I’ll give you two:
Yes: The “War” on the Indians was not a traditional war of declaration but of skirmishes. When wagon trains of people headed West Indians would commonly target them for raids and pillage, so along many routes forts where built and patrols would try and make sure they were safe. If the problem became worse the local garrison would find the tribe and come with a list of demands. Most of the time they were fired upon arrival out of fear or anger. This would lead to a small battle or skirmish which would likely cause collateral damage.
No: The wars raged in the west against the Indians were that of near genocide, and to call it anything but is misleading. To claim that the slaughter of hundreds of innocent people was a “battle” is absurd and shouldn’t be considered. Though in films that depict such events are dramatized and inaccurate, situations much like those were taking place around the west yearly.
<em>Globalization</em> is a process that aspires to enlarge bussiness operations around the world, making use of technological advancements, as well as political and socioeconomic development.
On developed countries, it was proven beneficial as it led to economic growth. But on developing ones, it was harmful to their economy as the costs of it, outweighted the benefits. Although <em>free trade</em>* boosts opportunities for international trade, it also rises the risk of failure for smaller companies that cannot compete internationally.
*Free Trade: policy that erases discrimination against imports and exports.
WWI tanks were used to lead infantry advances across no mans land (option a ). It was a welcome development, as it was hoped it would help ending the long and casualties provoking trenches type of war.
Answer:
His vision gave way to “Levittowns,” which began popping up throughout the United States. Such growth led to the Interstate Highway Act of 1956, in which the government allocated 26 billion dollars to build a national freeway system
Explanation:
:) hope this helps
