1: Why the vietnam war was so hard to fight. The war in Vietnam was difficult to fight due to the fact that the terrain was so harsh that it made the americans struggle to survive. There were 58,209 American deaths in the Vietnam war. 10,875 of them were not combat related.
2: Although a military loss, the Tet Offensive was a stunning propaganda victory for the communists. In fact, it is often credited with turning the war in their favor. The South Vietnamese lost morale as Viet Cong guerrillas infiltrated rural areas formerly held by the government.
The elements that William Hogarth depictrd with inaccurate perspective in the engraving includes:
- woman handing a candle
- sheep lined up
- bird perched on a tree
- sign showing the moon
<h3>What is William Hogarth known for?</h3>
He is known for his series paintings based on the modern moral subjects which are sold as engravings on subscription.
On his 1754 engraving, the painting depicted a woman handing a candle to a man outside her window, sheep lined up and walking away, bird perched on a tree and a sign showing the moon hanging from the building.
Read more about William Hogarth
<em>brainly.com/question/18843793</em>
Yes I think that each side has good things to say about the other side. This is because I think that many people's political viewpoints don't always perfectly align to one party or the other. In reality, life is much more complicated than picking one side. Sure some people might agree with policies from the Democrat's side, but they might see other Republican views to be valid as well. I like to think of it as a buffet of ideas, where people tend to pick and choose which talking points they magnetically snap to. We could have for example a socially liberal person but who supports conservative financial measures; or we could have someone who has very religious conservative morals, but supports liberal monetary policies.
In other words, it's unrealistic to assume people will be purely one party. Those who seem that way tend to be stuck in a bubble where it's like a feedback loop of talking points fed to them. Fox News is one example of this on the conservative side, while MSNBC is an example of this on the liberal side. Those stuck in this bubble would likely not have much nice things to say about the other side, if they have anything nice to say at all. However, I think to some (if not many) people, politics has become very toxic that they simply turn the tv off entirely. By "turn off", I mean literally turn it off or change the channel to something else. These people I'd consider somewhere in the middle in a moderate range. Furthermore, these moderates are likely to have some nice things to say about both sides, but they might have their complaints about both sides as well.
In short, if you pick someone from either extreme, then it's likely they'll have nothing nice to say about the other side. If you pick someone from the middle, then they might have nice things to say about both sides. It all depends who you ask. Also, it depends on how politically active they are.
I'm guessing <span>Zimbabwe.</span>
A is the best example.
King Phillip's War occurred in MA, CT, and RI during 1675-1678 after the death of Massasoit and the ascension of his son Metacomet to the leadership of the Wampanog tribe. The power dynamic changed the relationship between the colonizers and the native population, who were beginning to feel like they were being taken advantage of. The war largely ended with the colonists winning and Metacomet dying.
