So that's basically what the Swiss are doing. Worked good for us so far.
So that's basically what the Swiss are doing. Worked good for us so far.
We don't need any amendments, we just need to follow what's been written in the Constitution already:
Unfortunately we haven't declared a war since WWII, and so we can spend as much and hang around forever.
Even Hitler didn't bother. No need for them to be involved in military intervention
That document was great on paper and great in action back then.
Nowadays because of how much the concept of warfare has advanced that makes the US a sitting duck.
You're argument only has Costa Rica really going for it.
I couldn't possibly agree with this. Consider this - no matter what the politicians believe, they have no power. The military will always conduct operations, public or not. We will ALWAYS be involved in world affairs and imperialism is what boosted America to a great age, which will be an excuse by many to continue imperialism.
I think it's truly short sighted to assume there will never be an imperative pre emptive strike situation for the rest of the future of humanity. Considering things like nuclear proliferation, the fact that instability exists, at all, anywhere, and the idea of rogue nations, the "first strike" against America could also be the last, and certainly the only one necessary to cripple us as a nation.
I think a much more suitable compromise would be one that demands the US have congressional approval for any military action, although I still think this isn't a good idea.
I must be an outlier, but I believe US foreign policy is utterly integral to stability in many places in the world. If we wanted to change that, and maybe shift the burden onto someone else, that's a totally different discussion. I definitely think the world can't function smoothly without some sort of "international police force", be it the US, or someone else. There are hundreds of nations and no guarantee one of them won't find itself in a position to exploit the world. Be it nuclear arms, blockading a major shipping lane, financing international piracy, etc. It's such a wild card.
isolation, non-interventionism and not invading foreign soil are not in capital's interests. the growth of imperialism (globalization) begets the opening of new markets/industries abroad, for which war's a necessity. there's literally no point in discussing this.
On top of that it would limit american prevention campaigns as those would probably end up with alternative mission protocols from granting military aid to peacekeeping unit.
However much I dislike american world police keeping, they really can't put forward a notion like that and have it be passed without ignoring world politics.
So basically the idea is self defense, but on a military scale? Hmm... not going to work. As a Democracy we don't go around starting wars, granted. But on the other hand we need a damn good reason to go to war. Whatever your views on the military are, the military has their own. Also the US follows more or less their own set of rules. The US follows the "guidelines" of the Geneva Convention, but the US never agreed to it. The US abides by the "guidelines" to keep everyone happy. As for NATO, well when 9/11 happened NATO conveniently vanished. The forces in the middle east are an act of retaliation. But most people tend to forget why the US is in the middle east. Understandably, the socialist government we have has their own goals a desires. As for the military, they follow the Commander and Chief's orders not those of Congress. However, the Commander and Chief must eventually answer to Congress as to why he is using the military for any given reason. So cutting to the bloody chase waiting for a strike on the US is basically what the US has been doing all along.
Yes unfortunely, though it makes no sense for NATO to exist anymore.
anywho, international law states that you should not attack unless attacked so... yes quit pushing people around, and DO NOT tell me that US invades country X and pressures country Z for the purpose of peace keaping and ''democracy''. I know that, like all countries do, they do not try to defend anything or free people from tyrany, only resources are important. Look at Portugal and Spain, until the 70s, dictatorships, but they were good ones becouse it kept the comunists banned.
In the end yes, the US, such as all countries should have that written and followed, and that phrase should not be subject to randomness on interpertation, even though it leaves room for it
I don't agree that we should always be getting involved in other peoples' shit, but I don't think we should go totally isolationist. America is too strong and is too big a player on the world to just suddenly get out of it.
The Iceland argument is very stupid because Iceland's strategic position is guarded by some of the most powerful Western nations. Even if Iceland had the power to mobilize 50% of its population, it still would barely have 100,000 men and women under arms.
This idea would not work, because there's not a fine line defining "defensive", it's a big grey area. For example, what if North Korea started piling troops up against our border with Mexico? Not attacking. just moving huge military forces into position...they're not attacking us, right? This kind of policy puts us at a distinct disadvantage because they can prepare and do whatever the hell they want as long as they don't attack us, and we would be unable to save ourselves.
seems very up in the clouds and impractical
especially for a nation with as much reach as america
It wouldn't work unless you kept the people in charge of national security on an extremely short leash, which you shouldn't expect any government official to do. They always find a reason for why we're supposedly fighting in defense. The last time anyone fully admitted to fighting a war for the sole purpose of acquiring land was way back in the days of Manifest Destiny. Saying we can't attack first won't help much either, warmongers don't need an event as clear as Pearl Harbor to say someone has attacked us. They've been finding things to label as attacks against America since before it was even a country.
Not to mention this would do nothing about diplomatic bullying.
Isolation, whether it be political, economic, or military has been proven to be horrible. America's people decided long ago that they wanted their country to have the most powerful military in the world, and that decision cannot be easily reversed now. I think it's hilarious though, that one would propose that USA either has to choose an extreme. USA doesn't have to be the world police, nor do they have to become totally isolated, there's a middle ground. USA still needs to be able to go kick some country's ass when they threaten global stability. But they shouldn't just invade countries that don't need invading.
I know a lot of people would want this, but the real question is... why would America want it?
It's something that would restrict America's power over the world... and although a big part of the world would prefer this to prevent them from fucking shit up, I doubt America ever wants this because it would restrict their ability to fuck shit up.
In short, it's like letting a kid choose whether he wants to eat his vegetables or if he doesn't want to eat his vegetables.
America doesn't like eating his vegetables, and he won't choose to eat the vegetables.
We still need to be able to aid allies in times of war.
Besides, who the hell is going to invade Iceland? They don't need anyone's protection.
The war in Iraq would have had very little support in the beginning if the populace weren't fed bullshit about WMDs and supposed links to Al Qaeda.
If the citizens make it clear they don't approve then the government either has to bullshit them or they risk being perceived as non-democratic leaders.
besides that was an aggressive attack on U.S forces in U.S territory, and would qualify as defense.