Depends on if it's in their territorial waters or not.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
- Thread starter ClovingWestbrook
- Start date
- Status
Depends on if it's in their territorial waters or not.
"California is $20 billion in debt, so therefore it's bankrupt", is how the argument goes, I think.
edit:
speculawyer
Member
It is a good question. And there is a lot of variation in how it is done. Ironically, in commie-land Kalifornia, the oil companies pay very little. Whereas in those super-capitalist places like Texas and Alaska, the state collects much more. In fact that super-capitalist Texas still has an official oil cartel known as the "Texas Railroad Commission" that tells people how much oil they are allowed to ship. Granted they've said "ship as much as you want" for the last 30+ years but they still have the power to stop people from shipping oil at any time.
California tried to raise the fees on oil a few years back but the oil companies ran a deceptive campaign convincing voters that their gas prices would go up of the fees were approved so the measure lost.
It is true that California has a lot of oil (I doubt $1 Trillion worth) that is not being drilled but it is a long legacy from a Santa Barbara oil spill in the 60's. The Californians don't want offshore drilling and if you respect democracy then I guess it will stay that way until they change their mind.
However there is now talk of drilling the Monterey shale. But there are a lot questions around it. Do the oil companies really want to? . . . the seismic stresses have made it like an accordion so it is not as easy as other shales. And will California let them. Who knows.
Seems like Israel is a country that likes tough love.
In today's edition of "Remind me again how people like this get elected repeatedly into positions of power?" -
Bachmann: Its my Christian duty to repeal Obamacare before it literally kills kids
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/...eal-obamacare-before-it-literally-kills-kids/
Burgess thanked the former Republican presidential candidate for her remarks, adding that she had a way of stating these things that none of the rest of us are capable of.
Bachmann: Its my Christian duty to repeal Obamacare before it literally kills kids
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/...eal-obamacare-before-it-literally-kills-kids/
Burgess thanked the former Republican presidential candidate for her remarks, adding that she had a way of stating these things that none of the rest of us are capable of.
Fixed for conservatives.
Minnesota's 6th congressional district
95.6% White
1% Black
1.4% Asian
1.3% Hispanic
0.4% Native American
0.4% other
The Librarian
Banned
I don't get it.
White people like other White people.
Edit: speaking of Bachshit:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/bachmann-flees-questions-dubious-claims-article-1.1294103
The Librarian
Banned
People like other people that are similar to them. I still don't get it.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Being white doesn't make you stupid or crazy.
speculawyer
Member
That is no excuse. As a white person that grew up in Minnesota, I expect better of them.
And what the fuck is she talking about? Is this some abortion thing?
And to bring up her being a Christian as the reason? WTF? Christ was literally a low-cost healthcare provider!
Edit: Oh, it is not just killing kids . . . it kills everyone it seems except adult men. Is there any logic behind this at all?
Yes, but he wanted it from the private sector.
Byakuya769
Member
Hit yourself with a hammer hard enough, and I'm sure that the brilliance of Bachman can be duplicated.
No, but primordially white districts seem to elected the dumbest representatives.
I think it has something to do with the type of people who want to live in a non diverse places.
And while it's true that all of Minnesota is pretty white, are you really shocked to find out that the 6th is the whitest?
Black Mamba
Member
What do they have to lose? I'd argue they have way more to gain.
Nah, Israel already knows that the borders would be mostly the '67 borders with land swap (which is the same position the US has). In fact, the argument over the borders in a deal is pretty much the easiest of all the basic points and has generally already been agreed upon in the past.
If Israel dismantled the settlements tomorrow as a show of goodwill, it would probably set back the peace process. Did you notice what happened when they did do this in Gaza? That's not to say that increasing the settlements also doesn't set back the process. There's very little action either side could do right now that wouldn't. The claim that Israel clearly doesn't want peace because of the settlements isn't accurate. That is their reaction, rightly or wrongly, based on their perception of the situation and not a direct undermining of a desire for peace (granted there are some extremists that do).
