If The Members Of The Joint Job Evaluation Committee Fail To Reach Agreement On The: Fill & Download for Free

GET FORM

Download the form

The Guide of filling out If The Members Of The Joint Job Evaluation Committee Fail To Reach Agreement On The Online

If you take an interest in Edit and create a If The Members Of The Joint Job Evaluation Committee Fail To Reach Agreement On The, here are the easy guide you need to follow:

  • Hit the "Get Form" Button on this page.
  • Wait in a petient way for the upload of your If The Members Of The Joint Job Evaluation Committee Fail To Reach Agreement On The.
  • You can erase, text, sign or highlight as what you want.
  • Click "Download" to preserver the materials.
Get Form

Download the form

A Revolutionary Tool to Edit and Create If The Members Of The Joint Job Evaluation Committee Fail To Reach Agreement On The

Edit or Convert Your If The Members Of The Joint Job Evaluation Committee Fail To Reach Agreement On The in Minutes

Get Form

Download the form

How to Easily Edit If The Members Of The Joint Job Evaluation Committee Fail To Reach Agreement On The Online

CocoDoc has made it easier for people to Modify their important documents across the online platform. They can easily Fill through their choices. To know the process of editing PDF document or application across the online platform, you need to follow these simple ways:

  • Open the website of CocoDoc on their device's browser.
  • Hit "Edit PDF Online" button and Choose the PDF file from the device without even logging in through an account.
  • Edit your PDF for free by using this toolbar.
  • Once done, they can save the document from the platform.
  • Once the document is edited using the online platform, the user can easily export the document as you need. CocoDoc provides a highly secure network environment for implementing the PDF documents.

How to Edit and Download If The Members Of The Joint Job Evaluation Committee Fail To Reach Agreement On The on Windows

Windows users are very common throughout the world. They have met lots of applications that have offered them services in modifying PDF documents. However, they have always missed an important feature within these applications. CocoDoc wants to provide Windows users the ultimate experience of editing their documents across their online interface.

The method of editing a PDF document with CocoDoc is easy. You need to follow these steps.

  • Select and Install CocoDoc from your Windows Store.
  • Open the software to Select the PDF file from your Windows device and proceed toward editing the document.
  • Modify the PDF file with the appropriate toolkit presented at CocoDoc.
  • Over completion, Hit "Download" to conserve the changes.

A Guide of Editing If The Members Of The Joint Job Evaluation Committee Fail To Reach Agreement On The on Mac

CocoDoc has brought an impressive solution for people who own a Mac. It has allowed them to have their documents edited quickly. Mac users can make a PDF fillable with the help of the online platform provided by CocoDoc.

For understanding the process of editing document with CocoDoc, you should look across the steps presented as follows:

  • Install CocoDoc on you Mac to get started.
  • Once the tool is opened, the user can upload their PDF file from the Mac hasslefree.
  • Drag and Drop the file, or choose file by mouse-clicking "Choose File" button and start editing.
  • save the file on your device.

Mac users can export their resulting files in various ways. They can download it across devices, add it to cloud storage and even share it with others via email. They are provided with the opportunity of editting file through multiple methods without downloading any tool within their device.

A Guide of Editing If The Members Of The Joint Job Evaluation Committee Fail To Reach Agreement On The on G Suite

Google Workplace is a powerful platform that has connected officials of a single workplace in a unique manner. While allowing users to share file across the platform, they are interconnected in covering all major tasks that can be carried out within a physical workplace.

follow the steps to eidt If The Members Of The Joint Job Evaluation Committee Fail To Reach Agreement On The on G Suite

  • move toward Google Workspace Marketplace and Install CocoDoc add-on.
  • Upload the file and tab on "Open with" in Google Drive.
  • Moving forward to edit the document with the CocoDoc present in the PDF editing window.
  • When the file is edited at last, download it through the platform.

PDF Editor FAQ

What type of treaty was the Lisbon Treaty?

