Tax Refunds are less this year, must be Trumps fault

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 9:20:55 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Tue, 07 May 2019 17:28:50 -0700, trader4 wrote:

The last was the best. I told him Obama snatched defeat from the Jaws
of victory in Iraq. He proceeds to prove it, by harping about how it all
started to reverse in 2010 and 2011. He thought Bush was still president
then.

ROTFL!! Typical Sloman! :-D
I don't believe he's ever read a serious book in his entire life.

Typical Cursitor Doom. I do post links to serious books here from time to time (and I have read them) but Cursitor Doom has me kill-filed so he doesn't notice.

The blinkered idiot then thinks that absence of any evidence that he has processed is positive evidence about my behavior.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 4:29:09 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 10:43:57 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 10:28:55 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 6:13:23 PM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 07 May 2019 12:25:59 -0700, trader4 wrote:

There you go again, lying.

snip

The last was the best. I told him Obama snatched defeat from the Jaws of victory in Iraq. He proceeds to prove it, by harping about how it all started to reverse in 2010 and 2011. He thought Bush was still president then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_troop_surge_of_2007#/media/File:Iraq_Troop_Strength.svg

This isn't the first time I've posted this link, but it doesn't seem that trader4 has ever looked at it

The Irak surge peaked late in 2007, and the occupying force went down steadily after that, initially under Dubbya and then under Obama, who was merely maintaining the strategy that Dubbya had been forced to adopt (and was clearly the least worst option offered by the bad situation that Dubbya had got the US into).

Trader4 can't point to any discontinuity that Obama initiated.

That's a lie. I told you what happened.

You gave me your interpretation of what happened, which involved ignoring most of what had gone on to let you pin blame on Obama and Clinton.

If you weren't so astonishingly stupid, you be lying, but as it is you are just too dumb appreciate what you are getting wrong.

<snip>

> https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/obamas-disastrous-iraq-policy-an-autopsy/373225/

<snip>

> The decline of U.S. leverage in Iraq simply reinforced the attitude Obama had held since 2009: Let Maliki do whatever he wants so long as he keeps Iraq off the front page."

That was the message that The Atlantic wanted to sell. Even the article did admit that the Obama administration wasn't happy about the way Maliki was screwing up, and mentioned the administration had confined their expressions of unhappiness to private contacts.

The deal that Dubbya had cut with Maliki didn't offer Obama much in the way of other leverage.

There is your "discontinuity". Hell, Obama even announced it BEFORE
he was elected!

Nonsense. Obama endorsed Dubbya's phased withdrawal from Irak, which was well under way before Obama was elected, and continued it. No discontinuity (except in your demented little mind).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, May 10, 2019 at 12:13:47 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 12:04:09 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 4:29:09 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 10:43:57 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 10:28:55 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 6:13:23 PM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 07 May 2019 12:25:59 -0700, trader4 wrote:

There you go again, lying.

snip

The last was the best. I told him Obama snatched defeat from the Jaws of victory in Iraq. He proceeds to prove it, by harping about how it all started to reverse in 2010 and 2011. He thought Bush was still president then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_troop_surge_of_2007#/media/File:Iraq_Troop_Strength.svg

This isn't the first time I've posted this link, but it doesn't seem that trader4 has ever looked at it

The Irak surge peaked late in 2007, and the occupying force went down steadily after that, initially under Dubbya and then under Obama, who was merely maintaining the strategy that Dubbya had been forced to adopt (and was clearly the least worst option offered by the bad situation that Dubbya had got the US into).

Trader4 can't point to any discontinuity that Obama initiated.

That's a lie. I told you what happened.

You gave me your interpretation of what happened, which involved ignoring most of what had gone on to let you pin blame on Obama and Clinton.

If you weren't so astonishingly stupid, you be lying, but as it is you are just too dumb appreciate what you are getting wrong.

snip

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/obamas-disastrous-iraq-policy-an-autopsy/373225/

snip

The decline of U.S. leverage in Iraq simply reinforced the attitude Obama had held since 2009: Let Maliki do whatever he wants so long as he keeps Iraq off the front page."

That was the message that The Atlantic wanted to sell.

Yes, they just decided it would be a great idea to "sell" the truth about
what Obama did, his total failure in Iraq, turning victory into defeat,
all factually documented, to their lib base.

The defeat was all George W Bush's work. He wanted to take Irak's oil fields, and wouldn't listen when the Joint Chief's of Staff told him that it would be easy to defeat Saddam's army but that it would take a 300,000 man-strong occupying force to hold them. Saddam had more men than that in his military forces, essentially because that was what it took to keep the country under control.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War#2003:_Beginnings_of_insurgency

They had been right, and Dubbya was eventually forced to negotiate a progressive withdrawal. He didn't have any choice. The failure was all his.

Obama wasn't silly enough to repeat the mistake. There hadn't been a victory for him to turn into a defeat - George W Bush had made a stupid mistake, and Obama was stuck with cleaning up after him.

