry units to do the same because of differences in language, command and support system. Moreover, most American commanders seemed reluctant to commit their troops to militia-type activities beside poor Vietnamese. Such attachment posed trouble in control and command on the American side.
The air war over North Vietnam could have had desired effects if it had been executed intensively and quick. Escalation of air strikes proved a failure, especially when Hanoi regime didn't have many valuable things to lose in air strikes. It was unreasonable to put a million-dollar jet fighter and a pilot at risk of being shot down just to destroy a bridge that cost a few thousand dollars when no more objectives of higher values existed.The Vietnam War has been the first armed conflict in which political and psychological warfare were the invisible fronts that the United States has ever fought. Beside pure military failures, the RVN and the United States did achieve some victories in the other fronts. Two of the key strategies of the alliance that proved successful were the Phuong Hoang Campaign (Phoenix) and the Chieu Hoi Program.The Phuong Hoang Campaign aimed at destroying the Communist infrastructure in South Vietnam. Communist party clandestine organizations were the backbone of the war which provided all kinds of supports including intelligence and transportation of food and ammunition supplies to its combat troops. During the war, Western media insisted that Phuong Hoang campaign produced insignificant outcome. But recently, top North Vietnamese officials confirmed that the Phuong Hoang dealt fatal blows to the Communist infrastructure in the South.

Vietnam War- why did we loose?



Why did we lose the second half of Vietnam to the hands of the Vietnamese Communist Party while South Vietnam and U.S. forces were armed with better weapons, more sophisticated equipment, supreme fire power?


This is one of the most controversial issues in the world that could be debated long into the future. Any study of the issue must take all the great many factors into consideration. Therefore, a short article could not cover the entire matter. And a book about it with full details could be of many hundred pages, even a thousand. Viet Quoc Home Page with many articles about the armed conflict in Vietnam is contributing only a little part of the vast domain concerning the Vietnam War.

This article is written to present a general opinion of the Vietnamese nationalist side, in order to present a number of facts especially those have not been taken into consideration by foreigner writers, to help readers with some more information. It is also for many readers who have been asking us the same question, such as high school and college students in their history classes.

Most anti-Communist Vietnamese believe that the United States was right when supporting the Republic of Vietnam with aids and soldiers. However, the American and the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) governments have lost the war because Washington was lacking in resolution, while South Vietnamese leaders were relying too much on American support and believed that Washington would never accept the dishonor of a total defeat.

Sunday, December 5, 2010

Just got the CALL OF DUTY BLACK OPS!

After months of hype, and following one of the most drama-filled situations in recent gaming history with Infinity Ward, Call of Duty: Black Ops has been released. Thanks to the appeal of the subject, the pedigree of the name, and the monstrous success of the last game in the series, Modern Warfare 2, Black Ops was destined to be a massive hit from the moment it was announced. But would it be any good?

Activision could have sold Black Ops on name recognition alone. It could have released a terrible game and still made money on the pre-orders, but it would have damaged the most successful third-party property in video game history. After the falling out between Activision and Infinity Ward, the level of scrutiny on the franchise has been at an all time high. But the behind-the-scenes drama isn’t important right now. If you are curious about the telenovela surrounding the Infinity Ward and Activision split, you can read more about it here. Or just wait for the multiple lawsuits to begin. But for now, it is Treyarch’s big day. So with the video game world watching, did Treyarch manage to succeed with the shadow of its predecessor looming so large?

Yep, they sure did.

Call of Duty: Black Ops does a few things very well — mainly by not doing anything at all. Rather than reinvent the wheel, Treyarch looked at what worked and what didn’t with Modern Warfare 2 and its last title, Call of Duty: World at War, then made changes — some subtle, some innovative — but for the most part the game looks and plays like the previous games in the series. In a good way. The multiplayer is as strong as ever and some of the new features have added a layer of depth that will keep fans playing for a long time, while the campaign delivers one of the most intense stories you will ever see in a video game. So basically, Black Ops lives up to the hype.

So here comes the final end of The things they Carried...

That was a war story. It happened in the Vietnamese War and happened to soldiers in the war. But, it is not actually about war. It is a story of change and discovery: that Mary Anne metamorphosed into a savage killer and discovered her desire for bloodshed and killing. It is a story of love: that Mark Fossie brought the girl he planned to marry to Vietnam, only to be by her in order to pursue her darkest dreams. In this way, it is a true war story. From this we can see that a true war story has other topics other than war, which can be of a lot of things. This is a characteristic of a true war story. This lets us to see what war is really about and what the people involved in war really deal with.

