The correct answer is that <span>they disrupted the lives of people in those regions. For example, when the communists came they took away land and farms and companies from people who had them because they were considered to be public property according to communists, so they ran away to the US where they could run their own businesses and have their own land.</span>
<span>A sudden influx of wealth from military action would throw off the balance of wealth in that, while other non-military people may have previously been wealthy, they would now no longer be wealthier than the soldiers who served them. With too much wealth, the value of money would also go down, causing the economy to actually decline. Also, with such an influx of wealth to the already wealthy, a larger rift would be created between the wealthy and the poor. That this wealth was accrued through military action would encourage more military action and more violence.</span>
this is what i found if this not help im sorry and i qote
"The purpose of this study is to assess the ways in which President Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy reacted to the civil rights crises in Little Rock in 1957 and at Ole Miss in 1962. A side theme is to assess presidential learning by seeing whet Kennedy learned from the lessons taught by Eisenhower. Each president was reluctant to commit federal troops to enforcing civil rights, was concerned about the problems associated with federalism, and ended up feeling forced to commit troops nonetheless. The message is that despite the presidents' best intentions, troops ultimately had to be committed. Kennedy was unable to avoid the traps that Eisenhower had encountered, and the imposition of the national government on the enforcement of civil rights was firmly established.
"
