We want to be green so we're trying to stop drilling for oil. But we also need oil because our society runs on it. This guy has oil. This guy can therefore do whatever he likes.
This is obviously way better than drilling at home.
The United States is the largest producer of oil in the world. We just don't nationalize it. We give it away to foreign owned oil corporations who then gouge us at the pump.
Saudi Arabia is key in keeping global energy prices lower by increasing global supply, and is also a key ally in a historically unstable region which impacts those prices.
>and is also a key ally in a historically unstable region which impacts those prices.
they were until democrats spent their last two presidencies trying to fund and justify the nuclear research of SA's biggest regional rival who is already funding catspaw wars against SA - Iran.
Then when you ask them to lower the price of oil they wonder why you've spent multiple years working against them while coming now to beg for their kindness.
Iran is not an ally, they're a sworn enemy that the democrats have imagined they can bribe into becoming a friend because they don't understand Iran's motivation is not money but religious ideology.
It's the worst kind of political delerium - funding you enemies and your ally's enemies and then wondering why your allies aren't "reliable" - hint its you not being reliable while you're funding their enemies and trying to excuse their nuclear weapon program. Its the US that was a fickle ally.
All of the major players in that region are motivated by religious ideology, including US allies.
You also seem to be confused, the JCPOA actively halted their nuclear weapons program, which was all that it intended to do, not “make iran into a friend”. Hawks like yourself are the ones who have set everything back.
The US should be less involved in the region. Seeking to balance power between Iran, Saudi and Israel rather than actively getting in the middle of their conflicts.
>Saudi Arabia is key in keeping global energy prices lower by increasing global supply, and is also a key ally in a historically unstable region which impacts those prices.
The key to keeping energy prices low for the US is to stop giving away our oil and then focus on shifting our economy to an energy source that can't be manipulated by foreign powers trying to influence our elections.
You seem to have strongly worded opinions, but I'm having a hard time figuring out what exactly you're asking for.
Petroleum is ~ 8% of the US GDP, and produces about $1.7 trillion dollars a year in direct economic activity, employing about 10 million folks.
Near as I can tell, the US doesn't give away any of our oil at all. It sells it, at market rate, often after doing a lot of value add refining.
Some of it goes to domestic use, some of it gets exported internationally, depending on the specific mix of market demands at the moment.
Are you proposing the US... ban exports of Oil or oil products? Or ban imports or Oil or oil products? Or invest a lot of money in alternative energy/renewable energy? Or take over enough oil producing countries no one can manipulate prices except us?
Well, its a bit tongue in cheek in that I'm not proposing anything really. My overall point is that the US government massively subsidizes foreign-owned oil and gas companies
Of course, those are written subsidies. There is the major subsidy of allowing them to drill for oil on the publics land.
Of course, we've massively increased the amount of drilling we've allowed do the drum beat of "energy independence", when the reality is that because the oil is privately owned, no amount of oil drilling will actually make the price of gasoline stable or cheap for consumers.
What we actually need to do is move away from a gasoline based economy, but until then the government should heavily tax exports of oil to discourage foreign-owned companies from exporting it while we have a shortage here. Oil and gas lobbyist have been using their corporate owned politicians in Congress to block moving to sustainable energy since the Carter administration. We need massive investment in sustainable energy and energy efficient transit and manufacturing.
But we wont. The price of gas will go down again. Americans will buy even bigger cars, and then cry when OPEC jacks the price up again.
The most controversial thing in recent times (here in Canada too) isn't even drilling, it's moving oil efficiently over pipelines vs via dirty trucks and busy rail lines.
There's much more opportunity for political activism when pipes go over lots of small pieces of land vs drilling one big piece of land.
Pipelines are notoriously dirty, since the owners can't seem to stop them from leaking, spilling, blowing up, or otherwise malfunctioning. Wikipedia has a handy list of lists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_.... If somebody wanted to put an oil pipeline near my property I'd definitely wouldn't feel safe with it there.
It is not that they can't - they just keep more money if they don't. Which shouldn't be surprising in an industry that is literally destroying the world to make money.
This is what activists fail to understand for ideological reason. Oil will flow, one way or another: be it truck, rail or pipeline. The only thing that would stop the flow is cessation in demand. Which means their efforts would be better used agitating for wind, solar and other renewables.
This guy has oil. This guy can therefore do whatever he likes.
There's lots of guys who had oil who, when they did things the US didn't like, found themselves without anyone to sell oil to, without a country to run or maybe worse.
