Forbidden? I claimed THAT? Where? No, you didn't say making a profit is forbidden, but clearly you have implied that there's something wrong with it.
It's sad when the argument breaks down into semantics.
Profit is not wrong. This situation however is. And regardless of the 'right or wrong' of this specific situation, the argument against war for profit can now be considered a invalid. Profit could have been a motive for the war. Previously that was considered an impossiblity by some of the AI crowd.
Scott, go read up about the bank authorizing the loan.
Still not seeing any profit. PROVE YOU CASE! Show me your brain can function for something other than knee jerk anti-americanism and tell me how a bank makes money on a loan, under what conditions it earns a profit it on it AND the conditions in this case that PROVE the US is making profit on the loan. Otherwise STFU.
Still not seeing any profit. PROVE YOU CASE! Show me your brain can function for something other than knee jerk anti-americanism and tell me how a bank makes money on a loan, under what conditions it earns a profit it on it AND the conditions in this case that PROVE the US is making profit on the loan. Otherwise STFU.
Wow. Just wow.
Bank loans 100,000 dollars at 10% interest rate. To make things simple, let's just say it's a one year loan to be paid back in one payment at the end of the year.
The bank gives 100,000 dollars to Person X on July 16, 2003.
July 16, 2004 rolls around.
Person X pays the bank 100,000 dollars PLUS 10,000 interest.
Oh, of course! We went to war to pad the earnings of some US companies. PROVE it.
I highly doubt we went to war for that reason. However, I do not doubt that deals were done to get specific administration related companies the contracts once the war did begin. I'm sorry, but we still don't know what the true motivation for war was since the story has changed so many times.
I'd like to know who else within the US beside Halliburton (and subsidiary KBR) could've taken on this task. Be sure to include a nation with extensive experience in the middle east, even Iraq itself. And one capable of deployment with the speeed Halliburton/KBR could do it.
I agree. I don't think many people believe it's the sole motivation. I'm pretty sure that if there was no opportunity to profit we wouldn't have been as quick to attack though. That's just my opinion.
Bank loans 100,000 dollars at 10% interest rate. To make things simple, let's just say it's a one year loan to be paid back in one payment at the end of the year.
The bank gives 100,000 dollars to Person X on July 16, 2003.
July 16, 2004 rolls around.
Person X pays the bank 100,000 dollars PLUS 10,000 interest.
The bank made a 10,000 profit from the loan.
DO YOU SEE NOW?
OH GOD YOU ARE SO STUPID! WHAT IS THE RATE OF THE LOAN TO IRAQ? HOW MUCH MONEY UNDER WHAT TERMS? IF YOU CAN'T TELL ME THEN YOU HAVE NO PROOF OF PROFIT. GIVE IT UP. BUNGE MADE IT UP. HE'S A LIAR JUST LIKE YOU!
MAYBE IF I TYPE IN CAPITALS TOO I WON'T EVER HAVE TO MAKE A CONVINCING COUNTER-ARGUMENT AGAIN AND I CAN MAKE ACCUSATIONS OF MENDACITY WHEN I FIND THE FACTS INCONVENIENT.
MAYBE IF I TYPE IN CAPITALS TOO I WON'T EVER HAVE TO MAKE A CONVINCING COUNTER-ARGUMENT AGAIN AND I CAN MAKE ACCUSATIONS OF MENDACITY WHEN I FIND THE FACTS INCONVENIENT.
You're an idiot too. There's nothing to counter here. There's no proof of profit because no one as given any. There are no facts to find "INCONVENIENT". We have a loan secured by oil. Where's the profit? Please PROVE it to me.
Read the link to the site that I posted. The guidelines for loans is clearly spelled out in there. An yes, the guidelines show that the bank does in fact charge interest.
You're an idiot too. There's nothing to counter here. There's no proof of profit because no one as given any. There are no facts to find "INCONVENIENT". We have a loan secured by oil. Where's the profit? Please PROVE it to me.
Prove that this is going to be an interest free loan. Otherwise shut the hell up. Any standard loan has interest attached. What you are hoping for is a special case where there is no interest attached. Since you are banking on the abnormality, the ball is in your court to prove that.
Comments
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
You're right. I'm not comprehending you.
No where have I stated or implied that making a profit in Iraq is forbidden.
Originally posted by bunge
No where have I stated or implied that making a profit in Iraq is forbidden.
Forbidden? I claimed THAT? Where? No, you didn't say making a profit is forbidden, but clearly you have implied that there's something wrong with it.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Forbidden? I claimed THAT? Where? No, you didn't say making a profit is forbidden, but clearly you have implied that there's something wrong with it.
It's sad when the argument breaks down into semantics.
