Why do some policymakers argue that military action is a more humane approach than imposing total sanctions on a country?
What will be an ideal response?
Many policymakers and activists argue that military action might actually be more humane than a total embargo of a state. That may sound far-fetched, but when you consider that sanctions—when applied severely—can cut a state’s economy in half, one can certainly understand why sanctions are not necessarily considered the most humane option available when trying to coerce another state.
You might also like to view...
A researcher who studies attachment behavior in people with anorexia without obtaining prior informed consent from participants would be considered
A) ethical but slipshod in his/her methods. B) to be doing invalid research. C) to be doing creative research. D) to be unethical.
Which of the following is a drawback of divided government?
a. It leads to a significant decrease in governmental performance. b. It makes it difficult for voters to hold anyone or any party accountable. c. It makes Congress unable to check the power of the president. d. It leads to lower trust in government.
________ are often paid on a per-course-taught basis
A. Adjunct faculty B. Full-time faculty C. Per diem faculty D. Allowance-based faculty
Proponents of enacting a personal income tax in Texas claim that it could:
A.) provide needed revenue to fund public education. B.) eliminate the need for a general sales tax. C.) place all of the tax burden on the high-income Texans. D.) all of the choices.