• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Should the U.S. only do business with free countries?

Should the U.S. do business only with Free countries?

  • Yes, we should only do business with the free countries (shown as green on map)

    Votes: 4 25.0%
  • We should do business with the green and yellow (Partly Free) countries, but not the purple (Not Fre

    Votes: 1 6.3%
  • We should not impose sanctions on any country for any reason

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • US foreign policy should be based solely on America's practical national interests

    Votes: 2 12.5%
  • US foreign policy should be based on moral principles and how other govts. treat their people

    Votes: 4 25.0%
  • The (green) free countries should all unify and shut out the partly free and not free countries

    Votes: 1 6.3%
  • Other

    Votes: 5 31.3%
  • Don't know/undecided

    Votes: 3 18.8%

  • Total voters
    16

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
I also realize that not everyone here is from America, and they might look at U.S. foreign policy from a different angle. For those outside the U.S., do you believe that U.S. foreign policy should serve some kind of higher moral purpose (i.e. "leader of the free world") as opposed to pursuing our own practical, tangible national interests (as any ordinary nation might do)?

Is America "exceptional"?
I think it is politically useful for US regimes to pretend that they are acting on behalf of higher moral principles, but my understanding is that this is already an important element of US domestic propaganda.

And the US is indeed exceptional - it is by far the world's strongest military power, maintains its biggest nuclear arsenal, and without doubt acts as the military and political hegemon of the Western world.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Who is "we"? None of us are capitalists engaged in international trade relations, as far as I can tell.

Oh, and Freedom House is a think tank that is heavily funded by the US government, with the rest of its funds made of grants from right-wing and liberal billionaires. While it claims impartiality, it in fact is on the record specifically avoiding human rights abuses in countries whose support is crucial for US military operations, and at times even explicitly endorsed US-backed authoritarian regimes such as the military regime of El Salvador or Ian Smith's Rhodesia.

Freedom House - Wikipedia

One thing I would say about Freedom House is that it was begun under the FDR administration, which is worlds apart from anything that has ruled America in more recent times.

However, I'm not devoted to Freedom House or anything, so I'm certainly willing to look at and consider other surveys and measures of freedom in the world. I'm not too hep on anything from the Cato Institute.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Boxer Rebellion, Cuban Revolution, the entire resistance and revolt movement against Western colonialism and imperialism which occurred throughout Latin America, Africa, and South Asia. There's a whole plethora of examples one can cite. How many do you need?
Picking one...the Cuban revolution.
That appears to be a rebellion independent of US commerce there.
Can you pick one that was a direct result of US economic oppression?
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Picking one...the Cuban revolution.
That appears to be a rebellion independent of US commerce there.
Can you pick one that was a direct result of US economic oppression?

"Appears to be independent of US commerce"? Based on what? They were U.S. protectorate and only nominally independent.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I think it is politically useful for US regimes to pretend that they are acting on behalf of higher moral principles, but my understanding is that this is already an important element of US domestic propaganda.

And the US is indeed exceptional - it is by far the world's strongest military power, maintains its biggest nuclear arsenal, and without doubt acts as the military and political hegemon of the Western world.

US domestic propaganda emphasizes the "moral imperative" of U.S. foreign policy, as that's the only real argument that resonates with the people. Because you can bet that the majority sure as heck are not getting any "spoils of war" from being the strongest military power and political hegemon of the world.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
I live in a purple country per that map. If Western countries stopped doing business with my country, I highly suspect the main harm and negative effects of that would be on the average citizen more than anyone else. We rely on a lot of Western medicines and medical equipment, electronics, cars, and a plethora of other goods. If these stopped reaching my country, that would greatly affect many ordinary people and make their lives much harder.

I don't view things as so cut and dry; a country like China is extremely oppressive, but green countries can't stop doing business with it, due to its sheer influence and economic and industrial reach. I believe sanctions sometimes have their place, but those are highly dependent on the specific situation rather than a blanket rule applying to all purple and yellow countries.

That makes me think: Perhaps a lack of goods coming from the US would result in an eventual change for the better. Who knows?
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
Not to mention the self-aggrandizement inherent in doing something like that despite starting two of the biggest wars in the 21st century (in Afghanistan and Iraq). It's more than a little ironic for the country that killed hundreds of thousands in those two countries

Well...
Both Saddam and Taliban were not exactly what we would call beacons of freedom though.

The irony is not that the US started those wars but rather the reasoning behind: nothing to do with fighting for freedom, but rather USA's own interests.

and ran Abu Ghraib and Gitmo to pretend it's any sort of authority on what "freedom" is.

Touché!
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Well...
Both Saddam and Taliban were not exactly what we would call beacons of freedom though.

