The correct answer is B) they expanded the empire’s borders.
The tactic that both Chandragupta Maurya and Aśoka used to gain power was that they expanded the empire’s borders.
These feared emperors decided to expand their territories through conquering in order to gain more power, control, and influence in the region.
However, in the case of emperor Asoka, he inherited the ruling of the Mauryan Empire in 273 BC and followed his grandfather's steps. He conquered, fought many battles, and imposed his will in his new territories. But he got tired when he realized all the pain and suffering caused by the war. He converted to Buddhism and started to appreciate values such as tolerance, justice, and respect.
To learn the importance of the past and how it affects the future.
This line is part of the “Military Maxims of Napoleon”, a collection of tenets on the art of war which are still an inspiration for military students. Through this line, he makes his war beliefs and tactics clear. We should also consider the meaning of civil war: it is a war which if fought between different groups of people (different in religion, political ideas, etc) of the same territory. Having this in mind we can mention for example The Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815). They consisted in a series of battles between France and other European powers, financed and usually led by the United Kingdom. Among these we can mention The Battle of Waterloo 1815, the Battle of Trafalgar 1805, etc.
I agree in the sense that inevitably whenever there is a war there are 2 groups of a different nature, sharing the territory but fighting for a reason. I also believe that the “civil war they make wherever they fight” does not necessarily imply military participation. Nowadays, we see many countries, mainly Latin American ones, in which the different economic and political conflicts (“wars”) produce a gap and a clash between different national or local groups (“civil war”).
The correct answer is: violation of individual liberties, and the violation of the national and international laws.
As much as the government has plausible for doing it so, as we look back at the history of terrorist attacks, the government would argue the indefinite detention without, considering it aa form of prevention. If we know the human rights we will realize the most viable and obvious argument for being against that type of detention is the violation of national and international laws about the individual liberties. That's when there is no evidence of crime and when the individual does not represent national threat. It may be controversial the way government tries to deal with issues like that, but international organizations has made very clear their points about
