Well out of line with their regular sales??
Apple sells between 20 and 25 million computers a year.

What in the fuck are you talking about?

Let's summarize your dumbfuck ramblings.
You claim Iraq was a "war of plunder". You use other dumbfuck ramblings to back it up.
When called out on that, you then quote fucking Greenspan, whose position is, and I'll quote:

So really, it's clear here that you have realized that you were, indeed, a fucking moron, and that you cannot contrive an argument that passes even 4th grade intellectual muster for "plunder", and have pivoted to it "being about oil", because you can actually find legitimate arguments made by people smarter than you to that end.

And frankly, I don't see any reason to argue with them. Was it about oil? Sure. Part of it. Probably. Moreso, it was about US hegemony.
What is was not about, was plunder. To think otherwise, makes you a fucking moron. It's that simple.

You fucking moron.

The US is the largest oil producer on this planet.

The overwhelming amount of oil shipped from Iraq post-invasion was to Asia and Europe, since the US simply doesn't need to import all that much oil.

All my life, I thought the "no lives for oil" was people being intelligent enough to understand that keeping the spice flowing was of critical importance... I had no idea you intellectually degenerate fucking morons thought we were actually over there secreting it off to fucking Louisiana for processing into gasoline or some shit.

You are so fucking stupid, lol.

80 is almost 100, now isn't it?
I must have made you look so fucking stupid for you to stalk me this hard. I fucking love it.

You profoundly stupid fucking moron.

Greenspan indeed said it was about oil- specifically, about making sure the Straits of Hormuz stayed open, so that the spice could continue to flow.
He did not say it was about seizing oil.

Christ, you really are fucking stupid.

The problem with the WMD bullshit, is just that there were contradictory voices, and they were effectively silenced.
The administration created a vibe pump through the NYT to stoke nuclear paranoia, while to really get some traction with the shit intelligence.

I don't even particularly blame Bush for this. I'm not sure he was all that checked in. I think Cheney was probably the evil party in that mix.
The neocons wanted a war, and they bent what they needed to bend to get it.

No. And that was their point I'm pretty sure.

Many ridiculously inefficient by "green" activities become perfectly reasonable in a solar powered world.
In a fossil powered world- they amount to merely greenwashing.

You know, I was really starting to miss the acid rain up here in the Pacific Northwest.

You can't realistically use intercalation on planes though. While it's highly volumetrically efficient, it's atrociously mass-inefficient.

Is LH2 really any safer in the case of a non-soft landing?

You posted 2 links of hyperpartisan tinfoil-hat dumbfuckery, and 1 link devoid of any political bent to be interpreted through the lens of the other 2.
That is not the pathway to enlightenment, friend. That's an echo chamber, and it's designed to keep you being wrong.
History will judge Bushy and company for the crimes they committed. But plundering Iraq's oil won't be among them, anywhere except the annals of archived partisan yellow journalism that defines our time.

A contract to rebuild destroyed oil fields is plunder? Need I define that word for you, because you seem to have become confused about it.
It's easy to put on your tinfoil hat and say, Cheney, Halliburton, Bush, Oil- but Cheney's assets were 100% in a Blind Trust during the administration. Halliburton got the contract, which was a fraction of its yearly revenue, because it was the only company there was to do the work.
That money went from the US tax payer, to the Iraqi citizen, to pay for the damage we had wrought to their principle source of national revenue.
If that is how you define plunder, we're going to have to further argue this with an open dictionary.

This is the tinfoil-hat ramblings of an idiot.
The work of the National Energy Policy Development Group is understood, and it wasn't, "Take those middle easterners oil, hayuck!"
That isn't to say it was benign, but again- if its goal was plunder then it uhhh, well, failed.
What its goal really was, was to wield US soft power to make sure the world energy market looked like it wanted it to look.

I love that there is a list of undeveloped resources, and list of foreign companies which could develop them, and you see it as plunder.
That's how fucking thick your tinfoil is.
The maps of Saudi Arabian fields don't confuse your point? They should, and would, were there any intellectual honesty in it.

