• 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

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
It really does come down to economics, though, at least as the driving force behind politics in the U.S.
How so?
Vietnam wasn't a market or source for us.
Same for China & the USSR.
But we all had designs on expanding our influence.
So if capitalism was responsible for Vietnam hostilities,
then so was socialism. And we didn't profit from the war.
The political enemy explanation seems the better one.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
I sense that you cannot summarize support for his claim.

Phhht.

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

I mean...all I was looking for was for you to say 'Sure, if you put the effort in to write it, I'll put the effort in to properly read it.

Whatevs. I'll write something up tomorrow, but I clearly chose 2 examples of exploitation by the west. Colonialism, if you will. And in neither case was the US the predominant power. Indeed, I already said 'in neither case (Vietnam or South Africa) was it the Americans who soured the relationships initially'. I'm not interested in trying to blame America. This has been a consistent theme which has caused problems, and the Americans came late to this particular game. I could have mentioned other examples, including Kenya or Malaya, and again, nothing to do with the USA.
 

Stevicus

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

I think you may have understood the claim to mean that I was claiming that the U.S. government directed and intentionally caused the Cuban Revolution, which is not what I was claiming.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
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.
...

On the other hand, if we claim to be the "defenders of freedom," ...then we should say that and be consistent about it across the board.

Like everything else in the real world, it's not an either/or choice. The economic and strategic values are weighed along with the freedom issues.

The relative weights of these probably change from administration to administration and even within an administration as circumstances changes.
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
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.
Interestingly, Donald Trump of all people seems to have been reasonably popular among portions of the US population by going almost completely mask off and framing US foreign policy almost entirely in terms of egoistic profit-seeking.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
How so?
Vietnam wasn't a market or source for us.
Same for China & the USSR.
But we all had designs on expanding our influence.
So if capitalism was responsible for Vietnam hostilities,
then so was socialism. And we didn't profit from the war.
The political enemy explanation seems the better one.
at

We had numerous business dealings with the French, the colonial rulers of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. The French were our allies, so their interests were linked to our interests. It was also a key interest when the Japanese invaded that territory, which was part of the chain of events which led to our entry into that war.

Vietnam was well-known as a source of rubber, which the Japanese needed and which still remains a strategic economic interest.

European colonialism was probably the root cause, and U.S. economic interests benefited from that, albeit indirectly - mainly through our economic and diplomatic ties with the French.

Vietnam was the result of an overall policy embraced by US leaders called "containment." The idea was to "contain" communism in smaller countries, while doing everything possible to avoid general war with either China or Russia. Korea was an early example, although it was too close to China as to trigger the Chinese attack. As a result, we limited our forces in Vietnam to refrain from outright attacks or invasions of North Vietnam. We already agreed to allow North Vietnam to remain communist, with the expectation that both North and South would vote for a unified government in 1956, but the US and South Vietnam refused to participate in that election because they knew the communists would win. (So much for our commitment to democracy, eh?)

But the bottom to all of this was economics. The capitalists of the U.S. opposed communism for purely economic reasons. That's they intervened in the Russian Civil War, and it's why we opposed communist movements all over the world. I've heard the Cold War characterized as two alternate religions sending out missionaries to convert the world to their way of thinking.

Ultimately, capitalists will oppose anything they believe will lose them money. They have no other principles or motivation to fight, other than that.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I mean...all I was looking for was for you to say 'Sure, if you put the effort in to write it, I'll put the effort in to properly read it.
This seems uncharacteristic of you....reminding me of
those posters who make claims, & refuse to support
them because I won't understand or read.
I give you the benefit of doubt.
Consider reciprocating without all the finger wagging.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I think you may have understood the claim to mean that I was claiming that the U.S. government directed and intentionally caused the Cuban Revolution, which is not what I was claiming.
No.
Your claim was very specific....
"...the West's relationship with numerous countries deteriorated and went sour because they felt exploited or that the trade relationship was uneven. "
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
at

We had numerous business dealings with the French, the colonial rulers of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. The French were our allies, so their interests were linked to our interests. It was also a key interest when the Japanese invaded that territory, which was part of the chain of events which led to our entry into that war.

