• 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

What they should see is the only force in world history that has spent out treasure, and spilled our blood to give them the opportunity to be free, and govern themselves...yeah, you're right, we are evil....:roll:

Guy, if you saw a bunch of foreign soldiers on your soil telling you what you oughta be doing, and what they're telling you to do is completely different from what you've done for literally thousands of years, what will you do? Meekly do what you're being told? Or will you instead take up arms and get those foreigners off your soil because they don't belong there?
 
Um, we already are. We're pumping out more oil than ever before, thanks to fracking (and the swarms of (relatively minor) earthquakes that come with it).

Thing is, the way the global oil markets are structured, NONE - repeat, NONE - of that oil we're pumping out is reserved for American use. ALL of it is considered 'fungible' - it's put on the global market, and so we bid on and buy what's cheapest on the market, without any concern of where it came from.

Which is why "drill baby drill" was so silly - it Does Not Matter how much we drill, because it's ALL on the global market, and because of this, we will never, ever (as long as the wealthiest industry in human history survives) be "energy independent" as long as we depend on oil.

Never. It's flatly impossible, because we have to buy from the global market, and not from the oil we're drilling on our own land...even though we're currently producing more oil than we're using.

Don't believe that statement is accurate....
 
Nonsense.

The Iraq resolution was bi-partisan and Democrats going back to 1998 agreed Saddam had WMD and something needed to be done about it.

Keep the Bush derangement syndrome in the Partisan section where it belongs.

And before we invaded, we searched and searched and searched for those WMD's...and found none. But we invaded anyway, which - according to the British - Bush was intent on doing ANYWAY. Sure, after the invasion we found a few chemical weapons...but we did NOT find ANY evidence of the NUKES which were Bush's biggest concern...

...and were apparently Bush's ONLY concern since he has since stated himself that we found NO weapons of mass destruction.
 
And before we invaded, we searched and searched and searched for those WMD's...and found none. But we invaded anyway, which - according to the British - Bush was intent on doing ANYWAY. Sure, after the invasion we found a few chemical weapons...but we did NOT find ANY evidence of the NUKES which were Bush's biggest concern...

...and were apparently Bush's ONLY concern since he has since stated himself that we found NO weapons of mass destruction.

The decision for war preceded the WMD issue, which was simply the lowest common denominator around which support for the war could be built. That does not mean, however, that the administration did not honestly believe there were WMD. The most that can be said is that they were predisposed to believe, and were therefore less rigorous than they should have been in testing the evidence.:peace
 
Guy, if you saw a bunch of foreign soldiers on your soil telling you what you oughta be doing, and what they're telling you to do is completely different from what you've done for literally thousands of years, what will you do? Meekly do what you're being told? Or will you instead take up arms and get those foreigners off your soil because they don't belong there?

Well "Guy", if you're willing to ignore centuries of radical Islamic marching toward caliphate, to ignore the Koran calling for the death of infidels, and the despotism of Islamic rule toward the oppression of their own people then your perception is misguided and your loyalty misplaced.
 
And before we invaded, we searched and searched and searched for those WMD's...and found none. But we invaded anyway, which - according to the British - Bush was intent on doing ANYWAY. Sure, after the invasion we found a few chemical weapons...but we did NOT find ANY evidence of the NUKES which were Bush's biggest concern...

...and were apparently Bush's ONLY concern since he has since stated himself that we found NO weapons of mass destruction.

That link means nothing and it seems you never read it. No WMD were found post invaasion. What does that mean to you?
 
Guy, if you saw a bunch of foreign soldiers on your soil telling you what you oughta be doing, and what they're telling you to do is completely different from what you've done for literally thousands of years, what will you do? Meekly do what you're being told? Or will you instead take up arms and get those foreigners off your soil because they don't belong there?

Foreign soldiers called Al Qaeda were already on Afghan soil and being harbored by the Taliban. The Taliban were given ample opportunity to release these terrorists into American custody but chose not to.
 
The decision for war preceded the WMD issue, which was simply the lowest common denominator around which support for the war could be built. That does not mean, however, that the administration did not honestly believe there were WMD. The most that can be said is that they were predisposed to believe, and were therefore less rigorous than they should have been in testing the evidence.:peace

Saddam Hussein did little to discourage the idea that he had WMD because it gave him more power and prestige within the Arab world and could also be used as a threat against any invading force. That anyone would want a genocidal madman like Saddam to remain in power says a great deal about how far leftists will go to demonstrate their deep-rooted feelings of anti Americanism.

