galanter wrote:But it's not like the US backs up tankers and steals the oil. (Although the local governments may arguably be stealing it from their own people.) The US and other countries just want to pay good money to buy it.
Hah. Wow. You see these two situations as being much more distinct than I do. Paying despots for oil they've stolen from their nation is a crucial act of enablement, and said theft could not happen without it.
So the US doesn't steal it. They just want to buy it on the cheap from the despots who steal it from their own people. Nothing wrong with that, eh?
The effects of this pattern are obvious, it's called a "resource curse." It's the case in Nigeria and much of the Middle East, and was the case in Venezuela before Chavez: a country rich in resources that does next to nothing for its poor majority despite being so resource-rich. This is one of the most fundamentally inexcusable situations that pervades in the third world; it's one of the most crucial causes of the stark inequality of the Global South, seeing as how a great many countries of the South are actually very rich in resources.
In all cases, some third world US-client state, run by a tiny, hoarding elite class, pillages a country's rich natural resources for cheap foreign consumption, and shares next to nothing with the people of that country -- in the case of the US-backed ancien regime of Venezuela, they were able to do this despite the oil industry being nominally "nationalized." The end result is that, with key US enablement, the foreigners who buy the oil (for consumption in their home country) make more from trading it than the countries who produce it, and what little is left for the countries producing it is just hoarded by the local elites.
And the crucial foreign enablement is pretty easily excused in your book, it seems? It's trade, it's the "open" market, so it's easily justified?
Luzwei wrote:galanter wrote:Luzwei wrote:galanter wrote:For years Iran denied nuclear development of any kind at all. When the evidence became overwhelming their response was to admit nuclear development, but to deny it was towards nuclear weapons. If they aren't developing nuclear weapons then throwing open all doors to inspectors should be a simple thing to do. The world waits.
why should they? open to whom? last time I checked Iran is an independent country to which was proven nothing of these allegations.
Iran is a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the International Atomic Energy Agency and thus is bound by the treaties of membership. This includes non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and being open to inspection.
And there is a war crime court in the world and the us is not accepting it and it's existence. Tit for tat I guess.
exactly. once the US is ready to pay the damages demanded at the hague after the ruling concerning US sponsorship for the contra terrorists (Nicaragua vs US, ICJ case in 84, where the ICJ found the US guilty of unlawful use of force against a sovereign nation -- a non-aggressive, peaceful sovereign nation as it turns out), once the US is willing to extradite the terrorists it protects from *repeated* extradition requests (the cuban exile CIA-asset luis posada carriles, the haitian CIA-asset death squad leader emmanuel constant), then the US might be in a position to preach such notions of "international law" to others such as iran. until then, the US is just another "rogue state" itself and this kind of posturing only makes it look egregiously hypocritical.
and let's keep in mind, that Nicaragua ruling was an ICJ ruling concerning actual violence that had been done by the CIA and their clients (mostly against unarmed civilians for that matter), while the present-day iran issue only concerns the potential for violence in the future (a potential of a much-contested probability -- even in israel there are government officials highly skeptical of notions that there is a WMD program underway in iran).