Soccer Game Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Soccer Game - Essay Example The home team started dominating the match, Ronaldo showed glimpses of his ability. The opening goal was scored by Ronaldo, it was a great goal, Osasuna did not come to the Santiago Bernabeu to surrender, it took them only a few minutes to restore parity and it was game-on. Real Madrid did not take the foot off the gas this time as they kept pushing hard for another goal, it came soon after Osasuna pulled one back. This time it was Pepe who scored for Real Madrid. There was a lot of chaos in the box but Pepe’s awareness helped the team and they led 2-1. Real Madrid went 3-1 up before half-time when Higuain scored a fantastic goal, the strike curled away from the keeper and hit the back of the net. The keeper just could not do anything about it. The referee consulted his lines-man in the second-half when Mesut Ozil was brought down in the box in the second-half, it was an easy decision. A penalty was awarded and Ronaldo scored with complete ease from the spot. Madrid led 4-1 an d they were cruising. Ronaldo scored again in the next few minutes, it was his hat-trick and it was a fine hat-trick. Madrid led 5-1 at this point and they completely dominated the game and it was a very well-deserved lead. Karim Benzema came on in the second-half and scored two brilliant goals to give Real Madrid a resounding lead of 7-1, the away team was completely outplayed, they just could not stop the Real Madrid players from running riot. Angel Di Maria who plays as a winger for Real Madrid pulled his hamstring muscle and is surely going to out for several months; this was perhaps the only downside for the home team who won very comfortably to say the least. Ronaldo’s attitude has always been questioned but his fine hat-trick should silence the critics at least for the time being if not for an extended period. The involvement of the referee should also be analyzed; the referee had a great outing. He did not make any unreasonable calls and he consulted his lines-man whe never he was in doubt, a fair bit of communication took place between the referee and his subordinates. The following part of the paper would shed more light upon the very same. Interpersonal Communication The referee had a look at his lines-man who started flagging after Mesut Ozil was brought down in the box, when the lines-man flags, it means a foul has taken place; the referee has the power to overrule the lines-man but on this occasion both were reading from the same page and a penalty was awarded to Real Madrid. On many occasions the fans gets to see the referee overruling the lines-man but there are other occasions when something which the referee fails to spot gets spotted by the mines-men and this is how the game becomes better and more entertaining. Many a time players tuck each other’s jerseys’ and the referee may not see it because he may not be in the right position to see it, this is when the lines-men earn their bread and butter. Communication between th e referees and the lines-men has become so much better these days. The lines-men need not try and catch the attention of the referees, they are well connected on the pitch, they have microphones attached to their ears and every word spoken by the referee can be heard by the lines-men and every word spoken by the lines-men can be heard by the referee. Even the fourth official has the same device attached to his ears and the referee tell the fourth offici

Teaching Swallowing to Dysphagia Patients Research Paper

Teaching Swallowing to Dysphagia Patients - Research Paper Example Patient also experiences slothfulness when eating, or â€Å"pocketing† of food, and as such, takes various swallows in a lone mouthful of food; otherwise, there is an impediment in swallowing reaction or grasping food in mouth. Furthermore, she has impaired swallowing, with a history of tubing feeding, as evidenced by her dysphagia diet, a 1:1 feed and nectar liquids with no straw. In terms of cardiovascular assessment, pedal pulse is present with palpitation. Her Capillary Refill reveals a Blood return of > 3 sec. Her gastrointestinal assessment reveals weight loss within the past six months. Besides, she has undergone surgical procedures on her left hip replacement, right hip pinning after a fracture; she has a history of left rotator cuff repair and venous ligation in the past. Chest X-ray indicates diminished atelectasis, with aerated left upper lobe, and continued left lower lobe atelectasis/pleural effusion. Patient upper extremities indicate both hands swelling, while h er lower extremities reveal legs swelling, with unsteady balance/gait, and she has slightly impaired vision. Her activity/exercise pattern entails use of assistance device, wheelchair, and she needs total help with ADL's and meals. She also has a foley, which is incontinent of bowel, thus she needs assistance to transfer from bed to chair. She has all meals served to her with 1:1 feed approach. The patient also has impaired skin integrity, physical immobilization, as evidenced by destruction of skin layers, as well as being on coccyx area. Her cognitive/perceptual pattern reveals impaired self awareness due to frontal lobe injuries which may result in emotional and behavior variables. The patient short term memory assessment indicates that she remembers few things but has lost short term memory overall. Her long-term memory reveals that she recalled some events from the past. The patient has limited knowledge of her current situation. The patient experiences depression, which can be attributed to cognitive deficits, fatigue and difficulty with managing her eating frustration. She is alert to people around her, even her speech is clear. Moreover, the patient experiences imperfect controls of her impulses; hence, she feels tired all the time and sleeps all day and all night. Her impulsivity has led to social isolation from some of her immediate family members and friends. Her coping and stress tolerance has been aided by good friends, and her five children who come to visit her when they can. Health Management Patient perception of overall health reveals that she is good, and even though she has limited knowledge of her current situation, she understands her health care needs and she is going to be discharged to JML She is adaptive in terms of coping and stress tolerance through prayers, support from family. However, she is maladaptive since she has no effort to get better. Patient has also learned to accept physical changes related to her age. Patient status of values and beliefs patterns is based on her Catholicism, and she values respect as the key for a good relationship. Teaching and Learning Theory Behaviorism learning theory is based on the proposal that behavior can be explored scientifically devoid of recourse to the learner’s internal mental states (Nielsen, 2009). Thus, it is a structure of materialism, with no independent connotation for mind. The Behaviorist

Otto Von Bismarck Essay Example for Free