Of course every world leader was 'predisposed to believe' he had WMD, as the record clearly indicates.
 
The decision for war preceded the WMD issue, which was simply the lowest common denominator around which support for the war could be built. That does not mean, however, that the administration did not honestly believe there were WMD. The most that can be said is that they were predisposed to believe, and were therefore less rigorous than they should have been in testing the evidence.:peace

Well said. I can't argue against that.
 
Well "Guy", if you're willing to ignore centuries of radical Islamic marching toward caliphate, to ignore the Koran calling for the death of infidels, and the despotism of Islamic rule toward the oppression of their own people then your perception is misguided and your loyalty misplaced.

It doesn't matter if YOU think their perception is misguided, their loyalty misplaced. YOUR opinion - and mine - does not matter. What matters is what THEY think - it's THEIR nation, THEIR culture, THEIR people, THEIR way of life. We can't just go in and say "do things the way we say you should" at the point of a gun. It never, ever works that way.
 
Foreign soldiers called Al Qaeda were already on Afghan soil and being harbored by the Taliban. The Taliban were given ample opportunity to release these terrorists into American custody but chose not to.

If we harbored someone the Russians felt was a terrorist - and could prove it - and we refused to give him up because of some reason, and they decided to invade, would we care one whit that they were only invading because we refused to give up that terrorist?
 
Just as a reminder of what this thread is all about, our involvement in Afghanistan had nothing to do with WMD. It had everything to do with radical militant Islamofacists determined to destroy the infidels with the ultimate goal of bringing the whole world under the authority of Allah. It had everything to do with those same Islamofacists hijacking four American airliners, filled with innocent passengers, and flying three of them into heavily populated buildings with a net death toll of almost 3,000 people. The fourth was most likely headed for the U.S. capital building or the White House.

Militant Islam is not content to restrain their activities to their country, their culture, their territory. For many decades now it has been the primary exporter of terrorism, death, destruction, and mayhem throughout Africa, Asia, Europe, and now the North American continent. And they are determined to bring the whole world under the authority of Allah, no matter what they have to do and no matter how long it takes. They have unlimited time and apparently unlimited hate and conviction. And they certainly laugh and immensely enjoy how successful they are the more they can force us to change our lifestyles out of fear of them and what they might do.

That makes Bergdahl's motives and actions much more of a big deal, most especially if it turns out that he had less than noble motives in walking off the base in the first place, and if some of his comrades were put at higher risk, were wounded and/or killed because he did.
 
Free flow of oil in a world market

Um, we already are. We're pumping out more oil than ever before, thanks to fracking (and the swarms of (relatively minor) earthquakes that come with it).
Any drilling we are doing is despite government interference.

Thing is, the way the global oil markets are structured, NONE - repeat, NONE - of that oil we're pumping out is reserved for American use. ALL of it is considered 'fungible' - it's put on the global market, and so we bid on and buy what's cheapest on the market, without any concern of where it came from.
We can disagree about the impact of significantly increasing our oil production. I believe our ability to use all of our resources could, and probably would, drive oil prices down. Your mileage (ahem) may vary.

Which is why "drill baby drill" was so silly - it Does Not Matter how much we drill, because it's ALL on the global market, and because of this, we will never, ever (as long as the wealthiest industry in human history survives) be "energy independent" as long as we depend on oil.
Then let's prepare to remain in those parts of the world that supply a large part of the world's oil.
We can also agree to disagree on the government's massive interference wilt oil production along with the fascistic crony capitalism involved with the president's bundlers. Get the government out of the way. We will all be better off.

Never. It's flatly impossible, because we have to buy from the global market, and not from the oil we're drilling on our own land...even though we're currently producing more oil than we're using.
That is not relevant. What is relevant is the ability to impact the price of oil with or without military forces.
 
Making a weak case to not drill for any more oil in the US

Actually, it IS accurate - we are currently a net oil exporter. And have our oil prices fallen as a result?

No.

I rest my case.
It may be a very weak case. From your link the net export was 450k barrels per day. Latin America alone uses about 6 million barrels a day. Our exports are a very small portion of the total world wide demand for oil. Let's see what happens when we account for 20% of the world's daily oil supply.

Isn't the reason why we were able to export oil is because of Obama's anti-industrial policies. Our demand for oil dropped by two million barrels per day because of Obama's meddling.
 
