Pangloss

I don't know that non-compliant Middle Eastern nations really care very much whose troops are on their soil. When you look at the actual criticism they put forth, the issue for them is their lack of voice the United Nations (and specifically on the Security Council). This is one of Iran's biggest complaints, for example. Obviously they have an axe to grind over the nuclear issue, but it's important to bear in mind that the blame-the-UN approach has a great deal of traction with the common people, not only in Iran, but all over the Middle East. It plays very well in Peoristan. Once you take that into consideration, the idea of a "UN army" seems fairly moot, because it would only have significance to western observers. And since "peacekeeping forces" are often reflagged in blue and white anyway (Bosnia comes to mind), what's the difference really? In terms of the potential tactical advantages of having a standing force, I'm not sure there really are any, but it might be worth exploring further (like having a "ready response" unit for humanitarian efforts that need protection or rescuing or what have you). Perhaps with certain charter restrictions you might find something workable there. I imagine this has been looked at by the UN before, and it might be interesting to see what the history is on this.

Missed that one. I'm more of a Stephanopoulos fan.

Amusingly, as I understand it, no source of oil has ever run dry in the entire history of oil production. Individual wells stop producing, but the sources themselves just become "unproductive" due to higher accessibility costs. Logically you have to look at the amount of oil as finite, but look at how the higher price of oil has turned Canada's shale production into a legitimate (and very profitable) source. Look at how that higher price has already driven not only hybrid sales, but also interest in new/improving technologies like hydrogen and ethanol. Maybe I'm an optimist, but I think it's great that society is finally becoming motivated to change.

I agree with the Captain. I know it's hard to see sometimes when you're in the midst of a heated debate, but I think valid points have been made by both sides and the discussion has been fruitful. This is one of the most interesting long-term (14-page!) discussions that I think we've had on this board in the time I've been here (several years now). I think you have to step back and look at the positive and realize that there's only so much you can accomplish in a discussion.

I've known plenty of perfectly sane people who could not let go of devastatingly detrimental emotional fixations. Pretty much anyone I've known who went through a divorce, in fact.

I was especially interested in the blaming of the Iran-Iraq war on the US. The man has just enough traction in what he says that I can see why it "plays in Peoristan". That's part of what makes him such a scarry guy. But in some ways I'm kinda glad he's out there, front and center, for all the world to see. No more hiding behind collections of clerics and secretive student organizations. They're in the spotlight now. (Is this 2006, or 1936? I forget....)

It's a valid point, and I agree with your point about whether they have a right to be there is irrelevent, for the reasons I stated above. Practical solutions are all well and good, I'm just not sure this idea is very practical. You realize that Jews and Arabs lived side by side in the region before the Israeli state was born, right? I don't think the problem is that one group or the other has to be moved. I think the problem is that they have to be forced to grow up and stop acting emo. (How's that for reducing the complexity of the situation?) (grin)

I'm not sure I understand that, but maybe I'm just being slow. The unwritten premise of the "relocating Israel" idea in that blog entry is that Palestinians have some basis for a superior claim on the land. I don't accept that premise -- Palestinians have no more claim on that land than the Jews do. Nobody knows who was living there 10,000 years ago. And whomever it was, they're certainly not alive today, and I doubt anyone living there today can whip out a family tree and show lineage to imply ownership that old. Even worse, the arguments about land ownership are not something to be respected and empathized with and logically reasoned out. They're something to be ignored. These people, Jew and Palestinian alike, have behaved poorly, squandering that land and showing little capability for turning things around. And frankly the only reason they still have it is because the rest of the world hasn't gotten fed up enough with their nonsense to take that responsibility away from them yet. So the premise is flawed, and therefore the argument collapses. Besides, as someone pointed out in a recent thread, it wasn't the arrival of Jews in the region that caused unrest, it was the creation of the Jewish state. But the Jews didn't come there entirely because it's a Jewish state, they came their because it's a Jewish state in the "holy land". Which makes relocating Jews (or Palestinians) to Mexico pointless. They don't want to live in Mexico, they want to live in the "holy land". That blog entry is an example of how poorly the situation in the Middle East is understood by average westerners.

