re: OIL, it was for oil?

Current Events » in reply to Diplomatic failure?

Raoul — 12/9/2003 9:44:36 PM (archived)

I love it when I read the reason the US to war against Iraq wasn't for oil but the reason why France opposed the war was because of oil.

LOL LOL LOL LOL

And, once again, it's not France's commercial rank in Iraq before the war that counts, but the position of Iraq in France's commerce that counts.
The US is 5th, Iraq was 27th, for France. It was more damaging to loose markets in the US than to loose markets in Iraq.

Your argument fall flat.

The whole thread (13 posts)

Just a reminder: what the antiwar people were predicting before the war - Tom Brosz - 12/7/2003 7:54:37 AM
- re: Instead - Raoul - 12/7/2003 10:36:36 AM
  - re: Instead - Buck Galaxy - 12/8/2003 7:20:56 AM
    - re: re:A visit - Raoul - 12/8/2003 5:49:44 PM
      - "Soft Power" - Tom Brosz - 12/8/2003 6:50:00 PM
        
        re: "Soft Power" - Raoul - 12/9/2003 9:34:41 PM
    - Not quite - ebnelson - 12/8/2003 12:30:28 PM
    - re: Instead - Greg - 12/8/2003 12:05:39 PM
    - P.S. That'll be the day when France, Russia, Germany, and the U.N. can give us lessons in moral leadership. (n/t) - Tom Brosz - 12/8/2003 7:53:19 AM
    - Geez, you're kidding, right? - Tom Brosz - 12/8/2003 7:51:31 AM
      - re: Geez, you're kidding, right? - Buck Galaxy - 12/9/2003 4:42:26 AM
        
        Diplomatic failure? - Tom Brosz - 12/9/2003 5:51:43 AM
        
        re: OIL, it was for oil? - Raoul - 12/9/2003 9:44:36 PM

Recent posts

On this day in Current Events

The whole thread (13 posts)