Tax Refunds are less this year, must be Trumps fault

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:34:56 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

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.

They didn't sell any immediately after the US invasion because Saddam had set the oil fields on fire.

Once the fires had been put out, the US controlled the oil fields (as much as they controlled anything else) and sold the oil.

When the insurrections got bad enough to make it clear that the US would have to put in a bigger army of occupation than they could afford, the US did a deal to restore control to (not very carefully selected) Iraqi hands who got the oil revenues to pay their own army. It wasn't any kind of continuation of Saddam's deals.

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.

Dubbya tried and failed. If he'd had more sense he wouldn't have even tried..

> It's just silly lib lies from the likes of Bill.

And everybody else who isn't a fully paid up US right-wing idiot.

Trader4 uses the word "lie" in the same sense that krw does, to cover any opinion that he doesn't share. He's too silly to realise that the word doesn't mean that.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 8:36:48 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:34:56 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
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.

They didn't sell any immediately after the US invasion because Saddam had set the oil fields on fire.

Once the fires had been put out, the US controlled the oil fields (as much as they controlled anything else) and sold the oil.

With all the proceeds going to IRAQ you lib lying shyster. Rest of usual
silly lib lies and totally irrelevant BS deleted. If the US really went
their to take their oil, it would be ours. Total Bush Derangement Syndrome.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:0d0922f6-8083-4d99-9ea3-b92ca011c40a@googlegroups.com:

The lie repeated is still a lie. If the US wanted to "take" the
Iraqi oil, we could have and would have.

He was not talking about post war. The US spent decades doing just
that. Taking Iraqi oil.

But post 'Gulf War', we had no need for it other than as remuneration
for the costs of prosecuting the war against Saddam (which was not a
war with Iraq, btw.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:39:16 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 8:36:48 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:34:56 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
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.

They didn't sell any immediately after the US invasion because Saddam had set the oil fields on fire.

Once the fires had been put out, the US controlled the oil fields (as much as they controlled anything else) and sold the oil.

With all the proceeds going to IRAQ you lib lying shyster.

Can you document this claim?

Cheney's links with Halliburton don't suggest that the then Republican administration was all that honest. Halliburton had been engaged in sanction evasion for Iraq before the invasion and was active in Iraq after the invasion.

Whatever was going on, Halliburton seems to have done well out of it. How well Iraq did is less certain.

> Rest of usual silly lib lies and totally irrelevant BS deleted. If the US really went their to take their oil, it would be ours. Total Bush Derangement Syndrome.

That is the essence of the Bush Derangement Syndrome. Dubbya thought that if he really wanted to take Irak's oil, and could make it a US government project, he'd be able to get it. Oops.

Trader4 seems to be the kind of right-wing lunatic who believed him at the time, and has been irrationalising his disappointment ever since.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:14a1d58e-b1da-4a30-9be4-a6c28754c07f@googlegroups.com:

Cheney's links with Halliburton don't suggest that the then
Republican administration was all that honest.

I am reasonably sure that he did not even watch that movie, and it
had plenty of Cheney endorsed facts in it.

 

>With all the proceeds going to IRAQ you lib lying shyster. Rest >of usual silly lib lies and totally irrelevant BS deleted. If >the US really went their to take their oil, it would be ours. >Total Bush Derangement Syndrome.

First of all i am the farthest thing from a liberal you'll ever find. However I do see things as they are and I callem as I seeum.

In Iraq, when they first put out the fires atop the oil wells they pumped a shitload of oil and there were not yet meters on it. Nobody knows how much they took.

I am not bitching, the winners have to get something out of war or it ain't worth the trouble. It would just be nice if hey shared it with us.

Proceeds going to Iraq ? Well OK, I come and take your shit and then give it back slowly and to be used as I see fit and to prop up my regime in your country that is paying me ? I think not.

Iraq was a big mistake. It was precipitated by problems with Iran which WE CAUSED in 1953. We hired Saddam to fuck with Iraq. Everything was going fine until Saddam figured out he was getting fucked on the oil deal. Then all the sudden he was an "imminent threat". His weapons of mass destruction were US dollars he planned to flood the market with after switching to the euro and taking as many oil producing countries with him as possible. Have any idea what that would do to the value of the dollar on the market ? It is not that just him could do much, but other countries could start like a domino effect and they were deathly afraid of that. THAT was the threat.

