What do you think was the main reason for the US invasion of Iraq?

[Bo]

They had the freedom to get hung for not voting for Saddam Hussein. I'll tell you what I'd rather have hanging chads than hangings. Tell the loved ones of those who were killed with tear gas that they had alot of freedoms before.

At least Iraqis could leave their country under Saddam. The North Korean people don't ahve that priviledge.

Well maybe they're next but I hope not. I'd like to see sanctions and peace work. That's hard to come by in this world though.

We could have had peace with Iraq and had their WMD problem solved without an invasion.

They planned on going to war with Iraq from day one.

I know that. They just needed an excuse. So at first they tried to find an al-Qaeda connection to Saddam. When that failed, they focused on the WMDs. When Saddam let the inspectors return, Bush and Co. proceeded to invade anyway and argued afterwards that Saddam had to be removed because he was a tyrant and posed a threat to the stability of the Middle East.

[Derek]

5, 6 (reelection)

You think he sent troops to die so that he could be reelected?

[cpeeks]

They had the freedom to get hung for not voting for Saddam Hussein. I'll tell you what I'd rather have hanging chads than hangings. Tell the loved ones of those who were killed with tear gas that they had alot of freedoms before.

At least Iraqis could leave their country under Saddam. The North Korean people don't ahve that priviledge.

Well maybe they're next but I hope not. I'd like to see sanctions and peace work. That's hard to come by in this world though.

We could have had peace with Iraq and had their WMD problem solved without an invasion.

They planned on going to war with Iraq from day one.

I know that. They just needed an excuse. So at first they tried to find an al-Qaeda connection to Saddam. When that failed, they focused on the WMDs. When Saddam let the inspectors return, Bush and Co. proceeded to invade anyway and argued afterwards that Saddam had to be removed because he was a tyrant and posed a threat to the stability of the Middle East.

Ya thats pretty much dead on. Katie bar the door he was going to war one way or another in Iraq, and thought it was gonna make him look like a hero, instead of one of the worst presidents in American history.

[President Mitt]

5, 6 (reelection)

You think he sent troops to die so that he could be reelected?

That wasn't the primary reason, but he didn't hesitate to use it for electoral advantage.

[cpeeks]

5, 6 (reelection)

You think he sent troops to die so that he could be reelected?

That wasn't the primary reason, but he didn't hesitate to use it for electoral advantage.

Of course not his hands are coverered in blood.

[Derek]

5, 6 (reelection)

You think he sent troops to die so that he could be reelected?

That wasn't the primary reason, but he didn't hesitate to use it for electoral advantage.

How did he use the Iraq War for electoral advantage?

[Bo]

5, 6 (reelection)

You think he sent troops to die so that he could be reelected?

That wasn't the primary reason, but he didn't hesitate to use it for electoral advantage.

How did he use the Iraq War for electoral advantage?

It allowed Bush to attack Kerry as a flip-flopper and to swiftboat him. Thus, this hurt Kerry's (and the Democrats') judgment and credibility with many voters and caused many undecided voters to vote for Bush (and the GOP for Congress) in the end. This allowed Bush to be reelected and for the GOP to increase its majorities in Congress. Also, it took voters' attention away from jobs and the economy, which the Democrats could have used more to their advantage.

[Derek]

5, 6 (reelection)

You think he sent troops to die so that he could be reelected?

That wasn't the primary reason, but he didn't hesitate to use it for electoral advantage.

How did he use the Iraq War for electoral advantage?

It allowed Bush to attack Kerry as a flip-flopper and to swiftboat him. Thus, this hurt Kerry's (and the Democrats') judgment and credibility with many voters and caused many undecided voters to vote for Bush (and the GOP for Congress) in the end. This allowed Bush to be reelected and for the GOP to increase its majorities in Congress. Also, it took voters' attention away from jobs and the economy, which the Democrats could have used more to their advantage.