FWIW, Hamas doesn't really support that AFAIK. They load up their claim to make it realistically untenable. But they've moved a bit, at least, so there is some progress on that front.
Only under the current context, perhaps. If that changed, nah. Iran is the boogeyman for Bibi, not the Palestinians, really.
I find the argument weird because a stable Palestine would increase Israel's hegemonic power. Why would they be against this? The problem is they have no idea how to accomplish this right now.
If Israel dismantled the settlement tomorrow there would be peace within a year.
Israel doesn't want to do that.
Also, pretty much no one talked about the peace process last election, the general idea is "fuck them, we got the wall and Iron Dome".
Black Mamba
Member
Not a chance. Why would the Palestinians accept peace if Israel dismantled and went away? they would see it as an opportunity of weakness to demand more concessions and make the more hard-line.
The reality is not as simple as you seem to think it is. The actual conditions of what a 2 state solution would look like has been known for a very long time now, the problem is we have no way to get there.
edit: I could pull the reverse argument. If the Palestinians swore to lay their arms down and not attack in any way ever, would this end everything and lead to peace in a year? I bet you wouldn't make that argument (nor would I).
I hope they don't, it doesn't seem wise to me to be fracking there. It could ruin a lot of people's days.
Is not only relevant if she was the only white candidate in primaries and the generals though? Was she? I don't know.
Every time she opens her mouth she says something inflammatory, factually incorrect, and/or just dumb, hitting an 11 on the Palin scale with ease. How terrible were her opponents that crazy eyes Bachmann gets elected instead?
Or is she locked in somehow due to gerrymandering?
It's gerrymandering. I've read things out of that district, that Rolling Stone piece about the suicide clusters due to anti-gay bullying was near or in her district.
She almost got beat last time, I was watching that race with my finger hitting F5 every few seconds. Her opponent almost pulled it out, but she pulled away late in the night.
What do you mean reject?
Exactly how do you think it will play out in your mind?
They say "no, we want you to keep the checkpoints and we don't want passports"?
I'm sure there would still be violence for a while, you can't oppress people for that long without some resentment buildup (and lord knows the settlers are going to try to instigate shit) but you will have it no matter what (and you have it now).
I think there's is a very easy way to get there, what are the specific complications that you think exists?
Why would the Palestinians "lay their arms down"?
Are they not allowed to have a military force like any other country in the world?
Minnesota is pretty damn white. Lake Superior/iron ranges is pretty damn white, i bet, but votes reliably democratic
Yeah, that was actually one of the very few secondary races I had my eye half on simply because I'm still trying to understand why she is there in the first place.
I don't really know my congressmen or senators very well outside of the outspoken ones who hit the news constantly, and really don't have much visibility on unsuccessful candidates for those positions at all.
It's like they're not even trying anymore.
Luckily it's not even a small part of his show tonight, next segment will bring on Giuliani to further discuss Obama talking under a picture of Arafat and how it disgusts him. So if we were wondering how the right would spin today's meetings...we probably wouldn't have guessed THIS.
Those two chuckleheads are going in HARD on Obama. HARD. They couldn't decide what name to call him between ignorant, naive, a terrorist sympathizer....they settled on ignorant but Hannity decided that no, Obama knows better.
Aaron Strife
Banned
>> "Obama's failed diplomacy"
>> First sitting US president in history to be awarded Medal of Distinction
OMG TERRORIST
OMG THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ARE TERRORISTS
Maybe it has to be a picture.
Black Mamba
Member
I'm on my phone so instead of responding to your points under each I will do each part by number.