And the fact is the US doesn't even have to play the oil game anymore. We could be self sufficient quite readily. And then the oil business will die eventually anyway because electric cars will become viable soon. They are fucking close now.

Before Ransom Eli Olds, a pioneer in the field, invented a car that used this gasoline shit it was burned as waste. Nobody wanted it in their house for their lamps because it fucking stunk and burned too fast. Sometimes they used it when they wanted the field to go fallow for better crops later. It was pretty much a waste product. Then cars. OOOOH ! MONEY ! It happened.

Well things are going to change back. We are still going to need petroleum for many industrial processes and manufacturing, like plastics and all that.. But as a fuel it might only fill our lawnmowers and rototillers n shit, and that is just because it is easier, more convenient.

What is really troublesome about this is that kids can't put THAT sign on their dash anymore - ASS GAS OR GRASS NOBODY RIDES FOR FREE. What would it be now ? Charge my car, my phone or put out ? Or maybe since pot is obsolete now vape n rape ?

We gotta have some criminals to shoot or our guns get rusty.

 

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 12:04:15 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:39:16 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 8:36:48 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:34:56 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
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.

They didn't sell any immediately after the US invasion because Saddam had set the oil fields on fire.

Once the fires had been put out, the US controlled the oil fields (as much as they controlled anything else) and sold the oil.

With all the proceeds going to IRAQ you lib lying shyster.

Can you document this claim?

There's a good example of how you libs work. YOU make some absurd allegation,
state it as fact, and then you want me to prove it's not true.

ROFL

Quite amazing. And then you top it off with more conspiracy nonsense.
What's next? Asking me to prove Bush was president in 2010 and 2011.
That's right the Aussie lib that doesn't even know that, who documented
how Iraq started down the tubes in 2010, because you thought Bush was
still president and you were trying to pin that on Bush, is the one that
knows about Iraqi oil.

ROFL

Next!

 

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 12:34:30 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:0d0922f6-8083-4d99-9ea3-b92ca011c40a@googlegroups.com:

The lie repeated is still a lie. If the US wanted to "take" the
Iraqi oil, we could have and would have.

He was not talking about post war.

Wrong again, always wrong. Bill certainly was talking about post war.
BTW, are you his spokesman now?



The US spent decades doing just
> that. Taking Iraqi oil.

That's a lie. We probably bought some, just like we buy imported oil
from many countries, many sources.

But post 'Gulf War', we had no need for it other than as remuneration
for the costs of prosecuting the war against Saddam (which was not a
war with Iraq, btw.

That's another stupid lie. We did not take any oil as remuneration and
whatever "need" we had before the war we would have had the same need
after. Even Trump has complained that we should have taken the oil,
but did not.

 

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 12:51:51 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:14a1d58e-b1da-4a30-9be4-a6c28754c07f@googlegroups.com:

Cheney's links with Halliburton don't suggest that the then
Republican administration was all that honest.

I am reasonably sure that he did not even watch that movie, and it
had plenty of Cheney endorsed facts in it.

Wrong, always wrong and jumping to foolish conclusions when you have
no way of knowing. And I suppose you think that because Oliver Stone
made a Hollywood movie about the JFK assassination, that means the CIA
killed him, that it's factual.


ROFL

 

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 3:41:48 PM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:

With all the proceeds going to IRAQ you lib lying shyster. Rest >of usual silly lib lies and totally irrelevant BS deleted. If >the US really went their to take their oil, it would be ours. >Total Bush Derangement Syndrome.

First of all i am the farthest thing from a liberal you'll ever find. However I do see things as they are and I callem as I seeum.

In Iraq, when they first put out the fires atop the oil wells they pumped a shitload of oil and there were not yet meters on it. Nobody knows how much they took.

I am not bitching, the winners have to get something out of war or it ain't worth the trouble. It would just be nice if hey shared it with us.

Proceeds going to Iraq ? Well OK, I come and take your shit and then give it back slowly and to be used as I see fit and to prop up my regime in your country that is paying me ? I think not.

Well of course it is. WTF do you expect? It was a WAR. I guess we
should have done it the German or Russian way, loot the place and take
everything, kill everyone. Simple fact is we always treated it as Iraq's
oil, we didn't "take" it, they got the revenue. In fact, Trump has
bitched many times that was a mistake, that we should have taken the oil.
Trump thinks like Russians.

