Please re-read paragraph three in my post. I complimented you on your exposition ("good, even-handed") of the pro-LOST arguments being made by its establishment advocates. I explicitly stated that you were describing the arguments of others ("From various entities across a broad spectrum"). I deliberately made the effort to distinguish your descriptive analysis from the general arguments/sales pitch for LOST, which do include the claims that Reagan would have supported the "fixed" treaty. And, I never claimed (nor believed) that was your personal opinion.
Your initial response to me was, let's just say, less discriminating. Forget it. I wasn't looking for an apology, not even a "if you took offense" non-apology apology. I'm not the fragile type... /g And, I'm not your enemy - I've read enough of your posts to know that we're on the same side.
The important thing is the issue, not personalities. LOST/UNCLOS is a trap and a poison pill threat to our sovereignty. The downside far outweighs the short-term benefits of getting that "seat at the table". It is, by design, intended as a mechanism to curtail American options and power in favor of the "international community". This game is rigged and we will never be allowed to win - that is its purpose
Unfortunately, we are probably too far gone to resist being suckered into it. There is a poker adage that says if you're sitting at the table and you can't tell right away who the mark is, it's you.
As we continue to observe the ongoing debates and the arguments and positions put forth by various players in this issue, however, I will insist on holding them to the standard of truth and honesty, and offer criticism where appropriate.
One critical question which they will have to answer will be: after we ratify LOST/UNCLOS, after we cede part of our sovereignty and submit to the jurisdiction of the International Seabed Authority which the treaty creates, after we take our seat at that table and dutifully submit our applications, and after we are repeatedly denied and screwed-over in favor of other, "more-deserving" applicants, as has occurred consistently and overwhelmingly in the WTO, after all that, what do we do then?*
*Hint: feel-good pablum and facile blandishments that "it will never happen" will not be an acceptable answer.
So what will be done about the Arctic? Probably nothing. Obama won't do anything to push the issue with all his other problems. He's not even concerned with the considerable resources within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. He's given it to the polar bears.
There's no leadership on the Arctic question unless it becomes part of Sarah Palin's comprehensive energy plan if she runs for president. Whether that involves pushing for LOST is the big question in my mind. I wouldn't be surprised if we see another approach from her if she runs. If she deals unilaterally with each of the Arctic parties the way she dealt with the oil companies in Alaska to get AGIA off the ground, something could get done.
You won't see any of the other serious potential candidates take a clear position on any of this unless they just parrot the Bush position on LOST. Just a guess on my part.
We'll see.