France and Germany shut out!

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by jon_forward
they were only worried about their interests[money] in the ME and Iraq. knowing that when saddam fell they would lose billions in unpaid bills,past, and untold $$$ in the future. maybe they should of just talked their goodbuddy into a long trip somewhere. sure would have saved a bunch of lives and $$$ not to mention france and germanys respect

Those bills are called the Iraqi National Debt. James Baker is in the news traveling to europe to try to get theses nations to forgive part of the owed moneys (or even just some of the interest on the owed moneys). Regardless of who is in charge of Iraq, the creditors will be payed, jon. As a motivation for the european interests who opposed the war, it's a non-starter.
I agree that if they had convinced Hussein to take exile, a lot of trouble and expense could have been avoided. In a bright spot, it looks like he's going to get a public trial and execution, which I think we agree is even better than exile. In that, the invasion has acheived a worthy goal.

 

[jon_forward]

as far as the Iraqi national debt, I feel the New Iraq should start off with a clean slate. sorry but thats how I feel.The iraqi people should not be made to pay for saddam and co's lifestyle of abuse. the countrys owed this money should think before going around sanctions and cutting backroom deals. who were the largest abusers of the sanctions? whos bitching the loudest. draw your own conclusions. is good we finally got him.. now ubl !!

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by eric
You find it ok for them, but not for us?

No, I find it no worse for them than for us. It is an admission of fact, not an accusation.

Of course not ! They want to keep selling weapons and nuclear technology.

Which was acceptable under the international laws at the time, wasn't it? Has France or even a number of French companies been accused of circumventing the sanctions? As for the lost income, I posted Frances economic numbers, the percentage is minute. Would .012% of foriegn trade be worth risking the wrath of the US over? I think we agree that France was acting in national interest but tying the Iraqi trade to their position isn't backed up by the amount of trade they did with Iraq (unless some sort of personal profiteering can be demonstrated on the part of the leadership of France).
France had its' reasons for preffering the status quo. It has a large muslem population and even the broader non-muslem poplulation did not support the occupation.
I will give you this though, wether it was good or bad advice, only time will tell.

I have yet to see this significant destablization of the ME you are speaking of. As far as Iraq, of course there will be a period of destablization, did you expect anything else ?

The number and lethality of terrorist attacks is up across the ME.
Two major terrorist attacks (Saudi/Turkey) in the last 60 (90?) days. In response to the instablility in Iraq, I could respond that we were promised flowers and smiling Iraqis, but I sense that is not a productive vein to pursue. With Saddam in the bag, maybe the resistance will die off. Only time will tell.

Not because it came from France, but because it was bad advise. Rest assured we will see a return on our investment.

While that is a possibility, I don't think it is assured. There are a broad range of outcomes, the administration prefers to focus on the one it desires. I think we can agree the expense for this adventure extends well past the costs of occupation. Analysis differs over how much our lost international support will ultimatly cost us. The cost of the occupation itself is open ended, we will have to pay to implement our policy, we just don't know how much or for how long. Without a firm cost established, the profitablity must remain open to question.(imho)

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by jon_forward
as far as the Iraqi national debt, I feel the New Iraq should start off with a clean slate. sorry but thats how I feel.The iraqi people should not be made to pay for saddam and co's lifestyle of abuse. the countrys owed this money should think before going around sanctions and cutting backroom deals. who were the largest abusers of the sanctions? whos bitching the loudest. draw your own conclusions. is good we finally got him.. now ubl !!

While I can understand your feelings, there is a certain raw justice to what you're suggesting, if they were to disqualify their debt the new Iraqi government would be unable to get international investment or loans for thier own much-needed projects. It would have larger repurcussions across the third world as any government in danger of being overthrown could be excluded from loans based on the ability of the "new" revolutionary government to ignore the pre-existing debt. I think the cure would be worse than the disease.
As far as the "getting around" the sanctions. For a public company, it is a question of legalities. They exist to make a profit for their shareholders, all other questions are subsidiary.

 

[jon_forward]

dijetlo, you are assuming that the france you speak of is smart? hardy. remember germany and a few others were with them on not backing us. they were not standing alone. they were not the only ones skirting the sanc's. if what is owed france was for humaniterian trade, why were the people starving? at what is owed them all iraqi should have been eating as good or better then saddam and co. they were caught in the cookie jar and dont like it. tough, what are they going to do. they can keep there wine, I dont drink anymore.

 

[jon_forward]

I guess that would be up to the world bank. I will leave that question for them.

 

[eric]

No, I find it no worse for them than for us. It is an admission of fact, not an accusation.

Good, I'm glad to hear you say that. I am tired of America being held to a higher standard than the rest of this globe.

Which was acceptable under the international laws at the time, wasn't it? Has France or even a number of French companies been accused of circumventing the sanctions?

Absolutely, I never said it was illegal, but lets face it, once Iraq and America buddy up, guess who will be their new military supplier?

As for the lost income, I posted Frances economic numbers, the percentage is minute. Would .012% of foriegn trade be worth risking the wrath of the US over? I think we agree that France was acting in national interest but tying the Iraqi trade to their position isn't backed up by the amount of trade they did with Iraq (unless some sort of personal profiteering can be demonstrated on the part of the leadership of France).

Here is a few facts:

France alone sells Iraq nearly one-quarter of all its imports.

France has become Iraq’s top European trading partner, displacing Russia. Nearly 60 percent of French companies have business ties with Iraq, pulling in $1.5 billion annually. France ranks as Iraq’s third largest trading partner under the UN’s Oil-for-Food program, raking in $3.1 billion since 1996. (Russia is number one, incidentally, with a cool $4.3 billion.)

The French oil company Total Fina Elf has received the option to explore an estimated 25 percent of Iraq’s oil supply.

France, Russia and China are responsible for selling Iraq 81 percent of its weapons arsenal between 1981-2001. In fact, Jacques Chirac personally negotiated the sale of the Osirak nuclear reactor to Saddam Hussein

When looked at this way I think it give the .012% fact a new meaning. Furthermore, could we not apply the same logic to Halliburton ?

Two major terrorist attacks (Saudi/Turkey) in the last 60 (90?) days

I don't consider that significant destablization, how has this destablized these countries?

In response to the instablility in Iraq, I could respond that we were promised flowers and smiling Iraqis, but I sense that is not a productive vein to pursue

No, its not because I think our govt realized that invading a nation like iraq would of course cause a period of instability. This has nothing to with flowers and smiles.

I think we can agree the expense for this adventure extends well past the costs of occupation. Analysis differs over how much our lost international support will ultimatly cost us. The cost of the occupation itself is open ended, we will have to pay to implement our policy, we just don't know how much or for how long. Without a firm cost established, the profitablity must remain open to question.(imho)

I do agree, and this is why we must finish what we started and make sure we get a return on our investment. The time has come to stop worrying about being Mr. nice guy and start looking at our bottom line, ROI baby !

 

[eric]

they can keep there wine, I dont drink anymore

I do, just not French Wine, actually I have been sampling quite a few wines from other countries, and have found many to be superior to French ones.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by eric
Absolutely, I never said it was illegal, but lets face it, once Iraq and America buddy up, guess who will be their new military supplier?

