Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

If you take away ALL money aspects regarding the invasion of Irak then would the USA ever have invaded?

No, why would they?

The interest usually lies in money and power, NOT in the interest of civilians. If interest of civilians who are being slaughtared daily is on the top of the agenda, why are they not in Darfur?

its about spreading freedom...*trying desperately to hold a straight face*

Because they had no legal argument in the form of UN resolutions to do so.

Literally speaking, yes they would, because Iraq was an enemy, and representation of opposition, they wanted destroyed.

But practically, no, because if it were not for oil (which I guess you can count as money), the original Gulf War would not have made Iraq that representation in the first place.

they should call a country by that name...it sounds so "rouge state"ish

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Because they had no legal argument in the form of UN resolutions to do so.

Literally speaking, yes they would, because Iraq was an enemy, and representation of opposition, they wanted destroyed.

But practically, no, because if it were not for oil (which I guess you can count as money), the original Gulf War would not have made Iraq that representation in the first place.
Yes actually, you're right. I concur.

Which is almost funny because if you look at the consumption of oil, military units drink it like its going out of style.....................gas prices went up today due to the consumption of gas in the summer of the USA.

LOL oh yeah and that carrier is only sipping on how many thousands of gallons, daily?

Always an agenda...................who's is it and what do they want out of it. More importantly how will it affect me...........

Why is this even questioned