What does O’Brien really want to show through this? What does he want to say about Vietnam? He says that a true war story does not have to be true, that it is meaningless, and that it is really not about war. He is trying to show use the meaning of being a soldier, of having been in the Vietnam war. He is attempting to involve the readers in the experience of war. O’Brien is also trying to make sense of his experience and to justify his living when so many others both enemies and U.S soldiers have died. War is life. In conclusion, a true war story is a story of soldiers living a life that has all become normal to them.

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

So Have You Decided Yet? What is a True War Story? Here is more Info on my Opinion Using O'Briens Book

A true war story also raises questions that have no answers. It always contains a certain type of mystery in it. Its careful reading can not lead to connecting all of its points. In the story of the water buffalo above, is it possible to say why Kiley really attacked the animal? We might guess that he was feeling frustrated and was taking revenge on the animal for Lemon’s death. We can never know, though. Perhaps, he did it because he liked torturing animals or maybe he just did it for fun. In the story of Lemon’s death above, can we know why Jensen was singing “Lemon Tree” while peeling away Curt Lemon’s remains from the tree. Perhaps, he found it ironic. Perhaps, he liked singing that song. In fact, all stories raise questions that sometimes have no answers, but a true war story raises questions that “hit you” even “until twenty years later, in your sleep, and you wake up” and think you have figured it out. But, you have not. It just raises more questions. “You close your eyes ….and think…what’s the point?”.

Last of all, that one thing which really allows a story to bring us into the realm of a true war story is that a true war story is never actually about war. It is about love, about pain, about guilt, about revenge, about sorrow, and about anger. War is present in the stories above, but the war is more of a setting and less of an event. It serves as a background to these stories but is not what these stories deal with. They deal with loss, with anger, with irony, and with revenge. "A true war story can be about anything except war".
To better understand this, let us consider the story of “Sweetheart of the Song Tra Bong” (pgs 89- 116). A young soldier by the name of Mark Fossie had his girlfriend, Mary Anne Bell, brought to the hospital where he was stationed. Mary Anne was a young and beautiful blond, a typical all-American cheerleader type when she arrived. However, she was very adaptive to her surroundings. It was not long before she had learnt much of local Vietnamese culture and even general military practices. Eventually, she started acting like a soldier: she stopped wearing cosmetics and jewelry and took little care with her hygiene. She was a very different person now, with a voice that was all too new for Fossie. Then, she began returning to her shared quarters with Fossie very late at night and then not at all. Later, it was revealed that she was spending time with a small detachment of Green Berets stationed at the same location. She was going out on “hunts” with them and was learning to kill people. She liked it. In the end, she joined the wild and became a deadly shadow in the Vietnamese woods. She embraced her joy of killing; she was no longer that innocent girl she used to be.

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Call of Duty. Best War Game



Call of Duty: World at War is a first-person shooter video game or a RPG role playing game. It is generally considered to be the fifth mainstream game of the Call of Duty series and returns the setting to World War II, after the storyline of the previous title, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare was based in the present day.

The game begins in Makin Island at night on August 17, 1942. Private C. Miller watches the torture and execution of Private K. Pyle, a fellow Marine, by the Japanese. After breaking through the Japanese lines on the Peleliu beach, Miller destroys two Type 95 Ha-Go tanks with rocket strikes, allowing their tanks to advance. At the end of the mission, Sergeant Sullivan is killed by a Japanese soldier. Roebuck, now promoted to Sergeant, and his squad make their way through the Peleliu swamps to launch an assault on a Japanese held airfield to disable anti-aircraft guns. During the assault, Miller acquires a flamethrower and a bazooka.

The game then jumps to the Eastern Front on September 17, 1942 during the Battle of Stalingrad. Private Dimitri Petrenko regains consciousness in a fountain, just as German troops kill his comrades. When they leave, Dimitri meets Sergeant Reznov, another survivor, who tells him of his intention to kill General Heinrich Amsel, the man behind massacres all over Russia. After killing some German soldiers in their way, Dimitri follows Reznov through buildings and streets and they meet up with the remainder of Dimitri's unit, who are about to assault Amsel's communication post.
Dimitri is armed with a Mosin Nagant sniper rifle which originally belonged to Reznov, but his hands were horribly injured, quoting "you will snipe for me". Reznov then picks up a PPSH-41 submachine gun and then sets off to assassinate the German General. During the assault, Dimitri snipes Amsel. He and Reznov escape and jump into the Volga River. The following mission starts three years later, during the Battle of the Seelow Heights, near Berlin. Dimitri has been captured by German soldiers in an old barn. He is saved when the Red Army attack the barn. Among them is Sergeant Reznov and his subordinate, Private Chernov. Together, the Soviet troops advance through German lines and Dimitri aids them with a Panzerschreck until they reach a German camp.