Are we giving them democratic elections before or after they sign the re-armament contracts?

Here is a few facts:
France alone sells Iraq nearly one-quarter of all its imports.

Which makes France important to Iraq, not visa versa.

Nearly 60 percent of French companies have business ties with Iraq,

Define "ties" as your using it in that sentence. The 60% number seems high if ties means "doing business with" or even "directly profiting from ", especialy in light of the next number.

pulling in $1.5 billion annually.

307.8 Billion annual french exports, 1.54 Trillion GDP.

France ranks as Iraq’s third largest trading partner under the UN’s Oil-for-Food program, raking in $3.1 billion since 1996. (Russia is number one, incidentally, with a cool $4.3 billion.)

Which makes the average yearly income 1996-2001 slightly over $ $860 million for the #1 supplier, $620 million for France. I don't know how much of that was profit.

The French oil company Total Fina Elf has received the option to explore an estimated 25 percent of Iraq’s oil supply.

Bingo in the end, the oil is the only thing that draws anybody to Iraq.

Furthermore, could we not apply the same logic to Halliburton?

Perhaps, but your post on another thread about your battle with your B'o'D over outsourcing is a good example of shortsightedness, if left unchecked leading to foolishness. On the whole I think we'd agree it is a good thing that Haliburton is aware everybody is watching them. They appear to be testing the waters, best they percieve them to be loaded with sharks. Finaly, it is an argument that encapsulates my arguments about political cronyism and ties them up with a bow. As such, I am unlikely to abandon it when its' starting to pay dividends!!!

I don't consider that significant destablization, how has this destablized these countries?

By demonstrating that the government is incapable of stopping them. If the government can't protect the people, the people will find someone who will protect them. Terrorists are a symptom of a larger problem, political discontent.

I do agree, and this is why we must finish what we started and make sure we get a return on our investment. The time has come to stop worrying about being Mr. nice guy and start looking at our bottom line, ROI baby !

Spoken like a true capitolist . I agree we bet a big chunk of the farm on the Iraqi gambit and I'm sure we'll get something from it (that is after all the true genius of Americans, economicaly speaking). I'm looking at the collateral costs, the costs we will incurr in collecting our piece of the action, and ultimately the cost to the Iraqis. I'm left thinking there had to be a better way.

 

[eric]

Which makes France important to Iraq, not visa versa

Oh I would say it is mutually beneficial.

Define "ties" as your using it in that sentence

Either having done business, currently doing business, or intend to do business with.

Look no one is saying that there was a large amount of money at stake during the sanctions, I tend to agree that oil was the motivating factor, though arms I'm sure could play a large part if the sanctions were lifted. That is my exact point concerning Halliburton, it is just not enough money to justify the cost of invading and rebuilding Iraq.

Perhaps, but your post on another thread about your battle with your B'o'D over outsourcing is a good example of shortsightedness, if left unchecked leading to foolishness

Care to explain how ?

 

[jimnyc]

Amusing, this is from your own article, please read it carefully.
"The Army Corps of Engineers told CNN Tuesday that Halliburton would be paid on a "cost plus" basis, meaning it would be reimbursed for the costs of its work and would get a certain percentage of those costs as a fee. "
Higher cost, higher fee. That's what "percentage" means. Double cost = double fee. You and your friends in the brain trust got that one figured out now?

Like I said, for those that STILL can't comprehend a simple sentence, what is their profit margin thus far from the overcharging? Show me the data, not your guesswork. Can you handle that?

Oh, we'll award the contracts as the administration sees fit, and suffer for our childishness as a result.

Who's suffering? The only one suffering is you and your incessant whining. Everyone said we would suffer without them going into war as well, what happened there? You may hope we suffer, being the idiot you are, but it's just not happening.

Which will eventually be our undoing.

Um, sure, we're doing so badly without them now. Think McFly, you are babbling now.

Wealth of the country = GDP. Not per capita income, that would be the wealth of the citizens. Compare the GDP of Luxemborg and Germany. Now understand why your prior comment was nothing more than ill informed obfuscation.
Are you really that ignorant of economics or are you playing stupid so you can stay in the game? It wont matter to your "fuzzy math" friends, they have no idea of what we're talking about anyway.

More babbling from the idiot corner! I stick to my original stance, they are no more powerful than you have brains.

Don't worry Jimmy, I gave up husteling rubes when I was 17. Were they asked to contribute money to a project thier businesses were excluded from? Why yes, yes they were, but they weren't told that until after they pledges had been recieved. The Administration certainly wasn't talking about limiting opportunity to contract this project back at the donors conference, were they?

So, you're still making my point! Had they known they would have been excluded from lucrative contracts they would have opted to NOT help the Iraqi people. With attitudes like that, who needs their sorry asses.

Wassa matta Jumior, you forget how to google?
Try UNSCR 1511 the SCR that acknowledges

quote:The Security Council this morning, acting unanimously, called on the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq to return governing authority to the people of that country “as soon as practicable”, and invited the Iraqi Governing Council to provide a timetable, by 15 December 2003, for drafting a new constitution and holding democratic elections.

And where does that say the current government is there solely for "schedule making" as you put it? Can't back up your own claims now, dopey? That doesn't say a damn thing about limiting their power or their effectiveness, it just sets a timetable for transfer.

You make the claim, Junior, you get the data. Unless you want to change the rules.

I did, my sincerest apologies for you being too stupid to comprehend.

And I showed you those contacts don't amount to a hill of beans to the french financialy. Maybe you should just admit that France gave us their best advice about attacking Iraq and we chose to to ignore it.

Of course we ignored them, they're idiots like you! Now the Iraqi people are free, Saddam is history and Bush will be running our government for another 5 years. And I never stated they made trillions, I said they had a financial interest that was making them make poor decisions. You say you still need proof, but now you admit that it's "a hill of beans to the French financially". Which is it? Either they had contracts or they didn't! Sounds like even you're admitting they did and now trying to downplay it. Typical idiotic liberal responses.

Practice your math skills, Jim. The Iraqi contgracts don't even qualify as 1% of French exports. Your now back to arguing the France decided to oppose the US for the "peanuts" (your word) they represented.

I was mocking you by saying "I guess the 3.5 billion they made was peanuts". I should have known you'd be too stupid to even understand that. LOL And it doesn't matter how much they made, the point was that it was enough to influence their decisions. And how can it be any percentage? I thought you needed proof? Why do you need proof when you are now acknowledging they were making money from Iraq? Do you now see just how stupid you look?

Read the response. Your insults are boring, especially since I find myself explaining GDP vs. Per Capita income to you. Stay out of the economic argument, at least until you figure out what all the numbers mean.

Shit, you were the one dense enough to make ridiculous accusations about Halliburton. I asked for data proof, not your 3rd grade teachings. Have you provided that data? No, you haven't.

