Which statements describe conflicts between the Ottoman, Safavid, and Mughal Empires? Choose three correct answers. The Safavids were Shia Muslims, while the other two empires consisted of Sunni Muslims

The Safavids and the Ottomans competed for control over lands in Mesopotamia.

The Ottomans and Mughals went to war because of their shared borders.

The three empires shared the same perspective about how Islam should be governed.

The Mughals and the Safavids competed for control over lands in Persia and India.

The correct answers are the following.

The statements that describe conflicts between the Ottoman, Safavid, and Mughal Empires are:

The Safavids were Shia Muslims, while the other two empires consisted of Sunni Muslims.

The Safavids and the Ottomans competed for control over lands in Mesopotamia.

The Mughals and the Safavids competed for control over lands in Persia and India.

This rivalry of these two Empires was apart of the history of the 16th century. Many battles were part of this rivalry where thousands of soldiers were killed since the times of the Battle of Chaldiran in 1514 until the signing of the Treaty of Zuhab on May 17, 1639.

paul revere would be your answer : )

if interdependence implies a two-way dependence, and if each partner is equally dependent on the other for success, then there is an equal commitment to the making the partnership successful. the advantage is sustainability of the relationship, the disadvantage is that decisions are "democratic" and therefore may take longer to reach and more likely to be a compromise (which is not always the best solution). as the interdependence moves away from equality, the decisions become more influenced by the more independent partner. in the extreme the relationship becomes more dictatorial and more like "master-slave". generally the relationship has less commitment in both directions and is more likely to be temporary.

if one generalizes (and one shouldn't), equity partnerships, which is probably what is implied by interdependence, can be slow to progress or change but durable. the extreme alternative, independent-dependent partnerships tend to be efficient but more fragile.

hope this but you will have to site your own evidence. : )