This is very simple, and it's unfortunate that you're getting confused. You're wrong in implying that this solely a matter of politicians "acting" outraged, and you're wrong in implying that they wouldn't have anything to justifiably be mad about.. This is a matter of the public being justifiably outraged. What anyone can do about it is a concern of your own construction.

Why would citizens be talking about granting political figures asylum when citizens don't have the power to grant asylum? Governments do, and many South American governments HAVE expressed the will to give him asylum.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/07/13/s-american-leaders-back-asylum-amid-snowden-row/

You also talk about other countries' concerns in a manner, frankly, that makes you sound like an unlikeable prick.

How about when Britain and France cowtowed to the US in denying Bolivia's president a place to land, and then justified it with worries that Snowden was on board?

You're terribly careless at this, get the fuck out of here.

"no one ever said daddy knows best"

Here is how you described the government in this scenario: the angry father yelling at the kid because he thought..

Even in this tenuous link, you portray the government in its spying as a potentially just actor. They're your words, so don't blame me-blame yourself, or god.

The trust of the public has been abused. Your "daddy knows best" undertones are bullshit, and everyone can tell. If it were moral, it wouldn't need to be private. If it were logical, these snowden threads wouldn't have to be full of paid shills like cold fjord and jeremiah cornelius.

Any time there is outrage in another country about NSA spying, goons here come out of the woodwork to say "those politicians are all talk!".. as if the politicians were the ones upset. No, it's the people of those countries who were wronged, and they are angry. Who cares about the fuxking politicians? That's a distraction.

so I could see why they'd be wary of us. Also, their spying does not reach into our internet traffic--but the reverse certainly isn't true. This sort of information is always absent from Cold Fjord's servile presentation of his overlords, wherein the US government is always the victim, acting only in retaliation to the unjust actions of other countries. Time to get a new account or just post anonymously, cold fjord.

LOL at this other comment of yours--
"According to studies done at Chernobyl. After a couple of years, new births rapidly stop being part of the cancer riddle group. It doesn't even take decades, just a few years."

Man, is somebody paying you? Kill yourself.

Within a century (easily) we will be able to live mostly off of renewables for the purpose of transportation and energy. Any given time you google "Solar breakthrough", there will be a couple advancements within the last month that enables greater efficiency--
http://cleantechnica.com/2013/06/11/new-class-of-solar-cell-reaches-new-efficiency-breakthrough/

Hell, it could even be a paint-- http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/15/caution-wet-solar-power-new-affordable-solar-paint-research/

Plastics without fossil fuels is also quite forseeable in the near future: http://www.themoldingblog.com/2013/06/12/ibm-is-close-to-breakthrough-use-of-bioplastics-in-computer-servers/
Also, "they would already be popular"? Really? Do you have any idea what goes into something being "popular"? Advertizing, buddy. Watch the docu Who Killed the Electric car for an example of how automakers can manipulate peoples' desires with advertizing, pressuring them towards vehicles that're more costly to maintain (internal combustion engines), and away from more economic choices that the government may force them to offer.

You also forgot to mention petroleum subsidies, which artificially lowers the market price of oil. All in all, your "theory" is very short-sighted.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Iraq is less free than ever. The jailing of dissidents and journalists continues just as it did under Saddam.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/01/22/iraq-intensifying-crackdown-free-speech-protests

You realize their university system is destroyed?
http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/02/04/0414251/the-destruction-of-iraqs-once-great-universities

Core infrastructure is destroyed, and the west will be loathe to spend money on actually rebuilding it. Gender inequaity is worse than it was under Saddam.

As to the remark that they are "killing each other"--you realize no research was done beforehand into the sort of sectarian violence swapping the lead political religious sect would bring? You think that once peoples' livelihoods are destroyed, once they are threatened with starvation, any infighting afterwards is simple THEIR fault? See your home destroyed and then face starvation yourself--then see how you see how much you long to destroy yourself and your fellow man. This is akin to a white man watching slaves fighting and insisting their anger is merely towards each other.

You shouldn't post nonsense about Iraq when it's clear you've spent the last decade in a beltway media bubble (as has the fool you responded to).

Fox News is not. I know from this whether or not to take you seriously.

Huge myth. Gas prices have to do with the number of refineries and their processing rates rather than how much oil we are drilling. Your entire argument's nonsense. We could open ANWR and still not see a dip in pricing. Blame crony capitalism before supply and demand.

How about a congressional inquiry into why BP continued spraying Corexit after the EPA told them to stop? If there were pelicans who'd touched corexit (let alone the toxic mix that results from corexit and oil combined), they'd probably be dead right now, so spare me the bullshit.

Several waves of deregulation came about under the Bush administration. Drilling here in the US is more unbound than in europe, where features like a "dead man's switch" (google it) are actually required. The problem here was not regulation, it was pure malfeasance and a will to cover up the damage done no matter the cost.. the cost being the several hundred million dollar PR campaign BP ran afterwards to clean up its image. The way you present this information makes it seem like BP and the obama administration are in any opposition. To the contrary, this administration sheltered BP's excesses, even parroting BP's bogus initial spill estimates to the media.

..is to BP, which couldn't as easily hide the amount of oil spilled--the only thing by which it is liable. To anyone who actually lives around the area, the spraying of the neurotoxic carcinogen corexit is quite harmful. "Isn't it a good thing this study is done now?" You're waxing about how great it is we can assess what happened after the fact of a disaster, when BP couldn't even learn from the Ixtoc spill 30 years ago? That time, all the same techniques were employed with similar failures. When another spill happens, they'll flounder similarly because the point's to make money on the short term, not to worry about disasters when they arise--disasters only affect those poor nobodies on the cost and their rinky-dink fishing boats. Why should a multinational like BP care, when BP's iniquities are so sheltered by the government that the coast guard would keep away journalists from the spill, threatening several tens of thousand in fines and years in jail for any who'd come close to a cleanup site?