Answer:
Explanation:
Pros: Sends a clear signal that the West will not tolerate military interventions unsanctioned by international legal bodies, no matter who does it.
Cons: Would be difficult to gather the will for it among EU members that have strong trading relations with Russia, and even harder to enforce. Energy would be off the table; sourcing gas elsewhere may hit the EU harder than Russia.
Answer:
push, bully, and make fun of
Answer:
Explanation:
She does not know the grammar rules in English. ... With patience and calm, even a burro can climb a palm." This last was one of her many Dominican sayings she had imported into her scrambled English.
C) But even this is admitting more than is true, for I answer roundly, that America would have flourished as much, and probably much more, had no European power had any thing to do with her.
In Option C, Paine is stating that America would actually have been better off if it was not controlled by Britain. He says that being under British control actually hindered America's progress and kept it from flourishing even more. Options A and B both give arguments for America needing Britain in order to thrive. In Option A it states that a connection with Britain is important for America to maintain its happiness. In Option B it compares America to a child. It states that if a child can survive on milk alone then it should never have meat. Therefore America should only need Britain. We can tell Paine sees this as preposterous, but this initial idea does not support the claim. Option D shows how America will always have commerce but Britain is only concerned with eating. This alone is not enough for strong evidence.
I’m to the park today, and the park has swings.
