急啊 如果我的邻村发生地震∼∼围绕这个话题写一篇英语作文 比如地震前发生了什么事地震中发生什么事
地震后解放军是怎样救援的
我要进主力281
Last year the 8-magnitude Sichuan Earthquake,the devastating and the most destructive earthquake in China,occurred.Just 90 minutes after the earthquake,Premier Wen Jiabao,who has an academic background ingeomechanics,flew to the earthquake area to oversee the rescue work.Because of the government鈥檚 immediate response,the earthquake was perfectly under control in a very short time.After that,all Chinese television stations displayed their programs in grayscale and broadcast the non-stop earthquake footage in the following month.It is quite sorrowful and sad for every individual to see our fellow citizens buried underground deeply and separated from their family in despair.It was the first time that a national mourning period with flags at half mast had been declared for civilians rather than the death of a state leader.In the three-day period of national mourning for the quake victims,many websites converted their home page to black and white.Meanwhile,every individual devoted their own properties like clothes,tents and useful devices to the disaster area with pleasure and unselfishness.Nevertheless,no one could ever forget that there were 69,227 confirmed dead and 374,176 injured,with 18,222 listed as missing from the horrible catastrophe.Therefore it is necessary for everybody to get hold of the escape tips in case of the disaster happened.Here are the detailed procedures and the practical instructions for earthquake prediction and self-rescue.Step 1 Be AwareCheck and watch the local weather forecast every day.If it is a period in which the earthquake is likely to happen,you should be alert to the many and varied phenomena,such as the abnormal weather conditions,the bizarre geographical phenomena and strange animal behaviors.For instance,if you feed some fish in an aquarium tank,before the earthquake occurs,you would find them anxious,terrified and perhaps even jump out of the aquarium.Step 2 Find a Safe PlaceIf the earthquake really happens,find something in the framework as a shelter because of the stability triangle and law that the low center of gravity should not be collapsed.You can hide under the study desk or the hard cover-providing dinner table,which can shield you from falling debris.On condition that you cannot be underneath something with hard surface,look for a structurally strong area as a refuge.For example,you can stay in the doorway or hug an interior wall,because they are more reinforced.Avoid standing near the heavy bookshelf holding the heavy objects.Then look around to remove the items which might fall down and injure you.The last important thing is,make sure that you stay away from the kitchen,which seems to be most dangerous location,because it is adjacent to exterior windows,fireplaces and a host of cooking appliances.Step 3 During the EarthquakeStay where you are and keep calm because you will face the aftershock which will happen unexpected and even more fiercely.Sometimes,there may be a variety of impulsion tempting you to run outside,what you should do is resist the idea of running outside imprudently because if you run without thinking carefully before the earthquake ends,you are very likely to be hit by falling debris.Another essential point is always keep the faith of survival.Remember,the belief of existence is the half of your successful escape.Keep recalling something happy,never stop praying for yourself and always tell yourself it is not a big deal.Step 4 After being RescuedAfter the waves of the aftershocks in the earthquake,make sure that the earthquake ends before going out.Usually people suffer from both physical and psychological impacts so first you should ensure that you are hydrated and estimate your blood sugar.This means that whether you need some food and water after the earthquake.Sometimes the shadow of the earthquake will remain in your mind which will exert crucial influence in your attitude and the way of thinking towards life.So if necessary,go and find the psychological counselor for some useful information and suggestions.At last,become a volunteer to make your own contributions to helping others in danger and supporting them to be rescued.Nowadays,the memory of the grayscale TV programs and the three-day national mourning still often emerge in every Chinese individual鈥檚 mind as if it were yesterday.As a matter of fact,a disaster,like the great earthquake,can truly bring people great pain and suffering.In that time,however,we stood up successfully from the debris with our tough mind.Nevertheless,as the Chinese old proverb says鈥 a fall into the pit,a gain in your wit鈥 we gained new thinking about rescuing skills,aborted more practical experience and the most importance was that we obtained deep thoughts toward life.Surviving an earthquake would not be something difficult and no longer impossible as long as you get hold of the provided process and keep the faith of existence in your philosophical brain.You will find nothing but a miracle because you rescue yourself from the horrible condition.Therefore,the history will not be allowed to repeat itself once again only if you believe you can survive no matter what condition is.
