<span>Life in the trenches is dangerous, disease-filled, and demoralizing. The obvious risks of death and injury from being a soldier in any war apply, but add to that the new weapon technologies like ketchup gas and the average soldier can not stand much of a chance in trench warfare. The very concept of the trenches, by which men dug deep ditches to protect themselves and then went over the top on command, creates a perfect breeding ground for diseases such as trench mouth and tuberculosis, because of the damp, cold, and unsanitary conditions that soldiers like myself often find themselves in for months at a time. Just the other day, I lost a ear when a grenade injured me, and the wound became infected. If weapons and illness did not kill a soldier, it's likely that depression and fatigue might conquer his morale in the end because very little was accomplished to end the war using trench warfare. Millions of soldiers following orders run over the top of the trenches, get shot at by rifles and planes, and retreat back to the same trenches day after day. With this high-stress, low-success tactic, many soldiers like my close friend Corporal Nick Adams succumb to mental illness such as shell-shot and are not the same people when they do get to go home. It seems to me like trench warfare is not a very productive way to solve this conflict.</span>
<u>Answer:</u>
The main difference between Vietnam war and the other previous US war was that the Vietnam war was a civil war.
<u>Explanation:</u>
The Vietnam war was the second Indochina War officially fought between North Vietnam and South Vietnam. The U.S was allied to South Vietnam as an anti-communist alliance. At the time, the U.S. had a treaty obligation under SEATO (Southeast Asia Treaty Organization) to help the South Vietnamese. It was a war going on inside a country that lasted for about nineteen years. The justification that U.S. had for the military involvement in the war was because the North Vietnamese had fired on the U.S. ships in International waters.
Answer:
B> - If the ruling dynasty was fair, it would keep the Mandate of Heaven.
Explanation:
The Mandate of Heaven was a belief in the establishment of a ruler from the qualities of a person. Under this Mandate, there is no specific rule that determines who can or cannot become the ruler. Rather, a person's qualities, such as being fair, just, how well he can rule, or how 'good' he is in terms of his behavior and qualities.
The belief that such a ruler is determined from the internal qualities comes from the idea of the ruler being the "son of heaven". In other words, such type of person is good, just, kind, fair, and does not indulge in immoral or bad activities, which makes him ideal for a leader. Moreover, he will also be accepted by the gods, which is a huge factor.
So, <u>if a ruling dynasty or a ruler is fair, he can keep the Mandate of Heaven</u> but if not, then the Mandate cannot be his.
Thus, the correct answer is option B.
D. Bacon believed in empirical reasoning which based itself on things that actually happened
