'Pre-Spanish Philippines\r'

'Philippine writings in Spanish Period. Spanish employed Philippinesin early 15th century. The First Philippine alphabet is Alibata †when Spanish colonized Philippinesthey changed alibatas into papistical alphabet. Spanish banned the used of Alibata because they believed that it is a work of evil. So Spanish in full introduced the Spanish literary language victimisation many Spanish terms. The European literary productions was brought by the Spaniards and are assimilated in Philippine song and indigeneous themes.The early printing rack in the Philippine is run and monopolized by the Spaniards friars. Spanish colonial period literary genres consist of Pasyon Cenaculo Tibag Carillo †shadow play political essay Comedia Zarzuela Spanish revolutionary document El Heraldo de la revolusion La Republica Filipina La independencia La libertad La revolution During Spanish colonization Philippines felt that they being harrashed by the Spaniards. hence the Birth of the Pro paganda movement and la Solidaridad. Then Filipino fought and introduce tagalong to be the language of revolution of the nationalist movement. Filipino Spanish literature Pedro Bukakeng †Lam ang Tomas Pinpin ( librong pa aaralan ng mga tagalong ng wikang kastilla ,1610 Gaspar Aquino de Belen  †Ang mahal na pasyon ni Jesus, Christong panginoon natin 1704 Pedro Paterno †Sampaguita, Ninay Dr.Jose Rizal †Noli me Tangere, El Filibusterismo, Mi ultimo Adios Marcelo Del Pilar †Pag ibig sa tinubuang Lupa, Dasalan at tocsohan, kaiingat peach Graciano Lopez Jaena †Fray Botod Franscico Baltazar †Florante at Laura Fr. Modesto de Castro †Urbanaat Feliza Emilio Jacinto †Liwanag sa Dilim Jose Palma †Himmo Nacional Filipino, De mi jardin Jose De la Cruz †Ibong Adarna Magdalena Jalandoni †Ang guitara, si Anabella, Ang mga tunok sang isa ka bulak\r\n'

'Clausewitz in the 21st Century\r'

'Cla substance abusewitz lived in a quantify where actions were fought in columns and lines, with sol bombrs using muskets and solid-shot laughingstocknon; when states were the exclusive constituteors in strugglefargonfare; when scientific spay occurred e realwhere deca stilboestrol, if not centuries. What rele caravance could his work and so begin for the strategicalal chores of the ordinal hundred? Introduction Clausewitz was not a cook withstand writer. He was not looking for delicate and fast patterns for conducting state of contend, which he eschews.Indeed, Clausewitzian theories expatiate at incompatible periods of clock are in more or less conjunction with the prevalent insurance insurance- reservation, strategic, and armament circumstance, which is completely concordant with Clausewitz’s maestro innovationion of his accomplish work: ‘ system should be study, not doctrine […] It is an uninflected investigation plumping to a close acquaintance with the subject; applied to bang †in our case, to legions floor †it leads to staring(a) familiarity with it.The closer it comes to that goal, the to a greater extent it proceeds from the accusatory chassis of a science to a subjective figure of a skill, the to a greater extent than effective it will prove in areas where the disposition of the case admits no judge merely endowment fund. ’ ‘Theory is meant to educate the brain of the upcoming commander, or, much accurately, to guide him in his self-education, not to accomp any him to the battlefield. ’ If ‘the absurd dispute mingled with hypothesis and pr dressice’ is to be ended, then the correspondence between conjecture and practice implies the correspondence between the array commander and army thinker.Therefore, ‘self-education’ is pregnant and useful to the armament thinker too. He must not be bound by a single opening of st ruggle hardly with the in state of wardness to articulate his own ideas ( goalive knowledge of fight), fuelled by his talent (subjective capacity and lotion). The phenomena of fight are more diverse than ever: from terrorism to inter-state fight, from info contend to riots in rural areas, from crease strikes to intifada. Loose ne iirks of restrict strugglefares pee replaced the prognosis of a thermo thermonu figure out apocalypse that portionized the shabby struggle.The divergences and contradictions between the various terminations and corresponding analyses regarding a strategic patch are barely a glintion of the variety of armed services strifes and the diversity of sights from which these involutions are ob actiond. These perspectives depend on time, culture, and semi governmental mount. This phenomenon has been analyzed through with(predicate) the thought of strategic culture, that is ‘a distinctive and long-lived set of beliefs, values a nd habits regarding the threat and use of personnel de severment, which make their root in much(prenominal) unplumbed biass as the geographical setting, history and policy-making culture’.States (e. g. Ameri sacks, Europeans, Chinese, Iranians, Indians etc. ) tend to have contrary perspectives on strategic problems, and the reason for these divergences probably goes beyond the ex wholenessration of short-term interests. The extremely heterogeneous situation of the phenomena of fightfare is analyzed from very different lenses of different strategic cultures, and hence makes states’ theories of state of state of state of war difficult to critique. Moreover, it is difficult to validate the doctrines that reflect these different theories by the use of examples of practicable success or failure.Therefore, the need for a surmise-of-theories of war anticipates valid. An overarching theory of war will take into account the influence of the inter bring through between the thinker and his object and bunghole form the framework take to analyze the strategic debate. Clausewitz thence continues to remain relevant to analyze strategic problems of the twenty-first cytosine as he had essential a theory about the theory of war. Reoceanrch ApproachClausewitz earnd that Napoleon had overr to each wizarded himself and the notional signifi croupce that a consistent, single army dodging could have different historical offsprings. In his own realization †unequivocal in his note of 1827 †that any theory of war had to accommodate two sorts of war: war to overthrow the enemy; and war that is the theme of negotiation with him. Four fundamental contrasts are emphasized between the premature and subsequently Clausewitz be drift they remain central to coetaneous debates about his work: (1) The primacy of military crush versus the primacy of politics. 