Otto Von Bismarck Essay Otto Von Bismarck was made Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Prussia by I in 1862. He stayed in power until 1890. His conduct of foreign policy between 1862 and 1871 is one of the most fascinating and complex parts of the nineteenth century. It ended with the unification of Germany on 18th January 1871, under Prussian dominance, with King William of Prussia being coroneted as Kaiser in Versailles. The German unification is possibly the most important and significant events in history, as it has had so many effects and consequences across the whole world, and still does to this day. One of the most widely debated topics of the nineteenth century is to what extent is Bismarck responsible for the unification. Basically, was Bismarck’s foreign policy more about conscious design, or a policy by default largely determined by other key personalities and events? Some people try and say that Bismarck was always heading towards German unification, and that he had been planning how to get there all along; but actually, Bismarck hardly planned a thing – he instead was just very good at taking things as they came. His main aim was to strengthen Prussia, and make it into a stronger country. An example of how Bismarck did not plan what he did is how he came to power. He was not elected, so he was not planning ways in which to gain votes etc. ; instead, he was suddenly catapulted from being ambassador to St. Petersburg, and then Paris, to being chancellor of Prussia. Bismarck was also known for his personality. It was this that initially got him to where he was. He was nicknamed ‘The Iron Chancellor†, and he fitted this name very well. In 1862, when William was refused money by liberals to pay for his army, he threatened to abdicate, but was persuaded to elect Bismarck as chancellor instead. Everybody who knew Bismarck knew him as being wild, and a bully, a conservative, an army man, and as being a ‘Machiavellian’. He was cunning, scheming, unscrupulous, vicious, manipulative, calculating, brutal, and devious, and also very good at improvising. It was these things that William liked about him, and Williams’s expectations of Bismarck were achieved. Immediately after being put in office, Bismarck suspended the constitution and gave the army the money it needed. Now he was in control of Prussia as it was maturing and reaching power. Another event that shows how Bismarck did not plan things is the Danish Crisis in Schleswig and Holstein in 1864. Some people say that Bismarck planned this, and did it to get Austria involved, and to be nice to her by giving her some land, but which he could take at any time as it was next to Prussia, and cause up rise. In reality, Denmark unexpectedly attempted to annex Schleswig and Holstein, and Bismarck just saw a chance to gain some land, respect, popularity, and a small advantage over Austria; he did not previously plan any of this, he just ‘played the cards he was dealt well’ e. g. e ended up doing it with Austria – this made him look good in front of everyone else, and also lulled Austria into a false sense of security. This was a first step towards Bismarck thinking cleverly about how he could get an upper hand over Austria. Although Bismarck did not necessarily plan all of the things that he did, he was very good at playing what came along well, and thinking about all of the consequences of his actions, and how he could use what he had to his best advantage; because of this, he was a great man who was clever and quick thinking, so we have not at all been deceived about him. It has often been said that Bismarck never meant for what most of what he did to happen, and that what he did was just mainly luck e. g. there was an extraordinary interlude of calmness during his time. This meant that he was able to many things that he should not have been able to do without risking international intervention. Britain is a good example of this international calmness. We were far more concerned with looking after ourselves, and keeping our empire strong and wealthy, than in events in Europe. The one thing that we did have a view on, and it was a strong view, was that we hated France, and this ended up being good for Bismarck anyway. Austria and France were also calm when Bismarck needed them to be – after Austria lost the war, it took her a reasonable amount of time to recover, and Bismarck used this time wisely; France had previously been hammered during Napoleon Bonaparte’s conquest of Europe, and was hated by many, and so was lying low for some time, and again, Bismarck used this greatly to his advantage. A handful people believe that Bismarck’s legacy is too big for his own good. As some people say that he caused German unification single-handedly, because this was a huge event which had enormous consequences and effects, people automatically think of Bismarck as being a greater and better person than he actually was, and that he shifted history his way more than he actually did. But, without Bismarck, luck and other things would not have been a big enough factor to cause German unification, and so he was needed, and he was a great man. Bismarck is said to have unified Germany, but there are several other people who contributed to it more than people think, who are often forgotten about, and not so well known. One of these people is Napoleon III of France. Napoleon III was a very weak, feeble, useless and pathetic ruler. When he was anxious to gain compensation and maintain France’s role as a great power, he was looking at Bismarck and Prussia for anything to grab onto and attack, but Bismarck gave him nothing to react to. This just angered Napoleon even more, and made it easy for Bismarck to use Napoleon when he wanted. Napoleon was such a weak and terrible ruler, that he automatically gave Bismarck an advantage, as Bismarck could easily control Napoleon, and trick him into doing things that he did not realize the consequences of. Bismarck very easily irritated Napoleon on purpose, but he did not go too far e. g. the Hohenzollem candidature, where Bismarck tried to put a Prussian prince in the Spanish throne. This would mean that Prussia would have a massive advantage, as France would be surrounded by Prussia, and could even face fighting on two fronts. Obviously Napoleon was furious when he heard about this, but Bismarck quickly withdrew the candidature, meaning that Napoleon did not act at all, and Bismarck looked good, as he had withdrawn it ‘to be nice to France’. Napoleon did not see what was happening, which meant that Bismarck could do almost what he wanted around him. Ludwig of Bavaria was an obstacle to Bismarck. He led the biggest German state (apart from Prussia). When Bismarck was making all of the head of the states agree to letting, acknowledging, and going to William’s coronation of becoming Kaiser of Germany, Ludwig was the only person to refuse, but Bismarck easily got around this problem by coming to an agreement with Ludwig, which was that Ludwig would accept the demands if Bismarck let him keep his ornate postboxes. This was a major victory for Bismarck, as it was the end of the very old state of Bavaria, which had lots of history, and patriotism, and was at one point a very strong power. Bismarck was controlled and told what to do mainly by William and also by the conservatives and the middle class taxpayers. William especially had absolute control over Bismarck. He had promoted him to chancellor. Prussia’s General (Moltke) was also very important. He was a superb General, and led Prussia’s army very well to its victories. Bismarck was not a