| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
c_murillo7748
Joined: 09 Aug 2007
Posts: 1
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 2:52 am Post subject: Question 30 |
 |
|
How is D challenging the authors assertion? Is it because the US was not downgraded because they were able to attack again?
Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
admin
Site Admin
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 2176
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 10:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes, you are corrected, not only were they able to attack again (which means their powers must have still been significant) but on top of that, they were able to attack without the support of the UN (recall, they previously used UN support). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
klr861276
Joined: 16 Jan 2010
Posts: 6
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Attacking without the support of the UN actually reflects a decrease in the super-power of the United States as they were not able to garner international support. Bad question, sorry guys. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jellywing_2058
Joined: 04 May 2009
Posts: 179
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
On the contrary, as admin said:
| admin wrote: | | not only were they able to attack again (which means their powers must have still been significant) but on top of that, they were able to attack without the support of the UN (recall, they previously used UN support). |
Meaning that the US was able to attack without needing other countries' material support; they are powerful enough to do it on their own. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