Your were arguing that the Russians didn't care about Husseins humanitarian offenses, didn't care about the people of Iraq. I pointed out the point is moot. now you come back with "that's the point". The fact that you have no point is the point? I've agreed with that since I told you I was taking you to school. You have no point, no facts, no analysis, just the pap you hear from the lunatic right. Talk about tin foil hats Jimmy, you need to strip off a layer of tin foil on yours, let a little reality in.
A company that recieved a "cost plus" contract allowed themselves to be overcharged. You can argue that Haliburton doens't know the price of gas in Baghdad, I'd even like you to do that so I can bat you around a little more (I'm getting tired of your insults). If you accept they know they were overcharged, they then must understand this pads their profit margins, and I've repeatedly explained to you why. The only theory I put forward is what Haliburton got in exchange for making Uncle Sam pay double for its' gas. Please come back and say they got nothing, I'm enjoying tearing you apart while you run in circles whining about tin hats and Willy Wonka. Like I said, I find the constant insults offensive.

Offensive, because you ARE and idiot and I guess it hits home. You aren't tearing a damn thing apart, you actually look rather silly right about now. Are you whining like a bitch so badly today because Saddam was captured? SHOW ME THE DATA or continue to be stupid.

Just your world, Jim. The world of Tin Hats and willie wonka....

Nope, sorry, most people hate liberals that talk out their ass, congratulations!

The question was who was more popular with the rest of the world and it was prompted by your innane insistance the "liberals" are the laughing stock of the world. What you think about Clinton is not important, does the rest of the world laugh at him? The answer to that question is a resounding no.

Please explain to me what "innane" means so I can properly understand your sentences. Do you get angry when I call you my bitch, or stupid, and lose control of how to make a coherent sentence? LOL

Clinton is history, stop living in the past!!

Chatter all you like, Junior, I used math to demonstrate the Haliburton argument and the Chirac/France riff. Unless you can dispute the numbers, and you can't, you need to shut up about it. They did what they did and some of you can't hack it, thus we get more of the ridiculious "tin foil hat" argument.
The only part of my statement that is theory is what they are getting back from their supplyers in return for paying double now. Unless you'd like to argue that Haliburton was unaware of the price of Gasoline in Iraq when they made the agreement.

YOU claimed they were profiting and I need to dispute numbers you cannot produce? LOL What an idiot!

Hey, you posted the proof. It is in the article you reff;d
""The Army Corps of Engineers told CNN Tuesday that Halliburton would be paid on a "cost plus" basis, meaning it would be reimbursed for the costs of its work and would get a certain percentage of those costs as a fee. "

And that say's absolutely nothing as to whether or not they made a dime off of the clerical error. Nice try, beanhead!

Nothing you went on to mention is unique to Haliburton. Even the article you reff'd states the primary advantage Haliburton has on subsequent contracts is the fact that they are allready there do to the No-Bid contract they were given.
The man is talking about the contracts to rebuild and operate oil infrastructure of Iraq. He sais they are a big company and the fact they are allready operating in the area gives them an advantage. He does not say they are uniquely qualified.

Well, they are, and you've yet to show a shred of evidence that they didn't deserve the contracts they received.

If your done with your third grade comedy routine, maybe you can spend a little time learning fractions. If you had better math skills we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Just produce the data instead of your retarded "teaching classes". Can you produce data sheets showing that they profited or not? HARD NUMBERS, nothing else.

Is that why you haven't addressed the basic questions I'm asking, too busy watching a movie over and over?
In the last two days, I've demonstrated to you, using math, that Haliburton bilked the US by overpaying for oil and the France has no real economic interest in Iraq when compared to their economic interests in the US, so claiming they oppose us for selfish reasons is a little silly. All that time you've been sitting behind your keyboard, thinking of a movie while you type out this drivel? No wonder your arguments are so inconsistent and you seem incapable of understanding simple math. Next time I take you to school, pay attention.

Dude, I can watch a movie, eat a candy bar and maybe take my car for a spin while replying to an idiot. Do you wear a football helmet while being driven around in a mini school bus by some chance?

 

[jon_forward]

dont blow a gasket there jim,take a deep breath.... nope didnt work....your right!

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by eric
Either having done business, currently doing business, or intend to do business with.

The number seems high to me in light of the small amount of trade between the countries but if your confident of it I'll accept it.

That is my exact point concerning Halliburton, it is just not enough money to justify the cost of invading and rebuilding Iraq.

The second largest oil reserves in the world is what is motivating Haliburton in this adventure. As far as the costs of rebuilding, they don't pay to rebuild Iraq, we do (the US population). Re-arming Iraq? Between the existing debt and the rebuilding costs I wonder how extensively they're going re-arm.

Care to explain how ?

I assume you mean the Haliburton example, not your own B'o'd. Haliburtons real payday comes when the oil rights get handed off for development. The rebuilding contracts are a small case (comparitively speaking). If the people administrering those contracts were smart, they'd be little angles, but evidence indicates they are not. They are being short sighted in attempting to pad thier expenses now to boost the short term profit on the rebuilding contracts (and perhaps deeper machinations to solidify their advantage in the future.) When the leases come up on the block, Haliburton may find they have worked thier way out of the "most favored corporation" status by Enroning the books on the No-Bid reconstruction deals. That would be the foolishness on their part, Senate investigations are an ugly thing and they have a tendancy to get messy, add to that a local Iraqi government who could conceivably use thier accounting misdeads as an excuse to invalidate thier oil leases in the future (the money we are talking about here is techinicaly Iraqi money). As a result, when the big payday comes for them (Iraq stabilized, oil and refineries working at capacity) they may have to make do with a smaller slice. They'll have thier own shortsightedness in handleing the no-bid contracts would be the cause. As a stock holder in Haliburton, I would consider that foolishness.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Like I said, for those that STILL can't comprehend a simple sentence, what is their profit margin thus far from the overcharging? Show me the data, not your guesswork. Can you handle that?

1.00*1.03=1.03 - 1.00 = .03
2.00*1.03=2.06 - 2.00 = .06

Who's suffering? The only one suffering is you and your incessant whining. Everyone said we would suffer without them going into war as well, what happened there? You may hope we suffer, being the idiot you are, but it's just not happening.

The more you're loosing an argument, the more abusive you become, did you realize that? If we don't need thier help, why are we constantly asking for it? Why are we using the rebuilding contracts as a club to punish them/encourage them? Why has every member of the administration said we need more support from the UN and who has effectively blocked that initiative in the UN? American soldiers are getting blown up on a daily basis Jim, you don't they and they're families are suffering? We are paying to rebuild Iraq almost single handedly, you don't think that is creating suffering in the US (take a look at medicare reform. Everybody agrees it isn't the best solution but with the deficits its' what we can afford.)

Um, sure, we're doing so badly without them now. Think McFly, you are babbling now.

No Jim, your right, the US is the eternal lone superpower on the planet. We might as well stop teaching history. Grow up Junior. Nothing is eternal, not even the USA. Our day will come, there can be little doubt we're hastening it with our current actions in Iraq.