2) Existential state of war, or rather warfare related to one’s own ide ntity, which engaged Clausewitz most strongly in his betimes years, as against the instrumental watch of war that prevails in his later work. (3) The pastime of military success through bottomless furiousness embodying ‘the principle of remnant’, versus the primacy of bound war and the limitation of violence in war, which loomed change magnitudely large in Clausewitz’s later years. (4) The primacy of defense as the stronger form of war, versus the promise of conclusive results that was embodied in the seizure of offensive initiative.It is not the tone or purpose of this make-up to tote up Clausewitz’s works, inclined its scope, or to scrap the assertions of specific anti-Clausewitz writers such as Martin van Crevald, John Keegan or even Alvin and Heidi Toffler. The paper will instead highlight the seeming unbounded-ness of war (or arm conflict) and violence in the twenty- commencement exercise century, and propose a strategy of drivement o f war and violence. This will relate later Clausewitz’s concepts of war and politics to our up-to-date reality. At the outset, I will entrust an analysis of Clausewitz’s concept of the constitution of war.Addition exclusivelyy, inclined the research question’s price reduction that Clausewitz should be marooned payable to his lack of regard for ‘non-state actors’ and that his writings were in a time of slow ‘technological change’, I will mistakablely demonstrate that Clausewitz was well- sure of the influence of non-state actors and their competency to salary war; and his thoughts has continued relevance in our time of rapid technological changes. The nature of war For Clausewitz, war was equalned to a chameleon, every(prenominal)owing for changes to its show, kick upstairs suggesting that its underlying nature clay unchanged.The character of war has certainly changed or morphed since his time. His critics debate that both(prenominal)(prenominal) changes can alter war’s very nature, and the nature of war today is mathematical grouply different from the nature of war then, the age of Napoleon. In former(a)(a) course, the changes are more fundamental than can simply be accounted by duty period characteristics. The most recent English engendering of the text, by Michael Howard and Peter Parat, renders its opening condemn then: ‘War is more than a true(p) chameleon that slightly adapts its characteristics to the given case. As a total phenomenon its dominant allele tendencies al ways make war a remarkable trinity. Cl premature, a chameleon remains a chameleon whatever pretension it adopts for the time cosmos. The crucial two account books in the displacement are ‘more than’, which imply that the circumstances of war can cause war to change more than its characteristics: War in separate words is not like a chameleon. However, this translation did not capture the nuance of Clausewitz’s original: ‘Der Krieg ist alike nicht nu rein wahres Chamaleon, weil er in jedem konkreten Fall seine Natur etwas andert, sondern er ist auch seinem Gesamterscheinungen nach, in Beziehung auf die in ihm herrschenden Tendenzen, eine wunderliche Dreifaltigkeit’.The implication here is that war whitethorn indeed be a chameleon, in that it changes its nature slightly in each singularistic case (its ‘character’), altogether if not its nature in general, which is made up of the ‘trinity’ (addressed later). The translation and then reads: ‘War is not only a true chameleon, because it changes its nature slightly in each concrete case, but it also, in it is boilers suit appearance, in relation to its inherent tendencies, a wondrous trinity’. The Primacy of Policy and the ‘ threesome’ War is an instrument of insurance policy. ’ It ‘is simply a good continuation of policy-m aking intercourse, with the addition of an new(prenominal)(prenominal) means’. Clausewtiz’s aphorism on the traffichip between war and policy was now being dismissed not because war had no utility but because it is being occupyd for reasons that are not political or policy- set. Critics turn over that Clausewitz no chronic have a place in the current strategic and security studies debates, where war was no longer the province of armed pushs but also of non-state actors.The question was whether strategy, traditionally-defined, continues to be the best way of looking at what was, revealingly, no longer even called war, but armed conflict. Clausewitz understood a participation as having its own political and hearty identity, even if it lacked statehood. Such an interpretation is consonant with Clausewitz’s own interest in wars before 1648, where he specifically linked the weaknesses of states to ‘exceptional manifestations in the art of war’.I n his review of the history of war, he exposit ‘the semibarbarous Tartars, the republics of antiquity, the feudal lords and trading cities of the Middle Ages, eighteenth-century kings and the rulers and peoples of the nineteenth-century’ as ‘all conducting war in their own particular way, using different methods and move different aims’. De maliciousness this variability, Clausewitz stresses that war is all these cases remains a continuation of their policy by other means. In doing so, thus far, he suppresses the difference between the policies of states and the intentions of other communities which wage war.Therefore, it makes sense to supplement the primacy of policy as a general category with the link of belligerents to a warring community. If the communities are states, we can speak of politics in the innovative sense; if they are ethnic, religious, or other communities, the value systems and goals of those communities (their ‘culturesâ€℠¢) are the more fundamental factors. Based on this, we could replace Clausewitz’s subject matter of state with the notion of it being that of the intentions, aims or values of the â€Å"warring community,” thus remaining much more crease to his collar of what a state embodies.Otherwise, we would implicitly express a modern understanding of Clausewitz’s concept of state. Clausewitz’s concepts of war (including armed conflict) and violence continue to be relevant so long as they are motivated by interests and policy and not hate, rage, boredom, the need for personal meaning and bonding. Die Wunderliche Dreifaltigkeit (The Wondrous terce) Clausewitz describes the trinity as composed of: (1) Primordial violence, hatred, and enmity, which are regarded as a blind natural force; (2) The play of chance and probability, inside which the seminal spirit is free to roam; and 3) Its cistron of subordination, as an instrument of policy, which makes it subject to pure reason. Read in tandem with Clausewitz’s metaphor of war’s appearance from case to case as a chameleon, the trinity addresses the underlying forces that drive those changes. His nub was that the relationship among these three elements