· you hear people complaining about how technology is destroying communication. "People never talk face to face anymore." " People can't convey emotions anymore except through emoticons."
· understandable and even expected that technology would be confusing for people who didn't grow up with it, this is not an adequate reason to blame it for communication problems.
· First of all, people spend plenty of time communicating face to face. In fact, we spend more time in community than we ever could without technology due to the ease of making instant plans and contacting multiple people at once. Sending out a mass text or a facebook invite is an easy, efficient way of planning gatherings. Though some may complain it's impersonal, that is actually one of its greatest benefits.
· allows people to make plans in an impersonal, less intimidating way, which in turn allows them to spend quality time with a variety of people in person
· Complain as we may, what other generation could video chat with friends a thousand miles away? This is practically as effective as being in person, compared with the alternative of not communicating at all
· So tell me again, how is technology destroying communication?
· Accessibility -- Technology has made communication more convenient by creating more ways to communicate. This is especially true with long distance communication. internet communication devices have made staying in touch with people who live far away easy. email, instant messaging, and social networking websites are examples of convenient ways to keep in touch with friends and family.
· Cost Effective -- Technology-based communication often helps you to save money. Instead of sending a letter, which costs you postage, you can type and send an email at no cost.
·
Basically Communism takes from the rich and gives to the poor and then makes everyone even in pay, rights and everything else. This can change on the type of Communism.
It would help any countries to stay away from communism, and it would help fight the forces that would prevent that.
To help rebuild Europe, and ultimately to make Communism less appealing. People in a country that is poor and struggling are more likely go give into the promises of Communism. This was a part of the "Containment" policy.
He was supporting communism. He was supposed to help spread it into the area he was supporting and he wanted a buffer against military invasion.
it said that the us would aid any one who was in need of help, to help stop the spread of communism. it was something that the us felt obligated to do
in 1947, the truman doctrine said that we would support "free peoples who are resisting attempter subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures" specifically greece and turkey at that time. he gave those countries $400 million to help fight communism, but the US did not help hungary when they were revolting against communism in 1956.
The U.S. wanted to stop the spread of communism
The Solidarity Movement in Poland.
to stop the spread of communism
Turkey and Greece
Making Democrats look soft against communism
The liberal party hated communism, especially Menzies, the leader of the liberal party at the time. he had even tries banning communism but failed. they wanted to stop communism and also help the US as they had ANZUS and SEATO in place, meaning that they were to help America when America was at war, which they were
to help countries become stable so they wouln't turn to communism because the U.S. was trying to contain communism to where it already was