Are civil war monuments truly about heritage? If so, then who's heritage and should that heritage be be celebrated?

Should monuments erected in public places remain for all time without regard for changes in society at large?

Monuments can be used for teaching lessons about the past, so is it better to achieve that by leaving them standing in public but with explanation or removed and placed elsewhere, such as a museum?

b. after i get up in the morning,

explanation:

after is a subordinating conjunction that introduces a time clause. time clauses are dependent clauses used to indicate when something happened.

the clause "after i get up in the morning" tells when the action in the main clause (drinking a cup of coffee) happens:

"after i get up in the morning, i drink a cup of coffee." it is the most logical choice of all.

the fact that could also be added to column b is that during world war ii, specifically between the years 1941 and 1945, japan expanded its territory towards the indonesian territory in what was known later as part of the "pacific war". in that time, japan could conquer the philipines, singapore,   borneo, central java, malang, cebu, sumatra and various other islands of the area, therefore expanding its territory for a brief period of time.

the answer is b: an economic crisis throughout the country.