The cost of the Vietnam War

The cost of the Vietnam War The United States Military took part in the Vietnam War, which started in 1957 and ended in 1975. At that time of war Vietnam was divided into North Vietnam (Communist system) and South Vietnam (non communist). North Vietnam didnt want the U.S. to support South Vietnam. South Vietnam took U.S. help to make Vietnam single nation. When Harry Truman was president, the United States had established a doctrine called containment. Originated by George Kennan and other diplomats and policy advisers, the policy of containment aimed not to fight a determined war with the communist Soviet Union, but instead to narrow communism and the Soviet Union to their existing boundaries. This containment led directly to the Vietnam War. The Soviet Union was determined to expand communism on the rest of the world. Communist governments would without doubt be part of Soviet kingdom but according to the doctrine of containment there could be no such thing as a neutral, one nation. It must be either part of the Soviet Union or Unites States. So, the belief was that all nations must be associated with either the United States or the Soviet Union. The United States was afraid of spreading of the communism, but the doctrine of containment made it difficult to see nations as separate, as places with different cultures, different problems, and different histories. The Vietnam was part of French Indochina in 1946. The Vietnamese fought with French to get their independence. Military equipment was provided by the United States still French were defeated in 1954. Then Vietnam was divided into North and South Vietnam. The war was mainly between the South Vietnamese and North Vietnamese known as the Viet Cong from 1957 to 1965. The military was provided by United States. The U.S. troops went to Vietnam in March 1965. They did most of the fighting with North Vietnam until 1969. By the end of 1969, the War seemed never-ending. Gradually United States began to pull out U.S. military. In January 1973, a negotiating meeting was arranged. Two months later last U.S. troops left Vietnam. Even though the fighting between North and South Vietnam resumed soon afterwards, U.S. troops did not return. On April 30, 1975, South Vietnam surrendered to North Vietnam and ended the war. The American military was not defeated in Vietnam. The American military did not lose a battle of any consequence. From a military standpoint, it was almost an unprecedented performance. (General William Westmoreland quoting Douglas Pike, a professor at the University of California, Berkley a renowned expert on the Vietnam war) [Westmoreland] Professor Pike does not categorically state that the United States did not lose the war in Vietnam; however, I believe that his comment is generally understood to mean that the United States did not lose the war. President Nixons secretary of defence James Schlesinger regretted that the military had too many restraints placed upon it during the war. Generals Maxwell Taylor and William Westmoreland lamented that they could have won the war if only the American people had not succumbed to a failure of will. Historian Henry S. Commanger like other humanists was sickened by the immorality by events taking place in Vietnam during the war stated, in part, †¦that some wars are so deeply immoral that they must be lost, that the war in Vietnam was one of these wars†¦ Here we have two viewpoints as to whether or not the war was won or lost. The first point is by Professor Pike, who seems to believe that the United States did not lose the war in Vietnam. The second viewpoint is expressed by James Schlesinger, Generals Taylor and Westmoreland and Henry Commanger. The comments by Secretary Schlesinger, Generals Taylor and Moreland seem to indicate that the United State did lose the war. One of Saigons wartime prime ministers, Nguyen Kao Ky, took an exceptional position among Vietnamese veterans living in the United States. He saw the roll of hearts and minds in Saigons defeat. In his book How We Lost the War in Vietnam he described the U.S. role in Vietnam as misguided and naive concerning the opinions of the common Vietnamese [Macros History the world report] The most famous nationalist leader in the twentieth century was Ho Chi Minh, born in 1890 to a low-level government employee. At the time of World War I, Ho travelled to Europe and joined other Vietnamese to plead for independence. The Communists seemed to be the only political force to strongly disapprove colonialism, so Ho and other nationalist joined the Communist party. In 1930 and 1931 the French brutally suppressed a Vietnamese uprising, killing 10,000 and deporting 50,000. In 1940 and 1941 the Japanese took over Vietnam but left collaborating French officials in charge. The Vietnamese, including Hos