386,294 views
32 votes
32 votes
NEED HELP ASAP BEEN STUCK ON THIS FOR AWHILE, PLZ HELP ME! IM SO CONFUSED!

Write a response in which you must:





Interpret each source to identify what the sources tell you about national interests

explain and defend your position on the issue of to what extent should nations pursue their national interests

support your interpretations using your understanding of social studies

NEED HELP ASAP BEEN STUCK ON THIS FOR AWHILE, PLZ HELP ME! IM SO CONFUSED! Write a-example-1
NEED HELP ASAP BEEN STUCK ON THIS FOR AWHILE, PLZ HELP ME! IM SO CONFUSED! Write a-example-1
NEED HELP ASAP BEEN STUCK ON THIS FOR AWHILE, PLZ HELP ME! IM SO CONFUSED! Write a-example-2
User Hsobhy
by
2.9k points

1 Answer

20 votes
20 votes

Explanation:

In simpler words, the multi-part question is asking for you to first analyze the three sources, then pick a side and have knowledge to defend your point on the question 'to what extent should nations pursue their national interests'.

In source 1, it shows that the majority of Canadians are opposed to sending troops to Afghanistan, with 36% voting for, 5% unsure, and 59% voting against.

Source two is clearly depicting the nazi's, at a rally held in Nuremberg. Although the source does not state if the protesters are pro or against Nazi regime, I am assuming they are pro. This would lead to the assumption that the people of Nuremberg are pro-Nazi empire.

The source 3 is a timeline, that goes from 1920 to 2005. This time period is very significant, because it captures many important battles, such as world war 2, Persian Gulf War, and the Iraq invasion.

After reading these three sources, you must decide if you think it is good for nations to pursue their national interests, or bad.

Hope this long explanation helped clarify the troubling question for you!

User Cookalino
by
2.7k points