The real reason for maintaining armies is the same reason why some men buy expensive sports cars... overcompensating.
Seriously, think of armies as insurance. Even if it's small, amateurish, and under-funded, it's likely to give potential bullies a little pause. (Of course, a big country like Iraq can sweep up a little country like Kuwait in no time flat, as we all know).
Part of the answer is social/ economic/ political inertia. The military is part of the playground for the elite and privileged. (I use the word playground as in "fork over your lunch money, weakling.") Who wants to get rid of their army just to balance the budget? I sure haven´t seen "fire soldier-boys" on any IMF or World Bank wish lists
A lot of countries, fragile democracies, say, find armies to be an effective tool to use on internal "problems." In a pinch, a loyal military can keep your nation away from chaos. On the other hand, they work equally well to keep dictators in power.
<span>Many countries do get a lot more mileage out of their armies than Iceland or Costa Rica could possibly get. Obviously, a lot of African countries find them pretty handy.
</span>
Also, keep this quote in mind
<span>"It takes two countries to maintain peace and only one to make war"</span>
Answer:
A
Explanation:
MLK never wanted violence only peace he preached about peace and justice simple research will teach you that. But the answer is a sir or mam.
Answer:
(d) quid pro quo sexual harassment
Explanation:
Quid pro quo harassment happens when a chief requires sex, sexual favors, or sexual contact from a worker applicant as a state of their employment.
It happens when business, pay, benefits, title, position or different open doors for headway or preparing are molded on the accommodation to unwelcome lewd gestures.
The group is most likely to be effective at generating solutions if it is midsize and diverse.
<h3>What is solution?</h3>
It should be noted that solution simply means a neans of finding answers to a particular problem or issue.
In this case, the group is most likely to be effective at generating solutions if it is midsize and diverse.
Learn more about solutions on:
brainly.com/question/3653791
#SPJ1
I believe the answer would be C, taxation without representation caused anger.
In 1765, the stamp act congress met in New York to declare that the English Crown was not entitled to tax Americans who lacked representation in British parliament.
