• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bowe Bergdahl, U.S. soldier held in Afghanistan, freed in swap

And why was it that Bush held a cabinet meeting on the invasion of Iraq ten days after he first took office in 2001? And why was it that part of the meeting concerned the oil that Iraq had?

And why was it that Bush's former biographer stated that Bush told him that he wanted to be a war president, because war presidents are always more popular?

And who was it that elected Bush? Twice?

So let me guess....it's all Bush's fault?
 
Re: Free flow of oil in a world market

Just because people think the market 'calls for it' doesn't make it smart. Not at all. That's the stuff of which gluts are made.

Actually gluts are made when govt run production requires production at higher levels than consumption. Ask the USSR how that turned out.
 
And if you cannot prove that Bergdahl renounced his citizenship but are just making it up...what does that make you?

PROVE that Bergdahl renounced his citizenship!

I notice that you've walked away from this with tail tucked.

Nice.
 
By saying you're the ones sounding desperate?

Oh and...was I complaining? Nope, don't think so.
I'm asking you to find one instance where I defend Bergdahl.

Sure. But first I want you to find a post of me saying that I hate America and want her to die in nuclear annihilation. Otherwise, you're wrong and I'm offended at how badly you've misrepresented me.






see? I can play the strawman game too. :)
 
So let me guess....it's all Bush's fault?

The invasion of Iraq? Yes, it was - that was his plan all along, even before he got elected the first time. He wanted to do what daddy wouldn't do.

I know that sounds crude...but it's true. And so many of us - myself included at the time - got sucked into believing him.
 
Re: Free flow of oil in a world market

Actually gluts are made when govt run production requires production at higher levels than consumption. Ask the USSR how that turned out.

FYI, gluts normally have nothing to do with government. Try looking up gluts that have occurred in the past and see how much governments didn't have to do with them. Gluts are those situations when supply is much greater than demand, and occur when there is significant overproduction or significant decrease in demand. Most gluts are minor in the macroeconomic view (though some are certainly not - see the real estate gluts caused by the "Great Depression" and the "Great Recession") and there's many different causes of overproduction or decrease in demand, and sometimes those are indeed the fault of the government...but more often than not, it's simply a case of overproduction.

In the case of oil, however, a glut due to overproduction would not be a good thing at all. I despise Big Oil, but if we allow that to happen which would cause the price of oil to nosedive even temporarily, that kind of macroeconomic shock can cause significant instability in the market...and not the good kind of instability.

And FYI, we aren't the USSR. I know that comes as a shock to you....
 
I notice that you've walked away from this with tail tucked.

Nice.

Um, did you show where he renounced his citizenship? Maybe you did, and I could well have missed it. I know this might sound strange, but I do have a life away from this forum. I was up to 0345 this morning cranking out a research paper. It wasn't fun.

But anyway, did you show where he renounced his citizenship?
 
FYI, gluts normally have nothing to do with government. Try looking up gluts that have occurred in the past and see how much governments didn't have to do with them. Gluts are those situations when supply is much greater than demand, and occur when there is significant overproduction or significant decrease in demand. Most gluts are minor in the macroeconomic view (though some are certainly not - see the real estate gluts caused by the "Great Depression" and the "Great Recession") and there's many different causes of overproduction or decrease in demand, and sometimes those are indeed the fault of the government...but more often than not, it's simply a case of overproduction.

In the case of oil, however, a glut due to overproduction would not be a good thing at all. I despise Big Oil, but if we allow that to happen which would cause the price of oil to nosedive even temporarily, that kind of macroeconomic shock can cause significant instability in the market...and not the good kind of instability.

And FYI, we aren't the USSR. I know that comes as a shock to you....

You're wrong.....AGAIN.

It might help if you stopped reading Keynes, or not.

Consumers as a share of GNP rose steadily from 1920 to 1930.

The idea that the Great Depression was caused by over production or even Stock market speculation doesn't wash with the fact that there was a explosion of consumer activity and Market participation from 1920 to 1930.

American industry exploded during the twenties with electric utilities, radios and automobiles.

The American middle-class also grew at a unprecedented rate as more and more people rose out of poverty.
 
You're wrong.....AGAIN.

It might help if you stopped reading Keynes, or not.

Consumers as a share of GNP rose steadily from 1920 to 1930.

The idea that the Great Depression was caused by over production or even Stock market speculation doesn't wash with the fact that there was a explosion of consumer activity and Market participation from 1920 to 1930.

