Answer:
The answer is: State Board of Education
Explanation:
The State Board of Education refers to the policy making regulatory bodies of the state government that are responsible for establishing beneficial education policies, decision making, focusing on the long-term needs of the public education, developing rules and regulations and setting curriculum standards for the students and the teachers.
With the first one,you're going to want to use Ethos,or the appeal to emotions,for this to work. I would say this: There is an extent to which someone can be punished. If somebody committed murder,the death penalty,or more politely called "Capital Punishment",would honestly have no effect on them. It does not truly give them a chance to dwell on their actions and how they messed up someone's life. Not only that,but you also become a murderer if an innocent man is found guilty of a murder he didn't commit,which makes you no better than a murderer. Worse in fact because at least the person who actually did kill someone did it them selves and not with an executioner. I don't support Capital punishment because that puts someone else's blood on my hands.
As for the second one...I'd say this: By nature,humans are social creatures. We desire human contact and interaction. In fact,we NEED it in order to function normally. Capital Punishment only supports the tradition of "An Eye For An Eye And A Tooth For A Tooth." If you really want to punish someone,don't kill them physically,but instead mentally and socially. If you take away someone's ability to interact with people,it causes them to think back on their mistakes and it leaves them with no other choice but to confront their bad choices. Capital Punishment gets it over with quickly with no time to repent or ask for forgiveness,but life in prison with no chance of parole unless proven mentally capable by a team of psychologists,is by far the worst punishment you could ever give someone.
The War We Could Have Won
Continue reading the main storyShare This Page
WASHINGTON - THE Vietnam War is universally regarded as a disaster for what it did to the American and Vietnamese people. However, 30 years after the war's end, the reasons for its outcome remain a matter of dispute.
The most popular explanation among historians and journalists is that the defeat was a result of American policy makers' cold-war-driven misunderstanding of North Vietnam's leaders as dangerous Communists. In truth, they argue, we were fighting a nationalist movement with great popular support. In this view, "our side," South Vietnam, was a creation of foreigners and led by a corrupt urban elite with no popular roots. Hence it could never prevail, not even with a half-million American troops, making the war "unwinnable."
This simple explanation is repudiated by powerful historical evidence, both old and new. Its proponents mistakenly base their conclusions on the situation in Vietnam during the 1950's and early 1960's and ignore the changing course of the war (notably, the increasing success of President Richard Nixon's Vietnamization strategy) and the evolution of South Vietnamese society (in particular the introduction of agrarian reforms).
For all the claims of popular support for the Vietcong insurgency, far more South Vietnamese peasants fought on the side of Saigon than on the side of Hanoi. The Vietcong were basically defeated by the beginning of 1972, which is why the North Vietnamese launched a huge conventional offensive at the end of March that year. During the Easter Offensive of 1972 -- at the time the biggest campaign of the war -- the South Vietnamese Army was able to hold onto every one of the 44 provincial capitals except Quang Tri, which it regained a few months later. The South Vietnamese relied on American air support during that offensive.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
If the United States had provided that level of support in 1975, when South Vietnam collapsed in the face of another North Vietnamese offensive, the outcome might have been at least the same as in 1972. But intense lobbying of Congress by the antiwar movement, especially in the context of the Watergate scandal, helped to drive cutbacks of American aid in 1974. Combined with the impact of the world oil crisis and inflation of 1973-74, the results were devastating for the south. As the triumphant North Vietnamese commander, Gen. Van Tien Dung, wrote later, President Nguyen Van Thieu of South Vietnam was forced to fight "a poor man's war."
Even Hanoi's main patron, the Soviet Union, was convinced that a North Vietnamese military victory was highly unlikely. Evidence from Soviet Communist Party archives suggests that, until 1974, Soviet military intelligence analysts and diplomats never believed that the North Vietnamese would be victorious on the battlefield. Only political and diplomatic efforts could succeed. Moscow thought that the South Vietnamese government was strong enough to defend itself with a continuation of American logistical support. The former Soviet chargé d'affaires in Hanoi during the 1970's told me in Moscow in late 1993 that if one looked at the balance of forces, one could not predict that the South would be defeated. Until 1975, Moscow was not only impressed by American military power and political will, it also clearly had no desire to go to war with the United States over Vietnam. But after 1975, Soviet fear of the United States dissipated.
U.S. troops withdrew from the country. this is answer
Answer:
humanism has been at odds with organized religion, specifically with the Roman Catholic Church, which was predominant in the Roman Empire and then in European culture from the Middle Ages on. Humanism is based on liberal principles and a heritage of philosophical thought concerned with ethics.
Explanation:
Answer: a) Naturalizing discourses
Explanation:
Naturalizing discourse is defined as branch which is related wit the racism production and presentation based on race, class,caste, ethics etc for analyzing it. In this concept ,it is analyzed that this issue is the ongoing problem that has emerged through biological causes.
Other options are incorrect because construction of nation,transformist hegemony is protection of cultural domination on national basis.Strategic essentialism is the method used by minority group.Thus, the correct option is option(a).