More babbling from the idiot corner! I stick to my original stance, they are no more powerful than you have brains.

stick to whatever you like, little sheeple, it doesn't matter to me. Wallow in your ignorance. Other ignorant people wont understand what your doing but anybody who knows the difference between GDP and PCI is laughing at you now.

So, you're still making my point! Had they known they would have been excluded from lucrative contracts they would have opted to NOT help the Iraqi people. With attitudes like that, who needs their sorry asses.

1: The iraqi people didn't ask for their help, we did, the US government. We hosted the donor conference, not Iraq. We made the requests. We took on the cost of rebuilding and we want help with it. Arguing they refused to help the Iraqi people is obfuscation, the party thier contribution are earmarked to help is the US occupation authority which is currently paying for the rebuilding (see the correlation, Junior, paying...contributing.)
2: If we were going to exclude thier companies from competing for the contracts, we should have told them that when we asked them for the money to pay for it.
3: Your point? You aint got one.

And where does that say the current government is there solely for "schedule making" as you put it? Can't back up your own claims now, dopey?

They were a placeholder until a democraticaly elected government can replace them, their primary responsibility under the UN acknowledgement is to schedule and hold democratic elections. You obviously didn't read the posts or the UNSCR.

I did, my sincerest apologies for you being too stupid to comprehend.

I see you still can't back up your claim, can you Junior. If you had a brain in your head, you'd move on to something you can demonstrate with data or fact.

Of course we ignored them, they're idiots like you!

And your so much smarter than the rest of the world, huh Jim?

Now the Iraqi people are free,

Currently the Iraqi people live under a military occupation. The are not free. You really don't understand that, do you Junior?

And I never stated they made trillions, I said they had a financial interest that was making them make poor decisions.

The US was a bigger trading partner for France than Iraq. The total of the goods sold to Iraq from France was less than .012% of thier total trade. The US makes up 8.9% of their foriegn trade. Do the math. If you are unable to do the math, have a 10 year old explain it too you, I'm busy.

You say you still need proof, but now you admit that it's "a hill of beans to the French financially". Which is it?..Typical idiotic liberal responses.

If you'd like to argue that Jacques Chirac supported Hussein because of personal financial connections to the Iraqi regime, you will need proof to back up the claim. If you would like to claim that the Iraqi trade was so key to the French that they opposed the worlds lone superpower to maintain it, sorry, I went and got the proof for you and it does not back up your claim (though you don't sufficiently understand economics to know that, so you prattle on calling me names.)

I was mocking you by saying "I guess the 3.5 billion they made was peanuts". I should have known you'd be too stupid to even understand that.

The funny part is, that when compared to thier GNP or foriegn trade totals, it was peanuts. You just don't have sufficient understanding of what the numbers mean to understand that. I would laugh at you too but I'm to polite to laugh at an ignorant man.

Do you now see just how stupid you look?

[/b
Jim, as a friend, I'm telling you to give this argument up until you look up what the numbers mean (GDP, Foriegn Trade, Per Capita income). I don't look stupid, you do. Your compounding that impression with your mishandling of the data you've been presented.

Shit, you were the one dense enough to make ridiculous accusations about Halliburton. I asked for data proof... Have you provided that data? No, you haven't.

The Army auditor has the proof, I don't have the data he is looking at, GWB apparently has looked at it because he recently admitted Haliburton overcharged.

Offensive, because you ARE and idiot and I guess it hits home. You aren't tearing a damn thing apart, you actually look rather silly right about now.

I'm smoking you like a cheap cigar, Junior. You can't even keep the elements of the argument straight anymore.

Are you whining like a bitch so badly today because Saddam was captured? SHOW ME THE DATA or continue to be stupid.

Hey, nucklehead.We have the army corp of engineers and the president of the US agreeing haliburton overcharged. They are looking at the internal data of the Corp of Engineers, which is not posted on the internet since it has not been released. If you'd like to call GWB a liar, I'm all ears. Otherwise, deal with the fact that Haliburton overcharged us.

Nope, sorry, most people hate liberals that talk out their ass, congratulations!

You claimed in another thread you didn't hate liberals. What "most people" think has got to be a mystery to you, Junior, your a bonafide member of the lunatic fringe. Like most of your ilk, your loud and abusive. Your also ill-informed, ill-mannered and ill-equiped to debate economic questions with me. I suggest you sit down and listen.

Please explain to me what "innane" means so I can properly understand your sentences.

Here's the sentence you don't undersand
"The question was who was more popular with the rest of the world and it was prompted by your innane insistance the "liberals" are the laughing stock of the world."
What confused you is that I typed the instread of that.
Here's the word you don't understand
Inane:
\In*ane"\, a. [L. inanis.] Without contents; empty; void of sense or intelligence; purposeless; pointless; characterless; useless.
Now use the word in a sentence Jimmy (c'mon, you can do it!!!)

Do you get angry when I call you my bitch, or stupid, and lose control of how to make a coherent sentence? LOL

Jimmy, you can call me your bitch, I just wouldn't suggest you try it to my face. As for the rest, no, I find the anonymous rantings of homophobes beneath contempt.

Clinton is history, stop living in the past!!

You stated "Liberals are the laughing stocks of the world," You also claim clinton is a liberal, I just pointed out that both statments can't be right.

YOU claimed they were profiting and I need to dispute numbers you cannot produce? LOL What an idiot!...And that say's absolutely nothing as to whether or not they made a dime off of the clerical error. Nice try, beanhead!

:yawn: Your wrong, I demonstrated mathmaticaly your wrong, and yet you continue to try my patience with your ignorance.

Well, they are, and you've yet to show a shred of evidence that they didn't deserve the contracts they received.

You started out claiming Haliburton was unique. When you were unable to demonstrate they were not, you change your claim to they are "deserving" of their contracts. Unfortunately, you haven't demonstrated that either.

Just produce the data instead of your retarded "teaching classes". Can you produce data sheets showing that they profited or not? HARD NUMBERS, nothing else.

Apparently these number are too hard for you
1.00*1.03=1.03 - 1.00 = .03
2.00*1.03=2.06 - 2.00 = .06
The data sheets your requesting don't exist yet. As least not in their final totals since the contract is in progress, the closest thing to what your asking for are currently internal documents held by Haliburton and the DoA. Your going to have to wait for them to release the documents before I can total Haliburtons attempted fraud. Your childish insistence that Haliburton has not overcharged the US government has been repudiated by the President, btw. Why don't you chew on that for while before you call me an idiot again?

Dude, I can watch a movie, eat a candy bar and maybe take my car for a spin while replying to an idiot. Do you wear a football helmet while being driven around in a mini school bus by some chance?

Like a cheap cigar, Junior....

 

[jon_forward]

before you guys come out of your respectful corners..... would it be prudent to say that before statements are made concerning fraud,law-breaking,spitting on the street....that if documents to support your claim hasnt been released to the public that you wait until you can back up your statements or all it is ..is an opinion

 

[jimnyc]

1.00*1.03=1.03 - 1.00 = .03
2.00*1.03=2.06 - 2.00 = .06

Your theories are nothing more than useless. I asked you to provide documentation showing that Halliburton profited due to the clerical error. Your assumptions are meaningless, as usual.

