Answer:
What position on international trade did President Wilson's Fourteen Points take?
OPTION 1: <em>There should be a reduction of trade barriers among nations.</em>
<em />
The Fourteen Points (January 8, 1918) by the American President Woodrow Wilson aimed for peace negotiations between nations after the end of World War I, including the removal of their economic barriers. As he stated in the third point:
"The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance."
Answer:
This sentence means if you have the determination and motivation, which is stated as faith, you can do anything. Faith, motivation, and determination can help an individual complete the smallest or biggest thing.
Explanation:
Answer: A
Explanation:
In the late 1600 both France and Spain had control over it.
The concept that Marsiglia and Kulis are referring to from the statement mentioned in the question is a term called intersectionality.
Intersectionality is a concept that is generally defined as <em>a framework that acknowledges how an individual is impacted by various systems of power – and his or her position in each system, when combined would create a different experience in how an individual would be treated by the society at large. </em>
For example, an individual who identifies as Black, is female, has an upper middle class income, is heterosexual would navigate life differently from someone who is White, male, has a lower class income, and is homosexual.
Answer:
The situation in Iran is very complicated because it is a regime that is very vocal against U.S. interests, that has important sources of wealth like oil and natural gas (even if the country itself is far from being wealthy or developed), and it has had access to uranium, which could be used to produce nuclear weapons.
Explanation:
However, forging a deal with Iran, with the support and in conjunction with the European Union, and other international organizations is a better alternative that direct confrontation with the country. The reason is that it is very difficult to topple the Iranian Regime, it enjoys popular support, and the country itself would be very hard to invade due to the mountainous terrain.
Doing nothing should never be an alternative in international relations, let alone when it comes to Iran. The cons far outweigh the pros, and Iran could use the time to become even more aggressive against U.S. interests and allies.