It is by far the most popular game involving war fair. It depicts everything so greatly with such meaning. Get out there and buy it today if you already havn't.

What is a true war story?

To illustrate points of war in the book
"The Things They Carry" the story of Rat Kiley and the baby water buffalo can be considered. After Lemon’s death, the troops were marched into the mountains where they found and captured a baby water buffalo. After they had set up camp in a deserted village, Kiley attempted to feed the animal though it did not eat. Unexpectedly, he then shot the baby water buffalo in the knee. He continued to shoot the animal in virtually every spot, to torture the animal and make it feel pain. He shot it again and again. Eventually, he started crying and moved away. This story expresses astonishing and somewhat disturbing detail. The question to be asked here, which all readers will probably ask themselves, is whether this really happened at all. Is this war story true?
Maybe some of it is true or maybe none of it. It is practically impossible to know; even if it is true , even if it was, its truth would still be questioned. People would still not believe all of it: that a normal American soldier, a representative of the United States and a typical generalization of its culture, would torture an innocent animal. Furthermore, it is harder to believe the animal was “still alive, though just barely” after it all.
Another example of this is in the story of Curt Lemon’s death. O’Brien describes it with amazing specifications. “His face was brown and shining… Sharp gray eyes…the sunlight came around him and lifted him up and sucked him high into a tree full of moss and vines and white blossoms”. The diction and imagery is truly amazing, considering that all this took a mere split second to occur. O’Brien himself admits that when things like this happen, one tends to miss most of the detail; “the pictures get jumbled”. Thus, the mind fills in the blanks to make it look like what seemed to happen to him. The more one thinks about it, the more the actual sight is altered to fit of what would have been likly to happen, which is actually the “exact truth as it seemed”. The fact is that there are always things taken out and extra things put in a story; some things are overstated and some understated- that is what makes it a believable and personal story.
Often, “a true war story can not be believed” . It seems too unreal to be true; though, this is the kind of story that would actually be true. Some war stories like the ones previously mentioned can not be taken into consideration. They can not logically be believed to be true, yet one can believe that they are true. This is an important to realize that A true war story does not have to be true as long as it is believed. A completely untrue story could be a true war story; a completely factual war story could not be thought to be a untrue war story, simply because of its truth- which as O’Brien said “are contradictory”. Therefore, the best kind of war story contains a mix of the two entangled in such a way that it is impossible to tell the beginning of truth and the ending of the story. This deliberate unclearness makes that story a true war story. Why? Because it can be believed through empathizing with it and understanding the soldiers and their experience as they felt it, which is never exactly as it actually happened. In this way, “story-truth is truer sometimes than happening-truth”.

The Things They Carried- by Tim O'Brien



Wars have always been fought, and different stories have always been told about them—some real, some fictional, some disturbing, and some inspiring. But, what is a true war story? Could it be any story about killing and conflict or does it have specific traits that define it as a unique story in its self. Tim O’Brien, in The Things They Carried, says that a true war story must be untrue, never-ending, sometimes about love, and should not even actually be about war. O’Brien emphasizes these elements in his novel because he wants to show us the psychological and sentimental aspects of being in a war, in this case the Vietnamese War.

