Never Did Like Bremer Much

[Utah]

Billions missing in Iraqi Aid

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,129489,00.html

[nicky g]

Glad this is finally making the mainstream press.

More quality Fox reporting:
"In June, Britain's third-largest political party, the Christian Aid"

I think they mean the Liberal Democrats.

[cardcounter0]

Didn't have an inkling about what was going on over there until Fox News got around to telling you about it? Sad.

Here is something you can think about now, while waiting for Fox News to report on it. Crude Oil just topped $49 a barrel today. The #1 priority when we invaded Iraq was to get the oil production going again and pumping crude. Iraq has been exporting millions of barrels of oil every day for quite a while now.

1 million barrels X $49 X number of day = 1 big pile of money.

So where is it all at? You can bet the Iraqis aren't seeing this money. The UN is complaining about being shorted. So where is the cash?

[MMMMMM]

not sure, cardcounter, but fairly recently production in Iraq was cut due to Mehdi army threats against the pipeline.

Also you are making a presumption ("you can bet Iraqis aren't seeing the money")then asking a question based on taking that presumption as fact. I would suggest you reaearch it a bit then pose your question--who knows, you might be surprised to find that your question has morphed by then.

[Cyrus]

This shows that you have recently taken to posting first and thinking later:

"Fairly recently production in Iraq was cut due to Mehdi army threats against the pipeline."

Oh. I see. So actual production can be cut because of threats! /images/graemlins/cool.gif

Right, I'm off to go long on some September futures and then wait for the next wave of idle threats. Should be a cinch.

(FYI, current exports of crude out of Iraq are running at about 50% of pre-war capacity. The reasons have to do with lack of adequate infrastructure and, mainly, sabotage. That's actual sabotage, and not just daydreaming about it. /images/graemlins/cool.gif)

[lu_hawk]

The US must be embezzling the cash. $49mm/day is a whole lot of money to our government and definitely worth the risk of a scandal.

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus I have now identified one of the reasons we fail to communicate well: You do not read precisely enough, and you fail to properly apply the concepts of set theory and inclusion/exclusion.


Nothing I wrote implies Bremer is no good.

"Threats" do not imply absence of sabotage.

Lower production due to threats does not imply that production was not also lowered due to sabotage.

[cardcounter0]

Really? I can't see the US doing it. They have plenty of taxpayer money to waste, why would they be interested in a measly $40 million a day?

I can see some individual in some type of position of power, who could see a portion of $40 million a day as a pretty nice paycheck.

Remember, the UN hasn't been allowed to audit, one firm trying to audit gave up because they didn't have proper conditions or records to audit (surprise!), and the company overseeing most of the work has already been caught overbilling, skimming, and comitting fraud on every other operation or job they have done for us.

Looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, walks like a duck, how long before Fox News reports the possibility of a duck?

[Cyrus]

"I have now identified one of the reasons we fail to communicate well: You do not read precisely enough."

Could it be that you are not writing precisely enough? You seem to have an uncanny propensity to follow up your posts with "clarifications" and variants of the "I-meant-this-and-didn't-mean-that" plea.

"And you fail to properly apply the concepts of set theory and inclusion/exclusion."

LOL. You are one step nearer to proclaiming that you can prove your political convictions, such as they are, through Mathematics! (In case you feel tempted to, please know that it has already been done, in this forum.)

"Nothing I wrote implies Bremer is no good."

Well, this thread is about Bremer under suspicion for (at the very least) misdhandling serious amounts of money in Iraq. My advice is to keep your distance from Bremer. He will turn around and bite your folks in the tushie, real soon.

"Threats do not imply absence of sabotage. Lower production due to threats does not imply that production was not also lowered due to sabotage."

See how pathetic those "clarifications" come off? Wouldn't it be better if you have kept mum instead?

Listen, debator: If sabotage is an equivalent or even a bigger reason for oil production disruption in Iraq than the threat of sabotage, then you mention the big reason. Or you mention both. You don't mention the secondary reason, and then plead that you "implied" the main one.

Get it? And that's not rocket science, not "set theory", not even Logic 101. It's an elementary rule for piecing together an argument!

...What can I say, you are one amazing piece of work.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Could it be that you are not writing precisely enough? You seem to have an uncanny propensity to follow up your posts with "clarifications" and variants of the "I-meant-this-and-didn't-mean-that" plea.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh Cyrus shouldn't you plead guilty to do doing a little trolling.

[cardcounter0]

Using MMMMMM logic, doesn't accusing Cyrus of trolling also imply that he is a serial killer?
/images/graemlins/grin.gif
"Threats do not imply absence of sabotage. Lower production due to threats does not imply that production was not also lowered due to sabotage."
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[MMMMMM]

"Could it be that you are not writing precisely enough? You seem to have an uncanny propensity to follow up your posts with "clarifications" and variants of the "I-meant-this-and-didn't-mean-that" plea."

At times, yes; but some on this forum also have an uncanny way of reading more or less into things than what is written.

"LOL. You are one step nearer to proclaiming that you can prove your political convictions, such as they are, through Mathematics! (In case you feel tempted to, please know that it has already been done, in this forum.)"

Not at all. What I was saying is that you did not properly take my statements at face value, and that you presumed implications whee none existed.

"Listen, debator: If sabotage is an equivalent or even a bigger reason for oil production disruption in Iraq than the threat of sabotage, then you mention the big reason. Or you mention both. You don't mention the secondary reason, and then plead that you "implied" the main one."

I said that fairly recent threats of sabotage by the Mehdi army had had an effect. Try reading "fairly recent" once more, please. Since I had been following the price of oil rather closely in the last couple of weeks, in order to help determine whether I should be short the Yen or not, I had recently read of recent threats which caused production to be affected in Iraq.

Hope that helps to clarify things for you, Cyrus--though if you had merely taken my statements at face value, no such clarification would be needed. But since you're such a cool guy, I don't mind helping you wade through the thickets of simplicity (which you needlessly complicate).

No need to thank me; I am happy just knowing I have done my good deed for the day.