Interesting how the US equates her own jurisdiction with 'the law.'
During the HK debacle they made this statement:
> If Hong Kong doesn't act soon, it will complicate our bilateral relations and raise questions about Hong Kong's commitment to the rule of law.
And again regarding Russia:
> I would urge them to live by the standards of the law because that is in the interest of everybody.
Universal jurisdiction is a difficult policy to enforce since it can be challenged so plainly and directly by other state actors, especially if it's enforced selectively based on diplomatic convenience.
US government is the most selfish country in the world. They sit on #2 oil mine in the world (Alaska) but yet continue to suck it up from any other place.
And yes indeed its irony how they believe the only law everyone needs to comply is the one they set up. And if they decide to use nuclear weapon of course it will be in accordance with rule of law and in "interest of everybody". Yuck. That abuse of basic words: everyone, everybody, everywhere. My parents gave me really good advice: do not ever listen or trust people who continuously abuse those words.
> US government is the most selfish country in the world. They sit on #2 oil mine in the world (Alaska) but yet continue to suck it up from any other place.
Isn't that just logical, however? Other countries could do the same, but they prefer to exchange their reserves for dollars. Once the other countries reserves start to run out, then the US will begin tapping theirs.
Is it really that smart ?
By doing so the president commits crimes against humanity, incentives lots of people to attack the US, kills privacy for the sake of security and does so while violating the constitution. The list goes on and on.
Meanwhile, the people (not the government !) end up paying for this madness. Literally and figuratively.
A smart thing to do would have been to fund programs that bring alternatives on the market.
That may not even have been necessary. (high oil prices is a big enough incentive)
If he had invested all that war money in alternatives, the world would love the US.
But look at what's happening now !
The guy at the top is worse than Bush.
He then bullies and threatens foreign countries in an attempt to shut down journalists.
How smart is all that ?
The US could have innovated its way out of oil dependency problem.
It choose not to.
How smart is that ?
> Is it really that smart ? By doing so the president commits crimes against humanity, incentives lots of people to attack the US, kills privacy for the sake of security and does so while violating the constitution. The list goes on and on. Meanwhile, the people (not the government !) end up paying for this madness. Literally and figuratively.
[Disclaimer: this is a foreigner's point of view. US citizens are welcome to step in this discussion and correct my points]
Not all of that follows. For instance, it is not automatically true that the US commits crimes against humanity by not using its own reserves. It can be argued that it shouldn't be buying oil from some countries, but it is really not its fault that the government of said countries is using the spare dollars to fuel their own agenda.
I see no merits at in any terrorist attacks on US soil, even if they resulted in no casualties. If some of these groups had a point, even then the responsibility must be shared between the US and other countries. "Oh, the US did such and such to my country!". Well, aren't we talking about sovereign states here? And again, not all foreign policies are about oil.
Yeah, I agree that it would be even more logical to spend more resources in order to develop alternatives to oil, at least as a fuel - there are other things we extract from it that are valuable and perhaps not as easy to replace, such as fertilizers and plastic. But research takes time, and oil is needed now. Furthermore, with such a huge military force, the US needs a lot of it. I can't imagine an all-electric airforce anytime soon, or electric tanks.
Now, if you want to argue that some (but not most, and certainly not all!) resources could be diverted from the military towards such programs, then I would agree. But I am not so sure that isn't happening already, it could as well be. Some of that research might be classified, even.
Back in the 70s a lot of alternative systems were coming available when oil prices were sky high due to an oil embargo. A lot of initiatives were started all over the world to become independent and to develop alternative sources of energy.
It's very unfortunate all that innovation was stopped soon after the oil price went back down again.
What it always seems to come down to : a threat followed by a political decision.
But as soon as the threat is gone, almost all innovation is being stopped.
And that's very unfortunate.
We've seen something similar when the US got the first human on the Moon.
There was a threat, a political decision, a lot of innovation and then the threat disappeared and the funding dried up.
I wasn't born yet in 1969 but I do remember reading about it as a kid.
And when I grew up I was wearing a sweater with the letters USA on it.
I wasn't the only one, far from it.
And here we are. Decades later.
There's another threat, imo.
All we need is a political decision.
If it comes, I'm gonna try and be the first one to say it's a smart decision.
