It can be helpful when:
- The intervention occurs with a humanitarian purpose, as in a country that just had a couple of its cities wasted by a natural disaster, like a tsunami or tornado.
- Or in a country which its population has been suffering from hunger for decades due to political crises or coups
It can be ineffective or even destructive when:
- It's a military extreme intervention on a city or country that although on war, it's still very populated by civilians. Like it was in the War on Terror campaign, started by the US after the 9/11 terrorist assault, with American invasion on Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and others. It ended up being effective, with even the fall of Al-Qaeda's terrorist organization leader in 2011, but in the process several cases of violent acts against and deaths of civilians were reported.
I think it’s the second one
Sorry if it’s wrong
In effect, the third Estate was that of the peasents, while the other two estates represented the clergy and the other nobility, and therefore the absolute monarchy responsible for all this, together with the simbols of the oppression, such as the "Bastille" which was a jail in Paris.
You didn't post the cartoon
Answer:
It increased the population by offering cheap land.
Explanation:
During the nineteenth century, Texas was part of Mexico. However, very few Mexicans lived there, since it was very far from the central areas of Mexico. This allowed the Comanche to control vast areas of the state, making life even harder for the few Mexican colonists.
The government of Mexico decided to populate the state with people from the U.S., and it passed the State Colonization Law of 1825, which allowed White Americans from the U.S. to settle in Texas as long as they did not bring slaves with them (slaves was forbidden in all of Mexico).
This policy was successful in bringing more people to the state, but it also set the stage for the future independence and posterior annexation of Texas to the United States.
