US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9564

On December 19 2017 07:19 zlefin wrote:

do you want to read them in full? if so I could probably dig them up.
iirc it was a mix of an extensive report by RAND corp, plus the US army counterinsurgency manual.

if you respect the right of a country to declare its own capital, what about the country of palestine, which also considers jerusalem to be its capital (and where quite a lot of them live)?

On December 19 2017 07:40 xDaunt wrote:

Why do you think that I won't engage on a discussion of my premises? For example, feel free to argue why I am incorrect in stating that Israel and Palestine will never coexist peacefully.

On December 19 2017 08:06 Nebuchad wrote:


It's a baseless claim.

On December 19 2017 08:06 Nebuchad wrote:


It's a baseless claim.

On December 19 2017 08:13 xDaunt wrote:


This post is the perfect example of the general intellectual bankruptcy of most of the people who disagree with me. I gave my reasons previously for why Israel and Palestine will never peacefully coexist (namely by pointing out that the history shows as such). Nebuchad says he disagrees with me. I invited to explain and why, and he merely reiterates that he disagrees with me (by stating that my claim is baseless). What a fucking joke.

On December 19 2017 08:15 Nebuchad wrote:


Stop the theatrics, you don't have an audience. I claim that your claim is baseless. Prove me wrong and provide a basis.

On December 19 2017 08:17 xDaunt wrote:

I gave my reasons already and I restated them. Feel free to make an actual argument as to why my claim is baseless instead of just stating as such. I'm not sure whom you think you're fooling.

On December 19 2017 08:13 xDaunt wrote:


This post is the perfect example of the general intellectual bankruptcy of most of the people who disagree with me. I gave my reasons previously for why Israel and Palestine will never peacefully coexist (namely by pointing out that the history shows as such). Nebuchad says he disagrees with me. I invited to explain and why, and he merely reiterates that he disagrees with me (by stating that my claim is baseless). What a fucking joke.

On December 19 2017 08:21 Jockmcplop wrote:
Its pretty much the same as xDaunt's premise, and I wouldn't call it baseless.

On December 19 2017 08:25 Nebuchad wrote:


It isn't pretty much the same as xDaunt's premise, no. xDaunt said "never". You take into account the current circumstances, which include far right governments on both side.

Under your premise we should attempt to change the current circumstances so that we obtain a situation where we can obtain peace. Under his, peace is unattainable, so instead we should go all out with the war on the side that is closer to xDaunt (sorry, I meant, "to America", "to us").

On December 19 2017 08:19 Nebuchad wrote:


So your answer is "history"?

A UN security council resolution calling for the withdrawal of Donald Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital has been backed by every council member except the US, which used its veto.

The unanimity of the rest of the council was a stark rebuke to the Trump administration over its unilateral move earlier this month, which upended decades of international consensus.

The Egyptian-drafted resolution did not specifically mention the US or Trump but expressed “deep regret at recent decisions concerning the status of Jerusalem”.

A spokesman for the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, responded to the veto by saying it was “unacceptable and threatens the stability of the international community because it disrespects it”.

The UK and France had indicated in advance that they would would back the text, which demanded that all countries comply with pre-existing UNSC resolutions on Jerusalem, dating back to 1967, including requirements that the city’s final status be decided in direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

The resolution was denounced in furious language by the US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, who described it as “an insult” that would not be forgotten. “The United States will not be told by any country where we can put our embassy,” she said.

“It’s scandalous to say we are putting back peace efforts,” she added. “The fact that this veto is being done in defence of American sovereignty and in defence of America’s role in the Middle East peace process is not a source of embarrassment for us; it should be an embarrassment to the remainder of the security council.”

The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, tweeted: “Thank you, Ambassador Haley. On Hanukkah, you spoke like a Maccabi. You lit a candle of truth. You dispel the darkness. One defeated the many. Truth defeated lies. Thank you, President Trump.”

The tabling of the resolution followed a weekend of negotiations aimed at securing the widest consensus possible on the issue. The vote has underlined once again the widespread international opposition to the US move, even among some of its closest allies.

It came ahead of a planned trip by the US vice-president, Mike Pence, to Jerusalem on Wednesday that was set to take place amid a deep rupture in US-Palestinian relations.

However, Pence announced on Monday night that he was postponing the trip until February, citing the imminent congressional votes on tax reform, set to take place in the House and Senate starting on Tuesday. “The vice-president is committed to seeing the tax cut through to the finish line,” his spokeswoman said.

The Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah party has called for a day of demonstrations in the occupied Palestinian territories to coincide with the Pence trip.

Palestinian officials had warned that in the event of a US veto on the security council, they would also seek a resolution at the general assembly.