Communists went underground, used China as a base and in 1941 organized the Viet Minh. In the final days of World War II Viet Minh guerillas fought Japanese troops and worked with the United States. Ho sent formal messages to Washington describing himself as the George Washington of Vietnam and often mentioned the American Declaration of Independence and the Atlantic Charter. In August 29th, 1945 the Viet Minh organized the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV) and established headquarters in Hanoi. Vietnam seemed closer to independence than ever before. In the fall of 1944 State Department officials told President Roosevelt that Indochina and South east Asia were potentially important markets for American exports. Roosevelt never formulated exact plans for Indochina, so the French, with British and American military help, returned to Vietnam. They were not welcomed. Abandoned by the United States, receiving no support from Russia and now facing French forces the Viet Minh accepted a compromise with France in March 1946. Viet Minh and French soldiers clashed in December. One French bombardment of Haiphong killed several thousand civilians. The Viet Minh responded with guerilla terror. For the next eight years, Vietnam was wrecked by bloody combat, with the French holding the cities and the Viet Minh in the countryside. When Richard Nixon became President in 1969 he stated a plan Vietnamization that would end the war. He bombed North Vietnam, and in 1972 U.S. air power encouraged Vietnam to establish an agreement with the United States. The U.S. part of the agreement was that it would pull its troops out of Vietnam and take apart its bases. According to the agreement, the U.S. could replace arms, on a one-to-one basis, that had been supplied to the Saigon regime. President Nixon planned to use air power again to discourage Vietnam if they violated the agreement. U.S. citizens were turning against United States involvement in Vietnam War. They were influenced by what they saw on television including children running from bombings. The U.S. Congress responded to the change in public opinion on the war, and it voted for restrictions on material support to the regime in Saigon. During the ten year period that followed the military triumph of the communist forces in Vietnam, the much feared spread of communism to other nations in the Far East did not happen. Thailand, Burma, Indonesia or the Philippines did not follow communism. A communist force had taken power in Cambodia but did not remain in power long. Neither did the Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia in opposition to that communist force. Few lessoned were learned by the United States in this war. One was the removal of terror bombing. The second lesson was to restrict access for journalists and with military-led television. And the third lesson was that no U.S. troops should be committed to battle without a clear goal, a feasible plan and public support. Facts about the end of the war: The 140,000 evacuees in April 1975 during the fall of Saigon consisted almost entirely of civilians and Vietnamese military, NOT American military running for their lives. There were almost twice as many casualties in South east Asia (primarily Cambodia) the first two years after the fall of Saigon in 1975 then there were during the ten years the U.S. was involved in Vietnam. [1996 Information Please Almanac] More helicopter facts: Approximately 12,000 helicopters saw action in Vietnam (all services). Army UH-1s totalled 7,531,955 flight hours in Vietnam between October 1966 and the end of 1975. Army AH-1Gs totalled 1,038,969 flight hours in Vietnam. [VHPA databases] Around Fifty thousand Americans lost their lives. The losses to the Vietnamese people were awful. The financial cost to the United States comes to something over $150 billion dollars. Americans who lost their lives in war have their names engraved on a black granite wall. This is called the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, located in Washington, D.C. There are the around 58,000 Americans who paid the supreme sacrifice in the service of their country in Vietnam. References 1996 Information Please Almanac 1995 Information Please Almanac Atlas Yearbook 49th edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston New York 1996, pages 117, 161 and 292. Westmoreland Speech by General William C. Westmoreland before the Third Annual Reunion of the Vietnam Helicopter Pilots Association (VHPA) at the Washington, DC Hilton Hotel on July 5th, 1986 (reproduced in a Vietnam Helicopter Pilots Association Historical Reference Directory Volume 2A) Macros History the world report-http://www.vietnamwar.com/ Macros History the world report-http://www.fsmithya.com/h2/ch26.htm VHPA Databases Vietnam Helicopter Pilots Association Databases.

