<span>Assuming that this is referring to the same list of options that was posted before with this question, <span>the correct response would be "grievances" since these were what the colonists voiced in opposition to what they saw as tyrannical practices by Britain, especially in the realm of taxation. </span></span>
The concept of "total war" refers to a type of armed conflict that is bound by no rules or limitations in terms of who is being attacked, the weapons that are used or the elements of society that will be sacrificed to win it.
Engaging in this type of war can have some benefits, such as:
- There is no need for the government to define its objectives clearly.
- Because of it, there is no accountability between the government and its citizens, which gives them free reign of action.
- Countries with a strong military can use their full power.
However, the costs far outweigh the benefits:
- Increased cost of human lives, from all parties involved.
- The destruction of all civil society.
- Because civil society is so disrupted, government institutions are likely to collapse as well.
- Extremely difficult recovery process, both politically as economically.
- Complete depletion of the country's resources.
- Violation of human rights and the laws of just war.
- Closes the door to any peaceful solution.
There is rarely, if ever, a situation in which a total war provides benefits that would outweigh the costs of it, or that would not be achieved through some other means.
Answer:
yes
Explanation:
It created a leadership void that no other fundamentalist leader could fill.
