Dinner with the Obamas'
The Obamas would like to call various experts throughout history to join them in a lively discussion of the United States' role in the world.
George W. Bush: Bush was the president from 2001 to 2009, and is most known for involving the US in two wars, Afghanistan and Iraq. These wars were primarily in response to numerous terrorist attacks that had occurred in the years leading up to his presidency. Bush declared a war on terrorism and proceeded to take action against terrorists. The ex-president would be a proponent of an America that acts like a policemen, a protector of the world and other nations.
Woodrow Wilson: Wilson was president form 1913 to 1921, putting him right in the middle of World War One. By the end of the War, Wilson's 14 points, although widely criticized carried the belief of the US playing an active role in world affairs, mostly through involvement in the League of Nations. Essentially Wilson urged for Euro-American alliances. His views signal the start of the evolution from an Isolationist US to an interventionists US.
Charles Lindbergh: As a spokesperson for the America First Committee, Lindbergh was strongly against any US involvement in world affairs. He upheld the Monroe Doctrine as a two way street; they [Europe] don't interfere with us, we don't interfere with them. Lindbergh was strongly opposed to all legislation/actions in which America helped other nations, like the Lend Lease Act. He saw America as being in isolation from the world and wished to see America stay that way.
Sheldon Adelson: Adelson is a wealthy American Businessman that made his fortune from practically nothing. As the eighth richest man in the world, his name carries weight win politics as he could be and has been a very generous campaign donor. Adelson hopes to expand his overseas wealth, especially in Israel and Singapore. He would be able to add input from the perspective of the American businessman and he also wouldn't be such a bad ally to have in presidential elections.
Ron Paul: Paul is a 78 year old Republican and potential runner in the 2016 presidential campaign. He stands firmly on a belief in non-intervention and wishes to remove most US troops from bases around the worldwide. He wishes to end US military intervention and turned to diplomacy. He is an active supporter of free trade with the rest of the world and believes in an America that plays an active role in the world economy. Ron Paul would be a supporter of an America that, although heavily involved in worldwide economics, would generally step back from military engagements.
Richard Nixon (not the crook): Nixon served as the 34th president of the United States and is responsible for both cooling tensions between the US and communist nation and pulling all remaining troops from Vietnam. Nixon urged both communist and democratic nations that it is impossible for the world to live with nations living in "angry isolation" (Nixon). As we move deeper into the 21st century, we see almost a reoccurrence of many events that occurred during Nixon's time (unpopular war, recession etc.). His views, although pertaining to the last century, would apply to current issues.
John F. Kennedy: JFK was the 32nd president of the United States and is responsible for deeming US involvement in Vietnam and the botched Bay of Pigs Invasion, as well as the creation of Alliance for Progress in South America and the Peace Corps. From his resume, it seems like he felt the US needed to take an active role in world affairs. He fought communism and provided aid through his Latin American Marshal Plan (Alliance for Progress) and through his presidential Peace Corps. As a popular leader with some controversial foreign policy moves, he would provide his beliefs in an active America through this discussion.
Scott Ritter: Ritter was the Nuclear Weapons inspector for the UN and a critic of US foreign policy. Under George Bush, he spoke out against the US invasion of Iraq . Ritter is heavily against US intervention over seas and felt that, in the case of Iraq, the country was better off under Hussein than it was under American Occupation. Ritter, like Lindbergh would favor a United States that is non-interventionist. His criticisms would make for a good discussion.