Nation vs International Laws

[Silverhair]

That is because of your worldview

You view prioritizing the rule of law, even unenforceable laws, over human beings. The US was founded on a system that you would see as upside down (the value of human life over rules and regulations).

Don't get me wrong. You link the two (human beings and laws) but only for the majority within your nation.

So you see a terrorist murdering people outside of Canada and as long as it does not affect your lifestyle (or life in Canada) you woukd rather turn a blind eye. This is especilly true if it meant acting outside the expectations of the allied world beyond Canada.

To you Canada can only act morally outside of Canada with the guidance and permission of an external government.


The US is different. States routinely challenge federal laws based on what states view as moral and immoral. The US as a whole (the conservative part, anyway, values national sovereignty.

Canada views national sovereignty as the right to act within its own boarders. The US views national sovereignty as the ability to govern itself internally and externally.


You have to remember that Canada exists as anti-American. This is at its core as a nation.
In 1814 Strachan declared that the United States experiment of democracy has failed for lack of subjection to England.

Canada still holds this mentality (although the UN has replaced England).

But, as you probably know, the UN is primarily the US (without the US the UN would not exist). The US provides the strength of the UN.

I do not believe most Americans would stand for the UN if it were any other way. It is a diffetent mentality.


So yes, while Canada sees liberating Venezuela from oppression and capturing a terrorist as none of anybody business the US sees it as a moral responsibility.

BUT another factor comes into play. Canada could not have liberated Venezuela even if it cared about the Venezuelan people (which, obviously, it doesn't). The US could, and did.


Canada is dead. By this I mean the Canada that liberated the Norwegians. Today's Canada would have turned a blind eye because it has no moral compass.

Jon you are fooling yourself if you believe that the US acted from a moral position when they invaded either Iran or Venezuela. They acted from a purely commercial position.

 

[Silverhair]

It depends on the guardrails and the purpose.

Moral responsibility is doing the right thing regardless of laws, much less unenforceable laws.

But, while removing Maduro was the moral thing to do that was not the reason.

This is the real reason Canada did not want to see Venezuela liberated:

The Venezuelan economy suffered as the people were kept from benefitting from their resources. Maduro essentually stole their oil, profited, funded and provided arms to terrorists...all to keep himself in power.

Now Venesula is in the position to rebuild its economy. But this creates direct competition for Canada and lowers prices for Canadian crude oil in certain regions. The US benefits along with Venezuela, but Canada is on weaker ground.

Canada does not have to be concerned about the oil form Venezuela as it is years from real production plus the billions that would have to be invested to do so. The majors have not jumped at the chance to invest billions because of the bad investment climate there.

As I said before the US did not invade for moral reasons but for commercial ones. Trum* miscalculated on the commercial side as any one that deals with oil and gas will tell you.

 

[Silverhair]

Much of what today's communist tracking Socialist Democrats do. American Patriots disapprove of. Your distaste (now on display) for the United States has been fed by the Marxist MSM of the world.

We forcefully crossed the national markers of a political criminal to capture that International Drug Dealing Scum, not to invade. His people are already better off and they are not mad. What is your foundation and point of law be damned. None of our American Nations, North, South nor, Central became sovereign without breaking some law.

That is a typical American answer. Do what we want and ignore the law.

The US has fallen to the same level as those other rogue nations.

 

[JonC]

Canada does not have to be concerned about the oil form Venezuela as it is years from real production plus the billions that would have to be invested to do so. The majors have not jumped at the chance to invest billions because of the bad investment climate there.

As I said before the US did not invade for moral reasons but for commercial ones. Trum* miscalculated on the commercial side as any one that deals with oil and gas will tell you.

Venezuela is postured to produce about 1.8 million Bpd in 3 years. As of last month it was producing 1.145 million Bpd.

Just current Venezuelan oil production is about a fifth of Canada's (5.35 million Bpd).

Add to that the increase in US production - set to hit 13.8 million Bpd (a record) this year, forecasted to hit 14.2 million Bpd next year).

But the problem for Canada is also the shift in markets and prices ($12 to $14 below ICE Brent benchmarks).

Then you have US imports of potash from Canada. The US is investing in US companies to increase domestic production as well as other nations in order to minimize dependency on Canada.


If 1.145 million Bpd being currently produced by Venezuela is not a concern then Canada's 5.35 million Bpd is not really that much either (especially considering the US production).

