Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods
LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX wrote:Nah, not going to happen. Also, this is why America does need a strong military, to prevent things like that from threatening our side of the world.
Oxymandias wrote:@AlbertTo 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.
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.
Oxymandias wrote:@AlbertThis 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Scheer is a fucking AMERICAN, and shouldn't even b[…]
And he is right too, because the UK, serving as U[…]
The melting ice of Greenland will soon reveal the […]
It's interesting that the article doesn't name th[…]