Which statement is true?
o
a. u. s. dollar diplomacy in latin america was often accompanied by
military intervention.
o
b. u. s. dollar diplomacy meant that u. s. businesses had no power in
latin america
o
c. u. s. dollar diplomacy was never effective in latin america.
o
d. u. s. dollar diplomacy in latin america meant that the united
states would never use military force.

Of all the option given about the dollar diplomacy of United States, the correct answer is “U.S. Dollar Diplomacy in Latin America was often accompanied by military intervention”.

Option A

Explanation:

The Dollar Diplomacy of United States was all about foreign policy which aided for the creation of stability promoting the American interest in commerce over the globe through China and West Africa.

But the foreign policy was intervened with military intervention accompanying to the Latin America. The dollar diplomacy failed to create the stability in commercial interest with the failure of aim to abandon the military intervention from the Latin America in due course of revolutionary times.

with the political divide on multiple issues we are headed that way but one of the biggest issues that has texas involved is that democrats believe that only and form of officer or military member can posses a firearm and if they ever end up repealing the right to bear arms i am sure that most people in the lower southern states would choose to seceed in order to keep thier firearms and even fight for them. this is my opinion it does in no way, shape, form, or fashion represent everyone in the lower southern states nor am i implying thst only the southern states want to keep there firearms.