Venezuela's production is to Canada what Canada's is to the US. But with the potential investments Venezuela may surpass Canada fairly quickly.


That is the goal, anyway. The US needs to build relationships with trustworthy nations. This is not Canada. The reason is not a lack of trustworthiness but instead a lack of mutual goals.

 

[JonC]

Jon you are fooling yourself if you believe that the US acted from a moral position when they invaded either Iran or Venezuela. They acted from a purely commercial position.

No, I am not. Like I said, we define "moral" much differently.

You define "moral" as staying within UN guardrails. I believe "moral" has more to do with human beings and our interactions.

You say the Venezuelan people had to suffer and die, they had to be murdered, their economy had to falter to enrich a terrorist, US citizens had to continue dying without recourse, Maduro had to be allowed to weaponize and find terrorists because morality demands UN approval.

I believe that morality means helping the poor, the oppressed, when in one's power, in order to remove the terrorist who engaged in crimes against humanity, who murdered thousands of Venezuelans, who plundered that nation's resources for his own gain, even when China profited and would prevent UN authorization.

We have a fundamental disagreement in right and wrong. I see morality as objective - do the right thing regardless. You see morality as legislated by higher governments - obey secular powers regardless.

 

[Silverhair]

Venezuela is postured to produce about 1.8 million Bpd in 3 years. As of last month it was producing 1.145 million Bpd.

Just current Venezuelan oil production is about a fifth of Canada's (5.35 million Bpd).

Add to that the increase in US production - set to hit 13.8 million Bpd (a record) this year, forecasted to hit 14.2 million Bpd next year).

But the problem for Canada is also the shift in markets and prices ($12 to $14 below ICE Brent benchmarks).

Then you have US imports of potash from Canada. The US is investing in US companies to increase domestic production as well as other nations in order to minimize dependency on Canada.


If 1.145 million Bpd being currently produced by Venezuela is not a concern then Canada's 5.35 million Bpd is not really that much either (especially considering the US production).

Venezuela's production is to Canada what Canada's is to the US. But with the potential investments Venezuela may surpass Canada fairly quickly.


That is the goal, anyway. The US needs to build relationships with trustworthy nations. This is not Canada. The reason is not a lack of trustworthiness but instead a lack of mutual goals.

First off Jon the US produces light sweet crude which is not compatible with the refineries in the US. So Canada does not have to worry about US production. Second the oil fields in Venezuela need billions of dollars and years of up grades to be able to produce at any sustained level. Plus you have to convince the oil majors to invest again and that is a hard sell.

Odd you would call Canada untrustworthy as it is the US that keeps signing in pencil.

I agree that Canada and the US do not have mutual goals. Canada aims for trade deals that are mutually good for both parties the US on the other hand does not want a trade deal they want surrender.

But the US needs and the world wants what we have so Canada will just continue to do trade deals with those that want the resources we have.

 

[JonC]

First off Jon the US produces light sweet crude which is not compatible with the refineries in the US. So Canada does not have to worry about US production. Second the oil fields in Venezuela need billions of dollars and years of up grades to be able to produce at any sustained level. Plus you have to convince the oil majors to invest again and that is a hard sell.

Odd you would call Canada untrustworthy as it is the US that keeps signing in pencil.

I agree that Canada and the US do not have mutual goals. Canada aims for trade deals that are mutually good for both parties the US on the other hand does not want a trade deal they want surrender.

But the US needs and the world wants what we have so Canada will just continue to do trade deals with those that want the resources we have.

I am not sure where you get your ideas.

The "sweet oil" produced in the US is not incapable with US refineries. The reason the US exports "sweet oil" in favor of a blend is economics.

US refineries process "sweet oil" every day.



Your confusion goes back decades. From the 1980s through the early 2000s, refiners made huge capital investments based on a trend. "Sweet" crude was becoming scarce on the world market. Future supplies were expected to be heavier (increasingly "sour").

US refineries invested billions upgrading facilities with cokers, hydrocrackers, and desulfurization units designed to process heavy, sour crude.

This did not mean the US could no longer process "sweet" crude oil. It meant there was more profit in exporting it and importing "sour crude".

Then we had the shale boom. The US became the largest oil producing country in the world.