The irony is not that the US started those wars but rather the reasoning behind: nothing to do with fighting for freedom, but rather USA's own interests.

Well, that cuts to the core issue here. I think most people get the impression that the U.S. starts wars for our own national interests, but the politicians, pundits, and other propagandists play word games and mind games to try to trick the people into thinking that it's something completely different. And people who express that they're not fooled in the slightest get lambasted, mocked, and ridiculed as "conspiracy theorists," as if questioning the U.S. government is considered a form of mental illness.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I'm sure part of the reason was that they didn't like the US mafia (which is the very flower of US capitalism) using their country as a whorehouse.
You've been watching The Godfather movies, eh.
Is that the real reason for the revolution?
Crime does seem to be more of a problem under
capitalism than socialism or communism. This
stems from greater economic liberty, & consequent
greater social liberty...so it's easier for criminals to
escape scrutiny. But socialism has its own flavors
of crime, eg, rampant bribery, corruption, black markets.
Which is worse?
I'd rather live in crime ridden Ameristan or Canuckistan
than socialist countries, eg, N Korea, Cuba.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
You've been watching The Godfather movies, eh.
Is that the real reason for the revolution?
Crime does seem to be more of a problem under
capitalism than socialism or communism. This
stems from greater economic liberty, & consequent
greater social liberty...so it's easier for criminals to
escape scrutiny. But socialism has its own flavors
of crime, eg, rampant bribery, corruption, black markets.
Which is worse?
I'd rather live in crime ridden Ameristan or Canuckistan
than socialist countries, eg, N Korea, Cuba.

Not just The Godfather movies.

The rise of Castro and the fall of the Havana Mob | The Mob Museum
When the Mob Owned Cuba | Travel | Smithsonian Magazine
Mobsters in Havana: a brief history of the Cuban Mafia - Why Not Cuba

(You'll note that these are not left-wing sources.)

Pre-Castro Cuba | American Experience | Official Site | PBS

(The PBS site takes a slightly more moderate approach, but it supports the same basic idea.)

U.S. companies such as United Fruit and Coca-Cola had huge investments in Cuba. I've heard that United Fruit even helped partly finance the Bay of Pigs invasion.

US involvement in Cuba (both the US government and private corporations) was similar pretty much throughout Latin America.

Cuba was in a somewhat unique position, being that it was so close to the U.S., as well as being one of the last remaining bastions of Spanish rule in the Americas. After the Spanish-American War in 1898, we could have kept Cuba, just as we did with Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines.

But instead, we agreed to withdrawal, provided that the Cubans agree to the terms outlined in the Platt Amendment: Platt Amendment - Wikipedia

On March 2, 1901, the Platt Amendment was passed as part of the 1901 Army Appropriations Bill.[1] It stipulated seven conditions for the withdrawal of United States troops remaining in Cuba at the end of the Spanish–American War, and an eighth condition that Cuba sign a treaty accepting these seven conditions. It defined the terms of Cuban–U.S. relations essentially to be an unequal one of U.S. dominance over Cuba.

On June 12, 1901, Cuba amended its constitution to contain, word for word, the seven applicable demands of the Platt Amendment.[2]

On May 22, 1903, Cuba entered into a treaty with the United States to make the same required seven pledges: the Cuban–American Treaty of Relations of 1903.[1] Two of the seven pledges were to allow the United States to intervene unilaterally in Cuban affairs, and a pledge to lease land to the United States for naval bases on the island. (The Cuban-American Treaty of Relations of 1934 replaced the 1903 Treaty of Relations, and dropped three of the seven pledges.)

The 1903 Treaty of Relations was used as justification for the Second Occupation of Cuba from 1906 to 1909. On September 29, 1906, Secretary of War (and future U.S. president) William Howard Taft initiated the Second Occupation of Cuba when he established the Provisional Government of Cuba under the terms of the treaty (Article three), declaring himself Provisional Governor of Cuba.[3][4] On October 23, 1906, President Roosevelt issued Executive Order 518, ratifying the order.[3]

On May 29, 1934, the United States and Cuba signed the 1934 Treaty of Relations that in its first article abrogates the 1903 Treaty of Relations.[5]

As for capitalist countries having more crime, this is also true. When I visited the USSR back when it still existed, I was amazed at how clean and safe the streets were. Even in a city of 7 million people. It didn't stay that way after the Soviet government fell, as there were huge crime waves which gripped Russia during the Yeltsin era.

Regarding capitalist countries, it's a bit complicated. I think the existence of organized crime has served the overall interests of capitalism, otherwise it would not have been tolerated as it has been.

