Throughout our lives we will experience many historical events, and history is made every second. Each decision you make in your life from what to wear on any given day to what you do with your life becomes history. History is just as essential as the present or the future. Throughout the many historical events you will experience in your life someone else will have a different opinion or outlook about said event no matter what. Be it a war or the signing of a treaty or truce between countries. And the thing is that there is no right or wrong answer to whether a historical event was good or bad, there is always a viable argument for each side. In this post you can read about a great example of different perspectives in historical events, the intro to The Gulf War, Operation Desert Shield. Specifically the Navy’s involvement in this operation. Here you can read about the following 3 arguments of why people see history differently: That people who are of lower status see events differently and have different perspectives to these events than the people of higher status, that two people from different countries can have a very great difference in how they see and process and experience events, and a counter argument: That people are influenced and believe the “official version” from news and media outlets like Fox news.
First, a brief explanation of the time period. “Operation Desert Shield” began on the 2nd of August 1990, as a mission to start a build up of soldiers, enforce the “No-fly zone” over Saudi Arabia, and to destroy various key targets and supply reservoirs via “Tomahawk missiles” launched via “Aircraft Carriers” and “Destroyers”, defending the allied forces against enemy aerial and ground based forces. The Navy played a crucial role in the operation by delivering supplies destroying targets with the previously mentioned “Tomahawk missiles”. The Navy also heavily affected the economy of Iraq because of how much supplies were destroyed due to the attacks on supply reservoirs by the Navy. The Navy also allowed for the introduction of land-based air assets. This operation lasted until the 17th of January 1991. After these events unfolded “Operation Desert Storm” began on that same day as a sort of “phase 2”, and lasted until the 28th of February 1991.
Secondly here is a brief explanation on my interviewee. My interviewee joined the Navy to have a steady job to support his family. He was a “Red shirt” aboard the USS Independence CV-22 (The Independance was the last “CV” Aircraft carrier. “CV” meaning Conventional which also means that it did not carry nuclear weapons.) As stated before my interviewee was a “Red shirt” the “Red shirts” and “Yellow shirts” were crash crews and had to be on the launch bay anytime a plane was taking off or landing. My interviewee trained at the Great Lakes Naval Station in Chicago for 3 months and he served for the whole 4-5 year war which means he was in both “Operation Desert Shield” and “Operation Desert Storm”.
My first argument is that people who are of lower status see events differently and have different perspectives to these events than the people of the upper class. A good example of this is the difference between the government and my interviewee’s evidence. The American Government stated that they needed to “to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.” My interviewee and I both agree that it was not necessary for the US to interfere with what was going on in the middle east as that was their responsibility to take care of the situation and not that of the US. There is also the fact that if Iraq did have “weapons of mass destruction” they would have used them in the war which they did not. Me and my interviewee both agree that the most likely reason for the US invading Iraq was for oil and not to “disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.”
My second argument is that two people from different countries can have a very great difference in how they see, process and experience events. For example as stated before my interviewee did not think it was necessary for the U.S to intervene with the problems in the middle east. But the people in Iraq saw it as a necessity because if they did not fight back the losses on both the Kuwait’s side and the Iraqis side would have suffered greater losses.
My counter argument is that people are influenced and believe the “official version” from news and media outlets like Fox news. Fox news is known for having a very biased view on news. They also grossly over exaggerate facts and make situations look better or worse than they really are. For one to truly get a more “official version” of news, they must sift through various websites and perspectives and formulate an opinion.
In conclusion people do see events differently from the fact that people who are of lower status see events differently and have different perspectives to these events than the people of higher status, to the fact that people are influenced and believe the “official version” from news and media outlets like Fox news. Both sides of the argument are justifiable and are both equally correct.
“UNITED STATES NAVY IN “DESERT SHIELD” I “DESERT STORM”” UNITED STATES NAVY IN “DESERT SHIELD” I “DESERT STORM”Www.gulfink.osd.mil, n.d. Web. 27 Apr. 2016. <http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/scud_info/scud_info_refs/n41en082/usnavy_003.html>.
Gulf War. U.S Navy, n.d. Web. 11 May 2016. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War>.