Question: Explain president Eisenhower's “domino theory” as it applies to Southeast Asia
Answer: President Eisenhower's “domino theory” embraced the idea that the fall of Indochina to communism would eventually lead to a fast collapsation of other nations in Southeast Asia.
Explanation: He explained this more clearly by comparing it with a row of domino. He said it was like a row of dominoes set up and once you'd knock over the first one, the last one would go over very rapidly, and this would soon lead to disintegration in Southeast Asia because of the possible loss of Indochina, of Burma, of Thailand, of the Peninsula, and Indonesia.
The answer is B, had this question and got it right.
Answer:
In addition to the drain of silver, by 1838 the number of Chinese opium addicts had grown to between four and 12 million and the Daoguang Emperor demanded action. Officials at the court who advocated legalizing and taxing the trade were defeated by those who advocated suppressing it. The Emperor sent the leader of the hard line faction, Special Imperial Commissioner Lin Zexu, to Canton, where he quickly arrested Chinese opium dealers and summarily demanded that foreign firms turn over their stocks with no compensation. When they refused, Lin stopped trade altogether and placed the foreign residents under virtual siege in their factories. The British Superintendent of Trade in China Charles Elliot got the British traders to agree to hand over their opium stock with the promise of eventual compensation for their loss from the British government. While this amounted to a tacit acknowledgment that the British government did not disapprove of the trade, it also placed a huge liability on the exchequer. This promise and the inability of the British government to pay it without causing a political storm was an important casus belli for the subsequent British offensive.
Basically as bad as i got, insane hours with little pay, common to lose limbs, girls were raped all the time, small tunnels, very very hot i could go on xD
<span>The supreme courts decision stated that the land grants given to people or organizations act as a legal contract and give that owner rights and privileges to that land. The courts ruled in favor of college. This turned the private college into a state university under public control.</span>