The Treaty of Lisbon (initially known as the Reform Treaty) is an international agreement that amends the two treaties which form the constitutional basis of the European Union (EU). The Treaty of Lisbon was signed by the EU member states on 13 December 2007, and entered into force on 1 January 2009.It amends the Maastricht Treaty (1992), known in updated form as the Treaty on European Union (2007) or TEU, and the Treaty of Rome (1957), known in updated form as the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (2007) or TFEU.It also amends the attached treaty protocols as well as the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM).Prominent changes included the move from unanimity to qualified majority voting in at least 45 policy areas in the Council of Ministers, a change in calculating such a majority to a new double majority, a more powerful European Parliament forming a bicameral legislature alongside the Council of Ministers under the ordinary legislative procedure, a consolidated legal personality for the EU and the creation of a long-term President of the European Council and a High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The Treaty also made the Union's bill of rights, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, legally binding. The Treaty for the first time gave member states the explicit legal right to leave the EU, and established a procedure by which to do so.The stated aim of the treaty was to "complete the process started by the Treaty of Amsterdam [1997] and by the Treaty of Nice [2001] with a view to enhancing the efficiency and democratic legitimacy of the Union and to improving the coherence of its action".Opponents of the Treaty of Lisbon, such as former Danish Member of the European Parliament (MEP) Jens-Peter Bonde, argued that it would centralize the EU,and weaken democracy by "moving power away" from national electorates.Supporters argue that it brings more checks and balances into the EU system, with stronger powers for the European Parliament and a new role for national parliaments.Negotiations to modify EU institutions began in 2001, resulting first in the proposed Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, which would have repealed the existing European treaties and replaced them with a "constitution". Although ratified by a majority of member states, this was abandoned after being rejected by 55% of French voters on 29 May 2005 and then by 61% of Dutch voters on 1 June 2005.After a "period of reflection", member states agreed instead to maintain the existing treaties and amend them, to bring into law a number of the reforms that had been envisaged in the abandoned constitution. An amending "reform" treaty was drawn up and signed in Lisbon in 2007. It was originally intended to have been ratified by all member states by the end of 2008. This timetable failed, primarily due to the initial rejection of the Treaty in June 2008 by the Irish electorate, a decision which was reversed in a second referendum in October 2009 after Ireland secured a number of concessions related to the treaty.The need to review the EU's constitutional framework, particularly in light of the accession of ten new Member States in 2004, was highlighted in a declaration annexed to the Treaty of Nice in 2001. The agreements at Nice had paved the way for further enlargement of the Union by reforming voting procedures. The Laeken declaration of December 2001 committed the EU to improving democracy, transparency and efficiency, and set out the process by which a constitution aiming to achieve these goals could be created. The European Convention was established, presided over by former French President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, and was given the task of consulting as widely as possible across Europe with the aim of producing a first draft of the Constitution. The final text of the proposed Constitution was agreed upon at the summit meeting on 18–19 June 2004 under the presidency of Ireland.The Constitution, having been agreed by heads of government from the 25 Member States, was signed at a ceremony in Rome on 29 October 2004. Before it could enter into force, however, it had to be ratified by each member state. Ratification took different forms in each country, depending on the traditions, constitutional arrangements, and political processes of each country. In 2005, referendums held in France and the Netherlands rejected the European Constitution. While the majority of the Member States already had ratified the European Constitution (mostly through parliamentary ratification, although Spain and Luxembourg held referendums), due to the requirement of unanimity to amend the treaties of the EU, it became clear that it could not enter into force. This led to a "period of reflection" and the political end of the proposed European Constitution.In 2007, Germany took over the rotating EU Presidency and declared the period of reflection over. By March, the 50th anniversary of the Treaties of Rome, the Berlin Declaration was adopted by all Member States. This declaration outlined the intention of all Member States to agree on a new treaty in time for the 2009 Parliamentary elections, that is to have a ratified treaty before mid-2009.Already before the Berlin Declaration, the Amato Group (officially the Action Committee for European Democracy, ACED) – a group of European politicians, backed by the Barroso Commission with two representatives in the group – worked unofficially on rewriting the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (EU Constitution). On 4 June 2007, the group released their text in French – cut from 63,000 words in 448 articles in the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe to 12,800 words in 70 articles.In the Berlin Declaration, the EU leaders unofficially set a new timeline for the new treaty:21–23 June 2007: European Council meeting in Brussels, mandate for Intergovernmental Conference (IGC)23 July 2007: IGC in Lisbon, text of Reform Treaty7–8 September 2007: Foreign Ministers’ meeting18–19 October 2007: European Council in Lisbon, final agreement on Reform Treaty13 December 2007: Signing in Lisbon1 January 2009: Intended date of entry into forceDraftingJune European Council (2007)On 21 June 2007, the European Council of heads of states or governments met in Brussels to agree upon the foundation of a new treaty to replace the rejected Constitution. The meeting took place under the German Presidency of the EU, with Chancellor Angela Merkel leading the negotiations as President-in-Office of the European Council. After dealing with other issues, such as deciding on the accession of Cyprus and Malta to the Eurozone, negotiations on the Treaty took over and lasted until the morning of 23 June 2007. The hardest part of the negotiations was reported to be Poland's insistence on square root voting in the Council of Ministers.The European Round Table Of Industrialists (ERT) Members contributed to the preparation of the Lisbon Agenda, which sought to make Europe the ‘most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world’ by the year 2010. But the implementation of the Agenda was less impressive than the declarations made at its adoption by the European Council in March 2000. ERT Members constantly stressed the need for better performance by national governments towards achieving the Lisbon targets within a specified timeframe that otherwise risked remaining beyond Europe's grasp. In subsequent years, ERT regularly contributed to the debate on how to ensure better implementation of the Lisbon Agenda across all EU Member States, including on ways to foster innovation and achieve higher industry investment in Research & Development in Europe.The agreement was reached on a 16-page mandate for an Intergovernmental Conference, that proposed removing much of the constitutional terminology and many of the symbols from the old European Constitution text. In addition, it was agreed to recommend to the IGC that the provisions of the old European Constitution should be amended in certain key aspects (such as voting or foreign policy). Due to pressure from the United Kingdom and Poland, it was also decided to add a protocol to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (clarifying that it did not extend the rights of the courts to overturn domestic law in Britain or Poland). Among the specific changes were greater ability to opt out in certain areas of legislation and that the proposed new voting system that was part of the European Constitution would not be used before 2014 (see Provisions below).In the June meeting, the name 'Reform Treaty' also emerged, finally clarifying that the Constitutional approach was abandoned. Technically it was agreed that the Reform Treaty would amend both the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) to include most provisions of the European Constitution, however not to combine them into one document. It was also agreed to rename the treaty establishing the European Community, which is the main functional agreement including most of the substantive provisions of European primary law, to "Treaty on the Functioning of the Union". In addition, it was agreed, that unlike the European Constitution where a charter was part of the document, there would only be a reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to make that text legally binding.After the council, Poland indicated they wished to re-open some areas. During June, Poland's Prime Minister had controversially stated that Poland would have a substantially larger population were it not for World War II.Another issue was that Dutch prime minister Jan-Peter Balkenende succeeded in obtaining a greater role for national parliaments in the EU decision-making process, as he declared this to be non-negotiable for Dutch agreement.Intergovernmental Conference (2007)Portugal had pressed and supported Germany to reach an agreement on a mandate for an Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) under their presidency. After the June negotiations and final settlement on a 16-page framework for the new Reform Treaty, the Intergovernmental conference on actually drafting the new treaty commenced on 23 July 2007. The IGC opened following a short ceremony. The Portuguese presidency presented a 145-page document (with an extra 132 pages of 12 protocols and 51 declarations) entitled the Draft Treaty amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community and made it available on the Council of Ministers website as a starting point for the drafting process.In addition to government representatives and legal scholars from each member state, the European Parliament sent three representatives. These were conservative Elmar Brok, social democratic Enrique Baron Crespo and liberal Andrew Duff.Before the opening of the IGC, the Polish government expressed a desire to renegotiate the June agreement, notably over the voting system, but relented under political pressure by most other Member States, due to a desire not to be seen as the sole trouble maker over the negotiations.October European Council (2007)The October European Council, led by Portugal's Prime Minister and then President-in-Office of the European Council, José Sócrates, consisted of legal experts from all Member States scrutinising the final drafts of the Treaty. During the council, it became clear that the Reform Treaty would be called the 'Treaty of Lisbon', because its signing would take place in Lisbon—Portugal being the holder of the presidency of the Council of the European Union at the time.At the European Council meeting on 18 and 19 October 2007 in Lisbon, a few last-minute concessions were made to ensure the signing of the treaty.That included giving Poland a slightly stronger wording for the revived Ioannina Compromise, plus a nomination for an additional Advocate General at the European Court of Justice. The creation of the permanent "Polish" Advocate General was formally permitted by an increase of the number of Advocates General from 8 to 11.Despite these concessions and alterations, Giscard d’Estaing stated that the treaty included the same institutional reforms as those in the rejected Constitution, but merely without language and symbols that suggested Europe might have ‘formal political status’. These ‘more symbolic than substantial’ concessions were designed ‘to head off any threat of referenda’ which had killed the Constitution.At the meeting of the European Council in October 2007, Portugal insisted that the Treaty (then called the 'Reform Treaty') be signed in Lisbon, the Portuguese capital. This request was granted, and the Treaty was thus to be called the Treaty of Lisbon, in line with the tradition of European Union treaties. The Portuguese presidency was appointed to the job of organising the programme for a signing ceremony.The signing of the Treaty of Lisbon took place in Lisbon, Portugal on 13 December 2007. The Government of Portugal, by virtue of holding Presidency of the Council of the European Union at the time, arranged a ceremony inside the 15th-century Jerónimos Monastery, the same place Portugal's treaty of accession to the European Union (EU) was signed in 1985.Representatives from the 27 EU member states were present, and signed the Treaty as plenipotentiaries, marking the end of treaty negotiations. In addition, for the first time an EU treaty was also signed by the presidents of the three main EU institutions.Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the United Kingdom did not take part in the main ceremony, and instead signed the treaty separately a number of hours after the other delegates. A requirement to appear before a committee of British MPs was cited as the reason for his absence.Approval by the European ParliamentEditOn 20 February 2008, the European Parliament voted in favour of a non-binding resolution endorsing the Lisbon Treaty by 525 votes in favour and 115 against, on the basis of an analysis of the treaty's implications by the Parliament's rapporteurs Richard Corbett and Inigo Mendez de Vigo. They had been the Parliament's rapporteurs on the constitutional treaty.All EU member states had to ratify the Treaty before it could enter into law. A national ratification was completed and registered when the instruments of ratification were lodged with the Government of Italy. The month following the deposition of the last national ratification saw the Treaty enter into force across the EU.Under the original timetable set by the German Presidency of the Council of the European Union in the first half of 2007, the Treaty was initially scheduled to be fully ratified by the end of 2008, thus entering into force on 1 January 2009. This plan failed however, primarily due to the initial rejection of the Treaty in 2008 by the Irish electorate in a referendum, a decision which was reversed in a second referendum in October 2009. Ireland, as required by its constitution, was the only member state to hold referendums on the Treaty. In the UK, the European Union (Amendment) Bill was debated in the House of Commons on 21 January 2008, and passed its second reading that day by a vote of 362 to 224; Prime Minister Gordon Brown was absent that day; the Bill was proposed to the Commons by David Miliband.The Czech instrument of ratification was the last to be deposited in Rome on 13 November 2009.Therefore, the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force on 1 December 2009.ImpactThe exact impact of the treaty on the functioning of the EU left many questions open (uncertainties which have led to calls for another new treaty in response to the economic crisis in the late 2000s).When its impact is assessed, the biggest winners from Lisbon have been Parliament, with its increase in power, and the European Council. The first months under Lisbon arguably saw a shift in power and leadership from the Commission, the traditional motor of integration, to the European Council with its new full-time and longer-term President.The split between the Commission and European Council presidents involved overlap, potential rivalry and unwieldy compromises, such as both presidents attending international summits, in theory each with their own responsibilities, but inevitably with a considerable grey area. There was some expectation that the posts might be merged—as permitted under the new treaty—in 2014, when their two mandates expired.Parliament has used its greater powers over legislation, but also for example over the appointment of the Commission to gain further privileges from President Barrosoand it used its budgetary powers as a veto over how the External Action Service should be set up.It also applied its new power over international agreements to rapidly block the SWIFT data sharing deal with the US and threatened to do so over a free trade agreement with South Korea.The redistribution of separated powers was affected by the ratification process. Like the Commission, the Council of Ministers has, relatively, lost power due to Treaty of Lisbon. Its dynamic has also changed as member states have lost their veto in a number of areas. Consequently, they have had to come up with stronger arguments faster in order to win a vote.The Presidency of the Council, which continues to rotate among Member States every six months, has lost influence: the prime minister of the country in question no longer chairs the European Council, and its foreign minister no longer represents the EU externally (that is now done by the High Representative).As an amending treaty, the Treaty of Lisbon is not intended to be read as an autonomous text. It consists of a number of amendments to the Treaty on European Union ("Maastricht Treaty") and the Treaty establishing the European Community ("Treaty of Rome"), the latter renamed 'Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union' in the process. As amended by the Treaty of Lisbon, the Treaty on European Union provides a reference to the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights, making that document legally binding. The Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Charter of Fundamental rights thus have equal legal value and combined constitute the European Union's legal basis.A typical amendment in Treaty of Lisbon text is:“Article 7 shall be amended as follows:(a) throughout the Article, the word "assent" shall be replaced by "consent", the reference to breach "of principles mentioned in Article 6(1)" shall be replaced by a reference to breach "of the values referred to in Article 2" and the words "of this Treaty" shall be replaced by "of the Treaties";”The Commission has published a consolidated text (in each community language) which shows the previous Treaties as revised by the Treaty of Lisbon.The fifty-five articles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union enshrine certain political, social, and economic rights for both European Union citizens and residents, into EU law. It was drafted by the European Convention and solemnly proclaimed on 7 December 2000 by the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers and the European Commission. However its then legal status was uncertain and it did not have full legal effectuntil the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on 1 December 2009.In the rejected Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe the charter was integrated as a part of the treaty itself. In the Lisbon Treaty, however, the charter is incorporated by reference and given legal status without forming part of the treaties. The EU must act and legislate consistently with the Charter and the EU's courts will strike down EU legislation which contravenes it. The Charter only applies to EU member states as regards their implementation of EU law and does not extend the competences of the EU beyond its competences as defined in the treaties.Central BankThe European Central Bank gained the official status of being an EU institution, and the European Council was given the right to appoint presidents of the European Central Bank through a qualified majority vote. On a related topic, the euro became the official currency of the Union (though not affecting opt-outs or the process of Eurozone enlargement).JudiciaryUnder the Treaty of Lisbon, the Court of First Instance has been renamed the General Court. The Civil Service Tribunal and the European Court of Justice (formerly named the Court of Justice of the European Communities, and formally called only Court of Justice after the Treaty of Lisbon), along with the General Court, were established as sub-courts of a new EU institution named the Court of Justice of the European Union.The jurisdiction of the courts continued to be excluded from matters of foreign policy, though new jurisdiction to review foreign policy sanction measures, as well as certain 'Area of Freedom, Security and Justice' (AFSJ) matters not concerning policing and criminal cooperation, were added.The treaty has expanded the use of qualified majority voting (QMV) in the Council of Ministers by having it replace unanimity as the standard voting procedure in almost every policy area outside taxation and foreign policy. Moreover, taking effect in 2014, the definition of a qualified majority has changed: a qualified majority is reached when at least 55% of all member states, who comprise at least 65% of EU citizens, vote in favour of a proposal. When the Council of Ministers is acting neither on a proposal of the Commission nor on one of the High Representative, QMV requires 72% of the member states while the population requirement remains the same. However, the "blocking minority" that corresponds to these figures must comprise at least 4 countries. Hence, the voting powers of the member states are based on their population, and are no longer dependent on a negotiable system of voting points. The reform of qualified majority voting (QMV) in the Council was one of the main issues in the negotiation of the Lisbon Treaty.The earlier rules for QMV, set in the Treaty of Nice and applying until 2014, required a majority of countries (50%/60%) voting weights (74%), and population (62%). Between 2014 and 2017 a transitional phase is taking place where the new QMV rules apply, but where the old Nice treaty voting weights can be applied when a member state formally requests it. Moreover, from 2014 a new version of the 1994 "Ioannina compromise" allows small minorities of EU states to call for re-examination of EU decisions.The treaty instructs that Council deliberations on legislation (that include debate and voting) will be held in public (televised), as was already the case in the European Parliament.The Presidency of the Council of Ministers, rotates among member states every six months, with a "Trio" formed by three consecutive Presidencies in order to provide more continuity to their conduct. However, the Foreign Affairs Council (one configuration of the Council of ministers), is no longer chaired by the representative of the member state holding the Presidency, but rather by the person holding the newly created post of High Representative.Additionally the Euro Group sub-unit of ECOFIN Eurozone countries was formalized.European CouncilThe European Council officially gains the status of an EU institution, thus being separated from the Council of ministers. It continues to be composed of the heads of state or government of the Union's member states along with the (nonvoting) President of the European Commission and its own president.The President of the European Council is appointed for a two and a half year term in a qualified majority vote of the European Council. A president can be reappointed once, and be removed by the same voting procedure. Unlike the post of President of the European Commission, the appointment of the President of the European Council does not have to reflect the composition of the European Parliament.The president's work involves coordinating the work of the European Council, hosting its meetings and reporting its activities to the European Parliament after each meeting. This makes the president the lynchpin of negotiations to find agreement at European Council meetings, which has become a more onerous task with successive enlargement of the EU to 28 Member States. The president also chairs informal summits of the 19 Member States which use the euro as their currency. Additionally, the president provides external representation to the Union on foreign policy and security matters when such representation is required at the level of heads of state or government (bilateral summits and G8/G20).Under the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Council is charged with setting the strategic priorities of the Union, and in practice with handling crises. It has a key role in appointments, including the Commission, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the members of the Board of the European Central Bank; the suspension of membership rights; changing the voting systems in the treaties bridging clauses. Under the emergency break procedure, a state may refer contentious legislation from the Council of ministers to the European Council if it is outvoted in the Council of ministers, notwithstanding that it may still be outvoted in the European Council.The legislative power of the European Parliament increases, as the codecision procedure with the Council of the EU is extended to almost all areas of policy. This procedure is slightly modified and renamed ordinary legislative procedure.In the few remaining areas, called "special legislative procedures", Parliament now has either the right of consent to a Council of the EU measure, or vice versa, except in the few cases where the old Consultation procedure still applies, wherein the Council of the EU will only need to consult the European Parliament before voting on the Commission proposal. Council is then not bound by the Parliament's position but only by the obligation to consult it. Parliament would need to be consulted again if the Council of ministers deviated too far from the initial proposal.The Commission will have to submit each proposed budget of the European Union directly to Parliament, which must approve the budget