In the chapter “How to Tell a True War Story”, O’Brien writes about the death of a young soldier, Curt Lemon. He steps on a loaded mine (specifically a “booby-trapped 105 round”) which detonates and blows him to pieces in front of his friends eyes. Curt Lemon had a best friend, whose name was Rat Kiley. Rat Kiley wrote a long, thoughtful, and sentimental letter to Lemon’s sister explaining how terrific Lemon was, the adventures the two of them had together, how Lemon’s death took place, and the tragedy that Lemon’s death really was to him. Lemon’s sister never replies to his heart felt letter. So, Rat Kiley calls her a “dumb cooze”, the worst possible term in his vocabulary. This really shows that a true war story is not moral. It does not justify actions by absolute morals; it does not attempt to show the right way or show us the wrong way. It simply states what happened. The story does not say that Lemon’s sister was wrong or Kiley was right in calling her that.
Perhaps, a better way to explain this can be found in the events immediately after Lemon’s death. Lemon’s remains were splattered across a tree. Dave Jensen and O’Brien had to climb and literally peel off Lemon’s remains from the tree. O’Brien remembers seeing “the white bone of an arm…pieces of skin…something wet and yellow that must have been intestines” . Yet, Jensen sings “Lemon Tree” as they throw down the parts. This demonstrates the meaninglessness of a war story. What moral or principle can be derived from it? None, whatsoever. After all, a true war story is just a story about ordinary human beings facing a war, which is reduced to nothing but survival for them. They have no great moral motive for going to war, and none keep them there. To them, war is a boring routine—with no more meaning than a job at Wendy's. This is why a war story must have no meaning, because the people to whom it is told must understand that the events are morally meaningless to the person experiencing them.

Saturday, October 30, 2010

What Is Seen Around Us?

“I grew up hearing, seeing, and almost believing that America was white- albeit with a little black tinge here and there- and that white was best” (487, Yuh Ji-Yeon, “Let’s Tell the Stories of All America’s Cultures”) Indeed, a very prolific view of the past was that only the Caucasians, the European descendants, did anything of note and were of true Americans. This myth has been forever shattered. America is multicultural; yet, education still reflected a highly “Euro centric” curriculum. The accomplishments of other ethnicities/groups towards American and Western culture were disregarded; but, with true multiculturalism, the truth is being made known. “….they changed America too” (488, Yuh Ji-Yeon, “Let’s Tell the Stories of All America’s Cultures”). Thus, multiculturalism has led to the revision of this view, especially in education. Students are now taught that the numbers of their math come from Arabia, that America was based on the Iroquois Federation system, and that the Chinese invented the fireworks that entertain them so. Now, it is known that Frederick Douglas was influential in leading to the Civil War and that the Mexicans originally settled and converted the arid lands of Texas-California. With the acknowledgment of these things in our education system, we are able to witness the truth of the world and the reality of America. With multicultural education- an intrinsic approach to education and curriculum construction that acknowledges and respects the contributions which the various racial/ethnic groups have made to society, and incorporates these contributions in an overall program of instruction which meets the needs of an ever-changing society and is sensitive to the personal and social development of all persons concerned- (2, Caleb Rosado, “What Makes A School Multicultural”) all Americans (especially the future adults) are able to distinguish that there is value for all of them (at least on the ethnic level). This further lessens any hostile intent of persons to other kinds of persons in the same population.

Monday, October 18, 2010

AMERICA


 The United States is a virtually unique nation in the fact that it has assimilated peoples of all cultures and origins into one collective body, simply known as “Americans”.  Insteadof internal conflict, America has faced external threats, and even now it continues to do (e.g. War on Terrorism); it has not only triumphed but also prospered because of its multicultural nature; irrelevant but true, America is the superpower of the world. This prosperity could be because America has always been multicultural, ever since the beginning it has been “a mixture of English, Scotch, Irish, French, Dutch, Germans, and Swedes…” (491, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., “The Cult of Ethnicity: Good and Bad”). In the United States, people “generally get along with each other” without any serious dissent except in matters of opinion, which cannot really be linked to culture or ethnicity.

This was a copy of last weeks post, now keeping this in mind please go on to assimilate for yourself the rest of the post and try to piece this huge puzzle together!!



In considering the uniqueness of American multiculturalism and the “melting pot” singularity, a very beneficial development can be discerned. The American people have become more sensitized and tolerant to all kind of cultures as a result of multiculturalism. This is very important, because in today’s world the traditional distinctions between nations such as border and barrier are becoming obsolete; all people are, in theory at least, considered part of a greater human identity- we are “Terran”. Thus, the sensitivity and tolerance that America has developed allows them to be true “world citizens”. “To become world citizens, persons… [must] transcend their own racial/ethnic, Gender, cultural, and socio-political reality and identify with mankind throughout the world, at all levels of human need” (7, Becoming World Citizens, Caleb Rosado, “What Makes A School Multicultural”).  In addition to the effect of allowing the integration of the US into the ideal of world citizenry, it also almost nullifies the possible occurrence of internal ethnic conflict. By multiculturalistic values, America is able to be part of a world becoming ever smaller and to avoid fighting for reasons, which have even ripped other nations apart (491, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., “The Cult of Ethnicity: Good and Bad”).

