Yep thewintershoulder is right. there might be more.
I'd say B, because the armada was disrupted. No ships were burnt, but they were broken apart, meaning none returned. I hope this helps!
Answer:
Supporters of Laissez faire believe that this type of system promotes more incentives to trade and economic growth, in addition to encouraging freedom among companies.
Supporters of economic intervention, on the other hand, believe that the intervention promotes fairer and more equitable trade and allows new companies to become as influential as old companies, which will promote economic growth.
Explanation:
Economic intervention allows the government of a country to impose limits and interference in trade and the productive sector. These limitations prevent economically strong companies from dominating an entire productive sector, promoting more commercial fairness and allowing new companies to emerge in addition to allowing small companies to grow in the same sector as large companies.
Laissez Faire, on the other hand, discredits any government intervention in trade and this imposes freedom on companies and industries, which will allow full production and vast economic growth.
Answer:
colonial protestors led by a group called the Sons of Liberty called for a boycott. On October 20, the Congress adopted the Articles of Association, which stated that if the Intolerable Acts were not repealed by December 1, 1774, a boycott of British goods would begin in the colonies
Explanation:
Hope this helps!!!
The military plans laid before World War I presupposed a major war between the countries which were tied together with alliances. Because the Triple Entente had Britain, France and Russia as allies, Germany thought if a war began it would need to fight on two fronts -- west and east. So German Field Marshall Alfred von Schlieffen drew up war plans that said attack France first, quickly, and then hold that territory while deploying forces to contend with Russia in the east. So when Germany declared war on Russia in 1914, the first thing it did was to go and attack France. Thus the war spread and became instantly a more global conflict.
National leaders in politics and the military need to learn caution when dealing with alliances and when committing themselves to military action. Restrained, limited military actions are preferable to the all-out plunging into war that was seen in the outbreak of World War I. Diplomacy should be given its best chance to work before resorting to military options -- even if military options have been pre-planned.
