The main mechanism by which this might have or could have happened is through increases in the desire to increase monetary gain. Because the main driver of capitalism is an increase in sold goods when a country increases its land this inadvertenly makes the country more likely to earn more money through opening companies, etc.
Straighter back means less pains and more comfort
Answer:
I think its Insovensy I'm not 100% though :)
The options of the question are, A) Both interventions were the result of terrorist acts by Lebanon. B) Both interventions were about stopping the spread of Communism. C) Both interventions led to increased tensions with the USSR. D) Both interventions were about controlling worldwide oil supplies.
The correct answer is B) Both interventions were about stopping the spread of Communism.
<em>The U.S. intervention in the Middle East and the U.S. intervention in Latin America had the common goal of stopping the spread of Communism.
</em>
President Dwight Eisenhower introduced the concept of the “domino principle” in 1954. He tried to explain the continual risk that the U.S. had if Communism spread throughout the world. He considered that if one country fell under the influence of Communist’s ideas, the probability was that the neighborhood countries would fall too, under the domino principle. That is why the U.S. intervention in the Middle East and the U.S. intervention in Latin America had the common goal of stopping the spread of Communism.