为您推荐：
其他类似问题
扫描下载二维码八年级上册英语作文能帮我写吗movie review
米饭wan1334
Man About Town,and Very Alone鈥淣ot if you were the last man on earth!鈥 Plenty of guys have heard that line at some point in their lives,but it鈥檚 unlikely that Will Smith is one.His irresistible charm has been proved,above all,by his ability to attract audiences to bad movies like 鈥淗itch鈥 and 鈥淲ild Wild West,鈥 as well as to better ones like 鈥淎li鈥 and 鈥淭he Pursuit of Happyness.鈥 In spite of its third-act collapse into obviousness and sentimentality,鈥淚 Am Legend鈥 鈥 in which Mr.Smith plays somebody with every reason to believe that he really is the last man on earth 鈥 is among the better ones.And this star,whose amiability makes him easy to underestimate as an actor,deserves his share of the credit.There are not many performers who can make themselves interesting in isolation,without human supporting players.Tom Hanks did it in 鈥淐ast Away,鈥 with only a volleyball as his buddy,foil and straight man.Mr.Smith has a few more companions,including an expressive German shepherd,some department store mannequins and a high-powered rifle.(There are also some flesh-eating,virus-crazed zombies,about which more in a moment.) But it is the charismatic force of his personality that makes his character鈥檚 radical solitude scary and fascinating,as well as strangely appealing.In this Mr.Smith is helped,and to some degree upstaged,by the island of Manhattan,which the movie鈥檚 director,Francis Lawrence,has turned into a post-apocalyptic wilderness.Three years after an epidemic has caused the evacuation and quarantine of New York City,Robert Neville (Mr.Smith) is its sole diurnal human resident,and he spends his days roaming its desolate neighborhoods,at once wary and carefree.The streetscapes he wanders through will be familiar to any visitor or resident,but the way Mr.Lawrence and his team of digital-effects artists have distressed and depopulated New York is downright uncanny.Weeds poke up through the streets,which are piled with abandoned cars,and a slow,visible process of decay has set in.A nightmare,of course,but not without its enchantments.In some ways Neville,dwelling in a highly developed urban space that is also a wilderness,experiences the best of both worlds.From his home base in the elegant Washington Square town house he was lucky enough to own (on a government employee鈥檚 salary) before the big die-off,he makes daylight forays that are like an adventure-tourist fantasy.He does a little deer hunting on Park Avenue and some indoor fishing at the Temple of Dendur,picks fresh corn in Central Park and smacks golf balls across the Hudson from the deck of the aircraft carrier Intrepid.Mr.Lawrence,who previously directed the hectic,obnoxious 鈥淐onstantine鈥 and many music videos,uses elaborate,computer-assisted means to create simple,striking effects.While 鈥淚 Am Legend,鈥 the latest in a series of film versions of a novel by Richard Matheson,fits comfortably within the conventions of the sci-fi horror genre 鈥 here come those zombies!鈥 it mixes dread and suspense with contemplative,almost pastoral moods.And without taking itself too seriously,the movie,written by Akiva Goldsman and Mark Protosevich,does ponder some pretty deep questions about the collapse and persistence of human civilization.Neville,a scientist and a soldier,constitutes a civilization of one.His daily routines are at once practical 鈥 he wants to find a cure for the virus that wiped everyone else out,and he needs to be home before sundown 鈥 and spiritual.Under the streets of the city and in its empty buildings are the infected,transformed by the virus into pale,hairless,light-allergic cannibals.鈥淪ocial de-evolution appears to be complete,鈥 Neville observes as he makes notes in his basement lab.And his habits are a way not only of protecting himself from the zombies,but also of maintaining the distinction between them and him.The zombies,like the rabid dogs that are their companions,nonetheless display rudimentary pack behavior and are even able to set traps and make plans.Once they begin swarming,鈥淚 Am Legend鈥 inevitably loses some of its haunting originality,since they look a lot like the monsters in 8 Days Later鈥 (and its sequel,8 Weeks Later鈥?.They also represent a less compelling application of computer-generated imagery than all those empty avenues and silent buildings.And in its last section 鈥淚 Am Legend鈥 reverts to generic type,with chases and explosions and a redemptive softening of its bleak premise.The presence of the lovely Brazilian actress Alice Braga if she and Mr.Smith were to reboot the species together,Humanity 2.0 would be quite a bit sexier than the present version,as well as friendlier.But really the movie is best when its hero is on his own,and Mr.Smith,walking in the footsteps of Vincent Price and Charlton Heston,who played earlier versions of the Robert Neville character,outdoes both of them.There is something graceful and effortless about this performance,which not only shows what it might feel like to be the last man on earth,but also demonstrates what it is to be a movie star.