Thanks for the link. That was a fascinating piece.

Why relocate the Israelis, as opposed to, say, relocating the Palestinians?

Bascule, if you're not willing to take responsibility for your posts, then I agree that it's best that you, shall we say, stay out of the kitchen. I'm sorry you feel that way -- like I said, I have a high regard for your opinion. But I can't in good conscience let what you did in this thread stand, and you know it.

No it won't, it takes five seconds. I asked you "have you heard anything further about what the administration's motive might have been?" I asked you for a mere opinion, not a research paper, and it seems to me now, in light of THIS discussion, that you didn't answer because you couldn't think of an answer that fit your agenda.

The arrest of your so-called "hair-gell bombers" produced information that directly lead to the capture of Matiur Rehman today in Pakistan, Bascule. And he holds the key to the potential arrest of an entire network of terrorists. http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/08/new_clues_in_hu.html But no, to you that's just another example of the Bush administration's foul-ups. No, that can't possibly be a victory of any kind.

Exactly. You know, there's a reason I don't talk to creationists about evolution. What's the point? It's not that they don't have any valid observations at all, it's that they subvert and spin all logic and reason in order to further their faith-based agenda. Just like the Anybody-But-Bush crowd. Or the 9/11 conspiracy nuts. There is no difference. That's the sense I get from you about this -- that it's a waste of time talking to you about these issues, because you're determined to push an "impeach Bush" agenda ahead of such annoying little things as "burden of proof" or "public safety". Like I said, I think you're better than that. I actually have a very high regard for your opinion. But you've thrown this out there now, and I feel like I have no choice but to ask you about it. You said it, and if you're willing to compromise logic and reason and even your own opinions for the sake of an agenda, then why would I want to listen to you on any subject? Please tell me I'm not wasting my time listening to you, bascule.

You know, if there is one thing I cannot stand in online debate it's people who, when confronted with their errors, draw things out endlessly by spinning and obfuscating details and focusing on side issues, in desperate hope that other observers will lose interest and drift away from the topic, or even better, assume that both sides are in error and call the match a draw. It's a pathetic, weasly thing to do, cheapening debate and lowering the value of all other discussions that take place here. Would you like to take another shot at your last reply, Bascule?

That's an interesting speculation, Phi. It does make a lot of sense that we could see that sort of thing fairly soon. Another indicator that we might be headed in that direction might be seen in the rise in private scholarship funds. There are down sides, of course. It's like tying healthcare and retirement savings to employment -- it makes a lot of sense from a logistical viewpoint, but it raises other issues which can be fairly serious. I'm sure you've seen the statstics on how many people cash out of their 401(k)s when they leave a company, for example. Sure we can put regulations like COBRA, which deals with the issue of terminated employees facing gaps in healthcare coverage that can lead to massive premium increases, out there to help fill the gaps, but the more gaps you fill the less enforcement and more money you have to spend (actually COBRA would be a bad example of that, since it costs nothing, but I'm sure you see my concern here). In your example we might need to have some regulations specifying what happens if an employee is fired or quits, but still carries an outstanding student loan. But yeah that's a good point about skill sets and it's not hard to see the advantage there for both company and employee.

(I asked you a SPECIFIC probing question about that, and you didn't reply, and yet here you are repeating the assertion without even responding to the question. Do you really want to "talk specifics", or do you just want to further your agenda?) And the specifics you call for based on those whopping generalities: It's not your opinion I have a problem with, Bascule. It's your sweeping partisanship and conclusions based on presumptions, combined with a refusal to discuss other possibilities, that I object to. You're channeling Al Franken on my favorite politics board, and I don't like it, and more than you (or I) would like it if someone stepped in here and started channeling Rush Limbaugh. I also think you're better than that, and you've allowed yourself to be swept away by partisanship in direct opposition to logic and reason.

