Roosevelt corollary is the answer!!!
Also known as the Warsaw Pact invasion of <span>Czechoslovakia, it was known as Operation Danube when over an army of 250,000 invaded the country.
</span>
The Army consisted of troops from Poland, Soviet Union, Hungary, East Germany and Bulgaria.
The invasion was conducted to ensure the 'Prague Spring' reforms do not come into effect and that the Community Party in C<span>zechoslovakia, which was friendly to Soviet Union, remained powerful and influential.
</span><span>
</span><span>
</span><span>However, the invasion was unpopular within the country and a passive-aggressive reaction was seen from the local population. Non-violent acts such as, food, water, and other resources were denied and anti-Warsaw pact graffiti welcomed the soldiers everywhere they went.
</span><span>
</span><span>
</span><span>There were also negative reactions from around the world and even within the Warsaw pact itself.
</span><span>
</span>
The results of the industrial revolution were worth the human cost. If you consider what are all the things which we have nowadays as a direct result of the industrial revolution, I think the answer should be quite obvious considering the abundance of goods and the subsequent development of society that followed.
Explanation:
As governance indicators have proliferated in recent years, so has their use and the controversy that surrounds them. As more and more voices are pointing out, existing indicators – many of them developed and launched in the 1990s – have a number of flaws. This is particularly disquieting at a time when governance is at the very top of the development agenda.
Many questions of crucial importance to the development community – such as issues around the relationship between governance and (inclusive) growth, or about the effectiveness of aid in different contexts – are impossible to answer with confidence as long as we do not have good enough indicators, and hence data, on governance.
The litany of problems concerning existing governance indicators has been growing:
Indicators produced by certain NGOs (e.g. the Heritage Foundation), but also by commercial risk rating agencies (such as the PRS Group), are biased towards particular types of policies, and consequently, the assessment of governance becomes mingled with the assessment of policy choices;
Many indicators rely on surveys of business people (e.g. the World Economic Forum's Executive Opinion Survey). While they have important insights into governance challenges given their interaction with government bureaucracies, the views of other stakeholders are also important and remain underrepresented, as are concerns about governance of less relevance to the business community (e.g. civil and human rights);
The other main methodology used are indicators produced by individuals or small groups of external experts – for example, the World Bank’s Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA), Bertelsmann’s Transformation Index, and the French Development Agency’s Institutional Profiles. This entails the risk that different experts ‘feed’ on each other’s ratings; and the depth to which external raters are able to explore the dimensions they are rating can vary.
<span>The interdependence that cause
the bronze age to collapse are the natural disasters, droughts and tribal or
pasoralist invasion. The effect of the
collapse of the bronze age are trades stopped between all of the different civilizations,
populations died en masse, literacy almost disappeared completely and the
empire was vanished. Civilization really start to make a comeback in the 900
BCE. The new period rise which is called as the iron age when the collapse of
the bronze age happened. Iron is an ideal material for improving weapons and
armor as well as plows. The invaders start doing iron weapons and they mastered
the chariot and created new battlefield tactics that destroyed their civilized
opponents.</span>
