Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was going to say in the 60s when humanism became the predominate thought on college campuses, caused us not to fight to win in Vietnam (politically), and then as those boomers took over and right and wrong turned to equivocation.
There's a mouthful. In the 1950s, the Eisenhower admin pulled the GOP back from the political wilderness, & introduced a kind of nondenominational public faith in an almighty deity - the prayer breakfasts, In God we trust on the coin of the realm, tinkering with the pledge of allegiance, & generally pretending it was pre-Depression all over again. The Interstate Highway system boomed, the suburbs went up & up & up (with the pumps primed with federal money - @ the expense of the cities - infrastructure, easy credit, lots of easy money to be made buying up farmland & cutting it up into lots, building standard model freestanding cookie cutter homes on spec, putting in HOAs & covenants so there wouldn't be any Blacks or Jews or anybody too different living there). The banks were happy, the counties were happy (they got taxable property, population, got to put up schools, fire departments, police, clinics, votes to vie against the big cities for state & federal tax revenue) - it looked like the gravy train would never end. Until it did.
Even if humanism dominated the liberal arts @ colleges in the '60s - What of it? Did the Arts & Letters departments of the US colleges run the Pentagon, or the White House? That caused the US to lose in Vietnam? What caused the failure @ the Bay of Pigs? Then what caused us to lose in Korea, or in mainland China? Why did we have to subdue the Philippines for six years after handily winning the Spanish American War?
Could we have won in Vietnam? What would that have entailed? Nukes? Yah, we could have razed the country from end to end, sterilized the ground & so on. The Roman Empire used to salt the earth, as I understand it. I suppose we could have done something similar. Or what would a political victory in Vietnam have looked like?
& closer to the present, the W admin certainly can't be accused of having a single humanistic bone in its body. So why did they & we fail in Afghanistan, in Iraq, & then again in Afghanistan? We paid & propped up & paid Pakistan over & over for land access to Afghanistan to support our troops, NATO troops, allied troops, & Afghan troops. & yet Bin Laden was finally tracked to there, just outside their national military school, the equivalent of our West Point. Were the Pakistanis, their government, military & ISI also far gone on humanism?
Gee, not one word about Canada. I'm so glad we're not western enough for your whiners.
umm, no; you're just another parliament under the Queen.
wait until Charles is King and starts kicking butt and taking names.
might want to look into the full powers of the monarchy.
the day will come when they are tested !
Victory in Vietnam. Sure after we lose half a million Americans and destroy a good part of China...see Korea. Does someone really want to fight China in a war on the Asian main land? That is why Viet Nam was always absurd.
And now the new English Monarch is going to come to Canada and kick butt? Really?
Well part of the west is decaying...some of the minds on CD
Geez...and here I am thinking that life is pretty good here in the West.
But I come here and realize that we're in the midst of an apocalypse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southwest88
There's a mouthful. In the 1950s, the Eisenhower admin pulled the GOP back from the political wilderness, & introduced a kind of nondenominational public faith in an almighty deity - the prayer breakfasts, In God we trust on the coin of the realm, tinkering with the pledge of allegiance, & generally pretending it was pre-Depression all over again. The Interstate Highway system boomed, the suburbs went up & up & up (with the pumps primed with federal money - @ the expense of the cities - infrastructure, easy credit, lots of easy money to be made buying up farmland & cutting it up into lots, building standard model freestanding cookie cutter homes on spec, putting in HOAs & covenants so there wouldn't be any Blacks or Jews or anybody too different living there). The banks were happy, the counties were happy (they got taxable property, population, got to put up schools, fire departments, police, clinics, votes to vie against the big cities for state & federal tax revenue) - it looked like the gravy train would never end. Until it did.
Even if humanism dominated the liberal arts @ colleges in the '60s - What of it? Did the Arts & Letters departments of the US colleges run the Pentagon, or the White House? That caused the US to lose in Vietnam? What caused the failure @ the Bay of Pigs? Then what caused us to lose in Korea, or in mainland China? Why did we have to subdue the Philippines for six years after handily winning the Spanish American War?
Could we have won in Vietnam? What would that have entailed? Nukes? Yah, we could have razed the country from end to end, sterilized the ground & so on. The Roman Empire used to salt the earth, as I understand it. I suppose we could have done something similar. Or what would a political victory in Vietnam have looked like?