Iraq was a big mistake.

And of course it's off to the wilderness, onto something else entirely.
Typical.

 

[whit3rd]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:04:15 AM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:39:16 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 8:36:48 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

[about US/Iraq circa 2005]

Once the fires had been put out, the US controlled the oil fields (as much as they controlled anything else) and sold the oil.

With all the procee]ds going to IRAQ you lib lying shyster.

Can you document this claim?

There's the problem: the US didn't keep the oil proceeds, BUT did hire (?Halliburton)
contractors to operate the fields, and Iraq only got the net payments after those
contractors got their pay. There were complaints at the time, but records of payments
during upheaval and martial law are... not always useful documents.

Cost-plus-10% for the contractor, cost-plus-10% for a subcontractor, cost-plus-10% for
a sub-subcontractor, and... even if it's all completely honest, postwar costs
and five layers of subcontractors means most of the cash is with the contractors.

The nationality of the contractors is where your attention should be focused, but
what real use is that? Those contracts are closed!

 

>Cost-plus-10% for the contractor, cost-plus-10% for a >subcontractor, cost-plus-10% for a sub-subcontractor, and... even >if it's all completely honest, postwar costs and five layers of >subcontractors means most of the cash is with the contractors.

And everybody bitches about the phone company.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 6:12:06 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 12:04:15 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:39:16 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 8:36:48 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:34:56 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
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.

They didn't sell any immediately after the US invasion because Saddam had set the oil fields on fire.

Once the fires had been put out, the US controlled the oil fields (as much as they controlled anything else) and sold the oil.

With all the proceeds going to IRAQ you lib lying shyster.

Can you document this claim?

There's a good example of how you libs work. YOU make some absurd allegation,
state it as fact, and then you want me to prove it's not true.

ROFL

"With all the proceeds going to IRAQ" is an absurd claim. Even if everybody involved was being as altruistic as possible, the some of the money paid for the oil on delivery would have gone to pay the shippers who got it from Irak to the customer. Since Haliburton was involve, altruism won't have been a major factor.

> Quite amazing. And then you top it off with more conspiracy nonsense.

Haliburton and Cheney isn't exactly "conspiracy nonsense". Their involvement with each other and Irak is well documented fact. Nobody has gone to prison, and while "Cheney was named in a December 2010 corruption complaint filed by the Nigerian government against Halliburton, which the company settled for $250 million", and seems to have been involved in the ENRON scandal, he seems to have been able to hide the incriminating documents under vice-presidential privilege.

> What's next? Asking me to prove Bush was president in 2010 and 2011.

He wasn't.

That's right the Aussie lib that doesn't even know that, who documented
how Iraq started down the tubes in 2010, because you thought Bush was
still president and you were trying to pin that on Bush, is the one that
knows about Iraqi oil.

ROFL

Your claim is that Irak started to go down the tubes in 2010 when Obama became president. There's not a shred of evidence that Irak's trajectory shifted at all when Obama took over. I certainly didn't document any change that happened in 2010 because there weren't any that mattered.

You can roll around the floor gibbering as much as you like - the fact that the real story doesn't fit your bizarre delusions is obvious to everybody who doesn't happen to stuck your political blind spots.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 6:26:30 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 3:41:48 PM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
With all the proceeds going to IRAQ you lib lying shyster. Rest >of usual silly lib lies and totally irrelevant BS deleted. If >the US really went their to take their oil, it would be ours. >Total Bush Derangement Syndrome.

First of all i am the farthest thing from a liberal you'll ever find. However I do see things as they are and I callem as I seeum.

In Iraq, when they first put out the fires atop the oil wells they pumped a shitload of oil and there were not yet meters on it. Nobody knows how much they took.

I am not bitching, the winners have to get something out of war or it ain't worth the trouble. It would just be nice if hey shared it with us.

Proceeds going to Iraq ? Well OK, I come and take your shit and then give it back slowly and to be used as I see fit and to prop up my regime in your country that is paying me ? I think not.

Well of course it is. WTF do you expect? It was a WAR. I guess we
should have done it the German or Russian way, loot the place and take
everything, kill everyone. Simple fact is we always treated it as Iraq's
oil, we didn't "take" it, they got the revenue.

They may have got some of the revenue.

> In fact, Trump has bitched many times that was a mistake, that we should have taken the oil. Trump thinks like Russians.

