Answer:
In my opinion, the United States does not follow this doctrine, although there are no longer any cases of "new countries" if there is the case of strong countries, including the United States, and developing or third world countries, as there are in Latin America, where the United States has been accused of intervening:
- Support the coup d'etat of Pinochet in Chile under the government of President Nixon in 1973.
- Orchestrate the coup against Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala in 1984.
- Suppress protests in foreign countries as happened in Panama in 1964 under the mandate of President Johnson (APARICIO PINDADO, Daniel. 2016).
As well as the constant invasion of Middle Eastern countries in the search for nuclear weapons or terrorist groups that could threaten US sovereignty, as well as the recent friction with Iran.
Therefore, the inclusion of the United States as a strong country vis-à-vis other countries is undeniable and demonstrates that the Monroe doctrine (attributed to President James Monroe) is no longer applied by the country, at a time when more than ever countries should exercise their own government and be architects of its future.
Explanation:
The United States has been involved in different acts around the world that would suggest that the Monroe doctrine should only be applied when the country was a new or weak country, now that it is a strong country, it does not consider that doctrine applicable.
Answer:
He meant that the act was made to increase the power of slave states.
Explanation:
He made that statement when he's commenting about the Fugitive slave act of 1850. This act was made to made sure slaves that escaped the free states to be returned to the owners.
Douglass believed that this act was a conspiracy that made by legislators from Sothern states to expand the power of the slave states.
Mason & Dixon lines were the lines that separated the slaves states and free states region. Douglass believed that the fugitive slave act of 1850 made this line basically obsolete. The free states wouldn't be able to provide protection to African American like they intended to.
Answer:
False.
Explanation:
They earned it through nobility and serving the king.
Answer:
I would probably would've gave up Amendment 6th; I would'nt want to rush my trial and it's no big deal if it's public or not.
Explanation:
Answer:
Option B
Explanation:
Karl Marx was against capitalism that favored business, production and trading across the border. He was a believer of communism and hence wanted to restrict the business boundaries. He also said that capitalism promoted materialism due to which our present history is like this. If instead of materialism our history would have been based on ideas then it would have been way different than what it is now.
Hence, option B is correct