The Atlantic seems to have thought that that Obama could have leaned harder on Maliki, and got him to behave better, but Maliki had taken on the hopeless job because he thought that he could make money, and political capital out of it. It turned out that he'd extracted so much pork barrel money from his army that there weren't enough soldiers left to fight off ISIS which makes Maliki spectacularly incompetent. He wasn't Obama's choice, which does let Obama off that particular hook.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 11:42:17 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Friday, May 10, 2019 at 12:13:47 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 12:04:09 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 4:29:09 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 10:43:57 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 10:28:55 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline..net wrote:
On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 6:13:23 PM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 07 May 2019 12:25:59 -0700, trader4 wrote:

There you go again, lying.

snip

The last was the best. I told him Obama snatched defeat from the Jaws of victory in Iraq. He proceeds to prove it, by harping about how it all started to reverse in 2010 and 2011. He thought Bush was still president then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_troop_surge_of_2007#/media/File:Iraq_Troop_Strength.svg

This isn't the first time I've posted this link, but it doesn't seem that trader4 has ever looked at it

The Irak surge peaked late in 2007, and the occupying force went down steadily after that, initially under Dubbya and then under Obama, who was merely maintaining the strategy that Dubbya had been forced to adopt (and was clearly the least worst option offered by the bad situation that Dubbya had got the US into).

Trader4 can't point to any discontinuity that Obama initiated.

That's a lie. I told you what happened.

You gave me your interpretation of what happened, which involved ignoring most of what had gone on to let you pin blame on Obama and Clinton.

If you weren't so astonishingly stupid, you be lying, but as it is you are just too dumb appreciate what you are getting wrong.

snip

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/obamas-disastrous-iraq-policy-an-autopsy/373225/

snip

The decline of U.S. leverage in Iraq simply reinforced the attitude Obama had held since 2009: Let Maliki do whatever he wants so long as he keeps Iraq off the front page."

That was the message that The Atlantic wanted to sell.

Yes, they just decided it would be a great idea to "sell" the truth about
what Obama did, his total failure in Iraq, turning victory into defeat,
all factually documented, to their lib base.

The defeat was all George W Bush's work. He wanted to take Irak's oil fields, and wouldn't listen when the Joint Chief's of Staff told him that it would be easy to defeat Saddam's army but that it would take a 300,000 man-strong occupying force to hold them. Saddam had more men than that in his military forces, essentially because that was what it took to keep the country under control.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War#2003:_Beginnings_of_insurgency

They had been right, and Dubbya was eventually forced to negotiate a progressive withdrawal. He didn't have any choice. The failure was all his.

All irrelevant of course, because that was many years ago, how it began
not where Iraq was at in 2009. And you did an excellent job on documenting
how it all went wrong starting in 2010, 2011. You made a major error,
saying that Bush was president then. So, thinking Bush was president,
you documented how it all started to go south. You admitted it!
Not that we needed that,
because I told you it first, then I supplied you with The Atlantic piece,
in a lib leaning magazine, that documented OBama's failures. But the icing
on the cake was you posting here that it indeed went south in 2010, 2011,
thinking that Bush was still there. It's a classic. It shows how if
Bush were there, then it's his fault. But Obama, well he's special,
it has to be somebody else's fault. Except this time it backfired on you,
very badly.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, May 10, 2019 at 3:05:56 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 11:42:17 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, May 10, 2019 at 12:13:47 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 12:04:09 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 4:29:09 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 10:43:57 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 10:28:55 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 6:13:23 PM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 07 May 2019 12:25:59 -0700, trader4 wrote:

<snip>

All irrelevant of course, because that was many years ago, how it began
not where Iraq was at in 2009.

Your claim is that the US had "won" in Irak, because it had defeated Saddam's army.

It had achieved a victory, but it wan't able to follow up and win the oil-fields, because that would have taken a bigger army of occupation than George W Bush was in a position to deliver. George W bush had got the message well before 2009, and had negotiated a phased and gradual withdrawal, which had included installing a depressingly incompetent interim government.

Obama wasn't in a position to renegotiate any of this. Maliki's defects had become more obvious by 2009, though the depths of his incompetence were only revealed when ISIS walked over his army in 2014, and Obama didn't have any effective levers to get him to behave better.

> And you did an excellent job on documenting how it all went wrong starting in > 2010, 2011. You made a major error, saying that Bush was president then.

It was going south from 2003. I was wrong when I assumed that Bush was still in power in 2010, but there wasn't any change in policy after he left the presidency, and there weren't any startling new problems that showed up when Obama moved into the job. You've certainly failed to identify even one.

So, thinking Bush was president, you documented how it all started to go
south. You admitted it!

I talked about a continuing process that started under Bush and continued under Obama. The change of president doesn't show up in any of the indicators.