The word plunder has a meaning, and you either do not know it, or are misusing it dishonestly.
Honestly, I'm not sure which it is.

Jesus. Are you fucking stupid?
That crime family bullshit is precisely what you called it.
But the moron organizing a setup where US companies can invest in the development of undeveloped fields so they can make money (even though Venezuelans will make the lion's share?!) is not plunder.
It's just the hegemonic behavior of a moron.

The problem here, is that you're as fucking dumb as he is.

You accuse me of disconnection, while speaking through 8 layers of tinfoil, lol. That is amusing.

Certainly I don't need to point out why that is a tellingly ignorant answer.

Oh, I'd say that goes flatly in the face of a lot of evidence to the contrary.
End-stage capitalism is real, and we're in it. We will course correct, or we will collapse.
Commentary like yours makes me think we're too stupid to course correct, and collapse is the only tool Darwin has to wash you out of the decision making process.

No, it's not. You're trying to rope further misuse of the word into a Royal We to grant it legitimacy where it has none.

That wasn't me, and hostility isn't hatred- particularly when the hostility is debatable.
I can reframe that hostility in a hateful way if you'd like a clear example.

That wasn't me, and in what disconnected universe do you think Americans aren't the ones that voted what to do with their tax money?
You are against completely misusing hostility. I'm becoming more convinced that this is a language barrier. English is not your first language, is it?
Wildlings- If I had to guess, I'd say he assumed you were Canadian, and referred to you as Wildlings as a Game of Thrones reference... Honestly, pretty fucking funny. And while crude, his point does ultimately stand.
Certainly the Canadian could have gone up on a Canadian rocket capable of getting a human payload to lunar orbit? Cough.

That wasn't me.
It's also just a point of fact. A fact is not hateful.
From their perspective, you have a non-American ignorantly declaring that a rocket is responsible for our "high gas prices" (which wherever you are likely to be from in this world, are lower than yours- considerably), and "high tariffs", which are definitely a headache, but not remotely out of alignment with other foreign tariff regimes.
I.e., I suspect they didn't take you seriously, because frankly- there's enough ignorance there that someone arguing from that position shouldn't be taken seriously.

We are going to have to add "question" to the list of English words you are confused about.
The statement: "Well I'm not American, but if I was American I would like to feel like tens of billions of dollars of tax money didn't go towards nothing. Especially if I was paying high gas prices and high tariffs already under the guise of reducing the deficit. Just saying." contains no question. Me pointing that out is not hostility, and in the limited sense that it can be interpreted as such, doesn't remotely rise to hatred.

I'm going to assume you're actually referring to your initial question:
"Can anyone explain how this has moved humanity ahead?".

I believe that question has been rhetorically answered by many people here.
How have you moved humanity ahead?
I think you don't understand why that's a relevant answer to your question. I think that's the case because, as your ignorant positions seem to indicate, you're just not a very intelligent person. And no, that is not hostility or hatred. It's an observation.
Wherever you are from- you demonstrate a failing of your education system. I'm glad the US isn't the only one suffering a modern breakdown in this regard.

The arms industry gets its money either way. What do you think our defense budget goes to?
Obviously for some country with a hibernating defense industry, it would make sense for the military industrial complex to try to start wars.
Here in teh good ol' US of A, there's no need. We're happy to vote for trillion dollar defense budgets year after year, and this war, like the others, isn't going to appreciable move that needle. It just means less shit will be thrown away.

I don't even know how to process this... You are objectively and definitionally incorrect. Is this a language barrier? Is English perhaps not your first language, and you're mixing up the definition of some hate-analogue in your language with the English version of the word?

hate (n):
1a : intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury
1b : extreme dislike or disgust : antipathy, loathing
1c : a systematic and especially politically exploited expression of hatred
2 : an object of hatred

hatred (n):
1a : extreme dislike or disgust : hate
2 : ill will or resentment that is usually mutual : prejudiced hostility or animosity

Please point on the doll where the big bad American hated you.