I thought you were from South Carolina. That's no excuse anyway about flip flopping. If you're going to be president, be consistent. It was Kerry who said about voting for the 87 billion and then against it. I don't want to hear any whining from the left. Besides they could have chosen better candidates. It's almost like using the blame someone else technique over your candidate losing. As for jobs and the economy, in case you didn't realize, when Bush was reelected, we were in the middle of a 56 month growth period. I still kick my party in the ass for not playing that up in the 2006 midterms. Iraq cost Bush his presidency while he was in office in terms of reputation. Furthermore, if you look at the numbers on those who thought that Iraq was the top issue in 2004, more voted for Kerry than Bush.

[Bo]

5, 6 (reelection)

You think he sent troops to die so that he could be reelected?

That wasn't the primary reason, but he didn't hesitate to use it for electoral advantage.

How did he use the Iraq War for electoral advantage?

It allowed Bush to attack Kerry as a flip-flopper and to swiftboat him. Thus, this hurt Kerry's (and the Democrats') judgment and credibility with many voters and caused many undecided voters to vote for Bush (and the GOP for Congress) in the end. This allowed Bush to be reelected and for the GOP to increase its majorities in Congress. Also, it took voters' attention away from jobs and the economy, which the Democrats could have used more to their advantage.

I thought you were from South Carolina. That's no excuse anyway about flip flopping. If you're going to be president, be consistent. It was Kerry who said about voting for the 87 billion and then against it. I don't want to hear any whining from the left. Besides they could have chosen better candidates. It's almost like using the blame someone else technique over your candidate losing. As for jobs and the economy, in case you didn't realize, when Bush was reelected, we were in the middle of a 56 month growth period. I still kick my party in the ass for not playing that up in the 2006 midterms. Iraq cost Bush his presidency while he was in office in terms of reputation. Furthermore, if you look at the numbers on those who thought that Iraq was the top issue in 2004, more voted for Kerry than Bush.

lol. Why did you think I was from South Carolina? Kerry wasn't the only politician who flip-flopped--Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush Jr., Romney, and many other candidates did it. I'm saying Iraq allowed Bush to scare and trick the Democrats into voting for the war before opposing it. Thus, it allowed Bush to portray the Democrats (and Kerry) as indecisive opportunists who won't know what to do if another crisis occurs. Without Iraq, Bush wouldn't have had the ability to portray Democrats as indecisive flip-floppers, and thus the Democrats wouldn't have lost a lot of votes. And about the $87 billion bill--there were two versions of the bill. One of them paid for the bill (by repealing some of the Bush tax cuts, I believe), while the other version did not pay for the bill. Thus, Kerry voted for the version which compensated for the lost revenue while voting against the other version. Those two versions were not the same.

Actually, about the economy--there were 14 consecutive months of job growth before the 2004 election, not 56.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet

Also, there were 0 net new jobs created created during Bush's first term. That's the first time this has happened since Hoover, more than 70 years before. Not to mention that fuel prices were rising in 2003 and 2004 and that this hurt many people's confidence in the economy.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Also, according to this source, more voters thought that the economy was in Not Good or Poor Shape (52%) than in Good or Excellent Shape (47%). Slightly more voters trusted Bush to handle the economy than Kerry, but that was because Kerry didn't really attack Bush a lot over the economy, preferring to focus his attacks on terrorism and Iraq. Most people who voted against Bush due to Iraq were hardcore liberals who would have voted against Bush anyway. However, even more voters voted for Bush because they felt he was tough on terrorism, and without a war in Iraq and Kerry's credibility thus being damaged, I could see a lot of those voters voting for Kerry (or another Democrat), thus making Bush lose his reelection bid in 2004.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Why must their be a main reason?

[Derek]

5, 6 (reelection)

You think he sent troops to die so that he could be reelected?

That wasn't the primary reason, but he didn't hesitate to use it for electoral advantage.

How did he use the Iraq War for electoral advantage?

