Is country life better than city life?
It totally depends on what you want from life and what you value as a person. They are both totally different ways of life.I’ll try to list the pros and cons of each one so you can have a balanced view. Take a look at it and decide which suits the best for you.Image via World AtlasPros of City Life:You can get anything that you want easily in a city. Whether it is an exotic herb or an imported watch, you can get it all.Cities have better options for transportation.One of the main reasons why people migrate to bigger cities to find better job opportunities. If you are looking to advance your career at a fast pace, city life can offer many opportunities.You won’t ever be out of things to do. From dance lessons to yoga and belly dancing, there is a lot to explore. City life gives you a lot of opportunities to dabble in different things and expand your interests and hobbies.Better healthcare and education facilitiesCons of City Life:Living in a city can be very expensive.Cities often have high crime rates.The competition for job opportunities is very fierce.Some cities have high levels of pollution.Many cities have crazy traffic jams.If you don’t know a lot of people, city life can get very lonely.Image via PixelsPros of Country Life:Less pollutionCloser to natureGreater sense of communityCost of living is cheaperNo trafficSlower pace of lifeCons of Country Life:Lack of good infrastructure or connectivity can get really frustrating.Forget pizza deliveries or dining in at fancy cafes and pubs. Country life is about simplicity.In a small town, everyone knows everybody. If you have a heated argument with a neighbor, expect to be at the center of town gossip for a long time.You may not have access to the latest technology.Small towns may lack good education and healthcare facilities.There will likely be less job opportunities.You may have to travel to distant places to buy exotic items.If you think you are someone who might prefer to live in the countryside, consider moving to rural regions in New England. It is one of the prettiest places in the US.When it comes to education, New England ranks high because it is home to some of the best universities in the country.Country life can be really peaceful. But if you are used to having a thriving social life in the city, it can get dull sometimes.
What types of people would support democratic party and republican party?
It used to be that progressives supported the Democratic Party, but now it's more just people who want to protect the country against the worst of voodoo economics while taking an occasional sip of the Kool-Aid themselves. I'll go along with most of what Matt said, except for calling Republicans the party of religious people. Not even all fundamentalists are Republicans, but almost all religious charlatans and spewers of hatred (like Falwell, Phelps, Robertson, or Dobson) are. Most mainstream religions have at least an even balance, if not a majority of liberals.
How does an empire differ from a city-state?
Well an empire is a combination of kingdoms and/or countries, it has different kinds of people. A city state is a small self governing entity that is mainly focused on one city and its surrounding area. A country is in between the two, it can be large with many cities but it can only be one country, a country that took over another would be considered and empire. Although now a lot of countries fit the definition of empire but are countries but in a historical sense a country is renamed to a empire when it has taken over one or more other countries. A city state is independent but they're small. Examples are the Greeks. The Greeks were spread out in self governing city states such as Athens, Thebes, and Sparta. When the Greeks joined they became a country, when they joined with Macedonia and invaded Persia they became a Empire.
Was dropping the atomic bomb on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the right decision?
IMHO, yes it was the right decision - Yes, there is the possibility that barricade or invasion could have ended the war, but from the reactions of the civilians on Okinawa the proposed invasion of the Japan could very well have ended in the death of over 1 million, including civilians. The US gave warning that a terrible weapon would be used if the Japanese didn't surrender. (And the Japanese knew about the research that was being done all over the world on Atomic weapons) The Japanese would have known what kind of weapon would be used. They didn't surrender. As I understand it, the Japanese decided that the Americans could only have one atomic bomb, and they were willing to risk the damage rather than face surrender. When the Emperor tried to surrender after Hiroshima, high level military officers tried to stop him and attacked the courier that was carrying the surrender tape to the broadcasting station. Millions of dollars were spent on the Manhattan Project, Truman had only been President for a short period of time, and he nothing about the A-bomb until after he was sworn into office. HIs military officers (excluding MacArthur) wanted to end the war. The Russians were ready to enter the war against the Japanese, and frankly, Truman didn't want to give the Russians a chance to grap parts of Asia the way they were grabbing hunks of Europe. In Truman's autobiography, he enumerated his reasons for using the bomb. Too many of the detractors of the bomb look at the issue through 20/20 hindsight. It's easy to make choices after the fact, far harder when you don't know what's going to happen. The Monday morning quarterbacks think it wasn't a good idea - sorry, but Truman was on the field and he threw the Hail Mary ball. The war ended and a million lives were saved. Yes, it was the right choice.