1. I didn't use the word reject so I'm not exactly sure what you mean. What I am saying is that such a concession would be perceived as weakness. If you dismantle the settlements, the Palestinians will fight harder to get more. 67 borders won't matter, now it will be the UN partition plan. Etc. that is a horrible way to negotiate. There rarely is such thing as a good natured gesture working out, moreso in international politics. It's why we saw the dismantling in gaza become a spectacular failure. Al it did was allow Hamas to gain more power, a bloody civil war, and more attacks which led to more incursions by the Israelis. It made a bad situation even worse.
It makes no sense to just give up your negotiating power. Especially for the Israelis who have the upper hand. They're not goon to give up their ability to dictate terms of a whim of good faith which will almost assuredly backfire.
As an outside observer it's much easier to believe the Palestinians would accept I and work towards peace. But if you were on the inside your perspective would be much different IMO.
2. There's only one real complication. A lot of people misunderstand it as an issue of religion or other things but it isn't. The issue is neither side trusts the other and until a trust can be built up nothing will get done. And it will take a lot of time. There was a good effort in the 90s (and the one thing I think Clinton did well) but it obviously regressed quick.
Until there's enough trust, nothing will change. That's why your belief about your hypothetical is so off the mark.
3. It's a hypothetical like yours about the Israelis dismantling the West Bank settlements. You said if Israel did that there would be peace in a year. I'm asking you if you believe the same if instead the Palestinians just laid down their arms as their good faith show? I'm not arguing they should do this, only comparing it to the scenario you presented.
So you think that if the Israel withdraws from the west bank ans sign a peace treaty with Palestine they'll just start a war with Israel?
They'll have zero support for that, even from Arab countries, I just don't see it happen, and even if it does, they can't seriously threaten Israel.
Fuck, did Egypt start a war with Israel after they got everything they wanted?
And you think the only way to avert that is to keep a few settlements in the middle of the newly formed country who are dedicated to its destruction?
So you have some inside information about what the Palestinians want and how would they act.
Interesting.
You sound like an expert.
sorry for being a dick on that point, but come on man, you can do better than that. I believe in you!
The settlements don't build trust, they do the exact opposite.
So does the occupation.
The longer you wait, the harder it's going to be.
Also, Israel is not giving up anything when it dismantling the settlements, it's a win-win.
Unless you're a settler, and it means you might have to get a real job, but fuck the settlers.
Oh gotcha.
No it wouldn't.
The Palestinian didn't do shit for 20 years after they got occupied and they got nothing out of it.
speculawyer
Member
And even if they did attack, Israel could then fucking pound the living shit out of them and no one would give a fuck.
As an occupier, it is harder to sympathize with Israel. But if they were to withdraw from settlements & sign a deal. They would then have much more moral authority. If anyone were to attack them then. Well, no one is going to complain when Israel hits back and they might get hit back by the USA as well.
empty vessel
Member
This seems to posit an equivalence that doesn't exist. Israel doesn't want peace and that is the chief obstacle to it. Even talking about this in terms of peace and conflict isn't really appropriate. Israel is an aggressor (aided and abetted by the US) and Palestinians are victims of that aggression. We should just be talking about stopping the aggression.
el retorno
Member
Stop talking about foreign policy, you jerks!
Check it this survey from the Kaiser Family Foundation on Obamacare:
They support everything but "personal responsibility," bunch of mochers
Stop talking about foreign policy, you jerks!
Check it this survey from the Kaiser Family Foundation on Obamacare:
And here is a perfect illustration of what is wrong with our political discourse. I've literally had people say to me that they would be ok with the ACA's downsides (mandatory insurance) if it did the first three things on that list. I point out that it does those things and they think I'm lying. It's just so sad.
empty vessel
Member
Stop talking about foreign policy, you jerks!
Check it this survey from the Kaiser Family Foundation on Obamacare:
It's sad that 60% support an increase in the Medicare payroll tax.
speculawyer
Member
Stop talking about foreign policy, you jerks!
