a va - Informal How Are You in French

a va - Informal How Are You in French Now that we have studied  the formal ways of saying how are you in French, lets look at the informal ways. a va - How are you / how is it going? The Magical French word!   Ãƒâ€¡a va (pronounced sa va, since the cedilla makes the C pronounced as an S) is truly the magical word of the French language. Why? Because it never changes. You can use a va to ask how are you to one person: Ça va Camille ?Oui, à §a va bien, merci. Et toi ? Whether you are using tu or vous doesnt matter: Ça va madame Chevalier ?Oui, à §a va bien, merci. Et vous ? You can use a vato ask how are you to several people: Ça va bien vous deux ? (How are you both?)Ça va, à §a va, merci. Et toi ? (Fine, fine, and you?) You can even use a va to talk about other people: Et vos enfants, à §a va ? (and your kids, are they OK?)Oui, à §a va bien, merci. Not just people, you can usea va foreverything really! Votre travail, à §a va ? (how is your work?)La santà © de votre mà ¨re, à §a va ? (how is your mothers health?) How cool is that a va - Informal but very common French for how are you Granted,  Ãƒ §a va is not the most formal French. But its so practical that its been used a lot in French lately, and has really made its way in almost all situations: among friends and family, of course, but also at the office, with acquaintances... Its only in the most formal of situations that it may not be appropriate. I wouldnt say to the Queen of England bonjour Votre Majestà ©, à §a va ?...   Ok, now that weve seen how to say  how are you in formal French, and learned about à §a va, lets see how you answer how are you subtlely in French. I post exclusive mini lessons, tips, pictures and more daily on my Facebook, Twitter, and Pinterest pages - so press the links below - talk to you there! https://www.facebook.com/frenchtoday https://twitter.com/frenchToday https://www.pinterest.com/frenchtoday/ https://www.instagram.com/realfrenchtoday/

Raising the Red Lantern essays

Raising the Red Lantern essays This film is a story of something greater than the actual story itself. Set in the 1920s in Northern China, a young girl finds herself involved in something that was not what she had imagined for herself. The main character is Songlian, a 19-year-old Chinese girl, who marries into the Chen Clan only to find herself as one of the four mistresses within a home of tradition and strict order. The geographical setting is appropriate as to the underline theme of the film and that is a feeling of isolation within the walls of the Chen compound. The gray walls of their living quarters strengthens this feeling of isolation experienced by all four women. The only color in their lives is the lighting of red lanterns signifying the sexual wishes of the Master Chen for that evening. The sound effects of bells and Chinese opera serves to enhance the intensity of their longing for real companionship. The relationship between the Master and his four wives is purely sexual. As a result, t he four women compete with one another to sway his affections by conniving and betraying the other for the sake of time spent with the Master. Songlian struggles more than the other wives because she is younger and educated. This is both an asset and a liability for her because the others are very jealous of her and this isolates her even more than the walls. In addition to sharing the Master, each woman including their servants must obey strict rules of the household. These rules act to further control women in an already repressive society of the time. This film is somewhat true to form because women of China especially during this period were very suppressed. Although Chen had wealth, the women were still treated as objects of status without choices or hopes of some kind of personal happiness only sacrifice. This is reinforced by the conversations about the importance of having a son and how having a daughter was considered a wasted birth. ...