Dunlap V. Tennessee Valley Authority

1. What were the legal issues in this case? The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was to determine if the plaintiff, David Dunlap Dunlap, had met the burden of proof that the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) was liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by intentionally discriminating against him under both disparate impact and disparate treatment analyses and whether the TVA appeal to the District Court erred in each of these analyses could be legally supported to reverse their decision FindLaw, 2011). David Dunlap brought suit under Title VII, alleging racial discrimination by the TVA. The district court found that Dunlap had been subjected to discrimination under both disparate treatment and disparate impact analyses, concluding that TVA’s subjective hiring processes permitted racial bias against both Dunlap and other black applicants (Walsh, 2010). The Appeals Court affirmed the disparate treatment claim, reversed the disparate impact claim, and affirmed the district court’s award of damages and fees to Mr. Dunlap (Walsh, 2010). 2. Explain why the plaintiff’s disparate (adverse) impact claim failed. The disparate impact theory requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that an apparently neutral employment practice affects one group more harshly than another and that the practice is not justified by business necessity. Under this theory, proof of discriminatory intent is not required. Although the district court concluded that TVA’s interview process had been manipulated to exclude African-American candidates in general, the court of appeals disagreed, citing the lack of statistical proof demonstrating that a protected group was adversely affected thus establishing a â€Å"prima facie† case. Mr. Dunlap couldn’t prove his claim by only challenging the process used in his own interview, thus the ruling was that the district court clearly erred in finding a prima facie case of disparate impact (FindLaw, 2011). 3. Explain why the plaintiff’s disparate treatment claim succeeded. The disparate treatment doctrine requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that an employer has treated some people less favorably than others because of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Three provisions required to prove disparate treatment are (1) the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination; (2) the employer must articula te some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions, and (3) the plaintiff must prove that the stated reason was in fact pretextual. Proof of discriminatory motive is critical and may be inferred from the mere fact of differences in treatment. Proof may also be inferred from the falsity of the employer’s explanation for the treatment, (Walsh, 2010). Mr. Dunlap successfully established a prima facie case of disparate treatment by meeting the above 3 provisions; (1) he was African-American; (2) he was qualified for the position sought; and (3) white applicants with less experience were hired for 9 of the 10 open jobs. TVA attempted to rebut his claim by offering the selection matrix used during his interview as evidence to prove that he didn’t rank as one of the top 10 applicants due to his interview scores. However, Mr. Dunlap was able to refute TVA’s claim by demonstrating that his matrix score was manipulated to keep him out of top 10, thus proving it was merely a ‘pretext’ way for TVA to hide discriminatory intent. Both courts noted that the increased weight given to the interview created a more subjective process and the lack of an objective evaluation of the interview questions allowed the alteration of scores to produce a racially biased result. Also, there was proof that some of the score sheets were changed as many as 70 times without evidence of any legitimate reason to support the revisions. The court of appeals concurred with the district court that due to the above irregularities, the hiring matrix score used by TVA for not hiring Mr. Dunlap was â€Å"unreliable† and that discrimination motivated the hiring committee’s decision-making. (FindLaw, 2010). 4. What should the TVA have done differently with regard to interviewing and selecting candidates for these jobs? The following reflect several provisions the TVA should have done with regard to interviewing and selecting candidates for the 10 jobs. First, TVA should have done everything within its power to ensure the selec tion committee didn’t consist of racist representatives which is a bad reflection on the company. TVA needed to ensure these people are very aware and adhere to the company’s hiring and discrimination policies. Second, these representatives should be very familiar with and adhere to TVA’s â€Å"Principles and Practices† on filling vacant positions, mandate that â€Å"merit and efficiency form the basis for selection of job candidates,† stating that â€Å"education, training, experience, ability, and previous work performance serve as a basis for appraisal of merit and efficiency† (Walsh, 2010). The committee should also have adhered to the Cumberland plant HR Director’s e-mail that explicitly stated that interviewers should not award points for being a â€Å"diversity candidate† and â€Å"it is really important up front before your interviews start to have a definition of what ‘Outstanding,’ ‘Well-Qualified,’ and ‘Qualified’ is. This needs to be documented and dated before the interview process starts† (Walsh, 2010). The district court found the interviewers placed candidates in these categories after the interviews and ranking had been completed. In turn, this ensured the number of â€Å"Outstanding† applicants equaled the ‘exact’ number of job openings and their candidates of choice were in the top 10 group. As a result, TVA should ensure a legitimate matrix is developed for scoring purposes and not be manipulated for preferred results. Finally, TVA should screen their HR representatives very carefully prior to hiring; provide initial ethics and discrimination training and on an ongoing basis to ensure current laws are followed.ReferencesFindLaw (2011). US court of appeals sixth circuit. Retrieved fromhttp://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1092121.htmlUnited States Court of Appeals (March 21, 2008). Appeal from the United States District Court for the middle district of tennessee at nashville. No. 04-00045. Retrieved from http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0121p-06.pdf