• 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!

Young couple who danced in viral video handed lengthy jail sentence in Iran

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
Overall, I think US foreign policy over the past 20-30 years has been short-sighted and foolish. If we had played our cards right, we could have forged a strong bond of cooperation and friendship with our two former adversaries, Russia and China.

Well, I think all the analysts who were hoping that world trade would change their governments have a point. I mean, we really did stimulate the economy in China with all this trade, we must have. Even to the point where I think it cost america in terms of manufacturing. And Russia as well, with their oil and fertilizer production. It was all supposed to be friendly, but somewhere it broke down. What do you think should have been done on our end

Another thing I noticed early on, way back during the Cold War, was that smaller countries could gain advantage by playing off the larger powers against each other.

That's kind of inverted way of thinking about it, compared to how that is usually thought of. I thought that most of that power-play was between the bigger powers, but maybe you're correct
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Well, I think all the analysts who were hoping that world trade would change their governments have a point. I mean, we really did stimulate the economy in China with all this trade, we must have. Even to the point where I think it cost america in terms of manufacturing. And Russia as well, with their oil and fertilizer production. It was all supposed to be friendly, but somewhere it broke down. What do you think should have been done on our end

Probably a less aggressive foreign policy might have helped. I'm not just speaking of how the US related to Russia or China, but in the world at large. A lot of countries simply don't like the way the US carries out its foreign policy. Even if it doesn't necessarily affect their nations directly, they may still not like it, along with a certain arrogant, supercilious, sanctimonious, and hypocritical attitude which our media and political establishment have worked to an artform.

Also, once the Berlin Wall came down, the Warsaw Pact was dissolved, and the Soviet Union broke up, the world situation changed, yet US policymakers really couldn't keep up, as they were seemingly running on automatic, as if they didn't even know that the Cold War ended. (And maybe it never really ended - or maybe we never really wanted it to end.)

The analysts were obviously wrong. They were ostensibly thinking like bean counters and not as statesmen or true geopoliticians. Gangster (aka "businessmen") politics might work for street wars in urban areas, but on a larger scale, it only invites more of the same, except worse, such as we see with regimes in Iran and Russia.

What we're seeing are the consequences of policies which led to the US military expanding its presence around the world and gallivanting around like some kind of wild warmonger. Teddy Roosevelt spoke about his "Great White Fleet," but now we have 750 bases in 80 countries. It may not technically be an "empire," but I think the Caesars and Napoleons of the world would still be envious.

One of the problems with being the world's champion is that there's always going to be some upstart, some challenger who will want to take you down.


That's kind of inverted way of thinking about it, compared to how that is usually thought of. I thought that most of that power-play was between the bigger powers, but maybe you're correct

Well, it is between the bigger powers, but there were clearly certain ambitious leaders of smaller nations who tried to benefit by becoming players in that game. I don't think people like Castro or Ho Chi Minh were puppets of the Soviet Union. They were their own men, and they had to play the game in such a way that would get a good deal for their own country while still enjoying a certain level of aid and assistance from a larger power. Likewise, many of the dictators the US government backed also did quite nicely for themselves - at least for a while. It didn't turn out too well for the Shah in the end, and even Pinochet had the face the music in the twilight of his life.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
The breakdown was foreign investment. Ours and theirs. Trade is fine. Good for everyone. But the investing should have been kept local.
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
Probably a less aggressive foreign policy might have helped. I'm not just speaking of how the US related to Russia or China, but in the world at large. A lot of countries simply don't like the way the US carries out its foreign policy. Even if it doesn't necessarily affect their nations directly, they may still not like it, along with a certain arrogant, supercilious, sanctimonious, and hypocritical attitude which our media and political establishment have worked to an artform.

What we're seeing are the consequences of policies which led to the US military expanding its presence around the world and gallivanting around like some kind of wild warmonger. Teddy Roosevelt spoke about his "Great White Fleet," but now we have 750 bases in 80 countries. It may not technically be an "empire," but I think the Caesars and Napoleons of the world would still be envious.

Our leaders haven't exactly projected the best optics in terms of harmony, with too much infighting etc. And the american people, those lower in the hierarchy, don't seem to have a lot of 'ownership' on various levels. The populace rents property basically, has no right to health care, and the big money seems like it does go where the top classes decide. One can ask questions on all that. But still, to come back to your op topic, I would posit that none of that stacks up to a good comparison, to this idea of imprisoning people for a decade, for dancing

I can't think of a politician here at least, that would probably do that. Not aoc, not mtg : I bet that neither of them, and anyone in-between, has brought this issue to the floor. So at least, I posit that they are bipartisan on that.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Our leaders haven't exactly projected the best optics in terms of harmony, with too much infighting etc. And the american people, those lower in the hierarchy, don't seem to have a lot of 'ownership' on various levels. The populace rents property basically, has no right to health care, and the big money seems like it does go where the top classes decide. One can ask questions on all that.

Yes, and they would be good questions to ask.

But still, to come back to your op topic, I would posit that none of that stacks up to a good comparison, to this idea of imprisoning people for a decade, for dancing

I can't think of a politician here at least, that would probably do that. Not aoc, not mtg : I bet that neither of them, and anyone in-between, has brought this issue to the floor. So at least, I posit that they are bipartisan on that.

I suppose it depends on how threatened or desperate a government can become.
 
Top