Answer:
Tactical/Logistical incompetence and geography
Explanation:
The Soviet Union came into Afghanistan underestimating the Mujahideen. They believed they would be unorganized, awfully equipped, and tactically inferior. For the most part, they were right. The Soviet Union did have a stronger industry, better technology, more manpower, air superiority, and more equipment. However, they failed to recognize the logistical challenges of mountain warfare, and lacked the skill to fight in mountain warfare. The Afghani mountains are some of the largest and most unforgiving in the world. The steep angles and clouds of the mountains made it difficult for the Soviet Air Force to track and attack the enemy. In addition, trucks and supply lines were hard to get through, leaving many troops under equipped. The constant ambushes, low supplies, lack of air support, and Mujahideen guerrilla warfare in one of the most unforgiving environments on Earth eventually left the Soviet Union no choice but to withdraw their forces.
Answer:
1. Birds have feathers and are avian creatures whereas fish have scales and are aquatic
2. In a desert landscape you will see little to no plants and dry ground.
3. brilliant and unforgettable
I hope this helps :)
So, when were talking about a market order, we are talking about buying or selling an order to immediately at current market prices. So, we might want to imagine a scenario when the current market prices drop. However, we would always, in any scenario prioritize certainty of execution over the price of execution. The order is filled at the best price available at the relevant time.
Answer:
I mean debate can encourage new laws but if you have one side wishing for laws and the other against it. It will usually slow legislation which is entirely the purpose. But it depends on what view are you taking it from because th end result can be no legislation at all or even a relaxation of legislation in fact that's happened in some states. So it depends on the view and narrative you wish to push. because it can be a semblance of all but B. If you're a centrist you'd probably say this debate will encourage new laws but the whole point of not wishing for infringements upon one's rights means no new laws. If you wanted new laws then this debate is a waste of time but you're angering a large portion of the population because you seek not to listen to the statistics and thereby information one may have that may dissuade from the legislation. And if you look at D it can be so. If 2 cannot agree then rights will not be infringed upon. Unless the side with more representatives that disagrees with the right then such laws will be enacted. Yes, they can place new restrictions and there you can make the case it's unconstitutional and etc because well there is ground and a foundation laid upon there. But as far as an actual thing it'd be A I suppose. But I'd question the teacher because it depends on how one views a division. It can be either cooperative relationships that can be mended or an all or nothing if it's not my way then we will have conflict and it shall erupt. It all depends.
Explanation:
