Answer:
They both earn through their exports.
Explanation:
China is developed country while Mali is under developed country. Both the countries are different and they have high difference in their GDP. China and Mali both believes in exports and they earn through foreign exchange. Main export of Mali is gold which is sufficient to finance its country. Mali also exports cotton, fertilizers, oil and iron which are source of living for the people of Mali.
The statements referred by the question are:
a) It convinced the United States to dismantle its nuclear weapons.
b) It proved that a naval blockade was not an act of war.
c) It showed Cuba that communism should be stopped.
d) It brought the world dangerously close to nuclear war.
The correct statement is D. Historians agree the Missile Crisis was the closest the world got to have a nuclear war between the U.S. and USSR. Nothing before or after this came as close to be direct aggression from one of these countries against the other.
Statements A and C never happened: the U.S. has nuclear weapons until today, and Cuba didn't give up on communism.
Statement B doesn't fit the facts around the Missile Crisis. The naval blockade didn't lead to war only because the U.S. was defensive.
The English Longbow provided an advantage against the mounted French knights in the battles of Poitiers and Agincourt.
The English longbow apart for use in hunting served as a powerful Welsh in warfare during the medieval era. This was because they were
- Easy to make
- faster to shoot with accuracy
- very cheap
Notably, history has it that it was used famously at the Battle of Agincourt in 1415 and previously in the wars of the Sluys, Crécy and Poitiers in 1340, 1346, and 1356 respectively.
Through the ages, these longbows were no longer fully effective and sustainable due to the easy wear and tear of the bows and therefore were been replaced in the 16th century to firearms made of gunpowder.
Learn more about the battles of Pontiers and Agincort here: brainly.com/question/18142552
I think it was in 1964, that was when direct army confrontation happened. This was followed by several more conflicts that made use of heavy fighting naval and aircraft with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution that made military measures necessary. There were an estimated 40, 000 deaths and 20, 000 other casualties.
Answer:
No, the Crusades weren’t justifiable. The Arab/Muslim conquest of the region centuries earlier wasn’t justifiable either. There were no good guys or bad guys in that conflict. Both sides were wrong.
From the perspective of Jews and Samaritans, it was really just two colonial powers (Crusaders and Arabs) fighting over a land that never rightfully belonged to either of them in the first place.
Explanation:
What is important today is to understand that the unjustified reaction of the Christian community to actions in the Holy Land can be compared to the reaction of people in the Muslim world to Western dominance. So, instead of something like the Crusades was seen as an acceptance by many Muslims of terrorism. If the Christian Crusades were bad, so is the Muslim acceptance for decades of terrorism, particularly towards Israeli civilians.
