Answer:
In our own nation,the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil
Answer:
could've
Explanation:
Could've is a contraction of could have, which is always correct. Could of will never be correct, and could of've is simply not a real term.
Answer:
I believe that the answer is A
Explanation:
it would be D, but the cat is not injured/harmed. It’s A, because trying to keep the small kitten alive is extremely challenging, and emotional, because as you can see in the text, he is immediately pack-bonded to the cat because of the death around him
I think its active gvgghj
Answer: Destroying food resources is more damaging than the use of weapons.
Explanation:
In the aforementioned article, the author explains how using starvation and food insecurity as weapons of war by destroying food resources, can be more damaging than the use of weapons.
Destroying food resources can threaten entire populations as they may starve to death while weapons cannot regularly do so. For instance, Germany could have implemented food destruction policies in WWII that would have killed 20 million Russians and the starvation of Biafra by the Nigerian government during the Biafran war killed many times more Biafrans by the armed conflict did.
