Answer:
Pro: Getting your voice heard, and swaying the public opinion about the war efforts.
Con: Decrease the morale of the soldiers who are already stationed, if the protest is negative, and the government may keep an eye on you as well.
Explanation:
When it comes to protesting against a war that is already ongoing, it could go either way, as to whether or not the protest would have the intended impact. If the war has been going for a long time and there isn't exactly a clear reason as to why it is still going on, public opinion tend to be more sympathetic - for example: Vietnam War protests. However, just like during the Vietnam War, it can damage the morale of the soldiers who are already there and as history has proven, the government might put you on the list of people-to-watch - just like past celebrities who have protested against the Vietnam War such as Jane Fonda.
The need to raise money to maintain expensive political campaigns
British intelligence suggested that Bush administration had "cooked the books" to justify the invasion of Iraq, <u>a. U.S. media outlets devoted little attention to the story, television outlets devoted heavy coverage to the story, but print outlets did not virtually all</u>
<u>Explanation:</u>
Media serves as a watchdog over government in in a democratic society. <u>"Invasion of Iraq"</u> was done during the administration of President George Bush.
British intelligence decided to conduct research on Invasion of Iraq. They did lot of investigation and finally found that the Bush’s government “cooked the books" to justify the invasion of Iraq.
When they submitted this report, the media outlets in the United States showed less attention to the story.
A. Crackers, is the answer
Foreigners are getting employed instead of people that residing in that specific country
Too many people might be studying for teaching and there might not many job opportunities in that sector
*I hope this helps*
