George W. Bush demanded that the Taliban government in___turn over Osama bin Laden to the United States.

Explain why Duars were important to Bhutanese.

Andreyy89

Answer:

follow

Explanation:

Britain sent a peace mission to Bhutan in early 1864, in the wake of the recent conclusion of a civil war there, under Ashley Eden.[1] The dzongpon of Punakha – who had emerged victorious – had broken with the central government and set up a rival Druk Desi while the legitimate druk desi sought the protection of the penlop of Paro and was later deposed. The British mission dealt alternately with the rival penlop of Paro and the penlop of Trongsa (the latter acted on behalf of the druk desi), but Bhutan rejected the peace and friendship treaty it offered partially because of the previous unilateral British annexation of some Assam duars. Britain declared war in November 1864. Bhutan had no regular army, and what forces existed were composed of dzong guards armed with matchlocks, bows and arrows, swords, knives, and catapults. Some of these dzong guards, carrying shields and wearing chainmail armor, engaged the well-equipped British forces.

Storming of Dewangiri fort.

The fort, known at the time as Dewangiri, at Deothang was dismantled by the British during 1865. The British initially suffered a humiliating defeat at Deothang and when they recaptured Dewangiri they destroyed much in an attempt to compensate.

The Duar War lasted only five months and, despite some battlefield victories by Bhutanese forces which included the capture of two howitzer guns, resulted in the loss of 20% of Bhutan's territory, and forced cession of formerly occupied territories.[2] Under the terms of the Treaty of Sinchula, signed 11 November 1865, Bhutan ceded territories in the Assam Duars and Bengal Duars, as well as the 83 km² of territory of Dewangiri in southeastern Bhutan, in return for an annual subsidy of 50,000 rupees. The Treaty of Sinchula stood until 1910, when Bhutan and British India signed the Treaty of Punakha, effective until 1947.

5 0

3 years ago

2 Points

Step2247 [10]

Explanation:

Federal Budget can be defined as a major plan for federal governments to predict future revenue and spending for a period of time which is usually a year.

These are the steps involved in creating the federal budget

STEP 1

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) prepares a budget proposal.

Office of Management and Budget is part of the management office of the President that makes the president budget based on the spending proposals received from federal agencies. Office of Management and Budget also reviews the effectiveness of agency services, policies and procedures to see if they fulfill with the priorities of the President and manage inter-agency policy initiatives.

STEP 2

The president submits a budget proposal to Congress.

After the office of the management has prepared the budget, the president will then submit the Budget to congress for review. The Budget Committees of the House and the Senate hold hearings on the matter of the annual budget which gives the Congress an opportunity to layout it’s spending, revenue, borrowing and economic goals -- as well as providing the vehicle for imposing internal budget discipline through established enforcement mechanisms before deciding on the overall level of spending and taxation.

STEP 3

Congress decides on the overall level of spending and taxation and passes specific spending bills.

After series of meeting among the congress, the congress will then decides on the overall level of spending and taxation and passes specific spending bills.

STEP 4

The president signs the spending bills into law.

The Congress will present the spending bills to the President for his signature or veto, as proscribed by the Constitution. The President has ten days in which to decide: to sign the bill or to veto the bill, thereby sending it back to Congress and requiring much of the process to begin again with respect the programs covered by that bill.

6 0

3 years ago

Compare the results of the boston police strike and the steel strike?

Luden [163]

In the Boston Police Strike, Boston police officers went on strike on September 9, 1919. They sought recognition for their trade union and improvements in wages and working conditions. Police Commissioner Edwin Upton Curtis denied that police officers had any right to form a union, much less one affiliated with a larger organization like the American Federation of Labor (AFL). Attempts at reconciliation between the Commissioner and the police officers, particularly on the part of Boston's Mayor Andrew James Peters, failed.

During the strike, Boston experienced several nights of lawlessness. Several thousand members of the State Guard, supported by volunteers, restored order. Press reaction both locally and nationally described the strike as Bolshevik-inspired and directed at the destruction of civil society. The strikers were called "deserters" and "agents of Lenin."[1]

Samuel Gompers of the AFL recognized that the strike was damaging the cause of labor in the public mind and advised the strikers to return to work. Commissioner Curtis refused to re-hire the striking policemen. He was supported by Massachusetts Governor Calvin Coolidge, whose rebuke of Gompers earned him a national reputation. The strike proved a setback for labor unions, and the AFL discontinued its attempts to organize police officers for another two decades. Coolidge won the Republican nomination for vice-president of the U.S. in the 1920 presidential election.n 1895, the Massachusetts legislature transferred control of the Boston police department from Boston's mayor to the governor of Massachusetts, whom it authorized to appoint a five-person board of commissioners to manage the department. In 1906, the legislature abolished that board and gave the governor the authority to name a single commissioner to a term of five years, subject to removal by the governor. The mayor and the city continued to have responsibility for the department's expenses and the physical working conditions of its employees, but the commissioner controlled department operations and the hiring, training, and discipline of the police officers.[2]

In 1918, the salary for patrolmen was set at $1,400 a year. Police officers had to buy their own uniforms and equipment which cost over $200. New recruits received $730 during their first year, which increased annually to $821.25 and $1000, and to $1,400 after six years.[3] In the years following World War I, inflation dramatically eroded the value of a police officer's salary. From 1913 to May 1919, the cost of living rose by 76%, while police wages rose just 18%.[2] Discontent and restiveness among the Boston police force grew as they compared their wages and found they were earning less than an unskilled steelworker, half as much as a carpenter or mechanic and 50 cents a day less than a streetcar conductor. Boston city laborers were earning a third more on an hourly basis.[3]

Police officers had an extensive list of grievances. They worked ten-hour shifts and typically recorded weekly totals between 75 and 90 hours.[a] They were not paid for time spent on court appearances.[2] They also objected to being required to perform such tasks as "delivering unpaid tax bills, surveying rooming houses, taking the census, or watching the polls at election" and checking the backgrounds of prospective jurors as well as serving as "errand boys" for their officers.[5] They complained about having to share beds and the lack of sanitation, baths, and toilets[2] at many of the 19 station houses where they were required to live, most of which dated to before the Civil War. The Court Street station had four toilets for 135 men, and one bathtub.

4 0

3 years ago

Which of the following is true regarding the office of the president?

kari74 [83]

A) The president selects members of Congress.

6 0

3 years ago

What is the significance of the quote from John Julius Norwich's book?

gavmur [86]

John Julius Norwich makes a point of saying in the introduction to his history of the popes that he is “no scholar” and that he is “an agnostic Protestant.” The first point means that while he will be scrupulous with his copious research, he feels no obligation to unearth new revelations or concoct revisionist theories. The second means that he has “no ax to grind.” In short, his only agenda is to tell us the story. Norwich declares that he is an agnostic Protestant with no axe to grind: his aim is to tell the story of the popes, from the Roman period to the present, covering them neither with whitewash nor with ridicule. Even more disarmingly, he insists that he has no pretensions to scholarship and writes only for “the average intelligent reader”. But he adds: “I have tried to maintain a certain lightness of touch.” And that, it seems, is the opening through which a fair amount of outrageous anecdote and Gibbonian dry wit is allowed to enter the narrative.

8 0

3 years ago