I agree KSA has a special relationship with the US (and much of the west), but it's not just about oil.
Literally just repeating oil industry talking points.
The US produces a ton of oil, we also have no export restrictions on oil products, so no matter how much we produce domestically, we are still dependent on the swings of the global market.
We get close to no oil from Saudi, yet as the head of the most powerful cartel in the world, they have immense power and influence. No amount of “drill baby drill” is going to change that.
Pressuring GA to manufacture exactly the # of votes he needed to win, inciting a violent insurrection with the express purpose of remaining in power despite knowing he lost the election, stealing 27 boxes of classified material, Trump Organization tax fraud... take your pick.
The same happened to Modi, the PM of India, if my memory serves me right. He was banned from entering USA for his deeds, until he turned out to be the head of India.
Apparently your only way out is to be the head of your state, if you have done something evil.
Let me clarify some points at the risk of sounding like a Modi supporter. Modi had gone though investigations and was acquitted by the Supreme court of India. It was definitely failure of government mechanism and officials but not state sponsored voilence.
"
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed allegations of "larger conspiracy" levelled by Zakia Jafri, widow of Congress leader Ehsan Jafri who was killed in the 2002 Gujarat riots, against former Chief Minister Narendra Modi and over 60 senior state officials.
Inaction or failure of "some officials of one section of the State administration" cannot be the basis to infer a pre-planned criminal conspiracy by the State government, the court held.
The failure of certain officials cannot be inferred as a "State-sponsored crime (violence) against the minority community", the Supreme Court said.
I don't think it is an absolute monarchy, my understanding is the Saudi state is a web of fiefdoms of individual members of the royal family. The right hand doesn't always know what the left hand is doing, e.g. the 9/11 attacks.
How is investigation of Modi by "Supreme court of India" an independent investigation? It is the classic case of "we looked into our wrong doing and found nothing"
During the first impeachment trial they agreed to not hear from any witnesses or allow new documents into evidence since his party controlled the senate.
Yes, the investigation is independent. What I believe you mean to suggest is that it is not impartial and lacks the adversarial natural of a US legal tribunal.
This is just an argument about definitions. "Independent" means "from a different power center".
Now, it is entirely fair to argue that that the powers in question are colluding in some way. But most states that haven't been subverted into authoritarianism have multiple actors with the power and (sometimes) will to investigate other ones.
I mean, if you take that argument far enough, no human could judge any other human, because none of them are "independent".
> Let me clarify some points at the risk of sounding like a Modi supporter.
Just to clarify on you not being a Modi supporter: Do you feel that Modi is doing not enough or too much to combat terrorists/internal threats in India?
My suspicion is that you are to the right of Modi but intentionally trying to obscure that by saying that you aren't a Modi supporter, which would typically imply to the left of Modi. A brief perusal of your comments seems to suggest that is the case.
Even worse there is direct video confession by the rapists and murderers (who were convicted later) of Modi starting the riots and supporting them with state apparatus.
To double down, this year Modis central government set several rapists and murderers who had been given life sentences free on Indian Independence Day and issued election tickets to the relatives of the convicted rapists and murderers.
Your linking to a report on the supreme court judgement in a "left leaning" newspaper as some kind of evidence is absurd. It's a report about the judgment not an editorial.
Saudi Arabia also has a legal system in which people were actually punished for the Killing. Plus his family was given lots of money as blood money.
Modi was dismissed. They didn't look into it. He avoided All investigations when it happened and still avoids questioning to this day. No one was punished. No blood money made its way. Nothing.
Many more people died at modi's hands than MBS. There is no comparison.
She hasn't returned to the UK for the trial. It'll be a question of if she gets extradited or not. The US state department has said extraditing her would be highly inappropriate and an abuse.
Realistically, the US aren't sending her back. And considering she works/worked for the CIA, it's not exactly surprising.
If I'm reading the Wikipedia article correctly, she got approval from the judge in the UK to attend the trial virtually. She has been requested to attend the sentencing in person, but that hasn't happened yet.
The UK has requested that she be extradited. They refused. The first time ever the US has refused a UK extradition.
She has stated that she will not return on her own free will to face a prison sentence for this accident.
She had diplomatic immunity so clearly the US aren't going to send her back. And if you were her you wouldn't go back to go to prison. This is basically a show trial.
We award nobel peace prizes to warlords and people who commit genocide along with other acts against humanity. What an age we live in when awards are not given post humorously and cannot be revoked.
I don't believe in post-hoc awards removal. If you awarded something, you do it with no possibility of taking it back even if the recipient turns out to be the worst bastard ever later on.
