I feel as if it's D- None of the above. Because though America may support these things, other countries may not.
In April 1994 in Rwanda (East Africa) began the genocide of Tutsi - an ethnic minority, which for centuries dominated the Rwandan majority - Hutu. During the 100 days of incredible violence, about 800 000 Tutsi and moderate Hutu were murdered. The international community, unfortunately, didn't respond to this event on time. The conflict was considered as an internal case and the Security Council of the UN didn't decide to intervene. Even though the scale and character of the conflict was well known the United States didn't want to get involved because of a painful experience from its intervention in Somalia in 1993 (the story was presented in the movie Black Hawk Down).
The UN troops arrived in Rwanda when the major fights were over. They assisted only by the burial of deaths and protected the survivors. Today we know that other countries (for example France and China) were selling arms to the Rwandan government.
What could be the response? The international community could prevent the growing hostility and animosity between Hutu and Tutsi already before the genocide. They should have introduced an embargo on arms in order to prevent the escalation of violence. When the conflict had begun, a military intervention should have taken place.
Colonize Africa or South America to settle more colonies there
Answer:
It absorbs less heat per molecule than the greenhouse gases methane or nitrous oxide, but it's more abundant and it stays in the atmosphere much longer. Increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide are responsible for about two-thirds of the total energy imbalance that is causing Earth's temperature to rise
Answer:
I think that President Roosevelt experiences in Georgia impacted his creation of the New Deal programs because had he not come to Georgia he wouldn't have seen what people needed help with and how they were negatively effected by the depression.
