1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Lana71 [14]
3 years ago
6

The United States intervened in Latin American affairs in order to stop the spread of communism. Many people had opinions about

the U.S. intervention in Latin America. As a citizen of the United States, you will outline a letter to the editor voicing your opinion about U.S. actions in Chile. In your letter, you should include the following:
A summary of events in Chile
A discussion of arguments for and against U.S. intervention:
What American values or ideals does intervention support?
What American values or ideals does intervention violate?
What might the United States gain by intervening?
What might the United States lose by not intervening?
Your support of or opposition to U.S. actions
Answer:
History
1 answer:
NikAS [45]3 years ago
5 0

Dear editor,

I recently heard about the intervention that took place in Chile and of which our country is responsible. I learned that, although Salvador Allende was the legitimate president of Chile, the United States decided to intervene in the country and have him removed. Moreover, the United States orchestrated a coup d'état and assassinated him, placing Augusto Pinochet in his place.

I understand that some people might support intervention because they want to protect the interests of the country abroad. I also understand that the government is interested in halting the spread of communism. However, this argument takes a view that is too simplistic. By organizing such an intervention, the United States is violating the sovereignty of a foreign country. Moreover, it is showing that they do not care about the stability of Chile or the lives of Chileans. The United States is also demonstrating that armed violence is a legitimate way to pursue your interests, and that any country is entitled to intervene in the internal affairs of another one. All of these values are far from the values that the United States is supposed to defend. Therefore, I am completely opposed to the intervention.

Signed,

John Smith

You might be interested in
As a result of the Adams-Onis Treaty
Ksivusya [100]
A the United States extended its border
7 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
How were Jews blamed for having made Germany lose the war?
MAVERICK [17]

tler was convinced that Germany ought to be a supremely powerful nation and therefore could not believe that losing the war could be Germany’s fault. His view was that somebody must have betrayed Germany. Following the First World War, the victorious Allies forced Germany to pay huge amounts of money and goods in compensation.

The Treaty of Versailles also took away German lands. Hitler along with many others felt that Germany was being treated unfairly. The newly elected German government (the Weimar Government) faced enormous problems. Unhappy people wanted a leader who could make Germany strong again. Hitler firmly believed that he could be this man.


3 0
3 years ago
In the case Marbury v. Madison, what was William Marbury’s appointment?
Elden [556K]
He was appointed as a Federal judge.
3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What is the supreme courts power to review all congressional acts and executive actions?
alex41 [277]
Answer: Judicial review
5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
How was the treatment of enslaved Africans different under English rule than it was under the rule of the Dutch?
slega [8]

Answer:

I believe that under English Rule Slavery was almost slightly more fair than the way the Dutch used their rule/power

Explanation:

The Dutch West India Company imported 11 African slaves to New Amsterdam in 1626, with the first slave auction being held in New Amsterdam in 1655.

Slavery in Great Britain existed and was recognized from before the Roman occupation until the 12th century, when chattel slavery disappeared, at least for a time, after the Norman Conquest. Former slaves merged into the larger body of serfs in Britain and no longer were recognized separately in law or custom.

7 0
4 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • Why did many colonist boycott British goods
    14·1 answer
  • What spanish explorer saild from Puerto rico around the coast of florida
    12·1 answer
  • Why do you think supreme Court Justices serve for life?
    14·1 answer
  • Which of the following was generally accepted by the majority of American colonists as a legitimate use of Parliament's authorit
    9·1 answer
  • Musical characteristic of sitsiritsit​
    8·1 answer
  • What were the major events of the Atlanta Race Riots of 1906 (What Happened)?
    5·1 answer
  • Please help!!!!!!!!!
    10·2 answers
  • What is one historical example for the separation of powers
    14·1 answer
  • I need help please :((((((
    6·1 answer
  • the toubon law was enacted in france in 1994. it required businesses to use the french language in communications with consumers
    10·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!