It should be both but in equal and balance way that the resources can replenish and used in the future generations. Protecting the resources enables the source to replenish and regain what are lost. Using and extracting enables the society to work and survive. So both are needed to be balanced to work efficiently and effectively.
this would be Obscene language
To write an autobiography, you want to focus on the good, memorable moments, and how others influenced you to get you to the position you are in today. Therefore, all of the answers but the first and sixth are good answers to use in this scenario.
Starting from the very beginning makes a timeline out of it and doesn't allow the autobiography to focus on the development of your character.
Starting with present time and looking back shows the audience how you have used certain tactics to get where you are today and how you applied them to your character and strengthened it overall.
Including how important people influenced you is a great decision because ti is going to show the development and changes that you made and how these people helped shape you into the wonderful human being you are today.
Focusing on your point of view would be best because an autobiography is about you. Emphasizing other points of view would just allow the readers to infer certain opinions.
Writing about how you became stronger shows development in your personality and character and is a fantastic addition to your story.
Writing about funny moments wouldn't be the best choice because it emphasizes unimportant scenarios.
Overall, it is your story, so you can choose what you want to be in it!
Answer: The answer is complex and not straightforward.
Explanation:
The article relates to Churchill and Roosevelt, so is probably dated from World War 2.
Given this and the reference to the use of force by aggressive nations it is reasonable to assume that this refers to the Axis nations and their allies, primarily Germany, Japan and Italy.
What is being referred to is reflected in the policies applied to Germany and Japan at the end of World War 2. (Italy had already switched sides and deposed Mussolini).
In the post war agreements drawn up, Germany and Japan were largely demilitarised with strict control over their armed forces. In the case of West Germany their limited armed forces existed only within the context of NATO to prevent any aggressive use as was evidenced at the beginning of World War 2.
In both instances these countries were not allowed to develop or possess nuclear weapons.
Until such time as there is a global disarmament treaty, as referred to in the article, then countries which are deemed "aggressive", the losers in a conflict, by others, the winners, have arms controls imposed.
Of course this does not and has not stopped the proliferation of weapons, and conflicts throughout the world since 1945, including the aggressive policies of countries such as the UK and the USA.