It allowed Bush to attack Kerry as a flip-flopper and to swiftboat him. Thus, this hurt Kerry's (and the Democrats') judgment and credibility with many voters and caused many undecided voters to vote for Bush (and the GOP for Congress) in the end. This allowed Bush to be reelected and for the GOP to increase its majorities in Congress. Also, it took voters' attention away from jobs and the economy, which the Democrats could have used more to their advantage.

I thought you were from South Carolina. That's no excuse anyway about flip flopping. If you're going to be president, be consistent. It was Kerry who said about voting for the 87 billion and then against it. I don't want to hear any whining from the left. Besides they could have chosen better candidates. It's almost like using the blame someone else technique over your candidate losing. As for jobs and the economy, in case you didn't realize, when Bush was reelected, we were in the middle of a 56 month growth period. I still kick my party in the ass for not playing that up in the 2006 midterms. Iraq cost Bush his presidency while he was in office in terms of reputation. Furthermore, if you look at the numbers on those who thought that Iraq was the top issue in 2004, more voted for Kerry than Bush.

lol. Why did you think I was from South Carolina? Kerry wasn't the only politician who flip-flopped--Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush Jr., Romney, and many other candidates did it. I'm saying Iraq allowed Bush to scare and trick the Democrats into voting for the war before opposing it. Thus, it allowed Bush to portray the Democrats (and Kerry) as indecisive opportunists who won't know what to do if another crisis occurs. Without Iraq, Bush wouldn't have had the ability to portray Democrats as indecisive flip-floppers, and thus the Democrats wouldn't have lost a lot of votes. And about the $87 billion bill--there were two versions of the bill. One of them paid for the bill (by repealing some of the Bush tax cuts, I believe), while the other version did not pay for the bill. Thus, Kerry voted for the version which compensated for the lost revenue while voting against the other version. Those two versions were not the same.

Actually, about the economy--there were 14 consecutive months of job growth before the 2004 election, not 56.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet

Also, there were 0 net new jobs created created during Bush's first term. That's the first time this has happened since Hoover, more than 70 years before. Not to mention that fuel prices were rising in 2003 and 2004 and that this hurt many people's confidence in the economy.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Also, according to this source, more voters thought that the economy was in Not Good or Poor Shape (52%) than in Good or Excellent Shape (47%). Slightly more voters trusted Bush to handle the economy than Kerry, but that was because Kerry didn't really attack Bush a lot over the economy, preferring to focus his attacks on terrorism and Iraq. Most people who voted against Bush due to Iraq were hardcore liberals who would have voted against Bush anyway. However, even more voters voted for Bush because they felt he was tough on terrorism, and without a war in Iraq and Kerry's credibility thus being damaged, I could see a lot of those voters voting for Kerry (or another Democrat), thus making Bush lose his reelection bid in 2004.

Oh that's right, it was Bush scaring and tricking people and can never be the democrats' own fault. Nothing is ever the democrats' fault as it's always the GOP somehow. Right lmao. Changing your views over time and flip-flopping are 2 opposite things actually. Becoming more liberal or conservative is different from saying one thing and then saying the next to a different group a year later. Without Iraq in 2004, Bush would have easily won as he'd play up the economy and parade his response to 9/11. I love how you think the democrats were so innocent and it was all Bush's fault.

[Bo]

5, 6 (reelection)

You think he sent troops to die so that he could be reelected?

That wasn't the primary reason, but he didn't hesitate to use it for electoral advantage.

How did he use the Iraq War for electoral advantage?

It allowed Bush to attack Kerry as a flip-flopper and to swiftboat him. Thus, this hurt Kerry's (and the Democrats') judgment and credibility with many voters and caused many undecided voters to vote for Bush (and the GOP for Congress) in the end. This allowed Bush to be reelected and for the GOP to increase its majorities in Congress. Also, it took voters' attention away from jobs and the economy, which the Democrats could have used more to their advantage.