Vietnam was well-known as a source of rubber, which the Japanese needed and which still remains a strategic economic interest.

European colonialism was probably the root cause, and U.S. economic interests benefited from that, albeit indirectly - mainly through our economic and diplomatic ties with the French.

Vietnam was the result of an overall policy embraced by US leaders called "containment." The idea was to "contain" communism in smaller countries, while doing everything possible to avoid general war with either China or Russia. Korea was an early example, although it was too close to China as to trigger the Chinese attack. As a result, we limited our forces in Vietnam to refrain from outright attacks or invasions of North Vietnam. We already agreed to allow North Vietnam to remain communist, with the expectation that both North and South would vote for a unified government in 1956, but the US and South Vietnam refused to participate in that election because they knew the communists would win. (So much for our commitment to democracy, eh?)

But the bottom to all of this was economics. The capitalists of the U.S. opposed communism for purely economic reasons. That's they intervened in the Russian Civil War, and it's why we opposed communist movements all over the world. I've heard the Cold War characterized as two alternate religions sending out missionaries to convert the world to their way of thinking.

Ultimately, capitalists will oppose anything they believe will lose them money. They have no other principles or motivation to fight, other than that.
Yes, the French had economic ties.
But the US?
Saying that we went to war because of capitalist relationships
with France is a stretch. The expansion of an enemy is the
stronger explanation, ie, hatred of "godless communists"
because of who they are & their expansionism....not because
they had a failing economic system.

You'd have a real case in expansion into Amerindian territories.
That's the argument I'd make against unregulated capitalism.
 

The Kilted Heathen

Crow FreyjasmaðR
I can travel where I want,
Within the country? Maybe. If you have money, which is a tight commodity for many. Additionally one would have to take time off work, which often causes a hit to finances, if that time off is even approved. Skipping forward as well, Sundown Towns are still a thing, so... that's definitely not freedom. Several areas of the nation are restricted, regulated, or prohibited.

say what I want,
Not really. We like to hold this illusion that we have "freedom of speech" but we don't. Saying the wrong thing can often lose you everything, as we've seen often in recent years. From racial slurs to simple dissent against popular opinion, saying what you want often comes with a litany of consequences and punishments. It's so bad in some instances that my 17 year old coworker can't even tell a regular to stop his inappropriate advances without fear of retaliation or losing her job.

buy what I want, etc.
With significant restrictions and regulations on several things. Some of which are good ideas, granted, but "buying whatever you want" just doesn't work for everyone with everything that is tacked on as prerequisite.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Not really. We like to hold this illusion that we have "freedom of speech" but we don't. Saying the wrong thing can often lose you everything, as we've seen often in recent years. From racial slurs to simple dissent against popular opinion, saying what you want often comes with a litany of consequences and punishments. It's so bad in some instances that my 17 year old coworker can't even tell a regular to stop his inappropriate advances without fear of retaliation or losing her job.
That is because you misunderstand what freedom of speech is. We do have freedom of speech, politically. The government cannot arrest us for supporting various candidates that may not be liked. But if one wants to live in the real world there can be consequences for one's speech and that is perfectly rational. I can legally call people "Idiot, fool, racist" in the real world, but if I tried that here I would be banned.

