New update:

FOREIGN POLICY

1. Withdraw from NATO.
2. Keep being closely tied to Britain.
3. Keep being tied closely to Japan.
4. Stop bombings against ISIS
5. Become closely tied to countries in the Caribbean , Mexico, Central America and South America that is essentially Caribbean.
6. Withdraw from the situations in the Middle East, and the Balkans.
7. Start revealing things that European countries have done against each other , to help along the destruction of the EU.
8. Give some aid to a splinter faction in the North Korean army, help with a assassination against whatever Kim is in power.
9. Take in as many refugees as possible, send them back to their respective countries after the conflicts end there.
10. Help Haiti's economic situation.
11. Give aid to the AU, that is again, purely humanitarian.
12. Recognize Somililand.
13. Apologize for the bombings against Vietnam.
13a. Apologize for supporting a dictator in South Korea.
13b. Apologize for supporting a dictator in Taiwan.
13c. Apologize for the conquest of Native lands in America.
13d. Apologize for the Banana Wars.
13e. Apologize for not giving independence to the Philippines after 1898.
13f. Apologize for the mass bombings in WW2 against Germany, Italy, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria , Croatia and additional countries that were occupied.
13g. Apologize for bombing Japan and nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
13i. Apologize for the war on terror.

That's a lot of apologies...

Yeah, I had to cut it down from it's original amount because of just how many apologies we'd have to deliver.

1. We leave NATO, it collapses, that means wars are bound to begin.
2. Ok
3. Ok
4. No, ISIS is a menace. We are at fault for it's creation, so we must end it. Period. Obama is busy pussy footing with the idea.
5. We already are, NAFTA keeps us close with Canada and Mexico with trade, Central America isn't ready for foreign contacts until their civil wars are over, and the Caribbean is where many US tourists go.
6. Ok, but we are hardly even in the Balkans. Bosnia was over 20 years ago.
7. No, the EU is keeping Europe at peace. Without it and NATO, WWIII will come and that takes 2 alliances out of the picture that would be intertwined and could end the war faster.
8. How about we just laugh at them and stop taking them serious? If they take one of our people, we take him back, by diplomatic matters or by force. NK hardly even has China and Russia at their side.
9. No. No. No. No. No. What the fuck is wrong with you? Just blindly take in some refugees from some random ass country not worth a fuck and then were supposed to wait 1-20 years for their conflicts to end so we can just deport them back? You know how much that would cost, right?
10. Haiti is none of our business.
11. WHY. If you want to aid Africa, actually aid them not give them money so they can blow it on more wars with its self.
12. No point to recognize a little sliver of land if it gives us no advantage.
13. No, wth is wrong with you dude? That was 60 years ago, those Veterans took more shit than Vietnam ever could have. Apologize to the Veterans for ruining their minds.
13a. No point, that was 70+ years ago.
13b. I swear to God this is starting to piss me off.
13c. CONQUEST. Should every other country apologize for invading the rest 100s of years ago? So Italy should apologize for the Roman Empire then? Turkey for the Ottomans? Russia for the Soviet Union?
13d. That was a mistake, yes, but nothing we need to apologize for.
13e. No. Fucking. Point. You. Idiot.
13f. DUDE. GERMANY WAS MURDERING MASS AMOUNTS OF PEOPLE. All of those countries were targets. They were allied/occupied. If we hadn't, Hitler would own Europe.
13g. Shut. The. Fuck. Up. I swear to God to need to never speak on politics again. We did what we needed to to save AMERICAN LIVES. Japan didn't give 2 fucks about any Americans, they were trying to gas the West Coast, they were committing arguably worse atrocities in China than Germany was in Europe (search unit 731). Plus, they could have only had one hit them but they didn't surrender.
13i. So then Al Qaeda should apologize for 911? Then those brothers from Tartaristan in Russia should apologize for the Boston bombing? How about Belgium last week? Maybe France? Hmmm your shit is not adding up.

I'm face palming so hard. I hope this was a joke, and not serious.

Edited 3/29/2016 16:40:07

There is nothing wrong with a few small rebellions, to keep the tyrants and politicians on their toes. It helps a nation

I'm not suggesting that states get their own militias, I am actually opposed to that since states might try to secede (California would try to, probably try and join the EU too.) and they can be as negligible towards human rights' as the federal government.

You do realize how the EU is the European Union right? Cali couldnt join it.

Also I changed most of it anyways.

With the exception of the Native Americans (which is useless anyway), the apologies do seem really mental. Even the Indians should be for genocide, not conquest

Edited 3/29/2016 16:44:54

1. We leave NATO, it collapses, that means wars are bound to begin.

Wars already happen, usually NATO causes a few.

4. No, ISIS is a menace. We are at fault for it's creation, so we must end it. Period. Obama is busy pussy footing with the idea.

If we bomb again, we'll be responsible for terrorists again.

Central America isn't ready for foreign contacts until their civil wars are over, and the Caribbean is where many US tourists go.

We must defend US influence in the American Lake.

7. No, the EU is keeping Europe at peace. Without it and NATO, WWIII will come and that takes 2 alliances out of the picture that would be intertwined and could end the war faster.

The EU will militarize after NATO falls and will replace NATO as the warmongering alliance. Destabilizing it puts off militarization for a while, and will keep them from moving against Russia with even more intensity.

8. How about we just laugh at them and stop taking them serious? If they take one of our people, we take him back, by diplomatic matters or by force. NK hardly even has China and Russia at their side.

Killing Kim makes a much more moderate regime in charge, and will reduce the chance of a nuclear war.

9. No. No. No. No. No. What the fuck is wrong with you? Just blindly take in some refugees from some random ass country not worth a fuck and then were supposed to wait 1-20 years for their conflicts to end so we can just deport them back? You know how much that would cost, right?