I thought you were from South Carolina. That's no excuse anyway about flip flopping. If you're going to be president, be consistent. It was Kerry who said about voting for the 87 billion and then against it. I don't want to hear any whining from the left. Besides they could have chosen better candidates. It's almost like using the blame someone else technique over your candidate losing. As for jobs and the economy, in case you didn't realize, when Bush was reelected, we were in the middle of a 56 month growth period. I still kick my party in the ass for not playing that up in the 2006 midterms. Iraq cost Bush his presidency while he was in office in terms of reputation. Furthermore, if you look at the numbers on those who thought that Iraq was the top issue in 2004, more voted for Kerry than Bush.

lol. Why did you think I was from South Carolina? Kerry wasn't the only politician who flip-flopped--Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush Jr., Romney, and many other candidates did it. I'm saying Iraq allowed Bush to scare and trick the Democrats into voting for the war before opposing it. Thus, it allowed Bush to portray the Democrats (and Kerry) as indecisive opportunists who won't know what to do if another crisis occurs. Without Iraq, Bush wouldn't have had the ability to portray Democrats as indecisive flip-floppers, and thus the Democrats wouldn't have lost a lot of votes. And about the $87 billion bill--there were two versions of the bill. One of them paid for the bill (by repealing some of the Bush tax cuts, I believe), while the other version did not pay for the bill. Thus, Kerry voted for the version which compensated for the lost revenue while voting against the other version. Those two versions were not the same.

Actually, about the economy--there were 14 consecutive months of job growth before the 2004 election, not 56.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet

Also, there were 0 net new jobs created created during Bush's first term. That's the first time this has happened since Hoover, more than 70 years before. Not to mention that fuel prices were rising in 2003 and 2004 and that this hurt many people's confidence in the economy.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Also, according to this source, more voters thought that the economy was in Not Good or Poor Shape (52%) than in Good or Excellent Shape (47%). Slightly more voters trusted Bush to handle the economy than Kerry, but that was because Kerry didn't really attack Bush a lot over the economy, preferring to focus his attacks on terrorism and Iraq. Most people who voted against Bush due to Iraq were hardcore liberals who would have voted against Bush anyway. However, even more voters voted for Bush because they felt he was tough on terrorism, and without a war in Iraq and Kerry's credibility thus being damaged, I could see a lot of those voters voting for Kerry (or another Democrat), thus making Bush lose his reelection bid in 2004.

Oh that's right, it was Bush scaring and tricking people and can never be the democrats' own fault. Nothing is ever the democrats' fault as it's always the GOP somehow. Right lmao. Changing your views over time and flip-flopping are 2 opposite things actually. Becoming more liberal or conservative is different from saying one thing and then saying the next to a different group a year later. Without Iraq in 2004, Bush would have easily won as he'd play up the economy and parade his response to 9/11. I love how you think the democrats were so innocent and it was all Bush's fault.

Having a good foreign policy didn't save Bush Sr. in 1992. It wouldn't have saved Bush Jr. in 2004 without Iraq. And those GOP politicians I mentioned flip-flopped very rapidly on certain positions. lol at them changing their positions over time. Reagan legalized abortion in California yet called it a mistake immediately afterwards. And again, the Democrats and Kerry wouldn't have flip-flopped without Iraq and thus would have been able to be attacked over it.

[Derek]

5, 6 (reelection)

You think he sent troops to die so that he could be reelected?

That wasn't the primary reason, but he didn't hesitate to use it for electoral advantage.

How did he use the Iraq War for electoral advantage?

It allowed Bush to attack Kerry as a flip-flopper and to swiftboat him. Thus, this hurt Kerry's (and the Democrats') judgment and credibility with many voters and caused many undecided voters to vote for Bush (and the GOP for Congress) in the end. This allowed Bush to be reelected and for the GOP to increase its majorities in Congress. Also, it took voters' attention away from jobs and the economy, which the Democrats could have used more to their advantage.

