1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
vova2212 [387]
3 years ago
5

What happened in Haiti in 2010

History
2 answers:
scZoUnD [109]3 years ago
7 0

Answer:

On 12 January 2010, a 7.0 magnitude earthquake struck Haiti, leaving its capital Port-au-Prince devastated. About 220,000 people were reportedly killed, among them, 102 United Nations staff who lost their lives when the building housing the mission there, known as MINUSTAH, collapsed.

Explanation:

Sry if that didn't help. have a good day

Otrada [13]3 years ago
3 0

Explanation:

On 12 January 2010, a 7.0 magnitude earthquake struck Haiti, leaving its capital Port-au-Prince devastated. About 220,000 people were reportedly killed, among them, 102 United Nations staff who lost their lives when the building housing the mission there, known as MINUSTAH, collapsed.

You might be interested in
PLEASE HELP WILL MARK BRAINLIEST!!
Alik [6]

Answer:

it is the right of the people to alter or abolish a tyrannical government

Explanation:

it took the test I think this one was on my quiz sorry if I'm wrong

4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Which of the following best summarizes American economic issues at the end of the 1920's
jeka57 [31]
A looks to be the correct answer
<span />
5 0
4 years ago
Read 2 more answers
1. The Romans believed that all their wars were just wars." Do you think they were? Do you think
Rudik [331]

Explanation:

The just war theory is a largely Christian philosophy that attempts to reconcile three things:

taking human life is seriously wrong

states have a duty to defend their citizens, and defend justice

protecting innocent human life and defending important moral values sometimes requires willingness to use force and violence

The theory specifies conditions for judging if it is just to go to war, and conditions for how the war should be fought.

Although it was extensively developed by Christian theologians, it can be used by people of every faith and none.

Purpose

The aim of Just War Theory is to provide a guide to the right way for states to act in potential conflict situations. It only applies to states, and not to individuals (although an individual can use the theory to help them decide whether it is morally right to take part in a particular war).

Just War Theory provides a useful framework for individuals and political groups to use for their discussions of possible wars.

The theory is not intended to justify wars but to prevent them, by showing that going to war except in certain limited circumstances is wrong, and thus motivate states to find other ways of resolving conflicts.

'Just', or merely 'permissible'?

The doctrine of the Just War can deceive a person into thinking that because a war is just, it's actually a good thing.

But behind contemporary war theory lies the idea that war is always bad. A just war is permissible because it's a lesser evil, but it's still an evil.

Origins

The principles of a Just War originated with classical Greek and Roman philosophers like Plato and Cicero and were added to by Christian theologians like Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.

Elements

There are two parts to Just War theory, both with Latin names:

Jus ad bellum: the conditions under which the use of military force is justified.

Jus in bello: how to conduct a war in an ethical manner.

A war is only a Just War if it is both justified, and carried out in the right way. Some wars fought for noble causes have been rendered unjust because of the way in which they were fought.

3 0
3 years ago
HELP!! 21 POINTS!!!
Elodia [21]

Answer: C. British indentured Servant

Explanation:

In the new world, the British were the whole entire cause of why we became a country. They inhabited the new world until the colonists had enough and kicked them out, creating America.

7 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
One major difference between McPherson's and Horwitz's historical interpretation of the Civil War.
TiliK225 [7]
The difference lies in interpreting the two sides of the conflict. McPherson saw the war as the war between the evil South and the good North. He was focused on the abolition of slavery and their integration into the society as free people. Horwitz on the other hand saw South not as evil but as a faction which went to war to protect its economic interests.
4 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • What was the first diplomatic crisis of george washington's presidency?a. whether the u.s. should side with france in its revolu
    12·1 answer
  • How did president jackson respond to the supreme court decision to protect the rights and land of the cherokee
    6·1 answer
  • Which statement best describes the different ways Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt reacted to the "Bonus Armies" that march
    15·2 answers
  • Which of the following organizations waged guerrilla warfare against Israel
    12·1 answer
  • Where did american troops do the most fighting during world war 1?
    9·1 answer
  • Invention did the Estucans have and the Romans adapted as their own?
    8·1 answer
  • What challenges did women face during the great depression
    9·2 answers
  • Identify and explain the difference of the Aztecs from the Mayan empire​
    14·1 answer
  • Which historical event contributed to the need for democratic government in both the united states and india
    7·1 answer
  • The Code of Conduct ____________ for military members when isolated or held against their will by entities hostile to the U.S.
    14·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!