Due to unfavourable conditions.
Land ownership conditions existed in the Mexico that led American settlers to feel discontented in Texas. Mexican government imposed two conditions on land ownership i.e. settlers had to become Mexican citizens and they had to convert to the religion of Roman Catholicism. Without these two conditions, land ownership was not given by the Mexican government which is unfavourable conditions for the American settlers.
Answer:
I agree with the statement “The Treaty of Versailles was a fair settlement” to a certain extent. I know that Germany had been unmerciful during the war leading to thirty seven million casualties. Therefore “The Big Three”: Lloyd George (Great Britain), Clemenceau (France) and Wilson (USA), the driving forces behind the treaty, need not be merciful in return. When you put the Treaty of Versailles in perspective against World War I it appears to be fair towards Germany. The war had destroyed most country’s economies and a large area of land. These, among many other things, needed to be restored. Considering that Germany had been defeated and they were largely at fault for the start of the war it was fair to make them pay reparations. After the war Germany was still a serious threat to the world. People believed that they would not give up. Therefore one of the main aims of the peace treaty was to make sure that the risk of Germany attacking again was as low as possible. The treaty of Versailles was fair to take away Germany’s armed forces and colonies as it protected the rest of the world in the short term and punished them. However, we now know that the Treaty of Versailles failed as the world has seen another, even more horrific war. I believe that the Treaty was unnecessarily harsh and not as fair as it should have been. All of the victorious nations were furious with Germany so at the time very few thought of being fair towards their enemy of four years. This is reflected in the treaty through the reparations Germany was forced to pay. These were outrageously high (£660 million) and later changed. The confiscation of Germany’s territories and colonies and the reduction in their army was also excessively severe. Although this was meant to keep peace in the short term it only angered Germany more, sparking revenge. War Guilt was also an unnecessary condition that publicly humiliated Germany triggering resentment. This was tactlessly done to compensate the victorious public who desired a subject to blame for the loss of their loved ones. Similarly the rest of the treaty was too harsh because the rulers had to please their countries if they wished to be re-elected. Germany did not get any second chances from the peace treaty. Their pride majorly suffered at the forced decrease in their army and they were not able to improve themselves in their colonies as those were repossessed causing jealousy and anger. The peace treaty unfairly focused too much on punishing Germany for what they did wrong rather than trying to maintain peace. This is because the public was too angry to think intelligently about preventing future losses. In general I believe that the Treaty of Versailles had good intentions however mainly due to public pressure it was too harsh and unfair. The Big Three had an impossible task and pleasing everyone was not probable but I believe they did the best that they could at the time. However the treaty was largely unfair and too severe contributing to World War II.
Explanation:
It contains 282 laws that describes a range of possible crimes and their punishments that follow. It’s mainly known for its famous belief “an eye for an eye”. For simple answers look up Hammurabi’s code for kids hope this helped
So, Bush believed that all military missions should be based on U.S. strategic interests and should have clear objectives and exit strategies. He does not want to over commit the armed forces and would like to see allies shoulder more responsibility in terms of regional conflicts. Bush believes that U.S. regional priorities consist of Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, and the Far East, and he strongly supports maintaining U.S. presence in NATO. He feels that the U.S. should be prepared for military intervention if necessary, but that a strong military will act as a deterrent to security threats.
Gore assailed Bush's proposal to withdraw U.S. forces from the Balkans saying it would be "a damaging blow to NATO" and would jeopardize other U.S. alliances. He has defined six criteria for deciding whether to deploy the military: (1) Is the mission in U.S. national interests? (2) Is military force the only way to solve the conflict? (3) Have all other options been exhausted? (4) Will force solve the problem? (5) Do we have the support of allies? (6) Is the cost of the operation proportionate to the objective? Gore's policy of "forward engagement" calls for early diplomatic intervention to prevent the need for future military deployment.
:)
<span>Poor whites lived on land that could not grow cash crops. In this time, poor whites hunted, fished, had gardens, and did odd jobs just to survive. Yeomen were owners of small farms. These men lived on small farms and worked alongside slaves if they had them.</span>
