• 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

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
I'd start by looking at imports, moreso than exports.
As some have pointed out, not importing to some countries would do nothing to improve the lot of 'oppressed peoples'.

But refusing to import sweat-shop sneakers...or oil from countries with poor human rights records...might.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
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".
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
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".

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.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I mean...I'm not really willing to invest time into a detailed explanation without knowing if you're actually interested in a detailed explanation.
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.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
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

2021_Freedom_House_world_map.png


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"?
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....
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
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.

This is what he said, I believe;
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.

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).
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
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.

They only split the map into three colours.
If you look at the ratings, Pakistan is awarded a 37/100 for freedom.
India is awarded a 67/100.

No one is claiming Pakistan has ANYWHERE NEAR the level of freedom India has.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
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).
I sense that you cannot summarize support for his claim.
Do you really believe that relations with Vietnam soured
because of Ameristanian exploitation & trade imbalance?
Looking over this....
United States in the Vietnam War - Wikipedia
....I'm not seeing commerce being the cause of woe there.
Instead, the US government's anti-communist foreign policy
appears to be the problem. It's about ideology.

Now you could argue that France exploited Vietnam.
France–Vietnam relations - Wikipedia
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
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.

Our government has been very devoted and fanatically committed the cause of anti-communism. They do this in service to capitalism.

It's never really been about patriotism or their love of war or nationalism - even if those elements might be used for propaganda purposes.

I mean, look at how they operate. When you look at some of the activities of the CIA and military, the modus operandi was more reminiscent of how underground mobsters operate, not true patriots who would be honest and proud about what they do.

The Bay of Pigs is a perfect example. If our government had true patriots and nationalists running the show, they'd have no qualms or hesitation in sending the whole army to invade Cuba and installing whatever government we wanted. (I'm not saying they should have done that, but I'm just using this point to illustrate how their methods are indicative of their motives and character.)

They didn't do that, mainly because (not unlike mobsters) their image was all-important and they wanted to appear as honorable, respectable citizens. But instead of just being that, they still had to do something sneaky and underhanded...because "national interests." But if it was really national interests, then military action would have been justifiable on that basis alone.

But instead, they set up this proxy group of Cuban nationals who were supposed to lead the counter-revolution, just so the U.S. government could pretend to be uninvolved and have "plausible deniability." On its face, it seems sneaky and underhanded, more indicative of an underworld capitalist mindset and not that of pro-American warmongers (as they might otherwise be portrayed).
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
On a spectrum, they are still a 'free' country, for all my misgivings with their recent elections.

America is definitely slipping in the rankings. A score of 83 is only a B-minus. Still a passing grade, but definitely leaves some more work to be done.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
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 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.

We've spoken at length about U.S. policies towards Iran and our installation of the Shah. He also ended up being overthrown, and the wrath of the Iranian people was directed against America. If you can believe that the U.S. had a role in installing the Shah, why is it so much of a stretch to believe that the U.S. might operate the same way with other nations?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Our government has been very devoted and fanatically committed the cause of anti-communism. They do this in service to capitalism.
You see this as being about economics.
I see it as political tribalism & even religion.
"Communism" referred to particular political enemies.
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.
But it did serve some political interests.
 
Last edited:

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
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....

The link goes into greater detail as to how they justify their rankings. I'm not saying this is a flawless survey or that it doesn't have some problems with it. For the purposes of this discussion, any survey could have been used as an example here. I just picked this one because it was one I was most familiar with.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
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.
I believe that imperialism exists.
But I doubted only your very specific claim.
We differed on the origins of the Cuban revolution.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
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.

It really does come down to economics, though, at least as the driving force behind politics in the U.S.

There's a reason why the U.S. ruling class opposed and continues to oppose communism. It has nothing to do with them being "godless," although that was always a good line for propaganda purposes. It also has nothing to do with the perceived lack of freedom in communist states - even though the argument could be made. However, the point I'm making in this thread is that the U.S. supported states which were also authoritarian and had poor human rights records. So that, in and of itself, can't possibly be the reason the U.S. opposed communism.

When all other possible reasons have been eliminated, the only real answer is that U.S. opposition to communism comes down solely to economics and nothing else.

In the end, the Vietnam War probably was bad for capitalism, just as it was bad for the U.S., our government, and our perceptions and understanding of the world. But some people thought we could have won. But instead of fighting it like World War 2, they were fighting it like the Castellammarese War. Patton or MacArthur might have played it differently, but then, they were probably more inclined towards the religious or tribalistic war that you're referring to.

But because of the way it was fought, it tells us about the people who were leading it and what their motives might have been.
 
Top