为您推荐：
其他类似问题
扫描下载二维码MPs question government’s plan for a paperless NHS by 2018 | The BMJWe鈥檙e Not Winning. It鈥檚 Not Wo
GOP chairman Michael Steele was blasted by fellow Republicans recently for describing Afghanistan as 鈥渁 war of Obama鈥檚 choosing,鈥？and suggesting that the United States would fail there as had many other outside powers. Some critics berated Steele for his pessimism, others for getting his facts wrong, given that President George W. Bush ordered the invasion of Afghanistan soon after 9/11. But Steele鈥檚 critics are the ones who are wrong: the RNC chair was more correct than not on the substance of his statement, if not the politics.The war being waged by the United States in Afghanistan today is fundamentally different and more ambitious than anything carried out by the Bush administration. Afghanistan is very much Barack Obama鈥檚 war of choice, a point that the president underscored recently by picking Gen. David Petraeus to lead an intensified counterinsurgency effort there. After nearly nine years of war, however, continued or increased U.S. involvement in Afghanistan isn鈥檛 likely to yield lasting improvements that would be commensurate in any way with the investment of American blood and treasure. It is time to scale down our ambitions there and both reduce and redirect what we do.
Tim A HetheringtonView a gallery of the war in Afghanistan's Korengal ValleyAt Outpost Restrepo The first thing we need to recognize is that fighting this kind of war is in fact a choice, not a necessity. The United States went to war in October 2001 to oust the Taliban government, which had allowed Al Qaeda to operate freely out of Afghanistan and mount the 9/11 attacks. The T members of Al Qaeda were captured or killed, or escaped to Pakistan. But that was a very different war, a necessary one carried out in self-defense. It was essential that Afghanistan not continue to be a sanctuary for terrorists who could again attack the American homeland or U.S. interests around the world.The Bush administration was less clear on what to do next. Working in the State Department at the time, I was appointed by President Bush as the U.S. government鈥檚 coordinator for the future of Afghanistan. At a National Security Council meeting chaired by the president in October 2001, I was the one arguing that once the Taliban were removed from power there might be a short-lived opportunity to help establish a weak but functional Afghan state. There and at subsequent meetings I pressed for a U.S. military presence of some 25,000鈥？0,000 troops (matched by an equal number from NATO countries) to be part of an international force that would help maintain order after the invasion and train Afghans until they could protect themselves.My colleagues in the Bush administration had no interest in my proposal. The consensus was that little could be accomplished in Afghanistan given its history, culture, and composition, and that ugg classic cardy there would be little payoff beyond Afghanistan even if things there went better than expected. They had no appetite for on-the-ground nation building. The contrast with subsequent policy toward Iraq, where officials were prepared to do a great deal because they hoped to create a potential model for change throughout the Middle East, could hardly be more stark.As a result, the United States decided not to follow up its ouster of the Taliban with anything ambitious. U.S. troop levels did top out at about 30,000, but most of those just hunted the handful of Al Qaeda who remained. The United States never joined the international force sent to stabilize Afghanistan and in fact limited its size and role.By the time Obama became president in 2009, the situation inside Afghanistan was fast deteriorating. The Taliban were regaining a foothold. There was concern in Washington that if left unchecked they could soon threaten the existence of the elected government in Kabul headed by Hamid Karzai. Trends were judged to be so bad that the president ordered 17,000 more American combat troops to Afghanistan even before the first review he鈥檇 ordered up was finished.Since then Obama has had several opportunities to reassess U.S. goals and interests in Afghanistan, and in each instance he has chosen to escalate. Upon completion of that first review in March 2009, he declared that the U.S. mission would henceforth be 鈥渢o disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future.鈥？But in reality the U.S. objective went beyond taking on Al Q the president announced in those same remarks that the additional U.S. troops being sent to Afghanistan would 鈥渢ake the fight to the Taliban in the south and the east, and give us a greater capacity to partner with Afghan security forces and to go after insurgents along the border.鈥？In short, the return of the Taliban was equated with the return of Al Qaeda, and the United States became a full protagonist in Afghanistan鈥檚 civil war, supporting a weak and corrupt central government against the Taliban. Another 4,000 U.S. troops were sent, to train Afghan soldiers.Just five months later, a second, more extensive policy review was initiated. This time the president again described U.S. goals in terms of denying Al Qaeda a safe haven in Afghanistan, but again he committed the United States to something much more: 鈥淲e must reverse the Taliban鈥檚 momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan鈥檚 security forces and government so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan鈥檚 future.鈥？/p&The decisions that flowed from this were equally contradictory. On the one hand, another 30,000 U.S. troops were pledged, both to warn the Taliban and to reassure the shaky government in Kabul. Yet the president also ugg boots online