I do believe big and serious awards should be done posthumously. I don't believe in for example, naming Airports or large buildings after someone who is/was still a live at dedication time.
However, I will acquiesce to asterisks --not removals.
This is problematic because one of the underpinnings of western liberalism is the notion of Rule of Law: that, at the end of the day, we are all bound to the same rules.
They are governed by the rules determined by whoever decides what the hell exactly "the rules-based international order" is — or rather they're not, much as some like that to be the case.
Right, and one of those rules is "heads of state are exempt from all rules". Otherwise Obama would be getting sued for ordering drone strikes and we can't have that.
This is the way of the world. At certain point, there are those who are above the law. Even if we argue that international law is basically 'might is right', it is fascinating, because it effectively brings us as back as a species to medieval kingdoms rules with all the issues that those bring.
And yes, I know there are good and valid reason for leaders to be given some level of immunity to allow them to not be, well, targeted and locked up by current regime on trumped charges, but this is not the situation we have in place here ( and those tend to be limited by the time they serve in office - MBS is likely to enjoy this immunity for life ).
I don't know if it is the real threat of impending nuclear war ( and everything that was done so far to prevent it ) that makes me so depressed about the world, but it is harder and harder for me not to feel.. disappointed with the way things are.
edit: FWIW, Biden finally recognized the reality of who is running that particular kingdom. In a way, it is an embarrassing political defeat, which I assume was purchased with something. I suppose we will find out that what that something was in coming months.
Just yesterday I saw a clip on CNN of Merrick Garland saying nobody is above the law. At the time he was being asked about the Jan 6 investigation. I guess he should have said "only current heads of state are above the law".
Hardly new. Every US president of the last 20 years has ordered the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians through drone programs and wars. It is worth getting angry over, but the rot starts at the top.
If we object to a foreign country killing their own citizens, we can invade the foreign country and overthrow the ruler to make them stop killing (or threaten to invade unless they stop the killing). If we don't want to do that, we could try to put sanctions on them. If we can't do that either, there's not much we can do.
In this case it's quite the opposite, though: the Saudis have power over our government. They control the taps that release oil, the release of oil controls gas prices, gas prices have a documented effect on election results.
If the party in power wants to win the midterms they need the Saudis to supply enough oil. It's wild how openly corrupt the whole thing is.
Well, America’s superpower status rests on being the reserve currency for petroleum imports so, in reality, KSA has America in a vise.
The US can’t do anything to antagonise KSA because the direct result will be KSA accepting currencies other than the dollar for petrol, which will lower the global demand for dollars, leading to devaluation of the USD leading to economic calamity.
I’m sure MBS, Biden, Trump, Obama, Putin, Xi, and every world leader knows this.
The green economy is going to upend the world order for reasons other than simply reducing dependency on fossil fuels, imo.
Why does international oil trade primarily happen in dollars then even when USA is neither of those countries nor is it the biggest trade partner for either of those countries?
Also, what industrial base?
Also, How does Srilanka holding dollars benefit from a strong US consumer market?
> Why does international oil trade primarily happen in dollars then even when USA is neither of those countries nor is it the biggest trade partner for either of those countries?
Most international trade happens in dollars. This is due in part to competence: the Fed had electronic payments in 1915 [1]. In part to geopolitics: America was the only advanced economy not bombed into oblivion after WWII, an advantage it used to create the Bretton Woods system [2]. And in part to practicality: there aren't many freely-convertible currencies issued by big, stable countries.
> what industrial base?
The U.S. is a massive manufacturer and manufactured-goods exporter [3]. (Number 2 is Europe, another reserve currency issuer. Number 1 is China, which doesn't have an open capital account.)
> How does Srilanka holding dollars benefit from a strong US consumer market?
Both Russia and China have been pushing to do their oil settlements in a basket of currencies and not just the dollar. This should tell you all you need to know why KSA has the US right where it wants them.
The British Pound is a powerful currency backed by an industrial base and a consumer led economy everyone wants to sell into. EUR is the same way. But neither of them are superpowers because no other country needs the GBP or EUR like they need the USD.
Countries all around the world keep USD in their current account balance even if they barely import stuff from the US because every country needs oil and oil can only be bought with dollars.
Say your high school bully demanded 10 SchruteBucks every day to leave you alone at lunch. And the only supplier of SchruteBucks in the whole world was this paper salesman called Dwight Schrute.
