Answer: The answer is you can neither be fully supportive of the either. In fact the battle will go on or you may the arguments will perhaps get louder in the years to come.
Explanation: None of the nations wants to back from using a lucrative resources that they chance upon fully knowing the repercussions of climate change and various other damaging havoc that can impact the entire earth.
The greed in humans cannot be killed and perhaps we already are paying a heavy price for it. The conservationists believe the usage of the resources should be done in a responsible manner.
The supply need not be jeopardised for the future generations but no objections in continuing to use them though. Sustainability is the argument that they propound.
The preservationists are purists in the true sense they don't want to disturb mother nature and allow them to flourish in their pristine form and we continue to live in harmony with that.
The intrinsic value of the land and other resources have to retained and gained inspiration for its beauty and serenity. It is the theory that preservationists have stuck too for years.
Each is right in their own way, if we don't use the natural resources we won't be able to function as well as we do.
If we don't preserve some of the natural resources and stick our head into every resource on the surface of the earth, there will be large destruction and extinction of flora and fauna.
Hence it would be right to say, that we need to rethink what we are going to do because in the next few years what we do will determine our future and there is no going back then.
Answer:
Look beow.
Explanation:
Im going to provide a list of reasons why Othello shouldn't trust Iago:
-Iago is very manipulative. He manipulates people by giving them hope for something that they could never have. He changes the behaviors of certain characters so it benefits him.
-Iago is very selfish. When he wants something done he tricks people into thinking that he's an honest person but actually takes from them to benefit himself.
-Iago is disrespectful and doesn't treat people fairly. In Scene 2 act 1 (i think) he goes on and on about women an their evil-ish traits. He disrespects his wife and women in general.
-Iago is full of jelousy and revenge. Iago's main motive is to get revenge for Othello's choice of sleeping with his wife and loving Desdemona.
In conclusion Othello shouldn't trust Iago because he is manipulative, selfish, disrespectful, and is out for revenge. Writing 4 paragraphs is alot to ask forso instead I wrote 4 topics you could use for your paragraphs, I hope this helps you.
No, maybe include some commas
If i could change something about myself, it would be, to accomplish things for myself rather than to pleasure others.
Answer:
subtopics to be covered in the essay
Explanation:
The thesis is that both books have the same main theme, so in order to make the thesis statement stronger the author needs to add subtopics to be covered in the essay, like the migration caused by drug wars and child immigration, this could help strengthen the thesis statement and make it clearer and more precise.
Answer:
A new post-conflict chapter characterized not by bigotry but by national unity is being written in South Africa. Playing a key role in the rewriting, representation, and remembering of the past is the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission which, in 1996, started the process of officially documenting human rights violations during the years 1960-1993. This nation-building discourse of reconciliation, endorsed by both the present government and South Africa's ruling party, the African National Congress (ANC), has been a crucial agent of a new collective memory after the trauma of apartheid. But the confession of apartheid crimes proved beneficial mostly for perpetrators in search of amnesty rather than a genuine interest in a rehabilitated society. Thus, the amnesty system did very little to advance reconciliation. It is for these reasons that the South African TRC was cynically regarded by its critics as a fiasco, a "Kleenex commission" that turned human suffering into theatrical spectacle watched all over the world. There is, in fact, little that is "new" or "post" in a country that retains apartheid features of inequity. What is often overlooked in this prematurely celebratory language of reconciliation is South Africa's interregnum moment. Caught between two worlds, South Africans are confronted with Antonio Gramsci's conundrum that can be specifically applied to the people of this region: an old order that is dying and not yet dead and a new order that has been conceived but not yet born. And in this interregnum, Gramsci argues, "a great variety of morbid symptoms appear" (276). Terms like "new South Africa" and "rainbow nation," popularized by former president F.W. de Klerk and Desmond Tutu, the former chairperson of the TRC respectively, then, not only ignore the "morbid" aspects of South Africa's bloody road to democracy, but also inaccurately suggest a break with the past. This supposed historical rupture belies the continuities of apartheid.
scorn her.
