Because there were bigger, stronger, older nations that would
have loved to get their hands on that rich territory that the United
States covered ... France, England, Spain, etc. Washington knew
that the young USA could only survive as a nation if the people
remained united, and all those things ... taking sides in international
conflict (not remaining neutral), national debt, sectionalism (north
against south, east against west, old states against new states),
political parties (Whigs against Tories, Republicans against
Democrats), are things that could set groups of the people
against each other.
Yes, because morally, it’s the right thing to do. Our common humanity means that those of us who are doing well (often doing <em>too</em> well) should help those whose basic needs are not met. And, in part, our personal and national wealth has often been created by the exploitation of poor people – colonial extraction of resources, the slavery and opium trades, unfair international trade and finance practices and others. Reallocating just <em>1% of global wealth</em> would eradicate extreme income poverty at a stroke. Those of us who are ‘better-off’ would be stupid not to help the poor. If we want a prosperous, politically stable and environmentally sustainable world for ourselves (and for future generations), then we have to help poor people in poorer, less fortunate lands.
Hope this helps, honey. Best of luck with assignments like these.
Answer:
by conserving energy, by keeping fireplaces clean, by using alternate energy resources.
Explanation: Because it is
Answer:
The strategic management process involves assessing environmental and organizational conditions. ... National culture could be a crucial variable mediating this process as it may influence the relationship of the organization with the environment as well as the relationships among people within the organization.
hope it helps (^^)
hope it helps (^^)# Cary on learning