But it made economic sence to sell "sweet oil" and import "sour oil" (the US can refine both, but it makes economic sense to refine more "sour oil" and export "sweet oil".

It is economics, not capability.

That said, the US is moving to refine more shale oil (America First Refining).

Venezuela produces "sour oil". The US refines both.

Venezuela does need upgrades to increase production. But without them they still produce almost 1/5 of Canadian production. Their current issue is logistics (which is an easier problem to solve).


Your information is based myth. You have mistaken propaganda for fact.

(Sources- American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers; DOE; US Energy Imformation Assiciation; American Energy Alliance)


NOW....let's look at Canada.

Canada, like the US, is a net exporter of oil. But while Canada refines some "sour oil" most of its capabilities require "sweet oil". Canada produces "sweet oil", however to meet needs Canada imports "sweet oil" ftom the US.

11% of Canada's oil supply is imported. 80% of this is from the US. Canada produces "sweet oil" in western regions but lacks the logistical capabilities to utilize domestic oil in the eastern areas (where capabilities demand "sweet oil").

(Source: Natural Resources Canada)


Bottom line is, when it comes to oil, the US can survive without Canada. But Canada is dependent on the US.

The US is gaining oil independence, or at least becoming less dependent on Canadian oil.

Canada should do the same (if it is possible). Canada could do this in a couple of ways. One is logistics. Go back to building the Energy Rast Pipeline. Upgrade eastern refineries. It will be a huge investment and take time. But Canada needs it for energy independence.

 

[Salty]

Six hour notice
This thread will be closed no sooner than 1900 hrs GMT 1 pm EDT / 10 am PDT

 

[Ben1445]

Canada does not have to be concerned about the oil form Venezuela as it is years from real production plus the billions that would have to be invested to do so. The majors have not jumped at the chance to invest billions because of the bad investment climate there.

As I said before the US did not invade for moral reasons but for commercial ones. Trum* miscalculated on the commercial side as any one that deals with oil and gas will tell you.

@******hair, the globe has certainly fallen into complete shambles because you have shuttered yourself up and limited yourself to the internet. You should run for PM. It’s amazing how you can discern the thoughts and intentions of the heart, as you have claimed. How else could anyone know the real reason for what leaders are doing?
But from my side, you appear to be unhappy that a nation was freed from a despot. You are happy to complain about the good “fortune” of other people because of your Trump Derangement Syndrome. You have twisted morality.

 

[canadyjd]

An illegal action does not depend upon the size of the invading force as you are trying to suggest.

What is sad is that you cannot see the reality that what POTUS Trump did was wrong.

An illegal action does not depend on your opinion.

There are many lawyers that work for the presidency… NOT for DT, for the “office” of the President.

Every action is scrutinized for legality.

Contrary to your ignorant understanding of how our system of government works, the POTUS cannot just say, “hey, let’s go get that Maduro fellow”, and everyone jumps up and says, “yes sir”!!

The White House lawyers (that work for the office of the POTUS, NOT DT) look at the law, at the precedents, and give their opinion on the legality. Those opinions are recorded for posterity and made public.

These lawyers said it was legal.

You are ignorant of our system of government and are making serious accusations of illegality, when you don’t have a clue to what the law says, or what the process is.

Stick to figuring out how to keep Canada from killing your old people and mutilating your children.

Peace to you

 

[Silverhair]

I am not sure where you get your ideas.

The "sweet oil" produced in the US is not incapable with US refineries. The reason the US exports "sweet oil" in favor of a blend is economics.

US refineries process "sweet oil" every day.



Your confusion goes back decades. From the 1980s through the early 2000s, refiners made huge capital investments based on a trend. "Sweet" crude was becoming scarce on the world market. Future supplies were expected to be heavier (increasingly "sour").

US refineries invested billions upgrading facilities with cokers, hydrocrackers, and desulfurization units designed to process heavy, sour crude.

This did not mean the US could no longer process "sweet" crude oil. It meant there was more profit in exporting it and importing "sour crude".

Then we had the shale boom. The US became the largest oil producing country in the world.

But it made economic sence to sell "sweet oil" and import "sour oil" (the US can refine both, but it makes economic sense to refine more "sour oil" and export "sweet oil".

It is economics, not capability.

That said, the US is moving to refine more shale oil (America First Refining).

Venezuela produces "sour oil". The US refines both.

