4 ms·

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

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.

_delirium 13y ago
This is becoming something of a tangent, but the U.S. doesn't produce a particularly large amount of oil relative to its population: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_pro_percap-energy-oil-production-per-capita http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_pro_percap-energy-...
outworlder 13y ago
> 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. That's smart, from my point of view.
- _k 13y ago
  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 ?
  - outworlder 13y ago
    > 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.
    - _k 13y ago
      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.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
mathattack 13y ago
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.
saryant 13y ago
The administration granted a license to Royal Dutch Shell to drill in Alaska, Shell just royally screwed up and had to suspend operations. I expect drilling to restart eventually but probably under a different operator (Exxon being my bet).
blueprint 13y ago
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.

_delirium 13y ago

This is becoming something of a tangent, but the U.S. doesn't produce a particularly large amount of oil relative to its population: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_pro_percap-energy-oil-production-per-capita http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_pro_percap-energy-...

outworlder 13y ago

> 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. That's smart, from my point of view.

_k 13y ago
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 ?
- outworlder 13y ago
  > 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.
  - _k 13y ago
    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.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

mathattack 13y ago

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.

saryant 13y ago

The administration granted a license to Royal Dutch Shell to drill in Alaska, Shell just royally screwed up and had to suspend operations. I expect drilling to restart eventually but probably under a different operator (Exxon being my bet).

blueprint 13y ago

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.