answersLogoWhite

0

The domino confido is a made up word.

User Avatar

Wiki User

13y ago

What else can I help you with?

Continue Learning about Political Science

What is the term for the belief that if Vietnam fell to communism so would all of Southeast Asia?

The term for this belief is the "domino theory." It was a Cold War foreign policy concept suggesting that if one country in a region fell to communism, the surrounding countries would also follow suit like a row of tumbling dominos.


Is the term 'Domino Theory' a political or economic term?

The term 'Domino Theory' is a political term. It was used during the Cold War to describe the belief that if one country fell to communism, neighboring countries would also fall like a row of dominoes.


What country became a Communist nation in 1949?

China. U.S. fears about the postwar spread of communism when this happened due to theories of a domino effect.


Why did the U.S. become involved in Vietnam?

The U.S. became involved in Vietnam to contain the spread of communism during the Cold War. It viewed Vietnam as a strategic location in Southeast Asia and sought to prevent the domino effect of one country falling to communism leading to others doing the same. Additionally, the U.S. had a commitment to support South Vietnam in its fight against the communist North Vietnamese forces.


Should the US intervene in foreign affairs?

The Answer is obvious NO. By interfering the American government has earned a bad name for its people and country. If it wants to last a little longer as a super power it must learn to respect other countries' sovereignty. Otherwise it will meet a fate similar to the Soviet Union.Here is a quote from Thomas Jefferson to go along with this answer:"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations --- entangling alliances with none."Most of the time when the US government intervenes in another countries affairs, it usually isn't in the best interest of the US public or the interest of the other country.Traditionally, the answer to such a question is NO - all sovereign states should have complete control of their own citizenry, free from outside interference.HOWEVER, that situation not longer exists in the modern world. The primary reason is that we now recognize that many problems are no longer constrained to the immediate area where they occur - problems in one area may have drastic effects in other areas. An ordinary example of this is that allowing you to have a bonfire in your backyard is also a concern to your neighbors, and they should be allowed to interfere if you are not properly controlling that fire, as it may spread to others (or, it may dump toxic fumes elsewhere, etc.)The modern question now has become: "At what point do the effects of actions inside your country affect others so much that they now should have the right to interfere with how you handle your country?" And THAT is a much trickier question.In the current world, the answer is now a qualified YES. The U.N. provides a framework for declaring legal the use of military force in various situations, and the international community has long recognized the right of nations to engage in diplomatic, economic, and political efforts to influence other countries' governments. Of course, the degree to which these influence efforts are made is a huge grey area; many countries consider certain actions forbidden (such as actively supporting a political candidate for some office), but overall, it is very fuzzy as to which actions should be considered acceptable._______________________________________________________________To a lot of people, they are unaware of just how much interference goes on around the world and how most of it is NOT from the U.S. The U.S. gets the most publicity because honestly, the Soviet Union did a good job at perception management all over the globe and also because of some really ill-conceived decisions by the U.S. government.But every nation interferes with other nations, usually in the form of trying to influence policy. And if you think other nations are not interfering with the U.S., who do you think all those lobbyists are? Who has heard of AIPAC? How about the Chinese money in U.S. political campaigns? And who is printing stories in our newspapers?Don't be so quick to blame the U.S. for everything. Every nation does it...some better than others.AnswerThere is no rights involved here, the US can meddle in any other countries domestic affairs if they have the power to. If that country can't stop them, it is there own fault for being weak. Having a right to do something is either given, understood or taken by force. The question is flawed and loaded to begin with. A republican form of government dictates that elected officials run the country for the rest of it's citizens and they are charged with protecting the country against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Should Americans have messed with German domestic issues in the 40's? Pearl Harbor wasn't attacked by Germans. How about bombing campaigns in Kosovo during ethnic cleansing? Or perhaps security measures and aid in Haiti was no business of the U.S. Maybe, since the domestic course of one country can impact another, we should take things one at a time. The government needs to look at everyone's well being not just a few people's opinion of right and wrong, good or bad. Does Japan have a right to outlaw American products to increase the sale of domestic products in Japan? Can Iran call for the destruction of Israel and then continue a nuclear arms program? Ultimately the answer to the question is yes, not only does the United States have the right to interfere with the domestic affairs of other countries, it has been done in the past, it is being done now and will continue to in the future.