Yes, because morally, it’s the right thing to do. Our common humanity means that those of us who are doing well (often doing <em>too</em> well) should help those whose basic needs are not met. And, in part, our personal and national wealth has often been created by the exploitation of poor people – colonial extraction of resources, the slavery and opium trades, unfair international trade and finance practices and others. Reallocating just <em>1% of global wealth</em> would eradicate extreme income poverty at a stroke. Those of us who are ‘better-off’ would be stupid not to help the poor. If we want a prosperous, politically stable and environmentally sustainable world for ourselves (and for future generations), then we have to help poor people in poorer, less fortunate lands.
Hope this helps, honey. Best of luck with assignments like these.
my opinion on this subject is yes because it is the right thing to do in any circumstance of life simply because we are all human and we all share this planet and if we start to let one part of this planet die off then the rest will slowly die off because every place on earth depends on other parts of the planet for the resources that are not readily available to that specific place.
like say that the US needed more oil. the US depends on russia to send more oil over to the US simply due to the fact that russia has rich oil fields.
Mecca is the religious capital for Muslims. It’s special to them beythat is where they have to pray and make one voyage to Mecca at least once in their life. They also always have to pray facing Mecca
"It made Cuba a protectorate of the United States" is the one among the following choices given in the question that <span>was the effect of the Platt Amendment on U.S. relations with Cuba. The correct option among all the options that are given in the question is the second option or option "B". </span>