Venezuela does need upgrades to increase production. But without them they still produce almost 1/5 of Canadian production. Their current issue is logistics (which is an easier problem to solve).


Your information is based myth. You have mistaken propaganda for fact.

(Sources- American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers; DOE; US Energy Imformation Assiciation; American Energy Alliance)


NOW....let's look at Canada.

Canada, like the US, is a net exporter of oil. But while Canada refines some "sour oil" most of its capabilities require "sweet oil". Canada produces "sweet oil", however to meet needs Canada imports "sweet oil" ftom the US.

11% of Canada's oil supply is imported. 80% of this is from the US. Canada produces "sweet oil" in western regions but lacks the logistical capabilities to utilize domestic oil in the eastern areas (where capabilities demand "sweet oil").

(Source: Natural Resources Canada)


Bottom line is, when it comes to oil, the US can survive without Canada. But Canada is dependent on the US.

The US is gaining oil independence, or at least becoming less dependent on Canadian oil.

Canada should do the same (if it is possible). Canada could do this in a couple of ways. One is logistics. Go back to building the Energy Rast Pipeline. Upgrade eastern refineries. It will be a huge investment and take time. But Canada needs it for energy independence.

Jon you made the comment about the sour oil out of Venezuela which is the same as the sour oil from the oil sands. The refiners I was referring to were those ones.

Canada sends sour oil to the US and that is the oil that you think will be replaced by the oil from Venezuela.

The refiners in the US that process sweet crude cannot handle the sour crude. So your refiners on the Gulf cost and in the Mid west need the crude from Alberta.

Here is an article that you may find interesting Why the U.S Can’t Use the Oil it Produces

Why the U.S Can’t Use the Oil it Produces

The reason the U.S. can’t fully utilize the oil it produces boils down to a mix of economic, infrastructural, and geopolitical factors.

www.fuelstreamservices.com

 

[Silverhair]

@******hair, the globe has certainly fallen into complete shambles because you have shuttered yourself up and limited yourself to the internet. You should run for PM. It’s amazing how you can discern the thoughts and intentions of the heart, as you have claimed. How else could anyone know the real reason for what leaders are doing?
But from my side, you appear to be unhappy that a nation was freed from a despot. You are happy to complain about the good “fortune” of other people because of your Trump Derangement Syndrome. You have twisted morality.

@Ben1445 you seem happy to have your leaders ignore any law or treaty that does not suit them at the time.

Laws and treaties have been put in place to maintain a civil society but as we have seen from Trum* he has not understanding of that concept.

He has invaded Iran and stated a war he invade Venezuela and kidnapped the leader and you justify this. And you say I have a twisted morality.

 

[Silverhair]

An illegal action does not depend on your opinion.

There are many lawyers that work for the presidency… NOT for DT, for the “office” of the President.

Every action is scrutinized for legality.

Contrary to your ignorant understanding of how our system of government works, the POTUS cannot just say, “hey, let’s go get that Maduro fellow”, and everyone jumps up and says, “yes sir”!!

The White House lawyers (that work for the office of the POTUS, NOT DT) look at the law, at the precedents, and give their opinion on the legality. Those opinions are recorded for posterity and made public.

These lawyers said it was legal.

You are ignorant of our system of government and are making serious accusations of illegality, when you don’t have a clue to what the law says, or what the process is.

Stick to figuring out how to keep Canada from killing your old people and mutilating your children.

Peace to you

These are same lawyers that said invading Iran and starting a war was legal. Looks like your lawyers are not that smart after all.

The invasion of Venezuela and kidnapping of it's leader was against international law even though the US thinks it is above international law.

The fact you and so many other Americans on this board try to defend what the US did is shocking.

 

[JonC]

Jon you made the comment about the sour oil out of Venezuela which is the same as the sour oil from the oil sands. The refiners I was referring to were those ones.

Canada sends sour oil to the US and that is the oil that you think will be replaced by the oil from Venezuela.

The refiners in the US that process sweet crude cannot handle the sour crude. So your refiners on the Gulf cost and in the Mid west need the crude from Alberta.

Here is an article that you may find interesting Why the U.S Can’t Use the Oil it Produces

Why the U.S Can’t Use the Oil it Produces

The reason the U.S. can’t fully utilize the oil it produces boils down to a mix of economic, infrastructural, and geopolitical factors.

www.fuelstreamservices.com

What I was saying was not about Venezuela (although Canada's interest in not intervening in the oppression of Venezuela was to protect Canadian intrests).