Quite evidently, your entire life would revolve around making sure Dwight was still willing to give you SchruteBucks just so that your bully would stay off your back for one more day.
That bully is KSA. Dwight is the US. The kid sucking up to Dwight is all the other countries in the world.
When Putin rants about a unipolar world, this is what he is talking about.
It’s an unjust world where we can’t afford to antagonise the US without also running the risk of not being able to buy petrol to run our economy.
Misleading headline by the BBC, as is tradition. He wasn't given anything, it's simply the status quo - whether we like it our not. It's also not a US thing but an international convention: https://www.justsecurity.org/68801/head-of-state-immunity-is...
I think your reply is the joke, the Poster comment is making good point, Saddam Hussein & Gadaffi were removed by US war machine. It's just a war that suits the US.
He was not given immunity, he has de-facto immunity due to his position.
Imagine if that didn't exist? Biden visits Qatar and gets arrested for dis-respecting their leaders? I can see that all working out.
The truth is, I doubt there would be much decent evidence that would hold up in Court. It's like Russians being murdered outside of Russia, "of course" Putin would have had to order it but "of course" wouldn't cut it in Court.
>Imagine if that didn't exist? Biden visits Qatar and gets arrested for dis-respecting their leaders? I can see that all working out.
I do not have a problem with that. If you want to be part of the civilized world, you have to act civilized. And if Qatar wants to arrest Biden for disrespect, then either Qatar’s leaders will find out what the US spends its military funds on, or US taxpayers will find out how much of a waste all those aircraft carriers were.
This is a bad take, as it would make diplomacy a very precarious proposition (whereas its entire purpose is to be weak & non-committal). Diplomatic immunity is nothing new and in fact MBS doesn't even assert conduct-based immunity (he's using the even broader "head of state immunity").
> I do not see how the people of the USA benefit from this arrangement.
Because you're shortsighted in your hatred for MBS. MBS can be deposed and hung in a public square (along with the entire royal family) for all I care, but that doesn't mean immunity isn't an important diplomatic tool.
To be clear, the US is the largest oil producer in the world, and is a net exporter of oil.[1][2] (Shale is a large part of that growth in the last decade)
The US benefits when oil prices increase. If you want to speculate on the geopolitical reasons for this action, it could be to help the allies of the US by driving oil prices down through OPEC production plans. If you want to speculate on the domestic reasons for this, it could be to try to keep gas prices lower at the expense of overall US GDP.
In the end, a brutal dictator gets diplomatic immunity and prestige and the rest of the world averts its eyes to keep its economies well-functioning.
I’m not sure about that. Generally the US economy benefits from lower oil prices and I think that outweighs any losses incurred by the oil industry. That’s especially relevant now with inflation being such a huge concern.
>Generally the US economy benefits from lower oil prices
Before the 2010s, yes. But not now, not in this era of Shale. It has changed everything.
"Oil prices do have an impact on the U.S. economy, but it goes two ways because of the diversity of industries. High oil prices can drive job creation and investment as it becomes economically viable for oil companies to exploit higher-cost shale oil deposits. However, high oil prices also hit businesses and consumers with higher transportation and manufacturing costs. Lower oil prices hurt the unconventional oil activity, but benefits manufacturing and other sectors where fuel costs are a primary concern." [1]
This is disturbing. Outside of this, I actually deleted the Twitter App from my phone a few weeks ago when I found out they still own a huge part of Twitter.
It's just how it works unfortunately. Imagine if the whole world should justifiably call for arresting three decades of US presidents and generals over all the murders and deaths in the middle east, how would that work? Would you agree to it?
And it was good that we did go after him! But the issue is our own western leaders and generals walking free when they have the blood of hundreds of thousands innocent lives on their hands.
The war in the Middle East is tough because it was congress who gave the power to invade, but the president also had the ability to not invade as the head of the DoD.
I’m fairly certain if GWB didn’t invade Iraq/Afghanistan he would have been impeached due to the fervour in the USA at that time. Looking back many agree that invading the Middle East was a mistake, but at the time there was only one Congress person (Barbara Lee) who voted against giving powers to invade, and that person was deeply ostracized for their choice.
Invading the Middle East was an atrocity, but who is responsible? The American public? The president? Congress?
Is "Whataboutism" a word that you learnt at your online CIA training course?
Joke aside, i don't think it's "whataboutism", it's more like identifying inconsistencies and contradictions in the way they operate, nothing more, a mere citizen who try to understand
While I think I get the point you're trying to make, one is a murder of a single individual in their embassy. The other is an all out war across a border. Not sure how they are really comparable.
