Was the US justified in using the Bomb against Japan Essay

Was the US justified in using the Bomb against Japan - Essay Example The bombing was necessary to prevent massive causalities on either side in the planned invasion since it precipitated the surrender. Japan’s plan was to inflict very heavy losses, which the war-weary Americans would not stand; neither would they negotiate for peace. Had the US continued with the plan to land on Kyushu, they would have suffered horrendous causalities. Pre-inventing causalities approximation anticipated the loss of between 100,000 to 1 million American soldiers, with 5 to 10 million Japanese civilians and military losing their lives ( Chappell 145). It has been estimated that between 250,000 to 400,000 Asians under Japanese occupation would have lost their lives for every month that the war went on. In this context, the fact remains that the atomic bombing against Nagasaki and Hiroshima resulted to the end of the World War II much sooner than any other alternative that could have been used and in so doing, millions of lives were saved. Given the reason that the Japanese had caused 17 million deaths, it is justifiable that the atomic bombing on Japan was to end the war. According to President Truman, an atomic bomb was to be used on Japan without a warning. In a radio broadcast following the atomic bombing on the two cities, President Truman announced that he realized the disastrous implication of the atomic bomb, which they had used against those who attacked Americans without caution, at Pearl Harbor. The bomb was to attack those who have beaten and starved and executed American war prisoners against those who deserted all the pretense of abiding by the international warfare law, and it was meant to shorten the misery of young Americans. The US was to continue using it until they totally destroy Japan’s power of making war. A decision of Japanese surrender was the only move that would have stopped them. The president was well aware of the savage way in which the Japanese waged war in

Linguistics Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Linguistics - Essay Example The paper throws light on language as a device for communication, which gives people a means of comprehending each other. According to some English dictionaries the word â€Å"ain’t† is considered inappropriate. However, words are not described by short, clever explanations but are defined by the experiences of the listening. Language is known to change frequently. It is sometimes difficult to comprehend someone who uses terms, words or phrases that you have never heard before. The descriptive approach suggests that people should study language as it is rather than taking the models of language and enforcing them on people. As linguists affirm that the need of updating language manuals and dictionaries is becoming more vital. This materializes since new technologies, ideas, concepts, and new styles of communication and words shape themselves within the people and supplant older ones. Industries and sciences develop new concepts and technologies daily. Therefore, they ou ght to be and are being mirrored in our day-to-day language, acknowledged in our daily life. Particular words change their connotation; some become obsolete, others gain new meanings which are diverse from earlier ones. Alterations such as the creation of new words, concepts and ideas are not happening in some specific language, but in most of the languages in the world. Descripts suggest there is a need to study and understand words and languages or in other words describe them. (Rogers, p. 81). Supporters of descriptive approach claim that it is imperative to know them, notice, contemplate and become used to the vicissitudes. Not only does the industry influence the language, but the language is also influenced by it too. In his graft David Crystal explicated this portent as follows: "This would form a fragment of a much broader economic perspective, in which the traditional view, that the economy influences language, is supplemented by the notion that language exercises a strong influence on the economy. There are several domains in which languages play an important role, and thus contribute to their economic success" (Crystal, p. 172). As prescripts argue that there is a need for people to learn how to pronounce words and speak the languages since new and alternative words appear to name new things and processes, new idiomatic expressions, metaphors, similes and spellings appear to express older ones which are progressively getting out of use. Therefore, prescripts claim that these innovations sometimes stay undetected or not much responsiveness is paid to them. They become parts of our day-to-day communication and are used as though there is nothing new in them and hence there is more to be done than just describing them (Renouf & Kehoe, p. 31). Nonetheless, supporters of descriptive approach claim that if the change is recognized, it can face two likely reactions. The first one entails noting on them, trying to describe and categorize them, determining w hether to take them or not or merely accommodating them without any reservations. This is what is involved in descriptive approach. The approach intends to clearly and precisely define how some features of the language are made use of in communication (Kroch, p. 90). On the other hand, this may result to the comprehension that all the etymological units have same the features and may be categorized similarly. Contemporary linguists have a preference of applying descriptive approach to language since it does not necessitate them to decide what the language must look like or recommend what particular rules must be used. The descriptive approach obliges them only to define what language is, what fresh changes have surfaced, what their basic qualities are, and in what way are they used in communication

