Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Jeff Buchanan]

If you're interested in these ME developments following Netanyahu's re-election as PM, here's a US News outlet (NBC's) take on it. It has a bit of slant to the Palestinians in my read of it. Personally, I like leaving the question of displaced Palestinians to the Arab states in the ME. I also favor a strong US position vis-a-vis Iran. So a shift in US policy away from trying to find a 2 state solution positions a coalition of Israel, SA and the US against Iran as a more important issue in the ME than solving the virtually unsolvable circumstance involving territorial disputes between representative of the Palestinians and the Israeli government.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/benjamin-netanyahu-s-re-election-may-doom-two-state-solution-n993751

[Ghengis Jon]

It absolutely should be left to the Arabs to deal with the Palestinians. For generations now, the Arab world has refused to grant them citizenship in their countries, kept them confined to refugee camps, restricted their travel and movement, and generally used them as an example to ward off internal civil strife by saying "We're struggling because we're helping our arab brothers that are far worse off than you." It gives them a common enemy in Israel, somewhere to focus the years of frustration, poverty and despair, but not at the "host" countries. Both sides of the Arab-Israeli question have absolutely shit on the Palestinians. Trouble is, you give them a country and it's not self sufficient. No industry or resources to speak of. Only Holy Land tourism could bring in hard cash, but that's not bloody likely in that turbulent part of the world. The Arabs are going to have to absorb the populations or set up a welfare state money drain.


Thank Arafat for today's problem. Both sides had negotiated a settlement and dipshit shot it down because he wanted history to view him as a freedom fighter not a peace maker. Self interest over national interest - similar attitude as another one of today's leaders.

[Ghengis Jon]

Was this Wiz, snatching the bat away the instant before the dog got there?

https://twitter.com/i/status/1115832394207105024

[Whitley]

It absolutely should be left to the Arabs to deal with the Palestinians. For generations now, the Arab world has refused to grant them citizenship in their countries, kept them confined to refugee camps, restricted their travel and movement, and generally used them as an example to ward off internal civil strife by saying "We're struggling because we're helping our arab brothers that are far worse off than you." It gives them a common enemy in Israel, somewhere to focus the years of frustration, poverty and despair, but not at the "host" countries. Both sides of the Arab-Israeli question have absolutely shit on the Palestinians. Trouble is, you give them a country and it's not self sufficient. No industry or resources to speak of. Only Holy Land tourism could bring in hard cash, but that's not bloody likely in that turbulent part of the world. The Arabs are going to have to absorb the populations or set up a welfare state money drain.


Thank Arafat for today's problem. Both sides had negotiated a settlement and dipshit shot it down because he wanted history to view him as a freedom fighter not a peace maker. Self interest over national interest - similar attitude as another one of today's leaders.

Agreed and a good solid take.

And let's be honest a major reason that countries give a damn about the Middle East is the fact they have most of the world's oil through OPEC and a lot of economies depend on cheap oil. From the US POV as long as that cheap oil comes through they are willing to turn a blind eye to a lot of what goes on there. Now, you hear people on both sides of the political aisle talking about energy independence. For some that means drill as much and as quick as possible. But there is one thing everyone can agree on. Oil is a finite source eventually it will run out or get to the point where it is too expensive for companies to make a profit off of.

To me the US should be on the cutting edge to find the resource (or resources) to replace cheap oil. That would require new technologies (most likely) and that will require investment on the governmental level much like there was one back when JFK announced that the US would go into space. The real question is if there is the political will to do that. I doubt there is.

[Jeff Buchanan]

.......And let's be honest a major reason that countries give a damn about the Middle East is the fact they have most of the world's oil through OPEC and a lot of economies depend on cheap oil. back when JFK announced that the US would go into space. The real question is if there is the political will to do that. I doubt there is.

It is this strategic perspective that gave rise to the view - mostly attributable to the Neocons - that led to Operation Desert Storm and everything that followed. I'm really not clear on how the GW Bush administration, following the military success of Desert Storm envisioned the post war period. Whatever view prevailed at the time, It was operationally bungled, that is for sure. IMO, and from what I know of it, the current ME strategy remains too short sighted as it relates to energy (oil) access. Proven world oil reserves become significantly reduced according to some projections in 80 years or so given current extraction technologies (and sure, these could evolve extending that end period). If the US continues to rely on oil as a primary energy source for the transportation sector of the economy, it will be dragged into conflict with other nations, most notably China, over access to what is left world wide to fuel their respective economies.

So, Whitley is right. Replacing oil with renewable energy sources should be a high priority. When it comes to "political will" with respect to driving change in this arena, that mostly comes from a competent president willing to champion the renewable energy cause. The way the politics of the presidency has evolved, getting elected to that position, tends to result in campaigning on and promising things that are focused on short term successes.

JFK was unique in not doing that when he wanted to put a man on the moon countering the Soviet Union's strategic advantage it was gaining in space. I don't think the current American electorate embraces a long term perspective on energy and that is what is driving the short sightedness of American strategic policy making in this area.

[iam416]

[Dr. Strangelove]

clean, cheap nuclear energy

Talent didn't have Mr. Burns as his avatar for decades for nothing.

[iam416]

Will there ever be a rainbow?

[Whitley]

The problem with nuclear energy (and always has been) is twofold: 1) If there is a meltdown you are looking at an area that is unusable for decades upon decades and 2) How do you store the waste safely and securely? Again if it gets out into the environment (or a scary thought into the water table) then you have a massive environmental problem.

Related thought on that popped into my head. Is it within the realm of possibility that you could shoot nuclear waste off in a rocket to the sun? Or would sending such material, over the course of time, would lead to radioactive solar winds?

Until you can mitigate the possibility of the two issues I bring up with nuclear power, I don't think you have it be a significant option in going to less dependence on oil. If and when that does happen it could be,.

[iam416]

[Kapture1]

next gen nuclear energy takes care of both those problems. it doesn't melt down and it uses waste as energy. it is currently being developed and will be the solution

[Whitley]

Japan, from my understanding, had pretty advanced facilities but look what happened there a few years ago. Given the long term effects on the environment if you have a meltdown you have to be sure.

[Whitley]

next gen nuclear energy takes care of both those problems. it doesn't melt down and it uses waste as energy. it is currently being developed and will be the solution

It could be, but it is still on the drawing board. Going from paper to ground you invariably run into unforeseen issues.

Edit: BTW Kapture, much nicer to have you engaged rather than just trolling with memes. You should engage more often.

[Kapture1]

what a crazy final round this is

[AlabamAlum]

Nuclear is, of course, the longterm answer. Yes, we have had a few disasters over the last 4 decades or so, but the environmental impact of the coal and hydro plants have huge issues, too, and solar is 100 years or more away from being practical. Wind farms may not cause cancer, but go spent a few hours walking through a wind farm and see if you leave with the same opinion you walked in with. Coal, hydro, solar, wind just don't have the fear factor of nuclear. But I believe it will be how we power the future.