I thought you were from South Carolina. That's no excuse anyway about flip flopping. If you're going to be president, be consistent. It was Kerry who said about voting for the 87 billion and then against it. I don't want to hear any whining from the left. Besides they could have chosen better candidates. It's almost like using the blame someone else technique over your candidate losing. As for jobs and the economy, in case you didn't realize, when Bush was reelected, we were in the middle of a 56 month growth period. I still kick my party in the ass for not playing that up in the 2006 midterms. Iraq cost Bush his presidency while he was in office in terms of reputation. Furthermore, if you look at the numbers on those who thought that Iraq was the top issue in 2004, more voted for Kerry than Bush.

lol. Why did you think I was from South Carolina? Kerry wasn't the only politician who flip-flopped--Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush Jr., Romney, and many other candidates did it. I'm saying Iraq allowed Bush to scare and trick the Democrats into voting for the war before opposing it. Thus, it allowed Bush to portray the Democrats (and Kerry) as indecisive opportunists who won't know what to do if another crisis occurs. Without Iraq, Bush wouldn't have had the ability to portray Democrats as indecisive flip-floppers, and thus the Democrats wouldn't have lost a lot of votes. And about the $87 billion bill--there were two versions of the bill. One of them paid for the bill (by repealing some of the Bush tax cuts, I believe), while the other version did not pay for the bill. Thus, Kerry voted for the version which compensated for the lost revenue while voting against the other version. Those two versions were not the same.

Actually, about the economy--there were 14 consecutive months of job growth before the 2004 election, not 56.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet

Also, there were 0 net new jobs created created during Bush's first term. That's the first time this has happened since Hoover, more than 70 years before. Not to mention that fuel prices were rising in 2003 and 2004 and that this hurt many people's confidence in the economy.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Also, according to this source, more voters thought that the economy was in Not Good or Poor Shape (52%) than in Good or Excellent Shape (47%). Slightly more voters trusted Bush to handle the economy than Kerry, but that was because Kerry didn't really attack Bush a lot over the economy, preferring to focus his attacks on terrorism and Iraq. Most people who voted against Bush due to Iraq were hardcore liberals who would have voted against Bush anyway. However, even more voters voted for Bush because they felt he was tough on terrorism, and without a war in Iraq and Kerry's credibility thus being damaged, I could see a lot of those voters voting for Kerry (or another Democrat), thus making Bush lose his reelection bid in 2004.

Oh that's right, it was Bush scaring and tricking people and can never be the democrats' own fault. Nothing is ever the democrats' fault as it's always the GOP somehow. Right lmao. Changing your views over time and flip-flopping are 2 opposite things actually. Becoming more liberal or conservative is different from saying one thing and then saying the next to a different group a year later. Without Iraq in 2004, Bush would have easily won as he'd play up the economy and parade his response to 9/11. I love how you think the democrats were so innocent and it was all Bush's fault.

Having a good foreign policy didn't save Bush Sr. in 1992. It wouldn't have saved Bush Jr. in 2004 without Iraq. And those GOP politicians I mentioned flip-flopped very rapidly on certain positions. lol at them changing their positions over time. Reagan legalized abortion in California yet called it a mistake immediately afterwards. And again, the Democrats and Kerry wouldn't have flip-flopped without Iraq and thus would have been able to be attacked over it.

Having a good foreign policy didn't help Bush Sr. because of the economy and Ross Perot. It would have saved Bush Fr. in 2004 after having the attacks of 9/11. Romney did flip-flop on abortion. Reagan continuously moved to the right on social issues as he became older and moved from the libertarian/Goldwater philosophy. Kerry flip-flopped on a number of other things. Remember when he was trying to differentiate between ribbons and medals? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbTyEPZBUQY&feature=related

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Wow.

I had let this thread alone after page 2, thinking, well, Iraq, why even trying to fight against it, it's a won fight...

Finally that thread was something!

Derek's abilities to screw a debate are rather impressive and more so impressive is the ability of people who debate with him to stick to follow him in each of his steps, and over and over and over. The 'where is the oil benefit??' part coming over and over was fun too (although I'd agree here).