> Not that we needed that, because I told you it first, then I supplied you with The Atlantic piece,

Which you read so incompetently that you claimed that Obama had said that Maliki's government was the most representative ever, when Obama had said that it was the most representative that Irak had had yet, which isn't exactly high praise, and includes the implication that he was expected to do better.

> in a lib leaning magazine, that documented Obama's failures.

It didn't document any failure. It did express a desire for Obama to get Maliki to behave better, but didn't specify how he might have done this. Because you are an ignorant half-wit, you can think of a dozen impossible schemes that you think that Obama should have tried, and rate him as failure because he didn't try any of them, but that's pure wishful thinking on your part.

> But the icing on the cake was you posting here that it indeed went south in 2010, 2011, thinking that Bush was still there.

I foolishly imagined that Bush was still in power to the end of 2010, but not 2011. The US occupying force moved out steadily after the surge peaked at the end of 2007.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_troop_surge_of_2007#/media/File:Iraq_Troop_Strength.svg

until it stuck at 50,000 troops from the middle of 2010 to close to the end of 2011.

Nothing went dramatically wrong when Obama moved into the White House. I'd have been more worried about the dates if anything had actually happened.

> It's a classic. It shows how if Bush were there, then it's his fault.

George W Bush was the architect of the invasion of Irak. That was his fault, and so are its consequences.

> But Obama, well he's special, it has to be somebody else's fault.

It's Obama's fault that George W Bush did something remarkably stupid?
If Obama had been a miracle worker, he might have been able to turn the sow's ear that was Irak into some kind of silk purse, but he is merely human (if a lot more competent than Dubbya).

> Except this time it backfired on you, very badly.

You may like to think so, and you do indulge your moronic preferences.

This doesn't make you any less moronic or anything like right.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Friday, May 10, 2019 at 12:47:52 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Friday, May 10, 2019 at 3:05:56 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 11:42:17 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, May 10, 2019 at 12:13:47 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 12:04:09 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 4:29:09 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 10:43:57 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 10:28:55 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 6:13:23 PM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 07 May 2019 12:25:59 -0700, trader4 wrote:

snip

All irrelevant of course, because that was many years ago, how it began
not where Iraq was at in 2009.

Your claim is that the US had "won" in Irak, because it had defeated Saddam's army.

It had achieved a victory, but it wan't able to follow up and win the oil-fields, because that would have taken a bigger army of occupation than George W Bush was in a position to deliver.

Total BS, the oil fields were secured. Perhaps you missed the part where
Saddam blew them up, set them on fire, and subsequently the fires were
put out, order was restored. But then you don't even know who was president
in 2010, so......




George W bush had got the message well before 2009, and had negotiated a phased and gradual withdrawal, which had included installing a depressingly incompetent interim government.

Obama wasn't in a position to renegotiate any of this.

That's a lie. Was Bush still telling Obama what to do? Obama could do
whatever he wants. Is Trump being bound by what Obama did? He just told
Iran to fuck off, as an example. What you're claiming is that Obama was
just a feckless wuss.



Maliki's defects had become more obvious by 2009, though the depths of his incompetence were only revealed when ISIS walked over his army in 2014, and Obama didn't have any effective levers to get him to behave better.

And you did an excellent job on documenting how it all went wrong starting in > 2010, 2011. You made a major error, saying that Bush was president then.

It was going south from 2003. I was wrong when I assumed that Bush was still in power in 2010, but there wasn't any change in policy after he left the presidency, and there weren't any startling new problems that showed up when Obama moved into the job. You've certainly failed to identify even one..

So, thinking Bush was president, you documented how it all started to go
south. You admitted it!

I talked about a continuing process that started under Bush and continued under Obama. The change of president doesn't show up in any of the indicators.

Not that we needed that, because I told you it first, then I supplied you with The Atlantic piece,

Which you read so incompetently that you claimed that Obama had said that Maliki's government was the most representative ever, when Obama had said that it was the most representative that Irak had had yet, which isn't exactly high praise, and includes the implication that he was expected to do better.

ROFL. You got me there lib! Most representative ever vs most representative
they have had yet. WTF? It's the same thing.

in a lib leaning magazine, that documented Obama's failures.

It didn't document any failure.

ROFL

That's what the whole article in The Atlantic was about.

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:29921a25-8dcd-4290-a443-555ad73e12cd@googlegroups.com:

You capacity to work out what the article was about can be deduced
from your mangling of what Obama said about Maliki's government.
You mined the article for phrases that fitted you point of view
and completely failed to comprehend what it was actually saying.

The stupid TraderTard4 does that a lot.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 1:31:21 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Friday, May 10, 2019 at 12:47:52 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, May 10, 2019 at 3:05:56 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 11:42:17 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, May 10, 2019 at 12:13:47 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 12:04:09 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 4:29:09 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline..net wrote:
On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 10:43:57 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 10:28:55 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 6:13:23 PM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 07 May 2019 12:25:59 -0700, trader4 wrote:

snip

All irrelevant of course, because that was many years ago, how it began
not where Iraq was at in 2009.

