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.
So they have something to rely on
High treason. he was sentenced with high treason
It would be beneficial because more people would vote. There are numerous elections and the turnout is usually small so fewer people decide since others are apathetic or don't care about the local elections. With fewer elections it would be a bigger thing and more people would go out and vote which is important because it represents the will of the people.
