<span>The answer that doesn't fit with the Bush Doctrine is A) that the US would go to war in order to preserve the freedom of the seas and protect neutral shipping.
The George W. Bush administration believed that the best defense against terrorism in the world was to use American power to spread democratic values in countries that were potential breeding grounds for terrorist activity. This sort of policy agenda was part of the "neoconservative" view of a number of President George W. Bush's advisers -- especially some who had also served in the administration of his father, President George H.W. Bush.
In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, there was a desire to push American values and not be shy about doing so with the use of American military might. The core ideas of the "Bush Doctrine" were that the United States could pursue foreign policy goals on its own (without need for United Nations partnerships), that preemptive strikes were allowable against countries that harbored terrorists, and that regime change for the sake of promoting democracy was a good strategy. </span>
For the answer to the question above.
The best answer I can give is letter B.
During the civil war, there was also a competition in the global market on the supply of cotton so Europe sought other suppliers from India and Egypt and this is why the price is down after 1865
The answer is Wood was used to fuel smelting furnaces and iron was used to make tools and weapons more defensive have a very nice day
The Roman Empire was divided by Theodosius, its emperor until 395, among his two sons, Arcadius, who governed in the east, and Honorus, who governed in the west, and it has never been reunited after that.