Your claim is that the US had "won" in Irak, because it had defeated Saddam's army.

It had achieved a victory, but it wan't able to follow up and win the oil-fields, because that would have taken a bigger army of occupation than George W Bush was in a position to deliver.

Total BS, the oil fields were secured. Perhaps you missed the part where
Saddam blew them up, set them on fire, and subsequently the fires were
put out, order was restored. But then you don't even know who was president
in 2010, so......

Oil fields are easy to secure, Nobody much lives there. Getting the oil out to ports so you can sell it to anybody does require you to control rather larger populations, and that never happened. Large scale insurrections got put down, but the small stuff persisted.

George W bush had got the message well before 2009, and had negotiated a phased and gradual withdrawal, which had included installing a depressingly incompetent interim government.

Obama wasn't in a position to renegotiate any of this.

That's a lie. Was Bush still telling Obama what to do? Obama could do
whatever he wants.

Bush would have liked to have stayed in Irak and delivered all those oil fields to the people who got him elected. He couldn't do what he wanted to to, and Obama was stuck with exactly the same constraints.

Obama had to cope with the mess that George W Bush had stuck him with.

> Is Trump being bound by what Obama did?

Sadly not.

> He just told Iran to fuck off, as an example.

Which happens to have be a idiotic mistake - Trump might not be an idiot, but his incapacity to sit still long enough to absorb all the details that ought to affect his decisions certainly makes him look stupid.

> What you're claiming is that Obama was just a feckless wuss.

Precisely that he wasn't the kind of feckless wuss that George W Bush had been, and Trump is now.

Maliki's defects had become more obvious by 2009, though the depths of his incompetence were only revealed when ISIS walked over his army in 2014, and Obama didn't have any effective levers to get him to behave better.

And you did an excellent job on documenting how it all went wrong starting in > 2010, 2011. You made a major error, saying that Bush was president then.

It was going south from 2003. I was wrong when I assumed that Bush was still in power in 2010, but there wasn't any change in policy after he left the presidency, and there weren't any startling new problems that showed up when Obama moved into the job. You've certainly failed to identify even one.

So, thinking Bush was president, you documented how it all started to go
south. You admitted it!

I talked about a continuing process that started under Bush and continued under Obama. The change of president doesn't show up in any of the indicators.

Not that we needed that, because I told you it first, then I supplied you with The Atlantic piece,

Which you read so incompetently that you claimed that Obama had said that Maliki's government was the most representative ever, when Obama had said that it was the most representative that Irak had had yet, which isn't exactly high praise, and includes the implication that he was expected to do better.

ROFL. You got me there lib! Most representative ever vs most representative
they have had yet. WTF? It's the same thing.

You left out "Irak" and "yet" from what you claimed that Obama had said.

That's clearly not the same thing, and the degree of stupidity the blinds you to the difference is pretty spectacular.

in a lib leaning magazine, that documented Obama's failures.

It didn't document any failure.

ROFL

That's what the whole article in The Atlantic was about.

You capacity to work out what the article was about can be deduced from your mangling of what Obama said about Maliki's government. You mined the article for phrases that fitted you point of view and completely failed to comprehend what it was actually saying.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 1:32:22 PM UTC+10, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:29921a25-8dcd-4290-a443-555ad73e12cd@googlegroups.com:


You capacity to work out what the article was about can be deduced
from your mangling of what Obama said about Maliki's government.
You mined the article for phrases that fitted you point of view
and completely failed to comprehend what it was actually saying.


The stupid TraderTard4 does that a lot.

He does seem to represent some kind of local minimum. Krw is more of the same, but krw is less ambitious in his stupidities.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 12:26:12 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 1:32:22 PM UTC+10, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:29921a25-8dcd-4290-a443-555ad73e12cd@googlegroups.com:


You capacity to work out what the article was about can be deduced
from your mangling of what Obama said about Maliki's government.
You mined the article for phrases that fitted you point of view
and completely failed to comprehend what it was actually saying.


The stupid TraderTard4 does that a lot.

He does seem to represent some kind of local minimum. Krw is more of the same, but krw is less ambitious in his stupidities.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Yes, Bill and DL, the vulgar, childish imbecile who's always wrong,
perfect together, you two should get a room.

 

On Friday, May 10, 2019 at 11:16:05 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 1:31:21 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Friday, May 10, 2019 at 12:47:52 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, May 10, 2019 at 3:05:56 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 11:42:17 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, May 10, 2019 at 12:13:47 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 12:04:09 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 4:29:09 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 10:43:57 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 10:28:55 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 6:13:23 PM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 07 May 2019 12:25:59 -0700, trader4 wrote:

snip

All irrelevant of course, because that was many years ago, how it began
not where Iraq was at in 2009.

Your claim is that the US had "won" in Irak, because it had defeated Saddam's army.