American industry exploded during the twenties with electric utilities, radios and automobiles.

The American middle-class also grew at a unprecedented rate as more and more people rose out of poverty.

Try READING what I wrote. I did NOT say that a glut caused the Great Depression - I said that the Great Depression (and the Great Recession) caused a glut in real estate. Do you see the difference? You got it bass-ackwards. Do you see the mistake you made?
 
Obama's now trying to blame Hagel for all of this mess.

Thats so Him.
 
The invasion of Iraq? Yes, it was - that was his plan all along, even before he got elected the first time. He wanted to do what daddy wouldn't do.

I know that sounds crude...but it's true. And so many of us - myself included at the time - got sucked into believing him.

Wow, that guy must have been a genius...I mean, fooling all you smaht folk n all.
 
Re: Free flow of oil in a world market

FYI, gluts normally have nothing to do with government. Try looking up gluts that have occurred in the past and see how much governments didn't have to do with them. Gluts are those situations when supply is much greater than demand, and occur when there is significant overproduction or significant decrease in demand. Most gluts are minor in the macroeconomic view (though some are certainly not - see the real estate gluts caused by the "Great Depression" and the "Great Recession") and there's many different causes of overproduction or decrease in demand, and sometimes those are indeed the fault of the government...but more often than not, it's simply a case of overproduction.

In the case of oil, however, a glut due to overproduction would not be a good thing at all. I despise Big Oil, but if we allow that to happen which would cause the price of oil to nosedive even temporarily, that kind of macroeconomic shock can cause significant instability in the market...and not the good kind of instability.

And FYI, we aren't the USSR. I know that comes as a shock to you....

Yes, gluts can have everything to do with govt. Like over-production of agricultural products (US) and over production of industrial products (USSR). Both due to govt interference.
 
Um, did you show where he renounced his citizenship? Maybe you did, and I could well have missed it. I know this might sound strange, but I do have a life away from this forum. I was up to 0345 this morning cranking out a research paper. It wasn't fun.

But anyway, did you show where he renounced his citizenship?

Yes, I did. You conveniently...missed...it.
 
Wow, that guy must have been a genius...I mean, fooling all you smaht folk n all.

Its a well-known phenomenon that in times of real crisis, people fall into line with the leader - partisan bickering is strongly diminished.

Think about it this way: are Germans an intelligent, well-educated people? Generally speaking, yes. So how did Hitler fool them? Goering said it in the clearest way I can imagine:

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

And he's absolutely right. Add to that the fact that we WERE attacked on 9/11...and most of us (including me) were suddenly ready to believe almost anything we were told.

Were we told we were under attack? Check.
Were the peacemakers denounced and accused of exposing the country to danger? Check.

And so support for the unprovoked invasion was assured.
 
Its a well-known phenomenon that in times of real crisis, people fall into line with the leader - partisan bickering is strongly diminished.

Think about it this way: are Germans an intelligent, well-educated people? Generally speaking, yes. So how did Hitler fool them? Goering said it in the clearest way I can imagine:

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

And he's absolutely right. Add to that the fact that we WERE attacked on 9/11...and most of us (including me) were suddenly ready to believe almost anything we were told.

Were we told we were under attack? Check.
Were the peacemakers denounced and accused of exposing the country to danger? Check.

And so support for the unprovoked invasion was assured.

The invasion was far from unprovoked, bad timing and faulty intelligence aside. But, it would seem that the dunce from Texas is not only really smaht, but apparently, quite charismatic, no?
 
Yes, I did. You conveniently...missed...it.

Dude. Do you not have a life away from the computer? I don't know - maybe you do, maybe you don't. I do...and I make no crude assumptions about other people.

You should learn to refrain from making assumptions about people - that's how prejudice takes hold.

Now, as to your claim that he renounced his citizenship. It took about ten minutes of scrolling through each and every page and I found it back in comment #327 (IIRC)...where it referenced this article. You saw the parts where he apparently left a note...but did you read ALL of the article?

Apparently not, because the article also said this:

The New York Times was also told by officials that the soldier left behind a note spelling out his disenchantment and his desire to walk away to start a new life.
But there are conflicting reports as other US army officials who have read the original classified 2010 investigation report into his case said the document did not refer to a note.