This is called "Realpolitik": international relations are meant to serve your national interests, not ethical principles. By now, the main national interest in the West is to not give oil money to the psychotic butcher in Moscow. The Saudi butcher is a little less psychotic by comparison.
There are dozens of philosophers that advanced this idea: Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes,...
Many of the most famous statesmen in history were followers of this principle: Richelieu, Frederik the Great, Von Clausewitz, Otto Von Bismark, Metternich, Henry Kissinger,... Unsurprisingly, many of them were Germans. And none of them was a nice person.
But this "Realpolitik" was already contested successfully by India ( among others ). Are you saying that this example does not test the rule? Perfect should not be the enemy of the good?
I buy your argument, but your example is not good.
> contested successfully by India ( among others ).
Yes, also by my native country, Brazil. Shame on us for that.
In the end dirty affairs/realpolitik are what things are, not what they should be, right?
Up until WWII, "Realpolitik" is what gave us so many wars, so little commerce, so little international cooperation, so much European imperialism, ...
So I do agree we need to find ethics in international relations. One important reason my country (Brazil) gave up on slavery was British pressure. Global Warming won't be solved without ethics commitment.
I thought the rule of law was the reason behind the endless quest to disqualify Trump from being the President or running for the Presidency, but actually heads of state can sawzall barely-critical journalists into a pile of body parts as a fee for a marriage license.
> "This is a legal determination made by the State Department under longstanding and well-established principles of customary international law," a spokesperson for the White House National Security Council said in a written statement.
...
> "It has nothing to do with the merits of the case."
Pretty strange that this is how the international law works in 2022. We have ways to go, I suppose.
FWIW. This also looks like a pretty convenient loophole for the Biden administration to 'normalize' the relationships with the KSA and MBS, in particular. They'll keep calling him names like murderer and say that our hands are tied because of the international law.
185 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 241 ms ] threadThis is obviously way better than drilling at home.
In 2021, it also happened to be a net exporter or petroleum overall, but usually it bounces around.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-produc...
Saudi Arabia is key in keeping global energy prices lower by increasing global supply, and is also a key ally in a historically unstable region which impacts those prices.
they were until democrats spent their last two presidencies trying to fund and justify the nuclear research of SA's biggest regional rival who is already funding catspaw wars against SA - Iran.
Then when you ask them to lower the price of oil they wonder why you've spent multiple years working against them while coming now to beg for their kindness.
It's the worst kind of political delerium - funding you enemies and your ally's enemies and then wondering why your allies aren't "reliable" - hint its you not being reliable while you're funding their enemies and trying to excuse their nuclear weapon program. Its the US that was a fickle ally.
All of the major players in that region are motivated by religious ideology, including US allies.
You also seem to be confused, the JCPOA actively halted their nuclear weapons program, which was all that it intended to do, not “make iran into a friend”. Hawks like yourself are the ones who have set everything back.
The US should be less involved in the region. Seeking to balance power between Iran, Saudi and Israel rather than actively getting in the middle of their conflicts.
The key to keeping energy prices low for the US is to stop giving away our oil and then focus on shifting our economy to an energy source that can't be manipulated by foreign powers trying to influence our elections.
Petroleum is ~ 8% of the US GDP, and produces about $1.7 trillion dollars a year in direct economic activity, employing about 10 million folks.
Near as I can tell, the US doesn't give away any of our oil at all. It sells it, at market rate, often after doing a lot of value add refining.
Some of it goes to domestic use, some of it gets exported internationally, depending on the specific mix of market demands at the moment.
Are you proposing the US... ban exports of Oil or oil products? Or ban imports or Oil or oil products? Or invest a lot of money in alternative energy/renewable energy? Or take over enough oil producing countries no one can manipulate prices except us?
Or something else?
https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subs...
Of course, those are written subsidies. There is the major subsidy of allowing them to drill for oil on the publics land.
Of course, we've massively increased the amount of drilling we've allowed do the drum beat of "energy independence", when the reality is that because the oil is privately owned, no amount of oil drilling will actually make the price of gasoline stable or cheap for consumers.
What we actually need to do is move away from a gasoline based economy, but until then the government should heavily tax exports of oil to discourage foreign-owned companies from exporting it while we have a shortage here. Oil and gas lobbyist have been using their corporate owned politicians in Congress to block moving to sustainable energy since the Carter administration. We need massive investment in sustainable energy and energy efficient transit and manufacturing.
