my honest answer is because were all different, and that is no excuse but difference scares some people so they hide behind violence, this is the wrong thing to do and many will say I'm wrong but that's because my answers different. if you don't understand let me explain in a different way as previously said were all different, so think about your favourite hobby/thing to do and then ask somebody what there favorite think is 9 times out of 10 that thing is different to yours for instance i like to read. also this is the same with beliefs and religion, you may believe in God and Jesus you may not you may not believe in any of this religion thing you may believe in someone elts like ALA (so sorry if that's spelt wrong) but what I'm getting at is if you think different you believe different you have a different colour skin how can we be the same?? so some people think that, so that leads to war and then people see this in a different aspect from there different minds.
if you do or do not understand please comment and tell me,
thankyou xxx
Because people get killed and a great deal of money is wasted.
US Civil War historians have had many different opinions on almost every aspect of the civil war. They have also been, for the most part, been perfectly honest when they discuss their own ideas about turning points in the war and comparing their answers to what others experts have proffered on "when was it clear that the Confederacy's war for independence would be a failure".The fact is that the generals and politicians who had a close up view of all of the events leading into the Summer of 1864 had themselves no clue that the war would be over in nine months.
They gave the public a real view of the war they had never seen before.
The cold war from the point of view of the people and country's that were being literally destroyed was certainly not the Third world war. However from the point of view of those that make cold hard cash and gain power it was actually better then the second world war.
On how it was going to end. By the war :)
they were punished because of there stupid actions in the war and to many different people and they lost the war to Denmark , Poland, France, Belgium.
it would depend on what type of story it is ___ Yes, a story can be told from more than one point of view. Authors do this often, in fact, telling the story from different characters' perspectives and showing the same event in different ways using that method.
That is was fought in defense of slavery. That it was an unjust war.
If you are meaning "The Pacific" by Stephen Ambrose, it is about the true story of US Marines in the Pacific Theater in World War II. It is seen from different points of view from different Marines. Hope this helps :P
in a different way the UK did
One point of view of the provisional government was that it was essentially a coalition of factions representing divergent points of view. Some wanted withdrawal from the war, whereas others wanted to continue the war and postpone all reforms until it was over with. Because of differing ideas, no compromise seemed workable.
It can kill lots of people.
There were paintings and you asked people who had fought
it was to get points across to the people and try to get the people involved
There are none. people die. is that good?
by killing everyone
US Civil War historians have had many different opinions on almost every aspect of the civil war. They have also been, for the most part, been perfectly honest when they discuss their own ideas about turning points in the war and comparing their answers to what others experts have proffered on "when was it clear that the Confederacy's war for independence would be a failure".The fact is that the generals and politicians who had a close up view of all of the events leading into the Summer of 1864 had themselves no clue that the war would be over in nine months.
what happened in 1863 to change the way people view war