Answer:
He was a symbolic figure only
Explanation:
Answer:
Persia had a huge empire and had every intention of adding Greece to it. ... This humiliation led to the attempt to conquer Greece in 480-479 BC. The invasion was led by Xerxes, Darius's son. After initial Persian victories, the Persians were eventually defeated, both at sea and on land.
Explanation:
I luckily looked thru a website and pulled all this information enjoy.
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Te question does not mention any individual in specific, so we assume that we choose the individual we like to write the testimonial.
We choose Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He was an important figure and led the civil rights movement in the United States. He followed the ideals of liberty and tolerance and influenced millions of people. On his positive side, Dr. King could congregate thousands of people to the civil rights movement cause. He set the example. He was at the very front of the protests and marches. One very good thing he had was that he supported peaceful demonstrations, never violent protests. His "Letter From the Birmingham Jail" and "I Haad a Dream" speech, have influenced modern leaders around the world.
On the negative side, probably he could have been more open and tolerant to negotiate with authorities or to join forces with other black leaders such as Malcolm X, that although he used violence in his protests, the union of more African American leaders could have taken the movement to different dimensions and accomplishments.
Preventing genocide is one of the greatest challenges facing the international community.[1]<span> Aside from the suffering and grief inflicted upon generations of people and the catastrophic social, economic and political dislocations that follow, this ‘crime of crimes’ has the potential to destabilize entire regions for decades (Bosco, 2005). The shockwaves of Rwanda’s genocide are still felt in the eastern parts of the Democratic Republic of Congo nearly 20 years later, for example. Considerable resources are now devoted to the task of preventing genocide. In 2004 the United Nations established the Office of the Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide with the purpose to ‘raise awareness of the causes and dynamics of genocide, to alert relevant actors where there is a risk of genocide, and to advocate and mobilize for appropriate action’ (UN 2012). At the 2005 World Summit governments pledged that where states were ‘manifestly failing’ to protect their populations from ‘war crimes, genocide, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity’ the international community could step in a protect those populations itself (UN, 2012). The ‘responsibility to protect’ (R2P) project, designed to move the concept of state sovereignty away from an absolute right of non-intervention to a moral charge of shielding the welfare of domestic populations, is now embedded in international law (Evans 2008). Just this year, the United States government has stated that ‘preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States,’ and that ‘President Obama has made the prevention of atrocities a key focus of this Administration’s foreign policy’ (Auschwitz Institute, 2012). Numerous scholars and non-government organisations have similarly made preventing genocide their primary focus (Albright and Cohen, 2008; Genocide Watch, 2012).</span>