military leader, and without Moltke could possibly not have done nearly as well as he did. Russia was massively important. She did not intervene during Prussia’s wars against Denmark and Austria in 1864 and 1866. If she had, Prussia would have probably lost, leading to a whole different outcome; the war with Austria led to the North German Confederation in 1867. Russia never once stopped the new central power from emerging, even though it was given plenty of opportunities. This may have been because of the Tsar. He always blamed Austria for his father’s death, and so refused to help her. Bismarck was helped on several occasions by certain countries not intervening in 1870 with the war with France, Britain did not intervene as she still hated France, neither would Italy, as she owed her acquisition of Venetia to Prussia’s victory over Austria in 1866 and also wanted to get the French out of Rome; and Austria was still recovering, and was held back by Russia, who threatened to send in 300,000 men if she got involved. This meant that Bismarck did not need to be scared of fighting on two fronts at all. Also, without the realignment of the great powers that resulted from the Crimean War, German Unification would probably not have happened. Bismarck himself even said: â€Å"It all began with the Crimean War†. Although all of these people and events were important, Bismarck was the fundamental key to the unification. Without him, it would not have happened, so we have not at all been deceived – he was a great man who was the key to the German Unification. When Bismarck came to power, Prussia was coming to its peak in almost every way. She had a brilliant General (Moltke), she was industrializing she had amazing railways and weapons and she had a thriving economy. Another help to Bismarck was the fact that Prussia was physically a large state. Some people believe that Bismarck did not need to do much, and he just did well, as it was a coincidence that he was in the right place at the right time. But, although Prussia was doing well at Bismarck’s time, it needed Bismarck to bring it all together, and make it happen! Many people say that German unification was inevitable, and would have happened even if Bismarck had never lived, because of certain preconditions. For example: nationalism had been growing for many years. This can be shown in the 1848 revolutions; also, it still kept on growing after the revolutions. Nationalism was now a talked about thing – people had written about it, and apart from the monarchs etc. who too were scared of it, people were discussing it among themselves. Also, gradually over the last few decades, there had been becoming less and less German states. Originally there were more than a hundred very small states, similar to the size of a large estate, or maybe a small county today; but as stronger states had engulfed other weaker states, fewer and larger states emerged. By the time Bismarck was around, there was not much more than twenty states. This gradual reduces in the number of states shows that eventually, there would have been a German unification without Bismarck anyway – he just sped the process up. The 1848 revolutions also showed that there was a want for change already there with the people, even before Bismarck, and so again, there would have been German unification without him. Another thing that shows that there would have been German unification without Bismarck anyway is that the Hapsburg Empire had slowly been on its downfall for many years, starting well before Bismarck’s time. At the height of its power, the Hapsburg Empire was enormous, and extremely powerful and very autocratic, but it had slowly been becoming less and less of a major power, and other countries were beginning to be able to almost rival it. Many people also say that the struggle between the German states and the struggle between Prussia and Austria had to be settled some time, and this would have happened regardless of whether Bismarck was there or not. By the time Bismarck came to power, there was as well a want for unification already there, which some say would have caused it anyway if Bismarck had not been there (liberals had wanted unification for a long time, but now there were also others who wanted it, like some of the working class, and some of the middle class – also, there were many who did not think about unification, but would have probably supported it if they could more easily). Also, in 1866, the southern states were becoming increasingly hostile to Prussia, and the other northern states. A war to resolve the hostility between France and Prussia, and to force the southern states into joining the North German Confederation seemed likely in 1869. This showed that even if Bismarck had not been there, then there would have been the unification anyway. People say that these points show that it was not Bismarck who caused the unification, but it was in fact going to happen anyway; but actually, it was Bismarck who brought all of these separate points together to make the unification happen. Without him these points would not have led to it, they need Bismarck! He brought these points together, and therefore it was Bismarck who made it possible. So we have not been deceived, as Bismarck was a great man, who shifted these points his way, leading to unification. Bismarck was a great man, and he had a great personality, and was always willing to do things. Bismarck was a great Machiavellian. He was brilliantly sly and cunning, and his truth was flexible. He was happy to put down anyone he needed to, even his friends. He always desired a stronger Prussia, and it was this desire that led to him unifying the German states. He was fundamentally a conservative, but he cleverly managed to get all different sorts of people to like him, and to be on his side – even many of the liberals. He was very gifted at making people believe something he wanted them to believe, or do what he wanted them to do e. g. he got William to agree to becoming the Kaiser, as he got all of the rulers of the other states to give him the crown. Bismarck was also very good at knowing when to stop – he would irritate someone a lot, but stop just before they exploded. He did this with Napoleon III. Bismarck also never took any risks that were too big. He always knew what he was doing, even though it often looked the opposite. He would only proceed with something if he was satisfied with his chance of success. This was his key strength – he was an unbelievable decision-maker. This meant that he was also very good at ‘playing things by ear’, which meant that he never had to plan things too far in advance, and he was very good at putting himself into other people’s shoes, and seeing what the consequences of all of his decisions could be. Bismarck was also very strong willed. He always did what he wanted, and never stopped or hesitated for anything. He was like a steam train going full speed, and having to make hundreds of decisions of what path to take – he was unstoppable. Proof of this is that when he came to power, the majority of people did not want unification, but he still managed to make it happen. William was also nearly useless without Bismarck. He was too weak and slow. Bismarck was a great man, and he certainly did shift history his way when he wanted to.

