• 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!

Oil rises above $90 amid US crude supply drop

Lord Tammerlain said:
I gather both of you never ever heard of Afghanistan, and how the Mujahideen were trained, funded and motivated.
Click to expand...

In addition, Reagan had Iraq removed from the listing of terrorist nations and provided support to Saddam Hussein.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
I gather both of you never ever heard of Afghanistan, and how the Mujahideen were trained, funded and motivated.
Click to expand...

Oh yes I've heard of it, so you are talking about the continuation of the Carter policy of funding and training those people in Afghanistan to fight the Russians?
 
Catawba said:
In addition, Reagan had Iraq removed from the listing of terrorist nations and provided support to Saddam Hussein.
Click to expand...

oppps now wait a minute ... according to you liberals, there were no terrorist in Iraq, that is why we shouldn't have gone there .. So Hussein had nothing to do with terrorism ..
 
The Barbarian said:
nodding .. yeah it was just a mistake ... nothing to worry about ... . but why .. does it seems when a democrat misrepresents, misquotes, or other wise lie, why it was just a mistake and it's okay ......So you your opinion, it was perfectly okay for Obama to say his decision was based on expert opinion, when in fact it wasn't .... and it was his own need to close drilling in the gulf ?? You don't think that people would have not been behind the ban as they were, if it was stated to the public that the experts disagreed with Obama that a ban wasn't needed.

it's nice to know that you don't blame Bush for going into Iraq, because he didn't really do anything different did he ?
Click to expand...


It would have been stupid in the extreme to continue on as if the worst oil spill in history had not happened until sufficient time was allowed to determine if it was safe to resume. So I am not at all upset this time was taken to be cautious.

BTW, I don't get your analogy with Iraq at all. In this case, caution was used to avoid disaster and with Iraq, caution was thrown to the wind and created disaster. So, if you mean alike as in completely opposite, I see what you mean.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
The reviewers who had questioned it are satisfied.
Click to expand...

they sure are

LOL!

obama's own spill panel and the interior dept's ig are satisfied that the white house's handling of the bp was "not fully competent" and "not fully candid," that it "misled the public" by rewriting the recommendations of a supposedly independent group of engineers, according to the engineers, and passed off as peer reviewed its political garbage

meanwhile, class haters stuck in 1971 probably aren't aware of wapo's revelation that obama's epa EXEMPTED the deepwater horizon from its mandated environmental impact studies...

because the story appeared in may, 2010

U.S. exempted BP's Gulf of Mexico drilling from environmental impact study

who's got whom in whose pocket?

it all comes down to character
 
Last edited:
The Barbarian said:
Oh yes I've heard of it, so you are talking about the continuation of the Carter policy of funding and training those people in Afghanistan to fight the Russians?
Click to expand...

To a point

But the US government under Reagan made specific policy decisions that included Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to form the resistance against the USSR as a religous jihad. Training guides developed in the US during that time were/are still being used in the relgious schools of in the region. This was a policy decision made after the Carter admin was gone
 
The Prof said:
they sure are

LOL!

obama's own spill panel and the interior dept's ig are satisfied that the white house's handling of the bp was "not fully competent" and "not fully candid," that it "misled the public" by rewriting the recommendations of a supposedly independent group of engineers, according to the engineers, and passed off as peer reviewed its political garbage

meanwhile, class haters stuck in 1971 probably aren't aware of wapo's revelelation that obama's epa EXEMPTED the deepwater horizon from its mandated environmental impact studies...

because the story appeared in may, 2010

U.S. exempted BP's Gulf of Mexico drilling from environmental impact study

who's got whom in whose pocket?

it all comes down to character
Click to expand...

So is Obama in the pocket of big oil and allows them to run wild poluting the environment or is he against big oil suppressing exploration?

It gets so confusing when people present both as an arguement within the same thread
 
The Barbarian said:
oppps now wait a minute ... according to you liberals, there were no terrorist in Iraq, that is why we shouldn't have gone there .. So Hussein had nothing to do with terrorism ..
Click to expand...


And this is the policy that held sway? Are you agreeing now that we killed tens of thousands of Iraqis opposing our occupation and just called them terrorists?
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
So is Obama in the pocket of big oil and allows them to run wild poluting the environment or is he against big oil suppressing exploration?