It had achieved a victory, but it wan't able to follow up and win the oil-fields, because that would have taken a bigger army of occupation than George W Bush was in a position to deliver.

Total BS, the oil fields were secured. Perhaps you missed the part where
Saddam blew them up, set them on fire, and subsequently the fires were
put out, order was restored. But then you don't even know who was president
in 2010, so......

Oil fields are easy to secure, Nobody much lives there. Getting the oil out to ports so you can sell it to anybody does require you to control rather larger populations, and that never happened. Large scale insurrections got put down, but the small stuff persisted.

More BS. No, let me rephrase that, more easily disproved lies.

https://tradingeconomics.com/iraq/crude-oil-production

Iraq's oil production was averaging about 2 mil barrels a day, prior
to the war in 2003. It briefly plummeted to zero, in two years it was
back to 2 mil barrels a day and it advanced upwards from there.
And that was with Al Qaeda, ISIS and all the rest there, because
they were not where the oil fields are. The self-inflicted damage
of Saddam was quickly repaired, just as I said.

George W bush had got the message well before 2009, and had negotiated a phased and gradual withdrawal, which had included installing a depressingly incompetent interim government.

Obama wasn't in a position to renegotiate any of this.

That's a lie. Was Bush still telling Obama what to do? Obama could do
whatever he wants.

Bush would have liked to have stayed in Irak and delivered all those oil fields to the people who got him elected. He couldn't do what he wanted to to, and Obama was stuck with exactly the same constraints.

Yes, the old lib lie that the US was there to take the oil. Blaming the
country that has conquered more than any country in history and not only
given it all back, but helped the people that brought war to us.

Obama had to cope with the mess that George W Bush had stuck him with.

Is Trump being bound by what Obama did?

Sadly not.

He just told Iran to fuck off, as an example.

Which happens to have be a idiotic mistake - Trump might not be an idiot, but his incapacity to sit still long enough to absorb all the details that ought to affect his decisions certainly makes him look stupid.

Oh no, Trump is indeed a grade A moron.

What you're claiming is that Obama was just a feckless wuss.

Precisely that he wasn't the kind of feckless wuss that George W Bush had been, and Trump is now.

Poor Obama, couldn't handle Iraq and Maliki.

Maliki's defects had become more obvious by 2009, though the depths of his incompetence were only revealed when ISIS walked over his army in 2014, and Obama didn't have any effective levers to get him to behave better.

And you did an excellent job on documenting how it all went wrong starting in > 2010, 2011. You made a major error, saying that Bush was president then.

It was going south from 2003. I was wrong when I assumed that Bush was still in power in 2010, but there wasn't any change in policy after he left the presidency, and there weren't any startling new problems that showed up when Obama moved into the job. You've certainly failed to identify even one.

So, thinking Bush was president, you documented how it all started to go
south. You admitted it!

I talked about a continuing process that started under Bush and continued under Obama. The change of president doesn't show up in any of the indicators.

Not that we needed that, because I told you it first, then I supplied you with The Atlantic piece,

Which you read so incompetently that you claimed that Obama had said that Maliki's government was the most representative ever, when Obama had said that it was the most representative that Irak had had yet, which isn't exactly high praise, and includes the implication that he was expected to do better.

ROFL. You got me there lib! Most representative ever vs most representative
they have had yet. WTF? It's the same thing.

You left out "Irak" and "yet" from what you claimed that Obama had said.

That's clearly not the same thing, and the degree of stupidity the blinds you to the difference is pretty spectacular.

in a lib leaning magazine, that documented Obama's failures.

It didn't document any failure.

ROFL

That's what the whole article in The Atlantic was about.

You capacity to work out what the article was about can be deduced from your mangling of what Obama said about Maliki's government. You mined the article for phrases that fitted you point of view and completely failed to comprehend what it was actually saying.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

ROFL "I mined the article". The article in The Atlantic is titled:


"Obama's Disastrous Iraq Policy: An Autopsy

The president ignored the country and its increasingly dictatorial prime minister for years."

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/obamas-disastrous-iraq-policy-an-autopsy/373225/



And I "mined it" to reach some unwarranted conclusion that the article does
not support? You're a funny guy! The article title says exactly what
I told you all along.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:efb57366-0c9e-4455-acde-
9fde0417727c@googlegroups.com:

Yes, Bill and DL, the vulgar, childish imbecile who's always wrong,
perfect together, you two should get a room.

So calling you the piece of shit you are is 'vulgar'?

No. What is vulgar is that we tolerated the fact that your criminal
whore mother failed to flush you, the moment the severely ass fucked
street slut shat you. You shouldn't be here and she should be in
prison.

Nothing wrong about that.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 1:22:09 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Friday, May 10, 2019 at 11:16:05 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 1:31:21 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Friday, May 10, 2019 at 12:47:52 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, May 10, 2019 at 3:05:56 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 11:42:17 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, May 10, 2019 at 12:13:47 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline..net wrote:
On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 12:04:09 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 4:29:09 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 10:43:57 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 10:28:55 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 6:13:23 PM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 07 May 2019 12:25:59 -0700, trader4 wrote:

snip

All irrelevant of course, because that was many years ago, how it began
not where Iraq was at in 2009.