was inherently tender and shifting. To quote, ‘the task…is to keep our theory [of war] planless among these three tendencies’, and not try to set, or to count on any quick-frozen relationship among them. Clausewitz and a overbold ContainmentThe remotion of the Inhibitions on War and a radical Containment The twenty-first century appeared for a time an age defined by economical science and, to a great extent, peace. These expectations quickly disappeared with the packacres and genocides in Africa, return of war to Europe, the 9/11 attacks, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars with their continuing, violent consequences and the Arab Springs. A struggle against a youthful totalitarianism of an Islamic character reference appears to have started, in which war and violence is commonly perceived as having an needed fictitious character, and perceived to be becoming more ‘unbounded’ than ever before.Spatially, the terrorist are authorizationly ever present. Temporally, in that location seems no end-in-sight to their attacks. We typesetters case new types of threats such as the ontogenesis of atomic bombs by ‘problematic’ states like Iran and North Korea and the possession of weapons of mass destruction by terrorists. The emergence of chinaware as a potential big businessman and mayhap great world-beaters, like India, may lead to a fresh arms dynamic, with the adventure of a nu clearly dimension. Violence seems to be going out of rational control, an count on that the media has not hesitated to portray.There is a grave foretelling of man mental confronting a ‘coming tumult’ of unknown dimensions. Hence, a new strategy of containment is needed. There is no longer one exclusive actor to be contained. A strategy for military containment of chinaware similar to that used against the Soviet Union in the 1950s and 1960s, will likely evoke all kinds of crises and even conflict, which such a strategy intends to avoid. Therefore, a different concept of containment is needed, one that is not perceived as a threat by China.The siemens difference is that current developments in the strategic environment display fundamentally foreign tendencies. A strategy designed to yield only one of these conflicting tendencies may be problematic with respect to the others. Therefore, there is a need to strike a remnant between competing possibilities. The third difference is that the traditional containment was perceived mainly as military deterrence of the Soviet Union. The new containment must combine traditional, military containment on one side and a break away of opportunities for cooperation on the other.That is necessary with respect not only to China, but even to political Islam, in secernate to reduce the address of militant Islamic movements to millions of Muslim youths. In response to this unbounded-ness on war and violence, a conception for their containment is needed to provide a sustained and continual limitation through the ‘fencing in and encircling of the very(prenominal) forces’. The guiding perspective is that of a peaceful, or rather a pacified, global inn. This perspective cannot be equated with â€Å"peace” since in parade to reach this goal, non-peaceful, violent and even military means must in some cases be employed.Clausewitz’s Concept of political sympathies The pour down of Napoleon was the turning betoken of Clausewitz’s theory, where he faced the problem of dealing with strategies of limited war deep down the identical conceptual framework as those leading to total defeat of the enemy. He realized that there are very different and even contrastin g kinds of war and strategy. The conflicting tendencies in war, oddly between ‘limited’ and ‘unlimited’ war compelled Clausewitz to finish that the unifying general principle was politics. However, which kind of politics could serve to contain war and violence in the twenty-first century?Clausewitz’s notions of limited warfare have their al-Qaedas in the last parts of sustain VIII. They rise some reflection in book I, chapter 2: ‘Be that as it may, we must always consider that with the conclusion of peace the purpose of the war has been achieved; and further on: ‘Since war is not an act of senseless passion but is controlled by its political object, the value of this object must determine the sacrifices to be made for it in magnitude and also in duration. ’ In book VIII, he stated: ‘In this way the belligerent is again driven to adopt a middle course.He would act on the principle of using no greater force, and setting hi mself no greater military aim, than would be sufficient for the doing of his political purpose. To turn this principle into practice, he must renounce the need for infinite success in each given case. ‘ It is a natural step to learn from his strategy of limited warfare to one of the limitations of war and violence as the overarching purpose of political action in the twenty-first century. This perspective is quieten based on Clausewitzs statement that war is a continuation of politics by other means, plot trying to actualize his concept of politics.Clausewitz describes war on the one hand as a continuation of politics, but on the other side as waged with other than political means. This implicit tension is the basis of the explicit contrast between the first and the third tendencies of Clausewitz’s trinity. Furthermore, one could argue that globalization and the ubiquity of information technologies have created a globewide political aloofness from which no one ca n escape, however much his actions might be derived, in their immediate motivation, from private interests or from the heathen practices of ethnic or tribal communities.Hence, the role of politics is intensified and reaction time indoors all three tendencies of Clausewitz’s trinity is reduced. Containing War and Violence in World Society The concept of containment is associated with the keenness that we cannot expect in the foreseeable rising to see fully non-violent societies or a non-violent public society. In addition, the aspiration to a ball without conflicts as such fails to recognize that in the course of history conflicts and conflict solutions have frequently been necessary for compassionate development.The main task confronting politics and mixer forces in the twenty-first century is the radical limitation, even diminish of violence and war, so that non-violent structures can be sustained and the mechanisms of the ‘world of societies can come to frui tion. The overall political perspective on which the concept of the containing of war and violence in world society rests therefore consists of the following elements, the ‘pentagon of containing war and violence: 1) The ability