How would you describe your foreign policy philosophy? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Ongoing wars and conflict resolution, international agreements or lack thereof. Nationhood, secessionist movements, national 'home' government versus internationalist trends and globalisation.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14821316
Oxymandias wrote:@Albert

1. You didn't respond to the rest of my points

2. Holy shit is that violent. I forgot that this was the Bible we were talking about for a second.
To try to answer the rest of your question, of course destruction or deceleration of war on a country for no reason is not good. I was not saying that, you take imperialism at worse unrealistic perception, making it into some sort of evil force. Basically you just made a straw man argument.
#14821356
Oxymandias wrote:@Albert

Conquering is fine. Imperialism is not. Look at what the bible says about war. If you're going to eradicate a culture at least do it completely and well.
This is where European Empires of the past failed, they succumbed to "progressive ideals", sank into pity and remorse. Now we are at modern times, where this "progressive" insanity's fruit is coming to bear. We are beginning to see how bad and nonsensical it is. After this passes, and European peoples will return to their senses and truth. We will return to the age where conquest of the past will resume and our children will reap the benefits. Until then, we must endure this progressive onslaught and defeat its evils.
#14821501
@Albert

Listen, all I literally said was that if you're going to destroy someone, at least destroy them thoroughly. Then you went on a tangent about progressivism.

First off, I don't give two fucks about whatever you think Europe should be like. I'm Iranian. It isn't relevant to me. Second, your little rant is unrelated to anything I said which basically means you had no reason to respond to me. You could've just written that and posted it without my quotes attached. Yes you didn't which automatically makes it off-topic to anything I said. Third, if the pearls are your so-called "advice" then unfortunately, well at least unfortunate for you, those aren't pearls, they're pebbles that don't affect me in anyway. There's nothing for me to gain from listening to the rambles of a crazy old man.
#14824675
My Foreign Policy. By Buzz.

1. Cleanse Europe of all people who desire to do the continent and it's people harm. That includes anyone who professes to want Islam to dominate Europe.
2. Lay absolute siege to the real trouble-makers in the Middle East. This includes the Saudis, Syria, and any other nation that actively promotes violence to The West and indeed the rest of the world. Once these bad-actors starve to death, allow modernization and supplies to flow. Human nature will take over from there.
3. Do not allow any more "refugees" into North America until such time as the people of the Arab world are placated suitably.
4. Quit trying to make Russia out as some enemy of the entire globe. The 2 main Superpowers must find a way to work together for the benefit of all people.

Edit:
Forget to add one more thing.
5. UN and NATO must IMPOSE a solution to the Israeli/Palestinian saga.
Last edited by Buzz62 on 18 Jul 2017 16:03, edited 1 time in total.
#14824684
Zionist Nationalist wrote:Id describe my foreign policy like this

my country is on top priority and fuck the rest

That means do everything for the interest of ourselves without giving shit about others.

Which really isn't such a bad idea.
In this case, all would work in their own self-interests, and when those interests happen to be enhanced by the interests of another nation, they could work together to a goal without any prejudice.

It's "workable".
#14824689
Buzz62 wrote:Which really isn't such a bad idea.
In this case, all would work in their own self-interests, and when those interests happen to be enhanced by the interests of another nation, they could work together to a goal without any prejudice.

It's "workable".


If you want Nationalism, then you should ban all alliances and special status for other countries otherwise you end up with what we have now which is not Nationalism.
#14824734
@One Degree

This may be a bit off topic, but what are your thoughts on politics? If you could, please describe to me your political ideology. I know that you identify as republican or conservative, but your views seem to be much more unique than the standard typical republican or conservative worldview you see in BuzzBuzz, Sabbi, or Zionist Nationalist.
#14824750
One Degree wrote:If you want Nationalism, then you should ban all alliances and special status for other countries otherwise you end up with what we have now which is not Nationalism.

How do you figure?
If a alliance is in a nation's own interests, then I say form an alliance.
It's when alliances are formed that are NOT in a nation's interests, but in the interests of the corporations, then the alliance is tainted. (SEE SAUDI ARABIA)

Look, politics is an awful business. We like to believe that it's the business of representing the constituents. IT IS NOT! It been bastardized into the business of collecting wealth and power to one's self.

This makes real Nationalism near-impossible to achieve.
#14824763
Buzz62 wrote:How do you figure?
If a alliance is in a nation's own interests, then I say form an alliance.
It's when alliances are formed that are NOT in a nation's interests, but in the interests of the corporations, then the alliance is tainted. (SEE SAUDI ARABIA)

Look, politics is an awful business. We like to believe that it's the business of representing the constituents. IT IS NOT! It been bastardized into the business of collecting wealth and power to one's self.

This makes real Nationalism near-impossible to achieve.


If you have an ally then you must also support your ally's position. This means you no longer are a nationalist, because you are no longer supporting a strictly nationalist policy.
#14824789
One Degree wrote:If you have an ally then you must also support your ally's position. This means you no longer are a nationalist, because you are no longer supporting a strictly nationalist policy.

That seems pretty rigid.
Maybe I have a "loose" idea of what Nationalism means, but to me it means that one acts in the sole interests on one's nation.
Thus an allegiance with a strong country, in order to help protect a weaker country, could be considered an act of "nationalism".

Correct me if I'm wrong...
#14824794
No, you are not wrong. I am simply pointing out that the world started as nation states (using the term loosely) and formed alliances and we ended up with what we have which is not nationalism in my opinion. I am simply saying that alliance will eventually destroy nationalism in my opinion.

'White' isn't a race, grandpa. Indeed, scientifi[…]

Macron: Nato is brain-dead

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and even b[…]

I will happily sacrifice any of you for capitalism[…]

about great ring

@cherry I am sorry I cannot help you with your q[…]