Your claim is that the US had "won" in Irak, because it had defeated Saddam's army.

It had achieved a victory, but it wan't able to follow up and win the oil-fields, because that would have taken a bigger army of occupation than George W Bush was in a position to deliver.

Total BS, the oil fields were secured. Perhaps you missed the part where
Saddam blew them up, set them on fire, and subsequently the fires were
put out, order was restored. But then you don't even know who was president
in 2010, so......

Oil fields are easy to secure, Nobody much lives there. Getting the oil out to ports so you can sell it to anybody does require you to control rather larger populations, and that never happened. Large scale insurrections got put down, but the small stuff persisted.

More BS. No, let me rephrase that, more easily disproved lies.

https://tradingeconomics.com/iraq/crude-oil-production

Iraq's oil production was averaging about 2 mil barrels a day, prior
to the war in 2003. It briefly plummeted to zero, in two years it was
back to 2 mil barrels a day and it advanced upwards from there.
And that was with Al Qaeda, ISIS and all the rest there, because
they were not where the oil fields are. The self-inflicted damage
of Saddam was quickly repaired, just as I said.

Dubbya's surge was required to stop the insurgents - not ISIS because they weren't there then - from blocking the shipment of oil from the oil-fields to the export ports. The deal with Maliki was designed to give him his own army to take over the job, and let Dubbya - and Obama after him - run down the US army of occupation. The fact that the strategy more or less worked shouldn't be surprising - the US was in Irak to grab the oil. They were less interested in insurrections that made life difficult in other areas.

George W bush had got the message well before 2009, and had negotiated a phased and gradual withdrawal, which had included installing a depressingly incompetent interim government.

Obama wasn't in a position to renegotiate any of this.

That's a lie. Was Bush still telling Obama what to do? Obama could do
whatever he wants.

Bush would have liked to have stayed in Irak and delivered all those oil fields to the people who got him elected. He couldn't do what he wanted to to, and Obama was stuck with exactly the same constraints.

Yes, the old lib lie that the US was there to take the oil.

Why else were they there? If Dubbya had been sincerely interested in weapons of mass destruction, he would have gone after North Korea, as was pointed out at the time.

> Blaming the country that has conquered more than any country in history and not only given it all back, but helped the people that brought war to us..

US history includes quite a few banana republics. Once you've installed a sympathetic and compliant regime, you can "give it all back" provided that the people you have given it back to have agreed to keep on shipping you the goodies that you wanted.

Obama had to cope with the mess that George W Bush had stuck him with.

Is Trump being bound by what Obama did?

Sadly not.

He just told Iran to fuck off, as an example.

Which happens to have be a idiotic mistake - Trump might not be an idiot, but his incapacity to sit still long enough to absorb all the details that ought to affect his decisions certainly makes him look stupid.

Oh no, Trump is indeed a grade A moron.

What you're claiming is that Obama was just a feckless wuss.

Precisely that he wasn't the kind of feckless wuss that George W Bush had been, and Trump is now.

Poor Obama, couldn't handle Iraq and Maliki.

What was he supposed to have done to bring him into line? You seem to think that expressing public irritation and cutting off the flow of money would have made him behave better, but in reality Maliki would have cozied up to somebody else and cut off the flow of oil to the US.

Maliki's defects had become more obvious by 2009, though the depths of his incompetence were only revealed when ISIS walked over his army in 2014, and Obama didn't have any effective levers to get him to behave better.

And you did an excellent job on documenting how it all went wrong starting in > 2010, 2011. You made a major error, saying that Bush was president then.

It was going south from 2003. I was wrong when I assumed that Bush was still in power in 2010, but there wasn't any change in policy after he left the presidency, and there weren't any startling new problems that showed up when Obama moved into the job. You've certainly failed to identify even one.

So, thinking Bush was president, you documented how it all started to
go south. You admitted it!

I talked about a continuing process that started under Bush and continued under Obama. The change of president doesn't show up in any of the indicators.

Not that we needed that, because I told you it first, then I supplied you with The Atlantic piece,

Which you read so incompetently that you claimed that Obama had said that Maliki's government was the most representative ever, when Obama had said that it was the most representative that Irak had had yet, which isn't exactly high praise, and includes the implication that he was expected to do better.

ROFL. You got me there lib! Most representative ever vs most representative they have had yet. WTF? It's the same thing.

You left out "Irak" and "yet" from what you claimed that Obama had said..

That's clearly not the same thing, and the degree of stupidity the blinds you to the difference is pretty spectacular.

in a lib leaning magazine, that documented Obama's failures.

It didn't document any failure.

ROFL

That's what the whole article in The Atlantic was about.