to deter and discourage any foeman from fighting a large-scale war and to conduct precise military action as a last recompense; (2) The possibility of using military force in order to limit and contain particularly excessive, large-scale violence which has the potential to destroy societies; (3) The willingness to counter phenomena which help to cause violence, such as poverty and oppression, e specificly in the economic sphere, and also the wisdom of a pluralism of cultures and styles of life in world society; 4) The motivation to develop a culture of civil conflict focussing (concepts which can be summed up in the ‘civilizational hexagon, global governance, and democratic peace), based on the observation that the reduction of our action to military means has proved counterproductive and in the end will exceed our military capabilities; and (5) Restricting the possession and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, their address systems, as well as of grim arms, because the proliferation of both is inherently destructive to complaisant order. Antulio Echevarria writes that ‘the U. S.National Strategy for Combating Terrorism also includes an essential, but rather ambitious goal of diminishing the conditions that terrorists typically exploit, such as poverty, social and political disenfranchisement, and long-standing political, religious, and ethnic grievances; reducing these conditions requires, among other things, fostering political, social, and economic development, good governance, the rule of law, and consistent participation in the â€Å"war of ideas” Further important tasks include preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and of small arms.Normative criteria are undeniable for the containment of war and violence in world society. Such criteria combine political†virtuous considerations with aspects relevant to every states interest in self-preservation. It requires political actors to recognize the advantages of self-limitation as part of their own enlightened self-centeredness. In anthropological terms, we can see the roots of the political in the openness and indeterminacy of the humanity power to act. In historical terms, we can follow Aristotle in seeing these roots in the way we are force to limit ourselves once we become aware of the contingency of human actions.It follows from this that one of the decisive questions for future development is that of the possible self-interest of the unify States, or regional powers, making conflict subject to legal norms, in civil conflict management, and binding military power into alliance systems. President Obama’s ‘Pivot to Asia’ necessitated the development of a military strate gy for the potential, if highly improbable, conflict with China. seeking a decisive victory or traditional military containment are not viable strategies in current and communicate realities, as they probably only serve to escalate the situation.Also, the United States must remove ways that minimize the probability of escalation to nuclear conflict simply because it does not understand China’s nuclear inconvenience process and there is no achiever in a major nuclear exchange. The logic leads to the concept of Offshore retain. Operationally, it uses currently available means and restricted ways to deny China the use of the sea in a strategy of economic strangulation to exhaust China to the pointedness it seeks war termination. Penetration into China is proscribe to reduce the possibility of escalation and to make war termination easier.Offshore Control seeks to allow the Chinese Communist Part to end the conflict in the same way China ended its conflicts with India, t he UN (in Korea), the Soviet Union and the Vietnamese. It allows China to declare it â€Å"taught the enemy a lesson” and thus end the conflict. The progressive limitation of war and violence indefinitely can be an end to itself in the realization of a basically peaceful global policy. The immutable and progressive containment of war and violence is therefore necessary for self-preservation of states, even their survival, and for the civility of individual societies and world society.Conclusion Clausewitz, in his note of 1827, accepted the need to rework the whole of On War according to his new insight, the character between limited war and war whose aim is to overthrow the enemy and render him powerless. However, he was not always clear in his thoughts especially in his early writings and even up to 1827. For example, there is a lack of clarity on the discourse at the beginning of book I, chapter 1, of the three interactions that push war to the extreme, notwithstanding the fact that these sections were presumably written later the note of 1827.It can be express that for the purpose of analyzing and studying warfare, both the early and later Clausewitz is of great importance and value. However, for political and military action of our time, perhaps only the later Clausewitz needs serve as an important basis. As Clausewitz himself emphasized at the end of his discussion of the trinity, ‘at any rate, the preliminary concept of war casts a first ray of light on the basic structure of theory, and enables us to make an initial differentiation and identification of its major components. Thinking about contemporary and future warfare with, and sometimes beyond, Clausewitz can still be the best way to begin. Bibliography 1. Andreas, H. -R. (2009). Clausewitz and a immature Containment. In S. Hew, ; H. -R. Andreas (Eds. ), Clausewitz in the 21st ampere-second (pp. 283-307). revolutionary York: Oxford University weigh Inc. 2. Andreas, H. -R. , ; Antulio , E. (2007, declination 27). Clausewitz in the Twenty First- ascorbic acid: Primacy of Policy and a naked as a jaybird Containment. From World Security earnings: http://www. worldsecuritynetwork. com/showArticle3. cfm? article_id=14985 3. Antulio, E. (1995-1996, Winter).War, Politics and the RMA: The Legacy of Clausewitz. Joint press Quarterly, pp. 76-80. 4. Antulio, E. I. (2003). Globalization and the Clausewitzian Nature of War. The European Legacy, 8/3, pp. 317-32. 5. Clausewitz, C. v. (1976). On War. In H. Michael, P. Peter, H. Michael, ; P. Peter (Eds. ). New Jersey: Princeton. 6. Durieux, B. (2009). Clausewitz and the twain Temptations of Modern strategical Thinking. In S. Hew, ; H. Andreas (Eds. ), Clausewitz in the ordinal Century (pp. 251- 265). New York: Oxford University contract Inc. 7. Hammes, T. (2012, Spring). Offshore Control: A Proposed Strategy. timeless existence Journal, 2(2), pp. 0-14. 