Walsh, D. J. (2010). Employment law for human resource practice: 2010 custom edition (3rd ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning   Dunlap v. Tennessee Valley Authority The Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects individuals against employment discrimination on the bases of color, as well as national origin, sex, religion. This law applies to any employers with 15 or more employees including the local state, government, employment agencies, labor organizations and federal government jobs. David Dunlap a fifty-two black male who worked as a boil maker for twenty years has perform numerous of jobs for Tennessee Valley Authority and decided to interview for one of the ten position that TVA had available at the Cumberland facility.The district court found that Dunlap was subject to discrimination under both disparate impact and disparate treatment theories. After analyzing both the disparate impact and the disparate treatment the disparate impact claim had failed due to the lack of evidence that Dunlap could provide to support his case, but he had enough evidence from the interview process to prove that the disparate treatment theory would help him t o win his case against Tennessee Valley Authority. Explain why the plaintiff’s disparate (adverse) impact claim fail?â€Å"The disparate impact theory requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that a facially neutral employment practice falls more harshly on one group than another and practice is not justified by business necessity. † With this â€Å"claim the plaintiffs most identify a specific employment practice to be challenged also through relevant statistical analysis proves that the challenged practice has an adverse on the protected group. † With the decision to hire only a certain amount of people to join the Tennessee Valley Authority Dunlap figured that he had a great chance of being a candidate due to the years that he have invested with the company.â€Å"Dunlap did not present evidence that the practice can show that a protected group was adversely impacted. † Since he could not prove his claim by challenging the process used in his own interview t he courts decided that the disparate impact claim would not be enough sufficient evidence to use against Tennessee Valley Authority. Explain why the plaintiff’s disparate treatment claim succeed? Dunlap succeeded with disparate treatment because he had efficient evidence (examples) to show the district court. The examples that he shared showed how he was treated within the interview process.Within the disparate treatment claim the plaintiff must be able to, â€Å"establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination; (2) the employer must articulate some legitimate, nondiscrimatory reason for its actions; and (3) the plaintiff must prove that the stated reason was in fact pretextual. † One of the examples that were used was that Dunlap received a 3. 7 for reporting missing some days off, but two other candidates received a 4. 2 and 5. 5 when they shouldn’t have received a better score than him. They also gave Dunlap a 4 on his safety record, even though he had a perfect score.Two of the candidates had two accidents in eleven years and they both received higher scores than Dunlap. He also talked about how he ranked 14 and they were split into three groups outstanding, qualified and well- qualified. The ten candidates were all chosen to have one of the positions. There were also emails to support some of the evidence Dunlap had. I think being able to prove the three requirements was why the plaintiff was successful. He was able to us examples that really supported him; the emails also helped him to be successful.The emails showed proof of discrimination amongst all candidates. What should the TVA have done differently with regard to interviewing and selecting candidates for these jobs? Due to this company being one of the hardest companies to get employed with, the Human Resource team should have first met up with each other to come up with characteristics that they would want each candidate to display to help the company be more of an asset our society. Secondly, I think that the Tennessee Valley Authority should have really sat down and analyze each candidate that was applying for the ten positions.With this company only have a select ten positions available the hiring managers should have been very specific with the candidates that should be chosen. They should have compared and contrasts the advantages and disadvantages of each candidate upon calling them to set up an interview. They should have taken some time to look at each application to cross out the ones that did not meet the characteristic that were initially brought about. Race should not have ever been a factor and seeking candidates to fill all ten open positions.Regardless of anyone’s race the job still has to be completed. Everyone should have been given a fair chance for any position available. They could have also given everyone a trial period to let their performance speak for itself. I think that each candidate should have been given a fair o pportunity to be rewarded with a job with Tennessee Valley Authority. So many companies try to use and abuse you as long as you will let them; Dunlap felt that he had an equal chance to get hired on with this company in which he had been working as temp for a long period of time.In conclusion, I really enjoyed reading the Dunlap vs. Tennessee Valley Authority legal case. This case shows me that sometimes the things that you want may not be the things that you really want to deal with. It also display the courageous to stand up for what is right. Although Dunlap knew that he had a great chance of being hired through Tennessee Valley Authority when he did not receive the position he knew that something had to be wrong. We as people do not think that your race plays a major part in receiving a job and although it is not right sometimes it does.Dunlap did a great job sharing the examples of the things that happen to him during the interview selection process. Even though the things that went on throughout the interview process were not right, he was able to show them that they were wrong. I am glad that he did not get discourage about pursuing the issue of being discriminated against. No matter what kind of case it may be the plaintiffs always have the burden of proof, which means it is up to the plaintiff to prove their case. Dunlap did just that!