Trump thinks very little, and knows even less. His opinions are almost as worthless a Trader4's.

Iraq was a big mistake.

And of course it's off to the wilderness, onto something else entirely.
Typical.

Right-wing nitwits can't bear to recognise that the invasion of Irak was a big mistake, and feel hurt when anybody is unkind enough to point it out. They are still in denial.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 6:18:35 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 12:34:30 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:0d0922f6-8083-4d99-9ea3-b92ca011c40a@googlegroups.com:

The lie repeated is still a lie. If the US wanted to "take" the
Iraqi oil, we could have and would have.

He was not talking about post war.

Wrong again, always wrong. Bill certainly was talking about post war.
BTW, are you his spokesman now?

Trader4 thinks he can tell me what I demonstrated about Irak - which would mean that he thinks that he is my spokesman, and DLUNU is trying to supplant him.

The US spent decades doing just
that. Taking Iraqi oil.

That's a lie. We probably bought some, just like we buy imported oil
from many countries, many sources.

Irak oil was sanctioned before the second Gulf war. The US shouldn't have bought any of it, but Haliburton does seem to have been cheating.

But post 'Gulf War', we had no need for it other than as remuneration
for the costs of prosecuting the war against Saddam (which was not a
war with Iraq, btw.

Defeating Saddam did seem to involve flattening lots of bits of Irak, and killed a lot of Iraqi citizens who weren't directly associated with Saddam and his regime.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties

That's another stupid lie. We did not take any oil as remuneration and
whatever "need" we had before the war we would have had the same need
after. Even Trump has complained that we should have taken the oil,
but did not.

But you can't document that claim.

https://theconversation.com/iraq-what-happened-to-the-oil-after-the-war-62188

makes the point that the Irak oil extraction business was an under-funded state-run mess before the invasion, and didn't get any better after the invasion, with regional differences within Irak being the major problem.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:c1a8c3dc-1d40-41aa-ab28-a3bd3e635ee1@googlegroups.com:

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 12:51:51 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:14a1d58e-b1da-4a30-9be4-a6c28754c07f@googlegroups.com:

Cheney's links with Halliburton don't suggest that the then
Republican administration was all that honest.

I am reasonably sure that he did not even watch that movie, and
it
had plenty of Cheney endorsed facts in it.

Wrong, always wrong and jumping to foolish conclusions when you
have no way of knowing. And I suppose you think that because
Oliver Stone made a Hollywood movie about the JFK assassination,
that means the CIA killed him, that it's factual.


ROFL

Oh looky folks... this dipshit thiks that a fictional movie about
an assassination that went uninvestigated is comparable to a film
about the actions of a still living man whom FULLY endorsed the
facts related in the film.

You are a real piece of work, you stupid fucktard.

 

On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:59:17 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 6:18:35 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 12:34:30 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:0d0922f6-8083-4d99-9ea3-b92ca011c40a@googlegroups.com:

The lie repeated is still a lie. If the US wanted to "take" the
Iraqi oil, we could have and would have.

He was not talking about post war.

Wrong again, always wrong. Bill certainly was talking about post war.
BTW, are you his spokesman now?

Trader4 thinks he can tell me what I demonstrated about Irak - which would mean that he thinks that he is my spokesman, and DLUNU is trying to supplant him.

Your spokesman? WTF? All I did was use exactly what you posted where you
documented how Iraq started downhill in 2010 and 2011. You did that,
admitted the factual truth, only because you made the HUGE error of thinking
that BUSH was still president and you were trying to pin it on him.
Instead, you pinned it precisely where it belongs, on OBAMA. Ouch!

Plus I note that you know I was correct in telling DL that you were
talking about oil post war, but instead you choose to respond with some
silly attempt at redirection.

The US spent decades doing just
that. Taking Iraqi oil.

That's a lie. We probably bought some, just like we buy imported oil
from many countries, many sources.

Irak oil was sanctioned before the second Gulf war. The US shouldn't have bought any of it, but Haliburton does seem to have been cheating.

It's true it was sanctioned for PART of that time, but DL was referring
to decades before, an indefinite timeframe.

But post 'Gulf War', we had no need for it other than as remuneration
for the costs of prosecuting the war against Saddam (which was not a
war with Iraq, btw.