Do you believe in the AMERICAN judicial tradition of "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law"? Do you? Do you really? Because you have shown that you were ABSOLUTELY SURE that he had renounced his citizenship...but now, using the SAME article you used as 'proof', we can see that there may very well be reasonable doubt.

Bergdahl obviously wasn't liked by his unit for whatever reason. Was that alleged - ALLEGED - note written by Bergdahl himself? Or was it placed there by people in his unit who were ticked off at him? We don't know. YOU don't know.

And the most pertinent paragraph of all in that entire article you referenced is this one:

“There have been several looks into the circumstances surrounding his disappearance but we’ve never publicly said anything, primarily because we haven’t had a chance to speak to Sgt Bergdahl himself,” Col Warren said.

"Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law." There's a reason for that judicial tradition, and that Army colonel just gave another example of upholding that tradition. Bergdahl might be as guilty as sin and if so, he will richly deserve what's coming to him. But - according to AMERICAN judicial tradition, he is at this moment INNOCENT and will remain INNOCENT until proven guilty in a court of law.

So...NO, you did not 'prove' that Bergdahl renounced his citizenship. All you did was go on your assumptions.
 
The invasion was far from unprovoked, bad timing and faulty intelligence aside. But, it would seem that the dunce from Texas is not only really smaht, but apparently, quite charismatic, no?

Really? Where was the clear and present danger that Iraq posed to America? Especially since they were NOT allied with al-Qaeda?
 
Really? Where was the clear and present danger that Iraq posed to America? Especially since they were NOT allied with al-Qaeda?
Perhaps you should ask that question of Hillary Clinton or John Kerry seeing as how both of them endorsed and voted for the invasion (along with numerous other democrats)
 
Perhaps you should ask that question of Hillary Clinton or John Kerry seeing as how both of them endorsed and voted for the invasion (along with numerous other democrats)

Did you not see Goering's quote?

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

And if you'd look it up, you'd find that our CONGRESS - including Hillary and Kerry - were fed faulty intel...intel that the Bush admin KNEW was questionable (though they did not know for sure that it was false).
 
The invasion of Iraq? Yes, it was - that was his plan all along, even before he got elected the first time. He wanted to do what daddy wouldn't do.

I know that sounds crude...but it's true. And so many of us - myself included at the time - got sucked into believing him.
I love your fascist quote. Or is it socialist?:

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. "Necessitous men are not free men." People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, January 11, 1944
 
Did you not see Goering's quote?

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

And if you'd look it up, you'd find that our CONGRESS - including Hillary and Kerry - were fed faulty intel...intel that the Bush admin KNEW was questionable (though they did not know for sure that it was false).

So because of Goering's quote you feel that other European countries were not being attacked? That they were only the subjects of propaganda? It seems to me that you are a victim of Goering's very shallow point as well.
 
Its a well-known phenomenon that in times of real crisis, people fall into line with the leader - partisan bickering is strongly diminished.

Think about it this way: are Germans an intelligent, well-educated people? Generally speaking, yes. So how did Hitler fool them? Goering said it in the clearest way I can imagine:

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

And he's absolutely right. Add to that the fact that we WERE attacked on 9/11...and most of us (including me) were suddenly ready to believe almost anything we were told.

Were we told we were under attack? Check.
Were the peacemakers denounced and accused of exposing the country to danger? Check.

And so support for the unprovoked invasion was assured.
He did what FDR did only he did it better than FDR. They had many programs in parallel. Both loved their national socialism.
 
If he is well enough, maybe he can be assigned the task of getting those 5 back.

He was well enough but now it seems he is not well enough. Maybe he will get better after the next scandal surfaces and people have moved on.
 
And if you'd look it up, you'd find that our CONGRESS - including Hillary and Kerry - were fed faulty intel...intel that the Bush admin KNEW was questionable (though they did not know for sure that it was false).

Every intelligence agency in the Western world agreed with the assessment because Saddam was, as it turns out, faking a wmd program to keep the Iranian regime at bay.

But you'll ignore that, right?
 
Every intelligence agency in the Western world agreed with the assessment because Saddam was, as it turns out, faking a wmd program to keep the Iranian regime at bay.

But you'll ignore that, right?

Except that the WMD case was "thin", in the words of British Intelligence:

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

...

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.


The Downing Street Memo was written in July of 2002, almost eight months before the invasion. Eight months prior, and the Brits already knew that Bush had made up his mind to invade no matter what.
 
Back
Top Bottom