No, it was not moral because it disrupts what they are already trying to fix. When the people come to take over, the people have no more freedom, they have to listen the people that take over. And the people that take over want money, resources, and land, so that makes it even worse for them because of the fact that they are going through all of their resources, and losing their land faster making them even more poor. Sometimes it isn't morally a good thing because many people can get killed or that the empire does not care about the country's health. Hope this helps! Have a good day.
<span>
</span>
Answer: Is responsible for the events leading to the ending of the conflict in Vietnam
Explanation: the camp david accords had nothing to do with the war
Answer: In each case Carnegie is referring to the accumulation and unequal distribution of wealth, which have “revolutionized” human life for the good (“highly beneficial”). In the above paragraph, he goes further by saying this unequal distribution of wealth and the benefits it bestows are a “law of civilization.”Carnegie, a steel magnate, argued that very wealthy men like him had a responsibility to use their wealth for the greater good of society. He reasoned that rich men were the smartest and most organized in a society, so they would be best suited to administer their own wealth.
Answer: Roosevelt
Explanation: I’m pretty sure but then i’m not pretty sure♀️
<span>John Quincy Adams was the winner</span>