promised that 鈥渙ur troops will begin to come home鈥？by the summer of 2011鈥攖o light a fire under that same government, as well as to placate antiwar sentiment at home.Today the counterinsurgency strategy that demanded all those troops is clearly not working. The August 2009 election that gave Karzai a second term as president was marred by pervasive fraud and left him with less legitimacy than ever. While the surge of U.S. forces has pushed back the Taliban in certain districts, the Karzai government has been unable to fill the vacuum with effective governance and security forces that could prevent the Taliban鈥檚 return. So far the Obama administration is sticki indeed, the president went to great lengths to underscore this when he turned to Petraeus to replace Gen. Stanley McChrystal in Kabul. No course change is likely until at least December, when the president will find himself enmeshed in yet another review of his Afghan policy.This will be Obama鈥檚 third chance to decide what kind of war he wants to fight in Afghanistan, and he will have several options to choose from, even if none is terribly promising. The first is to stay the course: to spend the next year attacking the Taliban and training the Afghan Army and police, and to begin reducing the number of U.S. troops in July 2011 only to the extent that conditions on the ground allow. Presumably, if conditions are not conducive, Petraeus will try to limit any reduction in the number of U.S. troops and their role to a minimum.This approach is hugely expensive, however, and is highly unlikely to succeed. The Afghan government shows little sign of being prepared to deliver either clean administration or effective security at the local level. While a small number of Taliban might choose to 鈥渞eintegrate鈥濃？i.e., opt out of the fight鈥攖he vast majority will not. And why should they? The Taliban are resilient and enjoy sanctuary in neighboring Pakistan, whose government tends to view the militants as an instrument for influencing Afghanistan鈥檚 future (something Pakistan cares a great deal about, given its fear of Indian designs there).The economic costs to the United States of sticking to the current policy are on the order of 100 billion a year, a hefty price to pay when the pressure to cut federal spending is becoming acute. The military price is also great, not just in lives and mat茅riel but also in distraction at a time when the United States could well face crises with Iran and North Korea. And the domestic political costs would be considerable if the president were seen as going back on the spirit if not the letter of his commitment to begin to bring troops home next year.At the other end of the policy spectrum would be a decision to walk away from Afghanistan鈥攖o complete as quickly as possible a full U.S. military withdrawal. Doing so would almost certainly result in the collapse of the Karzai government and a Taliban takeover of much of the country. Afghanistan could become another Lebanon, where the civil war blends into a regional war involving multiple neighboring states. Such an outcome triggered by U.S. military withdrawal would be seen as a major strategic setback to the United States in its global struggle with terrorists. It would also be a disaster for NATO in what in many ways is its first attempt at being ugg bailey button sale a global security organization.There are, however, other options. One is reconciliation, a fancy word for negotiating a ceasefire with those Taliban leaders willing to stop fighting in exchange for the chance to join Afghanistan鈥檚 government. It is impossible, though, to be confident that many Taliban leaders would be p they might decide that time is on their side if they only wait and fight. Nor is it likely that the terms they would accept would in turn be acceptable to many Afghans, who remember all too well what it was like to live under the Taliban. A national-unity government is farfetched.One new idea put forward by Robert Blackwill, a former U.S. ambassador to India, is for a de facto partition of Afghanistan. Under this approach, the United States would accept Taliban control of the Pashtun-dominated south so long as the Taliban did not welcome back Al Qaeda and did not seek to undermine stability in non-Pashtun areas of the country. If the Taliban violated these rules, the United States would attack them with bombers, drones, and Special Forces. U.S. economic and military support would continue to flow to non-Pashtun Afghans in the north and west of the country.This idea has its drawbacks as well as appeal. A self-governing 鈥淧ashtunistan鈥？