• 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

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
To clarify...
I never said there was no expansionism.

Okay. My only point was that the "enemy" wasn't expanding, since they were in a state of civil war, and they were all natives of that country. The Americans and other Allied troops were the outsiders.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I don't think we have much of an issue other than which
economic system we each prefer. I'm no fan of imperialism
or military foreign adventurism.

Well, I'm not a fan of imperialism or military foreign adventurism either. But I know it happened, and it continues to happen.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
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
Why is New Zealand green? Heck, why is it on the map at all?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
You could really do this in any country, actually - even in the former USSR.

This is not exactly a unique right that only Americans get.
Never said it was unique.
But the poster challenged our having this freedom.
It seems that you agree with him (by objecting to my post)?
You know, I was thinking on this point, and it occurred that no one really gets arrested for saying something bad.
I think perhaps you don't appreciate how much more
freedom of speech we have than people in China,
Pakistan, etc, & even Europe.

We seem to have no common ground on the
issue of freedom relative to other countries.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Okay. My only point was that the "enemy" wasn't expanding, since they were in a state of civil war, and they were all natives of that country. The Americans and other Allied troops were the outsiders.
China & Russia were expanding their influence.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Never said it was unique.
But the poster challenged our having this freedom.
It seems that you agree with him (by objecting to my post)?

I'm not objecting to your post. I just don't see the issue as black-and-white as some people do.

I think perhaps you don't appreciate how much more
freedom of speech we have than people in China,
Pakistan, etc, & even Europe.

We seem to have no common ground on the
issue of freedom relative to other countries.

So, you don't agree with the Freedom House survey I linked in the OP?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I'm not objecting to your post. I just don't see the issue as black-and-white as some people do.
It seems that you see a lot of gray everywhere.
So, you don't agree with the Freedom House survey I linked in the OP?
Never commented on it.
I just aired the controversial view that we're pretty free in Ameristan.
Many feel very oppressed.
Do you?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
We weren't fighting China or Russia in that war.
Not even indirectly, eh.
BTW, a marine friend was very pleased
that he killed a Chinse soldier in Vietnam.
So we'll just continue disagreeing.
And I wonder who supplied the MIGs?
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
It seems that you see a lot of gray everywhere.

Possibly. I often try to consider that there are alternate points of view other than the standard party line we hear in America being the "land of the free." While it may have some truth to it, it's really just a slogan. When it comes to the actual nuts and bolts and the fine print, then it's not so clear cut. "Freedom" was never meant to be taken literally, so that means there's going to be a lot of gray.

Never commented on it.
I just aired the controversial view that we're pretty free in Ameristan.
Many feel very oppressed.
Do you?

Personally, not really. However, that doesn't mean that I would ignore the plight of others who might feel that way.

The reason I mentioned the survey was when you said that I "don't appreciate how much more
freedom of speech we have than people in China,
Pakistan, etc, & even Europe.'" Obviously, by posting the survey which details how much more (or less) freedom there is between countries, then clearly I do appreciate it.

But does it really matter what you think I appreciate or whether I see a lot of gray everywhere? I'm not really the topic of discussion here, am I?
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Not even indirectly, eh.
BTW, a marine friend was very pleased
that he killed a Chinse soldier in Vietnam.
So we'll just continue disagreeing.
And I wonder who supplied the MIGs?

I knew a Chinese person who was a pilot in the South Vietnamese Air Force. There are/were a lot of Chinese people in Vietnam. What does that prove?

I never denied that the Soviet Union helped supply North Vietnam. I think the Chinese helped them at first, but at some point, there was a rift between the two countries. But they never sent troops. The U.S. was operating in such a way as to avoid triggering war with either China or Russia.

As for continuing disagreeing, I think that our disagreement in this case is over the U.S. motives for the war in Vietnam. My contention is that the U.S. government opposed North Vietnam and the Viet Cong because they were communist, which is an economic system abhorrent to capitalists. Thus, the motives of the U.S. government (which is subservient to capitalists) would be economic in nature.

You seem to believe that it was about this thing that some people call "Soviet expansionism." I submit that there was no such thing; it was a fabrication concocted in the minds of U.S. propagandists.

But let's just examine that for a moment: It seems incredulous that our government would be concerned so much about "expansionism" in Southeast Asia, especially since the French had control of Indochina for nearly a century, and we never bothered about it at all. Likewise, the British had Malaya, Singapore, and India, while the Dutch controlled Indonesia. And we even had the Philippines, so we were expansionist too.