Well, about the point of the thread, I think this post would sum my feelings up:

I think the main reason that we went to war in Iraq was
that it was central to the geopolitical strategy of top Bush
administration officials.  In response to 9/11, Cheney,
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz (who believed this strongly before
the terrorist attacks) did not believe there was much to
be gained in Afghanistan after toppling the Taliban
government and so committed too little thinking and
force there.  They believed we would make a bigger
impression by toppling a major state in the middle east,
transforming it into a procedural democracy and showing
off our military might in the process.  They believed such
a move would not only strengthen America's hand in
central Asia and the middle east, but would frighten Islamic
opponents of American power into submission and convince
Muslims in the region to get on that Western political and
economic bandwagon. 

The main reason, that is, was geopolitical and strategic.
Unfortunately for us, that thinking was both fundamentally
flawed in its conception and completely ineptly carried out
in its tactics. 

Well, but that's not enough to me, I'd think the fact that some high people in the administration had interests in big military industry would have played a significant role as well, the oil argument, I just don't know, if so it's hard to see, yes.

Oh and:

LOL remember when Bush said they would greet Americans with roses like in Paris? Yea they greeted them with bombs. I guess that Bush didnt realize that we were not liberators, no foreign army occupied Iraq like in Paris in WW2.

Yeah, I often thought about that aspect, and when you listen several History reports, several would show that French began to be annoyed of American military presence one month after Libération. Then if French, a Western nation, was fed up of USA which had a kind of cool image so far, only one month after having been freed from the Nazi regime, just imagine, the Iraqis, about America, that for long had conquered an imperialist image in between...

(ok, France is special you would answer , but...)

Maybe it would be cool to learn about History, especially when you're a big politician who engages the nation in something, people don't like military occupation from an other country, you don't know that? See in Haiti the 'US go home' on some walls?

May people figure out...

[Derek]

Wow.

I had let this thread alone after page 2, thinking, well, Iraq, why even trying to fight against it, it's a won fight...

Finally that thread was something!

Derek's abilities to screw a debate are rather impressive and more so impressive is the ability of people who debate with him to stick to follow him in each of his steps, and over and over and over. The 'where is the oil benefit??' part coming over and over was fun too (although I'd agree here).

Well, about the point of the thread, I think this post would sum my feelings up:

I think the main reason that we went to war in Iraq was
that it was central to the geopolitical strategy of top Bush
administration officials.  In response to 9/11, Cheney,
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz (who believed this strongly before
the terrorist attacks) did not believe there was much to
be gained in Afghanistan after toppling the Taliban
government and so committed too little thinking and
force there.  They believed we would make a bigger
impression by toppling a major state in the middle east,
transforming it into a procedural democracy and showing
off our military might in the process.  They believed such
a move would not only strengthen America's hand in
central Asia and the middle east, but would frighten Islamic
opponents of American power into submission and convince
Muslims in the region to get on that Western political and
economic bandwagon. 

The main reason, that is, was geopolitical and strategic.
Unfortunately for us, that thinking was both fundamentally
flawed in its conception and completely ineptly carried out
in its tactics. 

Well, but that's not enough to me, I'd think the fact that some high people in the administration had interests in big military industry would have played a significant role as well, the oil argument, I just don't know, if so it's hard to see, yes.

Oh and:

LOL remember when Bush said they would greet Americans with roses like in Paris? Yea they greeted them with bombs. I guess that Bush didnt realize that we were not liberators, no foreign army occupied Iraq like in Paris in WW2.

Yeah, I often thought about that aspect, and when you listen several History reports, several would show that French began to be annoyed of American military presence one month after Libération. Then if French, a Western nation, was fed up of USA which had a kind of cool image so far, only one month after having been freed from the Nazi regime, just imagine, the Iraqis, about America, that for long had conquered an imperialist image in between...

(ok, France is special you would answer , but...)

Maybe it would be cool to learn about History, especially when you're a big politician who engages the nation in something, people don't like military occupation from an other country, you don't know that? See in Haiti the 'US go home' on some walls?