U.S. intervention in Iraq

U.S. intervention in Iraq Introduction There are people that are opposed to the U.S. intervention in Iraq, as they believe that it will not lead to stability and democracy. These people, find similarities to Americas Vietnam intervention. For them, America has once more involved in a prolonged and indecisive political and military struggle, from which it will extricate with human and economic loses. On the other had, there are people that are in favour of the Iraq War and they believe that there is no comparison to the Vietnam War. They claim that it is the annihilation of Nazi Germany and its transformation to a democratic ally, that should be used as an analogy.[1] But, the comparison to the Vietnam War and its consequences was unavoidable, as it still influences the publics attitude towards foreign military intervention and was an event that is still in memories of todays American leaders. The question is whether there are any lessons from the American disaster in the Vietnam War that could be applied in Iraqs case. The differences between the two wars are very important: First of all, Vietnam in 1960 was a country with a long national history and a distinct national identity that was created after centuries of fighting against foreign domination. On the contrary, Iraq is a young state with many ethnicities and religions, that make unity difficult. Moreover, in Vietnam the enemy was skilled and experience with important external aid and international legitimacy. In Iraq the enemy had no martial ability and was politically isolated. Besides that, in Vietnam at first the war had the form of an insurgency that changed into a conventional conflict , whereas in Iraq happened exactly the opposite. The nature of the insurgency in the two cases was different, too. In Vietnam there were peasants that were centrally directed by the Communists, that had a clear politico-economic and social agenda. In Iraq, the insurgents were members of small groups that their methods consisted partly of car bombings and sabotage against U.S. forces and the war objectives werent very clear. Moreover, the U.S. was more restricted in military action in Vietnam that in Iraq, by the Chinese and the Soviet threat and they only cared about protecting South Vietnam. Nowadays, the U.S. with its military primacy is aiming at a regime change in Iraq. In Vietnam, the U.S. reached the 500,000 men and left the country after 8 years of bloodshed. In Iraq, the cost in human lives was much smaller and 3 weeks were enough to succumb the military resistance.[2] The comparison is becoming valuable by a political perspective: the lessons and the warnings that may come out of the Vietnam War for policymakers in Iraq War, especially on legitimacy and sustainability. The U.S. that failed to create and sustain a government and political order in South Vietnam, is now trying to do the same in Iraq. The Republic of Vietnam was a Cold War creation of the U.S. and it depended totally for its viability on America. In the end, most of the South Vietnamese didnt have the willingness to fight and even die for its maintenance. The sustainability failed mostly because the Americans abandoned South Vietnam, mainly because of the fall of public support on this war, as time was passing by with increasing American human and economic loses and no remarkable progress. State-building in Iraq is still in progress, so a critic on U.S. policy on this matter would be unfounded. This essay tries to recognize and analyze the comparisons between the American intervention in Vietnam and in Iraq. I believe that the differences are equally important with the similarities for providing political insights. This essay tries to evaluate similarities and differences on: relative U.S. military power, war aims, nature, duration and scale of the war, U.S. manpower lose rates, the enemy, military operations, role of allies, challenges of state-building, and challenges of sustaining political support. It ends with conclusions and recommendations. Relative U.S. Military Power From a military perspective, the international and regional balances were different during the Vietnam and Iraq wars. During the Cold War, the United States relied on allied military support, so its military intervention that took place in Vietnam (1965) had restrains. On the other hand, United States intervention in Iraq (2003) was characterized by freedom of action, as the United States was the only superpower and its military supremacy was globally uncontested. During the Cold War, China and the Soviet Union had under their influence many communist areas in Europe and Asia, including Vietnam, so the U.S. had to be careful regarding its military action in the region. Americans were trying not to provoke directly the Chinese and the Soviet intervention, so they were using their military power with restrictions.[3] But even then, China and the Soviet Union were helping the Vietnamese Communists by providing them with weapons of technological advance. On Iraqs case, Saddam Husseins military strength had almost disappeared by 1991 and in 2003 he couldnt find military support by external actors. For the Iraqi soldiers, training was not a priority, that is why in 2003 the Americans didnt face great difficulties in crushing Iraqi military resistance, taking over Baghdad and overthrowing Saddam Hussein. War Aims The political objectives between the Iraq and Vietnam wars were different. In the 1960s the United States was trying to preserve the non-communist status quo in South Vietnam. In 2003, the United States expressed their intention to democratize Iraq in order to create a model for the rest of the countries in the Middle East. In South Vietnam, as long as the policies that were followed were in agreement with the U.S. interests in the Cold War, the absence of democracy was not an issue.[4] In the Vietnam War, the U.S. wanted to preserve the regime, by forcing North Vietnam to cease its military intervention in South Vietnam. For this purpose, a massive and well-organized military effort was necessary against a determined and skilled enemy. In contrast, in Iraq the U.S. wanted to change the regime and for doing so, less effort and time was needed, although the collapse of Saddam Husseins regime, gave the opportunity to anti-occupation groups to mount insurgent attacks on U.S. forces and reconstruction targets. Another difference was that one of the basic objectives in Iraq was the disarmament of weapons of mass destruction, while in Vietnam there was not such an issue but a struggle over territory. Moreover, the war on Iraq was justified as a part of the war against terrorism, led by al-Qaeda, which attacked the U.S. in September 11, 2001. In Vietnam War, the Americans didnt feel threatened by some kind of terrorism back in their homeland, despite the fact that Vietnamese Communist forces conducted terrorist attacks against South Vietnamese officials and U.S. civilian personnel. But, these attacks were restricted in the region.[5] The main American war aim in Vietnam was to safeguard the credibility of U.S. defense commitments throughout the world. Dean Rusk, the Secretary of State had stated: We have a commitment to assist the South Vietnamese to resist aggression from North. If the U.S. commitment in peace becomes unreliable, the communists would draw conclusions that would lead to our ruin. Indeed, failure to defend South Vietnam would lead American allies to question their credibility and communist advances would be encouraged in the Third World. The credibility of U.S. defense commitments was not an issue in the Iraq war. The Communist threat did not exist anymore and the American operations were not a response to Iraqi aggression. On the contrary, it was a war in order to prevent Iraqis acquisition of nuclear weapons and to stop the expansion of their biological weapons capability. This war depicted the U.S. willingness to use force against states that were seeking nuclear weapons and that could threaten them in the future. Nature, and Scale of the War The American intervention in Vietnam began as a materially self-sustaining, peasant-based communist insurgency in the South, against the South Vietnamese security forces that were supported by the U.S., and it ended up as a conventional military war between the U.S. and the North Vietnamese regular forces.