in its entirety.The Treaty changes the way in which MEP seats are apportioned among member states. Rather than setting out a precise number (as it was the case in every previous treaty), the Treaty of Lisbon gives the power to the Council of the EU, acting unanimously on the initiative of the Parliament and with its consent, to adopt a decision fixing the number of MEPs for each member state. Moreover, the treaty provides for the number of MEPs to be degressively proportional to the number of citizens of each member state. A draft decision fixing the apportionment of MEPs was annexed to the treaty itself and had Lisbon been in force at the time of 2009 European Parliament elections the apportionment would have been:In the meantime, Croatia's seats, when it joins, will be supernumerary.The number of MEPs will be limited to 750, in addition to the President of the Parliament. Additionally, the Treaty of Lisbon will reduce the maximum number of MEPs from a member state from 99 to 96 (affects Germany) and increases the minimal number from 5 to 6 (affects Malta).National ParliamentsThe Treaty of Lisbon expanded the role of Member States' parliaments in the legislative processes of the EU by giving them a prior scrutiny of legislative proposals before the Council and the Parliament can take a position. The Treaty of Lisbon provides for national parliaments "to contribute to the good functioning of the Union" through receiving draft EU legislation, seeing to it that the principle of subsidiarity is respected, taking part in the evaluation mechanisms for the implementation of the Union policies in the area of freedom, security and justice, being involved in the political monitoring of Europol and the evaluation of Eurojust's activities, being notified of applications for EU accession, taking part in the inter-parliamentary cooperation between national parliaments and with the European Parliament.The Treaty of Lisbon allows national parliaments eight weeks to study legislative proposals made by the European Commission and decide whether to send a reasoned opinion stating why the national parliament considers it to be incompatible with the principle of subsidiarity. National parliaments may vote to have the measure reviewed. If one third (or one quarter, where the proposed EU measure concerns freedom, justice and security) of national parliaments are in favour of a review, the Commission would have to review the measure and if it decides to maintain it, must give a reasoned opinion to the Union legislator as to why it considers the measure to be compatible with subsidiarity.CommissionThe Commission of the European Communities will officially be renamed European Commission.The Treaty of Lisbon stated that the size of the Commission will reduce from one per member state to one for two thirds of member states from 2014, with an equal rotation over time. This would have ended the arrangement which has existed since 1957 of having at least one Commissioner for each Member State at all times. However, the Treaty also providedthat the European Council could unanimously decide to alter this number. Following the first Irish referendum on Lisbon, the European Council decided in December 2008 to revert to one Commissioner per member state with effect from the date of entry into force of the Treaty.The person holding the new post of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy automatically becomes also a Vice-President of the Commission.Foreign relations and securityHigh RepresentativeIn an effort to ensure greater coordination and consistency in EU foreign policy, the Treaty of Lisbon created a High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, de facto merging the post of High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the European Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy. The High Representative is Vice-President of the Commission, the administrator of the European Defence Agency but not the Secretary-General of the Council of Ministers, which becomes a separate post. He or she has a right to propose defence or security missions. In the proposed constitution this post was called the Union Minister of Foreign Affairs.The High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy is in charge of an External Action Service also created by the Treaty of Lisbon. This is essentially a common Foreign Office or Diplomatic Corps for the Union.Under the Treaty of Lisbon, Member States should assist if a member state is subject to a terrorist attack or the victim of a natural or man-made disaster (but any joint military action is subject to the provisions of Article 31 of the consolidated Treaty of European Union, which recognises various national concerns). In addition, several provisions of the treaties have been amended to include solidarity in matters of energy supply and changes to the energy policy within the EU.The treaty foresees that the European Security and Defence Policy will lead to a common defence for the EU when the European Council resolves unanimously to do so, and provided that all member states give their approval through their usual constitutional procedures.Additionally, the area of defence has become available to enhanced co-operation, potentially allowing for a defence integration that excludes member states with policies of neutrality. Countries with significant military capabilities are envisioned to form a Permanent Structured Cooperation in Defence.Legal consolidationPrior to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the Union comprised a system of three legal pillars, of which only the European Communities pillar had its own legal personality. The Treaty of Lisbon abolished this pillar system, and as a consolidated entity, the European Union succeeded the legal personality of the European Communities. Therefore, the EU is now able to sign international treaties in its own name. The European Union gained for example membership of the World Trade Organization immediately after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, since the European Communities was already a member of that organisation.Enlargement and secessionA proposal to enshrine the Copenhagen Criteria for further enlargement in the treaty was not fully accepted as there were fears it will lead to Court of Justice judges having the last word on who could join the EU, rather than political leaders.The treaty introduces an exit clause for members wanting to withdraw from the Union. This formalises the procedure by stating that a member state must inform the European Council before it can terminate its membership, and a withdrawal agreement would then be negotiated between the Union and that State, with the Treaties ceasing to be applicable to that State from the date of the agreement or, failing that, within two years of the notification unless the State and the Council both agree to extend this period. There have been several instances where a territory has ceased to be part of the Community, e.g. Greenland in 1985, though no member state had ever left at the time the Lisbon Treaty was ratified. Before the Lisbon Treaty came into force, the question of whether a member state had a legal right to leave the union was unclear. On 30 March 2017, the United Kingdom gave notice of Britain's intention to leave the European Union.After negotiating a Brexit withdrawal agreement, UK left the Union on 31 January 2020.A new provision in the Treaty of Lisbon is that the status of French, Dutch and Danish overseas territories can be changed more easily, by no longer requiring a full treaty revision. Instead, the European Council may, on the initiative of the member state concerned, change the status of an overseas country or territory (OCT) to an outermost region (OMR) or vice versa.This provision was included on a proposal by the Netherlands, which was investigating the future of the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba in the European Union as part of an institutional reform process that was taking place in the Netherlands Antilles.Revision proceduresThe Lisbon Treaty creates two different ways for further amendments of the European Union treaties: an ordinary revision procedure which is broadly similar to the present process in that it involves convening an intergovernmental conference, and a simplified revision procedure whereby Part three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which deals with Union policies and internal actions, could be amended by a unanimous decision of the European Council subject to ratification by all member states in the usual manner.The Treaty also provides for the Passerelle Clause which allows the European Council to unanimously decide to move from unanimous voting to qualified majority voting, and move from a special legislative procedure to the ordinary legislative procedure.Ordinary revision procedureProposals to amend the treaties are submitted by a Member State, the European Parliament or the European Commission to the Council of Ministers who, in turn, submit them to the European Council and notify member states. There are no limits on what kind of amendments can be proposed.The European Council, after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, votes to consider the proposals on the basis of a simple majority, and then either:The President of the European Council convenes a convention containing representatives of national parliaments, governments, the European Parliament and the European Commission, to further consider the proposals. In due course, the convention submits its final recommendation to the European Council.Or the European Council decides, with the consent of the European Parliament, not to convene a convention, and set the terms of reference for the inter-governmental conference itself.The President of the European Council convenes an inter-governmental conference consisting of representatives of each member-state's government. The conference drafts and finalises a treaty based on the convention's recommendation or on the European Council's terms of reference.EU leaders sign the treaty.All member states must then ratify the treaty "in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements", if it is to come into force.Simplified revision procedureProposals to amend Part three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union are submitted by a Member State, the European Parliament or the European Commission to the Council of Ministers who, in turn, submit them to the European Council and notify member states. Proposed amendments cannot increase the competences of the Union.The European Council, after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, votes to adopt a decision amending Part three on the basis of the proposals by unanimity.All member states must approve the decision "in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements", if it is to come into force.The Passerelle ClauseThe treaty also allows for the changing of voting procedures without amending the EU treaties. Under this clause the European Council can, after receiving the consent of the European Parliament, vote unanimously to:allow the Council of Ministers to act on the basis of qualified majority in areas where they previously had to act on the basis of unanimity. (This is not available for decisions with defence or military implications.)allow for legislation to be adopted on the basis of the ordinary legislative procedure where it previously was to be adopted on the basis of a special legislative procedure.A decision of the European Council to use either of these provisions can only come into effect if, six months after all national parliaments had been given notice of the decision, none object to it.United Kingdom opt-out for justice and home affairsUnder the former third pillar, the Council of Ministers could adopt measures relating to justice and home affairs. These laws did not come within the body of European Community law, and had only the optional jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. The Commission could not bring enforcement action against any member state for failing to implement or for failing to correctly implement third pillar measures.The UK and Ireland had a flexible opt-out from justice and home affairs measures and could choose to participate in them on a case-by-case basis.Under the Treaty of Lisbon, the limitations on the powers of the Court of Justice and the Commission would be lifted after a transitional period of five years which expired on 30 November 2014.In order to avoid submitting to the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice and to enforcement actions by the Commission, the UK negotiated an opt-out which allowed them the option of a block withdrawal from all third pillar measures they had previously chosen to participate in.In October 2012 the UK government announced that it intended to exercise this opt-out and then selectively opt back into certain measures.The use of this opt-out by the UK did not affect the UK's flexible opt-out from justice and home affairs measures, or Ireland's identical opt-out.