It gets so confusing when people present both as an arguement within the same thread
Click to expand...

it is what it is, there's really no argument made, just the laying forth of the narrative and the asking of a simple question

obama's own spill panel concluded he was incompetent and not candid, he misled, he rewrote, he tried to pass off as peer reviewed

his epa exempted the deepwater from the studies, says wapo

who's in whose pocket?
 
Catawba said:
And this is the policy that held sway? Are you agreeing now that we killed tens of thousands of Iraqis opposing our occupation and just called them terrorists?
Click to expand...

"YOU" are the one saying there were terrorist there no I ... so don't deflect .. just answer the question yes or no?
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
To a point

But the US government under Reagan made specific policy decisions that included Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to form the resistance against the USSR as a religous jihad. Training guides developed in the US during that time were/are still being used in the relgious schools of in the region. This was a policy decision made after the Carter admin was gone
Click to expand...


Again not disagreeing, but it was still a continuation of Carters policy to draw the Russians into that war, good policy or bad ..... at the time ... it was a good policy, now if you could go forward 20 years after the fact and look back ... maybe not a good policy. Unfortunately no president has the grace of hindsight to guide them in their decision making. However you also have to look at the result of what Carter and Reagan accomplished by doing what they did, the war in Afghanistan was a major player in the demise of Russia.

But back to the point, if you are going to blame Reagan for helping to build terrorism, they you have to say the same thing about Carter
 
The Prof said:
they sure are

LOL!

obama's own spill panel and the interior dept's ig are satisfied that the white house's handling of the bp was "not fully competent" and "not fully candid," that it "misled the public" by rewriting the recommendations of a supposedly independent group of engineers, according to the engineers, and passed off as peer reviewed its political garbage

meanwhile, class haters stuck in 1971 probably aren't aware of wapo's revelation that obama's epa EXEMPTED the deepwater horizon from its mandated environmental impact studies...

because the story appeared in may, 2010

U.S. exempted BP's Gulf of Mexico drilling from environmental impact study

who's got whom in whose pocket?

it all comes down to character
Click to expand...

BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant and is the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years, according to financial disclosure records.

But this is Obama's reply

An Obama spokesman rejected the notion that the president took big oil money.

So of course to libby;s thats all it takes .. Obama didn't take it .. no matter what the records show
 
The Barbarian said:
Again not disagreeing, but it was still a continuation of Carters policy to draw the Russians into that war, good policy or bad ..... at the time ... it was a good policy, now if you could go forward 20 years after the fact and look back ... maybe not a good policy. Unfortunately no president has the grace of hindsight to guide them in their decision making. However you also have to look at the result of what Carter and Reagan accomplished by doing what they did, the war in Afghanistan was a major player in the demise of Russia.

But back to the point, if you are going to blame Reagan for helping to build terrorism, they you have to say the same thing about Carter
Click to expand...

It would be the specific policy of promoting it as a religous struggle and the creatition of training guides that would be the part about promoting/building terrorism (specifically the current islamic terrorism the US is fighting against).

That policy to my knowledge was a Reagan admin one, not Carter. So while the initial policy of the Carter admin was to draw the USSR into a large scale invasion of Afghanistan, it would be Reagan admin policies that turned it into a Jihad setting the foundations for todays radical sunni terrorism the US is fighting
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
It would be the specific policy of promoting it as a religous struggle and the creatition of training guides that would be the part about promoting/building terrorism (specifically the current islamic terrorism the US is fighting against).

That policy to my knowledge was a Reagan admin one, not Carter. So while the initial policy of the Carter admin was to draw the USSR into a large scale invasion of Afghanistan, it would be Reagan admin policies that turned it into a Jihad setting the foundations for todays radical sunni terrorism the US is fighting
Click to expand...

Well you keep saying that ... you still haven't presented what those polices were ..... are you talking about funding ? giving them arms ?? if so .. .those things also had to go through congress did they not ? And who controlled congress at the time ... I did find this in my search .. Congressman Charlie Wilson, a member of the House Appropriations Committee who was a democrat ... was a huge supporter of helping along the rebels in Afghanistan..... in fact he is given a lot of credit for that funding....
 