What the fuck is wrong with you? They are humans, we are obligated to help them.

10. Haiti is none of our business.
The Caribbean is our business, and aiding humans that are starving is our business.

To all of your anti-apologia responses: Yes, many governments were doing wrong. But were the civilians doing wrong? By living in Japan, Vietnam etc, were they doing wrong? No , apologize for that. It costs nothing and makes people like us.

The California joining the EU thing was a joke.

They are humans, we are obligated to help them.

Not at the cost of the American people. Besides, let me show you something: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

We can do much more good than simply letting people in.

We're letting in refugees, not immigrants or gumballs(they should deal with their own problems, Babubble Al-Chocalate isn't that bad). Let them stay for a while, then send them back to Syria with some aid to where they came from.

It would be difficult to keep track of them. Look at the visa system. Even if we could, what if they refused, or the war dragged on? Would children of the refugees ("anchor babies") be citizens?

I suppose. The most we'll get is going to be in the tens of thousands, not millions. It'll be like Canada, not like Germany, and most certainly not like Turkey.

This is not about freedom, this is about race. Racial and ethnic divisions are awful and are responsible for awful conditions in many places.

Ok, then the US and any other nations on Earth shall cease to exist with your reasoning, I am not against it actually. And yes Racial and ethnic divisions are awful, but divisions led by supremacist, warmongering and imperialist powers is worse than anything else.

They've been non-independent for more than a hundred years. It's not like Romania should give away Transylvania because they're not all Romanians, same with Transnistria, same with Tibet, same with Tuva, same with South-Eastern Nigeria, and same with Euskadi.

Same with Karabagh inhabited by 99% of Armenians but recognized internationally as part of Azerbaijan because it was decided a hundred years ago among high diplomats without the consent of the people living there, same with Tibet which used to be an independent state and is now colonized by millions of Chinese migrants coming there to destroy their culture and nation and assimilate it to China. Same with Western Papua, inhabitated by native Papuans but heavily suffering since the 50s from Indonesian colonization, stealing their lands, killing Papuans and destroying their villages, why? because the island of Papua was divided in 2 by Western powers (Netherlands and Britain) and it ended with Papua New Guinea as a sovereign state and Western Papua integrated to Indonesia without consulting the population living there. This is unfair, but there is plenty of similar examples. Many borders have to be redefined.

Ok, then the US and any other nations on Earth shall cease to exist with your reasoning, I am not against it actually. And yes Racial and ethnic divisions are awful, but divisions led by supremacist, warmongering and imperialist powers is worse than anything else.

Sounds like a plan

Same with Karabagh inhabited by 99% of Armenians but recognized internationally as part of Azerbaijan because it was decided a hundred years ago among high diplomats without the consent of the people living there

Decided by Stalin who reorganized the Transcausasia SSR into three SSRs that would be internally divided after the fall of the Soviet Union and not be able to stand against Russia.

Tibet which used to be an independent state and is now colonized by millions of Chinese migrants coming there to destroy their culture and nation and assimilate it to China.

Humans are going to a place with humans to make human culture human.

This is unfair, but there is plenty of similar examples. Many borders have to be redefined.

Redefining borders means placing humans in different pens, basing it on arbitrary differences and calling it freedom. Tibet before 1950 had serfdom , you could sell your children for Buddha's sake. And now you're whining that China built them up economically and is allowing people from China to work there?

Redefining borders means placing humans in different pens, basing it on arbitrary differences and calling it freedom.

No, not "arbitrary differences", this is why many borders are currently not valid, because they were drawn arbitrarily without respecting the people actually living inside these borders.

Decided by Stalin

Yes decided by Stalin, Stalin actually hated Armenians (for who knows the reason), and this was even pointed by Turkish diplomats (who were at that time not recognized to be very Armenophiles either...). Dividing a people just because of a dictator's decision, do you see now why some borders need to be redefined?

Tibet before 1950 had serfdom , you could sell your children for Buddha's sake

China wasn't far form it before 1917 (see the movie master piece "The Last Emperor" illustrating it) , and this is out of topic, cultures change, people change. Who knows how Tibet would have been without Chinese interference? See Mongolia.

Edited 3/30/2016 00:00:01

Mongolia was a Soviet puppet since the Whites invaded in the civil war. They did not evolve independently of communist intervention. The only way Tibet could get rid of it's slave owning system is if a modernizing leader came to power, which is nearly impossible because Tibet was a theocracy.

I was talking about nowadays, Mongolia is currently showing great improvements, economically one of the top performers (average of 14% of annual growth these last years well above most Asian nations) despite being landlocked by 2 giants that are sometimes hostile to this nation. Mongolia also used to have a close and similar model to the Tibetan one (these 2 states shared many cultural, political, and socio-economical traits.
About Tibet, your argumentation about Tibet and slavery is similarly defended (how surprising) by the Chinese and anti-Tibet propaganda, whereas you (perhaps purposely) omit that attempts of modernization were made in TIbet before the Chinese invasion, and efforts made by the Tibetan authorities to modernise the country and improve conditions in Tibet in the first half of the 20th Century. The Tibet government recognized that traditional Tibetan society was, by no means, perfect and was in need of changes. The Dalai Lama and other Tibetan leaders have admitted as much. That is the reason why the Dalai Lama initiated far-reaching reforms in Tibet as soon as he assumed temporal authority. The traditional Tibetan society, however, was not nearly as bad as China would have us believe.

All of the land is owned by landlords and monasteries(the government) and you can't leave, don't have rights and are going to live and die poor. You might be killed by a Muslim Raider, there is no social mobility what-so-ever(even in China there was, if you were in the party or military at least).