[6] In contrast, U.S. military operation in Iraq began as conventional and quickly crushed Iraqs regular forces and ended up as a counterinsurgent campaign against terrorists. In Vietnam the Communists motivated a centrally-directed, perfect strategically revolutionary war, with a detailed political and economic program in order to mobilize the support of the peasants. Moreover, the communists in Vietnam had external support. The insurgency in Iraq was nothing like it. The Iraqi insurgents were former Baathist regime operatives, Sunni Arabs, al-Qaeda and other Islamist suicide bombers, hired gunmen and anti-American Shiites. So, the insurgency was not centrally directed. Moreover, it has no declared agenda, though it seems that their goal is to get the U.S. out of the country and cause instability on behalf of the restoration of Sunni Arab rule. Until recently the Iraqi insurgency rested mainly on the Sunni Arab community that consisted the 20% of the population. Now the insurgency has expanded but it cannot be compared to Vietnams situation where the peasants (80% of the population) formed the communist insurgency forces. When it comes to scale, the differences are many. In terms of the forces committed the U.S. military personnel in South Vietnam they reached 543,000 in 1969. Allied forces coming from other countries were 65,000 in 1968 and the South Vietnamese armed forced reached 820,000 soldiers. Communist troops numbered 700,000 in 1966.[7] By comparison, insurgent Sunni Arab fighters were no more than 5,000.[8] Militant Shiites, associated with the Muqtada al-Sadr movement and his Mahdi Army, may on the other hand number up to at least a few thousand fighters. The Vietnam War, unlike the Iraq War, had a huge and protracted aerial bombing component. In terms of bomb tonnage dropped, it was the largest air war in history. During the 1962-73 period, 8,000,000 tons dropped through Indochina.[9] U.S. aircraft losses due to hostile action were also numerous, as North Vietnam was supported by the Soviets who supplied them with technologically advanced air defenses. During 1962-73 period the U.S. aircraft loses totalled 8,500, 2,700 airmen were killed and 1,800 were captured and became prisoners.[10] In Iraq, U.S. air power comprised a large component of major operations and had one advantages over U.S. operations in Vietnam: the enemy didnt have effective air defenses. However, as in Vietnam, the helicopters proved vulnerable to hand-held missiles and to machine guns. During March 20-May 1, the Iraqis downed 30 helicopters.[11] U.S. manpower loss rates During the 1965-1972 period in the Vietnam War, the U.S. numbered 55,700 dead and 290,000 wounded, which is translated as 19 dead and 100 wounded per day. These rates are well above than in the Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, which records 2 deaths per day. By April 2004, U.S. casualties had reached 685 dead and more than 3,000 wounded.[12] The Enemy The number of the enemys forces was impressive in the Vietnam War, but so was the number of the U.S. and South Vietnamese forces, which combined to third-country allied forces, outnumbered the communist forces. U.S. forces in both cases had a fire power advantage over the enemy. Despite that fact, in the end the U.S. left South Vietnam to the Communists. One explanation would be because of the anti-war movement back in America and the hostility of the media[13]. Another, would be the outstanding performance of the enemy, based on the asymmetry of stakes. The Vietnamese conflict was a limited war for the United States but a total war for the Vietnamese Communists. The Americans underestimated the enemys ability and most importantly their desire to win even if that meant that they had to die over trying. For the Vietnamese Communists this war was about national reunification, independence and taking over the power in Vietnam.[14] The Communist forces losses during the American period of the Vietnam War had reached 1,100,000 dead and 2,000,000 civilian dead. In the 20th century, it is the highest military death toll proportional to its population (5%).[15] The enemy in Iraq is smaller in number, less ideologically and organizationally cohesive and has no external assistance. During the first period of the Iraqi insurgency, the most dangerous enemy elements were Baathist regime remnants that were trying to restore the old Saddamist order. The characteristics of the enemy since then seem to be changing with the constant appearance of anti-American Islamic militants in the struggle.[16] Religious extremists and foreign fighters begun to supplant Baathist remnants as the primary members of the insurgency, using suicide as an insurgent method and other types of bombings..[17] Additionally, an unknown number of criminals and unemployed former soldiers have been hired by the Baathists to engage in attacks on coalition forces for pay. Saddam Husseins capture brought into Iraq a number of foreign terrorists that now had the kind of freedom of movement that previously didnt have.[18] While Saddam was in charge, an effective internal security prevented any kind of insurgent activity. Moreover, terrorism against his regime was something that Saddam was fighting against. Moreover, al Qaeda takes advantage of the vacuum in the political system that Saddams regime fall created. Members of al Qaeda are considered as leaders of the major suicide bombings that have been taken place in the country, such as the attacks at the UN headquarters, the Jordanian embassy and Kurdish political parties.[19] Another part of the insurgents is people who seek revenge against the Americans for previous actions against their families and friends.[20] But, it is clear that Iraqi soldiers are not as capable as the Vietnamese Communists were. The Communists were organized into divisional-size units, whereas Iraqi fighters operate in squads. The Vietnamese Communists had external access to technological advanced weapons, whereas the Iraqis did not. But the Iraqi insurgents are better armed today, than the Vietnamese Communists in 1960, who relied on stolen and home-made weapons.[21] Iraq starting from Saddam Husseins era, has been a heavily-armed society. Last but not least, the Iraqis have no common ideology, strategy or vision for Iraqs future, while the Vietnamese Communists had. Iraqi insurgents operations are uncoordinated, even though all of them agree on the objective of Americans being thrown out of the country, they have not agreed on a strategy for doing so. Maybe their thought is to kill as much U.S. troops as they can in order to undercut domestic American political support? Military Operations In Vietnam the U.S. got involved in two wars at the same time: one on the ground in the South and an air war in the North. Both of them failed. In the South, the U.S. military forces believed that they could cause huge casualties, because of their fire power, on the Communists and that they would have the initiative in the war field.[22] But, they ignored the Communists readiness to sacrifice and their substantial manpower. Moreover, in fact, the Communists started most of the fire fights, which meant that they could control their losses by refusing combat when it suited them to do so. The enemy managed to keep losses within his capacity to replace them.[23] In the air war against North Vietnam the Americans also underestimated the enemys will to win. North Vietnam was a pre-industrial totalitarian area, so it was difficult to be defeated through air power. Moreover, the Soviets provided them with military means that imposed significant loses on American aircrafts.[24] North Vietnam had a powerful air defense system and the capacity of bomb damage repair, whereas Iraq in 2003 had not. The U.S. air losses in North Vietnam were significant. Apart from the enemys capacity and political restrictions in the use of force, there were other factors that influenced Americas military performance. There was no joint warfare in Vietnam.[25] On the contrary, inter-service rivalry dominated, producing disunity of command and precluding the provision of timely and useful military advice to civilian authority.[26] On the ground things werent any better. Rotational tours of duty of 1 year for enlisted personnel and 3-6 months for officers lead to small unit cohesion under fire and compromised the ability of officers and men alike to accumulate and sustain knowledge and skill in fighting. As a result, only the 15% of the U.S. military personnel in Vietnam were available for sustained ground combat operations, by 1968.