inside Afghanistan could become a threat to the integrity of Pakistan, whose own 25 million Pashtuns might seek to break free to form a larger Pashtunistan. Any partition would also be resisted by many Afghans, including those Tajik, Baluchi, and Hazara minorities living in demographic 鈥渋slands鈥？within the mostly Pashtun south, as well as the Tajiks, Uzbeks, and others elsewhere in the country who want to keep Afghanistan free of Taliban influence. And even many Pashtuns would resist for fear of the harsh, intolerant rule the Taliban would impose if given the chance.Another approach, best termed 鈥渄ecentralization,鈥？bears resemblance to partition but also is different in important ways. Under this approach, the United States would provide arms and training to those local Afghan leaders throughout the country who reject Al Qaeda and who do not seek to undermine Pakistan. Economic aid could be provided to increase respect for human rights and to decrease poppy cultivation. There would be less emphasis on building up a national Army and police force.The advantage of this option is that it works with and not against the Afghan tradition of a weak ruling center and a strong periphery. It would require revision of the Afghan Constitution, which as it stands places too much power in the hands of the president. The United States could leave it to local forces to prevent Taliban inroads, allowing most U.S. troops to return home. Leaders of non-Pashtun minorities (as well as anti-Taliban Pashtuns) would receive military aid and training. The result would be less a partition than a patchwork quilt. Petraeus took a step in this direction last week by gaining Karzai鈥檚 approval for the creation of new uniformed local security forces who will be paid to fight the insurgents in their communities.Under this scenario, the Taliban would likely return to positions of power in a good many parts of the south. The Taliban would know, however, that they would be challenged by U.S. air power and Special Forces (and by U.S.-supported Afghans) if they attacked non-Pashtun areas, if they allowed the areas under their control to be used to supply antigovernment forces in Pakistan, or if they worked in any way with Al Qaeda. There is reason to believe that the Taliban might not Health Tip: Prevent Carbon Monoxide Poisoning repeat their historic error of inviting Al Qaeda back into areas under their control. Indeed, the United States should stop assuming that the two groups are one and the same and instead start talking to the Taliban to underscore how their interests differ from Al Qaeda鈥檚.Again, there are drawbacks. This approach would be resisted by some Afghans who fear giving away too much to the Taliban, and by some Taliban who don鈥檛 think it gives enough. The Karzai government would oppose any shift in U.S. support away from the central government and toward village and local leaders. Fighting would likely continue inside Afghanistan for years. And again, areas reclaimed by the Taliban would almost certainly reintroduce laws that would be antithetical to global norms for human rights.So what should the president decide? The best way to answer this question is to return to what the United States seeks to accomplish in Afghanistan and why. The two main American goals are to prevent Al Qaeda from reestablishing a safe haven and to make sure that Afghanistan does not undermine the stability of Pakistan.We are closer to accomplishing both goals than most people realize. CIA Director Leon Panetta recently estimated the number of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan to be 鈥？0 to 100, maybe less.鈥？It makes no sense to maintain 100,000 troops to go after so small an adversary, especially when Al Qaeda operates on this scale in a number of countries. Such situations call for more modest and focused policies of counterterrorism along the lines of those being applied in Yemen and Somalia, rather than a full-fledged counterinsurgency effort.Pakistan is much more important than Afghanistan given its nuclear arsenal, its much larger population, the many terrorists on its soil, and its history of wars with India. But Pakistan鈥檚 future will be determined far more by events within its borders than those to its west. The good news is that the Army shows some signs of understanding that Pakistan鈥檚 own Taliban are a danger to the country鈥檚 future, and has begun to take them on.All this argues for reorienting U.S. Afghan policy toward decentralization鈥攑roviding greater support for local leaders and establishing a new approach to the Taliban. The war the United States is now fighting in Afghanistan is not succeeding and is not worth waging in this way. The time has come to scale back U.S. objectives and sharply reduce U.S. involvement on the ground. Afghanistan is claiming too many American lives, requiring too much attention, and absorbing too many resources. The sooner we accept that Afghanistan is less a problem to be fixed than a situation to be managed, the better.Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, is the author of War of Necessity, War of Choice: A Memoir of Two Iraq Wars.