RE: Islam slave trade
November 3, 2019 at 8:15 am
(This post was last modified: November 3, 2019 at 8:18 am by WinterHold.)
(November 3, 2019 at 7:57 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote:(November 3, 2019 at 7:54 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: This is because you're an idiot.
Boru
Lets start World War 3 and nuke planet so everyone will become billionaire.
Are you sure you know how economy works?
Quote:Iraq War profiteers
One of the top profiteers from the Iraq War was oil field services corporation, Halliburton. Halliburton gained $39.5 billion in "federal contracts related to the Iraq war".[40] Many individuals have asserted that there were profit motives for the Bush-Cheney administration to invade Iraq in 2003. Dick Cheney served as Halliburton's CEO from 1995 until 2000. Cheney claimed he had cut ties with the corporation although, according to a CNN report, "Cheney was still receiving about $150,000 a year in deferred payments."[41] Cheney vowed to not engage in a conflict of interest. However, the Congressional Research Office discovered Cheney held 433 Halliburton stock options while serving as Vice President of the United States.[42] 2016 Presidential Candidate, Rand Paul referenced Cheney's interview with the American Enterprise Institute in which Cheney said invading Iraq "would be a disaster, it would be vastly expensive, it would be civil war, we'd have no exit strategy...it would be a bad idea". Rand continues by concluding "that's why the first Bush didn't go into Baghdad. Dick Cheney then goes to work for Halliburton. Makes hundreds of millions of dollars- their CEO. Next thing you know, he's back in government, it's a good idea to go into Iraq."[43][44] Another prominent critic is Huffington Post co-founder, Arianna Huffington. Huffington said, "We have the poster child of Bush-Cheney crony capitalism, Halliburton, involved in this. They, after all, were responsible for cementing the well."[45]
You're supposed to shit your pants when you see the numbers. You should also imagine the non-reported or the "classified" documents.
(November 3, 2019 at 8:13 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:Quote:Rome was rich because it occupied most of the world.
Manifestly not true. At no time did Rome occupy 'most' of the world.
Boru
Let's say "most of the discovered world at that time".