[27] Communist forces were leaner because they relied more on stealth and cunning than firepower, and because they recruited hundreds of thousands of peasants to perform logistical tasks. Moreover, they lived in the field, unlike Americans. Vietnamese revolutionary war, combined mass political mobilization and a reliance of guerrilla tactics that deprived a firepower superior conventional foe of decisive targets to shoot at.[28] They relied on camouflage and night operations, hit-and-run attacks and use of terrain and populations as means of concealment. The purpose of Communists military operations was to weaken enemys will through protraction of hostilities. It was the only way for them as a swift victory over the Americans was impossible.[29] Insurgents in Iraq have different targets: U.S. and coalition troops, American civilian contractors, Iraqis working with Americans, oil and electrical power infrastructure. Moreover, Iraqi politicians, police stations and officers and members of the New Iraqi Army.[30] Their methods have evolved through time as the various groups have engaged in trial. They mainly include rocket-propelled grenades and use of improvised explosive devises. Iraqi police officers and other security forces are targets because they are considered to take over the power as soon as the U.S. forces leave the country. In addition, they are more vulnerable because their weapons are not as lethal as U.S. forces and they receive limited training in force protection.[31] Role of Allies In 1965 the United States did not bother to seek U.N. authorization for intervention in Vietnam because of the certainty of a Soviet veto.[32] In 2003, the United States sought an authorizing resolution but failed to garner even a majority among the U.N. Security Councils membership.[33] Indeed, in both cases, much of the rest of the world, including key allies, regarded U.S. military intervention as illegitimate. Not a single NATO ally joined the United States in Vietnam; on the contrary, only five other states aside from South Vietnam itself (Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines, South Korea, and Thailand) contributed combat troops.[34] If Americas allies in the Vietnam War were few, the opposite was true for the Vietnamese Communists. Unlike Saddam Husseins Iraq in 2003, the Communists in Vietnam had powerful and decisive allies. Behind the NLF in the South stood North Vietnam, and behind North Vietnam stood the Soviet Union and China. Deliveries included fighter aircraft, antiaircraft guns, tanks and helicopters. The Chinese, provided the Vietnamese Communists with huge quantities of weapons. Unlike the Russians, however, the Chinese provided over 300,000 antiaircraft and engineer troops who, in the face of escalating U.S. bombing, manned air defense systems and constructed, reconstructed, maintained, and defended North Vietnams transportation network, especially its railroad system.[35] In Iraq, as in Vietnam, the United States has sought international support both to reduce its military burden and to enhance the legitimacy of its policy, although it strongly resisted giving the United Nations a major voice in post-war Iraq policy. In Iraq, as in Vietnam, this effort produced disappointing results, although the number of countries contributing forces to Iraqs postwar stabilization is much more impressive than those that sent troops to Vietnam. In both cases, the United States bore the primary burden of the fighting, although in Vietnam, unlike Iraq, a large indigenous force performed important static defense and other military tasks. In Iraq, the most notable contribution came from the United Kingdom, which contributed 26,000 troops. Since the termination of major combat operations in May 1, 2003, a number of other countries, for a variety of motives, some of them having little to do with support for U.S. policy in Iraq, have committed limited force contingents to assist Iraqs post-war stabilization.[36] Additionally, the more Americanized the already heavily American foreign presence in Iraq becomes, the more likely it is that it will provoke Iraqi nationalist opposition. Some Iraqi nationalists may be drawn to the insurgent cause by what they view as a prolonged U.S. troop withdrawal and the continued absence of a new U.N. effort to take over the establishment of a new Iraq.[37] Challenges of State-Building The Vietnam War ended as a war between two states, the northern Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV) and the southern Republic of Vietnam (RVN). The former established in 1945 and the latter in 1954. The U.S. supported the RVN against further Communist expansion. If it werent the U.S. political, military and economic support, the anti-communist regime could not have been created and sustained.[38] The U.S. helped with the state-building in South Vietnam for two decades. It founded governmental institutions, it armed and trained the RVN armed forces, it subsidized South Vietnams economy and it tried to direct the RVN toward democratization. Despite these efforts, state-building failed, first of all because of the RVNs military defeat in 1975. The RVN was defeated so quickly that made an impression even to Communists.[39] The U.S. were to blame for it partially. It reduced its principal goal from securing an independent, non-Communist Vietnam to looking for a withdrawal and when the final Communist offensive was launched in 1975, they couldnt re-enter the war or provide the RVN with materials.[40] The RVN was to blame for the failure, too. Their weaknesses were: professional military inferiority, corruption and lack of political legitimacy. Moral disintegration explains why their three times bigger in size army, with larger equipment was that rapidly defeated.[41] Important RVNAF units didnt go to combat because they were to protect the government from potential threats of a coup detat, and generals that were very skilful were considered as political threats. In addition, military promotions were given with no meritocratic methods.[42] Moreover, many South Vietnamese started stealing American military and economic aid in order to get profit. They didnt care about going to war as for them the Americans were responsible for this task. Black market operations were one of the major components of RVNAF corruption.[43] The Communists fighting power was superior as first of all their political program was very clear: kick out the Americans, give land to the peasants and unite the nation. In addition, they had a totalitarian political system that controlled and directed the society more effectively than in South Vietnam. On the contrary, the RVNAF lacked in discipline and patriotism that would lead soldiers to sacrifice their lives.[44] Unlike the RVN, the Communists succeeded in persuading the majority of Vietnamese in both South and North that it was the only legitimate political representative of national independence. The RVN failed to obtain the necessary legitimacy in order to survive without the American support.[45] In Iraq, as in South Vietnam, the political success will come after the creation of a government that will be legitimized by the majority of people and after the creation of security forces that will be in position to protect this new political order. South Vietnam had a corrupted government and large but incompetent security forces. Its enemy, however, was very capable. On the other hand, in Iraq there is no government and no worth-mentioned security forces. Moreover, any government that the U.S. will try to create must be likeable from the Iraqis and must be secured by U.S. military power.[46] The main threat to state-building in Iraq lies not in the insurgency in central Iraq, but in the potential for the recent uprising of Shiite militants to reignite, expand, and include large elements of that community or the development of the kind of sectarian civil war that plunged Lebanon into near anarchy for almost 2 decades.[47] The creation of a stable and democratic Iraq is difficult. The U.S. does not have the time with their side. Most of the Iraqis and their Arab neighbours look Americas presence there suspiciously and question its motives. So the Iraqi governmental institutions are erected under political pressure and under the objections of Iraqi sectarian leaders.[48] The U.S. with its military presence undermine the constructed governments legitimacy. U.S. withdrawal will reassure nationalists and provide governmental institutions with some space in order to develop.