Values Of Turkey According To Hofstedes Values Politics Essay

Values Of Turkey According To Hofstedes Values Politics Essay Modern day Turkey has its roots in the former Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire had begun in the 13th century and stretched across the Middle East, including parts of Europe, Asia, and Africa. The Ottoman Empire largely collapsed after defeat in the First World War. After the World War, the Turkish War of Independence resulted in Turkey, in its modern day form, being founded in 1923. (CIA World Factbook) Istanbul, Turkeys largest city, also goes back to ancient times as it was formerly known as Constantinople. Further back in history, it was called Byzantium. It has been part of the Ottoman Empire as well as the Roman and Byzantine Empires. After the founding of Turkey, the country operated with a one party system. The first occurrence of an opposition party winning power was in 1950, with a peaceful transfer of power. (CIA World Factbook). However, this has not always been the case. Turkey has been unstable in the past. Military coups have taken place in 1960, 1971, and 1980, with civilians regaining power each time. (CIA World Factbook) Turkeys current government is a republican parliamentary democracy. There are three branches of government. The executive branch has a president who is elected to a five year term, but has a largely ceremonial role. The prime minister is the head of the government and is appointed by the president. The legislative branch is made up of the unicameral Grand National Assembly of Turkey. The judicial system contains the Constitutional Court, functioning much like the United States Supreme Court. (CIA World Factbook). Geographically, Turkey lies in the Middle East. Most of the country is part of southwestern Asia, with a small portion spilling into southeastern Europe. The country borders the Black Sea and Mediterranean Seas. Bordering countries include Iraq, Iran, Syria, as well as Greece and Bulgaria. (CIA World Factbook) While Turkey identifies more with the Middle East geographically, the country is more European than its neighbors. Turkey is a NATO member and has been since 1952. It is also a UN member since 1945. Currently, Turkey is a candidate to join the EU. (CIA World Factbook) Turkey has a population of almost seventy-seven million, ranking it seventeenth in the world. Its population is currently growing at a rate of 1.312%. (Dept. of State) The predominant religion is Muslim, with 99.8% of the population identifying themselves as such. (CIA World Factbook). Most of the Muslim population is Sunni. The other 0.2% of the population is made up mostly Christians and Jews, however this number pales in comparison to the Islamic population. (CIA World Factbook) Economically, Turkey is fairly developed. The economy consists of a mix of modern industry, commerce, with a fair amount of agriculture. 45.8% of the labor force works in the service sector. 29.5% spend their lives working in the agriculture sector, while the remaining 24.7% are in the industrial sector. (CIA World Factbook) Turkey has a gross domestic product of $863.3 billion, ranking it 18th in the world. (CIA World Factbook). The largest industrial sector is the textile industry, making up 33% of industry in the country. Automotive and electronic industries are growing. (CIA World Factbook) Another industry in Turkey is the oil industry. Oil pipelines connecting oil from the Middle East to Europe. (CIA World Factbook) The government has been a major participant in industry, banking, transport, and communication in the past, however this role is in decline as the country has experienced a move towards privatization. (CIA World Factbook) Turkey has not been immune to the current economic downturn that is facing the world. The gross domestic product shrunk 5.6% in the past year. Turkey also faces a high external debt. $274 billion dollars are owed to various countries. (CIA World Factbook) The Corruption Perception Index gives a score based on a perceived level of public corruption, ranking 180 different world countries. Turkey scores a 4.4 on the Corruption Perception Index, on a scale from zero to ten, with lower scores indicating more perceived corruption. Turkeys moderate score of 4.4 ranks them the 61st least perceived corrupted country in the world. (Transparency International) Geert Hofstede scores countries on different cultural dimensions in order to give a better understanding of the culture of a particular country. Hofstede measures the dimensions of power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism and masculinity. (itim International) Turkey scores high at 66 in power distance, indicating that the level of inequality in society is accepted and embraced. Turkey scores low in individualism at 37. This shows that Turkey has a more collectivist culture. In masculinity, Turkey receives a low score of 45. The last dimension, uncertainty avoidance measures with the tolerance of uncertainty in society. Turkey scores a 85 on this dimension. (itim International) This high score indicates that Turkey has a stricter, more intolerant society. S.J. Gray expanded on the ideas of Hosfstede, using Hofstedes dimensions to form additional hypothesis about a country and its accounting systems. Grays first hypothesis states that the higher a country ranks in individualism and lower it ranks in uncertainty avoidance and power distance, the higher the country will rank in professionalism. (Gray) According the Turkeys Hofstede values, it does not fall into the professional category. At the other end of the spectrum from professionalism is statutory control; an idea stating that the people of Turkey prefer a more rule-based approach with less judgment exercised. Grays second hypothesis states that the higher a country scores uncertainty avoidance and power distance and lower it scores in individualism, the more likely the country will value uniformity. Turkeys Hofstede values indicate that Turkey does in fact have high uniformity. According to Gray, Turks value a uniform and consistent approach, rather than adjusting to individual circumstances. The third hypothesis from S.J. Gray says that a country high in uncertainty avoidance and low in individualism and masculinity will rank high in conservatism. Hofstede values for Turkey indicate that Turkey does rank high in conservatism. This idea means that Turks prefer to be conservative in their measurements, allowing for an uncertain future, rather than taking an optimistic approach that may be less accurate. Grays last hypothesis states that a country that is high in power distance and uncertainty avoidance, and low in individualism and masculinity is a country that is high in secrecy. Turkey is likely to be high in secrecy according to its Hofstede values. According to Gray, Turks value confidentiality in business information. Together, Grays hypothesis theorize that Turkey is a country valuing statutory control, uniformity, conservatism, and secrecy. This puts Turkey on par with other Muslim countries in the Middle East such as Iran and Pakistan.