Check it this survey from the Kaiser Family Foundation on Obamacare:
Seriously now . . . if it was called Romneycare, Reagancare, or Bushcare then there would probably be hardly any complaining about the program at all. You don't hear a lot of people in MA complaining do you? :-/
speculawyer
Member
That is a way over-simplified analysis of the situation. You need to remember that Israel has been invaded in the past with major attacks and does continue to periodically get attacked. Yes, we all get it that they are the ones with most of the power right now.
Black Mamba
Member
Whoa who said anything about a peace treaty? I was under the impressions you sere promoting a unilateral decision. Under the process of negotiations sure. Of course this is kind of moot since any solution involves some settlements staying (with land swap given).
Egypt lost 2 wars in Embarrassing fashion and they had to be bribed by the USA. Big difference where isrsel isn't capable of doing that now since there is no traditional war here or traditional government. And they got the Sinai back in thei negotiation. There was nothing left for then to go after, they wanted out of direct conflict for good. Nothing to gain.
A unilateral decision wouldn't lead to peace, though. And they can't threaten their state as a whole but they can do what they've done and ramp it up. They've essentially been in war since 2000 so that doesn't change.
I don't think unilaterally dismantling them changes anything for the positive and probably hurts. S not until other things happen first. Has to be part of a process. I also don't think expanding then does anything but hurt. I think there should be a freeze until its solved at this point but the longer this goes on the more Israelites will want to expand , unfortunately.
I don't need inside information. Palestinians aren't unique. It's how anyone would approach that situation coming from the same place. Wouldn't you assess your tactics as working and push for more? Bargaining is all about signaling strength, too.
I think the biggest problem people make is trying to assign blame to either side but reality is this is the situation that exists and it's more important to try to figure out what breaks the bad cycle. Or more importantly, what will establish trust?
Ever see a bitter divorce battle? It's a fitting analogy.
I agree with this. Which is why I think the best move is a freeze. But the Israelis distrust the Palestinians so much that's not even politically viable anymore. We have to work back to that.
Bargaining power, how does it work? You're taking too much of an invisible hand approach.
It's not a win win. It would empower palestinian attacks. Until Israel can trust the Palestinians to play nice they can't dismantle. And they have no reason to trust them (and visa versa).
It wouldn't but someone the Israelis dismantling would? Seems like a contradictory position unless you think one side is actually more moral or something. I think neither solves the problem at all at this time.
You're not exactly right about that 20 years thing but it should also be noted they were mostly fighting other people at the time (jordanians, Lebanese) so they were a bit preoccupied moreso.
Black Mamba
Member
See, I can play that stupid game too. Reality isn't so simple.
But I won't get involved on the topic with those with such bias. I've learned my lesson on Internet discussions on this topic years ago.
(For those a bit confused, I do not believe what I adjusted in his quote. I am mocking it)
empty vessel
Member
You can, but your version isn't reality-based.
Black Mamba
Member
That's nice. Like I said, I won't engage you anymore. It's a waste of time, I see you as part of the problem rather than solution.
speculawyer
Member
I laughed.
I still want to know the mechanism of the way she thinks Obamacare kills people I'm just totally lost. Of course, I haven't clicked on the videos because I fear that if I do that I will punch my screen and break it.
How can anyone take her seriously? All I can imagine is that she thinks Obama is the Kenyan Muslim baby-killer so if he is behind it then it must be evil.
I mean really . . . I understand when people complain and say "it will cost too much" or "I don't want my taxes going to those dirty poor people" . . . But "Obamacare will kill people"? Does she think the waiting rooms will be secret gas chambers?
speculawyer
Member
It was as reality based as yours. They both contain substantial truths but they both over simplify the situation.
el retorno
Member
To play devils advocate I think her argument is that it will increase wait times with all the regulations and certain procedures will not be paid for by medicare and thus people will die.
Of course that's not what Obamacare does. (BTW I really love how Obama took on the name Obamacare, brilliant move on his part)
Also
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/florida-2016-poll-clinton-rubio-bush-89175.html
empty vessel
Member
Likewise.
- Status