<span>I
think this requires my opinion so I would say that I would lean on the process
of controlled isolationism. The analogy behind it would be like this:
I will not bother you so do not bother me, and if you would feel my wrath if
you try and harm me.</span>
The difference between the "old right" and the "new right" in the 80s was in their movement towards participation in governing coalitions.
<h3>What is the old right?</h3>
The Old Right is simply an informal designation for a branch of American conservatism most prominent from 1910 to the mid-1950s, though it never became an organized movement.
Most of the members were Republicans. The term "Old Right" distinguishes them from their New Right successors who came to prominence in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.
<h3>What is the new right?</h3>
The New Right refers to the movement of American conservatives in the 1970s and 1980s in opposition to liberal policies on taxes, abortion, affirmative action, and also foreign policy stances on the Soviet Union.
Thus, the difference between the "old right" and the "new right" in the 80s was in their movement towards participation in governing coalitions.
Learn more about American conservatives here:
brainly.com/question/23228677
#SPJ1
Answer:
D is the answer.
Explanation:
The environment is not changing in any of these scenarios. Mark me Brainliest if you like my answer!
My answers are
A. Spread of Buddahism
B. Spread of Christianity
F. Spread of Islam
The military plans laid before World War I presupposed a major war between the countries which were tied together with alliances. Because the Triple Entente had Britain, France and Russia as allies, Germany thought if a war began it would need to fight on two fronts -- west and east. So German Field Marshall Alfred von Schlieffen drew up war plans that said attack France first, quickly, and then hold that territory while deploying forces to contend with Russia in the east. So when Germany declared war on Russia in 1914, the first thing it did was to go and attack France. Thus the war spread and became instantly a more global conflict.
National leaders in politics and the military need to learn caution when dealing with alliances and when committing themselves to military action. Restrained, limited military actions are preferable to the all-out plunging into war that was seen in the outbreak of World War I. Diplomacy should be given its best chance to work before resorting to military options -- even if military options have been pre-planned.