[49] One the other hand, a premature withdrawal a security vacuum may cause disorder that could lead to a civil war. Iraq has met in the past tyranny and authoritarian regimes, so a democracy in order to work needs institutions that can be trusted to deliver representative government, while protecting minorities. In addition, the development of a political society where groups will have the opportunity to be elected without provoking fears to the losers, is necessary. Otherwise, the losers may try to ensure their safety by resisting to national institutions.[50] The institutions need to be protected by security and gradually the U.S. intents to pass this responsibility on Iraqis. This action may lead to the legitimacy of the new Iraq government, provided that the new forces will not operate with visible support from the U.S. . [51] Challenges of Sustaining Domestic Political Support The American intervention in Vietnam failed because citizens back home stopped supporting it. Communists had more to loose from a bad ending of this war than the U.S, so their political will was much stronger. The majorities and opinions of liberal newspapers, such as the Washington Post and New York Times supported the Vietnam war in the first place, as long as it didnt last long, there werent many casualties and it didnt influence much their economy.[52] People trusted the U.S. Government and supported its decisions. But as war went on, this support started to decrease. By March 1969, 66% of the citizens were opposed to the continuation of this war. From April 1969 to December 1972 the U.S. military personnel dropped from 543,000 to 24,000. Public opinion made Nixon pullout the American soldiers even though he knew that this would favour the Communists.[53] In Iraqs case, public support may decreased because of the inability to find any relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Moreover, the costs of the Iraq War are extravagant and they are to blame partially for the cumulative national debt.[54] Operation IRAQI FREEDOM was a war of choice and as such, like Vietnam, publics tolerance in deaths was limited. Before the war started, .U.S. Government assured people that the hole world would consider them as liberators of Iraq. Effects on public opinion between expectations and realities needs to be seen. However, polls taken in March 2004 by CNN/USA Today showed a decline in public support. Only 49% was in favour of the Iraq War. Moreover, the 43% believed that their government mislead them about whether Iraq has nuclear weapons.[55] Conclusions These two historical situations are not identical. Operation IRAQI FREEDOM achieved its goal, that is eliminating a regime that could be a threat to the U.S. . Despite that fact, the U.S. had to face the costly results of state-building while insurgent violence is still on, that resembles the Vietnam situation. Many academics believe that establishing democracy in Iraq is beyond Americas power and that another regime type must be approached, such as a benign authoritarian regime type along the lines of Kemal Ataturks Turkey, as a transition to more representative governance.[56] However, the U.S. must not abandon Iraq as it did with South Vietnam in 1975. It is possible that such an action would lead to civil war. In my opinion the differences between the two cases are more than the similarities, especially in the military aspects. But underestimating the Iraqi insurgents would be a mistake that the U.S. did with the Vietnamese Communists in Vietnam. After all, even the appearance of the insurgency after U.S. operations surprised many. In addition, even though the appeal of the Iraqi insurgency cannot be compared to the Vietnamese Communists, the Iraqi insurgency has attacked key targets to Iraqs reconstruction. Policymakers need to be careful with the two aspects that are similar in both wars. The challenges of state-building and the need to maintain domestic political support. State-building in Iraq could fail for the same reasons that failed in Vietnam: inability to create a political order that gets legitimacy by the citizens. Moreover, the domestic political support cannot be taken for granted, especially now that people have in their memories the consequences of the Vietnam War. In addition, the absence of a North Vietnam in Iraq could change, with a hostile external state intervention. For instance, Iran, which has strong state interests in Iraq that have so far been served by the U.S. destruction of the Saddam Hussein regime may try to cause chaos in Iraq. Iran has no interest in the resurrection of a powerful Iraq, and certainly not a democratic Iraq, and it has the means to get thousands of Iraqi Shiites on the streets to protest the U.S. occupation. To conclude with, it is important to mention the greatest difference between the two wars. The Vietnam War is a finished event, whereas Iraq War is still in progress. We know what happened in Vietnam, but we do not know what Iraqs fate will be. Robert L. Bartley, Iraq: Another Vietnam? Wall Street Journal, November 3, 2003 Harry G. Summers, Jr., Vietnam War Almanac, New York: Facts on File Publications, 1985, p. 113. See John W, Garver, The Chinese Threat and the Vietnam War, Parameters, Spring 1992, pp. 73-85. Larry Berman, Planning a Tragedy: The Americanization of the War in Vietnam, New York: W. W. Norton, 1982, p. 92. Larry Berman, Planning a Tragedy: The Americanization of the War in Vietnam, New York: W. W. Norton, 1982, p. 94. Shelby Stanton, Vietnam Order of Battle, Washington, DC: U.S. News Books, 1981, p. 333 James J. Wirtz, The Tet Offensive: Intelligence Failure and War, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991, pp. 247-251 David L. Anderson, The Columbia Guide to the Vietnam War, New York: Columbia University Press, 2002, pp. 286, 287, 288. Phillip S. Meilinger, Air Power: Myths and Facts, Maxwell AFB, AL; Air University Press, December 2003, p. 78. Anthony H. Cordes

The Destruction of the American Dream in Fitzgeralds The Great Gatsby

In The Great Gatsby, by F. Scott Fitzgerald, the main theme is most directly related to the American Dream. The American Dream is based on the idea that any person, no matter who they are, can become successful in life by working hard. The Great Gatsby is about what happened to the American Dream during the 1920's, an era when the dream had been corrupted by the relentless pursuit of wealth. The pursuit of the American Dream is the ultimate cause of the downfall of the main character, Jay Gatsby. Throughout the story, Jay Gatsby avoids telling the truth of his hard, ordinary childhood. He does this to keep his image and to save himself from the embarrassment of being in a state of poverty during his youth. His parents were unsuccessful people who worked on the farm, and because of this Gatsby never really accepted them as his parents. Jay Gatsby?s real name is Jay Gatz and he is from North Dakota. He changed his name to Jay Gatsby when he was seventeen years old, which was the beginning of his version of the American Dream. In all realities Gatsby arose from his Platonic view of himself, the idealistic self-view that a seventeen year old boy has of himself (Fitzgerald 104). Gatsby's embarrassing childhood is a major source of determination in his attempt to achieve the American Dream. It was in the army as a young adult when Gatsby first met Daisy. He initially loved Daisy because of her extraordinary house and because many other men had already been with her. Gatsby fell in love with Daisy, and in turn Daisy fell in love with Gatsby. ?Daisy was the first ?nice? girl that he had ever known?(Fitzgerald 155). Their love was an uneasy one at first for Gatsby to comprehend because he wasn?t rich by any standards and ... ...ramatic affirmation in fictional terms of the American spirit in the midst of an American world that denies the soul (Bewley 46).?Gatsby?s strong desire for wealth and Daisy, (the American Dream), prove to be the greatest reasons for his grave downfall. Works Cited Bewley, Marius. ?Scott Fitzgerald and the Collapse of the American Dream.? Modern Critical Views: F. Scott Fitzgerald. Ed. Harold Bloom. New York: Chelsea House Publishers,1985: 32-45. Bruccoli, Matthew J., Preface. The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1995. Fitzgerald, F. Scott. The Great Gatsby. 1st ed. New York: Scribner, 2004. Print. Mizener, Arthur. ?F.ScottFitzgerald: The Great Gatsby.? The American Novel: From James Fenimore Cooper to William Faulkner. Ed. Wallace Stegner. New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, 1965: 180-191.