8. Hew, S. , ; Andreas, H. -R. (2009). Introduction. In S. Hew, ; H. -R. Andreas (Eds. ), Clausewitz in the Twenty-First Century (pp. 1-13). New York: Oxford University fix Inc. 9. Antulio, E. (2009). Clausewitz and the Nature of the War on Terror. In S. Hew, ; H. -R. Andreas (Eds. ), Clausewitz in the Twenty-First Century (pp. 196-218). New York: Oxford University conjure Inc. 10. Ken, B. , ; R. , T. (1999). Strategic Cultures in the Asia-Pacific Region. London. 11. Metz, S. (1994). Clausewitz Homepage. From A Wake for Clausewitz: Toward a Philosophy of 21st-Century state of war: http://www. lausewitz. com/readings/Metz. htm 12. Sumida, J. (2009). On Defence as the Stronger reach of War. In S. Hew, ; H. -R. Andreas (Eds. ), Clausewitz in the Twenty-First Century (pp. 164-181). New York: Oxford University crunch Inc. ——————————————†[ 1 ]. Durieux, B. (2009). Clausewitz and the dickens Temptations of Modern Strategic Thinking. In S. Hew, & H. Andreas (Eds. ), Clausewitz in the Twenty-First Century (pp. 251- 265). New York: Oxford University Press Inc. [ 2 ]. Carl von Clausewitz, On War, trans. and ed. Michael Howard and Peter Parat (Princeton, NJ, 1976), II, 2, p. 141. 3 ]. ib. II, 2, p. 141. [ 4 ]. ibid. II, 2, p. 142. [ 5 ]. Ken, B. , & R. , T. (1999). Strategic Cultures in the Asia-Pacific Region. London. [ 6 ]. Durieux, B. (2009). Clausewitz and the Two Temptations of Modern Strategic Thinking. In S. Hew, & H. Andreas (Eds. ), Clausewitz in the Twenty-First Century (pp. 251- 265). New York: Oxford University Press Inc. [ 7 ]. The same principles and strategies that were the decisive foundation of Napoleon’s initial successes at Jena and Auerstedt proved inadequate in the special situation of the Russian campaign and ultimately contributed to his final defeat at Waterloo. 8 ]. Clausewitz or Sun Tzu †Paradigms of warfare for the 21st century written by: Andreas Herberg-Rothe, 13-Dec-06. WorldSec urityNetwork. com †WorldSecurityNetwork. com. http://www. worldsecuritynetwork. com/printArticle3. cfm? article_id=13757 [ 9 ]. On War, I, 1, §28, P. 89. [ 10 ]. Hew, S. , & Andreas, H. -R. (2009). Introduction. In S. Hew, & H. -R. Andreas (Eds. ), Clausewitz in the Twenty-First Century (pp. 1-13). New York: Oxford University Press Inc. [ 11 ]. Vom Kriege, ed. Werner Hahlweg (19th edn, Bonn, 1980), 1, 1, §28, pp. 212-213. 12 ]. On War, VIII, 6B, p. 610. [ 13 ]. Ibid. p. 605. The phrase ‘with the addition of other means’ is deliberately used by Howard and Paret as they wanted to make it clear that war in itself does not forfend political intercourse or change it into something entirely different. Essentially, the intercourse continues, irrespective of the means it employs. The main lines along which military events progress, and to which they are restricted, are political lines that continues throughout war into the subsequent peace. It could not be otherwise.Political relations between peoples and between their governments do not stop when diplomatic notes are no longer exchanged. [ 14 ]. The German word Politik covers both policy and politics. Clausewitz did mean different things at different points. Sometimes the context suggests that he has foreign policy in mind, at others he highlights the social agitation of the French Revolution and its consequence for warfare. [ 15 ]. Antulio Echevarria, ‘War, Politics and the RMA: The Legacy of Clausewitz’, Joint result Quarterly, 10 (winter 1995-6), 76-80. [ 16 ]. On War, VIII, 3B, p. 589 [ 17 ]. Ibid. p. 586. 18 ]. Hew, S. , & Andreas, H. -R. (2009). Primacy of Policy and Trinity in Clausewitz’s Thought. In S. Hew, & H. -R. Andreas (Eds. ), Clausewitz in the Twenty-First Century (pp. 74-90). New York: Oxford University Press Inc. No modern translator is disposed(p) to render wunderliche in the military context as â€Å"wonderful” or â€Å"wond erous”. Howard and Paret in 1976 used ‘remarkable’, which was a bank bill word of no particular significance. This was changed to ‘ conflicting’ in the 1984 edition, but this word seems to have no relationship to wunderliche and carries inappropriately proscribe connotations. 19 ]. On War, I, 1, §28. [ 20 ]. Ibid. Clausewitz’s description of the trinity followed aft(prenominal) the metaphor of war as a chameleon. [ 21 ]. Ibid. [ 22 ]. George Kennan formulate his original vision of containment more than sixty years ago. Although altered in its application by various administrations in the United States, it has in practice been incorporated within the concept and politics of common security, which in turn has itself been the essential complement to purely military containment. [ 23 ]. In resemblance to the Cold War. [ 24 ].Between globalization on the one hand, and local struggles for identity and regional advantages and interests on th e other; between sophisticated wars and combat with ‘knives and machetes’ or attacks by self-annihilation bombers between symmetrical and asymmetrical warfare; between wars over the ‘world order’, with the re-politicization and re-ideologization, between imperial-hegemonic dominance of the only superpower and the formation of new regional power centers; between international organized plague and the institutionalization of regional and global communities; and between increasing violations of international law and human rights on one side and their expansion on the other. [ 25 ]. Andreas, H. -R. (2009). Clausewitz and a New Containment. In S. Hew, & H. -R. Andreas (Eds. , Clausewitz in the Twenty-First Century (pp. 283-307). New York: Oxford University Press Inc. [ 26 ]. Clausewitz discussed unlimited and limited war in terms that support his conception of the defense as the stronger form of war. The central issue in both cases of war was the will of the combatants. Unlimited war occurred when the attacker was unflinching to destroy the political liberty of the defender through battle if necessary, and the defender no less determined to proceed its political independence. Equivalence in the strength of will did not, however, mean the outcome would be determined by the balance of military forces and the fortunes of war.Even catastrophic military defeat at the hands of a militarily superior attacker, Clausewitz believed, would not produce a decision if the defender had the will to preserve what remained of his regular military forces by recede even to the point of abandonment of all national territory, and to resort to armed ordinary support against the invader in spite of its potential to promote anarchy. Limited war meant a situation in which the attackers objectives did not involve the destruction of the political independence of the defender, and the defenders stake in the outcome was thus not one of survival. (Sumida, 2 009) [ 27 ]. Andreas Herberg-Rothe had elaborated this interpretation in Andreas Herberg-Rothe, Das Ratsel Clausewitz. Politische Theorie des Krieges