Hey!
Hope this helps...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I do not believe there is the right reason for any country to go into war. Although if I had to pick one reason that a country might go into a war, or a reason that could be justifiable for going into war. My decision would be going into war to protect an ally from an invasion.
This is not because of the thought of war, this is because if a country lose his allies, it would be defenseless when war is thrust of the pawn that country who needed that Ally.
So i would say the answer is: B.) to protect an Ally from an invasion.
The globalization is a process that has brought many positives in the world, in almost every country and among almost all people. Unfortunately, this process also has its negatives too, and of them is the fact that the safety of the people around the world has actually decreased. The main reason for this is that through the mass and social media, everyone can communicate with everyone, so violence and extremism is often spread out in this way to people thousands of miles away. The means of travel are enabling people from all over the world to be able to go anywhere they want, including the people that want to cause troubles and damage. Another thing that is of great concern is that through the mail, everything can be sent everywhere, including deadly chemicals and pathogens. The deadly diseases that were only local, now can easily be transferred to other continents in only few hours because people travel throughout the whole world. The evidence for the decline in safety can easily be seen in the ever growing terrorist attacks all over the globe, people that have caused the death of civilians because they have been recruited online over time, pathogens spreading out into places where they are not native, and almost daily packages and letters sent through the mail with explosives or deadly chemicals in them.
Answer:
Harry S. Truman
Harry S. Truman (May 8, 1884 – December 26, 1972) was the 33rd president of the United States from 1945 to 1953, succeeding upon the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt after serving as vice president.
Explanation:
<em>Well, for one... Louis the XVI was considerd ineffectual because he was usually depicted as rather a weak sort of king. Not really able to wield the strong centralized state in which his ancestors had crafted.</em>
<em> *And he was also seen as an honest man, who had good intensions, but who was most likely unfit for the strong task of reforming the monarchy; He basically wasnt the best man for the job... </em>
<span><em>~Therefore, He was ineffectual, just like the question states...
</em><em>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~</em>
<em>~Hope this helped! Anymore questions, please feel free to ask. :)</em></span>