Sunday, October 10, 2010

The Details of the World Make us Prosper, Yet Still War Continues

“I grew up hearing, seeing, and almost believing that America was white- albeit with a little black tinge here and there- and that white was best” (487, Yuh Ji-Yeon, “Let’s Tell the Stories of All America’s Cultures”) Indeed, a very prolific view of the past was that only the Caucasians, the European descendants, did anything of note and were of true Americans. This myth has been forever shattered. America is multicultural; yet, education still reflected a highly “Euro centric” curriculum. The accomplishments of other ethnicities/groups towards American and Western culture were disregarded; but, with true multiculturalism, the truth is being made known. “….they changed America too” (488, Yuh Ji-Yeon, “Let’s Tell the Stories of All America’s Cultures”). Thus, multiculturalism has led to the revision of this view, especially in education. Students are now taught that the numbers of their math come from Arabia, that America was based on the Iroquois Federation system, and that the Chinese invented the fireworks that entertain them so. Now, it is known that Frederick Douglas was influential in leading to the Civil War and that the Mexicans originally settled and converted the arid lands of Texas-California. With the acknowledgement of these things in our education system, we are able to witness the truth of the world and the reality of America. With multicultural education- an intrinsic approach to education and curriculum construction that acknowledges and respects the contributions which the various racial/ethnic groups have made to society, and incorporates these contributions in an overall program of instruction which meets the needs of an ever-changing society and is sensitive to the personal and social development of all persons concerned- (2, Caleb Rosado, “What Makes A School Multicultural”) all Americans (especially the future adults) are able to distinguish that there is value for all of them (at least on the ethnic level). This further lessens any hostile intent of persons to other kinds of persons in the same population.

United States' view on Multiculturalism

Multicultural Pictures, Images and Photos
 The United States is a virtually unique nation in the fact that it has assimilated peoples of all cultures and origins into one collective body, simply known as “Americans”.  Insteadof internal conflict, America has faced external threats, and even now it continues to do (e.g. War on Terrorism); it has not only triumphed but also prospered because of its multicultural nature; irrelevant but true, America is the superpower of the world. This prosperity could be because America has always been multicultural, ever since the beginning it has been “a mixture of English, Scotch, Irish, French, Dutch, Germans, and Swedes…” (491, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., “The Cult of Ethnicity: Good and Bad”). In the United States, people generally get along with each other without any serious dissent except in matters of opinion, which cannot really be linked to culture or ethnicity.

Sunday, September 26, 2010

What is America?

To understand war, I think we need to ask what our country, America, is like and how it has become this way. To begin I am going to take about multi-culturalism.

With the arrival of modern globalization, the phenomenon of multiculturalism has become widespread in many nations due to the relative ease of immigration to developed nations. This is especially absolute in the case of the United States of America, which has been termed the melting pot of cultures. Yet, it is arguable as to whether the resultant diversity has benefited or impaired American education and society. As defined, multiculturalism is “the presence of and integration of people of varied countries, ethnicities, and religions in one unified society reflecting the beliefs and customs of all the included parties” Encarta Dictionary, Microsoft Encarta 2006, Microsoft Corporation). Multiculturalism has had an advantageous influence on America because it has allowed for greater integration of varied groups resulting in greater tolerance and understanding among them and because it has allowed education to be taken from a more all-encompassing outlook on the world and its history so that the accomplishments of diverse groups are acknowledged in addition to a “Euro centric” curriculum, but multiculturalism can have an injurious impact when it is taken so literally as to view the population not as a multinational of assorted individuals but as a confederation of sacred and static factions.
The chief argument against multiculturalism is the tendency for “ethnic and racial – far more than ideological conflict- [to be]…the explosive problem of our times” (491, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., “The Cult of Ethnicity: Good and Bad”). There is substantial evidence for this available in the form of the conflict between varied ethnicities/religions has led to conflict in places like Indonesia, Iraq, the nations formerly known as Yugoslavia, Rwanda, South Africa, Ethiopia, China, India-Pakistan-Kashmir, Sudan (Darfur) and many, many more in the past and present. The fact simply exists that multicultural regions usually (i.e. having a perceived very significantly higher chance) develop antagonism between its respective dissimilar groups where as populaces which have virtually homogeneous people generally have a much lower tendency for internal conflict.