Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: bentway who wrote (632802)	10/21/2011 5:21:56 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) of 1574005

>> Yes, it was, Brucie. Qaddafi was no closer to a nuke than Saddam was. YEARS from it. You know, had Libya not given up their programs it just doesn't matter how close they were or weren't close to making anything happen with them. We'd received credible information that AQK had provided him with components, and that was sufficient to make us run from him just as we have from Iran. It is an untenable position to be in, particularly, with a huge supplier of light, sweet crude, which we and everyone else desperately want and need. The same is true of Saddam; whether he was or wasn't capable of doing anything with it in the short run is 100% immaterial. We had to assume, since every person in the world who knew anything about it (including Hans Blix himself) believed he had them. That's all that matters. It is called "bluffing". And both of those countries either had capabilities or had their bluff in. The experience from the Clinton years, in which the US was led around by its nose, is absolute proof.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next