Goldman Sachs and the Future of the Internet Essay

Goldman Sachs and the Future of the Internet - Essay Example Gus Levy, senior partner of the firm from1969 until 1976, is known for articulating the firm’s investment strategy as being â€Å"long-term greedy;† i.e. willing to absorb short term losses in exchange for the promise of long term profits. The dark side of the company’s dealings has been the fodder of many a polemical writer, however, and not without cause. In 1928 it started the Goldman Sachs Trading Company, which operated much like a Ponzi scheme and collapsed in the crash of 1929. In 1970 it nearly went under when the Penn Central Transportation Company went bankrupt, owing tens of millions of dollars in commercial paper from Goldman Sachs. A crisis erupted which involved numerous lawsuits. In 2007 Two Goldman traders, Michael Swenson and Josh Birnbaum, made a $4 billion profit by short-selling subprime mortgage securities. By 2008 their involvement in the financial products contributed to the global meltdown that occurred that year. A source of long-term con troversy has been the ease with which Sachs employees transition into government roles. American president George H.W. Bush made former Goldman CEO Henry Paulson his Secretary of the Treasury. Current Secretary Timothy Geitner’s chief of staff is former Goldman lobbyist Mark Patterson. The current CEO of the company has visited the White House at least ten times since Barak Obama became president. It is reported that the firm was a major contributor to Obama’s 2008 campaign. (A Brief) This dichotomous image of being at once financial geniuses and underhanded opportunists is buttressed by Goldman’s activities since the early days of public Internet use. The company handled the IPO of Microsoft,... This essay stresses that Goldman profits regardless of how the company they promote fares over time. However, there are two possible disadvantages in this scenario. Goldman may not sell its holdings in the company before the bubble bursts. It will then lose the profits earned from the stock’s price going up. Additionally, investors may be reluctant to invest money in firms promoted by Goldman if their reputation suffers over the long term. This paper makes a conclusion that it is worthwhile for Goldman to invest in Internet firms such as Facebook is dependent on which scenario best benefits its overall profitability. Given that the last dot-com bubble is still remembered, a cautious strategy would be for the firm to exercise due diligence practices before promoting such companies. Unlike the 1990s, there now exist mature, stable web-based companies that show strong prospects for solid, continued growth into the future. The aforementioned Facebook is one example. This paper has only considered the question from a monetary viewpoint. There are also ethical considerations, however. Deliberately creating bubbles may benefit the firm doing so, but it virtually guarantees an economic contraction and ruined portfolios in the longer term. That same outcome can also be seen as undesirable purely from a selfish viewpoint. The world economy is currently in a very fragile state, largely due to the real estate bubble aftermath.

Business Research Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2250 words

Business Research - Essay Example This trend of use of celebrities in adverts is not likely to change in the near future. The media have contributed to this obsession through overloading the society with information and demonstrations of celebrities and giving them entertainment. The use of celebrities in adverts accrues benefits not only to the organization but also to the celebrity. Through the use of a celebrity, the consumer feels a positive feeling of association and security. The consumers deem their celebrities as idols, and once they recommend the use of a product, they deem such products as of high quality. Consumers like to be associated with celebrities, and they end up buying such products because they would like to be like the celebrity. In essence, the use of a celebrity makes a product stand out and be recalled by the consumers. The use of a celebrity makes the products or services stand out. Celebrity endorsement has been regarded as a way of getting the brand noticed amidst the high competition in th e market environment. There are huge impacts of the use of celebrities in adverts among consumers through audio visual commercials. ... Relevance of the Research Numerous studies have been carried out to identify the impact of celebrity endorsements on sales and marketing. Nevertheless, there is disagreement and debate on the precise role of celebrity endorsement on customer discernment towards the brand. Customer attitudes form the basis for increased sales and marketing of a product. Some studies note that there is a weak correlation between the two while others state that there is a strong correlation between the two. This research proposal will provide a basis on the acquisition of insights in the field of consumer discernments towards a brand or product and the impact of celebrity endorsements on them to influence sales and marketing. This proposal will structure a systematic review with respect to these associations to offer marketing economists a useful guide on celebrity endorsement. Because this proposal will assist clarify the role of celebrity endorsement in adverts, it will also serve societal and practic al relevance. For organizations, it is particularly significant to identify the positive and negative effects of celebrity endorsement on the discernment of the customer towards the product and brand so purchase decision making and purchasing behavior can be increased. This paper will give insights on the significance of celebrity endorsement through giving reference to an example of celebrity endorsements such as David Beckham by Adidas. An enhanced comprehension of celebrity endorsement unquestionably prompts managers to take on an effective policy by which sufficient customer discernment will be engendered. This will lead to increased customer purchase intents, which will positively affect the