Saddam Hussein did little to discourage the idea that he had WMD because it gave him more power and prestige within the Arab world and could also be used as a threat against any invading force. That anyone would want a genocidal madman like Saddam to remain in power says a great deal about how far leftists will go to demonstrate their deep-rooted feelings of anti Americanism.

Of course every world leader was 'predisposed to believe' he had WMD, as the record clearly indicates.

Indeed. The basic US mistake was to mirror-image Saddam. Just because proving to us he did not have WMD was our most important concern, we assumed that was most important to Saddam too. That was not the case. Most important to Saddam was giving the Iranians the idea that he DID possess WMD. We misread his deception of the Iranians as proof our fears were valid.:peace
 
Re: Free flow of oil in a world market

Any drilling we are doing is despite government interference.

Riiiiiight. Yeah, the Obama administration really tried to put a screeching halt to drilling, huh?

NOT.

That, sir, is only an assumption on your part. Try actually going with the real numbers, instead of with your assumptions. Let the NUMBERS - and not partisan rhetoric - be your guide.

We can disagree about the impact of significantly increasing our oil production. I believe our ability to use all of our resources could, and probably would, drive oil prices down. Your mileage (ahem) may vary.

So...why is it, then, that we are now a net oil EXPORTER, but our prices have not dropped? Why is that? We haven't added any extra taxes on gas since we became an oil exporter, so you can't blame the government...so WHY is it that our prices haven't gone down?

Of course, we can't blame Big Oil...because they're very, very patriotic and would never ever squeeze the market for as much as it could get. They wouldn't close down or reduce production at refineries in order to decrease supply and thus keep prices high, would they?

Then let's prepare to remain in those parts of the world that supply a large part of the world's oil.

Did we become energy independent when we became a net oil exporter? No. We could double our current oil production and we'd still be importing oil. Why? Because ALL oil production is fungible - it goes on the world market as soon as it's pumped. As long as there are other nations drilling oil more cheaply than we do (and they always will since much of ours is now done through more-expensive fracking), we will always import oil...no matter how much we drill.

We can also agree to disagree on the government's massive interference wilt oil production along with the fascistic crony capitalism involved with the president's bundlers. Get the government out of the way. We will all be better off.

Yeah, the government's SO terrible with those onerous regulations, huh? BTW, you did hear about the Gulf oil spill, right? You know, the one that happened because BP was too doggone cheap to buy a $500K part that would have prevented the spill...the same part that other major oil producers like Brazil and Norway require?

Here's a clue, guy - if you want to see how great it is when government doesn't regulate oil drilling, go look at what's happened again and again and again in third-world nations where the drilling faces little regulation or has no regulation at all.

That is not relevant. What is relevant is the ability to impact the price of oil with or without military forces.

AGAIN, guy - when we became a net oil exporter, WHY did our prices at the pump not fall? According to the we-love-Big-Oil Right, if only we'd get out of Big Oil's way and let them drill all they want to, our prices at the pump would fall, right?

Well, we're not only drilling more now than EVER before, but we're also a net oil EXPORTER...meaning that we can't use all the oil we're drilling.

And have our prices at the pump fallen? Have they? NO.

And you call that "not relevant". WHY HAVEN'T THE PRICES FALLEN? Big Oil is drilling more than ever before, we can't use all they're producing, and STILL our prices have not fallen.

Can you not see a problem there?
 
Re: Making a weak case to not drill for any more oil in the US

It may be a very weak case. From your link the net export was 450k barrels per day. Latin America alone uses about 6 million barrels a day. Our exports are a very small portion of the total world wide demand for oil. Let's see what happens when we account for 20% of the world's daily oil supply.

Isn't the reason why we were able to export oil is because of Obama's anti-industrial policies. Our demand for oil dropped by two million barrels per day because of Obama's meddling.

You'd have a point...if the use of oil throughout the world wasn't skyrocketing. And it will continue to skyrocket until something bad happens, whatever that something bad may be (and no, I don't want any of us to see it).

In any case, RIGHT NOW we cannot use all the oil that Big Oil is producing...yet still the prices at the pump haven't fallen.

You really, truly don't see a problem with that? Time to take off the blinders, guy.
 
Re: Free flow of oil in a world market

Riiiiiight. Yeah, the Obama administration really tried to put a screeching halt to drilling, huh?

NOT.

