Professional Writing

I did an essay recently on Iran's reaction to the 03 invasion and got told I overstated their role in Iraq. C+. Then about 2 weeks later Wikileaks released the Iraq War File thing and there was lots of reporting on Iran's fiddling. I felt vindicated.
 
Free, you hated that? Damn. I always just wanted to make sure to get an A. Didn't care if it meant doing dumbass shit so long as, at some point, I let the instructor know it was dumbass shit. It was the only time that I would rather win than be right, now I think about it.
 
SpitfireV said:
I did an essay recently on Iran's reaction to the 03 invasion and got told I overstated their role in Iraq. C+. Then about 2 weeks later Wikileaks released the Iraq War File thing and there was lots of reporting on Iran's fiddling. I felt vindicated.
Click to expand...

Post it.

Your paper, not the Wikileaks ;)
 
Dame said:
Free, you hated that? Damn. I always just wanted to make sure to get an A. Didn't care if it meant doing dumbass shit so long as, at some point, I let the instructor know it was dumbass shit. It was the only time that I would rather win than be right, now I think about it.
Click to expand...

Very much so. The concept was to argue a point, to prove it, not to validate some loser professor's opinion about the world. You set standards, you meet the standards. The end.
 
A political science paper was my horror story in school. I think we have all had them. I was a freshman writing on nuclear deterrence and he was a professor who studied nuclear issues in his professional studies. I made the error of writing on a subject he was very well educated on coming from a freshmans perspective. It was suppose to be a very simple paper and the paper got savaged from the PHD level instead of judging it as a freshman class paper.

It not a fun experience and I feel for you. I like the way Dame thinks on this subject though. Do what it takes to get a good grade then trash the guy in his eval.:)
 
Freefalling said:
Very much so. The concept was to argue a point, to prove it, not to validate some loser professor's opinion about the world. You set standards, you meet the standards. The end.
Click to expand...

Word...this is why I gradumated with a C average in my core. Had a Prof say the UN was the end all to be all. (I was 6 months out of AD) I called her bluff and asked her if she ever served Nope, "Then if you have never severed and not put on a blue helmet, vest and can not shoot back HOW IN THE CRAP could you be right?" I got a D. The funny part about it is I had a Prof who is a Diplomat now read everything and correct it before I turned it in......Lets just say I eneded up taking several of his courses and got an A and tutored other students....I still dislike the woman
 
With all due respect, how does you being right out of AD have anything to do with you being "more correct" than she was? Just because someone hasn't served doesn't mean their opinion is suddenly null...I know a few military people I wouldn't ask for the time of day because they'd get it wrong...and I know a few I would ask for complex science answers. Serving or not serving, when it comes to UN discussion, is totally irrelevant to the topic.

Sounds like you were both too hard headed to actually listen to one another.
 
Probably because PB saw it in action while she read about it in a book. Besides, military service does allow one to contextualize information in certain situations far better than someone who hasn't. It isn't the be-all end-all, but it provides a broader base for certain situations than pure academics.
 
Saw one part of it in action, it's a multi tentacled monster you know.

I mean, it's a multi faceted organisation of love, peace and outreach.

(I'm not a fan).
 
So now I get to write a paper on whether or not German had a choice in deciding to utilize unrestricted submarine warfare in WWI. :rolleyes: If my professor's intent was to get me out of my academic comfort zone, he succeeded. Guess I'll have to do some actual research now.
 
You can reference sea warfare doctrine by Mahan and Corbett. According to Mahan a nation should seek out a decisive battle to destory their enemy's Navy, gain dominance of the seas and open up the sea lines of communication. In WWI pretty much dominated the seas with their surface fleet and were eventually able to blockade Germany. According to Mahan, they should have freedom of manuever on the seas but they did not because of the u boat. Germany was able to effectively blockade Britain with their unrestricted submarine warfare and Britain wasn't able to counter this until they dedicated a lot of their Navy to convoy escort. In either case Germany's u boat campaign was effective in reducing supplies or breaking up the British fleet.
 
I would say they didn't have too much choice, the German navy was green water for the most part, with the exception of the odd commerce raider.
 
The policy of the Royal Navy was to have more than twice the capacity of the largest navy in the world.

With that in mind, the Germans had little option but to deploy a large submarine force to try and break the British stranglehold around Europe during the War.

.02c
 
Here's my first draft. Not my best work but not bad for a couple hours work on a subject I know little about. Comments welcome but I'm turning it in tomorrow morning. Thanks for the comments. Good night all.
 

Attachments

  • Unrestricted Submarine Warfare in WWI redacted.pdf
    274.4 KB · Views: 8
I don't think that the submarine campaign was necessarily a failure. It was very successful for what it was but ultimately a submarine campaign wasn't going to win the war for the Germans. Mahan, an American theorist, felt that command of the sea would ultimately lead to an overall military victory. Corbett, an English theorist, had seen that this was not the case during the Napoleonic wars and ceded that maritime warfare was just a component of a joint military campaign. I think that the submarine campaign delayed the German defeat and the war may have gone differently if the US had not entered the war. The sinking of the Lusitania brought us into the war but I think we would have found another excuse even if it hadn't have happened. Overall its a good paper!
 
Thanks Teufel. Do you think unrestricted submarine warfare helped lengthen the war, or shorten it? The reason I think it helped shorten it is that it brought America in on the side of the Entente. I think German could have strung out the war much longer if not for that. The reason I think the policy was a failure was because it failed in its primary objectives- shatter the British blockage of Germany and stun the Americans into staying on the sidelines.
 

Similar threads

B
The Face of Islam - Q & A
Replies
7
Views
2K
Gypsy
Gypsy
Polar Bear
How Modern Terrorism Uses the Internet
Replies
3
Views
2K
104TN
104TN
Back
Top