The fall of the Iron curtain in the 1990s Essay Example for Free

The fall of the Iron curtain in the 1990s Essay The fall of the Iron curtain in the 1990s brought a close to a chapter in history that brought the world to the brink of global nuclear-armed conflict. However, at the dawn of the 21st century President George W. Bushs administration is poised to reopen that chapter by pursuing a unilateral defense posture that will only serve to modernize and expand current nuclear war fighting capabilities and break the taboo of nuclear non-use. This paper will argue that the failure of the United States to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) as well as the pursuit of a National Missile Defense (NMD) will lock the United States back into its Cold War security dilemma in which striving to increase security breeds more insecurity. CTBT Since the 1950s, opposition to nuclear testing has been spurred by concerns over its health and environmental effects and by testing being one of the more visible signs of the nuclear arms race. Most recently, in 1995-1996, massive worldwide criticism of French nuclear tests in the South Pacific, caused France to curtail its test program. Public opposition and the dangers of an arms race fueled by nuclear testing have lead governments to try to limit and stop nuclear testing for over 40 years. However, in 1999 the United States Senate refused to implement the CTBT, which would have put an end to nuclear weapons testing and development. The United States failure to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty guarantees a future end to the ten-year moratorium on testing. The events of September 11th and the subsequent war on terrorism have the Bush administration searching for new options on the battlefield. Recently the administration began studying options for the development and production of a small, low-yield nuclear weapon called a bunker-buster which would burrow into the ground to destroy buried hideaways of rogue leaders like Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden. This pursuit not only guarantees no chance of the CTBT ever coming into law in the US but it also guarantees the breakdown in the firewall between conventional warfare and nuclear warfare. Using nuclear weapons in conventional warfare guarantees the escalation of conflict that would spiral out of control and only serve to hurt future arms reductions negotiations. The development of low yield nuclear weapons is also likely to spur a new arms race between the US and Russia because of an increased reliance on tactical nuclear weapons, in which the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction is no longer employed as deterrence but as procedure. 1 Therefore the United States effort to increase its security by developing weapons to defeat terrorists would only serve to escalate its own insecurity and showcase US military paranoia. The failure of the US to ratify the CTBT also makes it less likely that other states will enter into the treaty. Pakistan and India, known nuclear states that are the most likely to start a nuclear confrontation have long been waiting to see what the US is going to do on CTBT before they take a stance. The effect of the US ratifying the CTBT would be the equivalent of saying Gentlemen, start your engines. 2 Every government in the world that is considering the treaty would race to get the treaty to enter into force. If those countries were to continue on their current course of nuclear development it is likely that the Bush administration would have to uphold its doctrine that it is using against Iraq in order to prevent the spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction to terrorist organizations. Ratification of the CTBT would not only halt US weapons development at its current state but it would also help pave the way for eventual disarmament. The ratification of the CTBT would also help undermine the current security dilemma the United States is locked in to. NMD NMD first appeared under President Reagan in the early 1980s. It was popularly known as Star Wars because it was intended to be a space-based system for the reconnaissance and prompt in-flight destruction of long-range missiles fired at the US3. However, due to its complexity and cost, the Star Wars system was never built. However, anti-missile systems continue to be explored, as for example the Exo-Atmospheric Kill Vehicle developed under President Clinton. 4 NMD represents an attempt to ensure that the US is forever safe from any kind of attack, especially from irrational rogue states armed with long-range missiles. It shows clearly that an interdependent world and globalisation bring with them a sense of insecurity. This sense of insecurity could be said to verge on paranoia, considering the disparity of forces between rogue states and the US. Indeed, as there is brought here, every threat is magnified under the lens of Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites and must be hedged against. Echoing President Clinton, British Prime Minister Tony Blair argued that in an interdependent world, extensive multilateralism was the only choice that could lead to true security from multiple, global threats. 5 However, President Bush seems to have chosen the opposite path by seeking to protect the US unilaterally, resulting in the logic of the Cold War arms race. NMD in particular, as it is a space-based defense system, seems particularly vulnerable to the logic of the arms race. Indeed, today only one in eight active orbiting satellites belong to the US military. 6 This proportion is set to decrease, as launching satellites into space continues to become more and more affordable to companies and smaller countries. Therefore, in the unilateralist logic, space-based weapons will also become increasingly available to possible enemies, presenting a new threat to US security that must be overcome by ever more expensive technological fixes. Furthermore, since i la carte multilateralism undermines the ABM Treaty, the arms race perspective becomes even more likely, as it contains the most explicit protections of satellites on the books. 