Maybe, but Israel was willing to accept a compromise that involved the Lebanese army taking over regions previously controlled by Hezbollah, including the southern area near Israel's border. That was actually preferential to Israel, because it felt that they would be more capable of actually enforcing the agreement (which means being willing to shoot). I agree there's a huge question there, but I think the choice that Israel made there is interesting. I can't help but wonder if they have better insight into the situation than we have at this distance.

That's much more like the bascule I know. I apologize -- I misinterpreted your line "This is a war the administration has created." to mean that you believe it to be factual that they fabricated evidence of WMDs. I see now that I was mistaken, sorry about that. The statement is actually one I agree with, just not the conclusion that WMD evidence was fabricated or known to be false (I still see that as speculative). Getting back to the point, I feel that you're deliberately spinning events in order to make Bush look worse than he is, and doing so at a direct cost of people's safety regarding terrorism. You downplay things like the recent aircraft plot and overstate cases of innocent people held in custody, while ignoring things like the London and Madrid bombings and the fact that plenty of REAL terrorists may well be behind bars. Sure, you score points with me when you talk about fairness and decency and due process -- absolutely. Then you throw them out the window again when you talk about impeachment and "overblown" dangers from terrorism. You think the comparison with 9/11 conspiracy theories was invalid and insulting? Too bad. You've made your bed. Now you get to sleep in it. If you find it uncomfortable, well I truly am sorry, but you are wallowing in the mud with pigs. When you care more about spinning the truth and winning political victories at all costs, people like me step up and point out to other people what those costs are. And that's when you lose. You know what? I don't live in a fascist state, and neither do you. Hasn't the rise of Iran and North Korea taught you anything about what that really looks like? We're here, we're talking, we're having an open discussion. Nobody is knocking on my door, demanding my hard drive. Nobody is knocking on your door, handcuffing you and taking you to Guantanamo Bay. THE SKY IS NOT FALLING. No matter how badly you wish it were otherwise, George Bush is in charge, and everything is pretty much okay. Concerns? Sure, I'm full of them. Red Alerts, with shields down and photon torpedos inbound? Not so much. That kind of ideological nonsense didn't work when it was about "Thatcherism" and "Ronnie's Ray Gun", it didn't work when it was "Billyboy and his loose belt", and it doesn't work today with George W. Bush. You're not controlling the message. You're not fooling anybody. Bush's approval rating isn't down because Howard Dean and Al Franken are winning hearts and minds. His approval rating is down because of the war in Iraq and high gas prices. The ideological nature of the country hasn't changed one iota. And it WON'T change so long as people keep pounding the podium instead of LISTENING to one another.

Edited above.

Come on, Bascule, you're better than that post. You just slammed a guy for having an opinion even though he's not a constitutional scholar, and in the very next post demanded that Bush be impeached (I guess you're a lawyer), stated factually that Bush fabricated evidence for the War in Iraq (I guess you're an intelligence analyst), declared that Al Qaeda no longer exists (I guess you're a member of the National Security Council), and ruled summarily that there was no threat from the people who were arrested in the UK the other day (I guess you also work for Scotland Yard). Hell why not throw in a 9/11 conspiracy theory while you're at it? I applaud you for shrugging off Bill O'Reilly. I hope this isn't an indication that all you've done is trade him in for Al Franken.

That's true for children, but once the student becomes an adult it makes sense to incur a certain degree of personal responsibility. Otherwise they'll just see it as a right, which is owed to them by society, which is not the case at all. As you say, it's an investment for me to pay for education. It's also that way for the student.

Georgia does. I'm not sure whom else. It was one of Zell Miller's more popular acts while governor. (He's the Democrat who's somewhat famous these days for crossing party lines and giving a speech at the Republican National Convention, writing abook critical of the Democratic party, etc.)