The more you're loosing an argument, the more abusive you become, did you realize that? If we don't need thier help, why are we constantly asking for it? Why are we using the rebuilding contracts as a club to punish them/encourage them? Why has every member of the administration said we need more support from the UN and who has effectively blocked that initiative in the UN? American soldiers are getting blown up on a daily basis Jim, you don't they and they're families are suffering? We are paying to rebuild Iraq almost single handedly, you don't think that is creating suffering in the US (take a look at medicare reform. Everybody agrees it isn't the best solution but with the deficits its' what we can afford.)

We could use their help, but we don't have a problem going it alone. Wanting and needing are 2 different things. We asked for their assistance, they refused. The war went on anyway and Saddam has been 100% removed. Looks like things are going just fine to me without their help.

No Jim, your right, the US is the eternal lone superpower on the planet. We might as well stop teaching history. Grow up Junior. Nothing is eternal, not even the USA. Our day will come, there can be little doubt we're hastening it with our current actions in Iraq.

And it certainly won't be for our lack of effort. I think with the latest events we have only solidified our nation as the worlds superpower.

stick to whatever you like, little sheeple, it doesn't matter to me. Wallow in your ignorance. Other ignorant people wont understand what your doing but anybody who knows the difference between GDP and PCI is laughing at you now.

Do you think they could provide the data that I asked for?

1: The iraqi people didn't ask for their help, we did, the US government. We hosted the donor conference, not Iraq. We made the requests. We took on the cost of rebuilding and we want help with it. Arguing they refused to help the Iraqi people is obfuscation, the party thier contribution are earmarked to help is the US occupation authority which is currently paying for the rebuilding (see the correlation, Junior, paying...contributing.)
2: If we were going to exclude thier companies from competing for the contracts, we should have told them that when we asked them for the money to pay for it.
3: Your point? You aint got one.

1: We made the requests at the benefit of the Iraqi people.
2: Apples and Oranges - their wanting to help a country in need shouldn't have anything to do with future contracts
3: Your obviously still too stupid to understand

They were a placeholder until a democraticaly elected government can replace them, their primary responsibility under the UN acknowledgement is to schedule and hold democratic elections. You obviously didn't read the posts or the UNSCR.

And they aren't involved in any other actions than making schedules for future elections? I guess their court system that will likely hold the trial for Saddam is a farce then, and I'm sure we'll be hearing from the rest of the world soon how the trial would be illegal.

I see you still can't back up your claim, can you Junior. If you had a brain in your head, you'd move on to something you can demonstrate with data or fact.

The facts were laid out, you chose to either ignore them or play them down. Either way, it's no difference to me if you care to keep looking like a buttplug.

And your so much smarter than the rest of the world, huh Jim?

Absolutely not, just have more common sense than a prick like you!

Currently the Iraqi people live under a military occupation. The are not free. You really don't understand that, do you Junior?

Sure, it's just like a prison over there. Are they free to do business like they couldn't before? Are they free to get involved in journalism as they weren't before? Are they free to do banking like they weren't before? Are they free to get proper educations as they weren't before? Are they free to speak their minds as they weren't before? What is it exactly they aren't free to do anymore? Terrorize? You got me there! idiot.

The US was a bigger trading partner for France than Iraq. The total of the goods sold to Iraq from France was less than .012% of thier total trade. The US makes up 8.9% of their foriegn trade. Do the math. If you are unable to do the math, have a 10 year old explain it too you, I'm busy.

And none of that changes the fact that they likely avoided confrontation with Iraq based on contracts and future revenue. Pointing out that the USA has a monetary interest as well only goes to show we werent blinded.

The funny part is, that when compared to thier GNP or foriegn trade totals, it was peanuts. You just don't have sufficient understanding of what the numbers mean to understand that. I would laugh at you too but I'm to polite to laugh at an ignorant man.

Jesus, you truly are an idiot! You claim you want proof that France had contracts with Saddam, now you are downplaying the actual numbers. Why mess with the numbers at all if your stance is that I haven't provided enough to show that they DID have contracts? Did you smack your mother for failing like I asked you yet?

Jim, as a friend, I'm telling you to give this argument up until you look up what the numbers mean (GDP, Foriegn Trade, Per Capita income). I don't look stupid, you do. Your compounding that impression with your mishandling of the data you've been presented.

Please don't call me your friend, I wouldn't spit on you if I had the chance.

YOU are the one who is compounding things to smoke the fact that you were wrong. I simply stated that France had contracts with Saddam and I thought that was probably why they avoided confrontation. You asked for proof. I provided it. You claim it wasn't enough and I haven't provided it. Now you are trying to simplify the very contracts that you claim didn't exist to begin with!! Why weren't you raised properly?

The Army auditor has the proof, I don't have the data he is looking at, GWB apparently has looked at it because he recently admitted Haliburton overcharged.

And I never said there wasn't an overcharge, I just said they didn't profit from it. You've yet to provide any proof that they did, only your fancy numbers that don't mean shit.

I'm smoking you like a cheap cigar, Junior. You can't even keep the elements of the argument straight anymore.

Whatever you say, son of a mother who should be brought up on charges.

Hey, nucklehead.We have the army corp of engineers and the president of the US agreeing haliburton overcharged. They are looking at the internal data of the Corp of Engineers, which is not posted on the internet since it has not been released. If you'd like to call GWB a liar, I'm all ears. Otherwise, deal with the fact that Haliburton overcharged us.

And where did I ever state Halliburton had not overcharged? Please show me where I stated that, or admit you are a clueless fuck who STILL can't read who wrote what properly. I SAID I DIDN'T BELIEVE THEY PROFITED FROM THE OVERCHARGE. Can you provide data sheets at this time to prove otherwise? Deal with the fact that this is at least 10 times in less than a week that you have attributed comments to me that I din't make. You are an asshole that still needs remedial reading classes.

You claimed in another thread you didn't hate liberals. What "most people" think has got to be a mystery to you, Junior, your a bonafide member of the lunatic fringe. Like most of your ilk, your loud and abusive. Your also ill-informed, ill-mannered and ill-equiped to debate economic questions with me. I suggest you sit down and listen.

And you're a bonafide member of neglected children that could have been better raised by a wild pack of hyenas. Congratulate mommy on a job well done, then sed her off to McDonalds for her next job.

:yawn: Your wrong, I demonstrated mathmaticaly your wrong, and yet you continue to try my patience with your ignorance.

No, you posted your theories and assumptions. You've yet to provide one shred of evidence other than your ramblings. Where is the data to backup your claims?

You started out claiming Haliburton was unique. When you were unable to demonstrate they were not, you change your claim to they are "deserving" of their contracts. Unfortunately, you haven't demonstrated that either.

No, YOU didn't think they are uniquely qualified, I did as well as our government did.