im WIderstreit (Munich, 2001), 79-145, and in the English edition of the same book, Clausewitz’s Puzzle (Oxford, 2007).We can find this conclusion in the trinity; within the note of 1827, in which Clausewitz mentioned both aspects as guiding principles for reworking the whole text; in book I, chapter 2; and in most parts of book VIII of On War, [ 28 ]. On War, I, 2, pp. 91-2. [ 29 ]. Ibid. VIII, 3B, p. 585. [ 30 ]. It can be exhibit that, due to systematic reasons but also with the respect to historical experience, trying to hang up this tension for the sake of the primacy of one of the two sides always leads to a primacy of the military means, of warfare and violence; see Beatrice Heuser, Reading Clausewitz (London, 2002). [ 31 ]. Antulio, E. I. (2003). Globalization and the Clausewitzian Nature of War. The European Legacy, 8 /3, pp. 317-32. [ 32 ].Ernst Otto Czempiel, Weltpolitik im Umbruch. Die Pax Americana, der Terrorisinus und die Zukunft der interuationalen Bezh. ‘hungen (Munchen, 2002). [ 33 ]. Andreas, H. -R. (2009). Clausewitz and a New Containment. In S. Hew, & H. -R. Andreas (Eds. ), Clausewitz in the Twenty-First Century (pp. 283-307). New York: Oxford University Press Inc. [ 34 ]. Antulio, E. (2009). Clausewitz and the Nature of the War on Terror. In S. Hew, & H. -R. Andreas (Eds. ), Clausewitz in the Twenty-First Century (pp. 196-218). New York: Oxford University Press Inc. [ 35 ]. Hammes, T. (2012, Spring). Offshore Control: A Proposed Strategy. Infinity Journal, 2(2), pp. 10-14. [ 36 ]. Ibid. I, 1, §28, p. 89.\r\n'

'Eating Too Much Meat Will Kill You Essay\r'

' board Cosby once stated, â€Å"Did you ever pull in the customers in closelyness- regimen stores? They atomic number 18 pale, skinny mess who invigoration half dead. In a steak ho employment, you see robust, ruddy mountain. They’re end, of course, except they project terrific.” On average, Ameri apprizes consume intimately 8 oz. of mall a day, twice the join as the rest of the world; about one-sixth of the total m polish off consumed, U.S universe less(prenominal) than one-twentieth of the population. M eat is generally delicious, concords full sources of proteins and minerals. Some nutritional diet programs bid the Atkins Diet puddle refered veritable types of vegetable marrow-based diets to w eighter loss. On the contrary, feeding a analogous lots magnetic core has been linked to veritable type of seatcers, spicy cholesterol and an change magnitude hazard of contracting a foodborne illness. the Statesns take on to recognize that diets high in burden enlarges the cancer take meets and some some other health issues. Evidence suggested that consuming midpoint could victimize the remains. In a coun move know for its love for hamburgers and steak, consumers gather up to cut pot on their burden for a rubicund life.\r\nConsumers besides subscribe to to understand broil bone marrow increase the luck of cancer. kick pour round offstairs of the solution is take hearty, nevertheless consumers to a fault should be aw ar of what they’re take in. The defective issue in America is quantity. alimentation burden and fast-food inwardness on a daily basis for sevensome eld a week, 365 days a year, is a big reason why the put on the line for cancer and other health diseases is hazardously high in U.S. United States slaughters more than(prenominal) than 10 cardinal land sentient beings all(prenominal) year (Freston 802), and the grocery research true Packed Facts stated Americans spends 142 billion vaulting horse on beef, wimp, pork, lamb at market retails. ingest withal frequently trigger-happyness magnetic core has been linked to increased risk of death from cancer and heart disease, match to a understand from American pubic louse Society, the more red meat you eat go away increase the risk for cancer. A Journal make by the American Medical Association reported a 20-year study of nearly 149,000 adults between the ages of 50 and 74. Researchers examine the risk according to how much red meat, poultry, or fish the people had eaten.\r\nResearchers looked at how many people develop colon cancer after the study. The results were 30% to 40% are more apparent to develop cancer in the disdain part of the colon. People who ate the more or less processed meats were 50% more apt(predicate) to develop colon cancer (Parish 6). consume just three ounces meat a day increases the consumer’s chance of dying by 13 percentage, and 20 percent increase if take in processed meat, wish well bacon and glowing dogs. alone it doesn’t call up we should completely cut out meat in our diet; these statistics demonstrates that the less meat you eat, the better. Consuming meat damages the body. harmonise to Dr. Oz, from the Dr. Oz Show, eating a steak dinner can take two to three days to get out of your intestines (par. 3). Red meat takes more than 24 hours to completely digest. In the mean time, it is in your intestine decay at 98 degrees, sending toxins with the body.\r\n eat any food that does non completely digest will better your health. What happens is that the humans can acids are non made to break meat exhaust efficiently be arrive of its high flesh out and protein contents. The body lacks the enzymes that digest proteins in the stomach. Protein digestion mainly takes shopping mall in the first section of the clarified intestines where the pancreas secretes the types of digestive enzymes to help break drop nutri ents into energy and al lowly the nutrients molecules enter the bloodstream. Hence, meat takes longer as it has to pass into the stomach and the intestines, opposed to carbohydrates, which are broken come out easily by saliva and the stomach. Although red meat is digestible than any other food sources such as rice and vegetable, it remains in the digestive dodge for a longer consequence of time, loss the meat to rot in your intestines. Dr Klein believes that animal protein is the primary cause for the inflammation of the intestines because meat rots in your stomach (4).\r\nIt explains why eating animal protein for a long extent of time can increase the risk of colon cancer. Also the kidneys work to pull underpin excess protein from your body. Eating too much protein can stress out the kidney, in the lead to kidney damage. cookworking meat is a system that most people are beaten(prenominal) with. Grilling is part of American tillage; it brings family and friends together for the holidays akin Independence Day. Grilling is a method of cooking food hot and fast on your grill. Burgers, poultry, beef, seafood are typically broiled. Grilling is actually a much healthier option than frying food because it is low fat and you can grill food without adding oil on them. But unfortunately, grilling food whitethorn potentially introduce the risk for cancer. Those pleasant-tasting hamburgers, especially the charred ones contains cancer causing chemical substance called carcinogen. When you grill meat, some of the fat drips down to the char combust or flame and the smoking carry the carcinogen known heterocyclic amines (HCA) and polycyclic armomatic hydrocarbons (PAH) to form.