7 The ABM Treaty effectively blocked the development of anti-missile defense systems,8 thus ensuring that any country launching a missile attack would be unable to defend itself from a retaliatory strike. Were this treaty to disappear, aggressive acts towards satellites, most probably by present or future rogue states, would only become more likely a self-fulfilling prophecy. This logic serves only to reiterate the fact that The basis of security is that it never works for just one. You have to have security for everyone or it fails. 9. That entering the arms race logic is the result of paranoia rather than realism is shown by the fact that the widening access to satellites to both businesses and countries could equally be seen as reinforcing the USs dominant position. Indeed, because of the USs undoubted technological advantage, it has developed many of the technologies which have become commonplace. For example, the Australian army relies on the American GPS system,10 and it is further woven into the fabric of daily life by being used by navigators in the worlds airlines and ships and even in ordinary peoples boats and cars. 11 Thus it is possible to say that the GPS system is universal and is no longer being tied to any particular territory. A more liberal approach than that taken by the Bush administration would suggest that overall, this diminishes the likelihood of an attack upon the satellites. Indeed By sharing GPS, no one feels so threatened to compete with it, and because of its widespread use any country that damaged it would provoke a global fury. 12 US insecurity is further demonstrated by frequent inversions of its actual military posture. Hence, the US is often represented as a weak military nation, despite its crushing military superiority. For example, Condoleeza Rice, President Bushs national security advisor, claimed during President Clintons tenure that US soldiers had been turned into social workers, and that the armed forces as a whole were as weak as in 1940. 13 The current Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld spoke of the increasing vulnerability of the US, and evoked images of a space-based Pearl Harbor early on in President Bushs tenure. 14 This constant fear of vulnerability is mirrored in academic circles. Kagan states that the defense budget needs to be increased rapidly, by as much as $50-100 billion per year. 15 As a budgetary recommendation, this figure seems fanciful, considering the combination of a slowing US economy, the $1. 35 trillion tax cut promoted by President Bush and the difficulty of pushing a far more modest budget increase through Congress this past budgetary session. However unrealistic, it does serve to reflect the condition of institutionalised paranoia. Insecurity is clearly shown when the US, by far the worlds leading military power in terms of budget, technology, logistics and training, is portrayed as being highly vulnerable to people such as Osama Bin Laden,16 the alleged terrorist. Rather, the US is creating the conditions of its own insecurity. Indeed, the combination of i la carte multilateralism, dreams of Full Spectrum Dominance and the idiosyncratic branding of certain states as rogues can only serve to antagonize friends and foes alike. Rather than defusing possible threats at the source, President Bushs policies seem more likely to provoke attack. Of course, any attack would be taken as a justification of these policies, feeding into a vicious circle of insecurity resolved through the deification of technology and the abandonment of the human contact represented by treaty negotiation. In Der Derians words, President Bush symbolizes the leader who has given up on peace on earth and now [seeks] peace of mind through the worship of new techno-deities. 17 Rumsfelds drive to reform the military on the basis of NMD and other space-based technologies implies deep and risky reductions in conventional forces, such as cuts in the number of Army divisions, Navy aircraft carriers and Air Force fighter wings. 18 This further reinforces the fact that techno-strategy is supplanting humanity in security considerations. The search for unilateral absolute security, especially through technology and unilateralism, is a form of the necessarily doomed search for a single power or sovereign truth that can dispel or control the insecurities, indeterminacies, and ambiguities that make up international relations. 19 The negative consequences of smart warfare are one instance of the risks of President Bushs logic. It is clear that if the United States continues to pursue its misguided foreign policy the world will soon witness a new wave of arms races and decreased securitization. Only by pursuing confidence building, regime oriented measures can the United States help avert the next Cold War. Ratification of the CTBT and ending the pursuit of a National Missile Defense seem to be the first steps in the process toward paving the way into the 21st century. The United States can either sit back a not take on its role as a champion of the free world or it can take a proactive stance in stomping out the possibility of a renewed arms race and break out of its Cold War security dilemma. 1 Alexander, B. and Millar, A. (www. fourthfreedom. org/php/print. php? hinc=DefenseNewstnw. hinc) July 11, 2001 2 Kuchta, A. Dickinson Journal of International Law A Closer Look: The US Senates Failure to Ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, 19 Dick. J. Intl L. 333. 3 http://www. nuclearfiles. org/chron/80/1980s. html 4 http://www. msnbc. com/news/845497. asp? 0cv=TB10 5 Blair, T. , Doctrine of the International Community, speech delivered in Chicago, 23 April, 1999, http://www. number-10.gov. uk.