Apparently these number are too hard for you
1.00*1.03=1.03 - 1.00 = .03
2.00*1.03=2.06 - 2.00 = .06
The data sheets your requesting don't exist yet. As least not in their final totals since the contract is in progress, the closest thing to what your asking for are currently internal documents held by Haliburton and the DoA. Your going to have to wait for them to release the documents before I can total Haliburtons attempted fraud. Your childish insistence that Haliburton has not overcharged the US government has been repudiated by the President, btw. Why don't you chew on that for while before you call me an idiot again?

They aren't too hard, I just find them meaningless. You finally admit their is no hard proof yet showing they profited. Thanks for finally admitting what I've stated from the beginning.

My childish insistence? LOL SHOW ME WHERE I EVER STATED THEY DIDN'T OVERCHARGE! CHEW ON THE FACT THAT YOU STILL CAN'T COMPREHEND SIMPLE SENTENCES YET, Asshole!

Ok, saved the funny stuff for last!!

Here's the sentence you don't undersand
"The question was who was more popular with the rest of the world and it was prompted by your innane insistance the "liberals" are the laughing stock of the world."
What confused you is that I typed the instread of that.
Here's the word you don't understand
Inane:
\In*ane"\, a. [L. inanis.] Without contents; empty; void of sense or intelligence; purposeless; pointless; characterless; useless.
Now use the word in a sentence Jimmy (c'mon, you can do it!!!)

Don't you see the humor in you defining a word that you STILL can't spell properly? Hell, you spelled it wrong yet again right before you posted the definition. The only way you were able to get it right was by copying and pasting from another page!

I see useless as a part of the definition, so I will honor your request in using the word in a sentence. "Your mom must have been INANE in the way she raised you".

Jimmy, you can call me your bitch, I just wouldn't suggest you try it to my face. As for the rest, no, I find the anonymous rantings of homophobes beneath contempt.

Your suggestions noted, I find someone alluding to a real world fight while on a message board INANE, and that in itself furthers you as my personal bitch.

And you're damn straight, I don't care for homosexuals. Does that somehow involve you and Daddy?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by jon_forward
before you guys come out of your respectful corners..... would it be prudent to say that before statements are made concerning fraud,law-breaking,spitting on the street....that if documents to support your claim hasnt been released to the public that you wait until you can back up your statements or all it is ..is an opinion

Thank you, that's been my stance from the beginning. No proof whatsoever has been released as of yet that they made a single dime from the clerical error. Stating that they did as fact is not only premature, but shows the absolute idiocy in ones argument.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Your theories are nothing more than useless. I asked you to provide documentation showing that Halliburton profited due to the clerical error. Your assumptions are meaningless, as usual.

Clerical Error?
A $61 million clerical error? Your killing me here junior, do you think the clerical staff at Haliburton negotiated the gasoline price from the Kuwaitti supplier? Or are you just backed into a corner and getting desperate?
As for my "assumptions", I expressed them mathematicaly for you, and where possible I used whole numbers to make it simple. You can't dispute the numbers so what about the "asumption" are you disputing?. Airs' getting pretty thin out on the fringe, isn't it?

We could use their help, but we don't have a problem going it alone.

I'll take that as an admission that we asked for thier help and they refused. As for the rest of your diatribe, why don't you mail that to the family of the next GI who gets blown up, I'm sure they'll be happy to hear we don't need help and everything in Iraq is going just fine.

I think with the latest events we have only solidified our nation as the worlds superpower.

I'm sure you do, Junior.

Do you think they could provide the data that I asked for?

You made the statement that Luxanbourg appears to be a more powerful nation than Germany based on the economic data presented. You chose Per Capita Income as the yardstick for economic power. That was incorrect, the accepted yardstick is GDP, not PCI.I can post them for Luxenbourg if you'd like,GDPurchasing power parity - $20 billion (2002 est.)
and for France
GDPurchasing power parity - $1.54 trillion (2002 est.)
and for Germany
GDPurchasing power parity - $2.184 trillion (2002 est.)
OK, now do you understand why they are not comparable economic powers?

1: We made the requests at the benefit of the Iraqi people.

They'll be glad to hear that, however they didn't make the request, we did. That' a simple fact.

2: Apples and Oranges - their wanting to help a country in need shouldn't have anything to do with future contracts

Ah, junior, it's allways about the money, isn't it? You don't want to share it with them cause they didn't come bleed with us, but you want them to contribute just the same. The world doesn't work that way. If I pay part of the development costs than I own part of the project.

3: Your obviously still too stupid to understand

Did ya' figure out the PCI/GDP thing yet, Jimbo?
Ready to take a crack at cost plus contracting now?

I guess their court system that will likely hold the trial for Saddam is a farce then, and I'm sure we'll be hearing from the rest of the world soon how the trial would be illegal.

There's a good chance he will be tried in international court instead because of the problems associated with a Provisional Authority creating a legal system quickly enough to bring him to justice. He might die in prison (He's 66) waiting for the new constitution to take effect and to have a puppet regime of the US government try him without one presents certain legal obstacles. I hope they get their elections in this summer and try him in Baghdad as soon as they get the constitution written. If he dies in prison, it would be a shame, I want to hear him beg for his life.

The facts were laid out, you chose to either ignore them or play them down. Either way, it's no difference to me if you care to keep looking like a buttplug.

Reff the links your talking about, or show me where your arguments are anything but hot air and bile, and I'll let you know which it was.

Sure, it's just like a prison over there...What is it exactly they aren't free to do anymore? Terrorize?

They are not a free people, Jim, they are occupied. They also have an ongoing terrist campaign so I guess you could argue they are free to do that as well.

You got me there! idiot.

Not just there, Junior, I got you up and down the line on this thread. Spin, Spin, spin, you just called Iraq a free country, excuse me while roll on the floor.

I guess the army can come home, huh?

Pointing out that the USA has a monetary interest as well only goes to show we werent blinded.

It shows we're no better than they are, and thank you for pointing that out.

Jesus, you truly are an idiot!

Don't call Jesus an idiot, there are likely collateral costs (oh, I forgot, you never care about collatteral costs, do ya' Junior?)

You claim you want proof that France had contracts with Saddam, now you are downplaying the actual numbers.

OK, one more time for the back of the class. Your argument comes in two varieties here.
1: France tried to block the US in the run up to the war because of her economic ties to the Hussein Regime.
When we look at Frances foriegn trade balance with Iraq, we find Iraq compromised less than .02% of Frances foriegn trade. In a gross dollar comparison, to put it simply, the facts do not support your position, or do you feel 2% of 1% was enough reason for France to oppose us?

2: Chirac was personaly committed to economic ties to Iraq and Hussein, and thus Frances international position on Iraq.
OK, I'm receptive to that argument if you can tell me in what way did he personaly profit. For so widely repeated beleif one would assume that evidence abounds (the contracts you were speaking of in the excerpted portion of your post).

Did you smack your mother for failing like I asked you yet?

Please don't call me your friend, I wouldn't spit on you if I had the chance.

OK Junior. The advice still stands.

I simply stated that France had contracts with Saddam and I thought that was probably why they avoided confrontation. You asked for proof. I provided it.

Do me a favor, Junior, repost your proof. In answer to your thoughts, address the discreptency between what was actually traded versus what you think was actually traded and I'll give your opinion on the matter another thought.