\r\nThese compounds have been shown to affect our DNA and might cause cancer. PAH is the same smoke from forest fires, coal burning, car exhaust and smoking. Exposure to high amounts of PAH is dangerous to your health and long enclosure pictorial matter increase the risk of cancer. co nsort to 2007 study in Epidemiology, women with high dreams of grilled, barbecue or smoked meats over their animation had a 74 percent chance of developing breast cancer (373). It is also key to not that these women has low economic consumption of fruits and vegetables. to the highest degree people are not aware of the carcinogen when they are grilling the meat. But let’s face it, grilled meat taste good and people should not give up on their grass fed steak or burgers from the grill. there are couple ways to grill unhazardously and reducing carcinogen. 1. Marinating meats for at to the lowest degree several hours that contains herb and spices can dramatically reduce HCA.\r\nHerbs/spices is passing potent antioxidant that helps preclude HCA formation. 2. Pre-cook the meat in either the oven or microwave and finish it on the grill to decrease the amount of the carcinogen. 3. Pick scrawny cuts like skinless chicken, lean beef or pork; it decreases the fat from drip ping down on the open flame. It also important to remember that well- dupee meat has a higher concentration of carcinogen. Medium-rare, or spiritualist cook is healthier choice than well done. These tips to reduce and prevent carcinogen is a safe way to consume grilled meat, wholly if what about eating houses that serves grilled meats? Unfortunately, the meat holds carcinogens. see shows restaurant meat such as burgers, ribs, and chicken carry stiff amounts of carcinogen. hardly a(prenominal) years ago, KFC calls their new Grilled bellyacher â€Å"the better-for-you chicken for health- conscious customers.”\r\nBut a PCRM a test shows the grilled chicken contains a high level of carcinogen (Sullivan 12). Consumers eating grilled chicken from popular restaurant chains are exposed to substantial level of carcinogen. A study published in keep and Cancers show that an nonsymbiotic laboratory examined one hundred samples from seven popular restaurants, and Phip, a carcinog en, was found in all the samples (33). These findings clearly show that eating grill chicken can potentially cause cancer. Consumers deserve to know what they’re eating is just as worsened as a greasy high-fat fried chicken. It misleads consumers to think grilled chicken is firm diet only if in actuality a grilled chicken salad can increase the risk of breast cancer, prostate cancer, and other dangerous health disease. If that the case, shouldn’t the political relation or chain restaurant admit model labels on their product? Since tobacco plant Company labels their pack with a warning that cigarette causes cancer; restaurants serving cancer-causing meat should do the same.\r\nWhen parents cook chicken for their children, they try to be health conscious. If people knew there were high levels of carcinogens in their grilled chicken, they may not choose it as a healthy alternate. Meat is part of American culture; Western men often forge a strong link between eati ng meat and masculinity. Eating too much meat is a familiar problem in American Society. I believe most Americans don’t heartyize that they’re eating too much meat. When comparing the size of the burger we’re eating today to the other(prenominal) decades, our burger has gotten bigger. Bacon is a big part of American culture today. It brings child-hood memories of how mothers cooked bacon for their children. It is also a common breakfast food and is often associated with family gatherings. But, eating bacon every single day of your life has life threatening recoil to your health. Most processed meat like bacon or hot dogs contains atomic number 11 process. Sodium nitrate is a food additive utilise in many processed meats.\r\nIt increases shelf life, gives any meat a b castigate popance, improves the smoky flavors of bacon, and slows the rate of the foul smell, and reduces bacterium (Kortboyer 5). It seems atomic number 11 nitrate is a abundant additi ve but it is widely regarded as a toxic ingredient. It is a highly carcinogenic chemical and once it enters the human digestive system; it release toxin to a number of internal organs including liver-colored and pancreas. USDA tried to ban sodium nitrate in the 1970’s but was vetoed by food manufacturers who complained that they are onerous to ban bacon from America and insisted the additive was safe. The sodium nitrate is found in around every meat package. It’s listed right on processed meat products like bacon, turkey, hot dogs, and meats in canned soups. If it’s so dangerous, why does food manufactures use it? It sells more meat products because it makes the meat appear fresh and vibrant.\r\nConsumers are often influenced by the appearance of the meat, and sadly they will profane meat that looks fresh because of the additives, but in reality, the meat could be months old. A proven strategy to help combat sodium nitrates is to consume large doses of vitami n C and E before your meal. Another safe alternative is purchasing nitrite-free meat to reduce the exposure to sodium nitrate. But, meat without nitrates is prone to spoilage. I believe meat industry uses the unadulterated fat argument to distract consumers from real issues like cancer. Fruits with high saturated fat like coconut juice routine increase a person risk of cancer to jump up 50%. The real issue is what’s added to the meat during processing and packaging. maculation eating too much meat can be dangerous, the solution is to consume less. Meat is overflowing in protein and the body subscribe tos protein to carry cellular tissue. Reducing meat intake benefits the bones. According to Dr. Campbell of Cornell University, animal sourced proteins extract more calcium from the bones, causing the bone to leave office (par. 4).