You capacity to work out what the article was about can be deduced from your mangling of what Obama said about Maliki's government. You mined the article for phrases that fitted you point of view and completely failed to comprehend what it was actually saying.

ROFL "I mined the article". The article in The Atlantic is titled:

"Obama's Disastrous Iraq Policy: An Autopsy

The president ignored the country and its increasingly dictatorial prime minister for years."

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/obamas-disastrous-iraq-policy-an-autopsy/373225/

Who cares what label a journalist sticks on a article to push up sales?

You do, because you think it lets you off having to read the article, but you are pretty stupid, even by the depressingly low standards of right-wing trolls.

And I "mined it" to reach some unwarranted conclusion that the article does
not support? You're a funny guy! The article title says exactly what
I told you all along.

The article title is misleading, and you've been mislead. Nothing new there..

You are less voluble on the point that you failed quote Obama correctly or completely, and drew quite the wrong conclusion from what thought that you had read.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 1:23:43 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 12:26:12 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 1:32:22 PM UTC+10, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:29921a25-8dcd-4290-a443-555ad73e12cd@googlegroups.com:


You capacity to work out what the article was about can be deduced
from your mangling of what Obama said about Maliki's government.
You mined the article for phrases that fitted you point of view
and completely failed to comprehend what it was actually saying.


The stupid TraderTard4 does that a lot.

He does seem to represent some kind of local minimum. Krw is more of the same, but krw is less ambitious in his stupidities.

Yes, Bill and DL, the vulgar, childish imbecile who's always wrong,
perfect together, you two should get a room.

Trader4 is remarkably willing to describe other people as childish imbeciles.

It probably reflects the fact that other people use the term to describe him more or less non-stop, so the phrase has got stuck in the little brain that he has.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

>Yes, the old lib lie that the US was there to take the oil. >Blaming the country that has conquered more than any country in >history and not only given it all back, but helped the people >that brought war to us.

Who constructed that piece of shit statement ? The US wasn't there to necessarily TAKE the oil but to CONTROL the oil. And they kissed and made up with Saddam until he got rolling switch to the euro. That would, in and of itself not done really much harm to the US economy but they thought it quite possible that other oil producing nations would follow suit which would have killed the petrobuck. If too many countries did that we would be fucked. And Qadhaffi, he was all cool, never heard a peep out of him. He wasn't doing those nasty things they claimed, things like their Shah really did, and Momar was quite progressive. But he didn't like US control over the oil business, and one of the major tools is the petrobuck. His African gold dinar would have changed the whole economy of the oil game. That made him an imminent threat and then he had to be taken out. So they did the usual, find a bunch of fucked up malcontents and give them money and weapons. Just like Iran. Now in Venezuela they couldn't find anyone so they had to send the CIA. Still that coup only lasted about 48 hours.

I am going to say this ONCE because I am sick of trying to get people to realize it and if you all don't then stay in the fucking dark ages and watch TV news.

This having to take over countries is over CONTROL of the oil. See you don't have to HAVE money, all you need to do is CONTROL it. Oil is the new money in a way.

Now Saudi Arabia and a few others actively lobby the US government to "find" human rights violations or some shit in any country that produces "too much" oil which gluts the market and hurts their profits.

Now when they go get the leases signed and everything is nice and legal, they cut back production to prop up the price. They do this for their friends..

Meantime countries like Vanezuela and Iran and a few others can starve, while sitting on billions worth of oil. That is because their government signed over control of that natural resource that they don't even fucking own, it belongs to the People. In return they got money, loans, campaign contributions, sometime military aid and whatever they want. Fuck over your own people and we'll make you richer than you ever thought you could be.

So now they got starving people, possibly rioting like in Venezuela after Chavez died. What are the possible options ?

Borrow money.

Now let me tell you something about borrowing money. If you needed it you didn't have it. What makes you think you are GOING to have it ? Yeah, let's mortgage the country to put up some offices and malls and see if we can get them filled. Well that happened to Berea, Ohio, they built Berea Commons and the occupancy is less than 50%. They got suckered into it and now all Bereans have to pay a little more tax to give these shysters their fucking money.

ONE country had the smarts to get out, Iceland. they not only paid off the debt to the IMF and whoever, they put some of their politicians in jail for leading the country into debt. Good.

You see, when your government borrows money, YOU are the collateral.

Slow but sure people are waking up to all these scams these motherfuckers run. They play most people like a fucking violin. Not me, I know the game.

I remember even when I was young - in court or whatever - "You HAVE to sign this". Use your head, if you really have to sign it then you really do not have to sign it. That is what signing something is all about. One time, and was young in my twenties, they wanted me to sign an agreement about this or that and if not it goes to the judge and I could get up to six months in jail. I didn't sign it and nothing happened.

See, real control is not accomplished by hurting, it is accomplished by threats. The threat of hurt. The only thing you need it to be believed.

Their game is so simple I don't even have to think about it.