You claim it wasn't enough and I haven't provided it.

If your reffering to your riff on the economic juggernaught that is Luxembourg, your quoting the wrong number. You don't have any proof. Not even a little. Per Capita Income is not a measure of a nations economic muscle. That would be...GDP. Is that the light coming on above your head?

And I never said there wasn't an overcharge, I just said they didn't profit from it.

Would someone on the right please explain cost plus contracting to Jimmy? Please?

Whatever you say, son of a mother who should be brought up on charges.

Pulling out the second grade material? When you get to Kindergarden, you gonna call me a booger?

And where did I ever state Halliburton had not overcharged?I SAID I DIDN'T BELIEVE THEY PROFITED FROM THE OVERCHARGE.

Again, for the back of the class...
If Johnny buys 3 barrels of oil for his cost plus government contract from a sneaky ol' Kuwaitti, paying $30/bbl, and if Johnny has negotitated a 3% push from Uncle Sam(the "plus" part of cost-plus contracting), johnny will get $2.70 in profit.
If Billy buys 3 barrels of oil for his cost plus government contract from a sneaky ol' Kuwaitti, paying $60/bbl, and if Billy has negotitated a 3% push from Uncle Sam, Billy will make a profit of $5.40.
Questions?

you posted your theories and assumptions. You've yet to provide one shred of evidence other than your ramblings.

You don't consider the CIA links, the CNN links, the remedial classes I've given you on economics, business and accounting proof? We need take the matter no further. Your out of arguments anyway, at this point your just whining about how badly you got smoked.

YOU didn't think they are uniquely qualified, I did as well as our government did.

Which supports my earlier assertion that you and the government are the only ones who hold that opinion (and Haliburton, of course.)

They aren't too hard, I just find them meaningless.

Then why do you keep asking for them, Junior? You weren't specific, I assume your reffering to the data sheets from Haliburton current operations. Please, post the link...

LOL SHOW ME WHERE I EVER STATED THEY DIDN'T OVERCHARGE! CHEW ON THE FACT THAT YOU STILL CAN'T COMPREHEND SIMPLE SENTENCES YET, Asshole!

After all this you still don't have a clue how COST-PLUScontracting works? Here's a hint. If they charged the US government for it, they made a percentage on it.

Don't you see the humor in you defining a word that you STILL can't spell properly? Hell, you spelled it wrong yet again right before you posted the definition. The only way you were able to get it right was by copying and pasting from another page!

Well, Junior, I know what it means and I kno how to correctly use it. By the way your sentence was incorrect. "To raise" is a verb, therefor you have to use the adverb form of inane which is inanely. So from your example of "Your mom must have been INANE in the way she raised you" the correct form is"Your mother must have raised you inanely." Now add english to the list of remedial courses you're attending.

And you're damn straight, I don't care for homosexuals. Does that somehow involve you and Daddy?

All you can do is call me names and insult my family. Yeah, you doin' good Jimmy. I'm not tearing you apart at all...

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by jon_forward
before you guys come out of your respectful corners..... would it be prudent to say that before statements are made concerning fraud,law-breaking,spitting on the street....that if documents to support your claim hasnt been released to the public that you wait until you can back up your statements or all it is ..is an opinion

You make a good point, Jon, except criminal charges wont result from it. This type of overcharge is handled by the contracting authority. The army is going to request a refund for the overpayment and unless Haliburton wants to appeal to arbitration, they'll give it to them. That was in the originating article. That's how it will resolve itself, criminal charges are extremely unlikely, they would have to prove collusion over incompetance i.e. they took the higher price purposefully to defraud the government. (imho)That's a tough sell, especially considering it all happened in Kuwaitt.
Cost plus contracting is what it is. You get paid a percentage above your cost. This is a good example of why it is considered a liscence to steal among government contractors. Over time, Haliburton will push that number as high as the auditors let them. The Army put some hard nosed guy in charge of the auditing, and he's coming out of the box with a list of complaints and reimbursement invoices. I like him already .
Is this as big a deal as Jim and I are making it out to be? Naw, it was completely predictable, the army is acting appropriately, the checks and balances appear to be fully engaged. I just got tired of listening to him call people names. This just happened to be a very strong spot to stand my ground, and that's why I chose it.

 

[jimnyc]

Clerical Error?
A $61 million clerical error? Your killing me here junior, do you think the clerical staff at Haliburton negotiated the gasoline price from the Kuwaitti supplier? Or are you just backed into a corner and getting desperate?
As for my "assumptions", I expressed them mathematicaly for you, and where possible I used whole numbers to make it simple. You can't dispute the numbers so what about the "asumption" are you disputing?. Airs' getting pretty thin out on the fringe, isn't it?

Bottom line, THERE IS NO PROOF whatsoever that Halliburton profited from any type of overcharging. Your whole numbers are not a substitute for cold hard facts.

Weren't YOU the one who just stated 48 hours ago that you don't deal with smoke, that you only deal with fire. How many times in the past have you shot down released news or memos because there was no actual data to back them up? Why is it suddenly ok to "assume" something happened? Because it supports your theory this time? SORRY, doesn't work that way. Provide the proof or admit it's nothing more than a theory.

I'll take that as an admission that we asked for thier help and they refused. As for the rest of your diatribe, why don't you mail that to the family of the next GI who gets blown up, I'm sure they'll be happy to hear we don't need help and everything in Iraq is going just fine.

An admission? I never once stated we didn't ask them for assistance. There's quite a difference between wanting assistance and needing assistance.

You made the statement that Luxanbourg appears to be a more powerful nation than Germany based on the economic data presented. You chose Per Capita Income as the yardstick for economic power. That was incorrect, the accepted yardstick is GDP, not PCI.I can post them for Luxenbourg if you'd like,GDPurchasing power parity - $20 billion (2002 est.) and for Germany
GDPurchasing power parity - $2.184 trillion (2002 est.)
OK, now do you understand why they are not comparable economic powers?

Are you lost? Can't keep up with a simple thread? The data I have asked for, and asked on at least 10 occasions now, was the proof that Halliburton profited from overcharging.

As long as you're having a good time rambling, I'll answer anyway. YOU said "you made the statement that 'luxanbourg' appears to be a more powerful nation than Germany based on economic data presented". Seriously man, can you even read? SHOW ME WHERE I STATED THIS!!! I simply made a statement that Bermuda and Luxembourg were 2 of the richest countries in the world, I NEVER stated they appeared to be more powerful than anyone.

They'll be glad to hear that, however they didn't make the request, we did. That' a simple fact.

Do you even pay attention when posting? I said "We made the request" AND YOU EVEN QUOTED IT and then you responded with "they didn't make the request, we did". It must suck to be as stupid as you!

Ah, junior, it's allways about the money, isn't it? You don't want to share it with them cause they didn't come bleed with us, but you want them to contribute just the same. The world doesn't work that way. If I pay part of the development costs than I own part of the project.

Well, I'll side with the sentiment of the majority. They should be a part of the project FIRST and then be involved in contracts.