But we wont. The price of gas will go down again. Americans will buy even bigger cars, and then cry when OPEC jacks the price up again.
Please stop repeating twitter talking points until they become truth.
https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/
There's much more opportunity for political activism when pipes go over lots of small pieces of land vs drilling one big piece of land.
The article explains that as head of state internal law grants him immunity.
There's lots of guys who had oil who, when they did things the US didn't like, found themselves without anyone to sell oil to, without a country to run or maybe worse.
I agree KSA has a special relationship with the US (and much of the west), but it's not just about oil.
Reality is that we have lots of tools to address bad actors. There are always consequences, true enough. But it isn't like we haven't used them.
In this case, we probably won't, but the Saudis are increasingly more trouble than they are worth.
The US produces a ton of oil, we also have no export restrictions on oil products, so no matter how much we produce domestically, we are still dependent on the swings of the global market.
We get close to no oil from Saudi, yet as the head of the most powerful cartel in the world, they have immense power and influence. No amount of “drill baby drill” is going to change that.
Essentially the same thing here where the sitting President cannot be directly charged with a crime (or sued personally).
https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/cre...
Pressuring GA to manufacture exactly the # of votes he needed to win, inciting a violent insurrection with the express purpose of remaining in power despite knowing he lost the election, stealing 27 boxes of classified material, Trump Organization tax fraud... take your pick.
1. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-34471182
2. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/yemenis-drone-st...
Apparently your only way out is to be the head of your state, if you have done something evil.
" The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed allegations of "larger conspiracy" levelled by Zakia Jafri, widow of Congress leader Ehsan Jafri who was killed in the 2002 Gujarat riots, against former Chief Minister Narendra Modi and over 60 senior state officials.
Inaction or failure of "some officials of one section of the State administration" cannot be the basis to infer a pre-planned criminal conspiracy by the State government, the court held.
The failure of certain officials cannot be inferred as a "State-sponsored crime (violence) against the minority community", the Supreme Court said.
"
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/2002-gujarat-riots-su... (This is a left-leaning newspaper)
The thing with MBS is there was no independent investigation done by any agency in Saudi.
“How is the investigation of US president trump by the US congress an independent investigation…?”
I mean - fair point, it's not.
Are they independent if going against him means you most likely will lose your job next election cycle?
Now, it is entirely fair to argue that that the powers in question are colluding in some way. But most states that haven't been subverted into authoritarianism have multiple actors with the power and (sometimes) will to investigate other ones.
I mean, if you take that argument far enough, no human could judge any other human, because none of them are "independent".
Just to clarify on you not being a Modi supporter: Do you feel that Modi is doing not enough or too much to combat terrorists/internal threats in India?
My suspicion is that you are to the right of Modi but intentionally trying to obscure that by saying that you aren't a Modi supporter, which would typically imply to the left of Modi. A brief perusal of your comments seems to suggest that is the case.
No, it was state sponsored violence, instigated by Narendra Modi alone. Judgements by a compromised court hold no water.
Here are the details of the pogrom of Zakias condo complex
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulbarg_Society_massacre
Even worse the testimony of police officers who have now been imprisoned
https://www.hindusforhumanrights.org/en/blog/for-immediate-r...
Even worse there is direct video confession by the rapists and murderers (who were convicted later) of Modi starting the riots and supporting them with state apparatus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babu_Bajrangi
The video where Modis leadership is made explicit at 6:30
https://youtu.be/mfnTl_Fwvbo
To double down, this year Modis central government set several rapists and murderers who had been given life sentences free on Indian Independence Day and issued election tickets to the relatives of the convicted rapists and murderers.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/17/asia/india-bilkis-bano-rape-g...
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/politics-behind...
Your linking to a report on the supreme court judgement in a "left leaning" newspaper as some kind of evidence is absurd. It's a report about the judgment not an editorial.
https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/an-exoneration/ar...
It doesn't get more naked and bald faced than this
Modi was dismissed. They didn't look into it. He avoided All investigations when it happened and still avoids questioning to this day. No one was punished. No blood money made its way. Nothing.
Many more people died at modi's hands than MBS. There is no comparison.
Here are some more points that I've read about (not sure if true), if can you clarify them:
1. The involvement of cabinet ministers of Modi's government.
2. The non-involvement of the State Police which were under Modi's control.
3. Modi's refusal to deploy the Armed Forces (which fall under the command of the Central Government).
4. Rioters having access to State Government census records and the State Government-controlled supplies like LPG cylinders.