The Insanity Of Hamlet :: essays research papers

In William Shakespeare?s Hamlet, Hamlet leads an antic disposition that causes his downfall and leads him to insanity. His antic disposition affects his judgment, destroys relationships and creates a belief that he is truly mad. Throughout the play, Hamlet is consumed with anger which causes him to act through emotion and without reason. Hamlet?s main goal is to avenge the death of his father but, his actions to do so are hindered because of the irrational decisions he has made through the antic disposition he has put on. Hamlet?s antic disposition began with the death of his father. Hamlet returns to his home, Denmark, to find King Hamlet, his father, dead. As any normal human being would be allowed to grieve, Hamlet was not. Hamlet was expected to accept the death of his father and move on. (Do not forever with thy vailà ¨d lids/Seek for thy noble father in the dust./Thou know'st 'tis common. All that lives must die,/Passing through nature to eternity.)(1.2.68-73). Without the ti me to grieve, Hamlet was left with the echo of his mother?s and Claudius?s hurtful and unsympathetic words of advice. While Hamlet was forbidden to ?useless mourning? (We pray you, throw to earth/This unprevailing woe, and think of us/As of a father.)(1.2.106-108), his mother quickly marries to his uncle Claudius and undoubtedly moves on with her life. In T.S. Eliot?s The Sacred Wood, Hamlet?s ?disgust envelops and exceeds her. It is thus a feeling which he cannot understand, he cannot objectify it, and it therefore remains to poison life and obstruct action.? With little time to grieve and a mother that seems to care less about her deceased husband, Hamlet?s mind was given the perfect recipe for insanity. In mid night, a mysterious ghost appears to Prince Hamlet in the shape of his 2father, King Hamlet. The strange and mystifying ghost guides Hamlet away from Horatio and Marcellus, as if wanting privacy. Hamlet becomes defensive and mad and believes his fate is to follow the ghos t, ?My fate cries out/And makes each petty artery in this body/As hardy as the Nemean lion's nerve./Still am I called.?Unhand me, gentlemen.?(1.4.86-89). Hamlet is determined to hear the words of the ghost and threatens Horatio and Marcellus to death if they do not let him go. Horatio and Marcellus follow him for his safety but believe ?He waxes desperate with imagination.?(1.4.92). The ghost is the first obvious sign that Hamlet?

The Hunnic Empire in 434 A.D.