Defeating Saddam did seem to involve flattening lots of bits of Irak, and killed a lot of Iraqi citizens who weren't directly associated with Saddam and his regime.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties

That's another stupid lie. We did not take any oil as remuneration and
whatever "need" we had before the war we would have had the same need
after. Even Trump has complained that we should have taken the oil,
but did not.

But you can't document that claim.

YOU made the BS claim that we took the oil. YOU prove it. Google broken?
There was plenty of discussion around Trump's claim, repeated many times,
that the US should have taken the Iraqi oil. Not one journalist, no one
said, "Oh, but it was taken".

https://theconversation.com/iraq-what-happened-to-the-oil-after-the-war-62188

makes the point that the Irak oil extraction business was an under-funded state-run mess before the invasion, and didn't get any better after the invasion, with regional differences within Irak being the major problem.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

That's another lie. I even provided you with a link to Iraqi oil
output. It was about 2.5 mil barrels a day pre-war, it quickly rebounded
in a year or two to pre-war levels and today it's about twice that.
Why do libs lie so much?

 

On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:44:10 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 6:12:06 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 12:04:15 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 12:39:16 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 8:36:48 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:34:56 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
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.

They didn't sell any immediately after the US invasion because Saddam had set the oil fields on fire.

Once the fires had been put out, the US controlled the oil fields (as much as they controlled anything else) and sold the oil.

With all the proceeds going to IRAQ you lib lying shyster.

Can you document this claim?

There's a good example of how you libs work. YOU make some absurd allegation,
state it as fact, and then you want me to prove it's not true.

ROFL

"With all the proceeds going to IRAQ" is an absurd claim. Even if everybody involved was being as altruistic as possible, the some of the money paid for the oil on delivery would have gone to pay the shippers who got it from Irak to the customer. Since Haliburton was involve, altruism won't have been a major factor.

You're the one who's a hopeless lib absurdity. Of course the costs of
fixing the wells that Saddam had blown up, pumping the oil, etc were
paid for out of the revenue stream from the oil. It was the Iraqis
revenue and the Iraqi's cost. Talk about an argumentative asshole.
You pull pure fiction from nowhere, claiming that the US took the Iraqis
oil, no you're arguing because there were expenses associated with the
revenue?

Quite amazing. And then you top it off with more conspiracy nonsense.

Haliburton and Cheney isn't exactly "conspiracy nonsense". Their involvement with each other and Irak is well documented fact. Nobody has gone to prison, and while "Cheney was named in a December 2010 corruption complaint filed by the Nigerian government against Halliburton, which the company settled for $250 million", and seems to have been involved in the ENRON scandal, he seems to have been able to hide the incriminating documents under vice-presidential privilege.

What's next? Asking me to prove Bush was president in 2010 and 2011.

He wasn't.

Good that you figured it out. I'm sure you wished you had figured that out
before you made that post where you explained how everything in Iraq started
downhill in 2010 and 2011. You agreed with that happening, which is correct,
only because you made the big mistake of thinking that BUSH was still
president. Ouch! That must really hurt.

That's right the Aussie lib that doesn't even know that, who documented
how Iraq started down the tubes in 2010, because you thought Bush was
still president and you were trying to pin that on Bush, is the one that
knows about Iraqi oil.

ROFL

Your claim is that Irak started to go down the tubes in 2010 when Obama became president. There's not a shred of evidence that Irak's trajectory shifted at all when Obama took over. I certainly didn't document any change that happened in 2010 because there weren't any that mattered.

ROFL What a liar! You did exactly that! You thought you were pinning
the slide in Iraq on Bush, thinking he was president in 2010 and 2011.
Instead, you put it right where it belongs, on OBAMA. Ouch! Double
ouch!

You can roll around the floor gibbering as much as you like - the fact that the real story doesn't fit your bizarre delusions is obvious to everybody who doesn't happen to stuck your political blind spots.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

The real story fits perfectly and you were very happy with it, when you
thought Bush was president in 2010 and 2011. When you learned of your
HUGE mistake, you do what libs do, lie some more.

 

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 8:52:16 PM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:

Cost-plus-10% for the contractor, cost-plus-10% for a >subcontractor, cost-plus-10% for a sub-subcontractor, and... even >if it's all completely honest, postwar costs and five layers of >subcontractors means most of the cash is with the contractors.

And everybody bitches about the phone company.

Phone companies have bills. The above is pure speculation.