Voluntary Abortion or Compulsory Sterilization? :: Argumentative Persuasive Topics

Voluntary Abortion or  Compulsory Sterilization? Starting in the mid-1960s, some erosion of the anti-abortion laws began to take place. But these efforts have not been supported by many of the more vocal groups who are trying to do something about excess population growth; to them, compulsory birth control and compulsory sterilization are apparently more palatable than voluntary abortion. The result is legal chaos--which has been the situation with reference to abortion since it was first made illegal in this country. Contrary to popular belief, the legal strictures against abortion are of comparatively recent origin. Until the early nineteenth century--at common law both in England and in the United States--abortion before quickening was not illegal at all. It became so only in the early 1800s. And according to Professor Cyril Means and others who have studied the problem, the reason for the enactment of the laws was not protection of morals or of the "soul" of the fetus, but rather a reflection of the fact that at the time all surgical procedures were highly risky because of the probability of infection (this was before Lister). Abortions were made illegal for this reason except where they were necessary to save the life of the mother; that is, where the great risk of infection which every operation involved was outweighed by the risk of carrying that particular pre gnancy to term. The situation is today reversed; abortion under modern hospital conditions is safer than childbirth. Nor is there any evidence that abortion involves psychological health hazards. A poll of the American Psychiatric Association in the mid-1960s revealed overwhelming support for more easily available abortions and a conviction that adverse psychological sequelae from abortion are negligible both on an absolute standard and as compared with such sequelae from childbirth and unwanted children. Though the population experts have not yet aligned themselves on the side of abortion-law reform, something is beginning to happen. Seven states--Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Maryland, New Mexico, and North Carolina--have amended their laws to permit abortion not only to save life but also to protect the health, mental and physical, of the mother, in cases of rape and incest, and to avert the birth of defective offspring (Governor Reagan forced the omission of this ground in the California law). Many other states have been and are now considering abortion reform or repeal bills but usually without the support of the powerful groups who are backing other forms of population control.

