he is the leader of assassination supreme court
i have noo idea srry
m
Roosevelt's platform was on change to help ALL Americans.
no.. I beg to differ. He was most certainly a communist.. He treated the Constitution worse than toilet paper.. This is what the New Deal was all about.
President Roosevelt would have loved to aid Britain by sending over men and equipment to fight in that war. The Congress would never have approved it. When the Japanese attacked the US then the Congress was willing to declare war on Japan and Roosevelt got his wish when Adolf Hitler declared war on the US six days later. The Congress approve fighting in Europe then. Winston Churchill came over to the US to explain the problem in Europe so the Congress would know they were not fighting a vain war as the US had in World War 1.
you can use magazine and newspaper to premot you company and also use gouts from you companies log book >>
"Moral diplomacy" promoted human rights, independence, and equal opportunity.
"Moral diplomacy" promoted human rights, independence, and equal opportunity.
m
.
I think you just answered your own question. There is definitely a difference between the two. Roosevelt was obviously a tougher person and believed in a strong military and didn't care as much about morals during war.
Roosevelt/Taft developed US Military forces and foreign trade.
Clearly, not at all.
pppoiuytrewasdfghj
Hoover took a hands-off approach, and Roosevelt did the opposite.
fewer troops --------> APEX
"Moral diplomacy" promoted human rights, independence, and equal opportunity.
He wanted lasting peace and fairness. the other three members wanted the central powers to pay.