Israel developed into a new kingdom under the leadership of king david whop consolidated the various tribes under his single rule
You'll have to consider for yourself what your own thoughts are, but some of the issues were these:
The United States saw the use of the atomic bombs as a way to bring the war to an end in a way that would cost less American lives. A land invasion of Japan would have meant many American soldiers being killed in battle. However, the cost in Japanese lives was enormous by the use of the bombs, and that was not given equal consideration.
Another consideration was that the United States had been engaging in a fire-bombing campaign of Japanese cities prior to the use of atomic bombs. The fire-bombing campaigns were horrifically destructive also, but did not have the radiation after-effects of atomic bombings.
An option that could have been used rather than dropping atomic bombs was to enlist Soviet troops in a joint invasion of Japan. But the USA wanted to avoid postwar Soviet presence in Japan, and the atomic bombs were seen as a way of ending the war quickly. You can consider whether it would have been a more "moral" way of pursuing war to conduct a land invasion with Soviet assistance.
Finally, the escalation to the point of using atomic bombs was, in part, due to the Allies' insistence on an "unconditional surrender" by Japan. A second bomb was dropped at Nagasaki after the first was dropped on Hiroshima, because Japan did not submit to unconditional surrender in the immediate aftermath of the Hiroshima bombing. You can consider for yourself whether some other resolution besides "unconditional surrender" was a viable option for ending the war with Japan.
<span>Is this a matter of constitutional, criminal, civil, or military law? How do you know? It's a civil law because it's a misunderstanding between two civilians.
</span><span>Is the source of the law a statute, regulation, case law, or combination? How do you know? I believe it might be a combination of statue and regulation law because there's some documentation and exchange item.
</span>Determine the purpose of the law related to the scenario. Is the law intended to protect people's safety or people's rights? It is to protect the people's rights, not safety. " She says that he has not made any payments and still has possession of the car." <span>The disagreement is over a vehicle which is just property.
</span>Do you think the young woman has a valid argument that her neighbor owes her payment for the car? In other words, should government make an exception to the law about the owner being the person whose name is on the title? I think she does not have a valid argument. "<span> She signed ownership over to him on the title, which he also signed. She says that he has not made any payments and still has possession of the car." </span><span>If she wants to sell her car, she should have done it the proper way, otherwise she should be prepared to meet the consequences.
</span>
The correct answer here is Asia, Africa and Europe.
The Silk Road is one of the most important trading networks that ever existed in the history of mankind and it is preserved as UNESCO World Heritage Site. It connected the East and the West and it was central for both the economic and cultural interaction between two parts of the world.
The main difference between presidential reconstruction and Congressional reconstruction was that presidential reconstruction was much more lenient toward the South.they were practically angry because the South instituted the "black codes"that treated the freed slaves harshly."