Motivating Employees Essay -- Business Management

MOTIVATING YOUR EMPLOYEES Every human being needs motivation now and then. Incentives and recognition programs can support you in helping your employees become happier and more productive at work. As a leader, one of the main things to think about is how to recognize an employee for a performance that has exceeded expectations, objectives and goals. Therefore, I would like to introduce you in this paper to some ideas that hopefully would promote this method as one of the main priorities in today's and tomorrow's workplace. People want to do more than work as machines; they want to be productive as well as being recognized by others. Following the successful managers handbook, when employees have the opportunity to work with a leader who challenges, inspires and appreciates them, they are more likely to perform above their expectations. However, there are two different strategies when dealing with this matter that are necessary to identify before implementing these techniques. According to Philip Holmes, "although the two often seem interchangeable, recognition should not be confused with incentives. Recognition involves all the techniques that draw attention to employees who perform. Incentive programs generally use selective techniques to induce people to achieve a specific objective, such as increasing sales. Recognition can be spontaneous, even to the extent that there is no formal announcement that the organization has a recognition program. Incentives are designed to act as carrots, and they're publicized well in advance to whip up enthusiasm for winning a tangible reward". Turnover, absenteeism, and low productivity are some of the many reactions that an unmotivated worker might bring to the company. However, leaders ... ...ccording to the successful managers hand handbook, "people are the key to your organization's present and future success. Organizations compete for talent as well as for customers. Having a reputation as a desirable place to work helps organizations attract and retain top people. It is to your advantage to know the talent of your organization and to know what needs to be done to help each person develop, and understand the priority of a particular talent so you can meet your business goals". There are many methods to promote and expand employee motivation. The main goal to motivating your employees is to know them enough where as a leader you will know what motivates them, and as a result, you will create a motivation program based on those needs. I believe that employee satisfaction is the key to a successful workforce, and it will definitely help pay for itself.

The Beloved Country

Cry, The Beloved Country, a novel by South African Alan Paton, is the story of a father's search for his son, an experience which opened his mind to the prejudice and poverty prevalent in his country. As the story opens, Reverend Stephen Kumalo, is summoned to go to Johannesburg to help Kumalo's sister who was very ill. He goes to help his sister and also to look for a long-lost son, Absalom, who has gone to the city and never came back.When Kumalo arrives at Johannesburg, he discovers that his sister has become a prostitute and that his brother, John, has become a politician. He visits his brother for help in locating his son and from him Kumalo learns that his son worked at the Doornfontein Textiles Company with John's own son years before. From the factory, Kumalo is forwarded to a couple of addresses until he eventually finds his son in prison. Absalom killed a white man, Arthur Jarvis, who was also a proponent and activist for racial equality.Furthermore, he also meets a girl wh ich Absalom got pregnant and would have married before he was sent to prison. Kumalo talks to his son and finds a lawyer for him. The second part of the novel shifts to the viewpoint of James Jarvis, the father of the murdered Arthur. The police inform him of his son's death and he flies from Ndotsheni to the city to attend his son's funeral. There he learns the activities of his son and sets out to continue his cause. He also meets Kumalo whom he has to comfort and forgive.Absalom is found guilty of the murder and sentenced to death. Before Kumalo returns home to Ndotsheni, he marries his son to the pregnant girl and brings her and his nephew with Gertrude to the village. Back in Ndotsheni, he and Jarvis comes together to plan a way to help the village which at the time has been experiencing drought. The novel ends with Kumalo going up on a mountain on the evening of his son's execution. As the dawn breaks, he contemplates on his life, the blessings he has received, and of South Af rica and its social problems.How the novel relates to culture and values The novel takes a look at how elements in society, whether they are events or changing situations, affect the culture and values of a country. Cry, The Beloved Country explores how the social situations between the black and white races promote a culture of apartheid in South Africa, threaten the loss of the long-held values of the natives, and cause other social illnesses that plague the country even in contemporary times.Paton uses the story of Reverend Kumalo to define the larger problems discussed in the novel. The most obvious of these is how the divisions among the peoples of South Africa have been causing a series of problems that threaten to destroy the entire country. The more affluent and privileged whites are claiming the lands which the black natives have long revered and cultivated. As a result, more blacks are leaving the countryside for the cities where they believe they could find more meaningfu l and better-paying jobs as workers in industries.This results to a breakdown of the tribal system and the loss of previously strong-held beliefs and traditions. When these natives arrive in the city, they find that the situation is worse in that the urban areas themselves plague the black population with poverty and injustices. In retaliation, they commit violent crimes against the more privileged white people. The fear among whites against â€Å"native crime† and the hate of the blacks against â€Å"white injustice† fuels a cycle of violence and further chaos for the whole South African country.Yet, instead of being a pessimistic look at the situation, the novel would like to promote the values of kindness and cooperation among races to create change and a better future for the country. The friendship which evolves between Kumalo and the white Jarvis contains the author’s sentiments of everyone coming together instead of fighting each other to solve the basic problems of both the countryside and the urban areas. Paton promotes the values of family and religion as means by which the lost values could be reclaimed. Reference Paton, Alan. Cry, The Beloved Country.