5. Since murdered BJP Leader Haren Pandya's confession of Modi being complicit.
And a laundry list of other things that Supreme Court of India probably looked at and dismissed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_riots#Allegations...
Power is what others respect. everything else is just BS
Or a diplomat https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Harry_Dunn
Am I missing something?
Realistically, the US aren't sending her back. And considering she works/worked for the CIA, it's not exactly surprising.
She has stated that she will not return on her own free will to face a prison sentence for this accident.
She had diplomatic immunity so clearly the US aren't going to send her back. And if you were her you wouldn't go back to go to prison. This is basically a show trial.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Allen_Davis_incident
I do believe big and serious awards should be done posthumously. I don't believe in for example, naming Airports or large buildings after someone who is/was still a live at dedication time.
However, I will acquiesce to asterisks --not removals.
And yes, I know there are good and valid reason for leaders to be given some level of immunity to allow them to not be, well, targeted and locked up by current regime on trumped charges, but this is not the situation we have in place here ( and those tend to be limited by the time they serve in office - MBS is likely to enjoy this immunity for life ).
I don't know if it is the real threat of impending nuclear war ( and everything that was done so far to prevent it ) that makes me so depressed about the world, but it is harder and harder for me not to feel.. disappointed with the way things are.
edit: FWIW, Biden finally recognized the reality of who is running that particular kingdom. In a way, it is an embarrassing political defeat, which I assume was purchased with something. I suppose we will find out that what that something was in coming months.
In case this is serious, the Saudis have a lot of stuff in America our courts could seize.
If the party in power wants to win the midterms they need the Saudis to supply enough oil. It's wild how openly corrupt the whole thing is.
The US can’t do anything to antagonise KSA because the direct result will be KSA accepting currencies other than the dollar for petrol, which will lower the global demand for dollars, leading to devaluation of the USD leading to economic calamity.
I’m sure MBS, Biden, Trump, Obama, Putin, Xi, and every world leader knows this.
The green economy is going to upend the world order for reasons other than simply reducing dependency on fossil fuels, imo.
No, it doesn’t. America’s economy and thus voters like cheap oil. America’s massive consumer and industrial base underwrites its currency’s power.
Also, what industrial base?
Also, How does Srilanka holding dollars benefit from a strong US consumer market?
Most international trade happens in dollars. This is due in part to competence: the Fed had electronic payments in 1915 [1]. In part to geopolitics: America was the only advanced economy not bombed into oblivion after WWII, an advantage it used to create the Bretton Woods system [2]. And in part to practicality: there aren't many freely-convertible currencies issued by big, stable countries.
> what industrial base?
The U.S. is a massive manufacturer and manufactured-goods exporter [3]. (Number 2 is Europe, another reserve currency issuer. Number 1 is China, which doesn't have an open capital account.)
> How does Srilanka holding dollars benefit from a strong US consumer market?
America is Sri Lanka's top export partner [4].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedwire#History
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_in_the_United_St...
[4] https://oec.world/en/profile/country/lka/
The British Pound is a powerful currency backed by an industrial base and a consumer led economy everyone wants to sell into. EUR is the same way. But neither of them are superpowers because no other country needs the GBP or EUR like they need the USD.
Countries all around the world keep USD in their current account balance even if they barely import stuff from the US because every country needs oil and oil can only be bought with dollars.
Say your high school bully demanded 10 SchruteBucks every day to leave you alone at lunch. And the only supplier of SchruteBucks in the whole world was this paper salesman called Dwight Schrute.
Quite evidently, your entire life would revolve around making sure Dwight was still willing to give you SchruteBucks just so that your bully would stay off your back for one more day.
That bully is KSA. Dwight is the US. The kid sucking up to Dwight is all the other countries in the world.
When Putin rants about a unipolar world, this is what he is talking about.
It’s an unjust world where we can’t afford to antagonise the US without also running the risk of not being able to buy petrol to run our economy.
They are just saying they aren't making a unique exception for this one case that wouldn't normally exist otherwise.
Gheddafi in particular, he was killed like a rabid dog when was hiding in a hole in the ground and was harmless.
But I guess that if you buy enough billion in weapons from the US, you're fine.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/kDWcjB2-OXA/maxresdefault.jpg
What both Saddam and Gheddafi together have done is peanuts compared to what SA has done in the middle east.
The US are becoming more and more a problem, they do not understand anymore that power means using it responsibly.
There are people all over the world banning the access to American cultural products to their children, must mean something.
Right. Which is a red herring in a discussion about legal sovereign immunity.
