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.
Friday, December 10, 2010
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.
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.
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.
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 can’t stop for a length of time or you’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 don’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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)