Why couldn't the United States Bomb its way to victory in vietnam?

The reading was about how important air power was in the modern war. Everyone wondered why the bombing did not win us victory in the united states and it was not because of the bombing but the decision makers that did. President Johnson had the united states start bombing North Vietnam in February 1965. Miltary officials thought that United States should have gone with operation rolling thunder which was to keep bombing north vietnam until it is completely destroyed but instead they made the military fight with one hand tied behind their backs. The president also had the military not bomb places where the other countries borders had lied since they did not want the other countries to have an issue with the united states. China and the Soviet Union helped North Vietnam by supplying them goods and merchandise such as rice. because of the support of those countries North Vietnam was able to stand against the bombing by the United States.

1) What did the North Vietnamese do when the United States bombed their bridges?

2) Do you think if the president went with operation Rolling thunder that things would have gone different for North Vietnam?

March on Washington

what is the author arguing?

Dr.Martin Luther King Jr. is arguing for the freedom and equal rights of all African Americans. He is saying that even after 100 years later African Americans are not free. He goes on to say “One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and chains of discrimination”. Dr. King is saying that even after a long period of time the life of an African American is no different today as it was one hundred years back. He just wants the African Americans to get the freedom that they rightfully deserve.

 How does the author appeal to logos (logic), pathos (emotional quality), and ethos (the writer’s perceived character) with their argument?

In this argument Martin Luther King Jr. is being very logic because he is saying how all people should be treated equal. In this speech he goes on to say” I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”. He is saying that it is not right for one to judge someone by how one looks like but to see within them and know them as a person. Another thing is that Dr. King is showing is pathos by explaining how hard it is for the African Americans to go day by day and live in separation and be treated differently when they should all be treated the same. In his speech he goes on to say “that all men, yes black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This shows that all he wants is for his people to be treated the same as a white person and to get the freedom they rightfully deserve. Dr. King is showing ethos. He shows it when he says “I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood”. He is showing ethos by this because he just wants to get the equal rights and for no one to have hate towards one another.

What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?

This speech is very significant and relevant because it was a change that occurred in history. This was the last speech ever to be given by the civil rights leader before he was killed. It showed us that because of his speech and determination we were able to change history and many colored people did get the rights that they deserved. If it was not for this speech many people maybe still today would not have the rights that they rightfully deserve.

 Do you find the author’s argument convincing? Why or why not?

I found the authors argument very convincing because no one should be judged by how they looked like. The African Americans have the same rights as the whites and they should be given them. Dr.King had many great points in his speech and why everyone should be treated differently. If our constitution and declaration of independence said that everyone should get the fair rights than they should be given those fair rights. Just by how one appears does not say how they are as a person.  

Inaugural Address, Franklin D. Roosevelt, March 1933

What is the author arguing?


 The other is arguing that our country is not perfect and it has some flaws. in time it is going to prosper and that discipline is a real good thing. it says that "that if we are to go forward, we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline, because without such discipline no progress is made, no leadership becomes effective." This shows that if we dont disicpline ourselves and train ourselves for the future that there may be problems but if we restrain our selves and follow rules that our country will be at a better place and will be flourishing. 


How does the author appeal to logos (logic), pathos (emotional quality), and ethos (the writer’s perceived character) with their argument?

The author first (logos) talks about how america is not perfect and that we need to realize that if we do not restrain and discipline ourselves that we may be doomed. The second part (pathos) it talks about how everyone needs to have a job and with a job many tasks can be accomplished and how important it is that everyone works. The third thing was (Ethos) that the author is saying that the people of the United States have not failed but have asked for help to improve themselves and within time we can make our country better. 


 What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?


The historical Significance of this document is that it was written by President Roosevelt when he came into office in march 1933. it shows how right when he came into office his main focus was to improve the country and to make it better and to do that he wrote inaugural address in which he stated what he felt had to be improved and he did feel that in due time everything will be good. 


 Do you find the author’s argument convincing? Why or why not?

I do find the authors argument convincing because he stated all the things that he felt were wrong. He stated things such as "Values have shrunken to fantastic levels; taxes have risen; our ability to pay has fallen; government of all kinds is faced by serious curtailment of income" This shows that he knew what had to be improved and what the United States had to do in order to improve and better themselves since there were alot of problems which had to be addressed. His main focus was on how to make the country very prosperous and a strong nation.  

A place of one's own: The quest for home ownership

The reading was talking about how there was a lot of segregation in the 1920's even when it came to different ethnicity's buying houses. Whites had their own separate neighborhoods different from the blacks. The blacks were not shown houses by real estate agents houses that were in a white neighborhood and banks even turned down blacks for mortgages. One black physician named  Dr.Ossian Sweet bought a house in Detroit in a all white neighborhood. When he and his family moved into the white neighborhood he had to bring along nine friends and family members along with a shotgun, two rifles, six pistols, and four hundred rounds of ammunition. He also had a few police officers stand out for the safety of him and his family. Hundreds of white men came shouting to the Sweet house screaming that they will send the "niggers" back to where they came from. Rocks were being thrown at the house and suddenly gunfire came from the house shooting two white men and killing one.The eleven blacks were taken to jail and then had to go through a trial in which sweet was asked by the judge on why he wanted to live in a white neighborhood. he simply said" because i bought the house, and it was my house, and i felt i had the right to live in it." The verdict came out in the favor of Dr.Ossian Sweet and he was allowed to live in his house in the white neighborhood. Over the several decades segregation was slowly disappearing and Blacks were allowed to buy houses in the suburbs.

1) what was the most segregated city in the united states and why?

2) Why was home ownership so popular in the 1920's?