& closer to the present, the W admin certainly can't be accused of having a single humanistic bone in its body. So why did they & we fail in Afghanistan, in Iraq, & then again in Afghanistan? We paid & propped up & paid Pakistan over & over for land access to Afghanistan to support our troops, NATO troops, allied troops, & Afghan troops. & yet Bin Laden was finally tracked to there, just outside their national military school, the equivalent of our West Point. Were the Pakistanis, their government, military & ISI also far gone on humanism?
You fail at trying to make it religious. I'm not you sound foolish and pedantic
Only the few who think the political narrative needs to be xenophobic, racist, nationalist, sextist or just plain bigoted, to be acceptable to their narrow views think the west is in decline.
It could be that just maybe those who have abused and twisted our system to become what they want has had an affect. I'd say it started with the assassination of JFK, expanded with Viet Nam, and has become intolerable with the last two administrations.
Maybe people are waking up to the ridiculousness of the extremes, the ideology driven politics which do zero good for anyone.
Victory in Vietnam. Sure after we lose half a million Americans and destroy a good part of China...see Korea. Does someone really want to fight China in a war on the Asian main land? That is why Viet Nam was always absurd.
And now the new English Monarch is going to come to Canada and kick butt? Really?
Well part of the west is decaying...some of the minds on CD
Vietnam could have been won. Historically it shouldn't. Joke folly. Either win Korea or don't go at all.
Caveat: everyone cites the un, it was a un mission.
The academic part of humanism really is why people complain about everything in universities now.
There's a mouthful. In the 1950s, the Eisenhower admin pulled the GOP back from the political wilderness, & introduced a kind of nondenominational public faith in an almighty deity - the prayer breakfasts, In God we trust on the coin of the realm, tinkering with the pledge of allegiance, & generally pretending it was pre-Depression all over again. The Interstate Highway system boomed, the suburbs went up & up & up (with the pumps primed with federal money - @ the expense of the cities - infrastructure, easy credit, lots of easy money to be made buying up farmland & cutting it up into lots, building standard model freestanding cookie cutter homes on spec, putting in HOAs & covenants so there wouldn't be any Blacks or Jews or anybody too different living there). The banks were happy, the counties were happy (they got taxable property, population, got to put up schools, fire departments, police, clinics, votes to vie against the big cities for state & federal tax revenue) - it looked like the gravy train would never end. Until it did.
Even if humanism dominated the liberal arts @ colleges in the '60s - What of it? Did the Arts & Letters departments of the US colleges run the Pentagon, or the White House? That caused the US to lose in Vietnam? What caused the failure @ the Bay of Pigs? Then what caused us to lose in Korea, or in mainland China? Why did we have to subdue the Philippines for six years after handily winning the Spanish American War?
Could we have won in Vietnam? What would that have entailed? Nukes? Yah, we could have razed the country from end to end, sterilized the ground & so on. The Roman Empire used to salt the earth, as I understand it. I suppose we could have done something similar. Or what would a political victory in Vietnam have looked like?
& closer to the present, the W admin certainly can't be accused of having a single humanistic bone in its body. So why did they & we fail in Afghanistan, in Iraq, & then again in Afghanistan? We paid & propped up & paid Pakistan over & over for land access to Afghanistan to support our troops, NATO troops, allied troops, & Afghan troops. & yet Bin Laden was finally tracked to there, just outside their national military school, the equivalent of our West Point. Were the Pakistanis, their government, military & ISI also far gone on humanism?
Pick something besides a diatribe and I'll respond, historically. I'm leading a conf call in Bangalore. History I know, a persons mindset, not so much
Vietnam could have been won. Historically it shouldn't. Joke folly. Either win Korea or don't go at all.
Caveat: everyone cites the un, it was a un mission.
The academic part of humanism really is why people complain about everything in universities now.
To practically win in Korea we had to let the Nuclear Dog off the leash. Practically there was no way to beat China in North Korea without it. In North Korea the Chinese would be the infinite foe. You have to kill them forever to win...only way to do that is to start removing the nearby Chinese area with nuclear weapons.
Viet Nam is similar. If you actually start to crush the North Vietnamese you get a half a million Chinese. The Vietnamese would not like that but would do it before letting the US win.
Spent the Viet Nam war keeping people from getting drafted. Lost only one and got him an assignment in a Lab.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Raising the question