What is the bombing of Dresden in World War II?

This answer may contain sensitive images. Click on an image to unblur it.The bombing of Dresden was a British-American aerial bombing attack on the city of Dresden, the capital of the German state of Saxony, during World War II. In four raids between 13 and 15 February 1945, 722 heavy bombers of the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and 527 of the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) dropped more than 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiary devices on the city. The bombing and the resulting firestorm destroyed more than 1,600 acres (6.5 km2) of the city centre. An estimated 22,700 to 25,000 people were killed. Three more USAAF air raids followed, two occurring on 2 March aimed at the city's railway marshalling yard and one smaller raid on 17 April aimed at industrial areas.Immediate German propaganda claims following the attacks and postwar discussions of whether the attacks were justified have led to the bombing becoming one of the moral causes célèbres of the war.A 1953 United States Air Force report defended the operation as the justified bombing of a strategic target, which they noted was a major rail transport and communication centre, housing 110 factories and 50,000 workers in support of the German war effort. Several researchers claim that not all of the communications infrastructure, such as the bridges, were targeted, nor were the extensive industrial areas outside the city centre. Critics of the bombing have asserted that Dresden was a cultural landmark while downplaying its strategic significance, and claim that the attacks were indiscriminate area bombing and not proportionate to the military gains. Some have claimed that the raid constituted a war crime. Some, mostly in the German far-right, refer to the bombing as a mass murder, calling it "Dresden's Holocaust of bombs".In the decades since the war, large variations in the claimed death toll have fuelled the controversy, though the numbers themselves are no longer a major point of contention among historians. In March 1945, the German government ordered its press to publish a falsified casualty figure of 200,000 for the Dresden raids, and death tolls as high as 500,000 have been claimed. The city authorities at the time estimated up to 25,000 victims, a figure that subsequent investigations supported, including a 2010 study commissioned by the city council. One of the main authors responsible for inflated figures being disseminated in the West was Holocaust denier David Irving, who subsequently announced that he had discovered that the documentation he had worked from had been forged, and the real figures supported the 25,000 number.Dresden after the bombing raid.Date13–15 February 1945LocationDresden, Nazi GermanyResultStrategic targets destroyedExtensive German casualtiesEarly in 1945, the German offensive known as the Battle of the Bulge had been exhausted, as was the Luftwaffe's disastrous New Year's Day attack involving elements of 11 combat wings of its day fighter force. The Red Army had launched its Silesian Offensives into pre-war German territory. The German army was retreating on all fronts, but still resisting strongly. On 8 February 1945, the Red Army crossed the Oder River, with positions just 70 kilometres (43 mi) from Berlin. A special British Joint Intelligence Subcommittee report, German Strategy and Capacity to Resist, prepared for Winston Churchill's eyes only, predicted that Germany might collapse as early as mid-April if the Soviets overran its eastern defences. Alternatively, the report warned that the Germans might hold out until November if they could prevent the Soviets from taking Silesia. Hence any assistance to the Soviets on the Eastern Front could shorten the war.Plans for a large, intense aerial bombing of Berlin and the other eastern cities had been discussed under the code name Operation Thunderclap in mid-1944, but were shelved on 16 August. These were now reexamined, and the decision was made to plan a more limited operation.On 22 January 1945, the RAF director of bomber operations, Air Commodore Sydney Bufton, sent Deputy Chief of the Air Staff Air Marshal Sir Norman Bottomley a memorandum suggesting that what appeared to be a coordinated RAF air attack to aid the current Soviet offensive would have a detrimental effect on German morale. On 25 January, the Joint Intelligence Committee supported the idea, as it tied in with the Ultra-based intelligence that dozens of German divisions deployed in the west were moving to reinforce the Eastern Front, and that interdiction of these troop movements should be a "high priority."Air Chief Marshal Sir Arthur Harris, AOCinC Bomber Command, nicknamed "Bomber" Harris in the British press, and known as an ardent supporter of area bombing, was asked for his view, and proposed a simultaneous attack on Chemnitz, Leipzig and Dresden. That evening Churchill asked the Secretary of State for Air, Sir Archibald Sinclair, what plans had been drawn up to carry out these proposals. He passed on the request to Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Charles Portal, the Chief of the Air Staff, who answered, "We should use available effort in one big attack on Berlin and attacks on Dresden, Leipzig, and Chemnitz, or any other cities where a severe blitz will not only cause confusion in the evacuation from the East, but will also hamper the movement of troops from the West." He mentioned that aircraft diverted to such raids should not be taken away from the current primary tasks of destroying oil production facilities, jet aircraft factories, and submarine yards.Churchill was not satisfied with this answer and on 26 January pressed Sinclair for a plan of operations: "I asked [last night] whether Berlin, and no doubt other large cities in east Germany, should not now be considered especially attractive targets ... Pray report to me tomorrow what is going to be done".In response to Churchill's inquiry, Sinclair approached Bottomley, who asked Harris to undertake attacks on Berlin, Dresden, Leipzig, and Chemnitz as soon as moonlight and weather permitted, "with the particular object of exploiting the confused conditions which are likely to exist in the above mentioned cities during the successful Russian advance". This allowed Sinclair to inform Churchill on 27 January of the Air Staff's agreement that, "subject to the overriding claims" on other targets under the Pointblank Directive, strikes against communications in these cities to disrupt civilian evacuation from the east and troop movement from the west would be made.On 31 January, Bottomley sent Portal a message saying a heavy attack on Dresden and other cities "will cause great confusion in civilian evacuation from the east and hamper movement of reinforcements from other fronts". British historian Frederick Taylor mentions a further memo sent to the Chiefs of Staff Committee by Air Marshal Sir Douglas Evill on 1 February, in which Evill states interfering with mass civilian movements was a major, even key, factor in the decision to bomb the city centre. Attacks there, where main railway junctions, telephone systems, city administration and utilities were, would result in "chaos." Ostensibly, Britain had learned this after the Coventry Blitz, when loss of this crucial infrastructure had supposedly longer-lasting effects than attacks on war plants.During the Yalta Conference on 4 February, the Deputy Chief of the Soviet General Staff, General Aleksei Antonov, raised the issue of hampering the reinforcement of German troops from the western front by paralysing the junctions of Berlin and Leipzig with aerial bombardment. In response, Portal, who was in Yalta, asked Bottomley to send him a list of objectives to discuss with the Soviets. Bottomley's list included oil plants, tank and aircraft factories and the cities of Berlin and Dresden. However according to Richard Overy, the discussion with the Soviet Chief of Staff, Aleksei Antonov, recorded in the minutes, only mentions the bombing of Berlin and Leipzig. The bombing of Dresden was a Western plan, but the Soviets were told in advance about the operation.Colorized photograph of Dresden during the 1890s. Landmarks include Dresden Frauenkirche, Augustus Bridge, and the Katholische Hofkirche.A view from the town hall over the Altstadt (old town), 1910Military and industrial profileFront lines in Europe during the Dresden bombings. White areas were held by Germany, pink ones by the Allies, and red denotes recent Allied advances around the periphery of a still largely unoccupied Germany. Grey areas were neutral.According to the RAF at the time, Dresden was Germany's seventh-largest city and the largest remaining unbombed built-up area. Taylor writes that an official 1942 guide to the city described it as "one of the foremost industrial locations of the Reich" and in 1944 the German Army High Command's Weapons Office listed 127 medium-to-large factories and workshops that were supplying the army with materiel. Nonetheless, according to some historians, the contribution of Dresden to the German war effort may not have been as significant as the planners thought.The US Air Force Historical Division wrote a report in response to the international concern about the bombing that remained classified until December 1978. It said that there were 110 factories and 50,000 workers in the city supporting the German war effort at the time of the raid. According to the report, there were aircraft components factories; a poison gas factory (Chemische Fabrik Goye and Company); an anti-aircraft and field gun factory (Lehman); an optical goods factory (Zeiss Ikon AG); and factories producing electrical and X-ray apparatus (Koch & Sterzel [de] AG); gears and differentials (Saxoniswerke); and electric gauges (Gebrüder Bassler). It also said there were barracks, hutted camps, and a munitions storage depot.The USAF report also states that two of Dresden's traffic routes were of military importance: north-south from Germany to Czechoslovakia, and east–west along the central European uplands. The city was at the junction of the Berlin-Prague-Vienna railway line, as well as the Munich-Breslau, and Hamburg-Leipzig lines. Colonel Harold E. Cook, a US POW held in the Friedrichstadt marshaling yard the night before the attacks, later said that "I saw with my own eyes that Dresden was an armed camp: thousands of German troops, tanks and artillery and miles of freight cars loaded with supplies supporting and transporting German logistics towards the east to meet the Russians".An RAF memo issued to airmen on the night of the attack gave some reasoning for the raid:Dresden, the seventh largest city in Germany and not much smaller than Manchester is also the largest unbombed builtup area the enemy has got. In the midst of winter with refugees pouring westward and troops to be rested, roofs are at a premium, not only to give shelter to workers, refugees, and troops alike, but to house the administrative services displaced from other areas. At one time well known for its china, Dresden has developed into an industrial city of first-class importance ... The intentions of the attack are to hit the enemy where he will feel it most, behind an already partially collapsed front, to prevent the use of the city in the way of further advance, and incidentally to show the Russians when they arrive what Bomber Command can do.In the raid, major industrial areas in the suburbs, which stretched for miles, were not targeted. According to historian Donald Miller, "the economic disruption would have been far greater had Bomber Command targeted the suburban areas where most of Dresden's manufacturing might was concentrated".The attacksNight of 13/14 FebruaryMosquito marker planes dropped the target indicators, which glowed red and green to guide the bombers.The Dresden attack was to have begun with a USAAF Eighth Air Force bombing raid on 13 February 1945. The Eighth Air Force had already bombed the railway yards near the centre of the city twice in daytime raids: once on 7 October 1944 with 70 tons of high-explosive bombs killing more than 400, then again with 133 bombers on 16 January 1945, dropping 279 tons of high-explosives and 41 tons of incendiaries.On 13 February 1945, bad weather over Europe prevented any USAAF operations, and it was left to RAF Bomber Command to carry out the first raid. It had been decided that the raid would be a double strike, in which a second wave of bombers would attack three hours after the first, just as the rescue teams were trying to put out