Answer and Explanation:
1. he presents arguments that reaffirm that the colonies must separate from Great Britain because all men are equal before God and it is not right that one control the other. In addition, he claimed that the right to freedom, life and the search for one's own happiness without having to be in debt to someone, or needing someone's permission, were inalienable rights, so it was not up to England to withdraw or repress them. them.
2. The declaration of independence cannot be seen as a direct threat of war. This is because the colonies did not have the desire to face a military power like Great Britain. However, the declaration of independence was a complaint pointing directly to dissatisfaction with the British crown and reaffirming that the colonies would be independent at all costs, even if it generated a war.
3. He represents these arguments, showing that governments should be based exclusively on "absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority." Thus, he affirmed that governments should be representatives of the people and work for this representation and not for a concentration of power, where the people should act for the government.
Simply put, they were fighting an unpopular war that was against an enemy we basically couldn't see. We were fighting an enemy who would hide among the Vietnamese civilians. Many of the soldiers we were fighting were untrained farmers, however the fact they would not come out as soldier made it harder to root them out. They also knew the land better than us so they had the terrain to their advantage. The Vietnamese were just guerilla fighters, who we had issues with fighting because we could never tell who was an enemy. Often times, civilians would die due to the choices of these fighters, causing the Vietnam war to be very unpopular back at home. So our soldiers who had no morale to boost them back at home, were fighting an invisible enemy and then coming back home and being booed fr what thy did.
abolitionist applied the enlightenment idea of equal rights to demand an end to slavery (APEX)
<span><span>IT IS an awful lot of rubbish. Since 1960 the amount of municipal waste being collected in America has nearly tripled, reaching 245m tonnes in 2005. According to European Union statistics, the amount of municipal waste produced in western Europe increased by 23% between 1995 and 2003, to reach 577kg per person. (So much for the plan to reduce waste per person to 300kg by 2000.) As the volume of waste has increased, so have recycling efforts. In 1980 America recycled only 9.6% of its municipal rubbish; today the rate stands at 32%. A similar trend can be seen in Europe, where some countries, such as Austria and the Netherlands, now recycle 60% or more of their municipal waste. Britain's recycling rate, at 27%, is low, but it is improving fast, having nearly doubled in the past three years.Even so, when a city introduces a kerbside recycling programme, the sight of all those recycling lorries trundling around can raise doubts about whether the collection and transportation of waste materials requires more energy than it saves. We are constantly being asked: Is recycling worth doing on environmental grounds? says Julian Parfitt, principal analyst at Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP), a non-profit British company that encourages recycling and develops markets for recycled materials.Studies that look at the entire life cycle of a particular material can shed light on this question in a particular case, but WRAP decided to take a broader look. It asked the Technical University of Denmark and the Danish Topic Centre on Waste to conduct a review of 55 life-cycle analyses, all of which were selected because of their rigorous methodology. The researchers then looked at more than 200 scenarios, comparing the impact of recycling with that of burying or burning particular types of waste material. They found that in 83% of all scenarios that included recycling, it was indeed better for the environment.Based on this study, WRAP calculated that Britain's recycling efforts reduce its carbon-dioxide emissions by 10m-15m tonnes per year. That is equivalent to a 10% reduction in Britain's annual carbon-dioxide emissions from transport, or roughly equivalent to taking 3.5m cars off the roads. Similarly, America's Environmental Protection Agency estimates that recycling reduced the country's carbon emissions by 49m tonnes in 2005.Recycling has many other benefits, too. It conserves natural resources. It also reduces the amount of waste that is buried or burnt, hardly ideal ways to get rid of the stuff. (Landfills take up valuable space and emit methane, a potent greenhouse gas; and although incinerators are not as polluting as they once were, they still produce noxious emissions, so people dislike having them around.) But perhaps the most valuable benefit of recycling is the saving in energy and the reduction in greenhouse gases and pollution that result when scrap materials are substituted for virgin feedstock. If you can use recycled materials, you don't have to mine ores, cut trees and drill for oil as much,says Jeffrey Morris of Sound Resource Management, a consulting firm based in Olympia, Washington.Extracting metals from ore, in particular, is extremely energy-intensive. Recycling aluminium, for example, can reduce energy consumption by as much as 95%. Savings for other materials are lower but still substantial: about 70% for plastics, 60% for steel, 40% for paper and 30% for glass. Recycling also reduces emissions of pollutants that can cause smog, acid rain and the contamination of waterways.</span></span>