When people say stupid things in real life it can get them fired. But it will not result in imprisonment unless one violates the rights of others. For example I cannot threaten to kill my neighbor. That is violating his rights by making him reasonably feel unsafe.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Within the country? Maybe.
Maybe?
Pish posh!
I've never found a place in Ameristan that I couldn't visit.
All 4 corners, & in between.....including HI, but not AK
If you have money, which is a tight commodity for many. Additionally one would have to take time off work, which often causes a hit to finances, if that time off is even approved. Skipping forward as well, Sundown Towns are still a thing, so... that's definitely not freedom. Several areas of the nation are restricted, regulated, or prohibited.
In every country, people generally work.
You consider that a lack of freedom?
And travel can be cheap.
Oh, the years I spent hitchhiking around
the midwest...sleeping under bridges, never
quite dressing appropriately for changing
weather...heat, cold, & rain.
But driving is cheap enuf, especially with
ride sharing.
Not really. We like to hold this illusion that we have "freedom of speech" but we don't. Saying the wrong thing can often lose you everything, as we've seen often in recent years. From racial slurs to simple dissent against popular opinion, saying what you want often comes with a litany of consequences and punishments. It's so bad in some instances that my 17 year old coworker can't even tell a regular to stop his inappropriate advances without fear of retaliation or losing her job.
I've the freedom to say anything I want. (But then I've
no desire to threaten to kill anyone.) I can advocate for
my marginal political party, one despised by the Big 2, ie,
Libertarian. And I can blaspheme & utter hate speech in
complete comfort, with nary a peep of objection from the
dominant Christians.
Compare that with other countries. We're relatively free.
(Commercial speech can be pretty restricted though.)
With significant restrictions and regulations on several things. Some of which are good ideas, granted, but "buying whatever you want" just doesn't work for everyone with everything that is tacked on as prerequisite.
I can buy hi-capacity handguns, fast cars, airplanes, porn,
yachts, mansions, & many other things that polite society
would frown upon. (Although my yacht is a canoe, & my
mansion is a 3 bedroom house...but I have a guest house.)
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
No.
Your claim was very specific....
"...the West's relationship with numerous countries deteriorated and went sour because they felt exploited or that the trade relationship was uneven. "

So, what's the issue then? This is not some bizarre claim out of left field. U.S. imperialism has been well-known and documented extensively.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
So, what's the issue then? This is not some bizarre claim out of left field. U.S. imperialism has been well-known and documented extensively.
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.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes, the French had economic ties.
But the US?
Saying that we went to war because of capitalist relationships
with France is a stretch. The expansion of an enemy is the
stronger explanation, ie, hatred of "godless communists"
because of who they are & their expansionism....not because
they had a failing economic system.

You'd have a real case in expansion into Amerindian territories.
That's the argument I'd make against unregulated capitalism.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. There was no "expansionism," unless you're saying the Vietnamese were expanding within their own country.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Maybe?
Pish posh!
I've never found a place in Ameristan that I couldn't visit.
All 4 corners, & in between.....including HI, but not AK

In every country, people generally work.
You consider that a lack of freedom?
And travel can be cheap.
Oh, the years I spent hitchhiking around
the midwest...sleeping under bridges, never
quite dressing appropriately for changing
weather...heat, cold, & rain.
But driving is cheap enuf, especially with
ride sharing.

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.

I've the freedom to say anything I want. (But then I've
no desire to threaten to kill anyone.) I can advocate for
my marginal political party, one despised by the Big 2, ie,
Libertarian. And I can blaspheme & utter hate speech in
complete comfort, with nary a peep of objection from the
dominant Christians.
Compare that with other countries. We're relatively free.
(Commercial speech can be pretty restricted though.)

You know, I was thinking on this point, and it occurred that no one really gets arrested for saying something bad. Or at least, the official charges they face won't indicate that. Martin Luther King, for example, was hounded and harassed because of his speeches as a leading figure in the Civil Rights Movement. He was arrested numerous times.

Or when it came to anti-war protesters, there'd be charges like "interfering with the peaceful conduct of an educational institution," just so the authorities could say "We're not arresting them for speech," but some other violation.

So, while it's technically true that people can't be arrested for speech in this country, if your speech happens to anger the Powers That Be, they'll put a microscope on you and find something to arrest you for.

As for other countries, I suppose it varies from country to country. Some countries are more free than the U.S., although the majority of world nations are less free. "Freedom" is a relative term.

I can buy hi-capacity handguns, fast cars, airplanes, porn,
yachts, mansions, & many other things that polite society
would frown upon. (Although my yacht is a canoe, & my
mansion is a 3 bedroom house...but I have a guest house.)

Well, it's only been within the past few decades that porn has been legalized, even under the current Constitution with the First Amendment. There was a time when it was banned. And it was considered acceptable to do so and did not affect anyone's perceptions about free speech. It was considered "smut," with no redeeming value to society. The courts have been more liberal about such things these days, so now you can get all the porn you want.

But I guess everything is open to interpretation.
 
Top