Costs and Benefits from Clinton to Bush Essay

Under the administration of former president Bill Clinton during the fiscal year of 1999, approximately $108. 2 million was spent on border control which includes operations from criminal justice, law enforcement and actual border patrol along the twenty-four U. S. -Mexico borders alone (â€Å"Illegal Immigrants in U. S. /Mexico Border Counties Coalition†). In fiscal year 2007 under the administration of President George Bush, approximately $7. 8 billion was sought to finance the whole border patrol operations which was roughly $1 billion more than last year (Campbell). The jump in the budget allocation from 2006 is based on the target of President Bush to add 12,000 more border patrol agents across the country. But back in 2001 and previous years during the Clinton leadership, the border control operations were merely funded with an average of about $2 billion annually (Schmitt). The increase in the funding for border patrol from the Clinton through the Bush administrations has paved the way for more patrol equipments, patrol agents and other resources necessary for securing the borders. However, the increase in both manpower and patrolling facilities and equipments has not entirely stalled illegal immigrants from crossing the borders. The reason behind this is that in January of 2000 there were approximately 7 million illegal immigrants in America according to the Center for Immigration Studies or CIS (â€Å"How Many Illegal Aliens are in the U. S.? †) and almost half of immigrants after year 2000 were illegal aliens estimated at around 3. 7 million (Camarota). The continued illegal immigration to the United States is proof that border patrol measures are not sufficient which apparently stands as the primary reason behind the continued increase in funding. While the benefits from these measures include the lessening of illegal immigration, the problem of illegal immigration can hardly be stopped in a short span of time as it has been a major concern for more than a decade already. Works Cited Camarota, Steven A. â€Å"Immigrants at Mid-Decade: A Snapshot of America’s Foreign-Born Population in 2005†. Center for Immigration Studies. August 9, 2008. . Campbell, Dakin. â€Å"Big Payoff for Big Business on Border Security? â€Å". 2007. NewsInitiative. Org. August 9 2008. . â€Å"How Many Illegal Aliens are in the U. S.? † 2007. The American Resistance, August 9, 2008. . â€Å"Illegal Immigrants in U. S. /Mexico Border Counties Coalition†. Washington, DC: U. S. /Mexico Border Counties Coalition, February 2001. Schmitt, Eric. â€Å"Ambivalence Prevails in Immigration Policy†. 2001. New York Times. August 9, 2008. .