The Barbarian said:
"YOU" are the one saying there were terrorist there no I ... so don't deflect .. just answer the question yes or no?
Click to expand...

What you and the administration called terrorists, yes. And whether Saddam was a terrorists are or not, I do not think he was the kind of person we should have been supporting. These things have a way of coming around to bite you, and the people that suffered under him due to our support.
 
The Barbarian said:
Well you keep saying that ... you still haven't presented what those polices were ..... are you talking about funding ? giving them arms ?? if so .. .those things also had to go through congress did they not ? And who controlled congress at the time ... I did find this in my search .. Congressman Charlie Wilson, a member of the House Appropriations Committee who was a democrat ... was a huge supporter of helping along the rebels in Afghanistan..... in fact he is given a lot of credit for that funding....
Click to expand...

Not so much the funding but the training and educatiion


washingtonpost.com: From U.S., the ABC's of Jihad

In the twilight of the Cold War, the United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation.

The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books, though the radical movement scratched out human faces in keeping with its strict fundamentalist code.
Click to expand...
 
Catawba said:
What you and the administration called terrorists, yes. And whether Saddam was a terrorists are or not, I do not think he was the kind of person we should have been supporting. These things have a way of coming around to bite you, and the people that suffered under him due to our support.
Click to expand...

okay thank you ... and yes ... in this case you are right .. but as I said before ..... and it remains true, when you do something you don't have the pleasure of hindsight to form your decisions on. Just like what Carter and Reagan did with Afghanistan... it was a good idea... and accomplished what it was set out to help do ... but what it caused after that .. isn't so good.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Not so much the funding but the training and educatiion


washingtonpost.com: From U.S., the ABC's of Jihad
Click to expand...

"The U.S. government told the AID to let the Afghan war chiefs decide the school curriculum and the content of the textbooks," says CBC'S Carol Off. "What discussions did you have with the Mujahideen leaders? Was it any effort to say maybe this isn't the best for an eight-year-old's mind?"

"No, because we were told that that was not for negotiations and that the content was to be that which they decided," says Goutier.

CBC News Indepth: Afghanistan

In 1986, under President Ronald Reagan, the U.S. put a rush order on its proxy war in Afghanistan. The CIA gave Mujahideen an overwhelming arsenal of guns and missiles. But a lesser-known fact is that the U.S. also gave the Mujahideen hundreds of millions of dollars in non-lethal aid; $43 million just for the school textbooks. The U.S. Agency for International Development, AID, coordinated its work with the CIA, which ran the weapons program.

So altho, I guess you could say Reagan could have vetoed the bill, that included funding of those book, from what I'm able to dig up on this subject, it would be a stretch at best …. to say this was a Reagan “policy”
 
The Barbarian said:
"The U.S. government told the AID to let the Afghan war chiefs decide the school curriculum and the content of the textbooks," says CBC'S Carol Off. "What discussions did you have with the Mujahideen leaders? Was it any effort to say maybe this isn't the best for an eight-year-old's mind?"

"No, because we were told that that was not for negotiations and that the content was to be that which they decided," says Goutier.

CBC News Indepth: Afghanistan

In 1986, under President Ronald Reagan, the U.S. put a rush order on its proxy war in Afghanistan. The CIA gave Mujahideen an overwhelming arsenal of guns and missiles. But a lesser-known fact is that the U.S. also gave the Mujahideen hundreds of millions of dollars in non-lethal aid; $43 million just for the school textbooks. The U.S. Agency for International Development, AID, coordinated its work with the CIA, which ran the weapons program.

So altho, I guess you could say Reagan could have vetoed the bill, that included funding of those book, from what I'm able to dig up on this subject, it would be a stretch at best …. to say this was a Reagan “policy”
Click to expand...

I would suggest a Reagan admin policy most definately

How much or how little Reagan knew or could understand is a different story
 
The Prof said:
Gasoline cost to jump $700 for average household | Reuters

Gas Prices Have Gone Up 67 Percent Since Obama Became President
Click to expand...
ch.gaschart


You do know gas prices plummeted during the economic collapse under Bush, don't you? That is why gas prices were low when Obama took office. Of course you would chose to ignore that and try to make a lame comparison between Bush and Obama. Gas prices rose as the economy recovered.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom