Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea
And there we part company, and that is part of the failed foreign policy of the ignominious President Jimmy Carter.
Foreign policy is policy designed to address how your country interacts and protects its interests. Nations failing to protect and primarily to address its interests fail.
I can't see it any more clearly than that.
From the beginning of time, no successful culture has ever believed or conducted itself in that manner. As learned as you are, you come up with some doozies.
Study the Mongols, China, Russia, Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Great Britain, Minoans, and none of those cultures ever adopted that point of view. Other than naivete, what makes you believe that perspective is valid?
How could it relate to commerce?
It's akin to stating that Standard Oil's purpose should be to promote solar power and to disregard its duties to its shareholders.
|
None of those cultures ever adopted that point of view, and each of their empires subsequently collapsed. You haven't given me a great example of how their foreign policy led to preservation!
You are failing to see that promoting law and order and human rights can also promote selfish interests. Countries that observe law, order and human rights also tend to be more stable economically and, thus, better trading partners. They also pose less of a threat to our security interests. Same thing with BP, for example, who is spending billions of dollars on finding alternatives to oil. It is great for the world that they do it, and it is also great for them because then they will have a product that they can profit from at the end.
Another example: dolphin safe tuna. People got angry that tuna nets were killing dolphins, so corporations made their nets dolphin safe. You almost can't buy tuna today that doesn't say "dolphin safe" on the label. They did something good at considerable expense which then came back to be beneficial for them in the end (by attracting customers again).