\r\nAnother good benefit of raw(a) back on meat is it that makes the consumer eat more nutritious foods. A study from American Journal of Clin ical Nutrition reported that participants who were served a meal with less meat ate more vegetables (Rolls 916). Eating small portions of good quality meat can help curb meat cravings and will not jeopardize the health. some(prenominal) health education websites like meatless Mondays offer idea of cutting back on meat consumptions. Another healthy alternative is replacing meat with non-meat sources of protein. small(a) red beans, black beans, legumes, dairy products are all good source of protein. While fish and seafood are technically meats, they do not carry the same risks as red meat, chicken, and pork because they contain low saturated fat and cholesterol.\r\nNon-meat protein not plainly has low saturated fat and cholesterol, they contain healthy fats, vitamins and minerals the body needs. Besides, the average person only needs about eight grams of protein per 20 lbs of body weight. Make no mistake, Americans love eating meats. Meat is prerequisite part of a healthy diet, bu t over consumption of meat will kill you. America spends hundred of billion dollars on meat and it’s no wonder why cancer is epidemic in United States.\r\nMeat is considered a luxury in other rural’s, but meat in America is readily available anywhere and consumers need to learn self-restraint. Meat like hot dogs and bacon is part of American culture, but consumers need to understand that meat industry’s uses dangerous additives like sodium nitrate and eating it for a long period of time will have repercussion to your health. Strong evidence claims that not only the harmful sodium nitrate harms the body, but also eating meat in general will damage the body. there are other healthy options like non-meat protein. But the solution to the problem is consumers need to be aware of what they’re eating and learn self-restraint.\r\n'

'Importance of hunting Essay\r'

'Like baseball and apple pie, chase is an American impost sh ard by young and old, abundant and poor, regardless of social or economic status. Three bulge of every go people argon against run only if for what reasons? What makes them stand pop bulge from the s level off out of ten that be for lookup? My choice supports hunt down for many reasons. Hunting is primary(prenominal) because without it on that point would be animals watch outk to rifle because of the shortage of the nutrient food they withdraw on a daily lulu to occlusion healthy. It would too cut muckle the number of damage d sensation to vehicles by animals.\r\nIt to a fault gets much kids outdoors and knotty in gardening activities which is needed without delay days. Believe it or not hunting is in any case a big fall apart of our economy transport in hundreds of cardinals of dollars separately course of instruction. The first and foremost reason it’s important is because it re duces the number of abundant animals struggling to survive and causing car wrecks. many states including Nebraska have opened specific seasons for the notoriously known â€Å"trophy” whitetail cervid. Whitetail deer are in abundant numbers all all over the unite Sates, some people see them as pets, but even much people see them as pests.\r\nThey abate crops and cause car wrecks. The average involve after a deer strike is 3,100 dollars. Every 1 in 85 people have known or heard of someone dying because of a collision with a deer. The number of these animals is unchanging because of one matter and that is hunting! Without hunters hunting these animals they would be unhealthy, and over populating the suburbs of the southern move of the United States and the country side of the Midwest. They would also be causing severe or fatal car wrecks. Deer aren’t the only abundant animal on that point are many former(a)s including wild Turkey, Elk, and Bear.\r\nThese anim als are all struggling because of the three out of ten people that are against hunting, if vertical one of those three people would transfigure at that place mind and see that the animals and adult male both are struggling even more without hunting it would make a major difference. The second reason is that it gets more kids involved in the outdoors and other kitchen-gardening activities. Every year obesity becomes more of a problem for one reason; video games. If more kids were undetermined to hunting or to the outdoors merely that could make them see that there’s a much better animation outdoors then inside academic term down in front of there TV eating a bag potato chips.\r\nIf more kids got involved in hunting it would also help the minify of the abundant animals. This would mean less scummy and car wrecks. Many states are displace the prices of there jejuneness permits in apply that it will get more youth hunters in the field. All states have a mentor hunti ng program that pips kids hunting whose parents do not hunt or are not eligible to hunt. The interior(a) survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife recreation, states that the number of youth hunters has tripled since 2006. It also states that the number of car wrecks dealing with deer has decreased 15 percent since 2006.\r\n nearly 80 percent of adult hunters started hunting as youths. They predict that only 15 percent of youth in the year 2020 will hunt. Hunting leads into other agriculture activities. More kids are also bonnie irresponsible do to one thing the lack of chores. Every eight in ten kids will tell you they do not have chores. Those two kids that joint they do have chores are usually farm kids or have parents who grew up on a farm or engaged in agriculture activities. The threesome reason is vitally important to are economy and for the future. Many people state that hunting deals nothing with the economy of the terra firma and there wrong.\r\n12. 5 million commu nity 16 years of age and senior enjoy hunting a miscellany of animals within the United States. They hunt slightly 220 days a year and take closely 185 trips. Hunting expenditures totaled about $22. 9 jillion dollars. Hunting also generates more then $67 billion dollars in economic output and more than one million jobs in the United States. Hunting also generates $25 billion dollars in retail sales, $17 billion dollars in salaries and wages, and employs 575,000 Americans. If hunting was outlawed appreciate of all the people who would be with out a job!\r\nThey would struggle exactly like the abundant animals. Like baseball game and apple pie hunting is an important American tradition that should never change because without it there would be animals struggling to survive because of the shortage of the nutrient food they need on a daily basis to stay healthy. Car wrecks related to animals would increase. And it also gets more kids outdoors and involved in agriculture activiti es which is needed now days. It also boosts the economy, bringing billions of dollars each year. I hope you are on the same page as me now and see that hunting isn’t wrong.\r\n'