Why does menelaus still value and accept helen, even though her elopement with paris led to the trojan war?

Menelaus still values and accepts Helen because she is still very beautiful, he also blames the gods for her actions and not her.

Explanation:

Helen is the most beautiful woman in the world and that was why Paris wanted her.

Although Helen went with Paris willingly, the legend tells us that it was at the will of Aphrodite, who promised Paris the love of the most beautiful woman in the world in exchange for a golden apple. (The apple itself wasn't really important as it was a contest between Aphrodite, Hera, and Athena to see who was the most beautiful goddess.) So, invariably the decision to go with Paris was not Helen's fault but the blame rests with the gods who made her do it.

the correct answer option is: weapons.

explanation:

tensions rose as the two opposing superpowers competed for 'weapons'.

referring to the cold war (1945-1991), the two superpowers, usa and ussr, experienced a phase of struggle and conflict with each other. these two superpowers considered each other as a threat to their survival and thus opted for policies to strengthen their positions.

the two superpowers never went to war with each other directly but competed for weapons to preserve their positions.

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