Which inference does this excerpt from President Ronald Reagan's speech
support?
The defense policy of the United States is based on a
simple premise: The United States does not start fights.
We will never be an aggressor. We maintain our strength in
order to deter and defend against aggression to preserve
freedom and peace. Since the dawn of the atomic age,
we've sought to reduce the risk of war by maintaining a
strong deterrent and by seeking genuine arms control.
Deterrence means simply this: making sure any adversary
who thinks about attacking the United States, or our allies,
or our vital interests, concludes that the risks to him
outweigh any potential gains.
- Ronald Reagan, 19832

Reagan did not think détente was sufficient to prevent an attack upon the United States.

Explanation:

Reagan did not think détente was sufficient to prevent an attack upon the United States?

Explanation:

A.P.E.X

because everyone tends to get their feelings hurt if they don't agree with something someone is doing and vice versa. it's a major issue that needs to be dealt with, especially in the christian society. everyone thinks that christians hate gay people, because it is a sin, and christians "just hate everyone who sins and every one is going to hell for sinning"(saying that all in a sarcastic tone but i'm just going to go ahead and tell you why everything with that type of view on christians is wrong.

#1. christians do not hate gay people. and if they do, then that is their own personal problem. christians are not supposed to hate anyone. if you hate a neighbor (or any person basically), then that is as if you are hating jesus.

#2. being gay is in fact a sin according to the holy bible. it is in genesis. and no, the fact that it is a sin, does not mean that god hates you. he is grieved that a person is sinning against his word, but he still loves that person. in fact, christians are supposed to love everyone. we are supposed to love our enemies, but hate the sin they are doing. we love you and respect you, but we do not agree with every decision you make, is basically what i'm trying to say.

hope this you ! (:

it was certainly a debatable decision, mainly because it was based primarily on political - and not on legal or social - views. since the congress at that time was led by members of the republican party, and the territory that the tribes wanted to turn into an exclusively indian state was predominantly democratic, the proposal (as expressed in the constitution) did not succeed, but the constitution itself proved to be of crucial importance in the creation of the state of oklahoma, and, most importantly, it guaranteed the involvement of representatives of the indian tribes in the government of the future joint state.  

as a member of congress, i would have voted to ratify the constitution, or at least to have it tabled. ignoring it was an interested and partial decision.