Even European countries fought over colonies, such as when the British and French took several German colonies in Africa. We didn't mind. We didn't chide them for "expansionism." Through most of U.S. history, our government didn't really care about "expansionism" into territories that didn't involve us.

But communist expansionism was somehow considered different, and it's clear why our government views it as different. As I mentioned above, our government and their capitalist overlords view communism as abhorrent, and therefore they will do anything they can against it, short of total nuclear war (thank goodness neither side was ever really that crazy).
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
I knew a Chinese person who was a pilot in the South Vietnamese Air Force. There are/were a lot of Chinese people in Vietnam. What does that prove?

I never denied that the Soviet Union helped supply North Vietnam. I think the Chinese helped them at first, but at some point, there was a rift between the two countries. But they never sent troops. The U.S. was operating in such a way as to avoid triggering war with either China or Russia.

As for continuing disagreeing, I think that our disagreement in this case is over the U.S. motives for the war in Vietnam. My contention is that the U.S. government opposed North Vietnam and the Viet Cong because they were communist, which is an economic system abhorrent to capitalists. Thus, the motives of the U.S. government (which is subservient to capitalists) would be economic in nature.

You seem to believe that it was about this thing that some people call "Soviet expansionism." I submit that there was no such thing; it was a fabrication concocted in the minds of U.S. propagandists.

But let's just examine that for a moment: It seems incredulous that our government would be concerned so much about "expansionism" in Southeast Asia, especially since the French had control of Indochina for nearly a century, and we never bothered about it at all. Likewise, the British had Malaya, Singapore, and India, while the Dutch controlled Indonesia. And we even had the Philippines, so we were expansionist too.

Even European countries fought over colonies, such as when the British and French took several German colonies in Africa. We didn't mind. We didn't chide them for "expansionism." Through most of U.S. history, our government didn't really care about "expansionism" into territories that didn't involve us.

But communist expansionism was somehow considered different, and it's clear why our government views it as different. As I mentioned above, our government and their capitalist overlords view communism as abhorrent, and therefore they will do anything they can against it, short of total nuclear war (thank goodness neither side was ever really that crazy).
Did you know the Viet Minh were funded and trained by the OSS during the Second World War as a 5th column against the Japanese? We learn nothing.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Did you know the Viet Minh were funded and trained by the OSS during the Second World War as a 5th column against the Japanese? We learn nothing.

Yes, I knew that. Of course, we were also allied with the Chinese Communists and the Soviet Union at the time.

It's too bad that the spirit of cooperation that existed during WW2 quickly fizzled away after the war was over.
 

The Kilted Heathen

Crow FreyjasmaðR
That is because you misunderstand what freedom of speech is.
Nope. What you describe is the First Amendment. The 1st, however, is not "freedom of speech". Freedom of Speech is nothing more than a concept, and has several restrictions that have legal standing. With "Freedom of Speech" you cannot, without restriction, say or publish things that relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, "fighting words", classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury.

I can legally call people "Idiot, fool, racist" in the real world,
Until it's slander. Or if it incites someone to violence and is considered "fighting words".

I've never found a place in Ameristan that I couldn't visit.
Except for Military Bases, Nuclear plants, Industrial Facilities in general, Government grounds (even a Post Office is off-limits except for the office that is open to the public), Bohemian Grove, Granite Mountain, the Cheyenne Mountain Complex, the Douglas County servers for Google, Fort Knox, and several places in Washington D.C.

In every country, people generally work.
You consider that a lack of freedom?
When you job can dictate your free time, call you in on your off-time, as well as dictate your behavior and public representation while not working? And when your health insurance is tied to your employment? Absolutely, that is a lack of freedom.

I've the freedom to say anything I want.
Not legally.

Compare that with other countries. We're relatively free.
"At least our chains are solid gold, not hard-wrought iron!"

I can buy hi-capacity handguns,
Not without heavy regulations.

fast cars,
Only if they're street-legal.

Also with several restrictions, and some is flat-out illegal.

As said, we have the illusion of freedom. Even if you buy that fast car and that airplane, you don't really own them. They can be seized by the Banks or Government in an instant. You don't even own the music on your iTunes account, you own the permission slip to listen to it so long as it is made available to you.
 
Top