Originally posted by jimnyc
Drink some coffee before you post next time. Gaining contract worth billions of dollars Vs. No contract with a profit margin of Zero = you look stupid again! What is their profit margin thus far from rebuilding in Iraq?
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?
Well, looks like your wrong again, as usual. The USA DOES control the contracts and THEY ARE limiting who has the right to bid. All that's left is the whining from the bitches.
Oh, we'll award the contracts as the administration sees fit, and suffer for our childishness as a result.
Then we'll do exactly as we did this time, go without their sorry asses.
Which will eventually be our undoing.
Ummm, yeah, wealth leads to overall power. 
...Some of the smaller countries in the world are the richest, and have no impact whatsoever on the rest of the world. Luxembourg and Bermuda are 2 of the top 3 richest countries in the world. Sure, they're powerful alright!
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.
So you're saying they only originally donated money to help the Iraqi people contingent on receiving it back in contracts? And you say you were involved in business? Please, for the love of God, stay as far away as possible from anything I might ever get involved in! 
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?
That's written somewhere? That they are not in fact the recognized governement, that they are just there solely for creating schedules? Please link me to this contract. Loosen the tinfoil, boy!
Wassa matta Jumior, you forget how to google?
Try
UNSCR 1511 the SCR that acknowledges
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.
Hey, just because your too stupid to search and read what money is/was being gained from contracts with Saddam doesn't mean they are baseless - it just means you are dense.
You make the claim, Junior, you get the data. Unless you want to change the rules.
I stated CLEARLY that it was the contracts that France had with Saddam that made them want to avoid war.
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.
And the billions they made is still a lot of money. Nice attempt at another retarded spin though!
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.
Again, dopey, I never said "Chirac personally has contracts", and I gave clear proof that France was making money from Iraq. Was reading that article too much for you to handle? I'll try to keep it in less than a paragraph next time for you. In laymans terms, I'll dumb down for you.
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.
Point is moot? That's exactly the point, dopey! LOL We didn't let money from contracts with Saddam get in our way and cloud our judgement like it did to others. Have you not been following along?
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.
And the point remains, liberals are the laughing stock of the world.
Just your world, Jim. The world of Tin Hats and willie wonka....
You guys and your tinfoil hat conspiracies crack me up! You claim earlier that you don't go for smoke, you only believe things when there is fire. All of your arguments are based on smoke and ashes. Clinton popular? You've gotta be kidding me!
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.
The only thing worse than a goofy liberal is one that is so wound up in the bullshit he spouts that he thinks it's reality.
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 took me to school alright, too bad I learned the basics of kindergarten 32 years ago. Now, remember, you only talk about fire - not smoke. Show us the data sheets that outline the profit Halliburton made from this overcharging.
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. "
I don't need an industry analysis to see that they were uniquely qualified...
Here's a quote from an unbiased analyst:
"Certainly Halliburton would have the lead [in the competition for that job], even absent this contract, given the size and scope of their current operations," said Pierre Conner, an analyst with Hibernia Southcoast Capital. "But there's no question they'll start with some footprint there. It clearly puts them in the position where they will know more about the situation and have a bit of an operation there."
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.
You can call all your conspiracies fact from today on, that doesn't make your assertions any less laughable.
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.
For 2 days replying to your posts I can't stop imagining Mel Gibson in 'Conspiracy Theory'.
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.
lets hope there isnt to much of a fall out over the contracts in iraq thing. pluses and minises both ways
urchasing power parity - $1.54 trillion (2002 est.) "
