Answer:
The world has transformed rapidly in the decade since the end of the Cold War. An old system is gone and, although it is easy to identify what has changed, it is not yet clear that a new system has taken its place. Old patterns have come unstuck, and if new patterns are emerging, it is still too soon to define them clearly. The list of potentially epoch-making changes is familiar by now: the end of an era of bipolarity, a new wave of democratization, increasing globalization of information and economic power, more frequent efforts at international coordination of security policy, a rash of sometimes-violent expressions of claims to rights based on cultural identity, and a redefinition of sovereignty that imposes on states new responsibilities to their citizens and the world community.1
These transformations are changing much in the world, including, it seems, the shape of organized violence and the ways in which governments and others try to set its limits. One indication of change is the noteworthy decrease in the frequency and death toll of international wars in the 1990s. Subnational ethnic and religious conflicts, however, have been so intense that the first post-Cold War decade was marked by enough deadly lower-intensity conflicts to make it the bloodiest since the advent of nuclear weapons (Wallensteen and Sollenberg, 1996). It is still too soon to tell whether this shift in the most lethal type of warfare is a lasting change: the continued presence of contested borders between militarily potent states—in Korea, Kashmir, Taiwan, and the Middle East—gives reason to postpone judgment. It seems likely, though, that efforts to pre-
Explanation:
i thin this is right but im not sure
hope this helps
have a good night
Answer:
The U.S. entered World War I because Germany embarked on a deadly gamble. Germany sank many American merchant ships around the British Isles which prompted the American entry into the war.
Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves
Depending on their stature, the people from different classes would have had different opinions about the City Beautiful Movement.
This movement was promoting the beautification of the cities, by building large monuments, big buildings, modern and unique architecture, in order for the cities to look more beautiful, more pleasant. They though that it will make the people feel better and happier when having something beautiful instead of having something that is old and let say ''ugly-looking''.
The people from the upper class would have been on the same frequency with this movement, and they were the ones that contributed to it, and invested in the building of the new and beautiful architecture.
The people from the lower class though, would have looked with skepticism on this, because their primary thought and concern was to earn enough money to be able to have food on the table the next day. This project, in their eyes, was seen as spending money for no reason, especially because those money could have been used to increase their wages and working conditions.
Daniel Shays was an American soldier, revolutionary, and farmer famous for being one of the leaders of Shays' Rebellion, a populist uprising against controversial debt collection and tax policies in Massachusetts in 1786 and 1787.