the fires. Other raids were carried out that night to confuse German air defences. Three hundred and sixty heavy bombers (Lancasters and Halifaxes) bombed a synthetic oil plant in Böhlen, 60 miles (97 km) from Dresden, while de Havilland Mosquito medium bombers attacked Magdeburg, Bonn, Misburg near Hanover and Nuremberg.When Polish crews of the designated squadrons were preparing for the mission, the terms of the Yalta agreement were made known to them. There was a huge uproar, since the Yalta agreement handed parts of Poland over to the Soviet Union. There was talk of mutiny among the Polish pilots, and their British officers removed their side arms. The Polish Government ordered the pilots to follow their orders and fly their missions over Dresden, which they did.A Lancaster releases the main part of its load, a 4,000 lb (1,800 kg) HC "cookie" and 108 30 lb (14 kg) "J" incendiaries. (over Duisburg 1944)The first of the British aircraft took off at around 17:20 hours CET for the 700-mile (1,100 km) journey. This was a group of Lancasters from Bomber Command's 83 Squadron, No. 5 Group, acting as the Pathfinders, or flare force, whose job it was to find Dresden and drop magnesium parachute flares, known to the Germans as "Christmas trees", to light up the area for the bombers. The next set of aircraft to leave England were twin-engined Mosquito marker planes, which would identify target areas and drop 1,000-pound (450 kg) target indicators (TIs)" that created a red glow for the bombers to aim at.The attack was to centre on the Ostragehege sports stadium, next to the city's medieval Altstadt (old town), with its congested and highly combustible timbered buildings.The main bomber force, called Plate Rack, took off shortly after the Pathfinders. This group of 254 Lancasters carried 500 tons of high explosives and 375 tons of incendiaries ("fire bombs"). There were 200,000 incendiaries in all, with the high-explosive bombs ranging in weight from 500 to 4,000 pounds (230 to 1,810 kg)—the so-called two-ton cookies, also known as "blockbusters", because they could destroy an entire large building or street. The high explosives were intended to rupture water mains and blow off roofs, doors, and windows to create an air flow to feed the fires caused by the incendiaries that followed.The Lancasters crossed into French airspace near the Somme, then into Germany just north of Cologne. At 22:00 hours, the force heading for Böhlen split away from Plate Rack, which turned south east toward the Elbe. By this time, ten of the Lancasters were out of service, leaving 244 to continue to Dresden.The sirens started sounding in Dresden at 21:51 (CET).[c][56] Wing Commander Maurice Smith, flying in a Mosquito, gave the order to the Lancasters: "Controller to Plate Rack Force: Come in and bomb glow of red target indicators as planned. Bomb the glow of red TIs as planned". The first bombs were released at 22:13, the last at 22:28, the Lancasters delivering 881.1 tons of bombs, 57% high explosive, 43% incendiaries. The fan-shaped area that was bombed was 1.25 miles (2.01 km) long, and at its extreme about 1.75 miles (2.82 km) wide. The shape and total devastation of the area was created by the bombers of No. 5 Group flying over the head of the fan (Ostragehege stadium) on prearranged compass bearings and releasing their bombs at different prearranged times.The second attack, three hours later, was by Lancaster aircraft of 1, 3, 6 and 8 Groups, 8 Group being the Pathfinders. By now, the thousands of fires from the burning city could be seen more than 60 miles (97 km) away on the ground, and 500 miles (800 km) away in the air, with smoke rising to 15,000 feet (4,600 m). The Pathfinders therefore decided to expand the target, dropping flares on either side of the firestorm, including the Hauptbahnhof, the main train station, and the Großer Garten, a large park, both of which had escaped damage during the first raid.[61] The German sirens sounded again at 01:05, but as there was practically no electricity, these were small hand-held sirens that were heard within only a block. Between 01:21 and 01:45, 529 Lancasters dropped more than 1,800 tons of bombs.14–15 FebruaryOn the morning of 14 February 431 United States Army Air Force bombers of the Eighth Air Force's 1st Bombardment Division were scheduled to bomb Dresden near midday, and the 3rd Bombardment Division were to follow to bomb Chemnitz, while the 2nd Bombardment Division would bomb a synthetic oil plant in Magdeburg. The bomber groups were protected by 784 North American P-51 Mustangs of the Eighth Air Force's VIII Fighter Command, for a total almost 2,100 Eighth Army Air Force aircraft over Saxony during 14 February.USAAF B-17 Flying Fortress bombers over EuropePrimary sources disagree as to whether the aiming point was the marshalling yards near the centre of the city or the centre of the built-up urban area. The report by the 1st Bombardment Division's commander to his commander states that the targeting sequence was the centre of the built-up area in Dresden if the weather was clear. If clouds obscured Dresden but Chemnitz was clear, Chemnitz was the target. If both were obscured, they would bomb the centre of Dresden using H2X radar. The mix of bombs for the Dresden raid was about 40% incendiaries—much closer to the RAF city-busting mix than the USAAF usually used in precision bombardment. Taylor compares this 40% mix with the raid on Berlin on 3 February, where the ratio was 10% incendiaries. This was a common mix when the USAAF anticipated cloudy conditions over the target.B-17s similar to the Dresden raiders, with their H2X radar extended from the belly where a turret would normally have been. Only some were so equipped, while others relied on signals from those with radar316 B-17 Flying Fortresses bombed Dresden, dropping 771 tons of bombs.The remaining 115 bombers from the stream of 431 misidentified their targets. Sixty bombed Prague, dropping 153 tons of bombs, while others bombed Brux and Pilsen. The 379th bombardment group started to bomb Dresden at 12:17, aiming at marshalling yards in the Friedrichstadt district west of the city centre, as the area was not obscured by smoke and cloud. The 303rd group arrived over Dresden two minutes after the 379th and found their view obscured by clouds, so they bombed Dresden using H2X radar. The groups that followed the 303rd (92nd, 306th, 379th, 384th and 457th) also found Dresden obscured by clouds, and they too used H2X. H2X aiming caused the groups to bomb with a wide dispersal over the Dresden area. The last group to attack Dresden was the 306th, and they finished by 12:30.Strafing of civilians has become a traditional part of the oral history of the raids, since a March 1945 article in the Nazi-run weekly newspaper Das Reich claimed this had occurred.Historian Götz Bergander, an eyewitness to the raids, found no reports on strafing for 13–15 February by any pilots or the German military and police. He asserted in Dresden im Luftkrieg (1977) that only a few tales of civilians being strafed were reliable in detail, and all were related to the daylight attack on 14 February. He concluded that some memory of eyewitnesses was real, but that it had misinterpreted the firing in a dogfight as deliberately aimed at people on the ground. In 2000, historian Helmut Schnatz found an explicit order to RAF pilots not to strafe civilians on the way back from Dresden. He also reconstructed timelines with the result that strafing would have been almost impossible due to lack of time and fuel.Frederick Taylor in Dresden (2004), basing most of his analysis on the work of Bergander and Schnatz, concludes that no strafing took place, although some stray bullets from aerial dogfights may have hit the ground and been mistaken for strafing by those in the vicinity. The official historical commission collected 103 detailed eyewitness accounts and let the local bomb disposal services search according to their assertions. They found no bullets or fragments that would have been used by planes of the Dresden raids.On 15 February, the 1st Bombardment Division's primary target—the Böhlen synthetic oil plant near Leipzig—was obscured by clouds, so its groups diverted to their secondary target, Dresden. Dresden was also obscured by clouds, so the groups targeted the city using H2X. The first group to arrive over the target was the 401st, but it missed the city centre and bombed Dresden's southeastern suburbs, with bombs also landing on the nearby towns of Meissen and Pirna. The other groups all bombed Dresden between 12:00 and 12:10. They failed to hit the marshalling yards in the Friedrichstadt district and, as in the previous raid, their ordnance was scattered over a wide area.German defensive actionDresden's air defences had been depleted by the need for more weaponry to fight the Red Army, and the city lost its last massive flak battery in January 1945. By this point in the war, the Luftwaffe was severely hampered by a shortage of both pilots and aircraft fuel; the German radar system was also degraded, lowering the warning time to prepare for air attacks. The RAF also had an advantage over the Germans in the field of electronic radar countermeasures.Of 796 British bombers that participated in the raid, six were lost, three of those hit by bombs dropped by aircraft flying over them. On the following day, only a single US bomber was shot down, as the large escort force was able to prevent Luftwaffe day fighters from disrupting the attack.Wartime political responsesGermanDevelopment of a German political response to the raid took several turns. Initially, some of the leadership, especially Robert Ley and Joseph Goebbels, wanted to use it as a pretext for abandonment of the Geneva Conventions on the Western Front. In the end, the only political action the German government took was to exploit it for propaganda purposes. Goebbels is reported to have wept with rage for twenty minutes after he heard the news of the catastrophe, before launching into a bitter attack on Hermann Göring, the commander of the Luftwaffe: "If I had the power I would drag this cowardly good-for-nothing, this Reich marshal, before a court. ... How much guilt does this parasite not bear for all this, which we owe to his indolence and love of his own comforts. ...".On 16 February, the Propaganda Ministry issued a press release that stated that Dresden had no war industries; it was a city of culture.On 25 February, a new leaflet with photographs of two burned children was released under the title "Dresden—Massacre of Refugees," stating that 200,000 had died. Since no official estimate had been developed, the numbers were speculative, but newspapers such as the Stockholm Svenska Morgonbladet used phrases such as "privately from Berlin," to explain where they had obtained the figures. Frederick Taylor states that "there is good reason to believe that later in March copies of—or extracts from—[an official police report] were leaked to the neutral press by Goebbels's Propaganda Ministry ... doctored with an extra zero to make [the total dead from the raid] 202,040". On 4 March, Das Reich, a weekly newspaper founded by Goebbels, published a lengthy article emphasizing the suffering and destruction of a cultural icon, without mentioning any damage the attacks had caused to the German war effort.Taylor writes that this propaganda was effective, as it not only influenced attitudes in neutral countries at the time, but also reached the British House of Commons when Richard Stokes, a Labour Party Member of Parliament (MP), a long term opponent of area-bombing,quoted information from the German Press Agency (controlled by the Propaganda Ministry). It was Stokes' questions in the House of Commons that were in large part responsible for the shift in the UK against this type of raid. Taylor suggests that, although the destruction of Dresden would have affected people's support for the Allies regardless of German propaganda, at least some of the outrage did depend on Goebbels' falsification of the casualty figures.BritishBritish Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who indicated a need after Dresden to reduce attacks that primarily affected civilians.The destruction of the city provoked unease in intellectual circles in Britain. According to Max Hastings, by February 1945, attacks upon German cities had become largely irrelevant to the outcome of the war and the name of Dresden resonated with cultured people all over Europe—"the home of so much charm and beauty, a refuge for Trollope's heroines, a landmark of the Grand Tour." He writes