Profit is not wrong. This situation however is. And regardless of the 'right or wrong' of this specific situation, the argument against war for profit can now be considered a invalid. Profit could have been a motive for the war. Previously that was considered an impossiblity by some of the AI crowd.
Scott, go read up about the bank authorizing the loan.
-Bunge
didn't we learn this in fourth grade on the playground?
thank you.
Originally posted by Scott
Still not seeing any profit. PROVE YOU CASE! Show me your brain can function for something other than knee jerk anti-americanism and tell me how a bank makes money on a loan, under what conditions it earns a profit it on it AND the conditions in this case that PROVE the US is making profit on the loan. Otherwise STFU.
Wow. Just wow.
Bank loans 100,000 dollars at 10% interest rate. To make things simple, let's just say it's a one year loan to be paid back in one payment at the end of the year.
The bank gives 100,000 dollars to Person X on July 16, 2003.
July 16, 2004 rolls around.
Person X pays the bank 100,000 dollars PLUS 10,000 interest.
The bank made a 10,000 profit from the loan.
DO YOU SEE NOW?
Originally posted by Jonathan
boys and girls, it's not nice to call each other morons.
didn't we learn this in fourth grade on the playground?
thank you.
Fine. I will stop calling the sky blue. *chuckles*
Originally posted by bunge
Profit is not wrong. This situation however is...
No it's NOT.
... And regardless of the 'right or wrong' of this specific situation, the argument against war for profit can now be considered a invalid...
THIS is all it takes? You don't demand much in the way of evidence, do you?
... Profit could have been a motive for the war...
Hate to be wrong, don't you?
About what?
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
I highly doubt we went to war for that reason. However, I do not doubt that deals were done to get specific administration related companies the contracts once the war did begin. I'm sorry, but we still don't know what the true motivation for war was since the story has changed so many times.
Just an interesting exercise.
Originally posted by BR
I highly doubt we went to war for that reason.
I agree. I don't think many people believe it's the sole motivation. I'm pretty sure that if there was no opportunity to profit we wouldn't have been as quick to attack though. That's just my opinion.
Originally posted by BR
Wow. Just wow.
Bank loans 100,000 dollars at 10% interest rate. To make things simple, let's just say it's a one year loan to be paid back in one payment at the end of the year.
The bank gives 100,000 dollars to Person X on July 16, 2003.
July 16, 2004 rolls around.
Person X pays the bank 100,000 dollars PLUS 10,000 interest.
The bank made a 10,000 profit from the loan.
DO YOU SEE NOW?
OH GOD YOU ARE SO STUPID! WHAT IS THE RATE OF THE LOAN TO IRAQ? HOW MUCH MONEY UNDER WHAT TERMS? IF YOU CAN'T TELL ME THEN YOU HAVE NO PROOF OF PROFIT. GIVE IT UP. BUNGE MADE IT UP. HE'S A LIAR JUST LIKE YOU!
EXPENSIVE RESTAURANT BILL? LIAR!
EARTHQUAKE IN JAPAN? LIAR!
BIG TAX BILL?
LIAR!
LIAR!
LIAR!
A;KLSUDFGHALSKDFJHA;SKLVHASD;LKVHAS;DKLJHF A;SVKLJVH ;ALSKHBV;L AERKHB ;ARLKBH RAL;KHB GA;RLEK BHA;LEKRHGV;LAKKHRGJMA;LIMCLAKSEHVRPGNOACIEHCMPOWI HMRGLQKUHMXRGOPQIHRPOQIHMRPCOIQHPFIOQHLKFMHQWXLUFK HQM
LIAR
LIAR
LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!
didn't we learn this in fourth grade on the playground?
thank you.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
MAYBE IF I TYPE IN CAPITALS TOO I WON'T EVER HAVE TO MAKE A CONVINCING COUNTER-ARGUMENT AGAIN AND I CAN MAKE ACCUSATIONS OF MENDACITY WHEN I FIND THE FACTS INCONVENIENT.
You're an idiot too. There's nothing to counter here. There's no proof of profit because no one as given any. There are no facts to find "INCONVENIENT". We have a loan secured by oil. Where's the profit? Please PROVE it to me.
Originally posted by Scott
Please PROVE it to me.
Read the link to the site that I posted. The guidelines for loans is clearly spelled out in there. An yes, the guidelines show that the bank does in fact charge interest.
Originally posted by Scott
You're an idiot too. There's nothing to counter here. There's no proof of profit because no one as given any. There are no facts to find "INCONVENIENT". We have a loan secured by oil. Where's the profit? Please PROVE it to me.
Prove that this is going to be an interest free loan. Otherwise shut the hell up. Any standard loan has interest attached. What you are hoping for is a special case where there is no interest attached. Since you are banking on the abnormality, the ball is in your court to prove that.