No, it was not moral because it disrupts what they are already trying to fix. When the people come to take over, the people have no more freedom, they have to listen the people that take over. And the people that take over want money, resources, and land, so that makes it even worse for them because of the fact that they are going through all of their resources, and losing their land faster making them even more poor. Sometimes it isn't morally a good thing because many people can get killed or that the empire does not care about the country's health. Hope this helps! Have a good day.
<span>
</span>
I believe it’s answer B, some context would be great though
Answer:
The Iron Curtain was not actually a physical wall in most places, but it separated the communist and capitalist countries. The Berlin wall on the other hand was actually a wall that was built right through the middle of Berlin the capital of Germany.
Explanation:
<u>Reagan's testimony in pg 19-20 contribute to the development of the idea in the text in the following ways</u>
Reagan, in his testimony, detested that on the tactics of the fifth communist. He highlighted that they were dishonest, and as a citizen, he detested to see the country getting affected by fear and intimidation by some individuals. Therefore he didn’t compromise with anybody regarding the resentments and fear
He expressed he didn't feel it was inside the position or capacity of any single man or gathering of men inside the film business to have the option to decide precisely and decently who ought to be terminated and who ought not to be concluded
.