May people figure out...

The main reason your country was against the war in Iraq was because you were getting oil for 4 cents per barrel while us unfortunate Americans were paying close to $100 per barrel. It wasn't America that was concerned about oil, but France. Economic bandwagon? The only thing that will change the minds of Islamic terrorists is defeating the religious belief that they will get their 72 virgins in heaven if they commit suicide.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

First, please, stop quoting whole pages, just quote what is necessary, think about eyes of others, eyes wanna live in a peaceful environment as well, as the one you want for Iraq apparently thus this war according to you.

The main reason your country was against the war in Iraq was because you were getting oil for 4 cents per barrel while us unfortunate Americans were paying close to $100 per barrel. It wasn't America that was concerned about oil, but France. Economic bandwagon? The only thing that will change the minds of Islamic terrorists is defeating the religious belief that they will get their 72 virgins in heaven if they commit suicide.

Well, I didn't know we where speaking about why France didn't enter in the war, please do you have sources of this $4 barrel we would have benefited from oppositely to a $100 for you?

Oh, and I don't really get why you insert a bit about 'Islamic terrorism' in this discussion.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Why must their be a main reason?

"We just felt like it" doesn't quite cut it, that's why.  And absolutely no one  who voted "Oil"  has explained to me where it's at and when it's coming, because there isn't a drop of evidence (oil) to show that was the reason.

[Derek]

First, please, stop quoting whole pages, just quote what is necessary, think about eyes of others, eyes wanna live in a peaceful environment as well, as the one you want for Iraq apparently thus this war according to you.

The main reason your country was against the war in Iraq was because you were getting oil for 4 cents per barrel while us unfortunate Americans were paying close to $100 per barrel. It wasn't America that was concerned about oil, but France. Economic bandwagon? The only thing that will change the minds of Islamic terrorists is defeating the religious belief that they will get their 72 virgins in heaven if they commit suicide.

Well, I didn't know we where speaking about why France didn't enter in the war, please do you have sources of this $4 barrel we would have benefited from oppositely to a $100 for you?

Oh, and I don't really get why you insert a bit about 'Islamic terrorism' in this discussion.

It was 4 cents, not $4.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

First, please, stop quoting whole pages, just quote what is necessary, think about eyes of others, eyes wanna live in a peaceful environment as well, as the one you want for Iraq apparently thus this war according to you.

The main reason your country was against the war in Iraq was because you were getting oil for 4 cents per barrel while us unfortunate Americans were paying close to $100 per barrel. It wasn't America that was concerned about oil, but France. Economic bandwagon? The only thing that will change the minds of Islamic terrorists is defeating the religious belief that they will get their 72 virgins in heaven if they commit suicide.

Well, I didn't know we where speaking about why France didn't enter in the war, please do you have sources of this $4 barrel we would have benefited from oppositely to a $100 for you?

Oh, and I don't really get why you insert a bit about 'Islamic terrorism' in this discussion.

It was 4 cents, not $4.

Oh sorry, give me the source for this wonderful price, please.

[cpeeks]

He doesnt have a source he just made it up, 4 cents thats so ridiculous, that wouldnt have even paid for the barrell.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

He doesnt have a source he just made it up, 4 cents thats so ridiculous, that wouldnt have even paid for the barrell.

It might be an intended joke from you, but, just in case, that's for a long time now that 'barrel' is just a way of saying.

[cpeeks]

What? I dont understand what you just wrote.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

I mean, a long long long time ago, 'barrels' effectively were a way of transporting oil, but for a long time now it's only a way to measure oil quantities, especially in markets.

Since you said this:

that wouldnt have even paid for the barrell.

...it could have made assume you thought there were some real barrels to contain oil.

But of course maybe you were aware of all of this, was just in case.

[cpeeks]

Oh lol, no I thought they came in a barrels, or drums.

[cpeeks]

As I read the paper this morning I read where another suicide bomber killed 50 people, I hope Bush sleeps in peace at night.