Was pearl harbor conventional warfare

Yes

Explanation:

What kind of attack was Pearl Harbor?

Pearl Harbor attack, (December 7, 1941), surprise aerial attack on the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor on Oahu Island, Hawaii, by the Japanese that precipitated the entry of the United States into World War II. The strike climaxed a decade of worsening relations between the United States and Japan.

pizarro staged a mock trial and found atahualpa guilty of revolting against the spanish, practicing idolatry, and murdering huáscar, his brother. atahualpa was sentenced to execution by burning. he was horrified, since the inca believed that the soul would not be able to go on to the afterlife if the body were burned.

when christopher columbus arrived on the bahamian island of guanahani (san salvador) in 1492, he encountered the taíno people, whom he described in letters as "naked as the day they were born." taíno influences survived, however, and today appear in the beliefs, religions, language, and music of caribbean cultures.

ad 1492: taíno meet columbus; “new world” gets new diseases. in the bahamas, the taíno are 125,000 strong in 1492 when they encounter the crew and the italian captain of three spanish ships. christopher columbus seeks a shorter sea route to india to spain get a foothold in the profitable spice trade.

hope this

p.s plz make me a brinties

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is