Your article does not contradict the agencies I referenced.

This is from your source:

The oil market is global, meaning prices and supply are influenced by international demand. Even though the U.S. produces a lot of oil, it doesn’t always make sense to keep it. Transporting U.S. oil, especially from places like Texas and New Mexico, to refineries can be costly due to pipeline issues....Importing oil from countries like Saudi Arabia or Canada is sometimes cheaper because it can be shipped directly to refineries. [The] U.S. has an extensive refining system, it’s still limited in scope compared to the sheer volume of oil it produces...Even when domestic refineries are operating at full capacity, they often prioritize processing cheaper, heavy crude imports over the lighter oil from domestic wells. Exporting excess light sweet crude becomes a necessary economic decision, as there simply isn’t enough domestic capacity to refine it all....The reason the U.S. can’t fully utilize the oil it produces boils down to a mix of economic, infrastructural, and geopolitical factors. The types of oil produced domestically don’t always match the needs of U.S. refineries, and the global nature of the oil market means that supply and demand dynamics play out on an international scale.


US Refineries can process "sweet oil". But this requires taking off line the upgrades that cost billions of dollars. It simply does not make economic sense. Oil is traded on a global market.


The US also faces the same logistical problem as Canada. With Canada it is a bit worse as they are dependent so much on "sweet oil" and lack the logistical capacity to use their domestic production.


Canada depends on oil imported from the US.

The problem Canada has is its dependency on the US for oil.

The US can completely stop importing oil from Canada by refining more shale oil and importing oil ftom other countries.

But at this time Canada does not have that opition. They have to import US oil. Canada cannot be energy independent at this time. They lack the infrastructure.

The US can be energy independent, but while we are moving to be less reliant on foreign energy it would not be an economic advantage to use only domestic supplies.


I believe noth Canada and the US should be set up to be energy independent, although actually ending imports would never happen for economic reasons (it would not make sense to use oil from the west coast for the east coast when you can easily import oil that is geographically local.

But this os why I said the US needs to continue to solve her logistical issues.

And it is why I said Canada needs to do the same.


Nations can and should have a trade relationship that benefits both economically. But at the same time nations should (if able) not be dependent on other nations. The trade benefits economically, but if things collapse independence means survival.

 

[JonC]

@Ben1445 you seem happy to have your leaders ignore any law or treaty that does not suit them at the time.

What was the reprocussions when Canada violated international law (several times this past decade)?

It is not being happy that the UN could not approve the action. It is being happy with the result.

Are you not at least pleased to see the Venezuelan people liberated from a terrorist that committed crimes against humanity, murdering thousands of Venezuelans to obtain power, who displaced millions of Venezuelans?


We can disagree about how it happened (I do not view the American Revolution as a just war). BUT we should be united in rejoicing over the outcome.

Venezuela may fall again to a terrorist, but at this time they have been liberated from oppression.

 

[kyredneck]

it is reflective of the people. Politicians would not pander to these anti-Christian groups if they did not get them elected. And if they did not represent the people they would not get them elected.

A hearty AMEN!

 

[JonC]

@Silverhair

I need to include that Canada will never shift from the US to the EU in trade. And the US will never completely sever trade ties. Our economies are linked.

While the US is increasing independence on major Canadian exports, I see this more as trade leverage than severing trade ties. But at this time the US has not (and as far as I know is not planning on) building the infrastructure to end our North East dependence on Canafoan energy (it has been discussed, but it is not a priority).

Canada is dependent on US oil, and this dependence cannot be replaced by an EU relationship. Canada has to maintain a trade relationship with the US. The pipeline project that could help reduce this dependency was canceled. Resuming would cost billions and take time.

Our economies are linked to a great extent. My view is this link should continue as we both benefit, but we both need to move so it is not a necessity.

 

[Salty]

Six hour notice
This thread will be closed no sooner than 1900 hrs GMT 1 pm EDT / 10 am PDT

This thread is closed!.
Feel free to start a new thread
B U T !
When addressing someone or mentioning someone - you WILL their full name
and not be substituting symbols for names.

If that does happen - your post will not be edited - it will be deleted.