that the bombing was the first time the public in Allied countries seriously questioned the military actions used to defeat the Germans.The unease was made worse by an Associated Press story that the Allies had resorted to terror bombing. At a press briefing held by the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force two days after the raids, British Air Commodore Colin McKay Grierson told journalists:First of all they (Dresden and similar towns) are the centres to which evacuees are being moved. They are centres of communications through which traffic is moving across to the Russian Front, and from the Western Front to the East, and they are sufficiently close to the Russian Front for the Russians to continue the successful prosecution of their battle. I think these three reasons probably cover the bombing.One of the journalists asked whether the principal aim of bombing Dresden would be to cause confusion among the refugees or to blast communications carrying military supplies. Grierson answered that the primary aim was to attack communications to prevent the Germans from moving military supplies, and to stop movement in all directions if possible. He then added in an offhand remark that the raid also helped destroy "what is left of German morale." Howard Cowan, an Associated Press war correspondent, subsequently filed a story saying that the Allies had resorted to terror bombing. There were follow-up newspaper editorials on the issue and a longtime opponent of strategic bombing, Richard Stokes MP, asked questions in the House of Commons on 6 March.Churchill subsequently re-evaluated the goals of the bombing campaigns, to focus less on widespread destruction, and more toward targets of tactical significance. On 28 March, in a memo sent by telegram to General Ismay for the British Chiefs of Staff and the Chief of the Air Staff, he wrote:It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land ... The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing. I am of the opinion that military objectives must henceforward be more strictly studied in our own interests than that of the enemy. The Foreign Secretary has spoken to me on this subject, and I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction, however impressive.Air Chief Marshal Arthur Harris, head of RAF Bomber Command, strongly objected to Churchill's comparison of the raid to an "act of terror," a comment Churchill withdrew in the face of Harris's protest.Having been given a paraphrased version of Churchill's memo by Bottomley, on 29 March, Air Chief Marshal Arthur Harris wrote to the Air Ministry:...in the past we were justified in attacking German cities. But to do so was always repugnant and now that the Germans are beaten anyway we can properly abstain from proceeding with these attacks. This is a doctrine to which I could never subscribe. Attacks on cities like any other act of war are intolerable unless they are strategically justified. But they are strategically justified in so far as they tend to shorten the war and preserve the lives of Allied soldiers. To my mind we have absolutely no right to give them up unless it is certain that they will not have this effect. I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier. The feeling, such as there is, over Dresden, could be easily explained by any psychiatrist. It is connected with German bands and Dresden shepherdesses. Actually Dresden was a mass of munitions works, an intact government centre, and a key transportation point to the East. It is now none of these things.The phrase "worth the bones of one British grenadier" echoed Otto von Bismarck's: "The whole of the Balkans is not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier". Under pressure from the Chiefs of Staff and in response to the views expressed by Portal and Harris among others, Churchill withdrew his memo and issued a new one. This was completed on 1 April 1945:...the moment has come when the question of the so called 'area-bombing' of German cities should be reviewed from the point of view of our own interests. If we come into control of an entirely ruined land, there will be a great shortage of accommodation for ourselves and our allies. ... We must see to it that our attacks do no more harm to ourselves in the long run than they do to the enemy's war effort.Post-war debateMemorial to the victims of the bombing of DresdenThe bombing of Dresden remains controversial and is subject to an ongoing debate by historians and scholars regarding the moral and military justifications surrounding the event. British historian Frederick Taylor wrote of the attacks: "The destruction of Dresden has an epically tragic quality to it. It was a wonderfully beautiful city and a symbol of baroque humanism and all that was best in Germany. It also contained all of the worst from Germany during the Nazi period. In that sense it is an absolutely exemplary tragedy for the horrors of 20th century warfare and a symbol of destruction".Several factors have made the bombing a unique point of contention and debate. First among these are the Nazi government's exaggerated claims immediately afterwards, which drew upon the beauty of the city, its importance as a cultural icon; the deliberate creation of a firestorm; the number of victims; the extent to which it was a necessary military target; and the fact that it was attacked toward the end of the war, raising the question of whether the bombing was needed to hasten the end.Legal considerationsThe Hague Conventions, addressing the codes of wartime conduct on land and at sea, were adopted before the rise of air power. Despite repeated diplomatic attempts to update international humanitarian law to include aerial warfare, it was not updated before the outbreak of World War II. The absence of specific international humanitarian law does not mean that the laws of war did not cover aerial warfare, but the existing laws remained open to interpretation. Specifically, whether the attack can be considered a war crime depends on whether the city was defended and whether resistance was offered against an approaching enemy. Allied arguments centre around the existence of a local air defence system and additional ground defences the Germans were constructing in anticipation of Soviet advances.Aerial bombardment and international lawAir warfare must comply with laws and customs of war, including international humanitarian law by protecting the victims of the conflict and refraining from attacks on protected persons.These restraints on aerial warfare are covered by the general laws of war, because unlike war on land and at sea—which are specifically covered by rules such as the 1907 Hague Convention and Protocol I additional to the Geneva Conventions, which contain pertinent restrictions, prohibitions and guidelines—there are no treaties specific to aerial warfare.To be legal, aerial operations must comply with the principles of humanitarian law: military necessity, distinction, and proportionality: An attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy; it must be an attack on a military objective, and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.Falsification of evidenceThe bombing of Dresden has been used by Holocaust deniers and pro-Nazi polemicists—most notably by British writer David Irving in his book The Destruction of Dresden—in an attempt to establish a moral equivalence between the war crimes committed by the Nazi government and the killing of German civilians by Allied bombing raids.As such, "grossly inflated" casualty figures have been promulgated over the years, many based on a figure of over 200,000 deaths quoted in a forged version of the casualty report, Tagesbefehl No. 47, that originated with Hitler's Reich Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels.Military facilities in the northThe Albertstadt, in the north of Dresden, had remarkable military facilities that the bombings failed to hit. Today they are officer's schools ("Offiziersschule des Heeres") for the Bundeswehr and its military history museum (from prehistoric to modern times).U.S. Air Force Historical Division reportA report by the U.S. Air Force Historical Division (USAFHD) analyzed the circumstances of the raid and concluded that it was militarily necessary and justified, based on the following points:The raid had legitimate military ends, brought about by exigent military circumstances.Military units and anti-aircraft defences were sufficiently close that it was not valid to consider the city "undefended."The raid did not use extraordinary means but was comparable to other raids used against comparable targets.The raid was carried out through the normal chain of command, pursuant to directives and agreements then in force.The raid achieved the military objective, without excessive loss of civilian life.The first point regarding the legitimacy of the raid depends on two claims: first, that the railyards subjected to American precision bombing were an important logistical target, and that the city was also an important industrial centre.Even after the main firebombing, there were two further raids on the Dresden railway yards by the USAAF. The first was on 2 March 1945, by 406 B-17s, which dropped 940 tons of high-explosive bombs and 141 tons of incendiaries. The second was on 17 April, when 580 B-17s dropped 1,554 tons of high-explosive bombs and 165 tons of incendiaries.As far as Dresden being a militarily significant industrial centre, an official 1942 guide described the German city as "... one of the foremost industrial locations of the Reich," and in 1944, the German Army High Command's Weapons Office listed 127 medium-to-large factories and workshops that supplied materiel to the military. Dresden was the seventh largest German city, and by far the largest un-bombed built-up area left, and thus was contributing to the defence of Germany itself.According to the USAFHD, there were 110 factories and 50,000 workers supporting the German war effort in Dresden at the time of the raid.These factories manufactured fuses and bombsights (at Zeiss Ikon A.G.),[138] aircraft components, anti-aircraft guns, field guns, and small arms, poison gas, gears and differentials, electrical and X-ray apparatus, electric gauges, gas masks, Junkers aircraft engines, and Messerschmitt fighter cockpit parts.The second of the five points addresses the prohibition in the Hague Conventions, of "attack or bombardment" of "undefended" towns. The USAFHD report states that Dresden was protected by anti-aircraft defences, antiaircraft guns, and searchlights, under the Combined Dresden (Corps Area IV) and Berlin (Corps Area III) Luftwaffe Administration Commands.The third and fourth points say that the size of the Dresden raid—in terms of numbers, types of bombs and the means of delivery—were commensurate with the military objective and similar to other Allied bombings. On 23 February 1945, the Allies bombed Pforzheim and caused an estimated 20,000 civilian fatalities; the most devastating raid on any city was on Tokyo on 9–10 March (the Meetinghouse raid) caused over 100,000 civilian casualties. The tonnage and types of bombs listed in the service records of the Dresden raid were comparable to (or less than) throw weights of bombs dropped in other air attacks carried out in 1945. In the case of Dresden, as in many other similar attacks, the hour break in between the RAF raids was a deliberate ploy to attack the fire fighters, medical teams, and military units.In late July 1943, the city of Hamburg was bombed in Operation Gomorrah by combined RAF and USAAF strategic bomber forces. Four major raids were carried out in the span of 10 days, of which the most notable, on 27–28 July, created a devastating firestorm effect similar to Dresden's, killing at least 45,000 people.Two-thirds of the remaining population reportedly fled the city after the raids.The fifth point is that the firebombing achieved the intended effect of disabling the industry in Dresden. It was estimated that at least 23% of the city's industrial buildings were destroyed or severely damaged. The damage to other infrastructure and communications was immense, which would have severely limited the potential use of Dresden to stop the Soviet advance. The report concludes with:The specific forces and means employed in the Dresden bombings were in keeping with the forces and means employed by the Allies in other aerial attacks on comparable targets in Germany. The Dresden bombings achieved the strategic objectives that underlay the attack and were of mutual importance to the Allies and the Russians.