 

On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 3:02:23 PM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:

Yes, the old lib lie that the US was there to take the oil. >Blaming the country that has conquered more than any country in >history and not only given it all back, but helped the people >that brought war to us.

Who constructed that piece of shit statement ? The US wasn't there to necessarily TAKE the oil but to CONTROL the oil. And they kissed and made up with Saddam until he got rolling switch to the euro.

Do try to keep up. Saddam is dead and gone. It's rather odd that if the
US intent was to take or control the oil, that it;s instead in the hands
of the Iraqi govt, they control it, they sell it and they are selling it
to many countries, including China and India, who buy more of it than the
USA. Those two countries take 2.5 time what the US buys. Anything else
I can help you with today, just let me know.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 8:22:18 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 3:02:23 PM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, the old lib lie that the US was there to take the oil. >Blaming the country that has conquered more than any country in >history and not only given it all back, but helped the people >that brought war to us.

Who constructed that piece of shit statement ? The US wasn't there to necessarily TAKE the oil but to CONTROL the oil. And they kissed and made up with Saddam until he got rolling switch to the euro.

Do try to keep up. Saddam is dead and gone. It's rather odd that if the
US intent was to take or control the oil, that it's instead in the hands
of the Iraqi govt, they control it, they sell it and they are selling it
to many countries, including China and India, who buy more of it than the
USA.

We did explain this to you. Dubbya wanted to take control of the oil, but he thought that he could do it with an occupying army that the US could afford to sustain, rather than the 300,000-strong force that Joint Chiefs of Staff had told him he'd need, even before he started the invasion of Irak.

Once he'd defeated the Iraqi army, the correctness of the Joint Chief's of Staff estimate became all too obvious, and Dubbya had to negotiate a a gradual withdrawal, as the new Iraqi army got built up to the point where it could keep the oil fields and - more importantly - the pipe lines down to the ports and the ports themselves secure.

That left the Iraqi government free to negotiate with other oil buyers.

It's all obvious, but doesn't fit the story you desperately want to believe..

Those two countries take 2.5 time what the US buys. Anything else
I can help you with today, just let me know.

Anytime you want lessons on how to think for yourself we'd be happy to contribute to cost of a copy of "Cognition for Idiots". It's not a cheap book because it does include a lot of pictures.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

>Do try to keep up. Saddam is dead and gone.

USian huh. You think the rest of the world forgets as fast as Joe Sixpack. Fine, but you're wrong about some of us.

>Those two countries take 2.5 time what the US buys.

You seem to be assuming I am stupid or something. Of course they buy more oil, first of all it is TWO countries and they are BIG.

When you ASSUME...

 

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 12:07:49 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 8:22:18 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 3:02:23 PM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, the old lib lie that the US was there to take the oil. >Blaming the country that has conquered more than any country in >history and not only given it all back, but helped the people >that brought war to us.

Who constructed that piece of shit statement ? The US wasn't there to necessarily TAKE the oil but to CONTROL the oil. And they kissed and made up with Saddam until he got rolling switch to the euro.

Do try to keep up. Saddam is dead and gone. It's rather odd that if the
US intent was to take or control the oil, that it's instead in the hands
of the Iraqi govt, they control it, they sell it and they are selling it
to many countries, including China and India, who buy more of it than the
USA.

We did explain this to you. Dubbya wanted to take control of the oil,

The lie repeated is still a lie. If the US wanted to "take" the Iraqi oil,
we could have and would have. Did we take and keep Japan? Germany? Italy?
You're so stupid you claimed the other day that Iraqi oil couldn't be
produced because of the insurrection. I showed you that immediately following
the start of the war, the oil production plummeted to zero, because
Saddam blew up the wells and the war stopped shipping. That was all
solved in a year or two, the fires were put out and
oil production went right back to what it was before the war. Hell,
you thought Bush was president in 2010 and 2011. You laid out for us
how Iraq started to go to hell then, not realizing that Obama had
taken over. You PROVED what I told you.

It was always clear that the Iraqi oil was to remain with Iraq and
it has. This is one of the silliest, stupidest lib lies, a product
of Bush Derangement Syndrome. It's like the loony tunes that still
insist that Trump colluded with Russia, that want to continue investigating,
even after Mueller concluded a $40 mil, two year investigation that
found no collusion.

 

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 12:57:48 AM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:

Do try to keep up. Saddam is dead and gone.

USian huh. You think the rest of the world forgets as fast as Joe Sixpack. Fine, but you're wrong about some of us.

Those two countries take 2.5 time what the US buys.

You seem to be assuming I am stupid or something. Of course they buy more oil, first of all it is TWO countries and they are BIG.

When you ASSUME...

The point is it always was the Iraqis oil and they are selling it in the
world markets, just as they always did. Both those countries individually
buy more Iraqi oil than the US does. It's not been hijacked and taken
by the US, nor did we ever attempt to do anything like that. It's just
silly lib lies from the likes of Bill.




The point