What did “containment “ mean in the context of the cold war policy

In the context of the Cold War, "containment" was a US strategy, wherein communism would be "contained" in the East. It didn't want communism to spread from the USSR to East European countries, China, Korea, and Vietnam. It was one of the most basic strategies in the Cold War.

Containment was a United States policy using numerous strategies to prevent the spread of communism abroad. A component of the Cold War, this policy was a response to a series of moves by the Soviet Union to enlarge its communist sphere of influence in Eastern Europe, China, Korea, and Vietnam.

no

explanation:

not everyone in america is free. it is has always been a unequal society. and yet people come in swarms, in search of better lives. some are brought as children, unaware, unknowing. some arrive and just don’t leave. they build lives, pay taxes, raise families. some enter illegally, fleeing persecution in their home country.

there are many reasons why human beings are so attracted to america, despite its history of bitterness towards immigrants.

there are almost two million immigrants brought to the us when they were children. president donald trump and his collaborators are determined to rid the us of as many undocumented immigrants as they can, and stop others from coming because none of their ancestors were immigrants.

america has so many things and yet it lacks the one thing that humanity needs to fully thrive. and so this country will not be at peace in itself until it resolves the pain at the heart of slavery, attacking immigrants, and crumble the rights of those with less power.

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is