What was Cris Carter's playing style?

Cris Carter — “One Hand Silver”, was a one-handed catch cocktail party.From the world of a big-time promise athlete, to the “race” of those who were disgraced for perjury; from his controversial announcements at Rookie symposiums, to leading the NFL in receptions with quickened-pulse catches; from the man who lead the league in unscheduled drug-tests, to the man who’s swaggering lead to premature playoff-defeats; Cris Carter, surfed on two tides — he was either going to be disliked, or celebrated.Cris Carter’s career is a hard-nose dive of a tough-upbringing into a man’s actions to reunite himself with his own image; but it is also, a rather shady light on a lack of luminous act of sportsmanship. After terrifying accusations that could have jeopardized entirely his career, Cris Carter seemed to wipeout with the wind that he recovered: and those winds, were waves of touchdowns passes.An 8× Pro Bowler, 2× First-team All-Pro, 1× Second-team All-Pro, a Walton Payton NFL Man of the Year (disgraceful) Award (1999), NFL receptions leader (1994), 3× NFL receiving touchdowns leader (1995, 1997, 1999), and an NFL 1990s-All Decade Team Member — had one of the best and most blemished careers, in the National Football League.His catching proficiency made him one the greatest receivers ever at catching the football — who would go up and conquer contested catches up in the air.He became a cornerstone player, one of the most renowned players around the league — but right where he seemed to reach the peak, in a heartbreak — he forgot it all.Cris Carter’s start at Ohio State, was a seismic shakeout in front of the whole college world — as a Freshman at Ohio State, Cris Carter set a Rose Bowl record, for receiving-yards.As a Junior, nobody in “Buckeye History” had caught more yards, more touchdowns, more passes, than Cris Carter before his Senior season.On New Year's Day he caught four passes for 61 yards in the Cotton Bowl to finish his junior season at Ohio State with school records for receptions (69), yards (1,127) and touchdown catches (11). He was a consensus All-America, the first Buckeye receiver so honored in 42 years.Stones were rolling, so was his excitement after scoring plays — Carter would slap the living daylights out of teammates.Even attending stewards!But on July 15, Carter’s college career ended. In an incredible turn of events, revelations announced that he was suspended his senior year for marijuana use. If that was all.Director Rick Bay declared him ineligible after learning that Carter had, in violation of NCAA rules, signed with agents Norby Walters and Lloyd Bloom in the spring of his sophomore year and accepted from them a $5,000 interest-free loan and $1,800 in monthly payments. Worse: the plot thickened as Carter concealed these $5,000 he subsequently accepted to a Grand Jury…Cris Carter’s glory was doomed to fall hopelessly behind. A felony of this extent people, is a sentence of $500,000 and 10-years of jail. Rod Woodson was also involved in that scheme.Cris Carter’s story, is just a sad story of a guy who followed the wrong-end of the curve. His brother George, had been dealing and hustling down the streets and the parks. George, 27 at that time, was a convicted felon, who had been released five months earlier from state prison in Jacksonville, Ill., where he had served 16 months for burglary and forgery. He swept the vortex of a greed-based college sports system. Greed, it will do it to you everytime.Carter settled for a probation agreement; but did not get the charges against him dropped, as the prosecutors had evaluated his motives as “pure greed”. Carter’s brother, Clarence (29 at the time), was a former NBA guard for the L.A. Lakers, and considered that Clarence was living well-enough to support Cris during his college tenure. As a result, the upshot of it was a Grand Jury investigation in Chicago, with charges of threats that ruined the career of his college football coach, Earle Bruce. Consequently, the Buckeyes had a bad season, and the whole athletic department got fired. Thank you Cris, “You’re welcome.”The “theme” of following the straight and narrow, would also prove to be difficult for Cris Carter, who’s brother George did not reveal to him, he was a “snake”. What Cris didn't know, according to Clarence “Butch” Carter (such a good guy), was that George was already working as a recruiter for Walters and Bloom. Clarence says he sent Cris $75 every other week so he wouldn't need money. He also says he paid his brother's credit card bills. So what did Cris do? He let him down. It was a tremendous affront on the sports world people; because, as it stood: Cris was providing also drugs for hustlers and prostitutes. He was playing “double and triple bogeys” at strip clubs, hustling and gambling on embarrassing activities.Out of a tight-jam, Carter joined the National Football League through the supplementary draft — he then was reached by the Philadelphia Eagles, where his first catch, was a touchdown.Although he was a 1983 Parade All-America as a Split-End at Middletown (Ohio) High School, Carter also was the star of the basketball team, scoring 1,600 points in his high school career. He was an All-America receiver at Ohio State, but before signing to play football with the Buckeyes, Carter had longed for a basketball scholarship to Indiana, where his older brother Butch had played.By his third season, Carter was leading the team in touchdowns.Since 1989, Carter has become one of the league’s best receivers and has been to four consecutive Pro Bowls.But as enjoyable as this saving stroke seemed to be, it was prompt to failure. Cris Carter was suspended several times for cocaine usage. When it didn’t look like it would putter, Cris Carter’s past, backhanded him once again.Ultimately, no-nonsense coach Buddy Ryan, decided to cut loose. The Eagles waived Carter’s rights, for just a $100.Somebody who was just an average-chipper now, had to become an even bigger excellent-chipper — and it was a ride until the end. At this point, the man who would exhibit half-dozen one-handers during games, was as broke, as an empty water bottle.Carter made his Vikings debut on Monday Night, against his former team: the Eagles.The Vikings lost, but Carter finished with a 155-yards and two touchdowns.Carter seemed to have found a counterpunch, and became known for his famous: one-handed catches.Over his career, he amassed a 1,001 receptions, and 13,899 receiving yards.He always had a, precise, one-handed chip move to cup the ball right in his hand, that nobody else did.His newfound success, now gave him a shot, at recognition: as Carter signed a $11.5MM deal, which made him one of the highest paid receivers in the NFL in 1995. Since leaving the Eagles he became a minister and worked at a church in Boca Raton Fla., during the off-season. He has conducted weddings and funerals there.A sublime career no longer filled with trepidation: Carter caught a 130 touchdowns, from 13 different quarterbacks over his career.One of the keys for one-handed grabs, is to stroke the point of the ball with your index and cup it in with it.He lead the league in receptions in 1994, and broke Sterling Sharpe’s record, of season-league leading receptions, with a 122.Cris Carter, was becoming a star.But what made him a star exactly? It was hard to stay.He didn’t have great vertical ability for a guy his size (6ft3, 202 lbs), he didn’t have blazing speed.Easy answer: his hand-agility to make catches in traffic. Not many could make the one-handed catches off speed-cuts in such small spaces. He had tremendous body control as well.he’d chug the ball with one-hand, as if he was doing it with the jug machine.His success was predicated off that, and he was known around the league for doing that.He spent hours training on these one-handed catches, and help him clinch eight straight Pro Bowls.Carter was very pugnacious, and a workaholic.His aggressive approach to catching the football made him more feared among his peers.The dense, overbrushed eye-browed receiver, was setting a new approach at catching TDs and breaking traditional grounds.It was like: the ball was glued to his fingers, just like it was to his fate.8 straight 1,000 yard seasons, with the Vikings. A devote to religion and football, Carter’s professional success was an indication of finally being on the right path.But at some point, such exhilarating success, has to be exhausting.His attitude towards his teammates, was deemed; provocative.Carter openly cursed out teammates on the field.He hassled his own coaches.His free-flowing attitude didn’t offend at first, since his spectacular plays were still cashing.Carter made a living off these one-handed speed-cuts.He ran them a 1,000 times.And executed them everytime.Fittingly, the 1,000th catch of Cris Carter's career was a touchdown. Just like he started. Carter became the second receiver in National Football League history to reach the milestone.He might’ve seemed hoarse, but his favorite model to be: was Jerry Rice.An man of exemplary tradition in training.Rice would travel for miles…And so would Carter.But one could not deny, the little success the Vikings were enjoying in the playoffs, while Rice had signature performances as Super Bowl MVP.Carter started out 0–6 in the playoffs as a Viking, he could only gaze pensively…A great game against the 49ers in 1997, gave hope to the fan base that Randall Cunningham could be the starting quarterback for this franchise, after they rewarded him with a massive $32.5MM contract.Or walk-off the field, helpless.Finally, in 1998: the Vikings featured a powerful offensive-attack, leading the NFL with 556 points —And the biggest attraction of the year, Randall Moss, who caught an amazing 17 TD record as a rookie receiver.Nothing could stop the vikings from possibly advancing to their Super Bowl Championship in Carter’s tenure.And the Vikings did the impossible by being the first team to give up an insurmountable 10-point lead late in the game to the Falcons. Only the vikings I guess, could make Cris Chandler look like Kurt Warner…A disastrous loss for which the Vikings never recovered. I mean Chandler was giving them the game, he threw bad-passes all game, one which almost got picked off at the end of the 4th quarter.The vikings…Never recovered. Indeed, nothing has gone right for the franchise since its crash in the NFC championship game in January.Poor play, sideline squawking, finger-pointing between teammates, grumbling about coaches and just plain rotten luck have dogged the team that so many anointed Super Bowl favorites after their 15-1 regular season in 1998. Both the 1999 and 2000 seasons, finished with playoff losses in the NFC Conference.In 2001, the Vikings won just 5 games and head coach Dennis Green was fired (thank God).Mid-way through the 2002 season, Cris Carter un-retired to play one last season of football with the Miami Dolphins, without much success. Carter retired without winning a Championship, with any team. And I hate to say it, but, the reason he never did one, is just because he’s bad news. Cris Carter, is bad luck.Over the next few years, Cris Carter’s goal, was an enshrinement as First Ballot into the Hall of Fame museum.He didn’t make it.Over a period of five years, Carter was not selected on the Final Ballot of the Hall of Fame Committee — and again, it was not cruel people, what Carter seems to fail to understand:Is that it’s the Hall of Fame — everybody’s got All-Pros. 2008, wasn’t that the year Bruce Smith came out as eligible? Okay man, but, again; not acknowledging that other players may be better than you, is just kind of selfish. I mean Bruce Smith is, one of the top players who has ever played in this league — there’s no way you’re better than him. I think Darrell Green also came out that year as eligible, and then you have Jerry Rice eligible, in 2010 — I mean yeah, essentially the Hall of Fame is a small committee of excellence; not a lot of players with very few All-Pros and poor credentials. I don’t care about your “stats”, a top player is a top player because he plays good. How’s Darrell Green supposed to register 13 interceptions every year when nobody throws in his direction? How can a lineman have “stats”, when you do? Wide receiver is a “stats” position, so stop telling me it’s about “stats” — it just drives me nuts.Ultimately, when I listen to Cris Carter — he just looks and sounds like a drug addict. Completely on drugs. His series of cheap “balcony moves” at Rookie combines and Rookie Symposiums are just disgusting — persuading young players to blame him on a “fall guy”, is that the kind of leadership you hold-yourself to? And fatalistically, that’s everything that’s wrong with Cris Carter.He’s got no leadership. He’s a divisive, seditious player with an unscrupulous attitude.For a guy with so much cons, I’m amazed at this attitude. Speaking of the sanctity of he game, glossing over facts about himself that aren’t true or questioning the morality of other players — is just something you don’t do, when you’ve been subpoenaed for perjury in front of a Grand Jury!! The hell’s the matter with this guy.He was not a great leader, he did a terrible job grooming Randy Moss who scored a miserable 12 on his Wonderlic IQ; Randy Moss’ never been more miserable because of Cris Carter, he got ditched off from every team, failed almost everywhere he went, nobody wanted him. A Hall of Fame receiver, that no one wanted. Unheard of.But at the end of the day, the best receiver of the ’90s — was Andre Reed.Carter doesn’t get it, he was not better, than Andre Reed.The “Army Alert” was a 7× Pro Bowler, 3× Second-team All-Pro, his 13.218 career receiving yards rank 13th All-Time and he retired 2nd in career receptions All-Time behind Jerry Rice. He was the king of the showbiz and the master of the foot wedge. His path from a scratch player in Division II college football to become one of the best “stubbed cigars” in the pros is one of the greatest stories ever in the history of the NFL.Andre was the King of the breakaway catches; he stormed through a defensive hole and would run it all the way to the end-zone. Andre Reed was a great athlete, ran a 4.4 40-yard dash at the combine, he was a gymnast, had insane athleticism, great quickness, tremendous leaping-catch ability and fabulous hands. Andre Reed was a way better athlete than Chris Carter.In his first ten years, Reed only played less than 13 games once. He fumbled just 9 times in his career and only once did he ever has 85 receptions and 9 touchdowns in 21 playoff-games. Andre Reed never dropped the football. Most importantly, he was always in-bounds. And for the argument that “Cris Carter had better hands” — you just don’t understand the game.I’ve never seen a receiver catch more passes intended out of bounds and drop back down both feet in bounds, than Andre Reed. He was amazing. Jim Kelly flat out sucked, guy couldn’t throw a sandwich into the bin if he wanted to.So many times, did I see “Army Alert” make the play when it wasn’t possible to make.Ultimately, where does Carter rank among the best receivers of the ‘90s?Better than Sterling Sharpe? Nope, Sterling Sharpe had better hands. Never dropped the football.Sad his brother is such a disgusting human being. When you don’t take your college courses seriously, bad things happen…Was he even better than Isaac Bruce? Nope.Still no.And if you want to disagree, then we have a problem. Because I was probably the only person that ever saw Isaac Bruce play when he was younger, and I can assure you, that he was better.First of all, he was a Split-End; and number #2, he ran a 4.48, he is one of the most explosive electrifying receivers I’ve ever seen on the field. Was Cris Carter a better route runner? Not a chance, Isaac Bruce ran some of the best In-Breaking routes in the league and could smoke people on slant patterns. So much quickness and elusiveness. And for those who say:“Well he had Kurt Warner” —His numbers went down when Kurt Warner started. His numbers went down compared to before, Kurt Warner always spread the ball around on the field. He had better numbers before.Which leads us to this (remember the old post I did on T.O.?): Cris Carter, WAS A FLANKER.It’s true. Who was the Split-End when he played for Philadelphia? Mike Quick. Who was the Split-End when he came to Minnesota? Willie Reed. And then Moss, eventually“Well, what about the overall numbers?”What about his “numbers”?Cris Carter had 7,204 career receiving yards at the age of 30…Michael Irvin had 9,500 at that same age. Michael Irvin was a Split-End too.Cris Carter averaged 12.6 yards per reception, Michael Irvin was never allowed to run a route under 14 yards. If Michael Irvin had 85 receptions in a season, probably 65 of them, were In-Breaking routes, and the rest of them were Posts or Hinges.See, here’s the problem with numbers: he didn’t put them against the same competition. Cris Carter has never lined-up, against a Pro Bowl #1 Corner. You don’t get it, do you? 1,200 yards, or whatever you had against #2 Corners as a Flanker, doesn’t get you 1.200 yards as a Split-End.You still don’t get it do you? Well let me tell you this: When Jerry Rice was torching corners out of the Regular Formation as a Split-End for 1,500 receiving yards every year, that would have been 2,800 yards, as a Flanker, against mediocre #2 cornerbacks.Now you do get it do you?Cris Carter’s numbers are meaningless, because he never registered them against top competition. Ever.So any Split-End would always be better than him, because their numbers obey to a higher-degree of difficulty and are more meaningful. Now you see you understand it. He just wasn’t that good: he ran a 4.63 at the combine, he was slow, he only ran speed-outs, he had short arms, he could only run two routes, he was the most targeted player of his own decade; Cris Carter lead the league with a 100 targets more than anybody else — he is simply overrated.But most of all —Cris Carter’s just a bad person. He lets you down. Like he let Earle Bruce down, like he let his former head coach down, like he let the Vikings down when he left, his older brother Clarence down, like he let his Ex-wife down. And I hate to say it pal, but she looks more like a Hall of Famer than you do.Hey I recognize this man to the right, that’s Wheelock Whitney. Jr, he was a good owner.And I want to say this about Melanie Carter: let’s give this woman a round of applause here.Such a great woman, look how magnanimous that woman is, disgusting dude to her left. And people…I don’t see “Hall of Famer” on Cris Carter’s face. I’m sorry.But Melanie Carter, has done some things that no woman has done, for the National Football League. She was an integral part of the NFL Wives Association and was heavily involved in charitable work. But he just let her down, because when they filed in the papers for a divorce after being separated for almost ten years, he refused to give her access, to his financial records!!! Now about that??? How’s that loyalty for a person who stuck up for you, when you were using drugs for ten years!!! He was trying to cheat the alimony and divorce payouts, I know it. Plus, it was revealed Carter was spending money the two shared in a joint account without her knowledge or consent. And I said it before, and I’ll say it again: Cris Carter, is bad news. Always have, always will be.Eventually, Cris Carter got inducted into the Hall of Fame in 2013; but looking back, I don’t think he deserved it.Word on the street is that he drove the Hall of Fame Committee so nuts, that they capitulated and were inclined to let him in.NFL Legit Hall of Famers: Andre Reed, Sterling Sharpe, Isaac Bruce.NFL Players’ Wives Association Hall of Famers: Melanie Carter.Non Hall of Famers: Cris Carter.He chose to live a life mired in controversy, mired in shame, mired in scandalous debacles.He goes out the small door.

Why Do Our Customer Upload Us

Cocodoc is a great online PDF software that you can use for several options which include file conversion to and from powerpoint, word, excel, jpeg among other formats, and reworking your pdfs wether it is by mixing a bunch of pdf documents or splitting them for only keeping a small portion of it.

Justin Miller