The narrator of the story is a loyal soldier during the Spanish Civil War. He is at the bridge to set the position of the Fascist army on the different side of the river.
<h3>What does the narrator tell in Old Man at the Bridge?</h3>
The old man is symbolic of the devastating effects of war on civilians who have zero to gain from the conflict. When the narrator meets him, the old man is simply "too tired to go any farther," and he never liked to leave his home to begin with.
<h3>What is the determination of Old Man at the Bridge?</h3>
In conclusion the old man was the thought of the war who lost everything in his life as the effect of the war . Hemingway felt sorry for the old man and the people like him who were mentally damaged by the civil war.
To learn more about Old Man at the Bridge, refer
brainly.com/question/10444203
#SPJ4
My purple pen is out of ink
The first answer is correct: "They suggest that the heat is stifling, giving the poem an oppressive mood".
The author begins the poem with the sentence cited above. The use of the expression "rend open" plus the use of the imperative mode, suggest some sort of desperation caused by the heat. That is why the author prays for wind (an unbeatable natural force) to come and defeat heat, ending the suffering.
The word pants suits should be pant suit
It is reliant on the intensity of the attack as well as the power of the attacking nation.
some countries have been attacked and literally never fought back but surrendered if the attacking nation is more powerful in terms of military power.
in case the intensity of the attack can be absorbed, a country can also opt for diplomacy as war is the ultimate sanction in international relation.
in case the country feels it has the capacity to protect its sovereignty then fighting back is the only option.
another way to look at it would be one of the most difficult issues in foreign policy is deciding when the United States should exercise military force. Most people think that military force may be used if a vital national interest of the United States is threatened. The difficulty lies in getting people to agree on what constitutes a vital national interest.
Almost everyone would agree that an attack by a foreign country on the United States threatens a vital interest. Many also would think a vital interest threatened if a country attacked a nation that we had signed a security agreement with. Disagreements emerge when the threat involves the free flow of a precious commodity, such as oil. They also surface over situations that do not pose an immediate threat to U.S. security but could imperil it in the future, such as when a region becomes unstable and the instability may lead to wider conflicts. Another area of debate opens over human rights and humanitarian efforts. The United States is the most powerful democratic nation on Earth. Does that mean we always have a vital interest in promoting human rights and democracy? Or, should we stay out of the affairs of other nations unless they threaten other of our national interests?
Another issue arises over how the United States should exercise military force. Some argue that America should never act unilaterally, but should only act with others, allies or particularly with the United Nations. They believe America has a strong interest in upholding international law. Others agree that it is appropriate to act in coalitions, but they think demanding it in every circumstance would paralyze America’s role as a world leader.