Pro gay marriage Essay

How would you feel if someone tried to deny you the right to marriage? Does the government have the right to define marriage and decide who may marry? Marriage is one of the most common and powerful ways to show love and secure rights in that relationship. Marriage is many times taken for granted and even abused by many people. People tend to forget that the right to marry is not available to all people everywhere in the United States; some people have gone as far as proposing an amendment to the Constitution that denies same sex marriage. While churches can base their practice on their religious beliefs, civil rights, including the right to marry, should not be denied to anyone.How would you feel if someone tried to deny you the right to marriage? Does the government have the right to define marriage and decide who may marry? Marriage is one of the most common and powerful ways to show love and secure rights in that relationship. Marriage is many times taken for granted and even abu sed by many people. People tend to forget that the right to marry is not available to all people everywhere in the United States; some people have gone as far as proposing an amendment to the Constitution that denies same sex marriage. While churches can base their practice on their religious beliefs, civil rights, including the right to marry, should not be denied to anyone. In a country governed by the rule of law, the right to marry for homosexuals is inconsistently applied; and even when allowed, it is inconstantly recognized. Why should this be? The 1st amendment of the Constitution states that a person’s religious beliefs, or a lack of thereof, must be protected. Legislatures also cannot discriminate against marriages of the minority portions of the population; homosexual people fall into that category. There is also an amendment stating there is separation of church and state; therefore, religion cannot play a role in the civil rights issues of same sex marriage. Not t oo long ago, interracial marriage was frowned upon just like same sex marriage is today. (source 1) Imagine waking up one day to a world that was completely opposite from the world we knew when falling asleep, meaning gay people were now straight and all straight people were now gay. Do you think we would be willing to fight for our rights or have them denied; personally I would fight for my right to marry whom I choose, just as millions of Americans are currently doing. America is the land of the free, but we are not free to marry whomever we would like. We are equals in this world whether we are Black, White,  Hispanic, Indian, or any other race for that matter. Why should we not be equals based on sexual orientation? Churches must base their practices on their teachings; but basic civil rights under the law must be assured to all. No one in this nation is a second class citizen: marriage is a right under our legal guarantees of equality. Even though gay marriage should be legalized, some people have different beliefs. In most religions including Christianity, Islam, and Orthodox Judaism, same sex preferences may be a sin. Some decree that only homosexual activity is sinful. People believe in procreation to repopulate the world, but are against gay marriage and homosexuals adopting children to have the family they cannot create on their own. If this is truly the key issue against gay marriage, then it would only seem reasonable that only people w ho are fertile and want to procreate should be able to get married according to this bias. America has never really given gay marriage a chance, but seems to believe gay marriage will weaken this institution by leading to high divorce rates. Divorce rates are already high, even though most churches are not in favor of divorce. â€Å"One reason legislatures are denying gay marriage is because they are fearful that opening the door to allowing gay marriages will open the door to polygamy as well. This would also mean reopening cases about polygamy in the past which they are not willing to do.† (source 4) Others are fearful for children’s futures, and they fear being raised by two fathers or by two mothers may compromise children’s mental capacities and confuse their moral understandings. Marriage, based on true affection for another person, is not only a social intuition but an economic and safety measure as well. In places where gay marriages are banned, the gay couples are not able to have the same benefits as others. When filing for health care or insurance through a job, gay couples are not able to add each other on to their accounts. Most loved ones, such as a spouse or a child, in a straight marriage, can make life altering decisions in a hospital if need be. Since gay marriage is not legal, said person’s spouse is not recognized as the next of kin and care is delayed or wishes denied. (Source 2) California, Hawaii, New York, and the District of Columbia all have domestic partnership laws and civil partnerships, meaning it is a marriage without the religious factor. Civil partnerships also give couples the ability to have joint bank accounts, live in the same house, and pay bills together. Homosexual couples  are not entitled to this in most states. Ma rriage benefits should be available to all couples, no matter what. Parenthood is a benefit of marriage but gay couples cannot have children by themselves, without some type of help. They often look to adoption agencies. In some cases, gay couples are put on longer waiting lists or denied completely. There are other benefits to being married as well, such as tax breaks, a shared last name and adoption sharing as well as legal standing in society. It would seem that the solution to the question of same sex marriage would be easy; allow an individual the right to choose a partner and marry whom he or she wants. However, the issue in our society is intertwined in questions or religion, politics, ethnicity, and tradition. These factors affect every major issue in the nation today. Although I and many others support the right to marry, overcoming societal hurdles will not be easily accomplished. We must be heard on this issue, however long it takes to make the needed changes. It would seem that the solution to the question of same sex marriage would be easy; allow an individual the right to choose a partner and marry whom he or she wants. However, the issue in our society is intertwined in questions or religion, politics, ethnicity, and tradition. These factors affect every major issue in the nation today. Although I and many others support the right to marry, overcoming societal hurdles will not be easily accomplished. We must be heard on this issue, however long it takes to make the needed changes.