That, sir, is only an assumption on your part. Try actually going with the real numbers, instead of with your assumptions. Let the NUMBERS - and not partisan rhetoric - be your guide.



So...why is it, then, that we are now a net oil EXPORTER, but our prices have not dropped? Why is that? We haven't added any extra taxes on gas since we became an oil exporter, so you can't blame the government...so WHY is it that our prices haven't gone down?

Of course, we can't blame Big Oil...because they're very, very patriotic and would never ever squeeze the market for as much as it could get. They wouldn't close down or reduce production at refineries in order to decrease supply and thus keep prices high, would they?



Did we become energy independent when we became a net oil exporter? No. We could double our current oil production and we'd still be importing oil. Why? Because ALL oil production is fungible - it goes on the world market as soon as it's pumped. As long as there are other nations drilling oil more cheaply than we do (and they always will since much of ours is now done through more-expensive fracking), we will always import oil...no matter how much we drill.



Yeah, the government's SO terrible with those onerous regulations, huh? BTW, you did hear about the Gulf oil spill, right? You know, the one that happened because BP was too doggone cheap to buy a $500K part that would have prevented the spill...the same part that other major oil producers like Brazil and Norway require?

Here's a clue, guy - if you want to see how great it is when government doesn't regulate oil drilling, go look at what's happened again and again and again in third-world nations where the drilling faces little regulation or has no regulation at all.



AGAIN, guy - when we became a net oil exporter, WHY did our prices at the pump not fall? According to the we-love-Big-Oil Right, if only we'd get out of Big Oil's way and let them drill all they want to, our prices at the pump would fall, right?

Well, we're not only drilling more now than EVER before, but we're also a net oil EXPORTER...meaning that we can't use all the oil we're drilling.

And have our prices at the pump fallen? Have they? NO.

And you call that "not relevant". WHY HAVEN'T THE PRICES FALLEN? Big Oil is drilling more than ever before, we can't use all they're producing, and STILL our prices have not fallen.

Can you not see a problem there?

A fair case can be made that the increase has been despite BHO rather than because of BHO.

[h=3]Obama Stymies Oil and Natural Gas Production on Federal ...[/h]www.forbes.com/.../obama-stymies-oil-and-natural-gas-productio...Forbes


Apr 17, 2014 - Although the federal government heavily regulates the exploration and ... According to the CRS report, oil production on federal lands actually ...
 
The EPA, when they don't crucify oil companies do they help?

Riiiiiight. Yeah, the Obama administration really tried to put a screeching halt to drilling, huh?

NOT.

That, sir, is only an assumption on your part. Try actually going with the real numbers, instead of with your assumptions. Let the NUMBERS - and not partisan rhetoric - be your guide.
Well, okay. How many new holes have been drilled on public lands since 2010?

Isn't it true that nearly all new holes are on private lands?
What does the EPA do if it is not finding another innocent victim to crucify so the rest will be more compliant?
James Inhofe (R-OK) took to the Senate floor today to draw attention to a video of a top EPA official saying the EPA’s “philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make examples” of oil and gas companies - just as the Romans crucified random citizens in areas they conquered to ensure obedience.

Inhofe quoted a little-watched video from 2010 of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official, Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz, admitting that EPA’s “general philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make examples” of oil and gas companies.

In the video, Administrator Armendariz says:

“I was in a meeting once and I gave an analogy to my staff about my philosophy of enforcement, and I think it was probably a little crude and maybe not appropriate for the meeting, but I’ll go ahead and tell you what I said:

“It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go in to a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they’d crucify them.

“Then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.”​
EPA Official's 'Philosophy' On Oil Companies: 'Crucify Them' - Just As Romans Crucified Conquered Citizens | CNS News
 
Re: Free flow of oil in a world market

So...why is it, then, that we are now a net oil EXPORTER, but our prices have not dropped? Why is that? We haven't added any extra taxes on gas since we became an oil exporter, so you can't blame the government...so WHY is it that our prices haven't gone down?
Did you so easily pass right by my numbers?
Or actually, they were numbers from the article you linked to.

Our net exports were about 450K barrels per day. Latin America, again from your cited article uses about 6 million barrels per day. That does not cover China, India and the rest of the world. So when have no impact on prices because we are such a tiny part of the market. If we become one of the worlds major exporters (say between 10-20% of the total) you will have the effect that you seek when we add a drop to the lake of oil used worldwide every day.
 
Back
Top Bottom