Animal Rights: Pros and Cons of Animal Experiments

Animal rightsPros and cons of animal experiments Personaly I don't think that there are many pros about this subject, but I've written down a few. Pros: There are vaccines for most of the diseases. Like the ones you'll recive when you're an infant, wich are very important. If you have a deadly disease, like cancer for example, you can prolong your life for years, if you discover it early enough. Thanks to the science and research with animals. In some cases you can also help sick animals by doing tests on them.In my opinion there are more cons. To some lenght I do agree with animalactivists when they say that †we† kill the animals for no reason what so ever, but at the same time I don't think they realize that it's thanks to this that many of them are alive today. This is what I think. Cons: They do many unneccessary tests over and over even though it already exists workable vaccines. Then they simply make the animals suffer. Why do certain when they know that animals rea ct diffrently from humans?Some doctors only does the tests to rise in their position, to get better paid. They would go so far as giving the monkeys a cigarette, to get cancer, just so they can do tests on it! Some of the medicins isn't even legas or at least not recognized by WHO. So they have done som painful and cruel tests on the animals for their own gain. Cosmetics that are tested on animals doesn't have to be done. They're not the ones who will use it in the end anyway, test it on us humans instead! Or is the makeup ingredients so dangerous that you get permenantly damaged?

Inquire At Amos Giles Distillery Essay - 1756 Words

Inquire at Amos Giles Distillery is a gripping tale that first appeared in The Liberator on February 21, 1835. The Liberator was a notorious anti-slavery newspaper, founded by William Lloyd Garrison and Isaac Knapp in 1831. In the aforementioned story, Deacon Amos Giles is portrayed as a wicked man who horribly mistreats his workers, paying them extremely meager wages and going so far as to lock them inside his distillery as they labored. The relationship between Deacon Giles behavior and the abolitionist nature of The Liberator is hardly a coincidence – the tale is clearly made to serve the newspaper s agenda, as I intend to make clear. Before delving into the misdeeds of Deacon Giles, I feel it necessary to establish the background of the text in which the story was published. Right from its very first issue, The Liberator did not mince words regarding its goal, which was the â€Å"immediate and complete emancipation of all slaves† in the United States. William Lloyd Garrison, co-publisher of the newspaper, made this agenda crystal clear in the aforementioned first issue. In an open letter to the public, Garrison references The Declaration of Independence and its position on the unalienable rights and equality of men, finally ending his speech with the famously powerful words: â€Å"I am in earnest – I will not equivocate – I will not excuse – I will not retreat a single inch – AND I WILL BE HEARD.† Although the majority of the paper s readers were black in its early stages,Show MoreRelatedInquire At Amos Giles Distillery Essay1754 Words   |  8 PagesPage 1 Inquire at Amos Giles Distillery is a gripping tale that first appeared in The Liberator on February 21, 1835. The Liberator was a prominent anti-slavery newspaper, founded by William Lloyd Garrison and Isaac Knapp in 1831. In the short story, Deacon Amos Giles is portrayed as a wicked man who horribly mistreats his workers, paying them extremely meager wages and going so far as to lock them inside his distillery as they labored. The relationship between Deacon Giles behavior and the abolitionist