The U.S. doesn't get most of its oil from abroad though. We get most of it between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. The idea that the U.S. is ravenously hounding Arab countries for their oil is pretty much just a leftist myth at this point.
Most Arab oil goes to China, India, Europe. Even the Arab oil that does go to the U.S. is typically just to be refined and processed so it can turn right around and be exported back to other countries.
> The U.S. doesn't get most of its oil from abroad though. We get most of it between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico.
Canada and Mexico are part of "abroad", unless they've secretly been annexed when we were all distracted by Snowden.
Also, it doesn't get "most" from Canada and Mexico. More like a third of its imports.
> The idea that the U.S. is ravenously hounding Arab countries for their oil is pretty much just a leftist myth at this point.
OPEC, as a large cartel that controls enough of the world supply to substantially influence market prices, is an important target for influence for any purchaser of oil whether or not they directly get oil from them. That said, the US gets lots of oil from OPEC, including its Arab members; Saudi Arabia, for instance, is the #2 source of imported US oil, and Iraq and Kuwait, and are significant sources as well -- and of the non-Arab OPEC members, Venezuela is #4, some months topping Mexico as #3, and Nigeria is significant as well.)
Canada and Mexico are encompassed by free trade agreements. I walked past a Canadian government poster right here in DC the other day gloating about being the #1 oil exporter to the U.S. I should hope that my overall point is not lost in the quibbling about whether invading Iraq for oil is the same as buying it from a willing seller next door.
As for OPEC, it is true that the U.S. imports a lot of oil... it is also true that it exports a lot of refined petroleum products, as I had hinted at but didn't make fully clear. The actual U.S. usage for oil can be mostly made up by domestic (incl. regional) production, the excess refining capacity goes to support giving Europe and other nations high-quality gasoline and other products.
I don't think this is strategic intent as you're reading it. There's a world market and world price for oil. The US dips into their strategic reserve when prices get too high. This isn't consistent with "hoarding" oil in Alaska. It's environmental concerns that hold off on drilling in Alaska. Similarly, the issues with Shale isn't hoarding, it's environmental. In general it's citizen groups pushing back against drilling (Alaska or Shale) not on the US government.
You're absolutely right to question and confirm when people use such terms. They're almost always used by liars.
But one word of caution: it's important to keep in mind that you need to confirm by default, not simply ignore by default. For example, one of the dangers of ignoring by default is that the same advice could be pointed at itself. Just because the statement uses such a wide ranging word doesn't make it false by default. It's just the unfortunate circumstance of the modern world that so many people who use such terms don't actually know anything.
It is funny how the now call the Internationa Treatises (if there is one, which I am inclined to doubt), "Law"... Taking into account that, well, the USA has not signed one of the most important in the world (not that I agree with it, just pointing the fact): the existence and admission of the International Criminal Court.
I don't understand your point. The US is arguing that treaties that have been agreed to between HK and US should be honored because they are "the law" between those two countries. The US has not signed the ICC treaty, as you stated, so that is not "the law" binding the US. You have no point here unless the US had signed the treaty but failed to respect its terms.
You are right, I just wanted to emphasize the single-sidedness of the US whenever it suits them and the 'oh-people-you-have-to-abide-by-the-law' when not.
The ICC was one of the BIG things as far as 'International Law' goes. The US did not enter because 'we do not want our military to be judged by foreigners' (in G.W. Bush's words), just as they did with the Germans after WWII.
Like you, I'm opposed to bringing charges against Snowden. But that first statement you quoted is completely reasonable.
The United States is just saying, in fewer words:
> The United States and Hong Kong have a treaty—an agreement under international law. We are confident that our request for Snowden is covered by the treaty. If Hong Kong doesn't uphold its side of the treaty by complying with our request, it will raise questions about their commitment to the rule of law—international law, in particular.
During the HK debacle they made this statement:
> If Hong Kong doesn't act soon, it will complicate our bilateral relations and raise questions about Hong Kong's commitment to the rule of law.
And again regarding Russia:
> I would urge them to live by the standards of the law because that is in the interest of everybody.
Universal jurisdiction is a difficult policy to enforce since it can be challenged so plainly and directly by other state actors, especially if it's enforced selectively based on diplomatic convenience.