Did ya' figure out the PCI/GDP thing yet, Jimbo?
Ready to take a crack at cost plus contracting now?

As soon as you post the proof to your accusations and not your theories, sure, I'd be happy to discuss any of the mathematics involved.

There's a good chance he will be tried in international court instead because of the problems associated with a Provisional Authority creating a legal system quickly enough to bring him to justice. He might die in prison (He's 66) waiting for the new constitution to take effect and to have a puppet regime of the US government try him without one presents certain legal obstacles. I hope they get their elections in this summer and try him in Baghdad as soon as they get the constitution written. If he dies in prison, it would be a shame, I want to hear him beg for his life.

My point was that the overall majority that I heard or read about from Iraq want him tried in their newly created court system. I've heard this from within our administartion that it was a possibility, as well as the administrations of a few other countries. Their acting government may not be their final government, but they are hardly the joke you are making them out to be.

Reff the links your talking about, or show me where your arguments are anything but hot air and bile, and I'll let you know which it was.

Scroll back up and read again, I have no need to post data twice for you when you out and out refuse to post data once for me that I have asked for several times now.

They are not a free people, Jim, they are occupied. They also have an ongoing terrist campaign so I guess you could argue they are free to do that as well.

Their are military forces in their country rooting out terrorists and members of the former regime. Once their objectives have been met they will be rolling out and leaving the Iraqi people with freedoms they haven't seen in at least 30 years. Spin, spin, spin all you like! They have more freedom now than ever, and the US forces are only limiting anything when it's a matter of security. Other than that they are free to do as they please.

Not just there, Junior, I got you up and down the line on this thread. Spin, Spin, spin, you just called Iraq a free country, excuse me while roll on the floor.
I guess the army can come home, huh?

Nah, you've only got it in your head in this thread. You've provided no proof to your original accusations. Chop away at the rest of the thread and boil it down to the one accusation this all stems from - that Halliburton has profited from overcharging. Either they have or they haven't. I choose to wait for all the facts to come forth before making accusations. You choose to make them with absolutely no proof at all. Your pretty numbers and cost figures are simply not sufficient proof at this time. You have no idea if that held true in this instance or not. If it did, you have no idea if they'll have to forfeit that as well. Simply put, I asked you to provide proof and as of yet you have not.

It shows we're no better than they are, and thank you for pointing that out.

Nice spin, again. Sure makes a lot of sense to throw millions of dollars in contracts and trade out the window only to incur a debt of 187 billion dollars! We did not take the money saving route, that's what France did.

OK, one more time for the back of the class. Your argument comes in two varieties here.
1: France tried to block the US in the run up to the war because of her economic ties to the Hussein Regime.
When we look at Frances foriegn trade balance with Iraq, we find Iraq compromised less than .02% of Frances foriegn trade. In a gross dollar comparison, to put it simply, the facts do not support your position, or do you feel 2% of 1% was enough reason for France to oppose us?

I don't care what spin you put on the numbers, but don't change the original argument. YOU stated it wasn't the case and wanted proof. I gave that proof to you. You said it wasn't good enough. I'll stick with my original assertion that France had avoided confrontation for fear of the loss of contracts and future revenue. That's my opinion. The proof is there that they had contracts with Iraq, which you finally admit, but rather choose to change the argument than admit I was right (that they did have contracts and a financial interest).

2: Chirac was personaly committed to economic ties to Iraq and Hussein, and thus Frances international position on Iraq.OK, I'm receptive to that argument if you can tell me in what way did he personaly profit. For so widely repeated beleif one would assume that evidence abounds (the contracts you were speaking of in the excerpted portion of your post).

You may be receptive to that argument, but it's not one that I had made. AGAIN, show me where I stated it was Chirac personally. You read what you want and visualize arguments that just don't exist. Seriously, that's at least 7 times in 3 days that you either wrongly attributed statements to me, or simply just read wrong. I NEVER STATED IT WAS CHIRAC PERSONALLY!

Do me a favor, Junior, repost your proof. In answer to your thoughts, address the discreptency between what was actually traded versus what you think was actually traded and I'll give your opinion on the matter another thought.

Sorry, you'll have to either learn to read properly the first time, or scroll back and re-read a second time.

If your reffering to your riff on the economic juggernaught that is Luxembourg, your quoting the wrong number. You don't have any proof. Not even a little. Per Capita Income is not a measure of a nations economic muscle. That would be...GDP. Is that the light coming on above your head?

Can you please try and keep up with the debate next time? How did Luxembourg get in here? That had nothing to do with what we were talking about here. I said France had contracts and future interest in Iraq. You said you wanted proof. I gave the proof to you. You said it wasn't good enough (even though you go on to downplay those very interests just a few short paragraphs later)

Would someone on the right please explain cost plus contracting to Jimmy? Please?

Nobody is jumping in here because they are most likely waiting for proof. Cost plus contracting is a theory, and quite plausible in some cases, but at this point is still a theory nonetheless. I understand it just fine, I just want proof that this applied in this instance. Assuming it just doesn't make the case this time.

Again, for the back of the class...
If Johnny buys 3 barrels of oil for his cost plus government contract from a sneaky ol' Kuwaitti, paying $30/bbl, and if Johnny has negotitated a 3% push from Uncle Sam(the "plus" part of cost-plus contracting), johnny will get $2.70 in profit.
If Billy buys 3 barrels of oil for his cost plus government contract from a sneaky ol' Kuwaitti, paying $60/bbl, and if Billy has negotitated a 3% push from Uncle Sam, Billy will make a profit of $5.40.
Questions?

Yes, just one question, can you provide proof that this took place in this instance?

You don't consider the CIA links, the CNN links, the remedial classes I've given you on economics, business and accounting proof? We need take the matter no further. Your out of arguments anyway, at this point your just whining about how badly you got smoked.

And where's the proof? Links to discussions about business doesn't provide the proof I have asked for, why is this so hard for you to understand? I don't need an argument, I need you to once and for all back up your claims with proof. Either post the proof, not your theories, or admit you haven't got this knowledge at this point and you are running with an assumption.

Then why do you keep asking for them, Junior? You weren't specific, I assume your reffering to the data sheets from Haliburton current operations. Please, post the link...

Having more trouble keeping up? The "meaningless" I spoke about was in direct response to your cost plus theories. Why would I be posting links when it was you that has been asked to provide proof of profits from the overcharging?

Can you please print out posts in the future so you can keep up? These threads would be much shorter if I didn't have to constantly correct you and repeat myself.

After all this you still don't have a clue how COST-PLUScontracting works? Here's a hint. If they charged the US government for it, they made a percentage on it.

I understand the concept just fine, I'm just STILL waiting for proof that it applies to the case of overcharging.

1- do you have bonafide proof that they profited from overcharging? Not theories, not assumptions, no more of your supposed classes. 100% proof that doesn't come from you, from an outside source. Please provide it.
2- see #1, if you cannot provide such proof admit you have no proof as of yet and are running with an assumption at this point.

Is that so hard, can you do one or the other, finally?