Atilla, leader of the Hunnic Empire in 434 A. D. , is most famous for sacking many towns in Eastern Europe, and in Rome particularly. He was a fierce fighter, and was known to be as savage as they get. He was a constant nuisance to Rome never leaving them completely alone in his thirst for money, and power. It seemed as if Attila could not be satisfied with any amount of money, and was definitely never satisfied with the state of his empire always wanting more expansion. Attila saw his first taste to power in 434 A.D. after the death of his uncle Rugila (â€Å"Heritage History†). He and his brother, Bleda, were both next in line to control the Hun tribes. Attila’s men were scattered, and a few disagreeing nobles fled to Rome to seek refuge. Attila’s first important move as a leader was the negotiation for his men back. Bargaining with the Eastern Roman Emperor Attila received his men back, 350 Roman pounds, and open trade with Roman merchants. The deal was looked at as an early success for Attila (â€Å"Heritage History†).I think that the first deal between Attila and Theodosius II was a mistake on the Roman Emperors part. I think that this gracious and kind act on the part of the Romans opens the door for Attila’s greed and hunger. Theodosius should have recognized the death of the Hunnish empires leader, been stern with Attila, and maybe even threaten to wipe him out. After all they were in disarray, were not truly unified, and would have been an easy target to take out at the time. Instead he helped the Hun’s have an opportunity to grow, and come back wanting more.Theodosius obviously did recognize the Huns to be a threat, because when the Huns did recede, as a part of the treaty, he began reinforcing his walls as if he was getting ready for an attack (â€Å"Heritage History†). The Romans did not see the Huns for about five years, and then in 440 A. D. , after being defeated in Armenia, Attila set his eyes to Rome. First he laid waste to the merchants that had been setup as a part of the treaty, and then he began attacking forts alongside the river of Danube (â€Å"Heritage History†). Attila broke the first treaty between him and Theodosius, and it actually ended up working out better for Attila.Soon after Attila began pillaging through Eastern Rome the Vandals began an attack on Carthage, the wealthiest city in Rome. Troops were called away to help stop the attack in Carthage, leaving a big void for Attila and his brother to run through in 441 A. D (Gordon). In 442 A. D. Theodosius recalled his troops from Sicily, believing that he could stop Attila and beat the Huns. Theodosius had a chance to reason with Attila before he sent all his troops to oppose him, but his pride forced him to refuse Attila’s demands (Gordon).It would have looked better for him if he would have just met the demands, because he was defeated by Attila twice just outside of Constantinople. Attila neve r actually breached the walls at Constantinople, but he did come very close. The city was well guarded with two sets of walls around it. Theodosius admitted his defeat around 443 A. D. and had to meet the harsh demands of Attila. Attila received roughly 6,000 pounds of gold from the Romans, and charged them a yearly tribute (Gordon). To say that Attila was a problem for the Romans is to say the least, he was very close to overrunning them and ending their existence.Attila, satisfied with what the treaty had brought him, withdrew himself back into the heart of his empire to plot more about how to take over the Romans. It was during this time, around 445 A. D. , that his brother Bleda is mysteriously murdered (â€Å"Heritage History†). Not much is recorded as to the actual cause of death, but it is a well-accepted notion that Attila had him killed so that he could have absolute power. Attila, having all the power to himself now, began another campaign against Rome in 447 A. D. He would face a former adversary Arnegisclus in the Battle of Utus.Even though Attila had beaten Arnegisclus in the 443 campaign, the Battle of Utus was a fierce and bloody one for both sides (â€Å"Heritage History†). Severe losses took place on both sides, however the Huns came out victorious. Arnegisclus was knocked down from his horse, and was eventually killed while on foot. Attila in 450 A. D. decides to make and alliance with Valentinian III, a Western Roman Emperor, and attack the Visgoths. Attila had be diplomatically bribed towards the alliance, and he had a good relationship with one of the emperor’s general Aetius (â€Å"Heritage History†).Things looked to finally be smoothed out between Attila and the Romans, but then Valentinian’s sister ruined it all. Honoria was the name of Valentinina’s sister, and when she was displeased with her arranged marriage, she called out for Attila to take her hand in marriage. Attila took the proposal ve ry seriously and accepted, and was angered when Valentinian told him that his sister was not being genuine (â€Å"Heritage History†). Attila began making his way through the Roman Empire sacking cities on his way. Aetius began drawing his army to make a stand against Attila, and they met sound where around Orleans for the Battle of Cataluanum.This battle is said to be one of the most important battle in the history of Europe and Christianity, because if Attila would have clearly won then he could have annihilated Roman culture, and Christianity could have been lost (Gordon). In the battle both sides suffer heavy losses, but the Huns are said to be the victors even though it wasn’t much of a victory. The damage done was enough to slow Attila and his army down from making their way to France. Attila, still wanting to claim his bride, sets for Italy (Gordon). There are a few different stories as to why Attila did not end up attacking Italy.One is that Bishop of Rome Leo I met personally with Attila asking him to withdraw his army from Italy. What I think was the most reasonable answer for the withdrawal was the fact that Attila had suffered major losses, and it was said that his armies were suffering from disease and starvation (â€Å"Heritage History†). Whichever story is true Attila withdrew either way vowing to return. On his way home from Italy, Attila marries a young girl named Iidko, and on the morning after his wedding he is found dead, in a bed of blood.The story is that Attila after a night of drinking suffered a massive nosebleed while lying down in his bed, and he drowned in his own blood. There are more theories on the actual cause of death of Attila. Some think that there was foul play, and that his newly wed wife killed him in his sleep, and some think he had a massive hemorrhage causing internal bleeding. After the death of Attila the Hunnic Empire was passed onto his sons, but there was much arguing over who had the most power . After a year or two the Huns were no longer an empire, and were blended into Germanic tribes across Europe.Attila the Hun took the Hunnic Empire farther than it ever dreamed to go, and thankfully, to us Christians, he was stopped eventually. Gordon, Richard. â€Å"STOPPING ATTILA The Battle Of Chalons. † Military History 20. 5 (2003): 34. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 11 Oct. 2012. â€Å"Victory Secrets Of Attila The Hun. † Success 40. 2 (1993): 42. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 11 Oct. 2012. â€Å"Battle of Chalons: Attila the Hun versus Flavius Aetius. † Military History. (2006): n. page. Web. 11 Oct. 2012. . â€Å"Attile the Hun. † Heritage History. Heritage History, 2007. Web. 11 Oct 2012. .