America isn't a free country, so that would be highly hypocritical.
On a spectrum, they are still a 'free' country, for all my misgivings with their recent elections.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
America isn't a free country, so that would be highly hypocritical.
I will do business with whoever I damn please.
Just listing countries ain't gonna do it for me.How many you want?
Vietnam.
South Africa.
Just listing countries ain't gonna do it for me.
He tried with Cuba, but the case wasn't made
for the claim that they revolted because....
"they felt exploited or that the trade relationship was uneven".
This is RF.Hey, I can go as hard as you like. I'll need some sort of guarantee I'm not just pissing into the wind though.
This is RF.
There are no guarantees.
Are you really interested in supporting theI mean...I'm not really willing to invest time into a detailed explanation without knowing if you're actually interested in a detailed explanation.
How does Pakistan and India have the same color? As far as I know Pakistan is primarily ruled by its military with the civilian govt relatively powerless. How is Brazil green?While reading through another thread on the topic of the declining freedom index (Freedom index 2021. | Religious Forums), I got to thinking about the relative freedom in the world as indicated in Freedom House's annual survey and ranking. Here is a link to Freedom House's map for 2021: Explore the Map | Freedom House
The countries in green are designated "Free," the countries in yellow are designated "Partly Free," and the countries in purple are designated "Not Free."
Given that our government and media often tout the U.S. as the "leader of the free world" and that our national existence is dedicated to "making the world safe for democracy," we ostensibly have established a global alliance system based on that principle. Or at least, that's what one might assume listening to the politicians, pundits, and other propagandists who spout off about America's obligation to defend freedom no matter what.
Likewise, we have made it a general practice to impose sanctions upon regimes which, in our government's view, have "poor human rights records": United States sanctions - Wikipedia
Some propagandists speak of the U.S. as some kind of global crusader for freedom and democracy, a position which seems rife with sanctimony, sentiment, and American exceptionalism. From this standpoint, we impose sanctions on other countries because it's seen as "the right thing to do," purely out of a noble dedication to world freedom and human rights. It's problematic for those who try to oppose such policies, as it makes it appear that they're against freedom, which somehow seems "un-American" in many people's eyes.
Others who are more skeptical and cynical regarding U.S. policy might point to numerous exceptions to the rule. They might point out the numerous countries which we still do business with, even though multiple objective sources would put their governments in the category of "Not Free" or "authoritarian." For example, we impose sanctions on Iran because they're not free, yet we seem to give a great deal of accommodation to Saudi Arabia, which is comparatively worse than Iran in terms of freedom.
Can anyone identify any consistent standard that the U.S. policymakers might derive in explaining such discrepancies, or is it simply a matter of frivolous whimsy on the part of our leadership? Do they even know what they're doing? Is our foreign policy wrecked due to decades of incompetence and ignorance on the part of our media and political leaders? I mean, these are people who apparently believed that the Shah of Iran, Pinochet of Chile, Somoza of Nicaragua, Marcos of the Philippines, and various tyrants in charge of South Vietnam were part of the so-called "free world." And these are just a few examples.
In my opinion, we would be far better off if we would pick a consistent set of principles to go by and stick with them.
If we're going to say that America's foreign policy will be based solely on America's practical national, economic, and strategic interests, then we should just say that and live by it. If we choose to impose sanctions or oppose another government, it should be based on reasons which only have a direct tangible impact on America.
On the other hand, if we claim to be the "defenders of freedom," as a way to justify sanctions and other punitive measures against other countries because of human rights abuses and authoritarian practices, then we should say that and be consistent about it across the board.
I wasn't quite sure how to word the poll choices, so if the wording looks a bit stilted, that's why.
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"?
Are you really interested in supporting the
very specific claim that Stevicus made?
Or will it just be broad criticism of Ameristan's
sins overseas.
I doubt the former, & don't argue the latter.
There's certainly something to be said for that, although I also look back on how the West's relationship with numerous countries deteriorated and went sour because they felt exploited or that the trade relationship was uneven. That appears to be the cause of numerous anti-Western rebellions and revolts all across the world.
How does Pakistan and India have the same color? As far as I know Pakistan is primarily ruled by its military with the civilian govt relatively powerless.
I sense that you cannot summarize support for his claim.This is what he said, I believe;
I'd be arguing the former point (about the souring of relationships due to exploitation by the West). I don't see why you should doubt that I'd be interested in that.
In neither case (Vietnam or South Africa) was it the Americans who soured the relationships initially, although Vietnam there is obviously an American involvement. Still, I have an actual interest in these topics, not a passing google search to put forth. Hence my questions around interest. If I throw up a wall of text and you're actually not interested, I just wasted half and hour I could have been watching cat videos. (Well, not really, but you see my point).
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.
Again here, Cuba's problems relate to US government,
not to capitalism itself.
On a spectrum, they are still a 'free' country, for all my misgivings with their recent elections.
Just listing countries ain't gonna do it for me.
He tried with Cuba, but the case wasn't made
for the claim that they revolted because....
"they felt exploited or that the trade relationship was uneven".
You see this as being about economics.Our government has been very devoted and fanatically committed the cause of anti-communism. They do this in service to capitalism.
How does Pakistan and India have the same color? As far as I know Pakistan is primarily ruled by its military with the civilian govt relatively powerless. How is Brazil green?
The ranking seems nonsensical.
USA can stop exporting arms to non-free countries (actual ones). That would be a start....
I believe that imperialism exists.This is a common view echoed by many people throughout Latin America and the rest of the world. Some call it "Yankee imperialism." I'm not sure why it's so difficult for you to believe this.
You see this as being about economics.
I see it as political tribalism & even religion.
The Vietnam war was about the threat posed by
those "godless communists", China, & Russia.
The Vietnam war wasn't very good for capitalism.
So much & many resources wasted, eg, money, lives.