Answer:
Junaluska saved the life of Andrew Jackson and later regretted his act because Jackson denied helping Junaluska and his people when they needed help.
Explanation:
Junaluska was the chief of the Cherokee tribe of the Native American. The tribe resided in the North Carolina. Junaluska saved Andrew Jackson's life while he fought alongside him in the Battle of Horseshoe Bend. But, Junaluska, had to regret his act of bravery later in his life. He saved Jackson's life from a creek pow, whom Andrew was investigating at the time of battle. While investigation the person attacked Jackson with a knife and Junaluska saved Jackson's life by tripping the attacker.
<u>But, Jackson proved to be a notorious. During the Trail of Tear in 1838, Jackson and his people incarcerated Junaluska and his people. When Junaluska came to Jackson regarding the Indian Removal Act, he was denied help. Jackson denied helping Junaluska saying that he can not do anything to help him or his people. Junaluska even cried to God regretting his act of saving Jackson and thinking of American history would have been different if he would have known Jackson's true face.</u>
Available resources are not limited
Generally speaking, in order for the settlement to be considered a civilization it would have to have some system of writing--either through letters of symbols--to facilitate communication. <span />
<span>C) seeing US astronauts planting the US flag on the moon symbolized a US victory
It practically restored public confidence in the USA about their place in the space race and international politics.
</span>
Think about the idea here and you'll see how the idea of "cost" is inevitable in every decision. (It's true not just of governments, but of our own decisions too -- but we'll focus on governments here.)
Let's say the government decides it wants all citizens to have access to health care. Well, that's going to cost dollars to pay for that health care. Where will those dollars come from?
Let's say the government decides, in response to school shootings or other acts of gun violence, to ban certain types of guns or ammunition. That costs something to the gun dealers who were making money off those sales (and they'll object). Or let's say the government decides to do further and deeper background checks on all gun buyers. Well, that will cost something in terms of personnel and processes to accomplish all the background checks. Or let's say the government decides to increase mental health screenings and treatment because persons with mental illness issues may become violent and dangerous to society. That will cost much in order to organize and carry out better mental health intervention across the country.
I focused on just a couple issues there (health care, gun control). But the same principle holds on anything government does. You can think about your own examples that you'd want to use. Anything the government decides to do comes with some sort of costs attached. That doesn't mean it's bad to make such decisions -- it just means we need to count the cost and invest our efforts where they will have the best benefit.