The push for a vote – which came in the knowledge that the US would use its veto – followed Trump’s decision to upend decades of policy by declaring that the US recognises Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and that he plans to move its embassy there.

Speaking before the vote, the UK’s ambassador to the UN, Matthew Rycroft, said the text was in line with London’s position on Jerusalem as an issue that must be resolved through negotiations.

In an apparent rejection of the authority of the security council, Israel’s ambassador to the UN, Danny Dann, said ahead of the vote: “Members of the council can vote again and again — for a hundred more times. It won’t change the simple fact that Jerusalem is, has been, and always will be the capital of Israel.”

On December 19 2017 08:20 Plansix wrote:

This is like saying France and England will never be allies in a war in the 1890s. History would support your claim, but that doesn’t mean shit. Knowing history doesn't let us predict the future.

On December 19 2017 08:28 Jockmcplop wrote:


Hmmm... Close but not quite.
Under my premise we should operate under the assumption that there will never be peace. This is because simply hoping for a peace which currently seems unattainable has literally no positive effects. In fact, it is the same as doing nothing while Israel slowly tortures Palestine to death.

Tentatively starting contingency planning for all out disaster for Palestinians is the sensible thing to do. Notice I am coming from a totally different place to xDaunt, but operating under the same assumption because that is a better way to operate - not because of some ultimate allegiance to the truth of the premise, but because of the good that may come of it.

You may have missed the fact that exactly one week ago two major solar power plants, with a combined generating capacity of 179 megawatts, shifted into commercial operation on Bureau of Land Management property in southern Nevada. It’s totally understandable, since the Interior Department didn’t even issue a news release (although its Nevada state director did show up for the formal opening ceremony, and provides a quote for a solar firm’s publicity package).

The launch of Switch Station 1 and Switch Station 2, which deliver electricity to massive data centers in Las Vegas and Reno, highlights the fact that solar power is still expanding in the United States even if President Trump rarely mentions it (despite his talk of a solar-powered border wall). The nation’s solar output rose 47 percent for the first three quarters of 2017, according the Energy Department — and the switch stations mark the first utility-scale energy facility built on BLM land through a streamlined process the Obama administration established in 2014.

Backers of the project — which include First Solar (which built it); EDF Renewable Energy (which runs it); and the Nature Conservancy (which developed the plan to offset its environmental impacts) — say it proves that federal land has tremendous renewable energy potential if the planning is done right. The project lies within the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone, one of 19 zones that Interior identified as ideal for large projects, and siting it there cut the permitting time in half and reduced its cost to 3.8 cents per kilowatt hour.

The span of the two stations stretches across about 1,797 acres. It boasts 1,980,840 solar panels and generates enough energy to meet the demand of 46,000 homes. Switch, a major data center operator, is tapping the energy as part of its plan to be powered by 100 percent renewable energy.

“The administration is completely supportive of ‘all of the above’ energy,” BLM Nevada director John Ruhs said in an interview Sunday, adding that when it comes to large-scale solar projects on BLM land, “It’s just the first of more that are coming, especially for Nevada, and probably California, as well.”

Deploying renewable energy on federal land ranked as a high priority during the previous administration. A year ago, then-Interior Secretary Sally Jewell announced that the department had approved 60 such utility-scale projects, including 36 solar, 11 wind and 13 geothermal plans.

The GOP tax overhaul bill that could pass as soon as this week keeps key production and investment tax credits that have boosted investment in solar and wind power, which has eased fears within the renewable energy sector.

But these companies still have some concerns about another provision aimed at preventing multinational firms from taking advantage of the U.S. tax code, on the grounds that it might curb investors’ ability to claim a part of production or investment credits. More broadly, the Trump administration’s emphasis on spurring fossil fuel production nationwide has raised questions about the outlook for renewable energy projects on federal land and in federal waters.

The Nature Conservancy helped develop the $6.9 million restoration project that will offset the solar plant’s environmental impact by improving desert tortoise habitat about a 45-minute drive away. John Zablocki, its Mojave Desert program director, said in an interview Saturday that the stations’ launch “shows there’s a better way of doing things.” Now, he added, “It’s a question of whether that will continue. I’m confident it will here in Nevada. Stay tuned.”

On December 19 2017 08:28 Jockmcplop wrote:


Hmmm... Close but not quite.
Under my premise we should operate under the assumption that there will never be peace. This is because simply hoping for a peace which currently seems unattainable has literally no positive effects. In fact, it is the same as doing nothing while Israel slowly tortures Palestine to death.

Tentatively starting contingency planning for all out disaster for Palestinians is the sensible thing to do. Notice I am coming from a totally different place to xDaunt, but operating under the same assumption because that is a better way to operate - not because of some ultimate allegiance to the truth of the premise, but because of the good that may come of it.