I don't think it's as simple as having greater liberty, although I've noticed that when it comes to the legal world and lawyers, the measure of a person's liberty correlates to their net worth. Those who can afford the best lawyers get liberty, and those who can't get shafted.

Granted, I wouldn't blame capitalists directly for that, as that's more a matter of our government and politicians who appoint the judges who oversee our legal system.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Not just The Godfather movies.

The rise of Castro and the fall of the Havana Mob | The Mob Museum
When the Mob Owned Cuba | Travel | Smithsonian Magazine
Mobsters in Havana: a brief history of the Cuban Mafia - Why Not Cuba

(You'll note that these are not left-wing sources.)

Pre-Castro Cuba | American Experience | Official Site | PBS

(The PBS site takes a slightly more moderate approach, but it supports the same basic idea.)

U.S. companies such as United Fruit and Coca-Cola had huge investments in Cuba. I've heard that United Fruit even helped partly finance the Bay of Pigs invasion.

US involvement in Cuba (both the US government and private corporations) was similar pretty much throughout Latin America.

Cuba was in a somewhat unique position, being that it was so close to the U.S., as well as being one of the last remaining bastions of Spanish rule in the Americas. After the Spanish-American War in 1898, we could have kept Cuba, just as we did with Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines.

But instead, we agreed to withdrawal, provided that the Cubans agree to the terms outlined in the Platt Amendment: Platt Amendment - Wikipedia



As for capitalist countries having more crime, this is also true. When I visited the USSR back when it still existed, I was amazed at how clean and safe the streets were. Even in a city of 7 million people. It didn't stay that way after the Soviet government fell, as there were huge crime waves which gripped Russia during the Yeltsin era.

Regarding capitalist countries, it's a bit complicated. I think the existence of organized crime has served the overall interests of capitalism, otherwise it would not have been tolerated as it has been.

I don't think it's as simple as having greater liberty, although I've noticed that when it comes to the legal world and lawyers, the measure of a person's liberty correlates to their net worth. Those who can afford the best lawyers get liberty, and those who can't get shafted.

Granted, I wouldn't blame capitalists directly for that, as that's more a matter of our government and politicians who appoint the judges who oversee our legal system.
Wikipedia paints a different picture...one of Cuban governmental
corruption. Ameristanian interests didn't cause this.
Cuban Revolution - Wikipedia
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I live in a purple country per that map. If Western countries stopped doing business with my country, I highly suspect the main harm and negative effects of that would be on the average citizen more than anyone else. We rely on a lot of Western medicines and medical equipment, electronics, cars, and a plethora of other goods. If these stopped reaching my country, that would greatly affect many ordinary people and make their lives much harder.

I don't view things as so cut and dry; a country like China is extremely oppressive, but green countries can't stop doing business with it, due to its sheer influence and economic and industrial reach. I believe sanctions sometimes have their place, but those are highly dependent on the specific situation rather than a blanket rule applying to all purple and yellow countries.
So does that make you an evil person?:p

Seriously rather than war trade with incentive appears to be the way to go. In most countries when they get richer the members of that country demand more freedom. Trade can be a win all around. Cutting off trade to the purple countries would be bad policy.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Wikipedia paints a different picture...one of Cuban governmental
corruption. Ameristanian interests didn't cause this.
Cuban Revolution - Wikipedia

Well, of course, the revolution on their soil, and their government was very corrupt. There's no denying that. But America wasn't just some innocent, uninvolved bystander.

Even then, they may have not necessarily become pro-Soviet, and our government probably could have reached some sort of diplomatic arrangement with the Castro regime in the early days. But it seems our government had a bunch of stubborn hotheads who had some kind of personal grudge against Castro. Some of the stuff they did was both diabolical yet incredibly immature, such as slipping him some powder that made his beard fall out. It would be hilarious as a summer camp prank, but really, sometimes you have to wonder about the people running our government at times.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Well, of course, the revolution on their soil, and their government was very corrupt. There's no denying that. But America wasn't just some innocent, uninvolved bystander.
More catalyst than causative.
Can't blame Ameristanian capitalism for the revolution.

However.....
I do particularly fault Ameristanian governmental anti-capitalist
foreign policy for keeping Cuba isolated & poor.
Even then, they may have not necessarily become pro-Soviet, and our government probably could have reached some sort of diplomatic arrangement with the Castro regime in the early days. But it seems our government had a bunch of stubborn hotheads who had some kind of personal grudge against Castro. Some of the stuff they did was both diabolical yet incredibly immature, such as slipping him some powder that made his beard fall out. It would be hilarious as a summer camp prank, but really, sometimes you have to wonder about the people running our government at times.
Again here, Cuba's problems relate to US government,
not to capitalism itself.
 
Top