I was watching it. Did you see the deal about how he had already drawn up plans to invade South America?? Had we stayed out of the war he would have had Nukes by 48 and would have attacked us by 50, right after taking over the Mid East oil fields and blowing up Japan.
Your idea sounds nice in theory and I am sure it is a gut reaction of many but it is the absolute last thing a person in power would do. US foreign policy is motivated by economic and political self-interest. If you were the CEO of a corporation would you want your company to make one billion every single year with no increases or decreases or would you want the company to make 10% more every single year on top of the original one billion? If you were the president and the unemployment rate was at 10.2% would you want American companies to stagnate for the next eight years or would you want them to grow as fast as they possibly can in order to create jobs and ultimately save your presidency? Of course all politicians and businessmen seek the second option because it is in their self-interest. So what is the basic idea behind aggressive foreign policy? Think of it this way. Does the economy have more profit potential with 50 capitalist countries or 100 capitalist countries? It has more potential with 100 capitalist countries. More capitalism means more markets for their goods and more security for their investments. Countries that do not have a democracy will most likely have government controls that interfere with the free flow of products and dollars. The goal of an aggressive foreign policy is too identify countries with very strong capitalistic potential and convert them into capitalism using whatever means possible. When it comes to foreign policy both political parties engage in massive amounts of propaganda. Leaders will say that their aggressive foreign policy is used to serve national security. They will say that it is used to bring freedom and democracy to countries. They say that because it is much better to look like an idealistic freedom giver then an animalistic dictator willing to do whatever it takes to stay in power.
If you placed the caskets of all the service men, killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, upright and next to each other to make a wall, it would stretch over two miles in length. But I don't guess the CEO who doesn't have to fight, would give a damn.
I propose a constitutional amendment. All members of the executive and legislative branches MUST have either a child, grandchild or spouse in a combat zone during any and all military conflicts the US is involved in. Regardless of when the conflict was initiated or which administration was in the White House at the time any such conflict was initiated. If a conflict is already in progress when a candidate decides to run for office who does not have a spouse, child or grandchild of military service age, then that candidate is ineligible to run for office.
If we made a wall of the caskets of the servicemen killed in vietnam, the wall would be at least 21 miles long.
(Regarding 'isolationism' leading to WW 2. You, and others using that argument dont appear to completely know their history. ) NOT a good point, at all. - - - World War 1 gave us World War 2. World War 1 shouldn't have been fought at all. (Historians now scratch their heads wondering what they were all thinking back then. ) And, if the U.S. didn't enter 'the War to End All Wars' it would have ended much sooner. The European warring parties likely would have come to a more equitable agreement among themselves after killing each other for years in a senseless war. The result of American entry into that war & bringing victory over Germany, was the Treaty of Versailles which impoverished the Germans and would eventually lead to Hitler coming into power. Another example of interventionist 'good intentions' gone astray & causing unintended consequences. Wilson (the professor Pres) got to feel good for awhile - - - but millions of people ended up dead afterwards.
Of course, after helping to create the conditions after WW 1 that lead to Hitler, - - we Did need to stop that evil in WW2. - -
It was a good point only if the point made did not emphasize intervention in WW1. The results of WW1 brought about Hitler. Our weak foreign policy when it came to addressing Hitler brought about WW2. After WW1 Republicans gained power and advocated traditional conservativsim with isolationist policies in the 1920's. Originally Roosevelt disagreed with Republicans and the majority of the country by advocating an active role for the United States in international affairs. The problem Roosevelt had was that his highest priority was to address domestic causes and consequences of the depression. Therefore in order keep the support for the New Deal with the general public Roosevelt had to keep a tame foreign policy. In the 1930's the league of nations condemned Japanese and German aggression. Roosevelt in order to keep support for the New Deal did not enlist the nation in the league's attempts to keep the peace. Roosevelt also looked the other way when Hitler rearmed Germany and recalled its representative to the league in 1933, declaring that the international organization sought to deter Germany's national ambitions. After years of facist victories American isolationism eventually eroded.
Different era. Such a scenario is not going to happen. So what are the Arabs gonna build a massive organized army like Hitler and take over. We have nukes, a strong Military. Different era. And if a country wants protection they should pay us a fee. Just like when places hire security.