It's about consequences
Nobody thought they would go to war with SA
they don't have the balls to do it anymore
they did it with Afghanistan for something that Afghanistan did not do. You know, they are poor and have no army.
But most of all, business with SA will continue as usual
After the prince ordered the assassination of a journalist whose body was then shred to pieces with a bonesaw
That qualifies as OK to buy our fighter jets, no big deal
everything's fine...
Imagine if that didn't exist? Biden visits Qatar and gets arrested for dis-respecting their leaders? I can see that all working out.
The truth is, I doubt there would be much decent evidence that would hold up in Court. It's like Russians being murdered outside of Russia, "of course" Putin would have had to order it but "of course" wouldn't cut it in Court.
I do not have a problem with that. If you want to be part of the civilized world, you have to act civilized. And if Qatar wants to arrest Biden for disrespect, then either Qatar’s leaders will find out what the US spends its military funds on, or US taxpayers will find out how much of a waste all those aircraft carriers were.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46676200
I do not see how the people of the USA benefit from this arrangement.
Because you're shortsighted in your hatred for MBS. MBS can be deposed and hung in a public square (along with the entire royal family) for all I care, but that doesn't mean immunity isn't an important diplomatic tool.
The US benefits when oil prices increase. If you want to speculate on the geopolitical reasons for this action, it could be to help the allies of the US by driving oil prices down through OPEC production plans. If you want to speculate on the domestic reasons for this, it could be to try to keep gas prices lower at the expense of overall US GDP.
In the end, a brutal dictator gets diplomatic immunity and prestige and the rest of the world averts its eyes to keep its economies well-functioning.
1. https://www.worldometers.info/oil/oil-production-by-country/
2. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-produc...
I’m not sure about that. Generally the US economy benefits from lower oil prices and I think that outweighs any losses incurred by the oil industry. That’s especially relevant now with inflation being such a huge concern.
Before the 2010s, yes. But not now, not in this era of Shale. It has changed everything.
"Oil prices do have an impact on the U.S. economy, but it goes two ways because of the diversity of industries. High oil prices can drive job creation and investment as it becomes economically viable for oil companies to exploit higher-cost shale oil deposits. However, high oil prices also hit businesses and consumers with higher transportation and manufacturing costs. Lower oil prices hurt the unconventional oil activity, but benefits manufacturing and other sectors where fuel costs are a primary concern." [1]
1. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/032515/how-o...
https://twitter.com/alwaleed_talal/status/158597522656711065...
It isn't easy to communicate sneering condescension in flat ascii text but you did manage to do that here.
I’m fairly certain if GWB didn’t invade Iraq/Afghanistan he would have been impeached due to the fervour in the USA at that time. Looking back many agree that invading the Middle East was a mistake, but at the time there was only one Congress person (Barbara Lee) who voted against giving powers to invade, and that person was deeply ostracized for their choice.
Invading the Middle East was an atrocity, but who is responsible? The American public? The president? Congress?
This comedy is fascinating
Joke aside, i don't think it's "whataboutism", it's more like identifying inconsistencies and contradictions in the way they operate, nothing more, a mere citizen who try to understand
I just notice some contradictions in the way they operate, that's it
Up to you to make the comparison and conclusion, i will not tell you what to think
There are dozens of philosophers that advanced this idea: Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes,...
Many of the most famous statesmen in history were followers of this principle: Richelieu, Frederik the Great, Von Clausewitz, Otto Von Bismark, Metternich, Henry Kissinger,... Unsurprisingly, many of them were Germans. And none of them was a nice person.
I buy your argument, but your example is not good.
Yes, also by my native country, Brazil. Shame on us for that.
In the end dirty affairs/realpolitik are what things are, not what they should be, right?
Up until WWII, "Realpolitik" is what gave us so many wars, so little commerce, so little international cooperation, so much European imperialism, ...
So I do agree we need to find ethics in international relations. One important reason my country (Brazil) gave up on slavery was British pressure. Global Warming won't be solved without ethics commitment.
I thought about your argument and I believe you convinced me. I was wrong. I think I had my head stuck in my ideal version of the world.
It should have no place in civilized society.
But as a citizen of the US, this makes me very, very angry.
...
> "It has nothing to do with the merits of the case."
Pretty strange that this is how the international law works in 2022. We have ways to go, I suppose.
FWIW. This also looks like a pretty convenient loophole for the Biden administration to 'normalize' the relationships with the KSA and MBS, in particular. They'll keep calling him names like murderer and say that our hands are tied because of the international law.