Political: Nationalist ---- Military: Militaristic
Social: Moderate ---- Foreign: Isolationist Leaning
Economical: Socialist ---- Domestic: Progressive
"Is extreme nationalism ALWAYS bad in every situation?"
No. While there may be situations where it is bad, there may be other situations where it is perfectly acceptable. People like to say that because Germans had powerful "nationalism" that nationalism is a bad thing, completely ignoring the fact that it was another country with a high level of nationalism(America) to drive them back, and to effectively bring down the Soviet Union. Those douchebag hippies in the 60s and 70s tried to erode that in this country, but that's what drugs will do to you.
"Loyalty only matters when there's a hundred reasons not to be-" Gen. Mattis
Such prejudism and collectivist judgements lead to the most heinous crimes against humanity. The next step would be to eliminate the inferior cultures or to forcibly absorb them into our own.
Pick any small town anywhere in the USA where you do not have any relations or historic genome links. How close do you feel to those people? Will you die for them? Will you sacrifice your boys for their safety and protection? Will you pay out of your own pocket to provide for their own well-being?I have relationships with people in New York City. I have shared cultural and traditional values with them. I could be related to people from New York City.
You CONDONE the holocaust because it was someone else's business.It was their business.
As the old saying goes...
"They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
I don't think you understood my statement. Nations killing each other and attempting to rid the world of certain undesirables is exacty like the decentralized clan wars based on blood ties. I was discussing the international, not the intranational.Hence why we have the State to impose order.
An extremely good nation deserves extreme nationalism. The citizenry must be wise enough to know when their nation is extremely great.
Get informed: UNICEF foreign adoption policy is killing orphans and the US gives $132 million to UNICEF every year. Stop the madness.
For the best news and commentary on the 2012 election from the GOP perspective, visit www.whitehouse12.com.
We put a stop to it because it was convenient to do so. Because it suited our interests.
The Allied assault during WW2 is arguably one of the most justified wars in history. Did we do enough to save the prisoners at the time? Certainly not. But there was a real purpose of fighting the war on the side of the allies. I can't say it would be right to expend the resources and manpower to police the world and maintain peace throughout all regions. I do understand that it is the business of the neighboring countries to do something about the massive atrocity. But the thing about Hitler was that he was on path to kill everybody, even Americans. And you can't wait till all of your allies are down before you join in. It may be too late.Yes. Come now, do you honestly think we would have ever lifted a finger to stop it if we weren't already at war with the Germans? If the Japanese hadn't bombed Pearl Harbor, don't you think we'd have been more than content to allow Germany to murder its way across Europe and Japan to do the same all throughout Asia?
It was the business of the region's national members to secure peace in their time. Unfortunately, they waited and condoned it as the German's business, until the German's business landed on their doorstep.We put a stop to it because it was convenient to do so. Because it suited our interests.
First, you did not directly respond to the point I made. Second, I don't believe that was the intention of the conventions. I believe the general intention of the law produced by the conventions is to limit the horror and atrocity of war, not war itself. That was the League of Nations and UN, both of which are exceptional failures in preventing wars. But I suppose you have no interest in the horrors of war, no matter how despicable they may be.Do you think the limitations we place on warfare, the Geneva Conventions, lead to less warfare in the world or more?